1.14: Zǐ yuē: Jūnzǐ shí wú qiú bǎo, jū wú qiú ān, mǐn yú shì ér shèn yú yán, jiú yǒu dào, ér zhèng yān, kě wèi hào xué yě yǐ.
1.14: The Master says: "The Sage meal(dining) does not seek full(ness)/fill, dwelling/still does not seek peace, clever in office/duty and/but cautious in speech, in this manner possess/obtain Dao and right/straighten this/these, can call good studying this!"
1.14: The Master says: "The Sage in dining does not seek fullness, in dwelling does not seek peace (complacency); is clever (skillful) in office but cautious in speech; in this manner obtain Dao and straighten these (things), and you can call this good learning!"
居無求安 (jū wú qiú ān)
The phrase can be translated as “in dwelling does not seek peace,” which is something of a curious piece of advice: why wouldn’t the sage seek peace? 安 (ān) can mean "peace" or "tranquility," both seemingly desirable states of affairs. As a verb it can pacify, console, place, or arrange – again, it seems strange a sage might actively avoid these, especially given the emphasis on ritual in Confucian theory.
Let’s look for clues in the passage, beginning with the first phrase in the passage. 君子食無求飽 (Jūnzǐ shí wú qiú bǎo ) establishes a straightforward dichotomy between the action of the sage and the act of seeking something. This suggests we can apply the same dichotomy to居無求安: the Sage is not actively seeking peace or tranquility. This still leaves us with an unanswered question, however – why would a sage not actively seek this state of affairs?
One reading that resolves this tension actually views the problem not with the object, but with the action – in other words, the greater problem is not with peace and fullness per se, but with the problem of actively seeking these things. The concept of actively seeking something is highily problematic for Laozi and Zhuangzi, both of whom emphasize emptiness or effortless action (depending on your point of view). It may seem surprising to see it here in Confucius, but as we will see Confucius rejects forcefully implementing social change and will advocate for stillness as a kind of virtue. The use of 無 (emptiness/not) further suggests a strong contrast between the action of the sage and the action of actively seeking.
This reading is supported by a another segment of this passage, 就有道而正焉, which I turn to next.
就有道而正焉 (jiú yǒu dào ér zhèng yān)
This segment is a perfect example on why Classical Chinese is complicated: do you hold/possess the Dao? Do you exist in the Dao? Is there one Dao, many Dao, or just Dao? And once you have Dao (or possibly dwell in Dao), what do you govern? You govern well, but what is the object of 焉? All these questions are present in trying to translate this passage.
Let’s pass on philosophical speculation regarding Dao for the moment and simply accept that whatever is going on, Dao (or doing Dao) should be present.
Instead let's focus on the second half of the verb-clause, 而正焉 (ér zhèng yān). The presence of 而 (ér) requires 正 (zhèng) act as some kind of verb, either “striaghten out” or “govern.” 焉 (yān) can be an adverb (“here”), a demonstrative pronoun, or even a rhetorical pronoun (yes, these things exist). As an adverb we might get: “In this manner possess Dao and make upright here.” Not very satisfactory. As a rhetorical pronoun we get: “Just possess Dao and make upright.” Still not great. As a demonstrative pronoun we get: “Just possess Dao and make these upright.” This seems much better, but what do we make of "these?" Where are the pronoun antecedents?
One good option are the actions directed by 求 (qiú), seeking. So the advice is to make ourselves upright or govern ourselves regarding 求 (qiú). This seems to make sense with the rest of the passage. We can “straighten out” or “govern” various habits, such as dining, dwelling, serving, and speaking. As for seeking peace, too much tranquility may interfere with fulfilling the duties of office. Or seeking peace may be unnecessary if we already possess Dao (and things occur naturally). If we can obtain Dao and straighten/govern our tendency to seek things beyond our need, then this may be called good learning!
If this reading is feasible then it helps build the case for a moral psychology in the text: curtailing the desire to seek unnecessary ends leads to better filial piety and ritual propriety. This fits well with the model of moral and psychological development Confucius presents in Analects 2.4. In this passage Confucius ultimately grows to the point where he can follow his desires without fear of transgressing rightness.
No comments:
Post a Comment