Mair 6:2

[morning dew]

Yeah, I get the impression (so far) that he's not really into proselytising or fixing/saving people, but also that he's not into going and living in a cave in the middle of nowhere by himself. For example, we have the following in section 6:5:

 

Sir Sacrifice, Sir Chariot, Sir Plow and Sir Come were all four talking together.  "Whoever can take nonbeing as his head, life as his spine, and death as his buttocks, whoever knows the oneness of life and death, of existence and nonexistence, we shall be his friends."  The four men looked at each other and smiled.  Since there was no discord in their hearts, they became friends with each other.

 

Here there seems to be an implication that friendship is a natural and 'good' process, unless I'm reading too much into it.

Edited April 21, 2017 by morning dew

[dawei]

Yeah, I get the impression (so far) that he's not really into proselytising or fixing/saving people, but also that he's not into going and living in a cave in the middle of nowhere by himself. For example, we have the following in section 6:5:

 

 

Here there seems to be an implication that friendship is a natural and 'good' process, unless I'm reading too much into it.

 

Except what he called 'friends' were anatomy parts and it suggests a metaphor as they became friends.   

 

ZZ is the ultimate tease... what is really a 'friend' ?   A label ?

 

They became friends over the idea that they agree? 

 

I should look at the chinese as I'm just quickly commenting on the quote.

[morning dew]

Except what he called 'friends' were anatomy parts and it suggests a metaphor as they became friends.   

 

ZZ is the ultimate tease... what is really a 'friend' ?   A label ?

 

They became friends over the idea that they agree? 

 

I should look at the chinese as I'm just quickly commenting on the quote.

 

Yeah, he certainly is the ultimate tease; I think he would find it quite amusing if he could see us struggling to work out what he wrote.

 

Yeah, I kind of thought along the lines of friendship being a process, a kind of harmony achieved when everybody is functioning in the same way or going towards the same goal.

 

The names of all these people confuse me, though. I wondered if they were symbolic of a single organism, but didn't know what they all meant because I can't read the original in Chinese. What would all these names (Sir Sacrifice, Sir Chariot, Sir Plow and Sir Come) refer to?

[Marblehead]

 

The names of all these people confuse me, though. I wondered if they were symbolic of a single organism, but didn't know what they all meant because I can't read the original in Chinese. What would all these names (Sir Sacrifice, Sir Chariot, Sir Plow and Sir Come) refer to?

 

That was a curiosity for me too when I first started reading Mair's translation.  There may have been some significance but likely has been lost over time.

[morning dew]

That was a curiosity for me too when I first started reading Mair's translation.  There may have been some significance but likely has been lost over time.

 

Yeah, it's unfortunate, IMO. I can't believe ZZ and co. would miss an opportunity to add another layer by not using names of some significance; I would have thought they were just too smart and crafty to pass it up.

 

Do we have any thoughts from people who can translate the original Chinese?

 

I think I found it here:

 

http://ctext.org/zhuangzi/great-and-most-honoured-master#n2756

 

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by morning dew

[Taoist Texts]

That was a curiosity for me too when I first started reading Mair's translation.  There may have been some significance but likely has been lost over time.

The names are allegorical, reflecting the role of the character in the parable. Unfortunately their meaning is mostly lost on the translator, let alone on the reader. E.g in 6:5

 

Sir Sacrifice, Sir Chariot, Sir Plow and Sir Come

 

 

the last one is not a 'Sir Come' at all, but rather an idiom meaning 'to come obediently or willingly as a child"

 

hence the line in 6:5

 

"The relationship of parents to a child," said Sir Come, "is such that he simply follows their commands, no matter which direction they may point him.  .."

[morning dew]

Aha! That's fascinating

 

So these are actually four physically different human beings becoming friends? That is, ZZ is in favour of socialising when there is harmony and isn't into being a hermit/recluse? Or are we talking about a single physical human being playing these four roles in, or to achieve, harmony?

[Taoist Texts]

ZZ has nothing against good company, thats certain.

The characters allegorically represent different attitudes and roles taken by humanity towards the great transition.

In this parable the two characters 子舆 Ziyu  and 子来  Zilai, fall ill. Ziyu is literally "The multitude"  that's why he envisages being turned into numerous bits and pieces. Zilai goes willingly, just as his name says.

 

子祀 Zisi and Zili子犁  come to visit them. The name of Zisi  is 'the sacrifice to the dead' , he is personifying the common attitude towards the departed.  Zili is  an old man 'blackened (by his old  age)'  hence he keeps his cool.

[morning dew]

This is outstanding.

 

I had a couple of questions and comments on this, but I was wondering if I was beginning to wander too freely with ease. Shall I post them in here or go back to 6:5?

Edited April 23, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

 

I had a couple of questions and comments on this, but I was wondering if I was beginning to wander too freely with ease. Shall I post them in here or go back to 6:5?

 

I think either way would be fine.  Here if it is more convenient.

[morning dew]

Sir Sacrifice, Sir Chariot, Sir Plow and Sir Come were all four talking together.  "Whoever can take nonbeing as his head, life as his spine, and death as his buttocks, whoever knows the oneness of life and death, of existence and nonexistence, we shall be his friends."  The four men looked at each other and smiled.  Since there was no discord in their hearts, they became friends with each other.

Okay, so one possible interpretation could be as below?

 

If we practice internal alchemy (jing > chi > shen > immortal fetus?), then we are going to realise or naturally do the following four:

 

1. Zili (blackened, by his old age) – by not wasting jing and transmuting it, we are actually going to get to old-age and in a healthy state.

2. Zisi (the sacrifice to dead) – by understanding their survival of personality after death, we make sacrifices to help the dead transition? Or is this more acknowledging ancestors and even realising we may contain (bits of) our previous existence/incarnation?

3. Ziyu (the multitude) – we understand we are composed of bits and pieces, both physically and energetically, and that it's possible to stop the 'soul' from shattering on death.

4. Zilai (to come obediently/willingly as a child) – we start to understand the setup of reality or natural processes are in our best interests and things go smoother if we follow internal alchemy. Also, physical death isn't such a big deal if we can earn another go.

 

I'm not really sure if this makes sense; I'm just rambling a little here.

 

Also, I'd be interested to see a non-internal-alchemy interpretation of this paragraph now that we have some understanding of the names of the people. Could we achieve 1 – 4 through just a philosophical understanding of things like wu-wei and Zen's/S.Suzuki's 'big mind' perspective (if I've understood it right)?

Edited April 29, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

My only comment is that I consider physical death pretty serious.

[morning dew]

My only comment is that I consider physical death pretty serious.

 

In what way or how do you consider it serious?

[Marblehead]

In what way or how do you consider it serious?

 

Fair question.  I am a physicalist.  (Couldn't use the term materialist here.) 

 

For me, physical death is the end of "my" awareness.  No more "me".  I know of nothing after death except for what we can observe through looking at the processes of nature.

[dawei]

Fair question.  I am a physicalist.  (Couldn't use the term materialist here.) 

 

For me, physical death is the end of "my" awareness.  No more "me".  I know of nothing after death except for what we can observe through looking at the processes of nature.

 

How do you know that your current knowing/awareness isn't due to a previous life and death?  As you neither prove nor disprove it, it remains at least a part of potential awareness. 

 

If someone never dreamed in their life, and you tried to explain what dreaming was... they would just say, I have no idea what your talking about but it sounds like your dreaming to me.   That double meaning would be exactly correct; a complete denial of a truth.   Our issue is that our mental boundaries and borders define what we tend to think and believe to a large degree.  If we could get outside of that, or let go of that...  

[Marblehead]

You have posed a valid argument.  But I can't argue with it because as I have stated before, the Mystery is a mystery.  I guess that is why it is called Mystery.

 

Potential:  Beautiful concept.  What is not possible today may become possible tomorrow.

 

I cannot say "absolute" there will be no "me" after death.  It is just that from my observations of the processes of nature when I die what was me will become something else with no link to what was.

 

Many people speak of otherwise processes.  I have seen none that are provable or verifiable.

 

But I do allow all Buddhists to reincarnate and all Christians to go to either Heaven or hell.

 

We Atheists just have to do the best we can with what we have now or with the potential we presently have.

[morning dew]

Fair question.  I am a physicalist.  (Couldn't use the term materialist here.) 

 

For me, physical death is the end of "my" awareness.  No more "me".  I know of nothing after death except for what we can observe through looking at the processes of nature.

 

Thanks Yeah, materialism is long outdated anyway, IMO; physicalism is a more accurate term these days.

 

Okay, that's fair enough. My query with the two perspectives (physicalism vs internal alchemy) for that particular quote is that it doesn't seem to make that much sense from a physicalist perspective.

 

If there is no more awareness after death, why would we be making sacrifices to the dead (unless, perhaps, for some kind of psychological closure?)?

 

Also, why would we think the setup of reality or natural processes is in our best interests and that the 'Dao' cares about us and that we should come obediently/willingly as a child if we, again, adopt a physicalist perspective? At least if we have the opportunity to have another go, life might make some kind of sense (perhaps, we are given the opportunity to explore reality in every kind of permutation and experience and existence); otherwise, we seem to be left with a kind of Christian 'God has a plan'/'God knows best' explanation for all the misery and suffering in the world.

Edited May 2, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

Heavy reply.  I will speak a little to it.

Thanks Yeah, materialism is long outdated anyway, IMO; physicalism is a more accurate term these days.

 

I still use my "materialist" label at times.  "Physicalist" is just more descriptive in this kind of discussion.

 

Okay, that's fair enough. My query with the two perspectives (physicalism vs internal alchemy) for that particular quote is that it doesn't seem to make that much sense from a physicalist perspective.

 

Exactly.  My perspective is worthless for anyone who believes in any form of life after death

 

If there is no more awareness after death, why would we be making sacrifices to the dead (unless, perhaps, for some kind of psychological closure?)?

 

All that kind of stuff is for us, not for those who have departed.

 

Also, why would we think the setup of reality or natural processes is in our best interests and that the 'Dao' cares about us and that we should come obediently/willingly as a child if we, again, adopt a physicalist perspective? At least if we have the opportunity to have another go, life might make some kind of sense (perhaps, we are given the opportunity to explore reality in every kind of permutation and experience and existence); otherwise, we seem to be left with a kind of Christian 'God has a plan'/'God knows best' explanation for all the misery and suffering in the world.

 

The Way of Dao is inhumane (Chapter 5, TTC).  There is no caring here; only the doing of the processes.  There's no purpose, sorry.  But there is the doing.  And beautiful experiences can be had.  And we have a brain that is capable of remembering and recalling the good times.  I think that's enough.

[dawei]

Heavy reply.  I will speak a little to it.

 

The Way of Dao is inhumane (Chapter 5, TTC).  There is no caring here; only the doing of the processes.  There's no purpose, sorry.  But there is the doing.

 

In an expression, Ziran; self-so-doing.  "There is no purpose" could be linguistically correct but the "directive" behind what occurs is Ziran.   And then someone will bring up "De" as the "power".   And we get tangled in their mixed contributions but I think you know better than most this... so I think that's enough

[Marblehead]

Yeah, you know I have no fear of speaking about Tzujan (Ziran). 

 

I never could argue against the translation of "De" to "Power".  "The Way and its Power."

 

But then I still like De being translated as "Virtue", but this must not be associated with human virtue but rather with the "Way of Dao".

[morning dew]

I still use my "materialist" label at times.  "Physicalist" is just more descriptive in this kind of discussion.

 

Actually, looking here, maybe 'materialism' isn't such an outdated term:

 

Some philosophers suggest that ‘physicalism’ is distinct from ‘materialism’ for a reason quite unrelated to the one emphasized by Neurath and Carnap. As the name suggests, materialists historically held that everything was matter — where matter was conceived as “an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist” (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). But physics itself has shown that not everything is matter in this sense; for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Lange 1865, Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983). So it is tempting to use ‘physicalism’ to distance oneself from what seems a historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences. However, while physicalism is certainly unusual among metaphysical doctrines in being associated with a commitment both to the sciences and to a particular branch of science, namely physics, it is not clear that this is a good reason for calling it ‘physicalism’ rather than ‘materialism.’ For one thing, many contemporary physicalists do in fact use the word ‘materialism’ to describe their doctrine (e.g. Smart 1963). Moreover, while ‘physicalism’ is no doubt related to ‘physics’ it is also related to ‘physical object’ and this in turn is very closely connected with ‘material object’, and via that, with ‘matter.’

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#Ter

 

Exactly.  My perspective is worthless for anyone who believes in any form of life after death

 

Well, that's fair enough. I free-float, so I entertain all sorts of perspectives at times, depending on what I'm trying to achieve.

 

All that kind of stuff is for us, not for those who have departed.

 

Also a fair enough perspective. Personally, I'm not a fan of following ritual and tradition (unless it serves some practical purpose), although I'd be curious to know if there were shamans/priests, acting as psychopomps, who did rites for the dead to help them transition/go wherever they were 'meant to' go.

 

The Way of Dao is inhumane (Chapter 5, TTC).  There is no caring here; only the doing of the processes.

 

Well, this is what I thought, but I was getting confused with the translation. For example, at the end of section 6:5, it kind of reads to me as if the Dao does care or at least knows better than we do (perhaps, I'm not interpreting it correctly?):

 

"The relationship of parents to a child," said Sir Come, "is such that he simply follows their commands, no matter which direction they may point him.  The relationship of yin and yang to a man is no less important than that of parents to a child.  If they urge me to die and I resist, that is my ill-temper.  What fault of theirs is it?  The Great Clod burdens me with form, toils me through life, eases me in old age, rests me in death.  Thus, that which makes my life good is also that which makes my death good.  Now, the Great Smelter casts his metal.  If the metal were to jump up and say, 'You must make me into Excalibur!' {{The text has "Moyeh," name of a famous ancient Chinese sword.}} the Great Smelter would certainly think that it was inauspicious metal.  Now if I, who have chanced to take on human form, were to say, 'Man!  I must remain a man!' the Great Transforming Creator would certainly think that I am an inauspicious man.  Now, once I accept heaven and earth as the Great Forge, and the Transforming Creator as the Great Smelter, I'm willing to go wherever they send me."

 

 

  There's no purpose, sorry.

 

No need to apologise. I can't think of anything worse than life having a fixed purpose, because autonomy is probably my highest value; in fact, even if we could determine the meaning of life, I'd probably still be doing my own thing if I didn't like it.

 

  But there is the doing.  And beautiful experiences can be had.  And we have a brain that is capable of remembering and recalling the good times.  I think that's enough.

 

Yeah, there's plenty there to make life worthwhile, IMO. And if there's something afterwards, I'll deal with it when I get to it. Right now I'm more focused on mundane things, such as health and making a living – I wasn't planning on creating an immortal fetus in the immediate future.

 

 

[Marblehead]

I still use my "materialist" label at times.  "Physicalist" is just more descriptive in this kind of discussion.

 

Actually, looking here, maybe 'materialism' isn't such an outdated term:

 

Generally, if I don't anticipate being kicked about because of "wu" (Mystery, potential) I will use "materialist".  "Wu" is a concept I do hold to.

 

 

Exactly.  My perspective is worthless for anyone who believes in any form of life after death

 

Well, that's fair enough. I free-float, so I entertain all sorts of perspectives at times, depending on what I'm trying to achieve.

 

Flexibility is good.

 

All that kind of stuff is for us, not for those who have departed.

 

Also a fair enough perspective. Personally, I'm not a fan of following ritual and tradition (unless it serves some practical purpose), although I'd be curious to know if there were shamans/priests, acting as psychopomps, who did rites for the dead to help them transition/go wherever they were 'meant to' go.

 

I hear you.  I'm an Anarchist (not an angry one).  I suppose all religions have some sort of passing rituals from the living to the transition (death).

 

The Way of Dao is inhumane (Chapter 5, TTC).  There is no caring here; only the doing of the processes.

 

Well, this is what I thought, but I was getting confused with the translation. For example, at the end of section 6:5, it kind of reads to me as if the Dao does care or at least knows better than we do (perhaps, I'm not interpreting it correctly?):

 

You are doing fine.  Remember, Chuang Tzu was a mystic.  It is almost a given that he felt Dao is benevolent.

 

  There's no purpose, sorry.

 

No need to apologise. I can't think of anything worse than life having a fixed purpose, because autonomy is probably my highest value; in fact, even if we could determine the meaning of life, I'd probably still be doing my own thing if I didn't like it.

 

Yeah, I like surprises.  Not so much some of the negative ones, one which I experienced today.  I do like your perspective.

 

  But there is the doing.  And beautiful experiences can be had.  And we have a brain that is capable of remembering and recalling the good times.  I think that's enough.

 

Yeah, there's plenty there to make life worthwhile, IMO. And if there's something afterwards, I'll deal with it when I get to it. Right now I'm more focused on mundane things, such as health and making a living – I wasn't planning on creating an immortal fetus in the immediate future.

 

Yeah, we still have to chop wood and carry water, don't we?

[rene]

Yeah, you know I have no fear of speaking about Tzujan (Ziran).

 

I never could argue against the translation of "De" to "Power". "The Way and its Power."

 

But then I still like De being translated as "Virtue", but this must not be associated with human virtue but rather with the "Way of Dao".

The "Way of Dao" (Dao's Way) IS power. Nothing but, imo. Nothing is more powerful than when it manifests its own nature. Again, imo.

[Marblehead]

The "Way of Dao" (Dao's Way) IS power. Nothing but, imo. Nothing is more powerful than when it manifests its own nature. Again, imo.

 

Yep.  And then there is Nietzsche's "Will To Power" that has much influence with me.

[dawei]

The "Way of Dao" (Dao's Way) IS power. Nothing but, imo. Nothing is more powerful than when it manifests its own nature. Again, imo.

 

I recall we both like 'efficacious' but Power just seems.. well...more powerful a statement