Chuang Tzu believed in God (Creator, mystic, translation, mission)

Scarlett Wampus · #1 04-12-2007, 07:45 AM

Just kidding. It seems he did play with the idea though. Here's a passage from Chapter 2 in three translations for comparison: -

If there were no 'other', there would be no 'I'. If there were no 'I', there would be nothing to apprehend the 'other'. This is near the mark, but I do not know what causes it to be so. It seems as though there is a True Ruler, but there is no evidence for Her. We may have faith in Her ability to function, but cannot see Her form.

If there were not (the views of) another, I should not have mine; if there were not I (with my views), his would be uncalled for:-- this is nearly a true statement of the case, but we do not know what it is that makes it be so. It might seem as if there would be a true Governor concerned in it, but we do not find any trace (of his presence and acting). That such a One could act so I believe; but we do not see His form.

[Of views] morning and evening we have them, and they are the means by which we live. Without them we would not exist; without us they would have nothing to take hold of. This comes close to the matter. But I do not know what makes them the way they are. It would seem as though they have some True Master, and yet I find no trace of him. He can act - that is certain. Yet I cannot see his form.

What do you make of that?

Personally I think Chuang Tzu is openly asking whether a creator God is behind everything. Finding no evidence for such a God he cannot say whether it exists or not thus he identifies it as a matter of faith. A classic Agnostic/Agnostic Theist position.

zenzero · #2 04-12-2007, 01:30 PM

Friend Scarlett,
Having not read the books the total context of the words remain unknown.
However, it appears as though at this point his mind would not yet have dropped totaolly to drop that duality. The chatters of the mind remains/visible.
The existence of the mind has to be accpted and the very mind has to be silenced to reach that state eher the mind is completely at rest/ in peace / shanti . The same words appear differnt when they are spoken in the context of the mind itself. Means to state that the very mind should be at peace/ shanti / rest.
[not sleep but awake]
Love & rgds

Scarlett Wampus · #3 04-15-2007, 07:09 AM

Zenzero I guess that's about right. Chuang Tzu examined many different perspectives available to his mind, he covered a wide spectrum. For example, sometimes his writing is clearly dealing with dual-mind, sometimes its describing the territory that teeters on the edge of non-dual mind and sometimes he comes over like a more eloquent version of Bodhidharma! I could quote you passages that would you'd immediately recognise as referring to states of high detached equanimity or passages that speak to the existentialist despair it transcends.

zenzero · #4 04-15-2007, 10:44 AM

Friend Scarlett,
Just a slight insight here.
Easter mystics know about the mind since much before the west and so so the examination as you mention by Chuang Tzu would not be from the study from the Mind perspective. Surely he would be writing all that he visualised at different stages of his life. When one reaches the ultimate then even writing in words or speaking becomes very difficult or a silent transmission is possible and so the impotance of boddhisatvas who delay the final stage to lighten some more souls through words.
The problem with human mind is that when someone states boddhisatvas immediately the mind will categories it as buddhist instead of stating it as a stage of persons who could be following any path/way where he is 99 % concious or his mind is nearly silent except to use words for others to understand other minds to catch on the thing to come to the same understanding.
However; there is no end to reading but would stress more on practice and the same is done all the time even trying and getting awareness into sleep.
Duality is there but has to be transendented, where there is no more TWO.
LOve & rgds

Scarlett Wampus · #5 04-19-2007, 07:30 AM

That's your perspective.

Mine is different although I agree with the basic idea that most of us, me included, could do with more practice and less reading. Most of us, but not all. Some could probably benefit from reading a little more.

No scratch that, most of us could. Most of us could benefit from practising and reading a little more. And taking more exercise. And eating better. And spending time with friends.

zenzero · #6 04-19-2007, 10:10 AM

Friend Scarlett,
Yes, understand what you mean.
Reading is surely required as external aids to understanding.
Agreed.
The pointer here was that what is read has to be understood from the inside. Has to be internalised to understand besides reading is a mental activity with its own pros and cons.
However this is also true that one needs to do nothing. Loa Tzu's teaching is about being totally inactive. Here the inactivity is not physical but mental. Get the mind to do nothing and evreything comes. Nature does everything.

Anything and everything is perfect. No Way is also a Way.
Love & rgds

lilithu · #7 04-23-2007, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Just kidding. It seems he did play with the idea though. Here's a passage from Chapter 2 in three translations for comparison: -

If there were no 'other', there would be no 'I'. If there were no 'I', there would be nothing to apprehend the 'other'. This is near the mark, but I do not know what causes it to be so. It seems as though there is a True Ruler, but there is no evidence for Her. We may have faith in Her ability to function, but cannot see Her form.

If there were not (the views of) another, I should not have mine; if there were not I (with my views), his would be uncalled for:-- this is nearly a true statement of the case, but we do not know what it is that makes it be so. It might seem as if there would be a true Governor concerned in it, but we do not find any trace (of his presence and acting). That such a One could act so I believe; but we do not see His form.

[Of views] morning and evening we have them, and they are the means by which we live. Without them we would not exist; without us they would have nothing to take hold of. This comes close to the matter. But I do not know what makes them the way they are. It would seem as though they have some True Master, and yet I find no trace of him. He can act - that is certain. Yet I cannot see his form.

What do you make of that?

Personally I think Chuang Tzu is openly asking whether a creator God is behind everything. Finding no evidence for such a God he cannot say whether it exists or not thus he identifies it as a matter of faith. A classic Agnostic/Agnostic Theist position.

Hi SW, namaste.

I don't think that Chuang Tse is arguing for agnosticism here, but rather non-duality. Monism doesn't make sense, for the reasons that he gives. Yet, dualism is only "near the mark" or "nearly true." Basically, if we grasp as "God" it is not there. And if we grasp at "no God" it is not there either. The only solution is to give up the grasping.