惠子謂莊子曰：「魏王貽我大瓠之種，我樹之成而實五石，以盛水漿，其堅不能自舉也。剖之以為瓢，則瓠落無所容。非不呺然大也，吾為其無用而掊之。」莊子曰：「夫子固拙於用大矣。宋人有善為不龜手之藥者，世世以洴澼絖為事。客聞之，請買其方百金。聚族而謀曰：『我世世為洴澼絖，不過數金；今一朝而鬻技百金，請與之。』客得之，以說吳王。越有難，吳王使之將。冬，與越人水戰，大敗越人，裂地而封之。能不龜手一也，或以封，或不免於洴澼絖，則所用之異也。今子有五石之瓠，何不慮以為大樽而浮乎江湖，而憂其瓠落無所容？則夫子猶有蓬之心也夫！」
Huizi spoke to Zhuangzi, saying: “The King of Wei gave me the seed of a giant calabash. I cultivated it to completion, when it could fully hold [1] five stone! [2] I filled it with water and broth, [but] it [was] steadfast [3], I could not hoist it myself. (I) cut it in half to make two ladles, in this way the gourd fell [4] apart and cannot contain anything. Nothing but empty giants! I thought it was useless, so I broke it.”
Zhuangzi said: “You certainly are clumsy in using [that which is] great! Among the people of Song there was one who was skilled at making medicine preventing chapped [5] hands. [So] generations took washing silk as their business. A traveler heard about it and asked to purchase the method for 100 gold. The family convened and scheming [6] said: ‘For generations we have washed silk, and never encountered much wealth. Now in one morning we (can) sell (our) art for 100 gold. [Let's] go along with it.’ [7] The traveler obtained it and [thereby] spoke to the King of Wu. Having difficulties with Yue, the King of Wu appointed him general. [In] the winter, after a naval battle with Yue [in which] the people of Yue were greatly defeated, [the King] split the land and conferred it [to the traveler]. [8] Preventing chapped hands was the same (in each case): one [9] took a fief; [while] others were unable to quit washing silk. Now sir has a five-stone gourd. Why not consider making great wine-vessels and floating on the rivers and lakes [10], and not grieving the gourd that fell apart holds nothing? Your way, sir, is like having a mind of weeds [11] - yes sir!”
[1] 實 Watson gives “fit into; stuff into.” This is a little strange, as Watson’s use is the only recorded use of 實 in this manner. I think he’s trying to find a way to convey the idea that the gourd, when filled, weigh five stone. 實 usually means “true,” “actually,” or “fully,” but it can also be opposed to 虛. I think Zhuangzi here is playing on the opposition: the stone is “full,” which renders it immobile (just like the heartmind). By contrast, Zhuangzi and the DDJ both valorize “emptiness” as the real virtue.
[2] An estimated calculation regarding the weight of the gourds: if 1石 (stone) = 120 斤 jīn (also referred to as a catty or kati); and 1斤 jīn = 500g (PRC) or 600g (HK, SG); therefore: (5石)(120斤/石) = 600斤; and (600斤)(500g/斤) = 30,000g = 30kg (PRC); (600 斤)(600g/斤) = 30,000g = 36kg (HK, SG).
[3] 堅 n: "heavily fortified point; fortification," adj: "hard; solid; firm; strong" or "resolute, steadfast." I feel this alludes to Zhuangzi’s overall imagery criticizing “fixation” or “completeness,” particularly in the 成心 (as seen in ZZ 1.3 or ZZ 2.4); see also ZZ 1.2: 其留如詛盟: “those who halt like swearing an oath,” and 其守勝之謂也: “those who defend the victory of words.”
[4] The key is realizing that 落 can refer to the halves of the gourd falling apart. I note the difference here between 瓢 piáo (ladles) versus 瓠 hù (gourd), as the story depends on the different shapes; 落 luò to fall, to drop (like leaves from a tree); to “fall” (die); 无所容 not in any way contain/hold.
[5] 龜 jūn (chapping of the skin). But can we take a moment and appreciate not only deriving龜 jūn (chapped) from 龜 guī (turtle), but also the existence of 龜 as a character? Also 洴澼 píngpì can mean rinsing or bleaching, but the commentary suggests 漂洗 piǎoxǐ (washing or rinsing). I am uncertain if bleaching was part of the ancient practice of silk manufacturing.
[6A] Zhuangzi is consistently critical of 謀 móu as a method and a goal. Compare to other passages in Zhuangzi. ZZ 5.5: 聖人不謀，惡用知？The sage does not scheme; why does he need knowledge? ZZ 7.6: 無為名尸，無為謀府，無為事任，無為知主。Do not for fame play the corpse; do not for schemes govern; do not for affairs take office; do not become a lord of knowledge. ZZ 7.7: 儵與忽謀報渾沌之德，曰 : Shu and Hu scheme (how to) reciprocate Hun Dun’s virtue (Hun Dun = Blending Chaos, and they inadvertently kill Hun Dun by trying to give them the sensory capacities of human beings).
[6B] The real question however is what differentiates “scheming” from “wandering”? Scheming involves (1) a fixed goal; (2) reducing others (and one’s self) to instrumentalist calculations; and (3) being unable to release the conceptual scheme and return to following or mirroring; these are non-anthropocentric modes of relating to the world, opposed by the anthropocentric universal instrumentalization of nature. Essentially, schemes put people at the center of the world, subvert the world to those schemes, and become fixed and unflexible goals, and require endless schematiziation to justify the abstract conceptualization.
[7] 鬻 yù sell; vend (under duress); and 請 qǐng request; invite: “Please go along with it,” or “We request to go along with it.”
[8A] 裂地而封之 “split the land and enfeoffed it” refers to 分封制, the feudal system of the western Zhou dynasty (11C-771BC). Again note the importance of “enclosing” as an image (see 8B).
[8B] Also 裂地而封之: In addition to parallel-but-contrasting situations (the broken gourd versus winning a fief), the text suggests parallel-but-contrasting images: with the gourds: in the first instance, the gourds fall apart and cannot hold anything; in the second instance the land is split 裂 apart and then enclosed 封 to create a fief. At first glance it appears the King of Wu splits the land, but the parallel structure between the land and the gourds might suggest the traveler is splitting the land and taking a fief.
[9] 或 can be “someone” and “someone,” so here I use it as “(some)one” and “others.
[10] 江湖 jiānghú: the rivers and lakes; I suspect Zhuangzi (and perhaps this passage in particular) was the basis for using 江湖 as a synonym for “vagrant life.” The term 江湖is also synonymous for the “floating world” of wandering kung-fu heroes (also a kind of “vagrant life”). Zhuangzi’s vagrant heroes are a motley assortment of cripples, madmen, beggars, and ex-criminals. These figures are all, in some respect members of a wandering precariat who survive through creativity, transformation, and a rejection of fixed form. Zhuangzi regards the figures as possessing true “virtue” (德) the ability to identify with Dao, to be indifferent to loss, and to survive (via wandering) apart from the managerial system of sages and states. In this respect Zhuangzi’s heroes represent a radical critique of the Warring States valorization of sages, kings, and heroic figures. In this manner Zhuangzi both subverts and elevates the concept of virtue in warring states discourse. The term then later reappears in kung-fu.
[11] 則夫子猶有蓬之心也夫！ “Your way, sir, is like having a mind of weeds - yes sir!” Note the relation between Huizi’s attempt to fill the gourd versus his inability to empty his mind. The Confucian project of cultivating is one of building up, whereas Laozi and Zhuangzi both emphasize emptying out. Emptying is a necessary component of the therapeutic response to the fixed mind. The fixed-mind maintains fixed distinctions, fixed applications of language, and fixed intentions. Similarly, empty space is also necessary for life. Small birds find the holes and openings in the underbrush; Peng floats on the wind.
No comments:
Post a Comment