wandelaar Posted November 4, 2018 (edited) Is there a purely linguistic way to recognize those parts of the Chuang tzu that are not meant to be taken literally? This is relevant because the danger of considering anything as a flight of fantasy that doesn't immediately make sense, is that one misses part of the lessons contained in the Chuang tzu. Â Edited November 4, 2018 by wandelaar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted November 4, 2018 I doubt that Chuang tzu would have cared about making that kind of distinction. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 4, 2018 I have defined Chuang Tzu as a mystic. I suppose fantasy is part of mysticism.  I don't know of any clearly defined way of discriminating between his fiction and non-fiction.  But then, for me, it's all about the concepts anyway. Grasp the concepts and forget the words.  2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldDog Posted November 5, 2018 The words of Chuang tzu ... or any other writer for that matter ... are expressions of understanding that are meant to invoke thought. Many linguistic devices are used. Sorting them out and deriving meaning from them is the task for each receiving mind. If they were all explicite then there would be no room ... or need ... for discussion. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandelaar Posted November 5, 2018 Yes - the ambiguity could be deliberate. I keep forgetting that precise formulations aren't universally appreciated. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted November 6, 2018 Anything spoken by characters other than Chuang himself should be considered suspect.  Since he is willing to have them speak for themselves their opinion , even if he thinks its philosophically wrong like the dao of  Confucius or Robber Chih. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites