/lit/ - Literature

Confucius say man who fall in vat of molten glass make spectacle of self.

>was neetchan 2000 years before neetchan
>completely BTFO hacks like plato without even knowing him
>butterflies
>fucking sage mode
I literally do not understand why this based chinaman is not widely read here

>>11458795
I did and it a roundabout way it lead me back to the truth of God.

no

>>11458803
How did he btfo plato?

>>11458795
no

>>11458803
because all chinese philosophies boil down to "being = nothingness, now you know the secret so there's no point in further questioning so don't rock the boat and continue acting in your role as worker ant so that the colony may expand"

>>11458799
love the way that zhuangzi spent more or less the entire book calling confucious a pseud and blowing him the fuck out

>>11458803
>>11458795
Why must one choose one or the other when all these things with which they agree?

>>11458803
I see Chuang Tzu memed almost as much as Lao Tzu here

>>11458820
This view of Chinese philosophy as motivated by a herd-mentality is the most bugman thing I’ve ever read and the funniest misconception because it’s 180 degrees wrong. It’s a literal liberation from ordinary ways of thought and feeling, a way to a blissful life and freedom from societal norms and the herd-instinct, and you can only see it as “lol just be chill and accept ur place.” How stupid and chauvinistic are you?

>>11458823
this

>>11458992
Good. Most people have never heard of it and the Daodejing is shilled everywhere despite it not being nearly as good.

>>11459027
From what I've read of Zhuangzi this seems true.
But the conception obviously comes from the fact that modern Chinese society clearly exhibits a high degree of hivemind. So either it has roots in Chinese philosophy (usually Confucian) or modern Chinese society is completely cut off from their philosophical tradition (which makes the claim that "Westerners just dun get it" seem even more precarious). Genuine question: which is it?

>>11459210
>read of Zhuangzi
just read him.

yes, Chinese society is, to an extent, very cut off from traditional philosophy. Mao destroyed unknowable amounts of non-communist thought when he took power. look into it.

besides, you could easily argue that christians don't follow the teachings of Jesus (re: tolstoy) but that's a 'no true Scotsman'.

the zhuangzi is one of the most beautiful and unique books ever written. it is 100% about individualism and finding yourself and becoming like water and acceptance and thinking outside of the box. if that can be translated to "no point in further questioning" you're tone deaf and have no experience in life.

>>11459210
>>11459249
additionally, it seems like you haven't read a damn word of Confucius either, I disagree with confucian thought but I still find it to be relevant and inspirational to those who need discipline, and has nothing to do with "not rocking the boat", it's about becoming a real adult who has principles and convictions.

>>11459210
also, you have a simplistic (and frankly, racist) view of China that I think you've put maybe four Wikipedia articles worth of thought into. think before you speak. idiot

>>11459249
>>11459262
>>11459267
These are very good posts.

>>11459249
>zhuangzi is based because he helps you figure out how to live
good job, let me know when he discovers metaphysics

>>11459280
>t. brainlet

It's literally the Dao.

>>11459027
This, the bugman soultype of the mongoloid is a posterior attribute of early developments in chinese philosophy, not the other way around

Best translation of the Zhuangzi?

>>11459414
Wouldn't say this is the "best" as a technical translation but I really enjoy this version. He really understands and appreciates the message and articulates it very well.

>>11459429
That sounds like what I'm after.

>>11458805
Is that book any good? Its concept sounds interesting.

>>11459429
I have several different translations and this is my favourite one

>>11458795
I started reading it yesterday actually, and so far I'm loving it. Even though I loved the Tao Te Jing, this book blows it out of the water.

>>11458805
>>11459474
Seconding this poster. Is Christ The Eternal Tao any good?
Seems like it was written by the disciple of Seraphim Rose. Thanks.

>>11458972
Wow I seriously never thought I'd see Powys mentioned on /lit/. Are you a fan of his novels?

>>11458795
CHING CHONG CHANG

>>11460049
>>>/lgbt/
I think you missclicked bud.

>>11459027
then why has there not been a single modern chinaman who fits that ideal? Why have they whored themselves out quicker than literally any other people to both communism and capitalism?

>>11458795

>mfw plebs reading babby's first eastern thought have been spamming basic bitch texts like Zhuangzi

Take the Siribhoovalaya pill

>>11459210
The answer is that the only asiatics who had a soul crossed over the Bering sea land bridge during the last ice age in search of wild game and adventure.

>>11460230
You can't compare indian and Chinese philosophy. Indians are people, if at times unhygienic people, but still humans with normal human thoughts and emotions. This is why Hinduism hasn't become the abomination that Buddhism became when it crossed into China.

>>11459027
This only really fits Zhuangzi and to an extent, Laozi. Zhuangzi was the real radical thinker of the East.

>>11459280
>let me know when he discovers metaphysics
Do you even know what zhuangzian daoism is?

>>11460230
>Siribhoovalaya
literally the 2deep4u of eastern philosophical texts - it doesn't hold a candle to chuangzi

>>11460222
There is some evidence the early "Chinese" philosophers weren't Chinese at all.

sorry nag, those pills sound like they have to be manufactured by some artifice. if they dont come out spontaneously in nature they sure are useless to nourish life.

>>11460454
I agree. You don't unfuck yourself from civilisation with more civilisation.

>>11460323
I posted that as a joke but for real though Zhuangzi doesn't hold a candle to Shankara

>>11458805
Woke

>>11459414
AC Graham's translation

>>11460550
>Zhuangzi doesn't hold a candle to Shankara
Why do you think this? Elaborate. Shankara is good, but i find the epistemological perspectivism of Zhuangzi to be more sophisticated.

>>11460230
>eastern thought
There's no such thing as "Eastern thought", ancient India and ancient Greece have more in common than ancient India and China.

>>11459210
Zhuangzi style daoism has never been the mainstream of any society anywhere, and it couldn't be - Zhuangzi is about escapist individualism. It's about how to survive in an oppresive world which you have no hope of changing.

This is why it would appeal to neet otakus.

Confucianism taken as a whole is not conformist, but it does have conformist strands which can be used as slogans by authoritarians.

The late 19th century Chinese reformer Tan Sitong believed that since the unification of China under the Qin, for 2000 years China had never had true Confucian government. He believed that for 2000 years the guiding principles of Chinese government were Qin style Legalism. Tan Sitong blamed Xunzi for corrupting Confucianism with Legalism.

The common formulation is that traditional Chinese government was Legalistic in essence with a Confucian wrapping 儒表法里.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)

>>11460623
I don't really have anything to add, just wanted to say that I agree with this post and thanks for putting the effort into writing it.

>>11460623
>escapist
Wrong.

>>11460222
Why is there not a single modern Westerner who lives up to the ideal of Socrates?

>>11458795
where to start?

>>11460387
redpill me on this

>>11458820
this is true of Confucius and legalism, but while Taoism is antithetical to political thinking, especially of the partisan kind communist memelords advocate under the banner of class warfare, it is not conformist or collectivist either.

Alright, I'll bite:

give me one meaningful Zhuangzi paragraph. Just quote it here so we can see this smart Chinese philosophy because all I've seen are third rate sophisms saying nothing, going nowhere.

>>11458795

>>11460566
And I like Zhuangzi, but I consider Shankara to be better IMO for several reasons. He was a much more prolific writer, he wrote many thousands of pages of texts during the course of his short life. He wrote amazing commentaries that brilliantly explain the core Hindu texts, and he also wrote a very impressive series of philosophical/metaphysical treatises explaining the doctrine and certain aspects of it which are valuable works in their own right, not to mention he was also a poet and composed many devotional poems. Very little is known about Zhuangzi, he is basically a myth like Lao Tzu, albeit one probably based on a real person. It's hard to compare their lives because of this although I consider it a mark of excellence that Shankara became a Sannyasa at age 8 and remained one until death, it is only the truly exceptional that are capable of this. I don't doubt that Zhuangzi lived what he preached but living a rustic life as a learned man in some village I don't think compares to spending your whole life homeless and possionless for the purpose of fully realizing and actualizing the Absolute (although to be fair there wasn't really a culture that allowed for this to be done practically in China).

Shankara had a very penetrating mind that allowed him to explain in a clear and revelatory manner some of the most subtle and esoteric concepts in all of eastern philosophy, while remaining a bliss-inducing and transcendental reading experience without being dull or pedantic. He was incredibly adept at using all sorts of methods to clearly explain the doctrine, using all sorts of metaphors, analogies, describing it through negation, comparison, symbolism etc. He was also good at directly describing the fundamental truth of things in a concise and lucid way. Zhuangzi doesn't have that but is almost entirely metaphors, symbolism and so forth, Shankara does both extensively. Like Zhuangzi he is sometimes humorous too and contrary to the perception of Advaita as being sterile and indifferent his more in depth commentaries and especially his poems reveal a deep empathy for his fellow human beings and a wish to help them be liberated.

>>11460566
>>11461356

I also see Shankara as better balancing the individual and collective, the personal and cultural. He helped draw out the implications of the texts to explain in a consistent way how one could have a society that allowed the maximum amount of people capable of it to attain liberation while still maintaining a functioning and wholesome traditional society. He confirmed and explained as correct the theological and metaphysical basis for things like the caste system and the 4 ashramas while explaining how the texts provide different avenues of liberation to anyone at any stage. Out of any major figure in eastern thought he best resolved the contradiction of the individualistic path of realization and maintaining a traditional society.

I love daoism but almost everything important in it can also be found in certain portions of a few Hindu texts, the huge library of Hindu texts and even just Vedanta deal with these issues and many others at a way more deeper level and in more detail. I don't think Zhuangzi can even be compared to the Sruti texts and by extension one can't really compare Shankara's commentray works on them to Zhuangzi but insofar as individual non-commentary works composed all or mostly by one person I'd concede that the Zhuangzi is as good as Shankara's standalone non-commentary works like Upadesasahari and Vivekchudamani but when you take his body of works as a whole in my mind it's unquestionably of more value than the Zhuangzi.

>>11460895
Eastern philosophy shows, for some reason, a greater tendency towards emotion, intuition, and sensation. Western philosophy is much more removed from these and much more about strict rationality. Zhuangzhi, in fact, repeatedly makes fun of strict rationality, over-rationality, quibbling about fine semantic points, philosophers who don’t know how to live a good life, and so on. He (or rather, the collection of writers who wrote the stuff besides the inner chapters — but it’s easier to just say Zhuangzhi for convenience’s sake) thus makes Confucians and similar scholars the target of his satire very often in the work. Even if you’re not yourself a Confucian, you would probably be satirized as a Confucian in the work, and Zhuangzhi or some other sage in the book, laughing, would respond, “Yes, I am saying nothing and I am going nowhere.”

This isn’t a mere passivity but a joyous appreciation of life. The examples of the dedicated craftsmen — the meatcarver, archer, and whittlers — in it show this. They are very active and practical but are joyful and free in how they do their work. They let “the spirit” take over as they do it. Spontaneous, free-flowing, not forced but still very talented. This can be (and has been) compared with the modern psychologist Csikzentmihalyi’s concept of “flow”, a blissful state of mind we all seek for when we’re doing something not so easy as to be mind-numbing and not so hard as to be impossible — the state that an artist seeks in the midst of creation, an athlete in the midst of a sport, a public speaker while speaking, a writer while writing, etc. In this ideal state, you’re almost effortlessly doing something very hard because you’ve trained a lot to do it. You have to train to do it, but you also have to “let go” to an intuitive self which knows and can do better, because trying to hard both ruins it and makes it joyless. Zhuangzhi’s idea is roughly that by developing a mindful, spontaneous, non-discriminative attention, we can have this mindset much more of the time. This precisely requires giving up your excessive reliance on discriminative intellection and being capable of relying more on sensation and intuition. It’s a way of freedom from your own fascism which makes your life dull and one-sided. Another important idea he has is that by not being so obsessed with victory and defeat, the results of our actions, and instead viewing what we do as worthy in itself, paying attention to what we do as we do it, we can similarly have a much more joyful mindset.

This is why the sage in Zhuangzhi is said to be someone who “cannot be hurt by water or fire” and hyperbolically said to be immortal, capable of flying, etc. It’s symbolic of how, since the sage has resigned all ideas of winning and losing, they effectively win at everything — they learn from winning and failing alike, and are not unnecessarily exultant when they win or despairing when they fail.

>>11460623
>true Confucianism has never been tried

>>11461441
>Eastern philosophy shows, for some reason, a greater tendency towards emotion, intuition, and sensation.

Stopped reading right there.

>for some reason

lol

>>11461356
>Shankara was a more prolific writer
Zhuangzi wasn't a writer. He debatably didn't even exist. The text entitled Zhuangzi is a composite of fables and anecdotes collected by various groups over centuries from like 4th to 1st centuries BCE. Shankara is from the 8th century CE, it's a completely different period of history.

>>11460895
>>11461441
(cont.)
The error you’re making is that you’re basically saying, “Show me the value in this different worldview — but wait, it has to have MY value.” It’s like a sculptor saying, “Show me the aesthetic merit in music — but in terms of sculpting. What? You can’t describe Beethoven’s Fifth in terms of sculpting? It doesn’t fit into those categories at all? Than it’s bullshit.”

The emphasis on rationality is the same. You’re expecting from Daoism something it’s not giving or claiming to give. You may say, “Gee, if Eastern philosophy like Daoism is so good, where’s all the technological development? Here in the West we’ve developed the scientific method and vaccines and TV and so on.” Yes, but are we any happier, more self-fulfilled, do we have a purpose in our lives? Or you may say, “Western philosophy is much more rational, has logical arguments and gives serious conclusions about the nature of the self, time, space, ethics, the existence of God, etc.” Daoist philosophy doesn’t necessarily extend to all this, but it’s not trying to. It’s something worthy in itself.

>Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman – how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming, too. Words like these will be labeled the Supreme Swindle

>>11461464
Ok. Why did you stop reading?

>>11461441
>Eastern philosophy shows
THERE IS NO EASTERN PHILOSOPHY, INDIA HAS MORE IN COMMON WITH EUROPE THAN WITH CHINA

>>11461458
Yep, there is that parallel with Marxism.

>>11461497
You can’t deny that Hinduism, Daoism, and Buddhism and their respective philosophical traditions are much more mystical and less strictly rational than the Western philosophical tradition. I was using a well-established quick figure of speech, of course you can discount it with specific examples and quibbling about semantics. Typical Western mindset, not capable of a quick bit of holistic thought.

Ok I am interested, which one should I start with/buy?
I waa looking at the complete zhuangzi by burton since ive seen it recommended but is 60 dollaedoos
Is this one fine?>>11459429

>>11461505
No, Indian philosophy, including Buddhist and 'Hindu' traditions have a highly developed logical tradition. Chinese philosophy, with some minor exceptions, doesn't, mainly because the structure of old Chinese doesn't facilitate such thought.

Sanskrit is perfect for logical reasoning - and the Indians made full use of it.

>>11461550
>structure of old Chinese doesn't facilitate such thought.
>muh sapir worf

>>11460895
>third rate sophisms saying nothing, going nowhere.

im not sure youre gonna find anything in it,if you read it in that mindset.

>>11461550
Logical reasoning based on mystical axioms — that the atman is Brahman, significantly. Buddhism I’ll admit does have a very subtle and developed logical tradition (contrary to Western views) but it’s intimately linked with stressing the importance of meditation, a practice based more on sensation and direct perception of truths than discursive logic. Of course logic has its place, and sometimes even a heavy one, in Eastern philosophy. However, I think it’s more intimately linked with sensation, emotion, and intuition than in Western philosophy, where there seems to be the ideal of a purely rational mind which reasons and reasons until it can apprehend truth, set off from such “illogical weaknesses” as those of sensation, intuition, emotion etc.

>>11461441
>reliance on discriminative intellection and being capable of relying more on sensation and intuition
My problem with this on a personal level is that whenever I try to do this I always end up fucking up and doing something stupid. I need my "fascism" is order to function properly and succeed in any way shape or form. Your response to this would be, I imagine, "you need to stop caring about succeeding at all" but why the fuck would I or anyone else want to do that?

>>11461550
>Sanskrit is perfect for logical reasoning
this is the biggest meme in poo circles and is completely unfounded

>>11461581
>>11461550
Oh yeah, and another thing is also yogic practices from India — the emphasis there also on meditation, as well as breathing exercises, and taking various physical postures.

>>11461597
No, my response would be not to get rid of your intellect altogether, just put it in its proper place. All these Daoist and Buddhist sages and so on can talk about attaining a state of “no-mind” but they clearly still use their rationality in living practically day-to-day.

>>11461612
verb conjucation with a wide range of tenses and moods, syntactic parentheses..

Ancient Chinese has none of these.

Of course most European languages also have these features because they are related to sanskrit.

>>11461652
>European languages also have these features because they are related to sanskrit.
They didn't inherit these features from Sanskrit though, we simply share a common ancestor

>>11460698
There are though. At least in that you get many, many whites who are closer to socrates than a single chinaman is to Zhuangzi

>>11458805
what does the chinese stuff say around the edges?

>>11461631
>just put it in its proper place
Which is where?

>>11461726
I don’t fucking know.

>>11461734
Kek

>start reading shankara
>can't fap anymore
What the fuck? Why would I rather read some old dead cunt than jerk my 2 incher to jezebels?

>>11461495
Non-argumentation setting up the paragraph. Introducing 'emotion' without attempt at defining it.

Can I just jump right in or is there a good starting book for chinkthink?

>>11458795
I think you mean shugazi

>>11461985
So what you're saying is you're not actually interested in philosophy at all, you just want to play wordgames and mindlessly spout about logical fallacies you don't understand so you can feel smug.

>>11462087
Philosophy is about arguments. Sophistry was denounced by Greeks way before Socrates was a thing.

>>11462087
>Understand philosophy

The more you understand philosophy, the further you'll be from conceiving alternatives, you'll only be able to compartmentalize the thoughts of other people without having come to any conclusions yourself or understanding how they got there, a true pseud.

Philosophy lives in the mind of the anti-intellectuals, we're just really drawn to theories that sound reasonable, like a commodity to be bought and sold.

>>11462210
if your selfhood is so weak it gets drowned out by reading the expressions of other you would probably make some gay ass philosophy anyway lmao

>>11458795
>lmao what if there was like this huge fish lol!
Yeah great philosophy guys.

(this post was ironic, I actually quite enjoy chuang tsu)

>>11458795
/lit/ is so awful now, i like chuangzi, thank you for spreading the good news about butterflies fren

>>11461521
Just read that one and see how you like it.

>>11461581
The reason western philosophy has this duality between intuition and rationality is because of Plato or more specifically his attempt to make sense of Parmenides. Two thousand years of our best minds tackling the greatest problems from an extremely narrow angle.

A very big shame.

>>11461521
Thomas Merton is great. You can always collect more expensive translations later on if you enjoy it enough. I have 5.

>>11460387
what did he mean by this..

>>11464306
We know that the Vedas were handed down from foreign people from a colder reigion who spoke a different language (The evidence points to Indo-Aryan). In China, there are a number of mythical "founders" of civilisation who had brought with them great wisdom (Pic related is one of many European looking mummies found in China from this period), that was then passed on for many generations and preserved within the I Ching and especially in the doctrines of Confucianism (Which set out to preserve these teachings more than anything else). It is claimed in several myths that Laozi brought his knowledge from the west. There are a number of books on these theories, unforunately many of them are out of print.

Of course there is a lot of censoring and silencing of this issue because it could be considered incredibly damaging to cultural identity.

>>11464349
Pure bullshit. Maybe consider posting on /x/ instead faggot.

>>11464349
hmmm big if possibly true, where can I learn more about this. legit interested and I don't give a shit about whose culture is best or not I just really like history.

whats the best translation?

>>11464349
WE

WUZ

DA SOURCE OF EASTERN WISDOMZ