When people thus argue each according to his own one—sided view, there is no way either to reach a final conclusion, or to determine which side is re-ally right or really wrong. The Ch i Wu Lun says "Suppose that you argue
I78 THE THIRD PHASE OF TAOISM:CHUANG TZU
with me. If you beat me, instead of my beating you, are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? Or, if I beat you, and not you me, am I neces-sarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Or are both of us right or both of us wrong? Neither you nor I can know, and others are all the more in the dark. Whom shall we ask to pro-duce the right decision? We may ask someone who agrees with you; but since he agrees with you, how can he make the decision? We may ask someone who agrees with me; but since he agrees with me, how can he make the decision? We may ask someone who agrees with both you and me; but since he agrees with both you and me, how can he make the decision? We may ask some one who differs from both you and me; but since he differs from both you and me, how can he make the decision? '
This passage is reminiscent of the manner of argument followed by the School of Names. But whereas the members of that school argue thus in or-der to contradict the common sense of ordinary people, the Ch'i Wu Lun's purpose is to contradict the followers of the School of Names. For this school did actually believe that argument could decide what is really right and re-ally wrong.
Chuang Tzu, on the other hand, maintains that concepts of right and wrong are built up by each man on the basis of his own finite point of view. All these views are relative. As the Ch'i Wu Lun says: "When there is life, there is death, and when there is death, there is life. When there is possibili-ty, there is impossibility, and when there is impossibility, there is possibility. Because there is right, there is wrong. Because there is wrong, there is right. Things are ever subject to change and have many aspects. Therefore many views can be held about one and the same thing. Once we say this, we assume that a higher standpoint exists. If we accept this assumption, there is no need to make a decision ourselves about what is right and what is wrong. The argument explains itself.
The Higher Point of View
To accept this premise is to see things from a higher point of view, or, as the Ch'i Wu Lun calls it, to see things "in the light of Heaven." "To see things in the light of Heaven" means to see things from the point of view of that which transcends the finite, which is the Too. It is said in the Ch'i Wu Lun: "The 'this' is also 'that.' The 'that' is also 'this.' The 'that' has a system of right and wrong. The this also has a system of right and wrong. Is there really a distinction between 'that' and this ? Or is there really no distinction be tween that and this ? That the that and the this cease to be opposites is the very essence of Too. Only the essence, an axis as it were, is the center of the circle responding to the endless changes. The right is an endless change. The wrong is also an endless change. Therefore it is said that there is nothing better than to use the light. ' In other words, the
l8o. THE THIRD PHASE OF TAOISM:CHUANG TZU L
that and the this, in their mutual opposition of right and wrong, are like an endlessly revolving circle. But the man who sees things from the point of view of the Tao stands, as it were, at the center of the circle. He understands all that is going on in the movements of the circle, hut does not himself take part in these movements. This is not owing to his inactivity or resignation, but because he has transcended the finite and sees things from a higher point of view. In the Chuang-tzu, the finite point of view is compared with the view of the well—frog. The frog in the well can see only a little sky, and so thinks that the sky is only so big.
From the point of view of the Tao, everything is just what it is. It is said in the Ch i Wu Lun: The possible is possible. The impossible is impossi-ble. The Tao makes things and they are what they are. What are they? They are what they are. What are they not? They are not what they are not. Every-thing is something and is good for something. There is nothing which is not something or is not good for something. Thus it is that there are roof-slats and pillars, ugliness and beauty, the peculiar and the extraordinary. All these by means of the Tan are united and become one. ' Although all things difier, they are alike in that they all constitute something and are good for something. They all equally come from the Tao. Therefore from the viewpoint of the Tan, things, though different, yet are united and become one.
The Ch i Wu Lun says again: To make a distinction is to make some construction. But construction is the same as destruction. For things us a whole there is neither construction nor destruction, but they turn to unity and become one. For example, when a table is made out of wood, from the viewpoint of that table, this is an act of construction. But from the viewpoint of the wood or the tree, it is one of destruction. Such construction or de-struction are so, however, only from a finite point of view. From the view-point of the Tan, there is neither construction nor destruction. These distinc-tions are all relative.
The distinction between the "me" and the "non-me" is also relative. From the viewpoint of the Tao, the "me" and the "non-me" are also united and become one. The Ch i Wu Lun says: "There is nothing larger in the world than the point of a hair, yet Mount T'ai is small. There is nothing old-er than a dead child, yet Peng Tsu La legendary Chinese Methuselah J had an untimely death. Heaven and Earth and 1 came into existence together, and all things with me are one." Here we again have Hui Shih's dictum: "Love all things equally, Heaven and Earth are one body.
Knowledge of the Higher Level
This passage in the Ch i Wu Lun, however, is immediately followed by another statement: Since all things arc one, what room is there for speech? But since I have already spoken of the one, is this not already speech? One plus speech make two. Two plus one make three. Going on from this, even
l8l THE THIRD PHASE OF TAOISM:CHUANG TZU
the most skillful reckoner will not be able to reach the end, and how much less able to do so are ordinary people! If proceeding from nothing to some-thing we can reach three, how much further shall we reach, if we proceed from something to something! Let us not proceed. Let us stop here. It is in this statement that the Ch i Wu Lun goes a step further than Hui Shih, and begins to discuss a higher kind of knowledge. This higher knowledge is 'knowledge which is not knowledge.
What is really one can neither be discussed nor even conceived. For as soon as it is thought of and discussed, it becomes something that exists ex-ternally to the person who is doing the thinking and speaking. So since its all-embracing unity is thus lost, it is actually not the real one at all. Hui Shih said: "The greatest has nothing beyond itself and is called the Great One." By these words he described the Great One very well indeed, yet he remained unaware of the fact that since the Great One has nothing beyond itself, it is impossible either to think or speak of it. For anything that can be thought or spoken of has something beyond itself, namely, the thought and the speaking. The Taoists, on the contrary, realized that the "one" is un-thinkable and inexpressible. Thereby, they had a true understanding of the one and advanced a step further than did the School of Names.
In the Ch'i Wu Lun it is also said: "Referring to the right and the wrong, the being so and not being so : if the right is really right, we need not dispute about how it is different from the wrong; if the being so is really being so, we need not dispute about how it is different from 'not being so. ...Let us forget life. Let us forget the distinction between right and wrong. Let us take our joy in the realm of the infinite and remain there.' The realm of the infinite is the realm wherein lives the man who has attained to the Tao. Such a man not only has knowledge of the one, but also has actually experienced it. This experience is the experience of living in the realm of the infinite. He has forgotten all the distinctions of things, even those in-volved in his own life. In his experience there remains only the undifferen-tiable one, in the midst of which he lives.
Described in poetical language, such a man is he who chariots on the normality of the universe, rides on the transformations of the six elements, and thus makes excursion into the infinite. He is really the independent man, so his happiness is absolute.
Here we see how Chuang Tzu reached a final resolution of the original problem of the early Taoists. That problem is how to preserve life and avoid harm and danger. But, to the real sage, it ceases to be a problem. As is said in the Chuang—tzu: The universe is the unity of all things. If we attain this unity and identify ourselves with it, then the members of our body are but so much dust and dirt, while life and death, end and beginning, are but as the succession of day and night, which cannot disturb our inner peace. How much less shall we be troubled by worldly gain and loss, good-luck and bad-luck! " (Ch. 2.O.) Thus Chuang Tzu solved the original problem of the
184 THE THIRD PHASE OF TAOISM:CHUANG TZU
early Taoists simply by abolishing it. This is really the philosophical way of solving problems. Philosophy gives no information about matters of fact, and so cannot solve any problem in a concrete and physical way. It cannot, for example, help man either to gain longevity or defy death, nor can it help him to gain riches and avoid poverty. What it can do, however, is to give man a point of view, from which he can see that life is no more than death and loss is equal to gain. From the "practical" point of view, philosophy is useless, yet it can give us a point of view which is very useful. To use an expression of the Chuang—tzu, this is the usefulness of the useless. (Ch. 4-)
Spinoza has said that in a certain sense, the wise man "never ceases to be. This is also what Chuang Tzu means. The sage or perfect man is one with the Great One, that is, the universe. Since the universe never ceases to be, therefore the sage also never ceases to be. In the sixth chapter of the Chuang—tzu, we read: A boat may be stored in a creek; a net may be stored in a lake; these may be said to be sale enough. l?ul at midnight a strong man may come and carry them away on his back. The ignorant do not see that no matter how well you store things, smaller ones in larger ones, there will al-ways lie a chance for them lo be lost. Bui if you store the universe in the universe, there will be no room left for it to be lost. This is the great truth of things. Therefore the sage makes excursions into that which cannot be lost, and together with it he remains.' ll is in this sense that the sage never ceas-es to be.
Methodology of Mysticism
In order to be one with the Great One, the sage has lo transcend and for-get the distinctions between things. The way lo do this is lo discard knowl-edge, and is the method used by the Taoists for achieving sageliness with-in. The task of knowledge in the ordinary sense is to make distinctions; lo know a thing is to know the difference between it and other things. There-fore lo discard knowledge means to forget these distinctions. Once all dis-tinctions are forgotten, there remains only [he iindifferentiable one, which is the great whole. By achieving this condition, the sage may be said to have knowledge of another and higher level, which is called by the Taoists knowledge which is nut knowledge.
In the Chuang-tzu there are many passages about ihe method of forgetting distinctions. In the sixth chapter, for example, a report is given of an imagi-nary conversation between Confucius and his favorite disciple, Yen Hui. The story reads: "Yen Hui said: 'I have made some progress.' 'What do you mean? asked Confucius. 1 have forgotten human -heartedness and righ-teousness,' replied Yen Hui. 'Very well, but that is not enough,' said Con-fucius. Another day Yen Hui again saw Confucius and said: 'I have made some progress. What do you mean? asked Confucius. I have forgotten rituals and music, replied Yen Hui. Very well, but that is not enough,'
l86 . THE THIRD PHASE OF TAOISM:CHUANC TZU
_
said Confucius. Another day Yen Hui again saw Confucius and said: 'I have made some progress. What do you mean? asked Confucius. 1 sit in for-getfulness,' replied Yen Hui.
"At this Confucius changed countenance and asked: 'What do you mean by sitting in forgetfulness? To which Yen Hui replied: My limbs are nerveless and my intelligence is dimmed. I have abandoned my body and discarded my knowledge. Thus I become one with the Infinite. This is what I mean by sitting in forgetfulness. Then Confucius said: If you have become one with the Infinite, you have no personal likes and dislikes. If you have become one with the Great Evolution [of the universe], you are one who merely follow its changes. If you really have achieved this, I should like to follow your steps.
Thus Yen Hui achieved "sageliness within" by discarding knowledge. The result of discarding knowledge is to have no knowledge. But there is a dif-ference between "having-no knowledge" and "having no-knowledge. The state of "having-no knowledge" is one of original ignorance, whereas that of "having no-knowledge" comes only after one has passed through a prior stage of having knowledge. The former is a gift of nature, while the latter is an achievement of the spirit.
Some of the Taoists saw this distinction very clearly. It is significant that they used the word forget to express the essential idea of their method. Sages are not persons who remain in a state of original ignorance. They at one time possessed ordinary knowledge and made the usual distinctions, but they since forgot them. The difference between them and the man of original ignorance is as great as that between the courageous man and the man who does not fear simply because he is insensible to fear.
But there were also Taoists, such as the authors of some chapters of the Chuang-tzu, who failed to see this difference. They admired the primitive state of society and mind, and compared sages with children and the ignorant. Children and the ignorant have no knowledge and do not make distinctions, so that they both seem to belong to the undifferentiable one. Their belonging to it, however, is entirely unconsciousness. They remain in the undifferentiable one, but they are not conscious of the fact. They are ones who have-no knowledge, but not who have no-knowledge. It is the latter acquired state of no -knowledge that the Taoists call that of the knowledge which is not knowledge.
