Mair 6:6

[Marblehead]

Sir Mulberry Door, Meng Sir Opposite, and Sir Lute Stretch were all three talking together.  "Who can associate in nonassociation and cooperate in noncooperation?  Who can ascend to heaven and wander with the mists, bounding through infinity, forgetting themselves in life forever and ever without end?"  The three men looked at each other and smiled.  Since there was no discord in their hearts, they became friends with each other.

After an uneventful period of time, Sir Mulberry Door died.  Before he was buried, Confucius heard about his death and sent Tzukung to participate in the funeral.  When Tzukung {{One of Confucius' disciples.  His cognomen may be interpreted as "Sir Tribute?"}} arrived, he found one of them composing a tune and the other strumming on a lute.  The song they sang along together went like this:

Alas, Mulberry Door!
Alas, Mulberry Door!
You have already returned to the true,
But we are still human, oh!

Tzukung hurried in and said, "I make bold to ask whether it is in accord with the rites to sing in the presence of the corpse.

The two men looked at each other and smiled, saying, "What does he know about the meaning of the rites?"

Tzukung went back and reported to Confucius, asking, "What kind of people are they?  They cultivate nonbeing and put physical form beyond them.  They sing in the presence of the corpse without the slightest change of expression.  There's no way I can describe them.  What kind of people are they?"

"They are people who wander beyond the spatial world," said Confucius, "while I wander within it.  Beyond and within are incompatible.  It was uncouth of me to have sent you to mourn him.  They're about to become companions of the Creator of Things, and wander in the unity of the vital breath that joins heaven and earth.  They consider life as an attached cyst, an appended tumor, and death as the bursting of a boil, the draining of an abscess.  Such being the case, what do they care about the priority of life and death?  They lodge in a common body composed of diverse elements.  They forget their inner organs and are oblivious of the senses.  Over and over turns the seamless cycle of beginning and ending.  Faraway they are, roaming beyond the dust and dirt of the mundane world, carefree in the karma of nonaction.  {{On this concept in the Bhagavad Gitd and its parallels with wuwei in the Tao Te Ching.}}  So how can they be bothered with worldly rites, merely to look good in the eyes of ordinary people!"

"Well, sir," asked Tzukung, "to which realm do you adhere?"

"I am one of heaven's condemned," said Confucius.  "Nevertheless, this is something we share in common."

"I venture to ask their secret;" said Tzukung.

"Fish delight in water," said Confucius, "and man delights in the Way.  Delighting in water, fish find adequate nourishment just by passing through their ponds.  Delighting in the Way, man's life is stabilized without ado.  Therefore, it is said, 'Fish forget themselves in the rivers and lakes; men forget themselves in the arts of the Way.'"

"I venture to ask about the oddball," said Tzukung.

"The oddball may be odd to other men, but he is a pair with heaven.  Therefore, it is said, "The villain in heaven is a gentleman among men; the gentleman among men is a villain in heaven."

Edited April 9, 2017 by Marblehead

[Taoist Texts]

Over and over turns the seamless cycle of beginning and ending. /Mair/

 

 Again and again they end and they begin, having no knowledge of first principles. /Legge/

 

Recycling again.

 

"the arts of the Way.'"

 

who abstain from eating grain, are men well versed in the art of Dao. They say e.g. that Wangzi Qiao and the like, because they did not touch grain, and lived on different food than ordinary people, had not the same length of life as ordinary people, in so far as having passed a hundred years, they transcended into another state of being, and became immortals.

[Marblehead]

Interesting how Chuang Tzu used Confucius in this section.

[dawei]

Over and over turns the seamless cycle of beginning and ending. /Mair/

 

 Again and again they end and they begin, having no knowledge of first principles. /Legge/

 

Recycling again.

 

"the arts of the Way.'"

 

who abstain from eating grain, are men well versed in the art of Dao. They say e.g. that Wangzi Qiao and the like, because they did not touch grain, and lived on different food than ordinary people, had not the same length of life as ordinary people, in so far as having passed a hundred years, they transcended into another state of being, and became immortals.

 

I've always wondered about this abstaining from grain thing (bi gu 辟谷) .  

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigu_(grain_avoidance)

 

 

Can you comment to this?  Why or what purpose or historical reason, etc ?

[Taoist Texts]

I've always wondered about this abstaining from grain thing (bi gu 辟谷) .   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigu_(grain_avoidance) Can you comment to this?  Why or what purpose or historical reason, etc ?

 

The wiki page notes with some perplexity that 

One of the striking things about the texts we have reviewed is that most of them offer very little by way of an internalist critique of grains or other everyday foods. That is, they all recommend avoiding grains and offer what they tout as superior alternatives, but on the question of precisely why grains are such inferior nourishment they have little or nothing to say.

 

 

which is because, to the ancient Chinese, the reason was self-evident. Ordinary people mostly eat grains, get sick, age and die - if you do not want to get sick, age and die, then do not eat grains. This a self-evident argument which needed not to be even mentioned by the texts.

 

The historical reasons are split between the millenarian fears and a ubiquitous desire for a life of a self-sufficient hermit, the latter persisting to this day as a rational reaction to the societal ills, both in the west and the east.

[Marblehead]

That reminded me of the forbidding of eating potatoes in Europe.  Silly myths.

[Taoist Texts]

That reminded me of the forbidding of eating potatoes in Europe.  Silly myths.

I know! I eat taters in europe all the time!

[cheya]

TT... do you avoid grains?

[Taoist Texts]

TT... do you avoid grains?

not right now, but i plan to)

[Marblehead]

not right now, but i plan to)

 

After you have died?

[Taoist Texts]

After you have died?

now that would really go against the grain

[dawei]

This section didn't seem to generate much discussion but has some oddities to me... I deeply respect Mair but am questioning his translation or at least how we interpret the meaning

 

1. You have already returned to the true, -  True what?  Just say it... true form, which includes non-form

2. Beyond and within are incompatible. - Confucian to the core... can't see past ethical junzi

3. Fish delight in water, said Confucius, "and man delights in the Way.  - Oh please... fish and people walk around with smiles all day long because they delight in water and Way ?

[Brian]

This section didn't seem to generate much discussion but has some oddities to me... I deeply respect Mair but am questioning his translation or at least how we interpret the meaning

 

1. You have already returned to the true, - True what? Just say it... true form, which includes non-form

2. Beyond and within are incompatible. - Confucian to the core... can't see past ethical junzi

3. Fish delight in water, said Confucius, "and man delights in the Way. - Oh please... fish and people walk around with smiles all day long because they delight in water and Way ?

Some people do.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Some people do.

 

 

 

Yeah, many of them live in Hawaii and ride around on the water on little pieces of board.

[morning dew]

 

The banter in this thread cracks me up.

 

On 09/04/2017 at 11:49 PM, Marblehead said:

 

"They are people who wander beyond the spatial world," said Confucius, "while I wander within it.  Beyond and within are incompatible.  It was uncouth of me to have sent you to mourn him.  They're about to become companions of the Creator of Things, and wander in the unity of the vital breath that joins heaven and earth.  They consider life as an attached cyst, an appended tumor, and death as the bursting of a boil, the draining of an abscess.  Such being the case, what do they care about the priority of life and death?  They lodge in a common body composed of diverse elements.  They forget their inner organs and are oblivious of the senses.  Over and over turns the seamless cycle of beginning and ending.  Faraway they are, roaming beyond the dust and dirt of the mundane world, carefree in the karma of nonaction.  {{On this concept in the Bhagavad Gitd and its parallels with wuwei in the Tao Te Ching.}}  So how can they be bothered with worldly rites, merely to look good in the eyes of ordinary people!"

 

 

I'm still pondering on this section and will come back to it properly. However, at first glance, the following springs to mind:

 

Whenever I see these negative kinds of 'spiritual' opinions about life/physicality expressed, I always think to myself 'Well, why don't you just end it all right now and jump off a cliff if it's all so bad?'.

Edited June 5, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, morning dew said:

 

The banter in this thread cracks me up

 

 

I'm still pondering on this section and will come back to it properly. However, at first glance the following springs to mind:

 

Whenever I see these negative kinds of opinions about life/physicality expressed, I always think to myself 'Well, why don't you just end it all right now and jump off a cliff if it's also bad?'

I will be watching for your comments.  I don't want to say anything to it at the moment for fear of influencing your thoughts.

 

[morning dew]

Just now, Marblehead said:

I will be watching for your comments.  I don't want to say anything to it at the moment for fear of influencing your thoughts.

 

 

Fair enough. It's getting late here and I need to get some sleep. I shall look forward to going over this section in more detail this week.

[morning dew]

Okay, some (more) inane ramblings:

 

1. Again with the incomprehensible translation of the names …

 

2. Confucius vs ZZ. I don't know much about Confucianism but I get the general idea that Confucius was more into universal rules, always the same in every situation, whereas ZZ was a relativist and I would imagine relied more on intuition rather than explicit rule following for following the way (wu wei). So we have a natural, intuitive response to Mulberry Door's death that confuses the rule-following Confucian disciple.

 

3.

Quote

They consider life as an attached cyst, an appended tumor, and death as the bursting of a boil, the draining of an abscess.

 

I'm still not really making much progress on this other than to suggest, best case scenario, he is saying that physical life appears like this in relation to the wonderfulness of returning to the Dao (whatever exactly this entails) and that physical life isn't actually that bad in itself. If the Dao knows best (as was suggested in an earlier section), then presumably it would have created or given rise to a physical existence which wasn't that awful?

 

4.

Quote

"Fish delight in water," said Confucius, "and man delights in the Way.  Delighting in water, fish find adequate nourishment just by passing through their ponds.  Delighting in the Way, man's life is stabilized without ado.  Therefore, it is said, 'Fish forget themselves in the rivers and lakes; men forget themselves in the arts of the Way.'"

 

This fish analogy seems a bit confused to me (or maybe it's just me that confused). I was guessing something like 'thrives' instead of 'delights' would have made more sense.

 

Looking here:

 

http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&id=2757

 

we seem to have 'zào' (?)

 

http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&char=造

 

which was translated as 'breed and grow' and 'develops'.

Edited June 8, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

Okay, some (more) inane ramblings:

Always a pleasure to attempt to reply intelligently to these questions and comments.

Quote

 

1. Again with the incomprehensible translation of the names …

I never bothered with the name.  Those are people long gone.  But I do try to grasp the concepts.

 

Quote

 

2. Confucius vs ZZ. I don't know much about Confucianism but I get the general idea that Confucius was more into universal rules, always the same in every situation, whereas ZZ was a relativist and I would imagine relied more on intuition rather than explicit rule following for following the way (wu wei). So we have a natural, intuitive response to Mulberry Door's death that confuses the rule-following Confucian disciple.

I think you have a good grasp of the difference between Confucius and Chuang Tzu.  

 

Quote

 

3.

 

I'm still not really making much progress on this other than to suggest, best case scenario, he is saying that physical life appears like this in relation to the wonderfulness of returning to the Dao (whatever exactly this entails) and that physical life isn't actually that bad in itself. If the Dao knows best (as was suggested in an earlier section), then presumably it would have created or given rise to a physical existence which wasn't that awful?

Chuang Tzu was a mystic.  He spoke often to the possibility of there being more to life than what we detect in the physical realm. 

 

Therefore, if our physical existence is only a part of our totality why make such a big deal about it?

 

Returning to the Dao is a paradox because we really never leave Dao.  It is just that while we have a physical body we spend much or most of our time with physical concerns.  What if we had no physical concerns?

 

The Dao bore us into this physical existence.  We surely shouldn't be considering our self wiser than the universe?

 

 

Quote

 

4.

 

This fish analogy seems a bit confused to me (or maybe it's just me that confused). I was guessing something like 'thrives' instead of 'delights' would have made more sense.

 

Looking here:

 

http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&id=2757

 

we seem to have 'zào' (?)

 

http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&char=造

 

which was translated as 'breed and grow' and 'develops'.

Yeah, thrives would be a better word, I suppose.  We aren't always delighted with how life is treating us, are we?

 

We and the fish have days that just plain suck.  But then, when we were born were we promised that we would be delighted our entire life?

 

[Taoist Texts]

5 hours ago, morning dew said:

This fish analogy seems a bit confused to me (or maybe it's just me that confused). I was guessing something like 'thrives' instead of 'delights' would have made more sense. Looking here: http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&id=2757

we seem to have 'zào' (?) http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&char=造 which was translated as 'breed and grow' and 'develops'.

This bit contains an antinomy which was lost in translation.

”孔子曰：“鱼相造乎水，人相造乎道。相造乎水者，穿池而养给；相造乎道者，无事而生定。故曰：鱼相忘乎江湖，人相忘乎道术。”

Fish lives together due to water, men live together due to dao (of ethical behavior).

Those who live together in water, scatter through waters to find food for themselves;

those who live together due to ethics, are only secure when they are uninvolved.

That is why it is said:

fish is uninvolved with each other in the waters; people being uninvolved with each other is the art of dao.

 

I. e people should make like fish and leave each other alone, thats the best dao.

[Stosh]

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

 

 

 

Butting in a bit here because I like you guys and figure I might get away with it...

 

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Chuang Tzu was a mystic.  He spoke often to the possibility of there being more to life than what we detect in the physical realm. 

Like,, the mental realm 

 

 

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Therefore, if our physical existence is only a part of our totality why make such a big deal about it?

Good point , so it might not be logical to presume that the goal of preservation of ones life was at the center of Daoism for him as it has been said for the shamanistic Daoists  

 

 

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Returning to the Dao is a paradox because we really never leave Dao.  It is just that while we have a physical body we spend much or most of our time with physical concerns.  What if we had no physical concerns?

 

We don't,,,,,, have physical concerns ,,,,,,,,,,,, all our concerns are mental 

 

 

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

The Dao bore us into this physical existence.  We surely shouldn't be considering our self wiser than the universe?

The dao has no brain other than can be said exists in the heads of critters , and so any critter that can be said to have wisdom is therefore wiser than a rock. 

 

19 hours ago, Marblehead said:

 

 

Yeah, thrives would be a better word, I suppose.  We aren't always delighted with how life is treating us, are we?

 

We and the fish have days that just plain suck.  But then, when we were born were we promised that we would be delighted our entire life?

See?

That's wise , and the sun shines obliviously.

 

[Marblehead]

Always nice having you in the discussions.  You sometimes cause me to think.

 

Like,, the mental realm 

 

But remember, for Chuang Tzu was is a spiritual realm as well.

 

Good point , so it might not be logical to presume that the goal of preservation of ones life was at the center of Daoism for him as it has been said for the shamanistic Daoists  

 

Tricky one here.  I think perhaps equal importance, the physical and the spiritual.

 

The dao has no brain other than can be said exists in the heads of critters , and so any critter that can be said to have wisdom is therefore wiser than a rock. 

 

Another tricky one here.  I agree with you however, there is Tzu Jan (Zi Ran).  This would be pure naturalism as opposed to possibly faulty wisdom.

 

[Stosh]

Trying to understand your worldview, whats spiritual stuff if not mental not physical , I don't see what this other realm is. 

If you are unconscious , your brain isn't online , and you have no spirituality to speak of , right? 

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

Trying to understand your worldview, whats spiritual stuff if not mental not physical , I don't see what this other realm is. 

If you are unconscious , your brain isn't online , and you have no spirituality to speak of , right? 

Best wishes at trying to figure me out.

 

The brain.  The mind of man.  Still active while sleeping.

 

Like the song says:  "I'm gonna' sleep with one eye open from now on."

 

Spirituality, to me, is more at how I honestly feel about myself than it is anything else.  Am I being natural without regret?

 

[Stosh]

I couldn't say if that fits the philosophy, as a fact, but it does seem like a valid affirming way to go about things.

Though Its just still an act of mind , as I see it.

The naturalness of animals that which we call instinct or genetic programming or the nature of that beast ,

works for that critter as a species.

I imagine they are 'happiest' or fulfilled as the being they are , when they get to live according to those motivations even when lemmings have so much social pressure they drive the perimeter lemmings right off the cliffs, its the best they can do under the circumstances. 

Humans do have propensities to come to certain sorts of conclusions , and have similar motivations , and though I wouldn't call these instinct since humans are so malleable behaviorally , Im thinking that adherence to the truth of who we become via our socialization , is something Cz would approve of as being 'natural ' virtue. 

So yes I think Cz would say you have classic virtue. But I don't think its a proven done deal that he was a mystic .. because , in his day scientific method wasn't a paradigm available , they Would  have made their cases for conclusions by empirical method, or other means, they Had to.      Just as they had to pacify the nonsensical to get along. 

Though he says some things that might appeal to a person who wants , for some reason, to have the world be rendered inexplicable.. I think he made every attempt to explain, which at the soul of it is rather different from the mysticism (despite the various actions of the 'editors of dictionaries'.)

Figuring you out would be an inappropriate assignment when you are available to answer , so you were asked , rather than send myself on a goose chase , or presume I knew what you thought better than you do.