Chapter 1, Section 7(a) Concepts

[Marblehead]

Chapter 1: Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease

 

Section 7(a): Considering the good uses of many things

 

 

Concepts discussed in Chapter 1, Section 7(a) are:

 

The usefulness of the useless

 

 

 

http://oaks.nvg.org/zhuangzi1-.html

 

(Link to James Legge's translation of Chuang Tzu, Chapter 1)

[ChiDragon]

Legge's translation: The first part of Section 7(a)
Master Hui told Master Chuang, saying,

'The king of Wei sent me some seeds of a large calabash, which I sowed. The fruit, when fully grown, could contain five piculs (of anything). I used it to contain water, but it was so heavy that I could not lift it by myself. I cut it in two to make the parts into drinking vessels; but the dried shells were too wide and unstable and would not hold (the liquor); nothing but large useless things! Because of their uselessness I knocked them to pieces.'

Modern native translation:
　惠施对庄子说：“魏惠王赠送我一个大葫芦的种子，我种植它而成长，结出的果实有能容纳五石粮食那样大，用来盛水，可它的坚固程度却不能自胜。把它切开制成瓢，则瓢底大而平浅，不能容纳什么东西。这个葫芦不是不大，而我因为它没有什么用处，便把它砸碎了。”

English translation:
Master Hui told Master Chuang and said: "The king of the State of Wei had given me some seeds of a calabash as a gift. After I sow it, it becomes full grown. All the fruits were so big and each one can hold five piculs of foods. I used one to hold water but the firmness of the wall was not durable for the task. Then, I've made a ladle out of it but the bottom was too big and shallow which cannot hold much. This calabash is not because it is not big enough but it was useless. Therefore, I knocked them to pieces."

Edited September 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

What narrow-mindedness. And too, because he felt they were useless he destroyed them instead of offering them to someone else. How self-centered.

[ChiDragon]

That was only Master Wei's idea rather than ZZ's. Wait until what ZZ has to said in the second part of the section about the big tree.

Edited September 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

That was only Master Wei's idea rather than ZZ's. Wait until what ZZ has to said in the second part of the section about the big tree.

I know. But I just wanted to point those thoughts of mine out to others.

[ChiDragon]

I know. But I just wanted to point those thoughts of mine out to others.

 

You did a good thing, indeed, by reading into the story of the parable other than picking on each individual object. Thank you....!!!

Edited September 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[steve]

Legge's translation: The first part of Section 7(a)

Master Hui told Master Chuang, saying,

'The king of Wei sent me some seeds of a large calabash, which I sowed. The fruit, when fully grown, could contain five piculs (of anything). I used it to contain water, but it was so heavy that I could not lift it by myself. I cut it in two to make the parts into drinking vessels; but the dried shells were too wide and unstable and would not hold (the liquor); nothing but large useless things! Because of their uselessness I knocked them to pieces.'

 

Modern native translation:

　惠施对庄子说：“魏惠王赠送我一个大葫芦的种子，我种植它而成长，结出的果实有能容纳五石粮食那样大，用来盛水，可它的坚固程度却不能自胜。把它切开制成瓢，则瓢底大而平浅，不能容纳什么东西。这个葫芦不是不大，而我因为它没有什么用处，便把它砸碎了。”

 

English translation:

Master Hui told Master Chuang and said: "The king of the State of Wei had given me some seeds of a calabash as a gift. After I sow it, it becomes full grown. All the fruits were so big and each one can hold five piculs of foods. I used one to hold water but the firmness of the wall was not durable for the task. Then, I've made a ladle out of it but the bottom was too big and shallow which cannot hold much. This calabash is not because it is not big enough but it was useless. Therefore, I knocked them to pieces."

May I assist your English translation?

"This calabash is not because it is not big enough but it was useless."

This doesn't make grammatical sense in English.

 

Perhaps something like -

And because I have no use for it, I destroyed it.

or

And because I have no use for it, I smashed it to pieces.

[ChiDragon]

Steve,,,

Classic: 非不呺然大也
Temporal translation: 这个葫芦不是不大，而我因为它没有什么用处
How would you translate the phrase in red....??? Perhaps you need some help with the Chinese or pardon you without knowing the phrase exists.....!!!

Edited September 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[steve]

Sorry, my post was sort of senseless, let me clarify.

 

This doesn't read clearly in English:

"This calabash is not because it is not big enough but it was useless. Therefore, I knocked them to pieces."

 

I would suggest something like:

It's not that the gourd wasn't big enough, but because I have no use for it, I smashed it to pieces.

 

Calabash is an archaic term that most folks wouldn't get right away in English.

I think your meaning is correct, it's just not grammatically correct in translation.

[ChiDragon]

Sorry, my post was sort of senseless, let me clarify.

 

This doesn't read clearly in English:

"This calabash is not because it is not big enough but it was useless. Therefore, I knocked them to pieces."

 

I would suggest something like:

It's not that the gourd wasn't big enough, but because I have no use for it, I smashed it to pieces.

 

Calabash is an archaic term that most folks wouldn't get right away in English.

I think your meaning is correct, it's just not grammatically correct in translation.

 

Yes, you are correct. Sometimes, a direct translation from one language to another does sound awkward because of the non grammatical sentence structure, especially in the Chinese classic. I just have to consider myself lucky that I can come up with something for correction by an English speaker. Thank you.

 

I had "gourd" in mind too but Legge used "calabash" in his translation.

Edited September 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Stosh]

This section appears to contradict the idea that useless ness itself if advantageous . Instead it seems to suggest that there are potentials which should be actualized once recognized, indeed sought out. It. Doesnt say that useless things are always the wise ones to pursue. It also doesn't say that things are always useful because they are empty-empty, the fullness, the defined characters of the gourd may make it useful or useless. The factor determining the virtue if the item is its suitability to the situation. That situation is not negotiable , WHat is negotiable- is the way in which one responds from a given situation relative toward ones goals. The gourd has no goal to serve as either a boat or calabash nor does a calabash attempt to be a gourd.The jconverse point to this will soon be presented lest one conclude that the situation we exist in is somhow geared to fall in line with our goals. (Since the gourd does not miraculously fit into the humans plans because he was drifting around with no intent)

 

On anothrer level the guy had preconceptions which were interfering with his own welfare. He was not open to other possibilities , the calabash was not a defined thing . Calabash was boat or gord or water container. Calabash was illusion.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Stosh

[dawei]

This section appears to contradict the idea that useless ness itself if advantageous .

 

I think we are seeing more relative perspectivism; Even the previous section (selling hats and Yao's visit to the mountain) are showing us that our perceptions bias our attitude towards useful vs useless. We make judgments based how we limit. In the case of the gourd, there were certain limits or standard uses which limited Hui to seeing beyond the limits he places on things.

 

Hui and the man selling hats were caught in their own design. On the other hand, Yao overcame the limitations he was placing on himself.

[Stosh]

I had to look up relative perspectivism ..while I think I get the meaning you intend the term seems a bit redundant. There may be a better term . Though I agree we self limit because we are biased about the way we look at things.

If I read it right perspectivism, refers to an absence of objective truth , generally about moral opinions but I suppose it can extend to the objective truth of political status etc..

As a whole I see your point as reasonable. . But would be in closer accord regarding the term more narrowly . Because I think there are things objectively true but our thoughts on them can't be proven to be actually objective.. if that makes sense. For instance, there is someting which interferes with walking into the next room, but the word-thought. ( ideation?) "wall" is not an objective truth provable other than by inference and collective agreement on the meaning of "wall". But regardless of proofs , My motion is arrrested by. The thing, as would you.

[dawei]

I had to look up relative perspectivism ..while I think I get the meaning you intend the term seems a bit redundant. There may be a better term . Though I agree we self limit because we are biased about the way we look at things. If I read it right perspectivism, refers to an absence of objective truth , generally about moral opinions but I suppose it can extend to the objective truth of political status etc.. As a whole I see your point as reasonable. . But would be in closer accord regarding the term more narrowly . Because I think there are things objectively true but our thoughts on them can't be proven to be actually objective.. if that makes sense. For instance, there is someting which interferes with walking into the next room, but the word-thought. ( ideation?) "wall" is not an objective truth provable other than by inference and collective agreement on the meaning of "wall". But regardless of proofs , My motion is arrrested by. The thing, as would you.

 

I didn't see it a redundant but I now see your point; one's perspective is relative to themselves. As to things objectively true but our thoughts are not objective is a very pointed way of explaining these sections.

 

I would not of brought in 'objective truth' as I find that very hard to objectively prove except that it is usually bound within its current system. Meaning: I would bet money the sun raises tomorrow in the east [as objective truth] but if it did not then how do I interpret this? Is this a problem in the orbit of the sun-earth, a problem in physics, a problem in gravity, or simply a problem in my rule-based-bound thinking on what we think is 'objective truth'. Your idea is quite interesting to ponder.

 

If I look at the idea of 'standard' or 'rule', this is the word "Chang" which in the Laozi was used to replace "Heng". As a result, Chang took on meanings of Heng and lost its original meaning of standard. Your giving me good stuff to chew on.

[ChiDragon]

What narrow-mindedness. And too, because he felt they were useless he destroyed them instead of offering them to someone else. How self-centered.

 

Based on the given parameters, ZZ had specified that a ladle was made from a useless gourd. If it was offered to someone else, then what can one do with it....??? Do you still think that the parable is about "self-centered" or "uselessness"....???

 

Since we are following ZZ's philosophy instead of LZ, do you think he is more concern about "uselessness" or human morality....???

 

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

 

Based on the given parameters, ZZ had specified that a ladle was made from a useless gourd. If it was offered to someone else, then what can one do with it....??? Do you still think that the parable is about "self-centered" or "uselessness"....???

 

Since we are following ZZ's philosophy instead of LZ, do you think he is more concern about "uselessness" or human morality....???

 

 

 

Hehehe. You have no problem with putting me on the spot, do you?

 

It is my very biased opinion that Chuang Tzu's concerns were about usefulness, not human morality. Chuang Tzu was not a herd animal. He was an Anarchist.

 

The gourd might have been used as a boat and one could have floated down a river in it. It could have been used by someone to create a beautiful garden arrangement.

 

To destroy something that might be useful to someone else is wasteful.

 

In the area where I live there are two people who tour the area when people put trash out to see if there is anything they might be able to use. When I have someting that I no longer want to keep I will put it out early so there is time for these guys to look at what I have put out before the trash man comes to pick it up. Many times they have taken what I put out. It was useless to me but it was useful for them.

 

Again, I used the word-concept "Self-centered" for a purpose. (If it is useless to me it must be useless to everyone else.)

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. You have no problem with putting me on the spot, do you?

It is my very biased opinion that Chuang Tzu's concerns were about usefulness, not human morality.

To destroy something that might be useful to someone else is wasteful.

 

Putting one on the spot, don't you think it was a noble thing to do in studying philosophy in a subtle manner.......???

 

Since you have concluded that Chuang Tzu's concerns were about usefulness, not human morality, thus I don't think that "destroy something that might be useful to someone else is wasteful" was ZZ's concern. He just want to make the point about the "uselessness", here, from the point of view of Master Wei. In the next part of the section, ZZ will mention about the "usefulness" of a big useless tree to make Master Wei to look bad, so to speak.

 

[Marblehead]

 

Putting one on the spot, don't you think it was a noble thing to do in studying philosophy in a subtle manner.......???

Yes, it was a fair question and that is why I responded to it. I'm not bashful, you know that.

 

Since you have concluded that Chuang Tzu's concerns were about usefulness, not human morality, thus I don't think that "destroy something that might be useful to someone else is wasteful" was ZZ's concern. He just want to make the point about the "uselessness", here, from the point of view of Master Wei. In the next part of the section, ZZ will mention about the "usefulness" of a big useless tree to make Master Wei to look bad, so to speak.

 

Yes, my mind had to go further into Chuang Tzu's philosophy than just this section of the chapter in order to respond properly.

 

He continues to talk about useful/useless throughout the chapters.

 

I chuckled, because of how you phrased "... make Master Wei to look bad ..." True, Chuang Tzu didn't practice much political correctness. He said it as he saw it.

[steve]

 

Yes, you are correct. Sometimes, a direct translation from one language to another does sound awkward because of the non grammatical sentence structure, especially in the Chinese classic. I just have to consider myself lucky that I can come up with something for correction by an English speaker. Thank you.

 

I had "gourd" in mind too but Legge used "calabash" in his translation.

My pleasure, glad I could help.

 

Stosh and dawei have both hit on something here that has to do with how we look at the world.

We are designed with a specific sensory apparatus that permits and encourages us to divide the world around us up into neat little bits and pieces so that it's more approachable to our little minds. Our thought patterns are then expert at labeling these bits and pieces and filing that information away so that we don't have to continually re-evaluate everything we encounter. So we know what is good to eat, what might try to eat us, where we can sleep, who has a disease we should avoid, and so on... without having to eat something poisonous twice.

 

All of this is useful but also very limiting from a spiritual perspective. So another message I may be reading into this section is that we have an opportunity to transcend that tendency to divide and label, the very meaning of definition. Rather than divide up and slap labels on the natural world, we can open ourselves up to it. We can look at it with fresh eyes, like a child, in every instant. If we do that, we open ourselves to infinite possibilities. The gourd suddenly becomes a shovel, or a knee pad, or a bassinet. If we slap a label on it - oh, that's a calabash, I remember from last month that it's no good for carrying water, smash... next...., we kill any possibility for deeper understanding and creativity.

 

I think one of the most fundamental messages in all of Daoism is that we need to let go of our labels, our philosophy, our preconceptions, and expectations. We need to stand naked on our own two feet and look at ourselves and our surroundings with fresh eyes every moment. This is the way I was taught to approach Daoist meditation. I was given basic instructions in each technique and never given any idea of what to expect to occur. I was even told to never discuss my experiences with our students (in the beginning, at least) and I was on my own. It takes a very long time to grow in this way. There are enormous insecurities and uncertainties. But when insights come, they are absolutely real and no amount of reading or debating makes any difference or can replace that direct knowledge.

 

Anyway - maybe I'm off on a tangent and reading my own bias into Zhuangzi (as rene is so good at pointing out to me) but that's what flew through my head just now.

 

Peace

[Marblehead]

WoW! You have a lot of serious stuff flapping around in your brain!

[Stosh]

Nicely put Steve

[ChiDragon]

But when insights come, they are absolutely real and no amount of reading or debating makes any difference or can replace that direct knowledge.

Yes, a good teacher can only get one started; and the rest was by the inner-self-intuition to get to the final stage. As the fundamental basis was established, all the knowledge stay within to help to grok anything new that comes along. Indeed, it will speed up our learning process toward enlightenment.

[ChiDragon]

庄子说：“先生，原来你不善于使用大的东西！宋国有一个人善于炮制不皱手的药物，祖祖辈辈在水中从事漂洗丝絮的劳动。一位客人听到了这件事，请求以百金购 买他的药方。宋人把全家集合在一起，商量说：‘我家祖祖辈辈从事漂洗丝絮的劳动，所得到的钱很少，现在一旦卖出这个药方就可得到百金，让我们把药方卖给他 吧。’客人买得药方，用它去游说吴国的国王。一次越国发难侵吴，吴王派这个人统帅大军，冬天和越军在水上作战，大败越军，于是得到割地的封赏。能不皲手的 药方只有一个，有的用来博取封赏，有的仍然不能免于在水中漂洗丝絮的劳苦，这就是因为对药方的使用不同。现在你有五石容量的大葫芦，为什么不将它做成腰 舟，拴在腰间，借以飘浮在江湖之上，反而愁它大大无物可容呢？可见先生的心窍还是被蓬草睹塞了吧！”

Rephrased....

Master Chuang replied,

'You were indeed stupid initially not familiar in the use of what was large. There was a man of Sung who was skilful at making a salve which kept the hands from getting chapped; and (his family) for generations had made the bleaching of cocoon-silk their business. A stranger heard of it, and proposed to buy the art of the preparation for a hundred ounces of silver. The kindred all came together, and considered the proposal. "We have," said they, "been bleaching cocoon-silk for generations, and have only gained a little money. Now in one morning we can sell to this man our art for a hundred ounces; – let him have it." The stranger accordingly got it and went away with it to give counsel to the king of Wu, who was then engaged in hostilities with Yüeh. The king gave him the command of his fleet, and in the winter he had an engagement with that of Yüeh, on which he inflicted a great defeat, and was invested with a portion of territory taken from Yüeh.

The keeping the hands from getting chapped was the same in both cases; There was only one kind of medicine that would prevent the hands from getting chapped; but in the one case it led to the investiture reward of some ceded lands (of the possessor of the salve), and in the other it had only enabled its owners to continue their bleaching was inevitable to prevent the torment from their bleaching. The difference of result was owing to the different use made of the art. Now you, Sir, had calabashes large enough to hold five piculs; – why did you not think of making large bottle-gourds of them, to put them around the waist, by means of which you could have floated over rivers and lakes, instead of giving yourself the sorrow agony of finding that they were useless for holding anything. Your mind, my master, would seem to have been closed against all intelligence!'