Idea-traps

[Marblehead]

...you guys got lost in metaphors ,

No, I'm not lost.  I am in a state of denial regarding this.  You took this, as did Mueller, much deeper than I would ever go.  I cannot forget myself.  I cannot forget my thoughts when they arise spontaneously.  I am still human, not a saint.

 

And yes, this concept that you spoke of appears a number of times, it is even there in the butterfly dream.

 

Yep, I'm still the same old Materialist I always have been.

[Taoist Texts]

   I cannot forget myself.  I cannot forget my thoughts when they arise spontaneously.   

why would u? u r sitting pretty as it is. we all should be that lucky.

 

[dust]

...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.

 

Are we not talking of the same thing in different ways?

 

Darkstar, via Moeller, suggests that "Fishnets" is not about forgetting words and concentrating on ideas, as some have translated it, but about forgetting both words and ideas to arrive at one's desire: no desire.

 

"In order to arrive at the Dao, one has to go beyond both words and ideas," says Moeller

 

You, accompanied by Mr Lv, are suggesting that it is about forgetting not just words, but also things and self.

 

"The man who has forgotten himself is he of whom it is said that he has entered Heaven," says Zhuangzi.

 

Isn't this essentially the same?

 

 

 

I cannot forget myself.  I cannot forget my thoughts when they arise spontaneously.  I am still human, not a saint.

 

I won't ever try to rid myself of my thoughts. Not sure if you've seen the conversation I've been having with Shidifen in the Liezi forum, but you can find me there saying that by no means do I want to forget myself while I still live.

 

And I think that anyone who understands reality realizes that once one has forgotten oneself entirely, once one has no memories and no expectations, no past and no future, one is dead. To be human is to think and feel; a desire to remove thought and desire entirely is easily realized with suicide then, isn't it?

 

Clearly Zhuangzi didn't commit suicide, at least not before writing his magnificent book.

 

Clearly he had some thought for the future, or he would have been unable to complete the difficult process of writing all these stories down.

 

And in constructing his stories, clearly he drew heavily from a past rich with experience, or his words would be no more than incoherent ramblings and useless fairy tales.

 

He was by no means entirely free of self, then. And I don't believe that he was truly suggesting that one should entirely forget words or thoughts or anything else. But I do think that every interpretation presented so far is at the very least quite plausible, and that his stories often work on a number of levels; I think that he's suggesting that one who can be less addicted to the past, less concerned with words, less concerned with ideas, less influenced by an immovable idea of self, can be happier and more spontaneous, and closer to Dao.

Edited March 26, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Taoist Texts]

Are we not talking of the same thing in different ways?

 

Darkstar, via Moeller, suggests that "Fishnets" is not about forgetting words and concentrating on ideas, as some have translated it, but about forgetting both words and ideas to arrive at one's desire: no desire.

 

"In order to arrive at the Dao, one has to go beyond both words and ideas," says Moeller

 

You, accompanied by Mr Lv, are suggesting that it is about forgetting not just words, but also things and self.

 

"The man who has forgotten himself is he of whom it is said that he has entered Heaven," says Zhuangzi.

 

Isn't this essentially the same? 

Yes, taken in isolation Moelers statement does sound essentially the same, you are quite right.

 

 

[dust]

I sense that you don't agree that they really are saying the same thing, though.

 

Also.. now you're going to have to explain the relevance of an ancient French cartoon....

[Taoist Texts]

I sense that you don't agree that they really are saying the same thing, though.

I dont but was not sure if you are interested in belabouring this issue. For the discussion to be productive we need to agree on the critera of sameness. Are apple the same as oranges? They are both fruit you know, essentially the same thing.

 

More specifically what Moeller and his ilk do is parrot endlessly  and boringly the clueless, self-serving cultural colonisators of 1950s such as MIrca Eliade and Jung

 

The yogin attains deliverance; like a dead man, he has no more relation with life; he is 'dead in life.  (Eliade)

 

the "desire" of the sage is to be without desires, namely to be without intentions, wishes, and ideas. (Moeller)

 

Gosh, its been 70 years, can't these grant-eaters come up with one new idea  already?

 

As to whether the 

 

"In order to arrive at the Dao, one has to go beyond both words and ideas," says Moeller

 

and

 

"The man who has forgotten himself is he of whom it is said that he has entered Heaven," says Zhuangzi.

 

is the same, to answer that question we need to press Herr Moeller for details. What does it mean to 'arrive at Dao' according to him? He writes reams and reams rehashing stale simulacra from past 3 centuries of western misunderstandings but never says anything concrete. What do you think it does mean according to him?

 

 

 

Also.. now you're going to have to explain the relevance of an ancient French cartoon....

its a simulacrum of a wabbit;) real wabbits are not like that, its a fantasy. So are western ideas on chinese Dao. Yet the warlike wabbit on the picture and the plush real wabbit both look kinda alike. So there are the same. Essentially.

[dust]

I dont but was not sure if you are interested in belabouring this issue. For the discussion to be productive we need to agree on the critera of sameness. Are apple the same as oranges? They are both fruit you know, essentially the same thing.

 

You know I'm happy to belabour most issues

 

By essentially I mean fundamentally -- that is, though Moeller's writing style, and his claims that his interpretation is the only correct one, is somewhat arrogant, his fundamental understanding does not really differ from yours or mine -- he just puts it in a different way.

 

 

What does it mean to 'arrive at Dao' according to him? He writes reams and reams rehashing stale simulacra from past 3 centuries of western misunderstandings but never says anything concrete. What do you think it does mean according to him?

 

"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 idea of freeing the mind of its "contents" is supported elsewhere in ZZ, both in your quote (forgetting things, words, self), and, for example, when Yan Hui and Confucius talk of zuowang:

 

 

墮肢體，黜聰明，離形去知，同於大通，此謂坐忘

 

My connexion with the body and its parts is dissolved; my perceptive organs are discarded. Thus leaving my material form, and bidding farewell to my knowledge, I am become one with the Great Pervader. This I call sitting and forgetting all things.

[Marblehead]

Wait a minute!

 

If you have the idea that Dao means to be satisified then you still have an idea, don't you?  How can you have an idea of anything if you don't have ideas?

 

In the last paragraph, the word "my" and "I" were used frequently.  If you become one with something that is much greater than yourself then "my" and "I" no longer exist.

[Taoist Texts]

You know I'm happy to belabour most issues

 

By essentially I mean fundamentally -- that is, though Moeller's writing style, and his claims that his interpretation is the only correct one, is somewhat arrogant, his fundamental understanding does not really differ from yours or mine -- he just puts it in a different way.

 

 

 

"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."

 

So arriving at Dao means just this pun "to be perfectly content (de yi) by no longer having any mental contents."

 

 

Ok. Can we press Herr Mueller for more ,,,,content? Like what does this contentlessly content chap do? Just sits there till the fat lady sings?Or what?

[dust]

If you have the idea that Dao means to be satisified then you still have an idea, don't you?  How can you have an idea of anything if you don't have ideas?

 

Yeah. It's rare that a human, or any other animal with fairly high-level cognitive functions, never has an idea. Strictly speaking, when one is hungry, even picturing a banana in the mind's eye is having an idea (the idea of eating a banana). So I agree that some ideas are prerequisite for any kind of further cultivation. But to have the idea of having no idea, and then going about trying to lose all of one's ideas, including the one of having no idea.......

 

Anyway... let's not pretend that Taoist writing isn't full of paradoxes...

 

 

 

Going back to the Chinese, ZZ says,

 

... 得意而忘言 吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉

 

 

得     意                               而     忘                      言

get   meaning/idea/desire   and   forget/neglect   language/words

 

吾 安              得     忘                     言                          之人       而      與之                  言                                  哉

I    how/why    get   forget/neclect    language/words    person   and   with (him/her)    speak/share language   ?

 

 

 

1      ... get the meaning and neglect the language. Why would I find a person who neglects language and try to speak with him?

 

2     ... get the idea and forget the language. How can I find a person who forgets language so that I may speak with her?

 

3     ... get the desire and forget about language. How could I find a person who has forgotten about language and speak with them?

                         (i.e. no desire)                                                                                                                    (i.e. I couldn't, but we could share more than words)

 

 

 

 

 

Ok. Can we press Herr Mueller for more ,,,,content? Like what does this contentlessly content chap do? Just sits there till the fat lady sings?Or what?

 

Maybe. There are lots of people out there who are aiming for this kind of mindlessness...I'm not one of them. Ask one of them...

 

I think that his commentary on the passage holds water. Though it's quite possible that I've misunderstood everything that he said.

 

Earlier, you offered:

 

ZZ's 'moon' is  "to enter Heaven" by means of techincal procedures of "forgeting things, words, self".

 

Maybe forget about your obvious distate for Moeller and elucidate what you mean by "entering Heaven" and what 忘言 has to do with it?

 

 

 

edit:

http://thedaobums.com/topic/13369-lu-dongbins-100-character-stele/?p=180696

Baiqi's comment offers some ideas (!) that we have not mentioned, including,

 

"忘言also seems to mean this: don't bind yourself to concepts. Once you got the idea and put it in practice, keeping the concept is useless."

 

Where can I find someone who has forgotten about concepts so that I may share some of my concepts with her?

??

Edited March 26, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Let's remember too that Chuang Tzu was speaking against the formalism of Confucianism.  How does that go?  Beautiful (formal) words are not true.  Forget the words (the formalities) but hold to the concepts and perhaps there is another who can do the same and we can have a spontaneous and truthful conversation.

[Taoist Texts]

 elucidate what you mean by "entering Heaven" 

Sure. Here is an inequivocal passage:

 

黃帝再拜稽首曰：「廣成子之謂天矣！」

廣成子曰：「來！吾語女。彼其物無窮，而人皆以為有終；彼其物無測，而人皆以為有極。得吾道者，上為皇而下為王；失吾道者，上見光而下為土。今夫百昌，皆生於土而反於土，故余將去女，入無窮之門，以遊無極之野。吾與日月參光，吾與天地為常。當我，緡乎！遠我，昏乎！人其盡死，而我獨存乎！」

Huang-Di twice bowed low with his head to the ground, and said, 'In Kong Tong-zi we have an example of what is called Heaven.'

The other said, 'Come, and I will tell you: (The perfect Dao) is something inexhaustible, and yet men all think it has an end; it is something unfathomable, and yet men all think its extreme limit can be reached. He who attains to my Dao, if he be in a high position, will be one of the August ones, and in a low position, will be a king. He who fails in attaining it, in his highest attainment will see the light, but will descend and be of the Earth. At present all things are produced from the Earth and return to the Earth. Therefore I will leave you, and enter the gate of the Unending, to enjoy myself in the fields of the Illimitable. I will blend my light with that of the sun and moon, and will endure while heaven and earth endure...they will all die, and I will abide alone!'

 

 

So there is no two way about it. Entering Heaven or 'arriving at Dao' means becoming a supernatural, eternal being. Its right there in black and white in ZZ.

 

 

 

and what 忘言 has to do with it? 

Its one of the techical steps leading to Heaven. Forget self (the words are part thereof) and soar up.

[dust]

Well now I understand what your understanding is.

 

But claiming unequivocalness seems to me to be misguided, especially when it pertains to ZZ.

 

If you don't cherry-pick (like a misguided Christian trying to find evidence for irrelevant things in the Bible!), you'll find a lot more evidence in ZZ for dying a good death, for not fighting against the true nature of Dao (return).

 

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi?searchu=Heaven&page=3#n2756

"And that creatures cannot overcome Heaven (the inevitable) is a long-acknowledged fact - why should I hate my condition?"

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/adjustment-of-controversies#n2727

"When we stop, and yet we do not know how it is so, we have what is called the Dao."

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/adjustment-of-controversies#n41941

"Under heaven there is nothing greater than the tip of an autumn down, and the Tai mountain is small. There is no one more long-lived than a child which dies prematurely, and Peng Zu did not live out his time. Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together, and all things and I are one."

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/perfect-enjoyment#n2830

"'Heaven and Earth do nothing, and yet there is nothing that they do not do.' But what man is there that can attain to this inaction?"

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/perfect-enjoyment#n2832

"...'why should I dread it? Life is a borrowed thing. The living frame thus borrowed is but so much dust. Life and death are like day and night."

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/perfect-enjoyment#n2833

"In death there are not (the distinctions of) ruler above and minister below. There are none of the phenomena of the four seasons. Tranquil and at ease, our years are those of heaven and earth. No king in his court has greater enjoyment than we have."

 

 

 

 

So if we're going to be claiming "no two ways about it"...well, there are at least 2 ways about it. But Zhuangzi's writing points more frequently to accepting death, not attempting to overcome Heaven, not living longer than anyone else.

 

Edited March 27, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

.

That was interesting but I will have to think on it a while before commenting.

[dust]

Yes...I did something funny and it posted the post before I'd written anything. Now edited...

[Marblehead]

But Zhuangzi's writing points more frequently to accepting death, not attempting to overcome Heaven, not living longer than anyone else.

 

 

Yep.  And I suggest that this is because he observed the processes of nature (TzuJan) and became aware of these processes.

 

That death will come is a given.

 

But then, he did do a lot of searching in the spiritual and metaphysical realms as well.  His conclusions are much more vague in these areas though.  More often than not he concludes discussion of a concept with a question rather than an answer.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Humble question of uneducated meddler:

Am i following this correctly?

If a tool is to be used for sustenance it needs to be well taken care of. Wether its a fishing rod or a language, if not cared for then its useless and does not do the job correctly. If the material is of poor quality theres little short of magic to prevent a poor result.

Wood needs to be oiled and stored properly, language needs to be honed and used like that old butchers knife.

But a fishing rod has no point unless you catch fish with it. Language has no point unless people speak it with each other.

But the the tool is not the craftsman nor the client, right?

 

Sorry to interrupt but i felt lost in here.

 

PS, both my language and mind are more of hammers and baseball bats, sorty if im over simplifying this.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Rocky Lionmouth

[Taoist Texts]

So if we're going to be claiming "no two ways about it"...well, there are at least 2 ways about it. But Zhuangzi's writing points more frequently to accepting death, not attempting to overcome Heaven, not living longer than anyone else.

 

I agree. My post refered to 'entering Heaven' specifically for a chosen few. For the rest of mankind ZZ offers quietism.

[dust]

Humble question of uneducated meddler:

Am i following this correctly?

 

As correctly as any of us!

 

If a tool is to be used for sustenance it needs to be well taken care of. Wether its a fishing rod or a language, if not cared for then its useless and does not do the job correctly. If the material is of poor quality theres little short of magic to prevent a poor result.

Wood needs to be oiled and stored properly, language needs to be honed and used like that old butchers knife.

 

Yes these points are important. None of us had yet linked this back to the story of Chef Ting and his knife.

 

Sorry to interrupt but i felt lost in here.

 

Your Taoist attitude is great...but there's no such thing as an interruption here. Say what you want!!!

 

 

 

I agree. My post refered to 'entering Heaven' specifically for a chosen few. For the rest of mankind ZZ offers quietism.

 

I didn't know there was a name for it... but yes, this diffusion of confusion through analysis of language and human psychology is something I've long thought to be important. I guess that's one of the reasons I love ZZ..

[Marblehead]

Humble question of uneducated meddler:

I think Dusty did well enough with his response for now so that I need not make comment unless you wish to go further with your questions.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Thanks, so we're still in it together, good!

 

Tings story follows me around like a ghost so he popped out pretty fluidly, but then again that part has relevance on so much its coming out the woodworks. Now i have to go back and eye this thing about heaven for the few.

 

My questions will rest for now, thanks for the help!

Happy weekend!

Edited March 27, 2015 by Rocky Lionmouth

[Taoist Texts]

Well now I understand what your understanding is.

 

But claiming unequivocalness seems to me to be misguided, especially when it pertains to ZZ.

 

If you don't cherry-pick (like a misguided Christian ....

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/perfect-enjoyment#n2833

"In death there are not (the distinctions of) ruler above and minister below. There are none of the phenomena of the four seasons. Tranquil and at ease, our years are those of heaven and earth. No king in his court has greater enjoyment than we have."

 

 

 

 

So if we're going to be claiming "no two ways about it"...well, there are at least 2 ways about it. But Zhuangzi's writing points more frequently to accepting death, not attempting to overcome Heaven, not living longer than anyone else.

 

Well, coming back to your OP, as to  words being traps. This is a good example as how even such a basic word as "death" has different meaning for a modern materialist vs. ZZ.

 

The laowai reads 'death' and understands an inevitable annihilation to be accepted stoically. While ZZ obviously means  a comfortable post-mortem eternal existence. Go figure.

[dust]

I figure that he's not being literal...but there is an interesting debate on precisely what he is talking about when he says things like:

 

人又反入於機  萬物皆出於機  皆入於機

 

Man then again enters into the great Machinery (of Evolution), from which all things come forth (at birth), and which they enter at death.

(Legge)

 

Men in time return again to the mysterious workings. So all creatures come out of the mysterious workings and go back into them again.

(Watson)

 

 

 

Anyway.. there are enough laowai who believe in an afterlife, in an eternal soul, and enough Chinese who don't, that we don't need to assume that all non-Chinese are reading it wrong simply because none of them believe in eternal existence.

[Marblehead]

 

Anyway.. there are enough laowai who believe in an afterlife, in an eternal soul, and enough Chinese who don't, that we don't need to assume that all non-Chinese are reading it wrong simply because none of them believe in eternal existence.

Well, I believe in eternal transmutation but not at the individual level.

[dust]

Well, I believe in eternal transmutation

 

If by this you mean the endless shifting of the Way, the eternal rise and fall of things.... well, how could one not believe in it? It seems fairly obvious that this is what happens. I think ZZ believed so too.

 

But people need something "more"... people need to have something that they can't logically explain. As if existence itself wasn't enough.