Idea-traps

[dust]

莊子

荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃

蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄

言者所以在意，得意而忘言

吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？

 

 

中文註釋

筌、蹄、言皆為工具，目標還是魚、免、意，只要得到和領會了精神實質，那麼這些工具都可以忘掉了。忘言之人就是指已得到和領會精神實質的人，因而與與忘言之人言，是不言之言。 《莊子》中談到兩位聖人相見而不言，因為“目擊而道存矣”(《田子方》)。照道家說，道不可道，只可暗示。言透露道，是靠言的暗示，不是靠言的固定的外延和內涵。言一旦達到了目的，就該忘掉。既然再不需要了，何必用言來自尋煩惱呢？詩的文字和音韻是如此，畫的線條和顏色也是如此。故此語也有用來表示互相默契，心照不宣的意思。

 

 

Legge

Fishing-stakes are employed to catch fish; but when the fish are got, the men forget the stakes.

Snares are employed to catch hares, but when the hares are got, men forget the snares.

Words are employed to convey ideas; but when the ideas are apprehended, men forget the words.

Fain would I talk with such a man who has forgot the words!

 

 

Watson

The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap.

The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.

Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?

 

 

Moeller

A fish trap is a means to get hold of fish

    You can only forget about the fish trap once you've had your fish

A rabbit snare is a means to get hold of rabbits

   You can only forget about the rabbit snare once you've had your rabbit

Words are a means to get hold of ideas

   You can only forget about words once you've had your ideas

How could I talk to someone who has forgotten words?

 

 

(whoever Marblehead quoted)

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.

The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits. When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.

The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk with.

 

 

 

——————————————————————————————

 

 

I remember reading this in the library at university some years ago, and it's been in my head ever since. I don't remember which translation it was, but of these, Watson's comes closest.

 

I had not ever considered an interpretation of this small paragraph other than my own from all those years ago, until a discussion started by Darkstar in the Father & Son thread revealed some differences.

 

As the Chinese commentary above says, traps and snares and words are tools for catching things; they are not the goal. If 2 people can have a conversation without worrying about definitions, if they can grasp the essence of what one another is saying, then they can have a real conversation.

 

Daoism says that the Dao cannot be daoed (spoken), only hinted at. Words cannot fully capture the essence,  and when we talk of great thoughts and things, what are we doing but using words in an attempt to hint at the essence? Our own essence, the Great Essence...

 

 

——————————————————————————————

 

 

I wonder if, especially these days, there is even more meaning to be found.

 

A modern trawler might catch tens of thousands of fish in a day, and see half of them thrown back in. A modern man needs no rabbit snare, because he can have packs of pork and chicken delivered to his home without ever seeing a living creature. Modern people use their words to gabble and fuss, talking and texting and telling each other how words should be used and who uses them best; but who of us grasps the essence? How many catch a fish, cook it well, and appreciate it fully? How many craft the snare, skin the rabbit, and be thankful for the sustenance? How often do people take the time to sit down with each other with something to say, share some well-crafted words, and really appreciate the meaning behind them?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

While I have said here that I will not be posting on the Dao Bums for a while to work on writing, here:

 

Yes, I am writing a book.

 

this is an excellent post and reminds me of the way words are use in real Platonism as I have attempted to describe it here:

 

The Plato you didn't learn about in school

 

There are also some interesting passages in the Neiye that indicate that a teaching on the essence of words and their application to "the Art of Ruling" existed.

 

I won't be breaking my creative concentration often, nor will I comment on what I post, beyond saying, "read the rest in my book."

[Taoist Texts]

 

莊子

荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃

蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄

言者所以在意，得意而忘言

吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？

 

 

I had not ever considered an interpretation of this small paragraph  

so what is the meaning of it?

[dust]

so what is the meaning of it?

 

I.... I said what my interpretation is...just below that line...

 

 

 

 

 

The Plato you didn't learn about in school

 

Thanks for that, a very interesting post. I did read Republic (well, bits of it) in school, but you are quite right that I did not learn about the One!

 

I find it quite extraordinary that this is the first time I'm hearing of it, actually..

[Marblehead]

so what is the meaning of it?

Dusty did a fair start at that with his last paragraph.

[Taoist Texts]

 

莊子

荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃

蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄

言者所以在意，得意而忘言

吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？

 

. If 2 people can have a conversation without worrying about definitions, if they can grasp the essence of what one another is saying, then they can have a real conversation.

 

Daoism says that the Dao cannot be daoed (spoken), only hinted at. Words cannot fully capture the essence,  and when we talk of great thoughts and things, what are we doing but using words in an attempt to hint at the essence? Our own essence, the Great Essence...

 

 

——————————————————————————————

 

 

I wonder if, especially these days, there is even more meaning to be found.

 

  How often do people take the time to sit down with each other with something to say, share some well-crafted words, and really appreciate the meaning behind them?

Oh, this...like, 2 regular ppl at the same time both not worrying about definitions and crafting words well....

 

 

Sounds down to earth so may be thats what it means.

 

 

However ZZ uses one of a few very special technical terms 忘言  from the cultivation nomenclature.

 

like in 100 character poem

http://thedaobums.com/topic/13369-lu-dongbins-100-character-stele/?p=588689

 

吕洞宾 百字碑

 

1養氣忘言守。降心為不為。

 

11動靜知宗祖。無事更尋誰。

 

21真常須應物。應物要不迷。

 

31不迷性自住。性住氣自回。

 

41氣回丹自結。夢中配坎離。

 

51陰陽生返復。普化一聲雷。

 

61白雲朝頂上。甘露灑須彌。

 

71自飲長生酒。逍遙誰得知。

 

81坐聽無弦曲。明通造化機。

 

91都來二十句。端的上天梯。

 

 

 

So indeed there is more to ZZ than meets the eye.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

The Plato you didn't learn about in school

 

 

Thanks for that, a very interesting post. I did read Republic (well, bits of it) in school, but you are quite right that I did not learn about the One!

 

I find it quite extraordinary that this is the first time I'm hearing of it, actually..

 

Thanks for that: You and anyone else who may become aware of this for the first time are certainly welcome.

 

So one further small break.  Obviously your teacher did not point out this passage in the Republic:

 

“This, then, is just what I was trying to explain a little while ago when I said that some things are provocative of thought and some are not, defining as provocative things that impinge upon the senses together with their opposites, while those that do not I said do not tend to awaken reflection.”

 

“Well, now I understand,” he said, “and agree.”

 

“To which class, then, do you think number and the one belong¹?” “I cannot conceive,” he said. “Well, reason it out from what has already been said. For, if unity is adequately² seen by itself [524e] or apprehended by some other sensation, it would not tend to draw the mind to the apprehension of essence, as we were explaining in the case of the finger. But if some contradiction is always seen coincidentally with it, so that it no more appears to be one than the opposite, there would forthwith be need of something to judge between them, and it would compel the soul to be at a loss and to inquire, by arousing thought in itself, and to ask,[525a] whatever then is the one as such, and thus the study of unity will be one of the studies that guide and convert the soul to the contemplation of true being.” (Perseus Digital Library, Plato, Republic, Book Seven, 524d-525a, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

And point out that Plato went on to develop these in detail in the Parmenides and that they become the basis a whole school of Western Rational Mysticism.

 

I find it quite extraordinary that this is the first time I'm hearing of it, actually: Unfortunately this is all to common which is one of the reasons why I felt it was necessary to post.  Thanks for giving me a great opportunity to do so.

[dust]

However ZZ uses one of a few very special technical terms 忘言  from the cultivation nomenclature.

 

like in 100 character poem

http://thedaobums.com/topic/13369-lu-dongbins-100-character-stele/?p=588689

 

The words 忘 and 言 are so common and easily placed together that it would be (imo) a leap to say that he's definitely using special cultivation nomenclature.

 

 

So indeed there is more to ZZ than meets the eye.

 

Indeed there is

 

_________________________________________

 

 

I'll offer an ugly but descriptive translation:

 

荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃           A fish net is for catching/capturing/holding fish; get the fish, forget the net

蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄           A rabbit net is for catching/capturing/holding rabbits; get the rabbit, forget the net

言者所以在意，得意而忘言           Language is for catching/capturing/holding ideas; get the idea, forget the language

吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？      How/where can I get a person who can forget language to share some language with?

[Taoist Texts]

The words 忘 and 言 are so common and easily placed together

 

and yet in the humongous corpus of pre-Qin and Han literature it happens only once in ZZ

 

http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han?searchu=%20%E5%BF%98%E8%A8%80

 

Easily? maybe. Common? not so much.

[Geof Nanto]

Thanks Dustybeijing for starting this thread. Many exciting ideas here for me.  Some aspect of my being is totally enticed, enchanted or even bewitched by specific strands of conceptual reality – and this is undoubtable one of them. I can feel my self almost panting, chafing at the bit, wanting to dive headlong into the topic.   So that is my practice – to gain insight into this very real aspect of myself that’s loves concepts.  I neither want to let it dominate me, nor suppress it. There’s obviously something important about myself behind the compulsion that I’m as yet unaware of.  So for me, writing here is like using danger to overcome danger. Or using a thorn to remove a thorn.  (I admire the apparent detachment of Dustybeijing's opening passages. It’s not a numb, desensitised detachment though – I sense he feels deeply on the topic. It’s more a detachment of inner stillness.)

 

Now, having said all that, my passion to pursue the topic has somewhat moderated.  I write with a tad of inner stillness……..

 

The beauty of evocative language such as poetic imagery is that it allows the artist to work above herself.  Zhuang Zhou was one of those rare beings gifted both with poetry and philosophy.  He could obviously write explicitly but preferred  poetry and allegory because of its resonance with the Dao.

 

Vague and illusive!

Within it there is an image.

Vague and illusive!

Within it there is a thing.

Withdrawn and dark!

Within it there is an essence.

The essence is genuine and authentic.

Within there is trust.

 

Hence attempts to explain Zhuangzu, whilst helpful, will always be partial. And by trying to fix any interpretation as definitive we risk losing the essence.  (And there I'll leave it for now because I have other things to do but more later…… Also I'm a very slow writer.) 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Darkstar

[dust]

and yet in the humongous corpus of pre-Qin and Han literature it happens only once in ZZ

 

http://ctext.org/pre-qin-and-han?searchu=%20%E5%BF%98%E8%A8%80

 

Easily? maybe. Common? not so much.

 

The words themselves, in English and Chinese, are common...so common that they might easily be placed together. I didn't say that they are commonly placed together.

 

The fact that there's no other occurrence of them on ctext, nothing else suggesting that 忘言 is a common phrase particular to ancient Taoist cultivation, also suggests to me that it's a coincidence.

 

Let's also not forget that Lü Dongbin was writing around 1000 years after Zhuangzi.

 

I'm not sure why you're so keen to connect the 2 when there's no obvious connection aside from 2 common characters!

 

By the way... do you see the supreme irony in this conversation?!

[Marblehead]

 

By the way... do you see the supreme irony in this conversation?!

Maybe we have not yet grasped the concepts therefore we must continue to utilize the words.

[Geof Nanto]

To my mind the purpose of this thread is about the potential trap of ideas, along with the thoughts expressed in Dustybeijing's final paragraph. However I'm posting the full version of Moellers commentary for those who are interested in his reasoning. But, like I said in my previous post "by trying to fix any interpretation as definitive we risk losing the essence."

 

THE FISHNET ALLEGORY—OR: HOW TO FORGET THINKING

 

There is another famous allegory in the Zhuangzi that has been interpreted in a rather Western manner on the basis of its standard English translation. This story can also be understood quite differently if one looks at it from a "classical" Daoist perspective. Here is, first of all, the fishnet allegory of the Zhuangzi in Burton Watson's "standard" translation:

 

The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?"

 

At first sight, this allegory seems to be easy to understand. Just as one uses certain tools for fishing and hunting in order to get what is desired but hard to catch, so too does human communication makes use of words in order to catch certain difficult ideas or meanings. And just as one no longer cares about the hunting tool once they have performed their job, one also no longer cares about linguistic tools once they conveyed a certain meaning or sense. Or in other words, with respect to the object and not to the tool: What matters is getting it and having it in one's hands. Just as what matters in fishing and hunting is getting the fish and the game, what matters with words is getting the idea or the meaning.

 

This does not sound terribly unfamiliar to Western philosophical ears, and today the fishnet allegory is usually interpreted in just this manner. It is said that what is essential for Daoism is the deeper meaning behind the texts or  the words of the masters. Just as one may forget the fish trap once the fish is caught, one may also forget the Daoist texts and words once one has understood their true message. In respect to language, the words are consequently unimportant, for all that really counts are the "ideas." Expressed in formal terminology, the Daoist teaching would accordingly be: signifiers are arbitrary and negligible, all that really matters is the signified.

 

Such a reading of the fishnet allegory is similar to Giles's rendering of the butterfly dream story in that it strongly parallels "classical" Old-European philosophy. The concept that words are expressions of mental contents, which are representations of facts, can be traced back to at least Aristotle's De Interpretatione. In order to understand facts, one must accordingly go beyond words to grasp the ideas that stand for the facts. Once one leaves words behind and arrives at the thoughts, one will comprehend the truth. In order to arrive at truth one has to arrive at ideas.

 

Readings of the fishnet allegory that focus on the "getting" of true ideas can be found not only in modern Western studies of Daoist thought, but also within the Chinese tradition. One example is Wang Bi, the above mentioned somewhat "metaphysical" commentator on the Daodejing.I believe, however, that a close look at the text of the fishnet allegory, at Guo Xiang's commentary to it, and at the Zhuangzi and other ancient Daoist texts reveals that early Daoists wanted to say something very different with this parable, for the standard translation and interpretation miss a most decisive pun.

 

The decisive pun in the fishnet allegory is "hidden" in the two Chinese characters that in Watson's translation have been rendered as "[ once you've] gotten the meaning." These two characters are in Chinese de yi, which literally means "to get (de) the meaning." The character for "meaning" can also be translated as "idea," "intention," "desire," or "wish." Thus it can both designate an unspecific mental content (as in "meaning" or "idea") as well as, more specifically, the "wish" or "desire" one has in mind. In the phrase de yi, the word yi is more often understood in the second scence of "desire" or "wish," so that the expression usually means (as in Mathews's Chinese-English Dictionary) "to get one's desires." In this sense it often just means "to be satisfied" (as in the phrase de yi de hen, ‘exceedingly well satisfied", see Mathews's Chinese English Dictionary'`). It is in this very sense that the phrase is used - with a slight  grammatical variation - in its only other occurrence in the Zhuangzi. One has to have this ambiguity in mind—that the phrase de yi  literally means "to get the meaning" but is usually used in the sense of "to get one's desires" or simply "to be satisfied"—in order to fully understand the point of the fishnet allegory.

 

The philosophical point of the fishnet allegory is, I firmly believe, not at all merely that one is supposed to "forget words" in order to grasp the true meaning or idea of the Dao—as the standard "Aristotelian" interpretation maintains. It is rather, that to "get the meaning" or "idea" of the Dao means "to be satisfied"—and that this satisfaction consists in having nothing in one's mind, in having no specific "meanings" or "ideas." Thus, I will argue, that "to get the meaning" (de yi) in a Daoist sense means, paradoxically, to be perfectly content (de yi) by no longer having any mental contents.' The phrase de yi is used in the fishnet allegory with this double meaning. The allegory is then not about how to get ideas, but about how to get rid of them.

 

The Zhuangzi discusses the problem of "ideas" or meanings quite frequently. The character yi is used more than fifty times in the book, and it is often used in semantic connection with words for "language" or "speech" (yan). Practically every time that the notion of yi ("meaning," "idea") appears in the sense of "the meaning of words" it has a negative connotation attached to it. Nowhere does the Zhuangzi say that it is good or desirable for the Daoist sage to have "ideas," but it often says the exact opposite: that the sage should neither be stuck with words nor with ideas or meanings. So why should the fishnet allegory—and only the fishnet allegory—contradict the general Daoist tenor? A typical statement on words and meanings or ideas (yi) in the Zhuangzi goes as follows (with Guo Xiang's commentary in italics):

 

What can be discussed with words is the coarseness of things. What can be reached with ideas is the refinement of things. That which cannot be discussed with words and that which cannot be investigated and reached with ideas neither belongs to the coarse nor to the refined.

 

Only non presence [wu]! What about the presence [you] of words and ideas? Well, words and ideas are present [you]. And that which words and ideas are about is nonpresence. So one looks for it in the realm of words and ideas, and then one enters the dominion of no-words and no-ideas and has finally arrived.

 

That which is neither coarse nor refined is the Dao. It is, as the Zhuangzi and Guo Xiang make perfectly clear, to be found neither in words, nor "meanings," nor "ideas" (yi). In order to arrive at the Dao, one has to go beyond both words and ideas. Accordingly, the Daoist master Tian Z1 Fang describes the qualities of his teacher in the Zhuangzi as follows: "He made people's ideas disappear."  Ideas, as another passage in the Zhuangzi explains, are among the "six evils" that "confound the heart. The Daoist sage, or the zhen ren ("true man"), attempts to discard all the intentions and ideas in his or her mind. The Zhuangzi says: "Even more than a sheep he/she casts off ideas." The Zhuangzi is full of such declarations of the limitations of words and ideas or meanings. Why should the fishnet allegory then declare that the Daoist sage aims at "getting the meaning"?

 

Other early texts also show that Daoist philosophy was not simply about "getting ideas." The expression "No ideas!" (wu yi) appears as a philosophical motto. The Liezi says: "No ideas!—Then the heart will be one." 

 

Given this philological and philosophical evidence, what does the fishnet allegory really say? How has it been understood by Daoist readers? One has to go back to the text itself and to Guo Xiang's commentary to answer this question. Guo Xiang comments on the fishnet allegory with only one sentence. He writes:

 

When it comes to two sages having no ideas [wu yi], they will both have nothing to talk about.

 

It is clear that for Guo Xiang the fishnet allegory does not say that the Daoist sage "gets the meaning" (de yi), but rather that he/she will be left with "no ideas"—this is just what he literally says. Guo Xiang obviously read the fishnet allegory in this way: Once a Daoist sage no longer has ideas, then he/she will also have attained the "desired" speechlessness. Thus, when two Daoist sages with empty minds meet, they can hardly start a philosophical conversation. There would simply be nothing to say! 'They could not discuss any "true meanings"! According to the "Aristotelian" interpretation of the fishnet allegory, the true philosopher will have to go beyond  words in order to get the meaning." According to Guo Xiang’s Daoist reading of the fishnet allegory, the sage has to discard all ideas in order to realize Daoist silence.

 

With the help of Guo Xiang's commentary a Daoist reading of the fishnet allegory can be reconstructed. One can now understand the final sentence of the text in a somewhat less cryptic manner. In the light of Guo Xiang's interpretation the last sentence of the original can be simply read as: "How could I talk to somebody who has forgotten words?" Such a reading is philologically as plausible as Watson's, but is philosophically in accord with Guo Xiang's commentary. How and why would a Daoist sage, if he/she should meet another one, start arguing? Read in a Daoist way, the fishnet allegory is not about what sages "get," but rather about what they lose. This is perfectly in accord with the Daodejing, which repeatedly states not only that that the Dao and the sage are silent, but also that their strategy is one of gain by loss (see for instance Daodejing, chapter 48).

 

*In the light of the basic Daoist teaching of "no words, no ideas," one can now reread the three parallel statements of the fishnet allegory. The first two of these are perfectly parallel images, both semantically and linguistically. The third sentence though, as is often the case with jokes or humoristic tales, contains a pun and breaks, in an ironic way, with the pattern the reader was made familiar with in the two preceding lines. The last line is, as pointed out above, ambiguous, and it is ambiguous because of the double meaning of the phrase de yi.

 

Let us read the fishnet allegory again from the beginning. Somewhat differently from Watson's translation, the first two sentences have as their main syntactic and semantic topics not fish and rabbits and the question of how to catch them, but rather fish traps and rabbit snares and the issue of how one can no longer be concerned with them. The text explicitly puts the snare and the trap in the first section, not the fish and the rabbit. So let us read the text in accord with its actual structure. The first sentences say in a more literal translation:

 

As to al fish trap: [it is] the means to get hold of fish.

[One] gets the fish, and then [one can] forget the fish trap.

As to a rabbit snare: [it is] the means to get hold of rabbits.

[One] gets the rabbit, and then [one can] forget the rabbit snare.

 

The text obviously focuses more on traps and snares than on fish and rabbits. It tells us that they are instruments for getting something, and that they can only be of no more concern once they have helped us to get what they are made to get. So the text is first of all about instruments and the conditions under which we no longer care or depend on them. In order to be free from these instruments, one has to be in a state in which there is no need for them. When one has caught the fish or rabbit and, implicitly, when one is having them for a meal, one can put the snare and trap aside for a while. Only when you are no longer hungry will you not care about hunting. Let us look now at the third sentence of the fishnet allegory in a similarly literal translation:

 

[As to] words: [they are] the means to get hold of ideas.

[One] gets the idea [de yi], and then [one can] forget the words.

 

This is the first possible reading of the line that contains the pun. In parallel to the first two sentences it says as much as: In order to be in a state of no longer caring about words, you must have understood their meaning. Only when you have "digested" the idea that the words "caught," will you no longer be "hungry" for the idea or concerned with the words. Once you've read the book and know the story, you can put it back on the shelf. This reading is somewhat similar to the standard interpretation—but it is quite incomplete, since it misses the crucial pun: de yi does not only mean "to get the idea" but, more commonly, "to get what one desires," or "to be satisfied." Thus the third line of the fishnet allegory also means:

 

[As to] words: [they are] the means to get hold of ideas.

[One] gets one's desire [de yi], and then [one can] forget the words.

 

In this reading, the line says that the true condition for no longer caring about words is to get one's desire or to be satisfied. But what is the "desire" of the Daoist sage? What does it mean for him/her to be "satisfied"? As the Zhuangzi frequently states, the "desire" of the sage is to be without desires, namely to be without intentions, wishes, and ideas. For the Daoist sage "to get one's desire" (de yi) means ironically, but exactly, to "have no desire" (wu yi ). The desire has to be eaten up in order to be fulfilled. It's fulfilled once it is gone! This is a basic Daoist philosophical paradox, and it is expressed in the pun of the fishnet allegory. To “get the idea” and "to get the meaning" (de yi) of Daoism is "to get one's desire" or "to be satisfied" (de yi)—but this means for the sage just "to have no ideas" (wu yi)! "Having" the idea has a double sense. It is like "having" a fish or a rabbit, or having a pizza and a beer—in English "having" a pizza and a beer actually means eating up the pizza and drinking up the beer. Once one has a pizza or a beer, one cannot have it any longer. The desire is fulfilled when it has disappeared. And the Daoist desire for ideas only disappears once the idea is "eaten up"—when it is no longer there. Getting the idea of the Dao means to get rid of any idea of it. As the Daodejing put it (chapter 78): Right words are like the reverse. Obviously, the "Aristotelian" reading of the fishnet allegory does not get this idea.

In a paradoxical yet Daoist manner the fishnet allegory can be read—in a free rendering that tries to convey the pun by using the word "to have" in the double sense of "possessing" and "eating up"—as follows:

 

A fish trap is the means to get hold of fish.

You can only forget about the fish trap once you've had your fish.

A rabbit snare is the means to get hold of rabbits.

You can only forget about the rabbit snare once you've had your rabbit.

Words are the means to get hold of ideas.

You can only forget about the words once you've had your ideas.

How could I talk to somebody who has forgotten words?

When it comes to two sages having no ideas, they will both have nothing to talk about.

 

The fishnet allegory is by no means about how to catch and keep some deep thoughts or ideas. It is, on the contrary, about the method of getting rid of thoughts and ideas in order to arrive at a perfect Daoist silence. It is about how to become permanently satisfied and to completely eliminate the hunger for the next dish of meanings and language. 

 

(From Daoism Explained: From the Dream of the Butterfly to the Fishnet Allegory by Hans-Georg Moeller. pp55-61) 

Edited March 25, 2015 by Darkstar

[dust]

Darkstar...wow. It's late, so I'm not even going to look at your last post for fear of getting stuck here all night trying to respond! (I also write slowly). I'll quickly respond to this, though:

 

 

Thanks Dustybeijing for starting this thread. Many exciting ideas here for me.  Some aspect of my being is totally enticed, enchanted or even bewitched by specific strands of conceptual reality – and this is undoubtable one of them. I can feel my self almost panting, chafing at the bit, wanting to dive headlong into the topic.   So that is my practice – to gain insight into this very real aspect of myself that’s loves concepts.  I neither want to let it dominate me, nor suppress it. There’s obviously something important about myself behind the compulsion that I’m as yet unaware of.  So for me, writing here is like using danger to overcome danger. Or using a thorn to remove a thorn.  (I admire the apparent detachment of Dustybeijing's opening passages. It’s not a numb, desensitised detachment though – I sense he feels deeply on the topic. It’s more a detachment of inner stillness.)

 

I've always been drawn to concepts too. Often, I feel, to the detriment of other, "realer", aspects of life...but as you say, suppression is no good (so restrained use of this forum has been useful for the past few months! yes, 1000+ posts is my version of restraint...)

 

 

 

The beauty of evocative language such as poetic imagery is that it allows the artist to work above herself.  Zhuang Zhou was one of those rare beings gifted both with poetry and philosophy.  He could obviously write explicitly but preferred  poetry and allegory because of its resonance with the Dao.

 

Yes. Great art all works in a similar way, I think. A truly gifted poet, or painter, or filmmaker, etc, can (with beauty) represent ideas in a way that bridges the gap between the logical, linear, language-oriented mind and the Ineffable. Though it remains ultimately ineffable, I guess...

 

 

 

Hence attempts to explain Zhuangzu, whilst helpful, will always be partial. And by trying to fix any interpretation as definitive we risk losing the essence.

 

Indeed.

 

We've already fallen into a trap: using words to grasp the idea that words might not be good enough to grasp ideas. But we can try.

[Taoist Texts]

  it's a coincidence.

 

Let's also not forget that Lü Dongbin was writing around 1000 years after Zhuangzi.

 

I'm not sure why you're so keen to connect the 2 when there's no obvious connection aside from 2 common characters!

 

Hmmm..lets see... Lu and ZZ...both are part of immutable China from 19 BC to 19 AD, both are dao-ists, both are concerned with finding the ineffable truth, both used the same unique expression 'forget the words'..yep, no obvious connection here, must be a concidence. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

 

By the way... do you see the supreme irony in this conversation?!

I know what you mean, but do not share the sentiment of 'ZZ says (using words) that words should not be used yet we use words to discuss how the words should not be used' Ironic! You believe that ZZ says 'words should not or can not be used by regular people if they to have a meaningful conversation' Of course, right after that you turn around and say that the words must be used, just the well-crafted ones. (which is ironic)

 

But that's not what ZZ says at all. He says 'I wanna talk with someone who is not a regular person. He is enlightened by passing through a technical procedure called 'forgetting words' and now, being a enlightened person has some worthwhile words to say'.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Taoist Texts

[Taoist Texts]

(From Daoism Explained: From the Dream of the Butterfly to the Fishnet Allegory by Hans-Georg Moeller. pp55-61) 

I love this title. The entire daoism explained by the guy who (kudos for honesty) assesses his chinese skills as basic/functional.

 

Language Reading Writing Speaking   Latin Basic       English Fluent Fluent Fluent   Chinese Functional Basic Functional   German Fluent Fluent Fluent

thats some truth in advertising there.

 

http://publish.ucc.ie/researchprofiles/A023/hmoeller

[Marblehead]

Hi Darkstar,

 

Thanks for posting that and yes, now I understand better what you were pointing at in the other thread.

 

I will still suggest that Moeller added things that weren't there in order to gain the understandin he holds.  However, I may be wrong as I do not read Chinese.

 

So we have the fish - no more need for the net.

So we have the rabbit - no more need for the snare.

So we have the idea - no more need for the words.

 

Based on what Moeller suggests we throw away the ideas, the rabbits and the fish and starve to death.  Not a good way to live, IMO.

 

On the other hand, we take the fish, rabbits and ideas home with us and live a very comfortable life and remain silent if there is nothing to say.

[Geof Nanto]

How could I talk to someone who has forgotten words?

When it comes to two sages having no ideas, they will both have nothing to talk about.

 

I’ve never been to China and never met a Daoist sage, let alone two together, so I have no idea how they would interact.  However I have trekked by camel in the remote Kimberley region of Western Australia where it borders the Great Sandy Desert.  And there, years ago, I came across a few Aborigines in a bush camp – and one old man was very impressive indeed.  He had a powerful presence, a profound dignity and a great ‘silence’ like wilderness itself but more so. Just sitting with him transformed my headspace. He used no words, but to be in his presence was to be totally immersed in an immense ineffable ‘silence’.  Using Daoist terminology, I would say he had great de.

 

That’s how I imagine two Daoist sages would ‘converse’.  And I don’t mean like me and him, I wasn’t there at all. I mean two people like him.  Hence the Daoist claim that nature is the best teacher is very real for me – nature, and for him connection with a continuous culture stretching back over thirty thousand years (now virtually lost).

[dust]

Mixed feelings about what you (Darkstar) have quoted from Moeller.

 

On one hand, 得意 deyi did and does have these 2 meanings, and I feel silly for not having seen it myself.

 

On another hand, though I missed it, seeing this deeper layer of meaning makes me quite happy...

 

I would not go so far as to claim that this deeper level is the only level Zhuangzi really intended, though. I think it works well on both levels, and that ZZ probably meant it on both.

 

 

Hmmm..lets see... Lu and ZZ...both are part of immutable China from 19 BC to 19 AD, both are dao-ists, both are concerned with finding the ineffable truth, both used the same unique expression 'forget the words'..yep, no obvious connection here, must be a concidence. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

 

Let's say I accept that there's no way we'd ever come across the characters 忘言 together unless they were written by a Daoist. Let's say the phrase is unique to ZZ and LDB. So what?

 

If Zhuangzi put these characters together intentionally as a special phrase with a special meaning, as we know only this one single instance of the phrase from that period in time we must still only judge the meaning based on the meaning we get from it in the context of the Zhuangzi... not based on the writing of a man who lived 1000 years after him.

 

If you can find other instances of the phrase sometime (but not too long, not 1000 years) after ZZ, I'd be curious to know.

 

 

I know what you mean, but do not share the sentiment of 'ZZ says (using words) that words should not be used yet we use words to discuss how the words should not be used' Ironic! You believe that ZZ says 'words should not or can not be used by regular people if they to have a meaningful conversation' Of course, right after that you turn around and say that the words must be used, just the well-crafted ones. (which is ironic)

 

I meant not that we shouldn't ever use words, not that words should not be used by "regular people"

 

I meant that those who grasp the essence of things, those who understand each other well without the problem of inefficient language getting in the way, use words as a simple tool and have little need for discussing the words themselves. By dissecting and analysing Zhuangzi's language, we show a failure to immediately grasp the meaning -- we forget the fish and study the net. Which is ironic because there is one level of meaning to this paragraph which condemns linguistic analysis, which suggests that we should forget the net and study the fish!

[Geof Nanto]

Mixed feelings about what you (Darkstar) have quoted from Moeller.

 

On one hand, 得意 deyi did and does have these 2 meanings, and I feel silly for not having seen it myself.

 

On another hand, though I missed it, seeing this deeper layer of meaning makes me quite happy...

 

I would not go so far as to claim that this deeper level is the only level Zhuangzi really intended, though. I think it works well on both levels, and that ZZ probably meant it on both.

 

If ideas were like rabbits……

 

I’d call the open ended evocativeness of the best poetry like rabbits living free in the wilderness.

The allegories of Zhuangzi in its original archaic Chinese like healthy rabbits in a large enclosed paddock.

Translations into English like rabbits caught in a snare – they are still alive but their freedom is restricted by whatever length of the snare wire the translator has allowed.

And explicit commentary like Moeller’s is like a killed, skinned and cooked rabbit served up on a dish. Personally, I like his cooking style and find his meals tasty. I like his combination of spices and additives – to me they serve to highlight the flavour. But obviously tastes vary – some people even question his qualifications as a chef.

 

My underlying preference though is for mixing with rabbits in the wild – but, being an embodied human, I also like to eat cooked food.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

Well, leave your rabbits alone and eat your fish.  They are dead by now anyhow as they were taken out of the water.

[Geof Nanto]

A few  thoughts about aspects of ideas that are potential traps……..

 

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few."  From Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki.

 

“The language I speak must be equivocal, that is ambiguous, to do justice to the psychic nature with its double aspect. I strive consciously and deliberately for ambiguous expression, because it is superior to unequivocalness and corresponds to the nature of being. Unequivocalness is simplicity and leads to death.  But ambiguity is the way of life.”  C G Jung

 

“Life can escape whatever confines it and regain its freedom, allowing it to remain open to unfiltered transformation. Based on deliberate de-ontologisation  (and de-theologisation), this release from meaning (from dogma, belief, truth) results in a depressurisation of existence, which ceases to be episodic or forced.  The homeostasis whereby life maintains itself is restored, replacing the tension of existence (projecting toward a goal, akin to meaning).”   François Jullien Vital Nourishment

Edited March 26, 2015 by Darkstar

[Taoist Texts]

 Let's say I accept that there's no way we'd ever come across the characters 忘言 together unless they were written by a Daoist. Let's say the phrase is unique to ZZ and LDB. So what?

 

If Zhuangzi put these characters together intentionally as a special phrase with a special meaning, as we know only this one single instance of the phrase from that period in time we must still only judge the meaning based on the meaning we get from it in the context of the Zhuangzi...  

 

有治在人，忘乎物，忘乎天，其名為忘己。忘己之人，是之謂入於天。」

[dust]

有治在人，忘乎物，忘乎天，其名為忘己。忘己之人，是之謂入於天。」

 

You know I'm a bit slow... could you explain why it's important in relation to the fishnets?

 

 

 

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few."  From Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki.

 

“The language I speak must be equivocal, that is ambiguous, to do justice to the psychic nature with its double aspect. I strive consciously and deliberately for ambiguous expression, because it is superior to unequivocalness and corresponds to the nature of being. Unequivocalness is simplicity and leads to death.  But ambiguity is the way of life.”  C G Jung

 

I should read Jung. I've been meaning to for many years now.

[Taoist Texts]

You know I'm a bit slow... could you explain why it's important in relation to the fishnets?

i am not a speedy gonzales either but..

有治在人，忘乎物，忘乎天，其名為忘己。忘己之人，是之謂入於天。」

 When they have forgotten external things, and have also forgotten the heavenly element in them, they may be named men who have forgotten themselves. The man who has forgotten himself is he of whom it is said that he has ENTERED Heaven.'

...you guys got lost in metaphors , which per se have nothing to do with what ZZ is trying to get across. He uses fishnets, traps etc as the proverbial 'finger to point at the moon'. This proved to be a trap (hehe) you people led by Herr Muller rushed in, to discuss ideas, communication, silent presence, rabbits, fish, aboriginee chiefs (chefs) and what not. No. These are just fingers. ZZ's 'moon' is  "to enter Heaven" by means of techincal procedures of "forgeting things, words, self".

 

In your OP quote he talks about the part of it - forgetting words. This quote above provides the rest of the procedure - "forgeting things, words, self" in order to enter Heaven. Same as Lu 1000 years since.