On Why I Never Assume the Existence of Value: Original Translation of Zhuangtsu's Work

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

My Translation:
Time it was for the deluge of autumn, with afflux of hundreds of streams into the Yellow River. So enormous the flow, that among banks and islets, one cannot tell the figures of oxen and horses. Thus feeling complacent the god of river, took the finest scenery as having converged to him from all over the world. Moving east alongside the flow, he arrived at the Bohai Gulf, but looking toward the east, he saw no bound of the water. Thus restrained the elation on his face, and the god of river turned to the god of sea and sighed: “Thus spake the wild idiom ‘one having heard many parables would think of nobody as comparable to him or her’ - and so was exactly I. Once I heard about someone who would scorn the knowledge of Confucius and the integrity of Bo Yi. In the beginning, I believed not. Now I have witnessed your endlessness, though. If otherwise, I’d be on the edge of predicament, constantly derided by those who know the principles (Tao).”

The god of sea replied: “The frog underneath the well speaks not of the sea, due to the constraint of space; the bug of summer speaks not of the ice, due to the limitation of time; the swain speaks not of philosophy (Tao), due to the inadequacy of education. Now that you have departed from the banks of the river and spectated the ocean, you have known your shame, and can be talked to of grander theories. Of all the water around the globe, non is greater than the sea; hither embraces the return tens of thousands of streams which know not when to pause, yet the sea never overflows; the outflow continues through the exit which knows not when to stop, yet the downstream never empties; not fluctuating through seasons, nor knowing whether there is flood or drought. The volume of such has exceeded that of the rivers and brooks so much, that no magnitude is available for the calculation. Yet I never took that for pride, for I attained my figure from the physical world, while my spirit from Yin and Yang, that I being in the midst of the universe is analogous to pebbles and bushes to the mountains. Aware that I’ve seen little, how could I be complacent? Aren’t the five oceans counted in the universe as tiny caves in big swamps? Isn’t the central China region counted in the globe as a grain of rice in the rice barn? Tens of thousands is the magnitude for numerating objects, while merely one place among which humans take. Humans have spread across the globe, to wherever grow grains and pass vehicles, yet merely a fraction of that place every human takes. Isn’t human to the sum of objects as a single strand of hair to the whole torso of the horse? As much as have the five emperors succeeded the throne, have the three kings struggled for power, have the benevolent worried about, have the talented contributed - they are all but so. Bo Yi forfeited his throne in exchange for his reputation, while Confucius harangued to flaunt his erudition - did they not vaunt themselves, as if you vaunted the rise of water?
-- Zhuangtsu, The Autum Water

Original Chinese Text:
秋水時至，百川灌河；涇流之大，兩涘渚崖之間不辯牛馬。於是焉河伯欣然自喜，以天下之美為盡在己。順流而東行，至於北海，東面而視，不見水端。於是焉河伯始旋其面目，望洋向若而歎曰：「野語有之曰，『聞道百，以為莫己若』者，我之謂也。且夫我嘗聞少仲尼之聞而輕伯夷之義者，始吾弗信；今我睹子之難窮也，吾非至於子之門則殆矣，吾長見笑於大方之家。」
北海若曰：「井蛙不可以語於海者，拘於虛也；夏蟲不可以語於冰者，篤於時也；曲士不可以語於道者，束於教也。今爾出於崖涘，觀於大海，乃知爾丑，爾將可與語大理矣。天下之水，莫大於海，萬川歸之，不知何時止而不盈；尾閭洩之，不知何時已而不虛；春秋不變，水旱不知。此其過江河之流，不可為量數。而吾未嘗以此自多者，自以比形於天地而受氣於陰陽，吾在於天地之間，猶小石小木之在大山也。方存乎見少，又奚以自多！計四海之在天地之間也，不似礨空之在大澤乎？計中國之在海內，不似稊米之在大倉乎？號物之數謂之萬，人處一焉；人卒九州，谷食之所生，舟車之所通，人處一焉；此其比萬物也，不似豪末之在於馬體乎？五帝之所連，三王之所爭，仁人之所憂，任士之所勞，盡此矣！伯夷辭之以為名，仲尼語之以為博，此其自多也；不似爾向之自多於水乎？」

javi2541997

↪D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Interesting text indeed and thanks for your translation. I like Taoism so for me is welcome bringing up on the table some debates related.
I defend value depends on derivative orders because two kind of arguments:

1. We can type here a correlation about Nirvana in Buddhism. Along all the text it flows the sense that we have to aim to the “simple” or “one”. It is so related to nature and Nirvana.

The Buddha is even said to have discovered that Salvation, or Nirvâṇa, ("Extinction"), is nevertheless simply living "normal human life... doing normal human things" — Nirvana.

2. Coming up to Taoism itself. Lao Tse used to wrote an important doctrine about “emptiness” and “simplicity”. Most of his analects are so related to nature, wisdom, peace, etc... as pillar of how to build a properly life. This reminds me of verse XI:

Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room
Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality — Tao Te Ching

It is true that Lao Tse is so free of interpretation. But Derek Lin says the following argument that I consider is related to your text:

When we cut open a wall to make space for windows and doors, we notice that it is these openings that make the room truly useful to us. If such openings did not exist, we would have no way of accessing the room!
Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness. — Derek Lin Tao

T Clark

↪D2OTSSUMMERBUG

I can't judge the accuracy of your translation, but it is very graceful. As for your poll question - In my view, values are human, not universal. Is that what you mean by "derivative of order(s)?"

unenlightened

It is always interesting to see a fresh translation of such Daoist classics. But I don't quite know what I would be voting for - can you explain what 'derivative of orders' means? I would not say that anything at all exists independently, but always things have existence and value in relation to each other.

'Value' is a strange term that slides from the moral, to the personal, to the mathematical. Mathematical evaluation and physical measurement is always a relating of one thing to another - the object to the weight or the ruler or whatever, and what goes there goes also to any human and moral evaluation. But these things are perfectly real and by no means arbitrary. So I am inclined to say that values have just as much or as little existence as anything else.

TheMadFool

↪D2OTSSUMMERBUG

I didn't have to read the whole text to realize that a good writer was at work. Kudos to you!

I suppose you meant to get some feedback on the quality of the translation but if the clarity of the message and the way it was worded is any indication, I give you 9.9/10. Excelente!

The message :point: Cosmic Perspective!

I couldn't be wrong, right? After all, it's about perspective. I dunno! :chin:

TheMadFool

Value — unenlightened

@Wayfarer
Hey unenlightened. I want to run something by you if you don't mind. I've been thinking about value recently and here's what I think is happening.

Take yourself for example. For a thief, your wallet is of value. For a patient with renal faliure, your kidneys are of value. For a barber, your hair (not your pubic hair :grin: ) is of value and so on. For someone who's not a thief, not a kidney patient, not a barber, you're valueless

Since you're unenlightened, I'd like to steer this discussion into Buddhist territory. What does valueless actually mean? If a thief finds out you're not carrying your wallet, you're basically nothing (valueless) to the thief. If you're bald, the same is true, you're nothing (valuless) to the barber and so on. Reminds me of sunyata - the Buddha, enlightened, gazes at the world around - from treasures of kings to the begging bowls of paupers - and observes that all are valuless/nothing/sunyata.

By the way, I recall a discussion betwixt you and me on value many suns ago. Do you have any memory of that? If you do recollect, even if only bits and pieces, do post it in a reply. If you wish that is.

unenlightened

↪TheMadFool

Since we're doing the Chuang Tzu thing here...

A certain carpenter Shih was travelling to the Ch'i State. On reaching Shady Circle, he saw a sacred li tree in the temple to the God of Earth. It was so large that its shade could cover a herd of several thousand cattle. It was a hundred spans in girth, towering up eighty feet over the hilltop, before it branched out. A dozen boats could be cut out of it. Crowds stood gazing at it, but the carpenter took no notice, and went on his way without even casting a look behind. His apprentice however took a good look at it, and when he caught up with his master, said, "Ever since I have handled an adze in your service, I have never seen such a splendid piece of timber. How was it that you, Master, did not care to stop and look at it?"

"Forget about it. It's not worth talking about," replied his master. "It's good for nothing. Made into a boat, it would sink; into a coffin, it would rot; into furniture, it would break easily; into a door, it would sweat; into a pillar, it would be worm-eaten. It is wood of no quality, and of no use. That is why it has attained its present age."

When the carpenter reached home, he dreamt that the spirit of the tree appeared to him in his sleep and spoke to him as follows: "What is it you intend to compare me with? Is it with fine-grained wood? Look at the cherry-apple, the pear, the orange, the pumelo, and other fruit bearers? As soon as their fruit ripens they are stripped and treated with indignity. The great boughs are snapped off, the small ones scattered abroad. Thus do these trees by their own value injure their own lives. They cannot fulfil their allotted span of years, but perish prematurely because they destroy themselves for the (admiration of) the world. Thus it is with all things. Moreover, I tried for a long period to be useless. Many times I was in danger of being cut down, but at length I have succeeded, and so have become exceedingly useful to myself. —

https://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_tree/2005/07/why_useless_tre.html

Value is not identical with useful. some things, and some people (I count myself as one) are indeed useless and have purely decorative value.

the Buddha, enlightened, gazes at the world around - from treasures of kings to the begging bowls of paupers - and observes that all are valuless/nothing/sunyata. — TheMadFool

I don't think so. The identification of self produces a distortion of values that enlightenment removes. But the extinction of desire does not extinguish values. The Buddha did not sit under his tree until he starved to death; he went about teaching the positive value of meditation and discipline to end suffering.

Wayfarer

1. We can type here a correlation about Nirvana in Buddhism. Along all the text it flows the sense that we have to aim to the “simple” or “one”. It is so related to nature and Nirvana.
The Buddha is even said to have discovered that Salvation, or Nirvâṇa, ("Extinction"), is nevertheless simply living "normal human life... doing normal human things" — javi2541997

Very characteristic of East Asian Buddhism, and not something you would necessarily find outside that context. In the early Buddhist texts, the distinction between the Buddha and ordinary humans was absolute. The equation of Nirvāṇa and Saṃsāra was an innovation by Mahāyāna Buddhism and at the time verged on (and still is, according to Theravadins) heresy.

it's very easy to take these texts literally, 'no effort', 'ordinary mind', and so on, to be saying that 'hey I'm already enlightened', when in actual fact, I'm a lumbering Western ox, bound for rebirth in an inferior realm if I don't realise that my enlightenment depends on the mercy of Amida and has nothing whatever to do with what I think I understand.
:pray:

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪TheMadFool

Thanks! I'm definitely checking Neil Tyson's essay out!

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪T Clark

As a new member I was frankly surprised by the amount of reaction I get here. Thanks! A clearer way to put the second choice of the poll would be "value exists as something of transcendence that does not require human experience of activity to be present".

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪Wayfarer

I'm no expert in Buddhism (as a matter of fact, philosophy in general), but I'd appreciate, if possible, some elaboration or sources of reading on the absolute distinction between the Shakyamuni and ordinary humans. As for what I know of, though, the ideology of Zhuangtsu has considerable resemblance to that of Chinese Mahayana, particularly Zen, to the extent of even serving as some source of influence.

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪unenlightened

As a new member, I had underestimated the number of responses I would have with this post, so the poll was more of a last-second whim. I phrased the second option so because I was having Lacan's Symbolic Order in mind when I was improvising the poll. If I could revise it I would define the “value" I speak of here as something more like the "object cause of desire" (less the physical measurement, so as to say).

Upon that, really appreciate your take on value and existence. Very inspirational.

TheMadFool

Value is not identical with useful. some things, and some people (I count myself as one) are indeed useless and have purely decorative value. — unenlightened

But that's still use - as an object of decoration! So, called trophy wives come to mind!

I don't think so. The identification of self produces a distortion of values that enlightenment removes. But the extinction of desire does not extinguish values. The Buddha did not sit under his tree until he starved to death; he went about teaching the positive value of meditation and discipline to end suffering. — unenlightened

Good point but the Buddha's teachings were to prove that everything is sans value. Just consider the following scenario: Two men are on a walk together - one is a smoker and the other is not. Half-way on their leisurely trip they both see a packet of cigarettes on the ground. The non-smoker does nothing; the smoker thanks his lucky stars (a free packet of cigarettes), bends down and picks it up. For the non-smoker, it's as if the packet of cigarettes is nothing. The existence of cigarettes = the nonexistence of cigarettes. I'm aware of the possibility that there's so much more to sunyata than this but...that it could be interpreted in the way I did says a lot, no?

Where's @Wayfarer when I need faer?

Wayfarer

I'm no expert in Buddhism (as a matter of fact, philosophy in general), but I'd appreciate, if possible, some elaboration or sources of reading on the absolute distinction between the Shakyamuni and ordinary humans. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

The idea that ‘Nirvāṇa is simply normal human life’ is only meaningful in a specific cultural context. If it were simply true, why would the originator of Buddhism abandoned home and hearth, and a newborn son, for that matter, in search of enlightenment? If it could have been realised in the comfort of his own home then why wouldn’t he have stayed there? OK I’m being polemical, but there’s a massive sub-text behind the statement I responded to, and it would take a book, or an essay, to analyse it properly. These ideas from Chinese Buddhism have percolated into modern Western culture but changing the context also changes the meaning. Considerably.

↪TheMadFool

Your example is on the mark albeit a rather idiosyncratic way of putting it. Have a read of Emptiness.

If…you can adopt the emptiness mode — by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves — you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of "I" and "mine" are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free.

But, note, this is written by a monk.

TheMadFool

↪TheMadFool Your example is on the mark albeit a rather idiosyncratic way of putting it. Have a read of Emptiness.

If…you can adopt the emptiness mode — by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves — you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of "I" and "mine" are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free.

But, note, this is written by a monk. — Wayfarer

Thanks! :up:

What do you suppose are the determinants of value? I'm running with the way I view emptiness as not necessarily a metaphysical concept but, I'm afraid, more mundane in that it's about looking at the universe with a I-couldn't-care-less attitude. The Buddha sees no value in things and thus to him, the universe, as awe-inspiring and wonderful as some claim it is, is nothing. Had the Buddha been given the choice between nothing and the universe, his response would be :meh: :yawn:

What underpins this attitude? What justifies it? Is it justifiable?

Wayfarer

What do you suppose are the determinants of value? — TheMadFool

What doesn’t generate suffering. It’s a fallacy to say the Buddha ‘sees no value in things’ if by that you mean nothing has any value.

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪Wayfarer

I think I have got your point to some extent. I did notice that a lot of what the Buddhist texts discuss are based on the context of "having arrived at the other end". Before that stage, probably the so-called emptiness is not the real emptiness.

TheMadFool

What doesn’t generate suffering. It’s a fallacy to say the Buddha ‘sees no value in things’ if by that you mean nothing has any value. — Wayfarer

That's what I suspected but that means emptiness/sunyata isn't nothing, right? For if it were, sunyata is as valuless as nothing and my argument makes sense. Just as it makes no difference for a dog whether the Mona Lisa exists or doesn't, for a Buddha, it matters not whether the universe, in all its splendor, is or is not.

This is the reason why Buddhists are so quick to distance themselves from nihilism as the two are so similar as per the above interpretation that it takes a keen mind to tell they ain't the same.

However, if the two are distinct ideas about the world, sunyata needs to be distinguished from nothing. Any ideas how this can be achieved? I'm all ears.

Wayfarer

However, if the two are distinct ideas about the world, sunyata needs to be distinguished from nothing. Any ideas how this can be achieved? I'm all ears. — TheMadFool

More from Thanissaro's essay on Emptiness:

In terms of your views about the world, it [śūnyatā] seems to be saying either that the world doesn't really exist, or else that emptiness is the great undifferentiated ground of being from which we all came to which someday we'll all return.

These interpretations not only miss the meaning of emptiness but also keep the mind from getting into the proper mode. If the world and the people in the story of your life don't really exist, then all the actions and reactions in that story seem like a mathematics of zeros, and you wonder why there's any point in practicing virtue at all*. If, on the other hand, you see emptiness as the ground of being to which we're all going to return, then what need is there to train the mind in concentration and discernment, since we're all going to get there anyway? And even if we need training to get back to our ground of being, what's to keep us from coming out of it and suffering all over again? So in all these scenarios, the whole idea of training the mind seems futile and pointless. By focusing on the question of whether or not there really is something behind experience, they entangle the mind in issues that keep it from getting into the present mode.

There's another principle in Buddhist philosophy, that of 'prapanca', meaning 'conceptual proliferation'. It is literally 'becoming entangled in thought.'

TheMadFool

↪Wayfarer

:up: Thanks a ton!

A drive-by of the relevant Wikipedia pages suggests to me that what sunyata means can't be understood until we grasp what the void (sunya) meant to Indians back then with special emphasis on what the Buddha thought the void (sunya) was/is

There's a reference to dependent origination:

In Mahāyāna Buddhism, śūnyatā refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature (svabhava) — Wikipedia

Then there's also this:

The concept of śūnyatā as "emptiness" is related to the concept of anatta (non-self) in early Buddhism. — Wikipedia

Then I discover this (meshes with my own idea of sunyata as valuelessness):

According to Shi Huifeng, the terms "void" (rittaka), "hollow" (tucchaka), and "coreless" (asāraka) are also used in the early texts to refer to words and things which are deceptive, false, vain, and worthless. This sense of worthlessness and vacuousness is also found in other uses of the term māyā — Wikipedia

Wayfarer

↪TheMadFool

Hey I know Shi Huifeng. Not that it matters. But 'the things' that are deceptive, vain, worthless, etc, do not comprise 'everything'. There is an expression in Buddhism, 'this precious human life'. Your assignment: discover why they say this.

TheMadFool

There is an expression in Buddhism, 'this precious human life'. Your assignment: discover why they say this. — Wayfarer

:smile: :up: :ok:

Well, if you allow me to go Mahayana on you, I'd say a human life, ceteris paribus, is supposed to provide us the best conditions for enlightenment, those in hell are in too much pain, those in heaven are too distracted by orgiastic pleasure. Being in between extremes, we have the advantage of getting to know the flaws of the 2 realms I mentioned above and realize they aren't worthy goals (both hell and heaven are to be avoided).

There's this story of a blind turtle who lives at the bottom of a deep and vast ocean. It comes to the surface every 100,000 years. There's an island in the middle of this ocean with a tree that has a branch with a loop at the end, this branch sways erratically in the strong winds that blow there. The probability of being born as a human is equal to the probability of the blind turtle's head getting snared in the loop at the end of the branch. That's how precious human life is! To be born as one is beating such mind-boggling odds. :chin:

Wayfarer

A drive-by of the relevant Wikipedia pages suggests to me that what sunyata means can't be understood until we grasp what the void (sunya) meant to Indians back then with special emphasis on what the Buddha thought the void (sunya) was/is — TheMadFool

Deep and difficult point: what is a concept? It might be, as Descartes said, a ‘clear and distinct idea’. It might be an idea that is not peculiar to a single mind, but that anyone can observe, like geometric principles or Newton’s laws of motion. The Western mindset is such that concepts and ideas come naturally to it. Conceptual thought is one of the hallmarks of Western thought and one of the main factors behind the astonishing success of scientific method. But śūnyatā is not a concept. It is not an idea. It is an observation about the nature of experience. It is not something that the Buddha ‘thought’, in that sense.

There's this story of a blind turtle who lives at the bottom of a deep and vast ocean. — TheMadFool

Chiggala sutta.

I'd say a human life, ceteris paribus, is supposed to provide us the best conditions for enlightenment, — TheMadFool

Right! Which shows that the Buddha does not say that ‘nothing has any value’. Human life has inestimable value.

TheMadFool

Deep and difficult point: what is a concept? It might be, as Descartes said, a ‘clear and distinct idea’. It might be an idea that is not peculiar to a single mind, but that anyone can observe, like geometric principles or Newton’s laws of motion. The Western mindset is such that concepts and ideas come naturally to it. Conceptual thought is one of the hallmarks of Western thought and one of the main factors behind the astonishing success of scientific method. But śūnyatā is not a concept. It is not an idea. It is an observation about the nature of experience. It is not something that the Buddha ‘thought’, in that sense. — Wayfarer

I feel sunyata is deeply connected to the idea of existence. It's about nonexistence to be precise and in that there's self-denial (anatta). There's this psychiatric disorder called Cotard Delusion where a person denies faer own existence. I'm not saying that Buddhism is some kind of mental illness of course but it's rather intriguing that traumatic brain damage can yield the same result as decades of learning and practicing Buddhism - anatta (no-self).

TheMadFool

Chiggala sutta. — Wayfarer

:up: :ok:

TheMadFool

There's another principle in Buddhist philosophy, that of 'prapanca', meaning 'conceptual proliferation'. It is literally 'becoming entangled in thought.' — Wayfarer

Thanks! Becoming Entangled In Thought. Sounds painful! :chin:

Wayfarer

↪TheMadFool

you would know, wouldn’t you? :wink:

Wayfarer

I'm not saying that Buddhism is some kind of mental illness of course but it's rather intriguing that traumatic brain damage can yield the same result as decades of learning and practicing Buddhism — TheMadFool

Did you see the Jill Bolte Taylor video some years ago, ‘My Stroke of Insight’? That is about this.

TheMadFool

you would know, wouldn’t you? :wink: — Wayfarer

:lol: I'm afraid I'll have to say, "yes".

Wayfarer

Here it is for those interested - https://youtu.be/UyyjU8fzEYU

TheMadFool

Did you see the Jill Bolte Taylor video some years ago, ‘My Stroke of Insight’? That is about this. — Wayfarer

I just did. Interesting video. Was the Buddha left-handed (right-brained)?

On Why I Never Assume the Existence of Value: Original Translation of Zhuangtsu's Work

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions