|
以指喻指之非指，不若以非指喻指之非指也；以馬喻馬之非馬，不若以非馬喻馬之非馬也。天地，一指也；萬物，一馬也。 可乎可，不可乎不可。道行之而成，物謂之而然。惡乎然？然於然。惡乎不然？不然於不然。物固有所然，物固有所可。無物不然，無物不可。故為是舉莛與楹，厲與西施，恢恑憰怪，道通為一。 其分也，成也；其成也，毀也。凡物無成與毀，復通為一。唯達者知通為一，為是不用而寓諸庸。庸也者，用也；用也者，通也；通也者，得也。適得而幾矣。因是已。已而不知其然，謂之道。 勞神明為一，而不知其同也，謂之朝三。何謂朝三？曰狙公賦芧，曰：「朝三而莫四。」眾狙皆怒。曰：「然則朝四而莫三。」眾狙皆悅。名實未虧，而喜怒為用，亦因是也。是以聖人和之以是非，而休乎天鈞，是之謂兩行。
|
Making
a point to show that a point is not a point is not as good as making a
non-point to show that a point is not a point. Using a horse to show that a
horse is not a horse is not as good as using a non-horse to show that a horse
is not a horse. Heaven and earth are one point, the ten thousand things are one horse. [1] Okay?
Okay. Not okay? Not okay. A way is made by walking it. A thing is so by calling
it. How is it so? In so-ing it it is so. How is it not so? In not-so-ing it it
is not so. There is always a way in which things are so. There is always a way
in which things are okay. There is nothing that is not so, nothing that is not
okay. You
can insist on calling it a bean or a beam, a freak or the beautiful Xi Shi. No matter how diverse or strange, the way comprehends them as one. [2] Dividing things completes them, and completing them ruins them. But nothing is
completed or ruined when they are again comprehended as one. Only the
penetrating person knows to comprehend them as one. Don’t insist but lodge in
the usual. The usual is useful. You can use it to comprehend. And comprehending, you get it. Get it and you’re almost there. Just go along with things. Doing that without claiming to knowing how things are is what I call the way. [3]
But
exhausting the spirit trying to clarify the unity of things without knowing
that they are all the same is called “three in the morning.” What do I mean by
“three in the morning”? When the monkey trainer was passing out nuts he said,
“You get three in the morning and four at night.” The monkeys were all angry.
“All right,” he said, “you get four in the morning and three at night.” The
monkeys were all pleased. With no loss in name or substance, he makes use of
their joy and anger because he goes along with things. So the wise harmonize people with right and wrong and rest them on heaven’s wheel. This is what I call walking two roads. [4]
|
|
[1] Zhuangzi is poking fun at the School of Names thinker, Gongsun Long, who had essays titled 指物論, Zhǐwù Lùn, "On pointing at things," which is lost, and 白馬論, Báimǎ Lùn, "White Horse Dialogue," in which he argues famously that a white horse is not a horse. Gongsun Long's precise logic is difficult to determine but the point, like Zeno's, may have been to argue in favor of the unity of all things by demonstrating the untenability of distinctions. Zhuangzi's friend, Hui Shi, made a similar argument, concluding "Love all things like a flood; heaven and earth are one body" (CTP 33.07). Zhuangzi is no doubt lumping the two together here, presumably continuing the argument he has been making in previous section, to let the unity of things speak for itself rather than try to prove it. The pipings of heaven in 2:01 would be an example of a non-point which shows that points are not points because they are all the same wind, or the tail-biting logic of big and little knowledge in 1:01. [2] "The way comprehends them as one." The way/heaven/nature has room for all perspectives, a feat which we saw in chapter one seems impossible for people. It is not clear whether to understand "the way" as an abstract metaphysical principle or as a method to be followed.
[4] I think the person referred to in the opening line as "exhausting the spirit trying to clarify the unity of things without knowing that they are all the same," is his friend Hui Shi, who is trying to prove logically that we should treat the world as one (leaving aside for the moment what that means). The monkey story is interesting. I told it to my mother and sister, thinking that the monkey trainer was the hero because he got the better of the stupid monkeys. My sister thought the monkeys were the heroes because they wrested a moral victory out of the dictatorial trainer. My mother didn't think it was a question of heroes, just a sad story about people trying to take advantage of each other. But let's think about how it would apply to Hui Shi. If all is one (as Hui Shi is trying to prove), then it is one whether you prove it or not. To put it differently, if all is one, then (people agreeing that all is one) and (people not agreeing) are also one (i.e. the same), so it make no difference whether you prove it or not. He's telling Hui Shi not to be like the monkeys. He may even be offering an alternative: instead of trying to change people's minds, work with the minds they have (i.e. "lodge in the usual) to bring about the desired effect (whatever that is), like the monkey trainer. Of course, if all is one, (Zhuangzi's convincing Hui Shi) and (Zhuangzi's not convincing him) are also one, so why is he telling the story?
|