/lit/ - Literature

King Ying of Wei made a treaty with Marquis T’ien Mou of Ch’i, but Marquis T’ien Mou violated it.9 King Ying, enraged, was about to send a man to assassinate him. Kung-sun Yen, the minister of war, heard of this and was filled with shame. “You are the ruler of a state of ten thousand chariots,” he said to the king, “and yet you would send a commoner to carry out your revenge! I beg to be given command of two hundred thousand armored troops so that I may attack him for you, make prisoners of his people, and lead away his horses and cattle. I will make him burn with anger so fierce that it will break out on his back.10 Then I will storm his capital, and when T’ien Chi 1l tries to run away, I will strike him in the back and break his spine!”

Chi Tzu, hearing this, was filled with shame and said, “If one sets out to build an eighty-foot wall, and then, when it is already seven-tenths finished, 12 deliberately pulls it down, the convict laborers who built it will look upon it as a bitter waste. Now for seven years we have not had to call out the troops, and this peace has been the foundation of your sovereignty. Kung-sun Yen is a troublemaker – his advice must not be heeded!”

Hua Tzu, hearing this, was filled with disgust and said, “He who is so quick to say `Attack Ch’i!’ is a troublemaker, and he who is so quick to say `Don’t attack Ch’i!’ is a troublemaker! And he who says that those who are for and against the attack are both troublemakers is a troublemaker, too!”

“Then what should I do?” said the ruler.

“Just try to find the Way, that’s all.”

Is the search for peace of mind really the ultimate, anons?

Why does /lit/ condemn the simple for the complex? Why does /lit/ see no value in that which is immediate, instinctual, vital? Entanglement in the abstract without a taste for that which is sensation, taste, and sound is not a fulfilling life. I see 'brainlet' thrown around a lot on here, but why do you place so much value on the intellect? Why is sense of abstraction more valuable than sense of earth, of immediate presence? It seems to me that the truly non-reflective man sees only value in falling deeper into the trap of intellectualism and the constructs of the mind. Relying solely on the mind is a snare, it cannot do without the body. They work as one, the internal serves the external, and vice versa. Relax, go outside and listen to the wind, eat some fruit, you will find something mystical and enlightening that abstractions and semantics cannot tell you.

>btfos philosophy

How did he do it?

Is he actually the final boss of philosophy?

How has he not been posted yet?

Zhuangzi is notoriously esoteric in his writings and can be downright impossible to grasp if you're not in the right intuitive setting.

What did he mean by this?

Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, “The minnows swim about so freely, following the openings wherever they take them. Such is the happiness of fish.”

Huizi said, “You are not a fish, so whence do you know the happiness of fish?”

Zhuangzi said, “You are not I, so whence do you know I don’t know the happiness of fish?”

Huizi said, “I am not you, to be sure, so I don’t know what it is to be you. But by the same token, since you are certainly not a fish, my point about your inability to know the happiness of fish stands intact.”

Zhuangzi said, “Let’s go back to the starting point. You said, ‘Whence do you know the happiness of fish?’ Since your question was premised on your knowing that I know it, I must have known it from here, up above the Hao River.”

>“Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity.”

Philosophy utterly BTFO

What is the best version/translation of Zhuangzi?

Hey, what's the deal with Chinese philosophy? I don't know what I expected, but I read a famous text by Zhuang Zhou, in which he and a friend talks about knowing what the fish in the Hao River enjoy. It made absolutely no sense to me. Is all eastern philosophy as cryptic as this? And can anyone explain the story I mentioned? Here is an English version straight out of Wikipedia.
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the dam of the Hao Waterfall when Zhuangzi said, "See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That's what fish really enjoy!"

Huizi said, "You're not a fish — how do you know what fish enjoy?"

Zhuangzi said, "You're not me, so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"

Huizi said, "I'm not you, so I certainly don't know what you know. On the other hand, you're certainly not a fish — so that still proves you don't know what fish enjoy!"

Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy — so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao."

What did he mean by this?

Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, “The minnows swim about so freely, following the openings wherever they take them. Such is the happiness of fish.”

Huizi said, “You are not a fish, so whence do you know the happiness of fish?”

Zhuangzi said, “You are not I, so whence do you know I don’t know the happiness of fish?”

Huizi said, “I am not you, to be sure, so I don’t know what it is to be you. But by the same token, since you are certainly not a fish, my point about your inability to know the happiness of fish stands intact.”

Zhuangzi said, “Let’s go back to the starting point. You said, ‘Whence do you know the happiness of fish?’ Since your question was premised on your knowing that I know it, I must have known it from here, up above the Hao River.”

Zhuangzi

Zhuangzi and Huizi were crossing the Hao River by the dam.
Zhuangzi said, "See how free the fishes leap and dart: that is their happiness."
Huizi replied, "Since you are not a fish, how do you know what makes fishes happy?"
Zhuangzi said, "Since you are not I, how can you possibly know that I do not know what makes fishes happy?"
Huizi argued, "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know, it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know what they know. The argument is complete!"
Zhuangzi said, "Wait a minute! Let us get back to the original question. What you asked me was 'How do you know what makes fishes happy?' From the terms of your question, you evidently know I know what makes fishes happy.
"I know the joy of fishes in the river through my own joy, as I go walking along the same river."

Hey, what's the deal with Chinese philosophy? I don't know what I expected, but I read a famous text by Zhuang Zhou, in which he and a friend talks about knowing what the fish in the Hao River enjoy. It made absolutely no sense to me. Is all eastern philosophy as cryptic as this? And can anyone explain the story I mentioned? Here is an English version straight out of Wikipedia.
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the dam of the Hao Waterfall when Zhuangzi said, "See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That's what fish really enjoy!"

Huizi said, "You're not a fish — how do you know what fish enjoy?"

Zhuangzi said, "You're not me, so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"

Huizi said, "I'm not you, so I certainly don't know what you know. On the other hand, you're certainly not a fish — so that still proves you don't know what fish enjoy!"

Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to your original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy — so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here beside the Hao."

Which translation of Zhuangzi (or Daode Jing for that matter) is the best? I've read good things about Watson.

"If you use what is limited to pursue what has no limit, you will be in danger"

When Zhuangzi was going to Ch' u he saw by the roadside a skull, clean and bare, but with every bone in its place. Touching it gently with his chariot-whip he bent over it and asked it saying, "Sir, was it some insatiable ambition that drove you to transgress the law and brought you to this? Was it the fall of a kingdom, the blow of an executioner's axe that brought you to this? Or had you done some shameful deed and could not face the reproaches of father and mother, of wife and child, and so were brought to this? Was it hunger and cold that brought you to this, or was it that the springs and autumns of your span had in due course carried you to this?"

Having thus addressed the skull, he put it under his head as a pillow and went to sleep. At midnight the skull appeared to him in a dream and said to him, "All that you said to me-- your glib, commonplace chatter-- is just what I should expect from a live man, showing as it does in every phrase a mind hampered by trammels from which we dead are entirely free. Would you like to hear a word or two about the dead?"

"I certainly would," said Zhuangzi.

"Among the dead," said the skull, "none is king, none is subject, there is no division of the seasons; for us the whole world is spring, the whole world is autumn. No monarch on his throne has joy greater than ours."

Zhuangzi did not believe this. "Suppose," he said, "I could get the Clerk of Destinies to make your frame anew, to clothe your bones once more with flesh and skin, send you back to father and mother, wife and child, friends and home, I do not think you would refuse."

A deep frown furrowed the skeleton's brow. "How can you imagine," it asked, "that I would cast away joy greater than that of a king on his throne, only to go back again to the toils of the living world?"

>>10135423
That was already postulated by Zhuangzi some 500 years before, even if he wasn't systematic about it.

>He whose mind is thus grandly fixed emits a Heavenly light. In him who emits this heavenly light men see the (True) man. When a man has cultivated himself (up to this point), thenceforth he remains constant in himself. When he is thus constant in himself, (what is merely) the human element will leave him, but Heaven will help him. Those whom their human element has left we call the people of Heaven. Those whom Heaven helps we call the Sons of Heaven. Those who would by learning attain to this seek for what they cannot learn. Those who would by effort attain to this, attempt what effort can never effect. Those who aim by reasoning to reach it reason where reasoning has no place. To know to stop where they cannot arrive by means of knowledge is the highest attainment. Those who cannot do this will be destroyed on the lathe of Heaven.

Hui Tzu10 said to Chuang Tzu, "The king of Wei gave me some seeds of a huge gourd. I planted them, and when they grew up, the fruit was big enough to hold five piculs. I tried using it for a water container, but it was so heavy I couldn't lift it. I split it in half to make dippers, but they were so large and unwieldy that I couldn't dip them into any thing. It's not that the gourds weren't fantastically big - but I decided they were no use and so I smashed them to pieces."

Chuang Tzu said, "You certainly are dense when it comes to using big things! In Sung there was a man who was skilled at making a salve to prevent chapped hands, and generation after generation his family made a living by bleaching silk in water. A traveler heard about the salve and offered to buy the prescription for a hundred measures of gold. The man called everyone to a family council. `For generations we've been bleaching sills and we've never made more than a few measures of gold,' he said. `Now, if we sell our secret, we can make a hundred measures in one morning. Let's let him have it!' The traveler got the salve and introduced it to the king of Wu, who was having trouble with the state of Yueh. The king put the man in charge of his troops, and that winter they fought a naval battle with the men of Yueh and gave them a bad beating.11 A portion of the conquered territory was awarded to the man as a fief. The salve had the power to prevent chapped hands in either case; but one man used it to get a fief, while the other one never got beyond silk bleaching - because they used it in different ways. Now you had a gourd big enough to hold five piculs. Why didn't you think of making it into a great tub so you could go floating around the rivers and lakes, instead of worrying because it was too big and unwieldy to dip into things! Obviously you still have a lot of underbrush in your head!"

Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu, "I have a big tree of the kind men call shu. Its trunk is too gnarled and bumpy to apply a measuring line to, its branches too bent and twisty to match up to a compass or square. You could stand it by the road and no carpenter would look at it twice. Your words, too, are big and useless, and so everyone alike spurns them!"

Chuang Tzu said, "Maybe you've never seen a wildcat or a weasel. It crouches down and hides, watching for something to come along. It leaps and races east and west, not hesitating to go high or low-until it falls into the trap and dies in the net. Then again there's the yak, big as a cloud covering the sky. It certainly knows how to be big, though it doesn't know how to catch rats. Now You have this big tree and you're distressed because it's useless. Why don't you plant it in Not-Even-Anything Village, or the field of Broad-and-Boundless, relax and do nothing by its side, or lie down for a free and easy sleep under it? Axes will never shorten its life, nothing can ever harm it. If there's no use for it, how can it come to grief or pain?"

>read common philosophy for ten years
>nothing happens
>find chuang tzu and lao tzu
>read as many translations as i can find in 3 languages
>over and over
>'nothing' happens
>finally

yes.

>Birth is not a beginning; death is not an end. There is existence without limitation; there is continuity without a starting-point. Existence without limitation is Space. Continuity without a starting point is Time. There is birth, there is death, there is issuing forth, there is entering in.

Why do people still read Bible when this is available?

>>9801090
History is written exclusively by historians. The sheer amount of unrecorded time that has passed us by is staggering. All notions of the past are conditioned by and inextricably linked to the present. History is a chain of men with spyglasses telling each other what they see. All it takes is one charlatan to turn history into a farce.

How many places have I seen through other's mouths? How much time have I spent in other's dreams?

"The men of old took all they really knew with them to the grave... what you are reading there is only the dirt they left behind"

>>9485582
good one

Probably Zhuangzi for me

This.