The Dream of the Butterfly

[Marblehead]

Most people wish for immortality.  That is why religions include some form of immortality.

 

Things die and different things are born.  The weed dies but because it seeded itself during maturity more seeds will be born.  The same weed is not reborn.  Such an activity has never been observed in nature.  The Way of Tao and the way of man.  How different they seem to be so often.

 

Our sun will one day die.  It will not be reborn because it had used up nearly all its energy.  But, it has, while in a mature state, given life to the ten thousand things.

[dust]

Things change , or things melt, or things die,or things transform ,,, is each not a possibility by the same rationale? 10 thousand things , is that conclusively the things themselves changing? Or could it be that in the viewers mind, the world is not the same?

 

Yes, I think that it can be interpreted specifically or generally. It is the things themselves changing, but as the world of life is made up of those things, it is at the same time the world changing. All one big organism.

 

 

Everything one knows looks different. After my stroke, the whole world was different. As I drifted off to sleep, the room melted away. I recycled my coffee grinder and it was reborn as a flower pot. Its still not dismissed that Chuang returned to being Chuang again! Fact , not reading in, The transformation was temporary. Is anyone contending he was literally reborn as a butterfly , and then somehow jumped back into the body of Chuang not as a baby, but as the same adult?

 

I'm a little confused as to what everyone else believes the story is saying, but no, this is not my contention at all. He's just dreaming. The dream illustrates what it is to die and/or be born; each creature melts into the Great System, and each emerges from it. We are the same, same but different.

[Stosh]

Yes, I think that it can be interpreted specifically or generally. It is the things themselves changing, but as the world of life is made up of those things, it is at the same time the world changing. All one big organism.

 

 

 

I'm a little confused as to what everyone else believes the story is saying, but no, this is not my contention at all. He's just dreaming. The dream illustrates what it is to die and/or be born; each creature melts into the Great System, and each emerges from it. We are the same, same but different.

Thanks  for addressing my thing ,, I agree.. mostly

Edited May 8, 2015 by Stosh

[Taoist Texts]

It certainly doesn't say "The ten thousand things die and are reincarnated as the same soul in a different vehicle"

 

If you want to look honestly at the structure, and prove that it is definitely about reincarnation, why not use ctext to find examples like you normally do?

 

I should have, unfortunately examples do not work for the taboo subject matters since people refuse to recognize what's actually there in black and white.

 

 

the Creator ... if He were to transform ... my spirit into a horse, ...以神為馬

 

 

If this is not the R-word then what is it?

[dust]

It's not taboo, it's just not real

 

He's certainly talking about being reincarnated as a horse.

 

Firstly, let's get one thing outta the way:

 

偉哉！夫造物者    How great is the creator! (making me all crookedy..)

-- literally 'creator', 'that which creates', which is not specified as being a "He" or any other personification, as Legge and Watson translate it, and seems more likely to be the forces of the universe (yin,yang)

 

Secondly,

 

"Why no, what would I resent? If the process continues, perhaps in time he'll transform my left arm into a rooster. In that case I'll keep watch on the night. Or perhaps in time he'll transform my right arm into a crossbow pellet and I'll shoot down an owl for roasting. Or perhaps in time he'll transform my buttocks into cartwheels. Then, with my spirit for a horse, I'll climb up and go for a ride. What need will I ever have for a carriage again?"

 

Do any of these things sound like ZZ is being particularly serious? That he believes they're really plausible??

 

Yes, it's reincarnation. But no, it's not serious.

[Marblehead]

I should have, unfortunately examples do not work for the taboo subject matters since people refuse to recognize what's actually there in black and white.

 

 

the Creator ... if He were to transform ... my spirit into a horse, ...以神為馬

 

 

If this is not the R-word then what is it?

It is the "T" word.  Transmutation.

 

I have read a version (paraphrase) "... and what if the Creator were to transform my spirit into a rooster's wing?"

 

No, that is not even close to the "R" word.

[Marblehead]

Just a note:  When reading Chuang Tzu it is important to know when he is being serious and when he is just bullshitting.  He does both a lot.

[noonespecial]

 Westerners think like Westerners, not like the Chinese (back then).

 

How did Chinese think compare to Westerners, I grew up around a lot of 1st gen and immigrants from China and really never discerned to much of a difference, but perhaps that is because westerners no longer think like westerners (back then)

[Marblehead]

How did Chinese think compare to Westerners, I grew up around a lot of 1st gen and immigrants from China and really never discerned to much of a difference, but perhaps that is because westerners no longer think like westerners (back then)

Actually, you caught me where I can no longer clarify what I said mainly because I really don't believe it all that much.  I don't believe there is that much of a difference between how Westerners and Easterners think.  We are the same species with the same basic needs.

[Stosh]

Ill tell ya what the difference between easterners and westerners is.. nada !

You got a-holes we got a-holes.

 

[Marblehead]

I think you did not define a difference but rather a commonality.

 

Anyhow, I think the story should be taken figuratively and not literally.  And Moeller is right but then Legge is right too.

 

Dreams are dreams and that is all.  But sure, there is a connection between this and that - both are of the same source.

[Stosh]

I think you did not define a difference but rather a commonality.

 

Anyhow, I think the story should be taken figuratively and not literally.  And Moeller is right but then Legge is right too.

 

Dreams are dreams and that is all.  But sure, there is a connection between this and that - both are of the same source.

To What trivial and potentially insulting trait should I draw the attention, so I can exacerbate the divides between people? And somehow demonstrate that we are basically the same? Maybe I shouldve used some mathmatical wizardry, to prove an individual to be a fast runner by virtue of belonging to a group ,that averages out to have fast runners. Then we individually wouldnt have to prove ourselves, we could just wave flags. It would be much simpler. The doctor asks my weight, and I show him my flag of affilliation . The student asks about my credentials to teach and I can just mention my race, nationality, and mother tongue. Then they will know I have the ticket. It would really be just SO much easier to lump everyone into categories! Categories are just so REAL!

 

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  Got on a roll there, didn't you?

 

So yeah, we have a lot of commonalities with other living things.  And there are a lot of differences between things as well.  Yeah, the Ten Thousand Things, although we know there are more than ten thousand.

 

And then I have on numerous occasions mentioned that I believe we each are special and unique.

 

I failed to mention butterfly in this post so here goes:

 

And a butterfly is different from a dragonfly.

 

And each butterfly is a special and unique butterfly although this is difficult to see sometimes.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

Yeah I indulged a bit, but I really get tired of the ethnocentrism . Everyone being unique , means if one is going to group ,then all those variations are invalid. The grouping itself is ignoring that individuality. You should come on over to this side.

[Marblehead]

You should come on over to this side.

What a statement!  You didn't say everything you were thinking.

 

There are no sides.  I am the butterfly of dreams.  Hither and thither I go.

[Stosh]

Are you sure Youre a butterfly, Hmmmm? ZZ wasnt.  

 

I was thinking? 

Edited May 11, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Are you sure Youre a butterfly, Hmmmm? ZZ wasnt.  

I am the figurative butterfly.  I know I am really Marblehead.  No wondering about that.

 

I was thinking? 

Yeah, we all do that now and again.  Some do it rationally, others do it chaotically. 

[Stosh]

I am the figurative butterfly.  I know I am really Marblehead.  No wondering about that.

 

Yeah, we all do that now and again.  Some do it rationally, others do it chaotically. 

Well if we are sometimes thinking we are reincarnations of a butterfly,, (or prostitute as was implied) Im thinking that would be an example of chaotic.. as opposed to me being me and never being some kind of bug. Right?

[Marblehead]

Well if we are sometimes thinking we are reincarnations of a butterfly,, (or prostitute as was implied) Im thinking that would be an example of chaotic.. as opposed to me being me and never being some kind of bug. Right?

Yes, there is a difference between figurative and literal speech.

 

Oh, Marblehead doesn't talk about reincarnation.

 

Prostitutes?  Be nice to them.  They provide a service others are willing to pay for.

 

No, you will never be a bug.  Bugs are eating your dead skin at this very moment though.  And they will eat the rest of you when you die.  Then you will become the bug.

 

Yes, we can think almost anything we want to think.  There's the saying "An unthinkable act.", but really, if it was an act (intentional) then it was thinkable, wasn't it?

 

But the butterfly wasn't always a butterfly.  And you weren't always Stosh, and I wasn't always Marblehead.  Changes!

[Stosh]

Aha! Changes ! Normal dream normal reverie , normal changes in perspective no reincarnation nor astral projection- subject is not necessarily death. Heck he could be considering his career for all we know. 

[Marblehead]

Aha! Changes ! Normal dream normal reverie , normal changes in perspective no reincarnation nor astral projection- subject is not necessarily death. Heck he could be considering his career for all we know. 

That's why it is called "The Dynamic Tao".  Ever changing.  No smoke and mirrors.  Sure, we can wonder about the unknown now and then.  But we shouldn't start thinking that the results of our wondering is somehow an alternate reality.

 

But life goes on until it stops.  One day the Earth will stop being a living organism.

[Stosh]

But life goes on until it stops.  One day the Earth will stop being a living organism.

Boy you're tossing a lot of teasers out there !     Notice me not biting on them, arent you proud     

[Marblehead]

Actually, just now thinking on it, Chuang Tzu gave life to the butterfly when he started dreaming of it and caused its death when he woke up.  Did the butterfly ever exist?

[Marblehead]

Boy you're tossing a lot of teasers out there !     Notice me not biting on them, arent you proud     

Well, here I sit at the computer while it is doing work for me.  What else am I to do?

 

Yes, I'm proud of you.  (But you can go ahead and humor me if you like.)

[Stosh]

Well, here I sit at the computer while it is doing work for me.  What else am I to do?

 

Yes, I'm proud of you.  (But you can go ahead and humor me if you like.)

I do like to humor you , youre in a very exclusive club.     I was pointing out how non-chaotic I am , but then failed since pointing it out was a lapse -change of subject ,, so Back to the Dream .. 

Yes I would say the dream of the butterfly existed , but in the end of the thing , he expresses a less than complete certitude that the dream in gone. I see life as a general principle , expressed in living forms , but our definition doesn't need to be stretched far to include the planet as a living organism. To me , I don't see him making any claims that the identity we have is somehow preserved through the process of death. You would be able , better than I to bring in another clippet which could support the idea ,, though I would be surprised.