The Joker Chuang-Tzu

Perhaps google has a version in google books.

October 18, 2010 2:34 pm

I tend to figure that if something has been around that long it just might be interesting. Actually, I’m a bit horrified that I haven’t run across him before, given the rather in-depth approach to world literature and culture that was served up in grad school.

I love your “Jack” soliloquy. Everyone will love it. This boy, puzzled by life and rather simple in the head, is led by his trusting naïveté and some transformational magic to restore his father’s treasure.

It shows that you don’t have to be intelligent to ask the right questions.

I’ve borrowed my copy of Chuang Tzu from the library. Actually I ordered four different translations. The others were Thomas Merton (he didn’t translate, merely anthologized and made up his own translations by cannibalizing others); Herbert A Giles (1926); Thomas Cleary (1992).

In my opinion it’s only the Burton Watson translation that’s worth bothering with. He cuts through all the mists and delivers you the man in full colour and several dimensions.

To labor intellectually to make things one without knowing they are the same is called “three in the morning.” What does “three in the morning” mean?

A man who raised monkeys said he would give them three chestnuts in the morning and four in the evening. The monkeys all became angry at this. Then the man said instead he would give them four in the morning and three in the evening. Now the monkeys were all happy. There was no lack in name or reality, but the effect was joy in one case and anger in another. This too is based on assumptions.

Therefore sages harmonize right and wrong, leaving them to the balance of nature. This is called double efficiency.

Yawn. I have a project currently to translate Albert Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus There is only one English version in the world at present. It’s not an easy book. I may give some parallel translation examples here.

If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument. Galileo who held a scientific truth of great importance abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right. The truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others getting paradoxically killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions.

When I ask myself how to tell if one question is more urgent than another, my reply is “See what actions follow”. I never heard of anybody dying for the sake of the ontological argument*. Galileo set great store by scientific truth, but he let it all go without a qualm the moment it put his life in peril; and thereby did well, for his truth wasn’t worth being burnt at the stake. Who cares if the earth goes round the sun, or the other way round? The question is plainly futile. On the other hand, I see many people die because they find life not worth the living. I see others who end their lives defending ideas or illusions which give them a reason to live. What a paradox, that a reason to live should make an excellent reason to die! So I see that the meaning of life is the most urgent question we have.

* “Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone.”—Graham Oppy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Translator’s note]

Your English translation is most elegant because you write such good prose.

I usually read Chinese classics in Japanese, but a while ago, I bought one Chinese book published by Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. It was a brand new, good quality and inexpensive English translation. I think it was about 10 dollars or so. Have you seen one? As Hayden wrote, I was also surprised at first with the enormous prices like 90 dollars when searched in Amazon. So, I was pleasantly surprised when I received the product.

For the Chinese history and classics, I like the books by Kaiduka Shigeki and other old time Japanese scholars. But, it seems none of those books are translated into English. I guess it must be very expensive to initiate such translation projects. And new books are always coming up, and sometimes with a fresh new perspective or information. It’s quite exciting. “Taoism” by Imaeda Jiro is pretty new, I think. I just paged through to get some new information. It explained Kukai’s activities in China, and why he became successful. His success is obvious, but I didn’t know how he was in China. He promoted shodo which was developed side by side with Taoism and Buddhism. “Do (we pronounce like doh)” of Shodo is tao. 道　 And chado, kendo, judo, kado, koudo,　kyudo, and all those traditional Japanese arts have “do” at the end of their names because each is tao. So, Taoism is everywhere, and I see it in your blog, too, especially at the beginning: the words by Basho.

What was the Chinese book you got from the Foreign Languages Press? I remember the Foreign Languages Publishing House of the USSR – a propaganda exercise of course. I imagine their translations are of a higher quality than the signs all over Beijing prepared for the Olympics!

I accept that “do” is Japanese for the Chinese “tao” but “tao” just means Way, doesn’t it? So how can “do” imply any connection to the religion called Taoism?

My copy of Basho is the Penguin Classics edition, translated by Nobuyuki Yuasa. It says that Basho was strongly influenced by Zen Buddhist meditation and makes no mention of Taoism.

However, I know little about Japan, and whether hado, kendo, judo, kado, koudo, kyudo are considered as culturally part of Taoism. And I don’t even know what Taoism is. Wikipedia suggests three distinct things.

I let you know that I included something about Taoism in my new blog: A Taiwa by Yang Yi and Shirin Nezammafi.

There is much to be learned from how things are said.

Asking the questions may follow on; who assesses what is the right questions and for whom?

ZACL, yes, it matters a lot how things are said. And even more what questions are asked. I don’t care if anyone assesses them!