Ratmachines.com

Introductory Notes

BOOK XXVII. YÜ YEN.

Yü Yen, 'Metaphorical Words,' stand at the commencement of the Book, and have been adopted as its name. They might be employed to denote its first paragraph, but are not applicable to the Book as a whole. Nor let the reader expect to find even here any disquisition on the nature of the metaphor as a figure of speech. Translated literally, 'Yü Yen' are 'Lodged Words,' that is, Ideas that receive their meaning or character from their environment, the narrative or description in which they are deposited.

Kwang-dze wished, I suppose, to give some description of the style in which he himself wrote:-now metaphorical, now abounding in quotations, and throughout moulded by his Tâoistic views. This last seems to be the meaning of his Kih Yen,—literally, 'Cup, or Goblet, Words,' that is, words, common as the water constantly supplied in the cup, but all moulded by the Tâoist principle, the element of and from Heaven blended in man's constitution and that should direct and guide his conduct. The best help in the interpretation of the paragraph is derived from a study of the difficult second Book, as suggested in the notes.

Of the five paragraphs that follow the first, the second relates to the change of views, which, it is said, took place in Confucius; the third, to the change of feeling in Zäng-dze in his poverty and prosperity; the fourth, to changes of character produced in his disciple by the teachings of Tung-kwo Dze-khî; the fifth, to the changes in the appearance of the shadow produced by the ever-changing substance; and the sixth, to the change of spirit and manner produced in Yang Kû by the stern lesson of Lâo-dze.

Various other lessons, more or less appropriate and important, are interspersed.

Some critics argue that this Book must have originally been one with the thirty-second, which was made into two by the insertion between its Parts of the four spurious intervening Books, but this is uncertain and unlikely.

Book XXVII
Part III Section V

Yü Yen, or 'Metaphorical Language¹.'

1. Of my sentences nine in ten are metaphorical; of my illustrations seven in ten are from valued writers. The rest of my words are like the water that daily fills the cup, tempered and harmonised by the Heavenly element in our nature².

The nine sentences in ten which are metaphorical are borrowed from extraneous things to assist (the comprehension of) my argument. (When it is said, for instance), 'A father does not act the part of matchmaker for his own son,' (the meaning is that) 'it is better for another man to praise the son than for his father to do so.' The use of such metaphorical language is not my fault, but the fault of men (who would not otherwise readily understand me).

Men assent to views which agree with their own, and oppose those which do not so agree. Those which agree with their own they hold to be right, and those which do not so agree they hold to be wrong. The seven out of ten illustrations taken from valued writers are designed to put an end to disputations. Those writers are the men of hoary eld, my predecessors in time. But such as are unversed in the warp and woof, the beginning and end of the subject, cannot be set down as of venerable eld, and regarded as the predecessors of others. If men have not that in them which fits them to precede others, they are without the way proper to man, and they who are without the way proper to man can only be pronounced defunct monuments of antiquity.

Words like the water that daily issues from the cup, and are harmonised by the Heavenly Element (of our nature), may be carried on into the region of the unlimited, and employed to the end of our years. But without words there is an agreement (in principle). That agreement is not effected by words, and an agreement in words is not effected by it. Hence it is said, 'Let there be no words.' Speech does not need words. One may speak all his life, and not have spoken a (right) word; and one may not have spoken all his life, and yet all his life been giving utterance to the (right) words. There is that which makes a thing allowable, and that which makes a thing not allowable. There is that which makes a thing right, and that which makes a thing not right. How is a thing right? It is right because it is right. How is a thing wrong? It is wrong because it is wrong. How is a thing allowable? It is allowable because it is so. How is a thing not allowable? It is not allowable because it is not so. Things indeed have what makes them right, and what makes them allowable. There is nothing which has not its condition of right; nothing which has not its condition of allowability. But without the words of the (water-) cup in daily use, and harmonised by the Heavenly Element (in our nature), what one can continue long in the possession of these characteristics?

All things are divided into their several classes, and succeed to one another in the same way, though of different bodily forms. They begin and end as in an unbroken ring, though how it is they do so be not apprehended. This is what is called the Lathe of Heaven; and the Lathe of Heaven is the Heavenly Element in our nature.

2. Kwang-dze said to Hui-Sze, 'When Confucius was in his sixtieth year, in that year his views changed³. What he had before held to be right, he now ended by holding to be wrong; and he did not know whether the things which he now pronounced to be right were not those which he had for fifty-nine years held to be wrong.' Hui-dze replied, 'Confucius with an earnest will pursued the acquisition of knowledge, and acted accordingly.' Kwang-dze rejoined, 'Confucius disowned such a course, and never said that it was his. He said, "Man receives his powers from the Great Source⁴ (of his being), and he should restore them to their (original) intelligence in his life. His singing should be in accordance with the musical tubes, and his speech a model for imitation. When profit and righteousness are set before him, and his liking (for the latter) and dislike (of the former), his approval and disapproval, are manifested, that only serves to direct the speech of men (about him). To make men in heart submit, and not dare to stand up in opposition to him; to establish the fixed law for all under heaven:—ah! ah! I have not attained to that."'

3. Zäng-dze twice took office, and on the two occasions his state of mind was different. He said, 'While my parents were alive I took office, and though my emolument was only three fû⁵ (of grain), my mind was happy. Afterwards when I took office, my emolument was three thousand kung⁶; but I could not share it with my parents, and my mind was sad.' The other disciples asked Kung-nî, saying, 'Such an one as Shän may be pronounced free from all entanglement:—is he to be blamed for feeling as he did⁷?' The reply was, 'But he was subject to entanglement⁸. If he had been free from it, could he have had that sadness? He would have looked on his three fû and three thousand kung no more than on a heron or a mosquito passing before him.'

4. Yen Khäng Dze-yû said to Tung-kwo, Dze-khî⁹, 'When I (had begun to) hear your instructions, the first year, I continued a simple rustic; the second year, I became docile; the third year, I comprehended (your teaching); the fourth year, I was (plastic) as a thing; the fifth year, I made advances; the sixth year, the spirit entered (and dwelt in me); the seventh year, (my nature as designed by) Heaven was perfected; the eighth year, I knew no difference between death and life; the ninth year, I attained to the Great Mystery¹⁰.

'Life has its work to do, and death ensues, (as if) the common character of each were a thing prescribed. Men consider that their death has its cause; but that life from (the operation of) the Yang has no cause. But is it really so? How does (the Yang) operate in this direction? Why does it not operate there?

'Heaven has its places and spaces which can be calculated; (the divisions of) the earth can be assigned by men. But how shall we search for and find out (the conditions of the Great Mystery)? We do not know when and how (life) will end, but how shall we conclude that it is not determined (from without)? and as we do not know when and how it begins, how should we conclude that it is not (so) determined?

'In regard to the issues of conduct which we deem appropriate, how should we conclude that there are no spirits presiding over them; and where those issues seem inappropriate, how should we conclude that there are spirits presiding over them?'

5. The penumbrae (once) asked the shadow¹¹, saying, 'Formerly you were looking down, and now you are looking up; formerly you had your hair tied up, and now it is dishevelled; formerly you were sitting, and now you have risen up; formerly you were walking, and now you have stopped:—how is all this?' The shadow said, 'Venerable Sirs, how do you ask me about such small matters? These things all belong to me, but I do not know how they do so. I am (like) the shell of a cicada or the cast-off skin of a snake¹²;—like them, and yet not like them. With light and the sun I make my appearance; with darkness and the night I fade away. Am not I dependent on the substance from which I am thrown? And that substance is itself dependent on something else! When it comes, I come with it; when it goes, I go with it. When it comes under the influence of the strong Yang, I come under the same. Since we are both produced by that strong Yang, what occasion is there for you to question me?'

6. Yang Dze-kü¹³ had gone South to Phei¹⁴, while Lâo Tan was travelling in the west in Khin¹⁵. (He thereupon) asked (Lao-dze) to come to the border (of Phei), and went himself to Liang, where be met him. Lâo-dze stood in the middle of the way, and, looking up to heaven, said with a sigh, 'At first I thought that you might be taught, but now I see that you cannot be.' Yang Dze-kü made no reply; and when they came to their lodging-house, he brought in water for the master to wash his hands and rinse his mouth, along with a towel and comb. He then took off his shoes outside the door, went forward on his knees, and said, 'Formerly, your disciple wished to ask you, Master, (the reason of what you said); but you were walking, and there was no opportunity, and therefore I did not presume to speak. Now there is an opportunity, and I beg to ask why you spoke as you did.' Lâo-dze replied, 'Your eyes are lofty, and you stare;—who would live with you? The purest carries himself as if he were soiled; the most virtuous seems to feel himself defective.' Yang Dze-kü looked abashed and changed countenance, saying, 'I receive your commands with reverence.'

When he first went to the lodging-house, the people of it met him and went before him. The master of it carried his mat for him, and the mistress brought the towel and comb. The lodgers left their mats, and the cook his fire-place (as he passed them). When he went away, the others in the house would have striven with him about (the places for) their mats¹⁶.

庄子·杂篇·寓言第二十七

寓言十九，重言十七，卮言日出，和以天倪。寓言十九，藉外论之
。亲父不为其子媒。亲父誉之，不若非其父者也。非吾罪也，人之罪
也。与己同则应，不与己同则反。同于己为是之，异于己为非之。重
言十七，所以己言也。是为耆艾，年先矣，而无经纬本末以期来者，
是非先也。人而无以先人，无人道也。人而无人道，是之谓陈人。卮
言日出，和以天倪，因以曼衍，所以穷年。不言则齐，齐与言不齐，
言与齐不齐也。故曰：“言无言。”言无言：终身言，未尝言；终身
不言，未尝不言。有自也而可，有自也而不可；有自也而然，有自也
而不然。恶乎然？然于然；恶乎不然？不然于不然。恶乎可？可于可
；恶乎不可？不可于不可。物固有所然，物固有所可。无物不然，无
物不可。非卮言日出，和以天倪，孰得其久！万物皆种也，以不同形
相禅，始卒若环，莫得其伦，是谓天均。天均者，天倪也。

庄子谓惠子曰：“孔子行年六十而六十化。始时所是，卒而非之。
未知今之所谓是之非五十九非也。”惠子曰：“孔子勤志服知也。”
庄子曰：“孔子谢之矣，而其末之言也。孔子云：夫受才乎大本，复
灵以生。鸣而当律，言而当法。利义陈乎前，而好恶是非直服人之口
而已矣。使人乃以心服而不敢囗（上“艹”下“噩”音ｗｕ４），立
定天下之定。已乎，已乎！吾且不得及彼乎！”

曾子再仕而心再化，曰：“吾及亲仕，三釜而心乐；后仕，三千锺
而不洎，吾心悲。”弟子问于仲尼曰：“若参者，可谓无所县其罪乎
？”曰：“既已县矣！夫无所县者，可以有哀乎？彼视三釜、三千锺
，如观雀蚊虻相过乎前也。”

颜成子游谓东郭子綦曰：“自吾闻子之言，一年而野，二年而从，
三年而通，四年而物，五年而来，六年而鬼入，七年而天成，八年而
不知死、不知生，九年而大妙。生有为，死也。劝公以其私，死也有
自也，而生阳也，无自也。而果然乎？恶乎其所适，恶乎其所不适？
天有历数，地有人据，吾恶乎求之？莫知其所终，若之何其无命也？
莫知其所始，若之何其有命也？有以相应也，若之何其无鬼邪？无以
相应也，若之何其有鬼邪？”

众罔两问于景曰：“若向也俯而今也仰，向也括撮而今也被发；向
也坐而今也起；向也行而今也止：何也？”景曰：“搜搜也，奚稍问
也！予有而不知其所以。予，蜩甲也，蛇蜕也，似之而非也。火与日
，吾屯也；阴与夜，吾代也。彼，吾所以有待邪，而况乎以无有待者
乎！彼来则我与之来，彼往则我与之往，彼强阳则我与之强阳。强阳
者，又何以有问乎！”

阳子居南之沛，老聃西游于秦。邀于郊，至于梁而遇老子。老子中
道仰天而叹曰：“始以汝为可教，今不可也。”阳子居不答。至舍，
进盥漱巾栉，脱屦户外，膝行而前，曰：“向者弟子欲请夫子，夫子
行不闲，是以不敢；今闲矣，请问其过。”老子曰：“而睢睢盱盱，
而谁与居！大白若辱，盛德若不足。”阳子居蹴然变容曰：“敬闻命
矣！”其往也，舍者迎将其家，公执席，妻执巾栉，舍者避席，炀者
避灶。其反也，舍者与之争席矣！

Footnotes

back ¹ See vol. xxxix, pp. 155, 156.

back ² See Bk. II, par. 10.

back ³ Compare this with the same language about Kü Po-yü in Bk. XXV, par. 8. There is no proof to support our author's assertion that the views of Confucius underwent any change.

back ⁴ 'The Great Source (Root)' here is generally explained by 'the Grand Beginning.' It is not easy to say whether we are to understand an ideal condition of man designed from the first, or the condition of every man as he is born into the world. On the 'powers' received by man, see Mencius VI, i, 6.

back ⁵ A fû = ten tâu and four shing, or sixty-four shing, the shing at present being rather less than an English pint.

back ⁶ A hung = sixty-four tâu; but there are various accounts of its size.

back ⁷ This sentence is difficult to construe.

back ⁸ But Confucius could not count his love for his parents an entanglement.

back ⁹ We must suppose this master to be the same as the Nan-kwo Dze-khî of Bk. II.

back ¹⁰ In illustration of the text here Lû Shû-kih refers to the use of Miâo (###) in the account of the term 'Spirit,' in the fifth Appendix to the Yî, par. 10, as meaning 'the subtle (presence and operation of God) with all things.' Dze-yû's further exposition of his attainments is difficult to understand fully.

back ¹¹ Compare Bk. II, par. 11.

back ¹² Such is the reading of Ziâo Hung.

back ¹³ No doubt the Yang Kû of Lieh-dze and Mencius.

back ¹⁴ See in XIV, 26 b.

back ¹⁵ In the borders of Phei; can hardly be the great State.

back ¹⁶ So had his arrogant superciliousness given place to humility.