Chuang Tzu. Analysis and discussion. Excerpts from a history on Chinese thought. C.Y. Chen.
The relativity of all things was vividly demonstrated by a series of allegories in in the Chapter One, " Free and Easy Wandering ". Among the allegories were the flight of a giant bird, and that of the tiny cicada and the little dove. The giant bird, known as the P'eng, stretches his wings across untold thousands of miles (li), flies to a height of ninety thousand miles, travels from the infinite northern darkness to the infinite southern darkness, rolling up waves on the water for three thousand miles, and takes the time of six months for a rest. The cicada and the dove fly or jump from one branch to another of a tiny tree, occasionally falling down before reaching it, but they also free and easy in flight and laugh at the effort of the giant bird. The free and easy state is of course subjective. But there is some objective truth in it. The difference between such a great bird and such a tiny cicada is of a relative degree in comparison with the absolute bigness which is infinite and the absolute smallness which is likewise infinitesimal. Besides, the freedom of even the great bird is relativistic. For absolute freedom means absolute independence. The flight of the great bird, impressive as it is, still depends on the cumulative strength of the wind and is not entirely independent.
Other allegories include the comparison between the mushroom which grows in the morning and dies before sunset and therefore has no comprehension of the time duration of one day, and the great rose of Sharon whose life-cycle is so stretched that it counts eight thousand years as one spring season. Yet man's common sense, unaware of what is truly great, would consider a man who lives for a few hundred years as long-lived. What is rational to man at a common sense level, may be utterly irrational at the ultimate transcendent level.
Point of View.
Now all things in this world are mutually dependent and relative; from their respective relative points of view, each one of these things is distinct and different from another. The same may be said of those things in heaven; but when we look at the sky we see ONE dark-blueness all over. That is because we look at them [it] from a distance which is nearly infinite. From the nearly infinite, we see no distinction of the parts but ONE dark-blueness. It would be the same if one looks from the sky at the things on earth. The moral is: if one adheres to the viewpoint of the infinite, one will transcend the relative difference of things. Since all injuries (or benefits) of the world are relativistic, one who is one with the infinite cannot be injured by water or fire, which are things in the relativistic sphere.
However, in this a point of controversy may arise. Within the sphere of the relative, should one adhere to the relatively great or not. In other words, should one be the great bird or the cicada or the dove? Chuang Tzu gave no definite answer. He did say that little knowledge did not "match great knowledge", but he also intimated that a tailorbird needs just one branch in the vast forest to build her nest, and a mole drinks only one bellyfull of water at the great river, and that even the great sage-ruler Yao who pacified the world would not be at a loss when faced with the supernatural - the nearly absolute.
Another question arises. What is the use of such "greatness" in the relativistic and practical world? Here two allegories are presented for those things too great to be of practical use in the mundane world: A huge gourd that is so cumbersome that it cannot be made a water container or dipper; a big tree the trunk of which is so gnarled and bumpy and the branches of which are so bent and twisty that no measurement would fit. These will be cast away by the mundane. Chuang Tzu answers that some great use may be made of them by a man of great wisdom. If they are not thus used, the blame is on the petty men of the mundane world. It may be well that the "great" things either desert or are deserted by the mundane world, so they may enjoy their greatness in nature. [Thus solitary will be the great in the mundane world.?]
All distinctions are relative.
From the viewpoint of the infinite, "all things are equal," This is the title of the second chapter in Chang-tzu. Each and everything is correct by its own right and from its own relativistic standpoint, but would be incorrect by the right and from the standpoint of others. The center of the infinite universe is definitely everywhere, and absolutely nowhere. This is true even with regard to the very definite center of the subjective world: The self-being. In a dream, Chuang Chou once became a butterfly, content and at ease of being a butterfly and unaware of the being Chuang Chou. Afterwards, he woke up being Chuang Chou, probably just as content and at ease. If one were to ask him whether he was Chuang Chou who became a butterfly in a dream or a butterfly who became Chuang Chou in a dream, he might have no answer. Or, he might answer that he was definitely Chuang Chou, but this is because at that movement he was being Chuang Chou. So if he answered the question at the moment of the dream, he would be just as definite that he was a butterfly, because then he was being a butterfly. Both the butterfly and Chuang Chou had their moments of being. The existence of the one is no more and no less definite than the other in their limited spheres. There is nothing absolute in my world, your world, this universe, other universes. Relativism is extended to the infinite.
In the absolute infinite, there is one-no [?] distinction between things. In the absolute infinitesimal, there is no content of anything-no self-so of anything [?]. There is no absolute isolation of any being, including the subjective basis of knowledge. Here an allegory is produced in a confrontation between the Taoist and the Logician-epistemologist.
Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu wandered on the dam of the Hao river. Chuang Tzu said: "The minnows swim out at their ease; this is the happiness of the fish."
Hui Tzu said: "You are not the fish; how do you know the happiness of the fish." Here Chuang Tzu momentously played the game of the logician. "You are not me," Chuang Tzu said: "How do you know that I do not know the happiness of the fish?"
Hui Tzu said: "I am not you; definitely I do not know you. You definitely are not the fish; it is therefore perfectly clear that you do not know the happiness of the fish."
From the point of formal logic and rational epistemology, Hui Tzu's conclusion is well-derived. But life is not logically and epistemologically structured and sustained, it includes action. And the action of even the most famous Logicians is not always logically fulfilled. So Chuang Tzu returned to the life-situation and life-sources to refute Hui Tzu's definitive logical conclusion. He said: "Let us go back to the origin [of the argument]. You said: "How do you know the happiness of the fish and so on. Thereupon, You had already known that which I know and then questioned me. As for me, I know it on top of the dam." The reply may be mystical and elliptical. (It is elliptical because it is mystical and therefore need not be clearly developed. It is elliptical and therefore can be clearly reconstructed, though the reconstruction cannot be complete in that which is mystical).
The reconstruction may be like this. According to the abstract principle that every being is distinct, isolated, and incommunicable to other beings, there will be no relationship between, nor response from, one another. But this is not the life-situation. In the life-situation just mentioned, Chuang-Tzu said something, and Hui Tzu responded. The two are communicating. The same might occur between Chuang Tzu and the fish. In addition, Hui Tzu not only responded but also responded in correspondence to Chuang Chou's saying about knowing the happiness of the fish. It shows that some similitude of feeling (sympathy) is possible between two separate beings. The same similitude of feeling (sympathy) may exist between Chuang Tzu and the fish. By this Chuang Tzu can know the happiness of the fish from a distance. More precisely, Hui Tzu's questioning shows that he admitted that he knew the mind of Chuang Tzu, although he judged it to be such as "it does not know the happiness of the fish" or "how can it know the happiness of the fish."
Chuang Tzu vanquished the certainty of common sense, of formal logical reasoning, and of the rationality in epistemology. Everything, concrete or abstract, is definite and relative, and becomes nothing in the infinite. The infinite is undefinable and neither concrete nor abstract. It may be named by one or any name but is not that one or any name. It is mystery. It is unimaginable but may be imaged. Life is a process of imagining the unimaginable, exploring the infinite, and naming the nameless. The great many demonstrations in Chuang-tzu are both allegories for the mystery of the infinite confronting the definite and illustrations of the diverse situations of life and being in which the confrontation between the infinite and the definite in different guises occurred.
The confrontation between the infinite and the definite, the life process of imagining unimaginable forms the dialectics in the Book Lao-tzu.
The relativity of all things was vividly demonstrated by a series of allegories in in the Chapter One, " Free and Easy Wandering ". Among the allegories were the flight of a giant bird, and that of the tiny cicada and the little dove. The giant bird, known as the P'eng, stretches his wings across untold thousands of miles (li), flies to a height of ninety thousand miles, travels from the infinite northern darkness to the infinite southern darkness, rolling up waves on the water for three thousand miles, and takes the time of six months for a rest. The cicada and the dove fly or jump from one branch to another of a tiny tree, occasionally falling down before reaching it, but they also free and easy in flight and laugh at the effort of the giant bird. The free and easy state is of course subjective. But there is some objective truth in it. The difference between such a great bird and such a tiny cicada is of a relative degree in comparison with the absolute bigness which is infinite and the absolute smallness which is likewise infinitesimal. Besides, the freedom of even the great bird is relativistic. For absolute freedom means absolute independence. The flight of the great bird, impressive as it is, still depends on the cumulative strength of the wind and is not entirely independent.
Other allegories include the comparison between the mushroom which grows in the morning and dies before sunset and therefore has no comprehension of the time duration of one day, and the great rose of Sharon whose life-cycle is so stretched that it counts eight thousand years as one spring season. Yet man's common sense, unaware of what is truly great, would consider a man who lives for a few hundred years as long-lived. What is rational to man at a common sense level, may be utterly irrational at the ultimate transcendent level.
Point of View.
Now all things in this world are mutually dependent and relative; from their respective relative points of view, each one of these things is distinct and different from another. The same may be said of those things in heaven; but when we look at the sky we see ONE dark-blueness all over. That is because we look at them [it] from a distance which is nearly infinite. From the nearly infinite, we see no distinction of the parts but ONE dark-blueness. It would be the same if one looks from the sky at the things on earth. The moral is: if one adheres to the viewpoint of the infinite, one will transcend the relative difference of things. Since all injuries (or benefits) of the world are relativistic, one who is one with the infinite cannot be injured by water or fire, which are things in the relativistic sphere.
However, in this a point of controversy may arise. Within the sphere of the relative, should one adhere to the relatively great or not. In other words, should one be the great bird or the cicada or the dove? Chuang Tzu gave no definite answer. He did say that little knowledge did not "match great knowledge", but he also intimated that a tailorbird needs just one branch in the vast forest to build her nest, and a mole drinks only one bellyfull of water at the great river, and that even the great sage-ruler Yao who pacified the world would not be at a loss when faced with the supernatural - the nearly absolute.
Another question arises. What is the use of such "greatness" in the relativistic and practical world? Here two allegories are presented for those things too great to be of practical use in the mundane world: A huge gourd that is so cumbersome that it cannot be made a water container or dipper; a big tree the trunk of which is so gnarled and bumpy and the branches of which are so bent and twisty that no measurement would fit. These will be cast away by the mundane. Chuang Tzu answers that some great use may be made of them by a man of great wisdom. If they are not thus used, the blame is on the petty men of the mundane world. It may be well that the "great" things either desert or are deserted by the mundane world, so they may enjoy their greatness in nature. [Thus solitary will be the great in the mundane world.?]
All distinctions are relative.
From the viewpoint of the infinite, "all things are equal," This is the title of the second chapter in Chang-tzu. Each and everything is correct by its own right and from its own relativistic standpoint, but would be incorrect by the right and from the standpoint of others. The center of the infinite universe is definitely everywhere, and absolutely nowhere. This is true even with regard to the very definite center of the subjective world: The self-being. In a dream, Chuang Chou once became a butterfly, content and at ease of being a butterfly and unaware of the being Chuang Chou. Afterwards, he woke up being Chuang Chou, probably just as content and at ease. If one were to ask him whether he was Chuang Chou who became a butterfly in a dream or a butterfly who became Chuang Chou in a dream, he might have no answer. Or, he might answer that he was definitely Chuang Chou, but this is because at that movement he was being Chuang Chou. So if he answered the question at the moment of the dream, he would be just as definite that he was a butterfly, because then he was being a butterfly. Both the butterfly and Chuang Chou had their moments of being. The existence of the one is no more and no less definite than the other in their limited spheres. There is nothing absolute in my world, your world, this universe, other universes. Relativism is extended to the infinite.
In the absolute infinite, there is one-no [?] distinction between things. In the absolute infinitesimal, there is no content of anything-no self-so of anything [?]. There is no absolute isolation of any being, including the subjective basis of knowledge. Here an allegory is produced in a confrontation between the Taoist and the Logician-epistemologist.
Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu wandered on the dam of the Hao river. Chuang Tzu said: "The minnows swim out at their ease; this is the happiness of the fish."
Hui Tzu said: "You are not the fish; how do you know the happiness of the fish." Here Chuang Tzu momentously played the game of the logician. "You are not me," Chuang Tzu said: "How do you know that I do not know the happiness of the fish?"
Hui Tzu said: "I am not you; definitely I do not know you. You definitely are not the fish; it is therefore perfectly clear that you do not know the happiness of the fish."
From the point of formal logic and rational epistemology, Hui Tzu's conclusion is well-derived. But life is not logically and epistemologically structured and sustained, it includes action. And the action of even the most famous Logicians is not always logically fulfilled. So Chuang Tzu returned to the life-situation and life-sources to refute Hui Tzu's definitive logical conclusion. He said: "Let us go back to the origin [of the argument]. You said: "How do you know the happiness of the fish and so on. Thereupon, You had already known that which I know and then questioned me. As for me, I know it on top of the dam." The reply may be mystical and elliptical. (It is elliptical because it is mystical and therefore need not be clearly developed. It is elliptical and therefore can be clearly reconstructed, though the reconstruction cannot be complete in that which is mystical).
The reconstruction may be like this. According to the abstract principle that every being is distinct, isolated, and incommunicable to other beings, there will be no relationship between, nor response from, one another. But this is not the life-situation. In the life-situation just mentioned, Chuang-Tzu said something, and Hui Tzu responded. The two are communicating. The same might occur between Chuang Tzu and the fish. In addition, Hui Tzu not only responded but also responded in correspondence to Chuang Chou's saying about knowing the happiness of the fish. It shows that some similitude of feeling (sympathy) is possible between two separate beings. The same similitude of feeling (sympathy) may exist between Chuang Tzu and the fish. By this Chuang Tzu can know the happiness of the fish from a distance. More precisely, Hui Tzu's questioning shows that he admitted that he knew the mind of Chuang Tzu, although he judged it to be such as "it does not know the happiness of the fish" or "how can it know the happiness of the fish."
Chuang Tzu vanquished the certainty of common sense, of formal logical reasoning, and of the rationality in epistemology. Everything, concrete or abstract, is definite and relative, and becomes nothing in the infinite. The infinite is undefinable and neither concrete nor abstract. It may be named by one or any name but is not that one or any name. It is mystery. It is unimaginable but may be imaged. Life is a process of imagining the unimaginable, exploring the infinite, and naming the nameless. The great many demonstrations in Chuang-tzu are both allegories for the mystery of the infinite confronting the definite and illustrations of the diverse situations of life and being in which the confrontation between the infinite and the definite in different guises occurred.
The confrontation between the infinite and the definite, the life process of imagining unimaginable forms the dialectics in the Book Lao-tzu.
Footer section, if any
Footer section, if any