Zhuangzi 2.6 Heaven and Earth One Finger

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。

Using a finger to illustrate the not-finger-of-the-finger is not as good as using the not-finger to describe the not-finger-of-the-finger. Using a horse to illustrate the not-horse-of-the-horse is not as good as using the not-horse to illustrate the not-horse-of-the-horse.

Heaven and earth, one finger; the ten-thousands things, one horse.

Approving comes from approving; disapproving comes from disapproving.

Walking a path makes it a path. A thing is called-so and it becomes like-so.

How are things made like-so? Like-so from (being called) like-so.

How comes not-like-so? Not-like-so comes from (being called) not-like-so.

All things have a place of "like so." All things have a place of "it may be."

There is no thing without "like so." There is no thing without "it may be."

Therefore by affirmation we can raise up stalks of grass alongside the columns of a hall, a leper alongside Xi Shi, the vast and the precarious, the crafty and the strange, Dao opens (and) makes all one.

喻 to describe something as; an analogy; a simile; a metaphor; an allegory;
可 to approve; can; may
莛 stems; stalks (of grass)
楹 principal columns (or pillars) of a hall
厲 strict, rigorous; stern, severe, grim; violent
西施 (c. 450 BCE) name of a famous beauty of the late Spring and Autumn Period
恢 extensive, vast; to restore
恑 change (precarious?)
憰 wily, time-serving ; to feign;
怪 strange, odd; queer
 

Notes:
喻 I use an active, transitive verb, “illustrate” to capture the process of analogical reasoning (of likening something to something else).

可encompasses both possibility and approval; here Zhuangzi’s point is that it is possible to “approve” or “affirm” anything by virtue of language; all things permit a point of view from which they may be affirmed or “made like so.”

厲 the commentary gives 厉 / 厲 = 病丑人 but contemporary dictionaries list 麻风病/麻風病 as leprosy.

憰 vs 怪 these two terms have additional connotations that resonate with themes in the text.  憰 means crafty or wily, but can also refer to someone who simply “serves-time,” a lazy public servant who simply resides in office serving no benefit to others. The theme of the minor official who only knows enough to execute one function is a recurring theme in Zhuangzi, and correlates with the text’s warnings about conduct “within the world of people.” If we consider this pair as a pair of socio-economic binaries, then 怪 evokes all the cripples, beggars, ex-criminals, and vagrants who exhibit the “sign of virtue complete.” These are more than strange or odd personages, these are social outcasts who flourish despite their status and individual conditions. It seems particularly noteworthy that even these extremes are connected by Dao, and

 

以指喻指之非指 part 1
The usual approach to this phrase is “using a finger to show a finger is not a finger...” In this translation I treat 指之非指 as a compound, “the not-finger-of-the-finger.” I do this to suggest the syntax and a philosophical point. The point in question is: that which is regarded as “something” and that which is “not-something” are mutually, simultaneously entailed by either’s identification. As described in a previous post, the use of any concept to identify or “carve out” an object from the whole of experience (or the Way) creates both “x” and “everything-that-is-not-x.” Ironically, both x and not-x are conceptually connected by trying to distinguish something apart from that which is being used to make the distinction! For further discussions on Daoist logic see Steve Coutinho’s An Introduction to Daoist Philosophies (2014).

以指喻指之非指 part 2
Ziporyn’s explanation of this passage is invaluable. For a full explanation see his extended footnote in his translation of this passage (Ziporyn p. 12, footnote). Here are two key points. First, as Ziporyn points out, Zhuangzi’s passage here is an allusion to Gongsun Long’s argument 無物非指，而指非指 “all things are capable of being pointed out, but pointing out can never be pointed out” (Ziporyn). Second (also from Ziporyn), Zhuangzi’s point here goes beyond Gongsun Long’s argument. Zhuangzi’s point is that “this” is also “that.” Zhuangzi makes this point earlier in the “birth of opposites,” that for every “this” there is a “that,” and for every “that” there is a “this.” As Ziporyn points out, we can see that “this” is also “that” by viewing “this” from the point of view of “that.” Ziporyn translates this as the “Illumination of the Obvious.”

Additional Reading
Coutinho, Steve. An Introduction to Daoist Philosophies. New York: Columbia University Press. 2014.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/862077821

Zhuangzi. The Essential Writings: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Translated by Brook Ziporyn. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. 2009.

Zhuangzi 2.4 (Part 2) Speaking is not just blowing breath

夫言非吹也。言者有言，其所言者特未定也。果有言邪？其未嘗有言邪？其以為異於鷇音，亦有辯乎，其無辯乎？

道惡乎隱而有真偽？

言惡乎隱而有是非？

道惡乎往而不存？

言惡乎存而不可？

道隱於小成，言隱於榮華。

故有儒、墨之是非，以是其所非，而非其所是。欲是其所非而非其所是，則莫若以明。

Speaking is not just blowing breath. One who speaks has speech, but that which is spoken is especially unfixed. Is the result having speech? Or has one not yet tasted having words? [1] They regard (it) as different from the chirping of little birds, but is there a distinction, or is there no distinction?

Dao: how is it concealed but there is true and false?

Speaking: how is it concealed but there is affirmation and negation?

Dao: how does it go (forth) and not remain? [*]

Speaking: how can it remain and not be? [*]

Dao is obscured in small completions (小成).

Speech is obscured in flowery embellishment.

And so we have the affirmations and negations of the Confucians and the Mohists, affirming what the other negates, and negating what the other affirms. Desiring to affirm what is negated and to negate what is affirmed, this method is not like using clarity.

[1] 存 is associated with depositing and storing up; it can also refer to holding office. This could suggest a pun: “notice how Dao goes out and does not hoard riches like officials holding office.”

[2] 可 is associated with permissibility but usually accompanies a verb. For example《論語：學而》三年無改於父之道，可謂孝矣 “Three years without changing from the path of the father, may be called filial!” In this translation I follow the text and omit a verb. I play 可 against 存 in the same line and the idea of meaning being lost in flowery embellishment: “We keep building up words, but there is nothing here!”

[3] This could be “has yet to experience having speech,” but “has yet to taste words” is too savory to pass up.

特 tè special, unique

嘗cháng taste, try; experience; ever, once

異 yì different; other, another

鷇 kòu fledgling birds

 

隱 yǐn hide, conceal; hidden, secret

真 zhēn real, actual, true, genuine

偽 wěi artificial; deceitful; false, fake

是 shì affirmation

非 fēi negation

往 wǎng go; towards

存 cún exist, live; store up; remain

 

榮 róng glorify, luxuriate; flourishing; honor, glory

華 huá magnificent; splendid; flowery

榮華 rónghuá [plants] blooming, flourishing; glorious, splendid      

 

儒 Rú Confucianism

墨 Mò Mohism

Zhuangzi 2.5 This and That

Original

物無非彼，物無非是。

自彼則不見，自知則知之。

故曰：彼出於是，是亦因彼。

彼是，方生之說也。

 

雖然，方生方死，方死方生；

方可方不可，方不可方可；

因是因非，因非因是。

是以聖人不由，而照之于天，亦因是也。

 

是亦彼也，彼亦是也。

彼亦一是非，此亦一是非。

果且有彼是乎哉？

果且無彼是乎哉？

 

彼是莫得其偶，謂之道樞。

樞始得其環中，以應無窮。

是亦一無窮，非亦一無窮也。

故曰「莫若以明」。

 

Translation

There is nothing without “that,” there is nothing without “this.

From the method of “that” (it) is not seen; (only) from the method of knowing (awareness) it is known.

Therefore it is said: “that” emerges from “this,” and “this” depends on “that” (*)

“That” and “this,” it is said they are born together.

 

Even though: together born and passing away, together passing away and being born;

Together admissible and inadmissible, together inadmissible and admissible;

(There is still) “because (this is) right and because (that is) wrong,” or "because (that is) wrong and because (this is) right."

Therefore the sagely person does not use this method, but rather illuminates things together in Heaven, which is also "because of this."

 

“This” is also “that,” and “that” is also “this.”

“That” is merely one “right and wrong,” and “this” is merely one “right and wrong.”

Does (this) result in having “this” and “that?”

Does (this) result in not having “this” and “that?”

 

“That” and “this” have not reached their coincidence, (which) is called the Pivot (Hinge) of Dao.

The hinge is found in the center of circumstances, taking affirmation without exhaustion.

Affirmation without exhaustion, negation without exhaustion.

Thus it is said, (there is) nothing like using clarity!

 

There is Nothing without That/This

As noted recently by one colleague, “the linguistic contradictions of the Qi Wu Lun either delight someone’s heart or give them chills.” I suspect he had this passage in mind. You are free to guess how I feel (which should not be difficult). The key to the passage is that any linguistic distinction (whether this-or-that or this-and-not-this) is an act of conceptual abstraction. Or, any conceptual abstraction is also a linguistic distinction. For Zhuangzi, linguistic distinctions occur within the world, and thus can never fully encapsulate or capture the world.

 

Consider the problem from the earlier question: “how is the way obscured by language?” In Zhuangzi’s view, the world is irreducibly complex. The Way is the totality of complex interdependent relationships that drives all transformation and the experience of change. For Zhuangzi, any attempt to reduce the world to language will be insufficient and partializing. The problem is a problem of demarcation, abstraction, conceptualization, and oversimplification. Every act of linguistic demarcation (this-or-that, (is-the-case, is-not-the-case) is an incomplete abstract conceptualization that creates the possibility of opposition. By virtue of stating “this” we create a “that.” By virtue of identifying anything as “this” we raise the possibility of “not this” or “opposite to this.” This is the “birth of opposites.” The problem is a problem of language, and it is a problem for all language.

 

The Hinges of Dao

The name of this blog and the center of all affirmation and negation. Zhuangzi’s broader point is that disputation reduces discourse to arguments based on limited perspectives and partisan distinctions. When forced to give advice the sage keeps their own views hidden and provides discourse that provides possibilities of transformation. Instead of trying to emerge victorious in disputations about what is or is not, or what should or should not be, the sage provides insights related to what is possible and what could be possible. This moves the goal of the argument from proving-right-versus-wrong to establishing models of possible action that integrate the concerns of all parties involved. Or at least those parties wise enough to listen to sage.

 

Notes

Legge, Watson, and Ziporyn all utilize quotation marks to highlight the role of linguistic denotation in discourse and disputation. I follow their practice here. I think this is warranted due to the frequent use of shi/fei in both content and grammar (structure). The terms are frequently used to preface or mark statements the speaker thinks should be affirmed or negated.

Zhuangzi 2.4 (Part 1) The Fixed Mind

Zhuangzi 2.4, Part 1: “If someone follows the fixed mind…” [1]

夫隨其成心而師之，誰獨且無師乎？奚必知代而心自取者有之？愚者與有焉。未成乎心而有是非，是今日適越而昔至也。是以無有為有。無有為有，雖有神禹，且不能知，吾獨且柰何哉！

If someone follows a fixed-mind and makes it their master, who alone is without a master? [*] Why must (you) understand generation and change and be one whose mind itself selects and chooses (to) have this? A fool can also have (it). [2] Lacking completion in the heart but having affirmations and negations, this is “going to Yue today but arriving yesterday.” It is taking “not having something” and calling it “something.” [3] Having nothing and calling it something, even the Divine Yu cannot understand this. [4] How could I myself endure it! 

師 shī n: teacher, tutor, master; model; v (lit): learn, imitate

成心 chéngxīn n: fixed-mind; adv: intentional; on purpose; deliberate

代 dài v: replace; n: replacements; era, generation

取 qǔ v: take, get, fetch; aim at, seek; adopt, assume, choose

乎 hū similar to 于 in mid-sentence

柰 nài n: crab-apple; v: endure, bear 

[1] There are no passage numbers in the original text. Chinese commentaries and English translations both provide passage numbers, but not always in agreement. After re-reading this passage for this project, I think this discussion on the fixed mind follows more closely with the preceding passage (2.3).

[2] 師 can be a teacher or a master, someone presumably skilled in some art who instructs or guides others. Literary verb usage suggests learning from or imitating an earlier example. This gets at Zhuangzi’s point: if we can regard having a fixed or resolute mind as equivalent to a wise master or teacher, then who doesn’t have a master or teacher? I use the translation “master” to emphasize an unreflective imitation.

[3] 無有為有 wúyǒu wéiyǒu not having something and calling it something; I think it is important to emphasize the linguistic or evaluative aspect of 為 in this context; to look at the absence of something and to regard it the same as having that something.

[4] 神禹 Shén Yǔ the spirit-like Yu; the Great Yu, legendary founder of the Xia Dynasty; tamer of floods.

[*] The modern usage of 成心 refers to intentional, deliberate, or on purpose; “having one’s mind made up,” to act in a certain manner. The mind holds and idea and seeks to act on the idea. In the classical context this might mean a “fixed heart-mind.” The heart-mind “serves” as the “ruler” of the other senses: receiving and evaluating sensory distinctions from the sense organs, and making and evaluating linguistic distinctions in relation to sensory distinctions (including its own emotional and cognitive activity).

As a compound term, 成心 is unique to Zhuangzi in the entirety of pre-Han literature, appearing only in this passage. Zhuangzi’s recognition of the 成心 as a problem is one of the unique aspects of Zhuangzi’s thought. The conflicts that emerge from disputation 辯 of right and wrong (shi/fei) are in part predicated on the cheng-xin, or the inflexibility of thought in the “complete” or fixed-mind.

This is more complicated than simply establishing a position of right and wrong; fixing any linguistic marker obscures the Way. Ordinary usage carves paths through the world establishing linguistic identity (是、彼), establishing proper usage (用) or appropriateness (是、非) and then debating (辯) and holding fast to fixed methods.

This linguistic fixation has important linguistic and ethical consequences, which are explored in other passages through the Inner Chapters. Here are two issues, in brief: (1) the 成心 imposes and holds fixed linguistic terms, obscuring the complex interplay of emerging conditions or possibilities; (2) the 成心 holds fast to binary oppositions, which by their very nature are limited and partisan understandings of complex experience. These fixations prevent the heart-mind from observing the complex fluctuations of experience, the transformations of change, and from responding to emerging conditions.

References/Further Reading:

The Wandering Heart-Mind: Zhuangzi and Moral Psychology in the Inner Chapters | SpringerLink 

Origins of Moral-Political Philosophy in Early China - Paperback - Tao Jiang - Oxford University Press (oup.com)

Zhuangzi 2.3 Without "that..." there is no "my..."

Zhuangzi 2.3 Without “that…” there is no “my...” 

非彼無我，非我無所取。是亦近矣，而不知其所為使。若有真宰，而特不得其眹。可行已信，而不見其形，有情而無形。百骸、九竅、六藏，賅而存焉，吾誰與為親？汝皆說之乎？其有私焉？如是皆有，為臣妾乎，其臣妾不足以相治乎。其遞相為君臣乎，其有真君存焉。如求得其情與不得，無益損乎其真。一受其成形，不亡以待盡。與物相刃相靡，其行盡如馳，而莫之能止，不亦悲乎！終身役役而不見其成功，苶然疲役而不知其所歸，可不哀邪！人謂之不死，奚益？其形化，其心與之然，可不謂大哀乎？人之生也，固若是芒乎！其我獨芒，而人亦有不芒者乎！ 

Without "that…" there is no "my…" without "my…" there is nowhere to capture. [1] This draws near, but (I) do not know why it is so. It is as if there is some genuine official, [2] but (I) cannot find their gaze. [3] (I) trust it can carry things out, [4] but (I) cannot see its form; there is feeling but no bodily form. [5] One hundred bones, nine openings, six viscera, [6] completed and collected here, which do I follow and regard intimately? Do you delight in each and every one of them? (Or) do you have secret favorites [7] among them?

If you retain them all, treating (them) as ministers and concubines, those ministers and concubines are incapable of mutual [8] governance. (If) they mutually succeed each other as rulers and ministers, some true ruler must remain. [9] Whether (we) succeed in discovering [10] its nature or not, (this) neither benefits nor harms its actuality. Once receiving their fixed bodily form, (they) do not flee, waiting for the end. In going along with things mutually cutting (disobeying) and mutually dispersing (acquiescing), [12] they proceed to exhaustion as if galloping (away), and nothing can bring them to a halt - is it not sad! [13] In the end the body labors and toils [14] and never sees its success, wearily exhausted in pressed service and does not know how to return, is it not a pity! People say it is not death, (but) where is the benefit? [15] Their human forms [16] dissolve, their minds follow along like so, how can this not be called a great pity? Human life truly is like being covered in ignorance! [17] Or am I alone covered in ignorance, and among the people there is none who is ignorant!

Comments

[1] I am hesitant to translate 我 as "self." I don't think the passage is targeting a general concept of self (at least not directly; See Joachim's "No to no-self in Zhuangzi"). Instead, I think the passage is targeting the making of distinctions, passing judgments, holding views, and attempting to fix these through disputation and conflict. I also hesitate to fill the object of “that…” Legge suggests “view,” which is one correct interpretation, but I think the scope is larger. Any distinction, judgment, or view creates a “that,” and any “that” creates a theoretical point of opposition. This suggests the scope of 彼 could range from disconnected minor points to complex views supported by networks of theory.

[2] Some genuine official who can resolve disputes, see 2.3 (below), 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.11.

[3] 特: 不过; 眹: pupil (ocular); Legge translates this as “we do not find any trace (of his presence and acting). Legge’s translation is valid and is based on the connections between vision, officials, and judgment as “tallying” comparisons: the gaze of the official is the trace of his influence that cannot be found. Zhuangzi will then undercut the role of officials as judging arguments and the simple "tallying" of ideas.

[4] 行: go, walk, travel; circulate; carry out; there is something responsible for the action of the world (Dao), but it cannot be captured in disputation or polar opposition. Rejecting binary opposition removes obfuscations created by trying to "capture" or control a point of dispute.  This draws us closer to the point, but it is difficult to explain because all language involves demonstrative practices, of creating “this” and “that” through discourse.

[5] 竅 the same openings in the pipes of heaven; 藏：脏腑: 心，肝，脾，肺，肾，命门 (source of vitality).

[6] 情feeling, emotion, passion, situation; 形form, shape, appearance.

[7] 说：同情，喜欢，高兴; 私: personal, private; selfish; secret; (opp. 公).

[8] 相: each other; one another; mutually

[9] 遞: v: hand over; pass; give; adv: successively; 存: compare with the discussion on needing a ruler who is not involved in adjudicating (ZZ 2.12); there must be one who is "stored away" who is not involved.

[10] 求得: to look for and obtain.

[11] 相: mutual; consider the mutual generation of opposites: being born through the process of opposition; one's actions being defined only through opposition or acquiescence - the exhaustion stems from actions based on binary opposition.

[12] 刃: edge of a knife: 逆: go against; disobey; defy (opp. 順); 靡: to disperse with the wind: 順: to acquiesce, obey (opp. 逆).

[13] 而莫之能止: reference ZZ 2.1:  the alternating of emotions that do not stop, we do not know from whence they come, and we lead the heart-mind to exhaustion.

[14] 役: forced labor, obligatory task, military service; 苶: weary, tired; lethargic; 然: reading as an adverb suffix; 歸:to return, to go back to, to gather together.

[15] 益: profit, benefit, advantage.

[16] 形: body, thing with form, human body, or appearance.

[17] 芒：愚昧: ignorant; benighted (covered in ignorance). Compare with other images of being overgrown (ZZ 2.2).