Anyhow, in the first part I spoke how the title of my favourite chapter of Chuangtzu (Zhuangzi) was The Equality of Things in the version I read when in university but for the translation that I'm using for the purposes of this blog had it as The Adjustment of Controversies. The below is the immediate next text following the part from part 1 with nothing left out. I'd say that this particular section has it moving from controversies to the equality of things. Here it is (with small edits by me) with commentary below.
Were there no other, there could be no I. Were there no I, there could be nobody to do the apprehending.That is close to the truth, yet I do not know what runs this process. It seems that there is a true ruler, and yet there is a singular lack of actual evidence of its presence.
Given the body, with its hundred parts, its nine openings, and its six viscera, all complete in their places, which do you love the most? Do you love them all equally? Or do you love some more than others? Is it not the case that they all perform the part of your servants and waiting women? All of them being such, are they not incompetent to rule one another? Or do they take it in turns to be now ruler and now servants? There must be a true ruler among them whether by searching you can find out his character or not; there is neither advantage nor hurt, so far as the truth of his operation is concerned. When once we have received the bodily form complete, its parts do not fail to perform their functions till the end comes. In conflict with things or in harmony with them, they pursue their course to the end, with the speed of a galloping horse which cannot be stopped — is it not sad? To be constantly toiling all one's lifetime, without seeing the fruit of one's labour, and to be weary and worn out with his labour, without knowing where he is going to — Is it not a deplorable case? Men may say, 'But it is not death;' yet of what advantage is this? When the body is decomposed, the mind will be the same along with it — Must not the case be pronounced very deplorable? Is the life of man indeed enveloped in such darkness? Is it I alone to whom it appears so? And does it not appear to be so to other men?
If we were to follow the judgments of the predetermined mind, who would be left alone and without a teacher? Not only would it be so with those who know the sequences of knowledge and feeling and make their own selection among them, but it would be so as well with the stupid and unthinking. For one who has not this determined mind, to have his affirmations and negations is like the case described in the saying, 'He went to Yueh today, and arrived there yesterday.' It would be making what was not a fact to be a fact. But even the sage like Yu could not have known how to do this, and how should one like me be able to do it?
But speech is not like the blowing of the wind; the speaker has a meaning in his words. If, however, what he says, be indeterminate, as from a mind not made up, does he then really speak or not? He thinks that his words are different from the chirpings of fledgelings; but is there any distinction between them or not? But how can the Tao be so obscured, that there should be 'a True' and 'a False' in it? How can speech be so obscured that there should be 'the Right' and 'the Wrong' about them? Where shall the Tao go to that it will not be found? Where shall speech be found that it will be inappropriate? Tao becomes obscured through the small comprehension of the mind, and speech comes to be obscure through the vain-gloriousness of the speaker. So it is that we have the contentions between the Literati and the Mohists, the one side affirming what the other denies, and vice versa. If we would decide on their several affirmations and denials, no plan is like bringing the proper light of the mind to bear on them.
All subjects may be looked at from two points of view from that and from this. If I look at a thing from another's point of view, I do not see it; only as I know it myself, do I know it. Hence it is said, 'That view comes from this; and this view is a consequence of that' — which is the theory that that view and this opposite view — produce each the other. Although it be so, there is affirmed now life and now death; now death and now life; now the admissibility of a thing and now its inadmissibility; now its inadmissibility and now its admissibility. The disputants now affirm and now deny; now deny and now affirm. Therefore sagely man does not pursue this method, but views things in the light of his Heavenly nature, and hence forms his judgment of what is right.
This view is the same as that, and that view is the same as this. But that view involves both a right and a wrong; and this view involves also a right and a wrong — are there, indeed, or are there not the two views, that and this? They have not found their point of correspondency which is called the pivot of the Tao. As soon as one finds this pivot, he stands in the centre of the ring of thought, where he can respond without end to the changing views — without end to those affirming, and without end to those denying. Therefore I said, 'There is nothing like the proper light of the mind.'
By means of a finger of my own to illustrate that the finger of another is not a finger is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not so by means of what is acknowledged to be not a finger; and by means of what I call a horse to illustrate that what another calls a horse is not so, is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not a horse, by means of what is acknowledged to be not a horse. All things in heaven and earth may be dealt with as a finger; Each of their myriads may be dealt with as a horse. Does a thing seem so to me? I say that it is so. Does it seem not so to me? I say that it is not so. A path is formed by constant treading on the ground. A thing is called by its name through the constant application of the name to it. How is it so? It is so because it is so. How is it not so? It is not so, because it is not so. Everything has its inherent character and its proper capability. There is nothing which has not these. Therefore, this being so, if we take a stalk of grain and a large pillar, a loathsome leper and a beauty like Hsi Shih, things large and things insecure, things crafty and things strange —they may in the light of the Tao all be reduced to the same category of opinion about them.
It was separation that led to completion; from completion ensued dissolution. But all things, without regard to their completion and dissolution, may again be comprehended in their unity — it is only the far reaching in thought who know how to comprehend them in this unity. This being so, let us give up our devotion to our own views, and occupy ourselves with the ordinary views. These ordinary views are grounded on the use of things. The study of that use leads to the comprehensive judgment, and that judgment secures the success of the inquiry. That success gained, we are near to the object of our search, and there we stop. When we stop, and yet we do not know how it is so, we have what is called the Tao.
Zhuangzi builds from the duality of thoughts and perceptions, that if you are alone, or your ideas are in a vacuum, you cannot know what you are, or what your ideas are. Until someone else apprehends them, they are formless. Then onto plurality of elements within a system, but whether singularity, duality or plurality, that there is no "ruler" no supreme being or standard which can absolutely rule over them and define what is high and low, right or wrong. Of all the major organs in the body which do you love them most? Any love or preference is for nought because without any one there cannot be the other. And from the analogy of viscera, you can analogise back to people. Your organs might be your "servants" but servants in real life should be no less noble than their masters. And the pluralism of organs is like the plurality of society, where we all have different roles; or the plurality of ideas in contention, where ideas only gain their form through the challenge of others. Yet at the end of the day, there is a cloud of uncertainty over them - which is king and which is true. There is always a heart of relativity despite the veneer of absolutism. Every idea is equally not quite right.
While he might not delve into the rights or wrongs of ideas, he does see superior ways for which ideas and things can be perceived. The true light of mind must hold both something being true, yet possibly false. It must stand back to see the unity of the issue, and not just a part. It should not be swayed by "judgements" but rather what it actually is and does - "an ordinary view" as it is translated. It sounds like a dispassionate, objective approach. Just like pressure points, everything has its own pivot point, where you can go to best consistently view the reality of things, regardless of the changes about it. That's the place to occupy. That's the place to be.
Even though this section didn't have the same groovy characters as the first part, there will be more later in the chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment