Wondering on the Way v. Zhuangzi

[konkelz]

Hello,

 

I'm wondering how well the chapters in Wandering on the Way (translated by Victor H. Mair) correlate with the translations of Zhuangzi used here. 

 

Also, in the conclusion of the first part of the translator's introduction, Mair says that Master Chuang's book should foremost be approached as a literary monument of ancient China and not a philosophical document, which is a problem in his view. 

 

"The Chuang Tzu is, first and foremost, a literary text and consequently should not be subjected to excessive philosophical analysis... This is by no means to say that the Chuang Tzu is devoid of importance for the history of Chinese philosophy... Because of the heterogeneous nature of the text, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to determine a system of thought to which Chuang Chou subscribed."

 

It seems that this forum approaches it as a philosophical document. Thoughts?

Edited May 19, 2016 by konkelz

[konkelz]

the concept of philosophical discourse seems "anit-Chuangist" for lack of a better term, so maybe that is what Mair is referring to?

[Taoist Texts]

.. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the text, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to determine a system of thought to which Chuang Chou subscribed."

It is an unsubstantiated opinion, thats all. 

[dust]

"The Chuang Tzu is, first and foremost, a literary text and consequently should not be subjected to excessive philosophical analysis...

 

Well, nothing should be subjected to excessive philosophical analysis, should it? That would be excessive...

 

But I think the text is one of the most demanding of literary/linguistic and philosophical analysis I have encountered.

 

 

This is by no means to say that the Chuang Tzu is devoid of importance for the history of Chinese philosophy... Because of the heterogeneous nature of the text, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to determine a system of thought to which Chuang Chou subscribed."

 

It is difficult to determine "a system of thought". Not because it's not a philosophical work, but because "a system of thought" isn't presented. And that's kind of the point, I think.

[konkelz]

So Mair is touching on the subjectivity of Zhuangzi's approach of pointing at the objective?

[Marblehead]

Apparently the philosophy in The Chuang Tzu went right over Mair's head. 

 

But I will agree with him regarding The Chuang Tzu being a literary piece of art.

 

When reading the stories in The Chuang Tzu one must seek out the concepts that are being presented.  These are all philosophical concepts.  And when the concept is grasped we can forget the words.  I think Mair is still looking at the words.

 

Every picture tells a story; every story tells a (philosophical) concept.

 

However, I won't attempt to define that philosophy.  That would be like trying to define Dao.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Marblehead

[Geof Nanto]

I have Victor Mair's translation. It is a highly regarded work, as is the author. The philosophy of the text definitely did not go right over his head. His observation about its quality as literature is totally valid. Remember we're dealing with a culture that valued poetic skill above all else. 

 

Here’s the conclusion from Mair’s essay The Zhuangzi and its Impact in the Daoism Handbook……

 

 

To summarize, the Zhuangzi has had an overwhelming literary, philosophical, and religious influence upon writers, thinkers, and practitioners of various persuasions and is one of the oldest and most pervasive Daoist documents. Its significance and impact, not only in Daoism but also in Chinese culture in general, is all the more remarkable in light of the fact that the text is quite anti-Confucian. Although there are chapters, such as those with the word "Heaven" in their titles, which seem to constitute an unsuccessful attempt to subvert the Zhuangzi to a Confucian agenda, Confucius and his school of thought are ridiculed—with a high degree of effectiveness—on many occasions throughout the text. It is probable that the Zhuangzi survived, in spite of its anti-orthodoxy, because of its sheer wit and charm. Although Confucius and his followers are frequently made to appear like fools in the .Zhuangzi, the satire is executed with such humor and good grace that even the most staid Confucians must have smiled (at least inwardly) when they read it. Above all, the Zhuangzi succeeded because it represented a necessary countercultural foil or relief to the solemnity and seriousness of the host of other political thinkers who have crowded the pages of the history of Chinese thought, particularly in its formative stage during the Warring States period.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Yueya

[Marblehead]

I have Victor Mair's translation. It is a highly regarded work, as is the author. The philosophy of the text definitely did not go right over his head. His observation about its quality as literature is totally valid. Remember we're dealing with a culture that valued poetic skill above all else. 

Thanks for moderating what I said above.  But I still think it was a valid post in response to the post I was responding to.

[dust]

So Mair is touching on the subjectivity of Zhuangzi's approach of pointing at the objective?

 

I'm not really sure what you're saying...

 

One more thought, see if it's worth anything:

 

If one treats the text simply as funny stories and pretty words, clever language with little depth, and glosses over the philosophical aspect, then all those stories and words one is attempting to admire become empty. The language needs the philosophy.

 

In other words: the clever/silly language and stories are pointless without the philosophical musings they contain, and the philosophy can't be illuminated without the clever/silly language and stories.

 

So I certainly disagree with the notion, apparent in the Mair quote in the OP (though I realize it may be taken out of context), that one should look at it literarily first and philosophically second. If I had to choose, I would call it a book of philosophy before a book of poetry. But thankfully we don't have to choose...

[Geof Nanto]

So I certainly disagree with the notion, apparent in the Mair quote in the OP (though I realize it may be taken out of context), that one should look at it literarily first and philosophically second. If I had to choose, I would call it a book of philosophy before a book of poetry. But thankfully we don't have to choose...

 

Yes, it was a comment that needs to be read in the context of the long and nuanced introduction to Mair's Zhuangzi translation. For instance, amongst much other relevant background information, his introduction has a detailed section outlining Zhuangzi's interaction with the dominant philosophical schools of the so-called Hundred Schools of Thought of the Warring States period.

 

I agree we don't have to categorise it as philosophy or literature. It's become a classic because it masterfully combines the two - as does all good literature. And for me, stories and poetry provide a far more suitable vehicle for hinting at the ineffable Dao than any linearly logical philosophical text ever could.    

Edited May 19, 2016 by Yueya

[dawei]

Mair's notes:

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp048_chuangtzu_zhuangzi.pdf

 

"The Tao Te Ching is extremely terse and open to many different interpretations. The Chuang Tzu, on the other hand., is more definitive and comprehensive as a repository of early Taoist thought. The Tao Te Ching was addressed to the sage-king; it is basically a handbook for rulers. The Chuang Tm, in contrast, is the earliest surviving Chinese text to present a philosophy for the individual. The authors of the Tao Te Ching were interested in establishing some sort of Taoist rule, while the authors of the Chuang Tzu opted out of society, or at least out of power relationships within society. Master Chuang obviously wanted no part of the machinery of government. He compared the state bureaucrat to a splendidly decorated ox being led to sacrifice, while he preferred to think of himself as an unconstrained piglet playing in the mud. The Tao Te Ching offers the Way as a guide for life and it propounds nonaction as a means to achieve one's purpose in the workaday world. Master Chuang believed that the Way had supreme value in itself and consequently did not occupy himself with its mundane applications. Rather than paying attention to the governance of human society (the fundamental concern of most early Chinese thinkers), he stressed the need for transcendence and the freedom of the individual from such worldly concerns. In spite of all the differences, however, Master Chuang was clearly attracted by . the doctrines of the Old Masters and many of his writings may be thought of as expanded metaphors or meditations on the brief sayings of those early Taoist luminaries whose ideas have been enshrined in the Tao Te Ching."

[konkelz]

I'm not really sure what you're saying...

 

I retract my reply. lol, I thought you were talking about the relativity of the Zhuangzi's message, but after rereading I don't feel I originally grasped what you were saying. 

 

So Mair is saying it doesn't present a philosophy... a system of thought per say because it is beyond thought?

[Marblehead]

Mair's notes:

Another very fine moderation on what I posted above.

 

And I am in total agreement with those notes.

[dawei]

I retract my reply. lol, I thought you were talking about the relativity of the Zhuangzi's message, but after rereading I don't feel I originally grasped what you were saying. 

 

So Mair is saying it doesn't present a philosophy... a system of thought per say because it is beyond thought?

 

Please read Mair's notes I provided... he says, as is typical for books, not everything the author wants to say the publisher will put in the book.

 

As Yueya said, Mair's is a highly regarded author and the range of his scholarship is enormous, I'll add.   That being said, he is more an academic/researcher who digs deeper than most.   But is that enough to unlock Zhuangzi?   

 

What might be more useful is if we did a study of Mair's book with his notes to boot...   but that is quite time-consuming.

 

I will add that when I read the OP, I thought, "Is a philosophy of 'no-philosophy' a philosophy?

[Marblehead]

What might be more useful is if we did a study of Mair's book with his notes to boot...   but that is quite time-consuming.

Well, we've got the rest of our life to do it. 

[dawei]

Well, we've got the rest of our life to do it. 

 

Sure... and I don't mind it.  I have you to thank for raising, over the years, the Zhuangzi awareness in me  

[dust]

I retract my reply. lol, I thought you were talking about the relativity of the Zhuangzi's message, but after rereading I don't feel I originally grasped what you were saying. 

 

So Mair is saying it doesn't present a philosophy... a system of thought per say because it is beyond thought?

 

After reading what Yueya and dawai have posted, I think we both misunderstood Mair a little. Maybe we should go deeper, as suggested.

 

 

 

What might be more useful is if we did a study of Mair's book with his notes to boot...   but that is quite time-consuming.

 

I've been thinking about 'doing' the Zhuangzi for well over a year now, but it is so daunting. Dipping into the English translations every so often is enjoyable and fairly easy...but at some point I would like to study the text, with the Chinese, in more depth, and create my own notes (with translation). And knowing how much of my time was consumed when I decided to study the Guodian Laozi in more depth...well, I spent a lot of time on it and still don't feel like I have grasped it. Every time I look at my translation, I see something that needs changing.

 

Starting on the Zhuangzi has seemed even more of a daunting task. A group study with some excellent scholarly notes to help would certainly be motivation to begin.

 

So, I'm game...I guess..

[Marblehead]

It won't hurt (although it may be trying) to do a deep study as we did with some of the chapters of the TTC.

 

Mair could be the base reference with compare/contrast by maybe Watson and Yu Tang and any individual member who has already done the translation or wants to do so.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Marblehead

[Old River]

I have Watson's Essential.

 

I'll be out of town and internet-less all next week, but beyond that, count me interested.

[dawei]

It won't hurt (although it may be trying) to do a deep study as we did with some of the chapters of the TTC.

 

Mair could be the base reference with compare/contrast by maybe Watson and Yu Tang and any individual member who has already done the translation or wants to do so.

 

I'm not against it but there was a section by section done with more an eye towards simply commenting on the meaning and nuisance.  I'm not sure if that stuck with Legge's translation to the end.

 

Main challenge with Mair may be getting his book... but I'll provide a hint that one can google it along with 'pdf' 

 

It would be interesting to try and work the chinese too but not sure we'd want to do sentence after sentence.  Maybe we'd be better to ask folks to talk about the section and then look at chinese when applicable. 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Added: Looking at some of the past section discussions on ZZ... would it be redundant to start a new one or maybe we go back and use the existing posts and re-visit?

[dust]

It would be interesting to try and work the chinese too but not sure we'd want to do sentence after sentence.  Maybe we'd be better to ask folks to talk about the section and then look at chinese when applicable.

 

Yeah, I would suggest not going sentence by sentence for the Chinese. Quite a bit of it is relatively straightforward (i.e. whereas every single line/sentence in the Laozi is interpretable in numerous ways, many parts of the Zhuangzi are "He said this", "This happened", etc -- somewhat less open to interpretation).

 

I'd be trying to go through it word by word in Chinese, but would only publicly share my thoughts on the stuff I was having difficulty with.

 

 

I'm not against it but there was a section by section done with more an eye towards simply commenting on the meaning and nuisance.  I'm not sure if that stuck with Legge's translation to the end.

 

[...]

 

Added: Looking at some of the past section discussions on ZZ... would it be redundant to start a new one or maybe we go back and use the existing posts and re-visit?

 

This is something I've wondered about. I can't learn really well without having participated myself. I think a few of us would enjoy offering our opinions   And we'll participate less if half of it has been said before. In which case it would make some sense to start the whole thing anew...?

 

It might also make it easier, if we're focusing on a different translation, to split the text up as Mair has split it up, like

 

Mair 1. Carefree Wandering (1)

Mair 1. Carefree Wandering (2)

...etc

(or something like that)

 

And then the different discussions (old/new, Legge/Mair) are easily picked out..

Edited May 20, 2016 by dustybeijing

[dawei]

I tend to agree with your point.. start anew.  While each of Mair's chapters is broken down into sub-sections, one problem is that his text is not open source.  If someone doesn't have the book, then it would be hard for them to comment.

 

So still unclear how to proceed...

[dust]

Yeah.. I don't have a perfect answer to that. I don't think anyone is going to have trouble obtaining the text, but I understand potential legal concerns when it comes to pasting large portions of the text on here (though I'd imagine it would fall under Fair Use -- noncommercial study).

 

And without being able to paste the text, it'd be pretty hard to discuss it, eh...

Edited May 20, 2016 by dustybeijing

[konkelz]

I'm game. I've found Wandering on the Way in a couple bookstores here in Corvallis. I got it for $5.

[blue eyed snake]

I would like to read along with you, I just started my first-time reading of it

( thanks to Marble   one of his older threads inspired me)

 

I sort of agree with Dusty, that if we're gonna do it, the use of the text is noncommercial. ( author should be happy with people that are so interested) and the whole text is to be found easily as pdf. so it's not as if were putting it on the www for the first time