dawei

But I assume you do not include Liezi in this, even though he was mentioned as a Spirit (although not complete)? Agreed. I think that there is some form of transformation which ZZ wants to present about Yao; It may be that the 4 Confucian virtues is 'incomplete' and he comes to realize this. Not sure if that is what you are getting at.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I said and meant. I am not talking about doubt vs belief. I only said I was 'open' to it; what it may mean. I commented on how I would stay 'open' to a Confucian connection on the other issue. I am not just gong to close my mind for the sake of 'fairy tale'. I don't have to believe them in order to try and understand the connection it is meant to convey.

Well, I could of done that... I was interested in your interpretation of the issues you mentioned

I am not sure I agree. I do agree with the three parts you show below for that section and the associations (ie: that Spirit-like reference is Liezi); but spirit-like Liezi was still dependent on something (there was still something for which he had to wait) and ZZ follows with a clear contrast: But suppose one who mounts on (the ether of) heaven and earth in its normal operation, and drives along the six elemental energies of the changing (seasons), thus enjoying himself in the illimitable - what has he to wait for? Thus, Liezi is not the sage and is not the spirit-like one at Gu Ye. This latter one is is the third type of man: The Sage who did not eat any of the five grains, but inhaled the wind and drank the dew. At first, I did not like the idea of 'grounded' since I see it more like 'arriving'; the strictest understanding of the character though would be to arrive or be in the ground. I can see why Legge choose Perfect to show the ascension in a honorific sense: 1. Perfect to 2. Spiritual to 3. Sage But I actually like the picture of the ascension as: 1. Grounded (Having boundaries; all the stories of limited vision and distinction; this and that; Kun) to 2. Spirited (skyward; ascending beyond boundaries like Kun-Peng; but may also be a picture of what Yao is going through by going to see the Four Masters) to the 3. Sagely (who is without boundaries; One who mounts the ether of Heaven and Earth; Peng).

So indulge us

Ok, based on Lienshan's interesting quote I remain open to a Confucian connection. But wonder if Song is the origin of the dunce cap idea, and if ZZ wants to relate it to Confucius he is possibly calling him a dunce. I remain open on this issue too so I don't lose any possible meaning. It is talked about in various ancient texts; almost like, why do so many ancient countries talk of Dragons yet we consider them fairy tales. But my exposure to Qigong and Shengong and reading of Tibetan magic leaves me willing to read such 'fairy tales' to see if there is something deeper or true coming out of it.

Ok... here is the reference to the hat-salesman... I don't see this as in anyway linked to Confucius; it is only linked to Yao. It shows what he is going through.

Ah... neither this nor that... The dual path... the equal fashioning of heaven... When we keep it simple it is indeed simple !

The problem with this is two fold: 1. Confucius is not from Song but from Lu, although he traveled to Song... I don't think it was to sell hats but he was clearly trying to sell himself. He was proverbially speaking a man without a country-state. 2. Song was anciently considered a state of dunces; Think wearing a dunce cap in the corner. The Shang dynasty leftovers lived there, so the Zhou may of had some ill-remarks for them.

Although there is discussion prior to this (quoted below) about a particularly 'spirit-life' one at this same mountain; do you interpret that as one specific ethic or what? I think that your style of thinking was wearing off on me as I started to think about the Yellow Emperor's Four Classics... I need to keep myself in better check BTW: 藐姑射之山 is in Liezi as 姑射山

Can you comment in the applicable thread/section and quote the passage? I don't know where this is.

Most definitely ! Their history is one of isolationism; they define freedom as 'free from outside rule'... which leaves only one set of people the rulers can fear: Their own people It should really come as no surprise that such a historical atmosphere produces a nation of 'followers' instead of free thinkers. Not that I am trying to degrade the former as somehow bad and the latter as the ideal. What works in the east does not work in the west; and what works in the west does not work in the east. Both sides will inevitably have their 'spin doctors' and their 'dog and pony show' for the masses.

IMO, this is nothing that unusual per se; the CCP tried to destroy anything of traditional value (including daoism and confucianism) to only turn around years later to embrace certain aspects of them. I do think it is more like a chess game where the central government wants to control what works or doesn't work for them in relation to their desire for 'social harmony'. I don't see any type of moral decline; I often feel this is just a western view of china; they have a long history of few laws which can promote an 'anything goes attitude' and keeps people from getting involved in which we might think is the 'good thing to do'. The 2 year old girl issue is more complicated than just because of the rulers, it's history; people almost have a fear to help others. I think their challenges are driven by western influence and how to keep the younger generation 'toeing the line'. The one child policy already changed some dynamics of the 'family' which has been the core cohesion in history; remember the government sees themself as part of this 'family' and they want to maintain that image. They control over the internet is well known; control over TV is equally present but the fact is they still have much more openness on some of these issues than the west (ie: the few laws that exist leave wide gaps for other stuff). I just think it is the CCP playing their next card.

Pulling in the perineum on inhale is doing "Reverse Breathing". It is pulled in on each inhale. It is more like 'winking' it and relaxing it. I would also consult one of his books which talks about the breath methods in more detail and see if it isn't more clear for you but as was said a teacher/guide is the safest method. If you do something wrong you won't know how to undo it yourself.

That doesn't sit well with me because it is describing transformation not definition.

I quoted ZZ. I already said as much as you concerning the monkey's. But ZZ is using the monkey's to show something about Dao; Dao makes no distinction, has no boundary, does not define by "this or that", etc. The point is not that Dao compromises both sides but that Dao has no sides. This is the source of the Sage's view of life. This is repeated over and over. Just read the previous sections again.

Just to clarify: The 'scolding' issue is concerning Lienshan's "scolding dove"... I think the word is better translated as "reprove". Unless you are associating the dove with yourself as part of your new understanding of ZZ ?

interesting but check your source. The Yellow Emperor ruled 15 years and then went to understand the Dao... but he ruled after that as well.

Speaking of Ziran and chapter 25... Here is an interesting read by James Wang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong http://www.confuchina.com/05%20zongjiao/Lao%20Zi's%20Concept%20of%20Zi%20Ran.htm Maybe it is what we styled as 'Dao'...

I have a problem with the typical translation of the opening: Legge: The sagely man does not occupy himself with worldly affairs. He does not put himself in the way of what is profitable, nor try to avoid what is hurtful; he has no pleasure in seeking (for anything from any one); he does not care to be found in (any established) Way; he speaks without speaking; he does not speak when he speaks; thus finding his enjoyment outside the dust and dirt (of the world)." The Master considered all this to be a shoreless flow of mere words, and I consider it to describe the course of the Mysterious Way Mair: that the sage does not involve himself in worldly affairs. He does not go after gain, nor does he avoid harm. He does not take pleasure in seeking, nor does he get bogged down in formalistic ways. He speaks without saying anything; he says something without speaking. Instead, he wanders beyond the dust of the mundane world. Confucius thinks this is a vague description of the sage, but I think that it is the working of the wondrous Way. Yutang: 'The true Sage pays no heed to worldly affairs. He neither seeks gain nor avoids injury. He asks nothing at the hands of man and does not adhere to rigid rules of conduct. Sometimes he says something without speaking and sometimes he speaks without saying anything. And so he roams beyond the limits of this mundane world. 'These,' commented Confucius, 'are futile fantasies.' But to me they are the embodiment of the most wonderful Tao. Burton: I have heard Confucius say that the sage does not work at anything, does not pursue profit, does not dodge harm, does not enjoy being sought after, does not follow the Way, says nothing yet says something, says something yet says nothing, and wanders beyond the dust and grime. Confucius himself regarded these as wild and flippant words, though I believe they describe the working of the mysterious Way. --- IMO, Confucius would NOT say this; all that he taught seems to suggest he would say the opposite. The traditional versions above make Confucius sound like a Daoist but then why would ZZ say he is wrong? I finally found a translation which makes sense to me. Eno: I have heard it from the Master that he regarded as wild and excessive teachings that hold that the Sage does not strive towards any goal, does not pursue benefit or evade harm, takes no pleasure is seeking for things and does not stick to the Dao; that when he is silent he is speaking and when he is speaking he is silent, and that he roams beyond the world of dust. But I regard these as the practice of the marvelous Dao. Now this makes complete sense: In this version, Confucius sees such thinking as "wild and excessive" which is what we would expect of him concerning the idea to 'not strive towards any goal'. It seems the construction of the sentence depends on where you put these words in translation; in this final construction, although these words are at the end of the sentence the translator sees them as belonging to the description of Confucius thought about the Sage. In the end, this is continuing the previous sections which seem to really call for 'relativism' over judgement; non-distinction of this and that. Here it goes further by saying it is all just a dream. It doesn't sound like basic philosophy but how to approach it without leaving philosophy behind?

If this is confession time I am reading ZZ through for the very first time here. It is actually tough to not know what he says in later chapters to help explain the earlier ones... but I am glad this is the venue to share some understanding of him. But I already replied to the idea of 'scolding'... wrong word in context; you don't scold someone while laughing. IMO, you can smile and mock or reprove someone. I don't need a later chapter to explain this to me But I think that Lienshan's idea(s) is worth pursuing if not here then in another thread

Not sure exactly what you are arguing here. I said very clearly and openly that I do not think Dao is the "Great One". You are using other phrases which I did not use so I don't know your simple position relative to Dao and the Tai Yi Sheng Shui use of "Great One". As to Ziran (I prefer the modern pinyin over the outdated Wades-Giles notation), I hold it is a property ascribed as Dao's standard/rule/pattern (from DDJ 25). IMO, Dao is the all-encompassing pattern which occurs through various properties like Ziran but Dao is NOT everything; that makes it a thing. IMO, Dao is a part of something more whole; it is the process part... To be very honest, One can't get there from philosophy alone... so I don't see that we can discuss it further without leaving philosophy behind. There is so much more going on but stay penned up in philosophy and you cannot see or experience it.

There is a passage in Chapter 1 about Jian Wu-Lian Shu and the mounting the Qi of the clouds and "that by the concentration of his spirit-like powers he could save men from disease and pestilence". This is not philosophy.... but nobody wants to talk about it since it is outside of the realm of empirical understanding (ie: source Fa). But this is "Root Fa" for medical connection of the Six Qi. IMO, if you establish Root and Source you then have the last one, Use. But what ZZ wants to do is not establish the judgement of these but the interconnection of these (that is the underlying theme, IMO). This may be why Sima Qian said the Daoist [school] took the best of each idea [among the Ru, Mozi, etc]. Long time ago I theorized the idea of Root Fa as fundamental to chinese thinking; now I see Mozi has coined it. TO me, this is usually a part of their arguments since Dao is the Root Process. The Source is whether we observe the root today. ZZ talks of the Wildcat as the Source Fa. (The speaking animals are Root Fa, IMO, Historical is root) Now to the idea of the Great One. I already stated my opinion that Dao is not the Great One but you have not really defined what it is for you. I tend to see chapter 1 as closer to defining the Great Way... the process of life. There is repeated examples of how life is lived; why things go the way they go. To your Scolding Quail, from here? 斥鴳笑之曰 This means: "A Quail reprovingly laughed, saying:" Why do the animals talk in the text? I think this is the essence of his point of no-boundaries. Animals have thought and why do we make this distinct from speech? What is the difference between big and small? Only those who judge make this distinction. THis is what ZZ argues against doing but Mozi says you must make the judgement to get to the Three Fa.

When Descartes said, "I think therefore I am"... the existentialist Sartre rightly improved on it as: "I think therefore I am a thinking thing"... but this is not about either, IMO... it is regurgitating the same message over and over; If you distinguish this or that, you place boundaries on it. (Dao has no concept of this or that and therefore has not boundary). ZZ then subtlety mocks the Confucian ideas of Ren and Yi as confused (without true discrimination) and then moves outside of philosophical ideas of riding on the Qi of clouds... so that is where we cannot talk anymore

It is not about the buyer's nor the inventor's side ; It is NOT this and it is NOT that. If you pick a side then you fall into boundaries. There is no "rolodex" since it is just a 'name'... sometimes discussions fall into boundaries of what can be said or not said, and then we can know there is no seeing clearly even though the boundary is set fast in front of everyone else's eyes