Good to hear your view, the Palmer/Breuilly that you mention is the only full translation I've come across.
Yeah, it was actually the only full translation that I could find in printed form. I believe that I've come across certain translations of the entire book on the internet, but I don't remember exactly where.
Thanks for that. I forgot to say that most of the books I've seen (in amazon) include all of the inner chapters plus a few of the other ones. So I thought there must be some logic to this bias, that maybe the other ones aren't completely harmonious, or in the best case are dispensable.
What it boils down to is that the "outer" and "miscellaneous" chapters are most all influenced by a variety of different schools of Chinese thought, schools of which Chuang-Tzu, himself, was not a part.
Taoism is a term which escapes simple definition, since it is in many ways more of a cultural mindset than a 'religion'. It has assumed many different forms throughout the history of China. When people talk about philosophical Taoism, they are usually referring to "Taoism
as explained by...". Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, and Lieh-Tzu tend to be the three most popular sources of unique Taoist thought in that regard. Thus, the "Inner Chapters" of Chuang-Tzu which are attributed to the Masters hand are considered the 'pure' chapters, in a sense. They are definitive examples of Taoist insight, and it is the quintessential attitude expressed in those chapters which set the scene for all the others. The "Outer" and "Miscellaneous" chapters are considered to be less distinctly Taoist, since the additions by innumerable authors following Chuang-Tzu inevitably transfer some of the characteristics of their respective schools of thought. I, personally, did not find that this affects the relevance or value of the "outer" and "miscellaneous" chapters, though.
Furthermore, since the "Inner Chapters" were purportedly composed by a single hand, we can be pretty certain that they are complete and stand as a cohesive unit as expressed by the essential voice of the text. The others chapters may contribute
greatly to that which Chuang-Tzu seeks to express, but they are sometimes seen as 'additions' or 'supporting examples' rather than bearing the bulk of Chuang-Tzu's points. Again, I did not really find this to be the case in the strict sense of reading the full Chuang-Tzu. From an analytical perspective, though, delving into the historical development of Chuang-Tzu, I think this could be shown to be the case.
-jiii