Mair 2:8

[Marblehead]

Now I have something to say here. I do not know whether or not what I have to say is of the same category as "this." But, whether it is of the same category or not, like them it is a category, thus in the end it is no different from "that." Nevertheless, let me try to explain myself.

There is beginning. There is a time before beginning. There is a time before the time before beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a stage before nonbeing. There is a stage before the stage before nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. Still, as for being and nonbeing, I do not know which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something, but I do not know whether what I have said is really saying something or not.

There is nothing under heaven larger than the tip of a downy hair at the end of autumn, but Mount T ' ai is small. There is no greater longevity than that of a child who dies in infancy, but Progenitor P'eng

 

{{P'engtsu, the Chinese Methuselah who lived in prehistoric times.}}

 

died young. Heaven and earth were born together with me and the myriad things are one with me. Since all things are one, how can there be anything to talk about? But since I have already said that all things are one, how can there be nothing to talk about? One and speech makes two, two and one makes three. Continuing on in this fashion, even the cleverest mathematician couldn't keep up, how much less an ordinary person! Therefore, if in proceeding from nonbeing to being we arrive at three, how much farther we shall reach when proceeding from being to being. We need not proceed at all if we understand the mutual dependence of "this" and "that. "
 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Marblehead

[smallsteps]

This section goes far beyond my head. Since you requested not to be the first to comment your own post..This is my modest contribution, I can't do more.

[Marblehead]

This section goes far beyond my head. Since you requested not to be the first to comment your own post..This is my modest contribution, I can't do more.

Well, if you did your best then I can't ask for more.

 

I will give it a couple more days before speaking to it.  Hopefully there will be more comments prior to mine.

[Geof Nanto]

An excellent opening, Smallsteps. 

 

The great Zhuangzi appears

Flowing from Dao

 

Dao in action –

Only vague and intangible.

 

Zhuangzi in words –

Obscure and ambiguous.

 

Ambiguous and obscure,

But within it there are images.

 

Obscure and ambiguous,

Within it there are stories.

 

Profound and unbounded

Within it there is de.

 

De so real,

That within it there is trust.

 

For last two millennia its message has not been lost

But remakes itself with every new reading.

 

How do I know this?

Like this!

[Marblehead]

Okay, let me provide my two cents.

 

At first glance it seems this entire section is saying nothing.  But the last half of the last sentence finally states the concept.

 

The concept?  Yes.  It is:  ... if we understand the mutual dependence of "this" and "that."

 

Yep.  We don't see it often in Taoism but it is an important concept in Buddhism.

 

From my Taoist view it speaks directly to the concept of "cause and effect".

 

"Mutual dependence" and "cause and effect" can be spoken to within only the state of the manifest.

 

Let's look:  Since all things are one, how can there be anything to talk about?

 

Therefore the infant's short life is no different from she who lived a thousand years.  This is as viewed from the state of "Oneness" - the state of the Mystery.

 

If there is no "this" there cannot be a "that".  Nothing happens in the Mystery.  Everything of the Universe happens in the Manifest.

 

And each "that" is dependent upon a "this".  Cause and effect.  If the seed does not germinate there will be no plant, no flower.

[smallsteps]

Thanks! You explained quite well the part of the mutual dependency of 'this' and 'that', but I am still scratching my head about this part:

 

''There is beginning. There is a time before beginning. There is a time before the time before beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a stage before nonbeing. There is a stage before the stage before nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. Still, as for being and nonbeing, I do not know which is really being and which is nonbeing'

 

and the relationship it has with the conceptual/language problem.

 

Any idea?

[smallsteps]

 

An excellent opening, Smallsteps. 

 

The great Zhuangzi appears

Flowing from Dao

 

Dao in action –

Only vague and intangible.

 

Zhuangzi in words –

Obscure and ambiguous.

 

Ambiguous and obscure,

But within it there are images.

 

Obscure and ambiguous,

Within it there are stories.

 

Profound and unbounded

Within it there is de.

 

De so real,

That within it there is trust.

 

For last two millennia its message has not been lost

But remakes itself with every new reading.

 

How do I know this?

Like this!

 

 

Thanks Yueya, very beautiful.

[Marblehead]

Thanks! You explained quite well the part of the mutual dependency of 'this' and 'that', but I am still scratching my head about this part:

 

''There is beginning. There is a time before beginning. There is a time before the time before beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a stage before nonbeing. There is a stage before the stage before nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. Still, as for being and nonbeing, I do not know which is really being and which is nonbeing'

 

and the relationship it has with the conceptual/language problem.

 

Any idea?

 

I think this is based in the concept of cycles and reversion.  Chuang Tzu speaks to this a number of times.  Basically, there is no beginning or end; just changes.

 

The last sentence above is the same thought found in the story of the butterfly. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Marblehead

[smallsteps]

I think this is based in the concept of cycles and reversion.  Chuang Tzu speaks to this a number of times.  Basically, there is no beginning or end; just changes.

 

The last sentence above is the same thought found in the story of the butterfly. 

 

Yes, ok, I understand. Thanks!

Sounds a lot like Buddhism..

[Marblehead]

Yes, ok, I understand. Thanks!

Sounds a lot like Buddhism..

Good observation.

 

And yes, there are a lot of parallels between Buddhism and Taoism at the basic concept level.

[smallsteps]

And yes, there are a lot of parallels between Buddhism and Taoism at the basic concept level.

 

In your understanding, what are the main tenets making them diverge at some point?

[Marblehead]

In your understanding, what are the main tenets making them diverge at some point?

Oh, no!  He called me out.  Hehehe.

 

We won't do that in this thread.

 

There are a couple older threads that speak to this.  If you do the ground work and find them, then post to them I will be happy to do the best I can to speak with you about them.

[smallsteps]

Oh, no!  He called me out.  Hehehe.

 

We won't do that in this thread.

 

There are a couple older threads that speak to this.  If you do the ground work and find them, then post to them I will be happy to do the best I can to speak with you about them.

 

Ok, sorry, didn't want to go off topic. Will do the digging and come back to you later !

[Geof Nanto]

In your understanding, what are the main tenets making them diverge at some point?

 

Here is a Western interpretation of a key difference between classical Daoism as per the Zhuangzi and Buddhism from philosopher John Gray. I've quoted it before but I'll add it again here because I like its simplicity, and it's not too far off topic in that it references the butterfly dream passage that's at the end of this chapter we're discussing (Mair 2:14)…..

 

 

Chuang-Tzu is as much a sceptic as a mystic. The sharp dichotomy between appearance and reality that is central in Buddhism is absent, and so is the attempt to transcend the illusions of everyday existence. Chuang-Tzu sees human life as a dream, but he does not seek to awaken from it. In a famous passage he writes of dreaming he was a butterfly, and not knowing on awakening whether he is a human being who has dreamt of being a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he is a human being.

 

Unlike the Buddha, A.C. Graham explains, Chuang-Tzu did not seek to awaken from the dream. He dreamt of dreaming more lucidly: 'Buddhists awaken out of dreaming; ChuangTzu wakes up to dreaming.' Awakening to the truth that life is a dream need not mean turning away from it. It may mean embracing it:

 

If 'Life is a dream' implies that no achievement is lasting, it also implies that life can be charged with the wonder of dreams, that we drift spontaneously through events that follow a logic different from that of everyday intelligence, that fears and regrets are as unreal as hopes and desires.

 

Chuang-Tzu admits no idea of salvation. There is no self and no awakening from the dream of self:

 

When we dream we do not know we are dreaming, and in the middle of a dream we interpret a dream within it; not until we wake do we know that we were dreaming. Only at the ultimate awakening shall we know that this is the ultimate dream.

 

We cannot be rid of illusions. Illusion is our natural condition. Why not accept it?

[Taoist Texts]

In this para, ZZ posits one of his recurring philosophical problems. Are the things same or different? Do they exist or not? And, can this situation be put in the words at all?

Same issue he tackles  in the parable of the butterfly (am I different from a butterfly that I dreamt of) and in the parable of fishes (am I or my friend different from a fish).

 

For a modern man, this is a weird thing to worry about, but that’s what passed for philosophy in those days.

 

He addresses this issue from two angles.

1. A logical explication:

If I try to identify an object using words does it belong in the same category as other objects? Or it does not? If it does not, then the different categories can be lumped together into super-categories, until eventually ‘this and that’ (all the different objects in the universe) form one category, and ‘this thing’ will not be different from ‘that thing’.

 

2. An ontological observation:

The things can be divided as follows -

A/ the things that are beginning their existence, things that have not yet began to begin, things that have not yet began to begin or not.

B/the things that exist, things that do not, things that have not yet begin to exist  or not, things that have not yet begin not beginning to exist or not.

 

 But right away there is a problem:

Generally speaking, there are things that exist and things that do not exist. We do not  know if we identify them properly as existing and non-existing. What if we mistake the one for the other?

[leth]

To go further into the analysis of the ontological and logical of this and that, we have to realise that we think using mental constructs that are dependent on eachother in a sort of self refering system that we could call the language of the mind. This language of the mind that is mad eup of concepts is not perfect, but formed as our mind tries to interprete reality. But reality is not that easy to graps and the language of the mind can't possible fully describe reality as it is.

 

And as with the fish that is happy, the language of the mind works and does well for us to interpret reality as we understand it. We must of course realise that it is fallible and be aware of the empty nature of the concepts, yet we still know what we know, as we can tell that the fish is happy.

[smallsteps]

Chuang-Tzu admits no idea of salvation. There is no self and no awakening from the dream of self:

 

 

Very interesting Yueya, thank you. I'll ponder over this. This is new to me.

[Geof Nanto]

There is beginning. There is a time before beginning. There is a time before the time before beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a stage before nonbeing. There is a stage before the stage before nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. Still, as for being and nonbeing, I do not know which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something, but I do not know whether what I have said is really saying something or not.

 

This is one of my favourite passages in the Zhuangzi simply for my delight in the way it's written. I love Zhuang Zhou's free and easy wandering (and wondering) through the landscape of words and concepts. His language is so alive; he delights in - and makes light of - all aspects of existence.......

 

Mair 33:6….

 

Obscure and formless, ever transforming and inconstant. Are we alive? Are we dead? Do we coexist with heaven and earth? Do we go along with spiritual intelligence? How nebulous! where are we going? How blurred! where are we aiming? The myriad things being arrayed all around, there is none fit for us to return to—a portion of the ancient techniques of the Way lay in these practices. Chuang Chou heard of such usages and delighted in them. With absurd expressions, extravagant words, and unbounded phrases, he often gave rein to his whims but was not presumptuous and did not look at things from one angle only. Believing that all under heaven were sunk in stupidity and could not be talked to seriously, he used impromptu words for his effusive elaboration, quotations for the truth, and metaphors for breadth. Alone, he came and went with the essential spirits of heaven and earth but was not arrogant toward the myriad things. He did not scold others for being right or wrong, but abode with the mundane and the vulgar. 

 

Although his writings are exotic and convoluted, there is no harm in them; although his phraseology is irregular and bizarre, it merits reading. His fecundity is inexhaustible. Above he wanders with the creator of things, and below he is friends with those who are beyond life and death and without beginning or end. Regarding the root, he is expansive and open, profound and unrestrained; regarding the ancestor, he may be said to be attuned and ascendant. Nonetheless, in his response to evolution and in his emancipation from things, his principles are not exhaustive and his approach is not metamorphosing. How nebulous! How cryptic!—someone who has never been fully fathomed.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Yueya

[Marblehead]

 

This is one of my favourite passages in the Zhuangzi simply for my delight in the way it's written. I love Zhuang Zhou's free and easy wandering (and wondering) through the landscape of words and concepts. He's so alive and delights in the existence of all things.......

 

Yeah, based on what got this study started I expected Mair to speak to this but so far I have seen nothing except for the few words in his preface.

 

BTW  I did get the "Chaos Linguistics" but it looks like it's not going to be of much help, if any at all.

[Geof Nanto]

Yeah, based on what got this study started I expected Mair to speak to this but so far I have seen nothing except for the few words in his preface.

 

BTW  I did get the "Chaos Linguistics" but it looks like it's not going to be of much help, if any at all.

 

In the chapter of the Daoism Handbook contributed by Victor Mair, titled “The Zhuangzi and its Impact” he writes:  “Since I have already treated the literary aspects of the Zhuangzi in a series of other recent publications, in this chapter I will concentrate on the significance of the text for philosophy and religion.” 

 

I’ve not found these articles. I’d like to read them and any clues to where they may be found are most welcome.  

[Marblehead]

Maybe this is what he was referring to?

 

 

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

[Geof Nanto]

I think Zhuangzi’s easy delight in all aspects of existence is a privilege of old age. That’s how it is for me anyway (for some of the time, at least). I’ve had to work my way through material struggles, love & loss, success & failure, words and concepts, in order to build a suitable basis – a small boat, to use a Daoist image – able to float and drift in harmony with the flow of things. And the flow of things I’m referring to is not congruent with the flow of human society – for me it’s outside and beyond societal conditioning.

 

That’s the struggle – to free oneself from societal conditioning and the dominance of a personal ego. Only then do I have appropriate de to be able to spontaneously interact in harmony with the yin and yang forces of both human society and nature at large.  

[Geof Nanto]

Maybe this is what he was referring to?

 

 

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

 

Yes, he touches on the literary aspect of the Zhuangzi there, but I assume he's written in much more detail elsewhere. Those notes were written in 1994 and his reference in the Daoism Handbook comes much later. (Published 2000.) 

[Marblehead]

But then it might be something unpublished that he used for one of his classes.

 

Maybe I'll get around to doing another search, more in depth perhaps.

 

At least I did find out he is married to a Chinese.  Hehehe.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Marblehead

[Taoist Texts]

There is nothing under heaven larger than the tip of a downy hair at the end of autumn, but Mount T ' ai is small. There is no greater longevity than that of a child who dies in infancy, but Progenitor P'eng died young. Heaven and earth were born together with me and the myriad things are one with me. 

 

 

 

On these paradoxes

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/

 

5.1 The Ten Theses

 

 

Since all things are one, how can there be anything to talk about? But since I have already said that all things are one, how can there be nothing to talk about? One and speech makes two, two and one makes three. Continuing on in this fashion, even the cleverest mathematician couldn't keep up, how much less an ordinary person! Therefore, if in proceeding from nonbeing to being we arrive at three, how much farther we shall reach when proceeding from being to being. We need not proceed at all if we understand the mutual dependence of "this" and "that. "

 

Here, ZZ agrees with Hui Shi: everything is one. But he is still perplexed by a problem of defining the existent and non-existent things (abstract ideas) with words.

In the west the solution was the

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, and lex parsimoniae in Latin, which means law of parsimony) is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347)

Which does not interest ZZ, since this rule still admits the non-existent things as legitimate entities as long as they are ‘necessary’.

‘If we say that everything is one, have we defined the existent things? And if we use words to define the non-existent ones, that would start a never-ending process of ‘multiplication of entities’. (proceeding from being to being). – says ZZ.

His solution appears to state the non-existence of the non-existent things and stop there, without operating with them beyond that.