Mair 6:5

[Marblehead]

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.

Before long, Sir Chariot fell ill.  When Sir Sacrifice went to call on him, Sir Chariot said, "Great is the Creator of Things!  She's making me all crookedy like this!"  His back was all hunched up.  On top were his five dorsal inductories.  His chin was buried in his bellybutton.  His shoulders were higher than the crown of his head.  His neck bones pointed toward the sky.  His vital yin yang breaths were all out of kilter.  Yet his mind was at ease, as though nothing were amiss.  He hobbled over to a well and looked at his reflection in the water.  "Alas!" he said.  "The Creator of Things is making me all crookedy like this!"

"Do you resent it?" asked Sir Sacrifice.

"No, why should I resent it?  Supposing that my left arm were transformed into a chicken, I would consequently go looking for a rooster that could call out the hours of the night.  Supposing that my right arm were transformed into a crossbow, I would consequently go looking for an owl to roast.  Supposing that my buttocks were transformed into wheels and my spirit into a horse, I would consequently mount upon them.  What need would I have for any other conveyance?

"Furthermore, what we attain is due to timeliness and what we lose is the result of compliance.  If we repose in timeliness and dwell in compliance, sorrow and joy cannot affect us.  This is what the ancients called 'emancipation.'  Those who are unable to win release for themselves are bound by things.  Furthermore, long has it been that things do not win out against heaven.  So why should I resent it?"

Before long, Sir Come fell ill.  Gasping and on the verge of death, he was surrounded by his wife and children who were weeping.  Sir Plow, who went to call on him, said to his family, "Shush!  Go away!  Do not disturb transformation!"  Then, leaning against the door, he spoke to Sir Come, "Great is the Transforming Creator!  What next will he make of you?  Where will he send you?  Will he turn you into a rat's liver?  Will he turn you into a bug's leg?"

"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."

Soundly he slept,
Suddenly he awoke.

[Marblehead]

Well, I'm glad that so far there are no serious arguments regarding this section.

[Taoist Texts]

well its because ZZ talks about reincarnation here, which is of little practical interest.)

[Marblehead]

well its because ZZ talks about reincarnation here, which is of little practical interest.)

 

Not reincarnation.  Recycling.  A great difference.

[Taoist Texts]

Not reincarnation.  Recycling.  

of what into what?)

[Marblehead]

of what into what?)

 

That's the Mystery, isn't it?

 

Part of my body becoming food for maggots that are eaten by the rooster which help develop its wings.

 

We can speak of the physical aspect of what was once "I" but we cannot speak of the energy aspect as far as I know.

[cold]

Transformation?

I've been a Blues brother and aspire to be a Soul man...

[Marblehead]

Transformation?

I've been a Blues brother and aspire to be a Soul man...

 

That will take a bit of transforming but it could be done.

 

A song in the Blues collection I recently got, I forget the artist, is titled " How Did That White Man Get The Blues".  The song was dedicated to Charlie Musselwhite.

[cold]

Muddy Waters always gives me the blues...

Both in fields streams, rivers.

And the musician!

[morning dew]

Not reincarnation.  Recycling.  A great difference.

 

Yeah, on a physical level he seems to be talking about recycling. On a 'spiritual' level I'm not so sure and getting a bit confused.

 

"No, why should I resent it?  Supposing that my left arm were transformed into a chicken, I would consequently go looking for a rooster that could call out the hours of the night.  Supposing that my right arm were transformed into a crossbow, I would consequently go looking for an owl to roast.  Supposing that my buttocks were transformed into wheels and my spirit into a horse, I would consequently mount upon them.  What need would I have for any other conveyance?

 

Here, does the 'I' in the first sentence refer to the same thing as the 'I' in the next few sentences? Or is he just being his usual humorous and poetic self, and 'I' refers to different things?

 

"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."

 

This is an interesting paragraph, IMO. I can understand the pointlessness of complaining about or fighting the inevitable – all part of wu wei, I assume. Where it starts getting confusing for me is that he seems to be implying The Great Clod/Great Transforming Creator seems to know best for humans, or even has some kind of benevolent nature towards them. Maybe I'm reading too much into this?

 

Even more confusing, for me, is the last bit:

 

 

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.

 

Who or what is 'I' referring to in these sentences?

 

[Taoist Texts]

Yeah, on a physical level he seems to be talking about recycling. On a 'spiritual' level I'm not so sure and getting a bit confused.

 

 

Here, does the 'I' in the first sentence refer to the same thing as the 'I' in the next few sentences?

 

Yes, to the same person.

 

 

 

 is that he seems to be implying The Great Clod/Great Transforming Creator seems to know best for humans, or even has some kind of benevolent nature towards them. 

 

Yes

 

 

Who or what is 'I' referring to in these sentences?

 

The same dying person above.

[morning dew]

Thanks, that's interesting. Do you think he's talking about recycling bits of the 'soul' as well as bits of the body? Or do you have a different interpretation to Marblehead, and think he's actually talking about reincarnation?

It was several hundred years after ZZ when internal alchemy made an appearance, if I'm remembering correctly, with the whole goal of creating an immortal 'soul', or perhaps strengthening the 'soul' so it didn't shatter on death?

 

If the The Great Clod/Great Transforming Creator knows best, do you think that's kind of a fatalist view of life? Or do you think ZZ was still in favour of aiming to live as long as possible but just not being attached to the outcome?

[Brian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?V=JfBdMXhpQnU

[Taoist Texts]

Thanks, that's interesting. Do you think he's talking about recycling bits of the 'soul' as well as bits of the body? Or do you have a different interpretation to Marblehead, and think he's actually talking about reincarnation?

 

Yes, reincarnation of his soul but in bits and pieces. In those times, the notion was that the soul could be reincarnated either as a whole, or in sentient bits and pieces. Marbles takes an exception to this view).

 

It was several hundred years after ZZ when internal alchemy made an appearance, if I'm remembering correctly, with the whole goal of creating an immortal 'soul', or perhaps strengthening the 'soul' so it didn't shatter on death?

 

Internal alchemy is a later development, that is true, but that same goal was always pursued   from the beginning of times, just by different means (dao arts, fangshi).

 

 

If the The Great Clod/Great Transforming Creator knows best, do you think that's kind of a fatalist view of life?

 

Yes.

 

Or do you think ZZ was still in favour of aiming to live as long as possible but just not being attached to the outcome?

 

Yes, as long as allotted by Heaven.

 

Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) ...

The “count” (suan) originally referred to the number of years that Heaven allotted a human being before birth.

[morning dew]

That's absolutely fascinating to read all of that and the links.

 

Internal alchemy is a later development, that is true, but that same goal was always pursued   from the beginning of times, just by different means (dao arts, fangshi).

 

Yeah, I guess it would have been a bit strange if internal alchemy and the daoist religions just suddenly sprang out of nothing.

 

Yes, as long as allotted by Heaven.

 

Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang Through Han (1250 BC-220 AD) ...

The “count” (suan) originally referred to the number of years that Heaven allotted a human being before birth.

 

Ah, okay. An actual human person would have no idea what their count was, so they would still carry on trying to preserve/extend life as long as possible? They wouldn't assume just because they got ill that it was their time to die and not do anything about it?

 

"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."

 

Do we have any opinions on this? Is this some kind of philosophical proposition about having a big picture view of reality? Or is there some kind of practice or internal alchemical meaning encoded into this? Or both?

Edited April 11, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

 

Do we have any opinions on this? Is this some kind of philosophical proposition about having a big picture view of reality? Or is there some kind of practice or internal alchemical meaning encoded into this? Or both?

I'm trying to remain silent during this discussion you two are having.  Any comment from me would likely be out of place.

[morning dew]

I'm trying to remain silent during this discussion you two are having.  Any comment from me would likely be out of place.

 

Doesn't bother me, personally.

 

I don't really have an opinion on (the) ZZ, so I'm happy to entertain all perspectives even if they contradict each other. I seem to remember you're not a fan of internal alchemy interpretations from earlier sections?

[Marblehead]

I seem to remember you're not a fan of internal alchemy interpretations from earlier sections?

That's why I'm keeping silent.  But I do stay up with who is saying what in the Daoist sub-forums.  (I am, afterall, a steward of those sections.)

 

I even made peace with Flowing Hands.

[Taoist Texts]

Ah, okay. An actual human person would have no idea what their count was, 

Except resorting to divination, which was quite common. 

 

They wouldn't assume just because they got ill that it was their time to die and not do anything about it?

 

 

No, they would not)

 

Do we have any opinions on this? Is this some kind of philosophical proposition about having a big picture view of reality? Or is there some kind of practice or internal alchemical meaning encoded into this? Or both?

 

The sheer magnitude of this proposition makes it to be both.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Taoist Texts

[morning dew]

That's why I'm keeping silent.  But I do stay up with who is saying what in the Daoist sub-forums.  (I am, afterall, a steward of those sections.)

 

I even made peace with Flowing Hands.

 

Fair enough. I should say my goal (apart from having a fun, interesting discussion) with the ZZ is to find information that is practical and useful to me. I'm very results orientated. I'm not a historian. I don't really have an axe to grind as to what ZZ was actually thinking when he (or other people) wrote this, or if he even existed, etc. It's why I'm always happy to hear other people's perspectives.

[morning dew]

Except resorting to divination, which was quite common.

 

Ah, yes, good point; I forgot about divination.

 

The sheer magnitude of this proposition makes it to be both.

 

 

Yeah, I'm still trying to get my head round what it means. Do you think there's a kind of energetic Jing > Qi > Shen process implied here?

[Marblehead]

Fair enough. I should say my goal (apart from having a fun, interesting discussion) with the ZZ is to find information that is practical and useful to me. I'm very results orientated. I'm not a historian. I don't really have an axe to grind as to what ZZ was actually thinking when he (or other people) wrote this, or if he even existed, etc. It's why I'm always happy to hear other people's perspectives.

 

Oh, I do express my opinions and understandings on an irregular basis.  It's just that sometimes when two people are engaged in a constructive discussion I just feel it better for me to remain silent.

[Taoist Texts]

Yeah, I'm still trying to get my head round what it means. Do you think there's a kind of energetic Jing > Qi > Shen process implied here?

Affirmative)

[morning dew]

Okay, good discussion for this bit.

 

I think I've run out of things to say for the time being apart from a last comment about people's names. I've noticed Mair seems to be giving translations for them whereas Watson doesn't. I find this can be helpful sometimes, although sometimes I'm not quite sure why people are called the names they are.

[dawei]

"Furthermore, what we attain is due to timeliness and what we lose is the result of compliance.  If we repose in timeliness and dwell in compliance, sorrow and joy cannot affect us.  This is what the ancients called 'emancipation.'  Those who are unable to win release for themselves are bound by things.  Furthermore, long has it been that things do not win out against heaven.  So why should I resent it?"

 

When I see this kind of line, in bold, it tends to say it is a very old saying.   I'd like to see the chinese for this as the follow up lines talk about being 'bound by things'.   And wondering if there is some historical thought on this.  Prior to their time, what emancipation would be alluded to here ?