Return Zhuangzi to me

Author: Shen Shanzeng
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2001-06-01
Features: Previously, when reading works that explained Buddhist scriptures, the authors would begin by solving the titles, and from the general to the specific, elaborating extensively. They would explain each word and its extensions, making a single scripture topic into a doctoral dissertation. I found this very cumbersome. Therefore, when I was annotating The Joy of Freedom, I did not include a title explanation. However, upon actually annotating, I found that directly diving into the text did not necessarily yield better results. Ancient scholars explained scriptures starting with the titles, and there was a reason for this. Especially since this time, I changed my approach and adopted a serious tone to annotate the Zhuangzi in a Zhuang-style way. After careful consideration, I decided to follow the old path, which turned out to be the most direct way. Because starting with the title explanation has at least three advantages.
First, it can be seen that the Zhuangzi was carefully written by the author, not compiled by later scholars.
According to the Records of the Han Dynasty·Bibliography, the Zhuangzi originally had fifty-two chapters. By the time of Sima Biao’s commentary, there were seven inner chapters, twenty-eight outer chapters, fourteen miscellaneous chapters, and three commentaries, totaling fifty-two chapters. The earliest surviving commentary—the Guo Xiang edition—only included seven inner chapters, fifteen outer chapters, eleven miscellaneous chapters, and three commentaries, totaling thirty-three chapters. The nineteen missing chapters were not because Guo Xiang did not see them but because he deemed them not written by Zhuangzi and believed they tarnished the image of the great Zhuangzi, so he removed them. During the Jin Dynasty, opinions differed on which chapters were written by Zhuangzi and which were compiled by later scholars or even forged by unscrupulous individuals claiming to write in Zhuangzi’s name. However, one thing was agreed upon: the seven inner chapters were definitely written by Zhuangzi himself, word by word, not compiled from his recorded conversations. The reason for this consensus was that the titles of the seven chapters were all three characters long and clearly summarized the central idea of each chapter. Unlike the outer and miscellaneous chapters, which took the first two or three characters from the beginning of the chapter as titles, the titles of the outer and miscellaneous chapters completely followed the style of the Analects. Since the Analects was compiled by later scholars, many questioned whether parts or even all of the outer and miscellaneous chapters were also compiled by later scholars. But regardless, this could prove that the inner chapters were indeed written by Zhuangzi himself.
However, this consensus was still questioned in modern times. Qi Sihe, in the preface to The Zhuangzi Index, said: “Regarding the seven inner chapters, all scholars have believed them to be written by Zhuangzi himself, with few doubts. Cheng Xuanying’s preface to the commentary says: ‘The inner chapters are profound, so separate titles were established outside the chapters. The outer chapters took the first two characters as titles. Therefore, Chen Jingyuan said: “The titles of the seven inner chapters were determined by Zhuangzi.”’ Now, whether the inner chapter titles were set by Zhuangzi himself is hard to say, but their writing style is clearly distinct from the outer and miscellaneous chapters. Even Liang Ren Gong, known for his love of debating ancient texts, said: ‘The inner chapters were written by Zhuangzi without question.’ However, I noticed in the On the Equality of Things that it mentions: ‘Zhaowen’s playing the guqin, Shi Kang’s beating the clappers, Hui Shi’s leaning on the wu tree—these three are nearly wise. Therefore, they are recorded at the end of the chapter.’ Zhuangzi was a friend of Hui Shi. If this chapter was written by Zhuangzi, how could he list Hui Shi among the ancient sages? Moreover, the Joy of Freedom, On the Equality of Things, and De Chong Fu all include anecdotes about Zhuangzi at the end of the chapters, which does not seem like something Zhuangzi would write himself. Furthermore, from the perspective of writing style, there were no private writings before the Warring States period, as Zhang Xuecheng pointed out. The earliest private writings, such as the Analects and the Mencius, used the Q&A format, likely recorded by his disciples and later scholars. Later scholars often divided them into chapters for easier study, naming them with the first two characters of the chapter. If a title was set first, then the argument was written, like in the Xunzi, Lüshi Chunqiu, and Han Feizi, which were all from the late Warring States period. Therefore, the seven inner chapters might also have been written by later scholars, not necessarily by Zhuangzi himself?”
I quote Qi Sihe’s remarks here because they typify a habit of questioning the past for the sake of questioning. They often point out that certain passages or statements that do not align with their views were inserted by later scholars, or even a few points to declare the entire book a forgery. I frequently encountered this when reading commentaries on the Zhuangzi and the works of other pre-Qin philosophers. At first, I was quite impressed by these scholars because their authoritative tone made it seem as if you couldn’t disagree with them. Like Qi Sihe,
This kind of skepticism is incredibly modest. Reading their conclusions often makes me feel fortunate that without their sharp eyes, I might have been deceived by a false Zhuangzi and sold out unknowingly, which would have been dangerous. Later, when I followed their guidance, I found Zhuangzi’s words becoming increasingly confusing, and I realized something was wrong. I finally decided to ignore these authorities and seek another path to understand the Zhuangzi. Only after I finally broke free from their complex web of arguments did I get close to the true Zhuangzi, and I realized that most of these authoritative opinions were not only maliciously altered but also self-serving views from a limited perspective.
Taking Qi’s three reasons for questioning whether the inner chapters were written by Zhuangzi, none of them hold up.
First, Zhuangzi and Hui Shi were friends. How could he list Hui Shi among the “ancient sages”?
From the Zhuangzi, it is clear that they were friends. However, in the Xu Wugui chapter, Zhuangzi visits Hui Shi’s tomb and expresses deep sorrow. Therefore, in the On the Equality of Things, Zhuangzi calls Hui Shi, Zhaowen, and Shi Kang “nearly wise” and “therefore recorded at the end of the chapter.” This is entirely possible. Why couldn’t Zhuangzi start writing after Hui Shi’s death? Moreover, after Hui Shi’s death, Zhuangzi lost his debating partner and turned his passion for seeking the Dao into words, which is only natural. As for Qi’s interpretation of Zhuangzi listing Hui Shi among the “ancient sages,” it is his misunderstanding. According to all the commentaries on the Zhuangzi that I have read, none have explained why Zhuangzi included Zhaowen, Shi Kang, and Hui Shi together in this passage. Qi assumes their common point is “wisdom,” but in reality, it has nothing to do with wisdom. The actual common point is something I will explain when annotating it later. For now, it is enough to say that Qi’s interpretation of “ancient sages” is baseless, let alone “wise.”
During Zhuangzi’s time, the theories of yin and yang and the five elements were just emerging and had not yet developed into complex systematic theories. Therefore, the six opinions that followed, being too systematic, all-encompassing, and mathematical, clearly could not be Zhuangzi’s “six qi.” From Zhuangzi’s mention of “six qi” without any explanation, it should have been a popular concept at the time. Examining the possibilities, Sima Biao’s explanation is the most likely. This is supported by the words of Yi He in the Zuo Zhuan·First Year of Zhao, which can be used as evidence. The Zhuangzi also mentions “six qi” in the On Keeping Aloof: “Yun Jiang said: ‘The qi of heaven is not harmonious, the qi of the earth is stagnant, the six qi are not balanced, and the four seasons are irregular. Now, I wish to combine the essence of the six qi to nurture all living things. How can I do this?” From this passage, it is clear that “six qi” are not the same as “heaven qi” or “earth qi.” Therefore, Li Yin and Wang Yi’s inclusion of “heaven blue” and “earth yellow” in the “six qi” is incorrect. However, since there is “heaven qi” and “earth qi” before it and “four seasons” after it, it is also related to climate, so the visible changes in the sky and climate, such as yin, yang, wind, rain, darkness, and light, are also appropriate as the content of “six qi.” From this passage, we can see that ancient people had several different classifications for celestial phenomena and climate. “Heaven qi” and “earth qi” classify based on spatial vastness and nurturing all things. “Four seasons” classify based on periodic changes. “Six qi” classify based on distinguishing phenomena. “Heaven and earth” emphasize fundamental nature, “four seasons” emphasize periodicity, and “six qi” emphasize the characteristics of phenomena. “Heaven and earth” are the substance, “four seasons” are the constant (i.e., the inevitable manifestation of the substance), and “six qi” are the application (the accidental manifestation of the substance, though accidents are constrained by necessity, they are not easily visible as intentional actions). Therefore, after “riding the correctness of heaven and earth,” it should be “riding the variations of the six qi,” not “riding the variations of the four seasons.” These two phrases, from a Buddhist perspective, “riding the correctness of heaven and earth” is attaining the substance, which is “enlightening the mind and seeing nature” in Chan Buddhism and “womb of the treasury” and “lotus treasury” in Esoteric Buddhism. “Riding the variations of the six qi” is achieving the application, which is “universal salvation” in the exoteric Buddhist teachings and “diamond treasury” and “diamond ground” in Esoteric Buddhism. If we must add “four seasons,” it would only be “understanding the changes of the four seasons.” In the “six qi,” “yin and yang” and “darkness and light” can transform each other, “wind and rain” complement each other but do not necessarily transform, and there is no necessary connection between “yin and yang,” “wind and rain,” and “darkness and light.” Therefore, this “variation” can only be interpreted as “distinguishing,” not “changing,” which is inaccurate.
Only by “riding the correctness of heaven and earth” can one “ride the variations of the six qi.” The former is a necessary condition, and the latter is a possible result. And these two together constitute the necessary condition for “roaming the heavens.” “Roaming the infinite” is Zhuangzi’s goal and the ideal state of enlightenment. This is what “freedom” is. Only those who achieve “freedom” can be called “the supreme person.” The supreme person has attained the great Dao, has achieved great utility, and has attained great freedom. How could someone like this be limited by any conditions? “What does he rely on?”
“Rely” is also an important concept in Zhuangzi’s vocabulary system. Shuowen Jiezi defines it as “to wait.” Duan Yucai notes: “Today, people say ‘to wait.’” From the original meaning of “waiting,” it extends to “relying on” and “depending on.” Because waiting requires standing in one place and guarding, this foothold is also the stance. From the stance, it leads to reliance. The Book of Shangjun·Agriculture and Warfare says: “The state relies on agriculture and warfare to be at peace, and the ruler relies on agriculture and warfare to be respected.” It further extends to “needing” and “must” from the meaning of “relying on.” Han Feizi·Five Vermin says: “Those in tattered robes cannot wait for embroidered robes.” Zhuangzi uses “wait” in the sense of “relying on” and “must,” which can be translated as “stance” and “conditions.” When translated as “conditions,” it should be considered that it contains the meaning of “stance,” meaning these conditions refer to major conditions related to “stance” and “basis.” “What does he rely on?” From a Buddhist perspective, this is: “What delusions does he cling to?”
Why is it that one can “ride the correctness of heaven and earth and ride the variations of the six qi” and thus “be free from reliance”? Because when one reaches this state, the individual becomes completely identical to the substance (the Dao), and their freedom is equal to that of the Dao, infinite. An infinite individual is also equivalent to the dissolution of the individual. Therefore, it can be said to be “no self.” And this “no self” (small self) is the true self. Because the original meaning of “self” is “master,” i.e., free will. Only with infinite free will is it the true free will. Such free will has not the slightest bit of non-freedom.
It should be noted that Eastern philosophy, Buddhism, and Taoism have always clearly stated that this free will is not the “all-knowing and all-powerful” of Western theology, which allows one to do as one pleases. As mentioned in the preface, I have already cited Yuan Gui Zen Master’s “Buddhism has three abilities and three inabilities.” Here, Zhuangzi also establishes the logical relationship of “roaming the infinite,” with “riding the correctness of heaven and earth” as the premise. Therefore, if one must fit into the binary opposition of “materialist” and “idealistic,” then both Buddhism and Taoism can join the ranks of materialism to strengthen it. Because they both believe that there are objective laws independent of subjective consciousness, and that the awakened ones are those who can fully exhaust, adapt to, and master these laws. Of course, using the theoretical framework of “materialist” and “idealistic” to fit Buddhism and Taoism is meaningless, because Eastern and Western philosophies have very different standpoints, viewpoints, and methods. Simple analogies are unhelpful in understanding their true nature and only make things more confusing. Let’s stick to understanding Zhuangzi’s original meaning.
The above explains my annotations on these sentences of Zhuangzi. Now, let’s see how Guo Xiang annotated them.
“ Heaven and earth are the general names of all things. Heaven and earth take all things as their substance, and all things must take nature as their correctness. Nature is what is natural without effort. Therefore, the ability of the great Peng to soar high, the ability of the small zhu to fly low, the ability of the pine tree to grow long, and the ability of the morning fungus to live short—all of this is what nature can do, not what effort can do. Natural ability without effort is what is correct. Therefore, riding the correctness of heaven and earth is the same as following the nature of all things; riding the variations of the six qi is the same as roaming the path of change. If one follows this path, where will there be limits? Wherever one encounters, one rides; what can one rely on? This is the of the supreme person who has achieved the unity of self and other. If there is any reliance, even the light and agile Liezi cannot move without wind. Therefore, one must find what to rely on to achieve. And what about the great Peng? Only by merging with all things and following the great changes can one be free from reliance and always in harmony. Is this just self-harmony? Moreover, by following what relies on, one does not lose what relies on. If what relies on is not lost, then one is in harmony with the great connection. Therefore, reliance and non-reliance, I cannot compare; as for each being comfortable with their nature, the natural mechanism naturally unfolds, and one does not know it, then I cannot distinguish. Reliance is not enough to distinguish from non-reliance, let alone the vastness of reliance.”
This annotation by Guo Xiang is particularly long, possibly the longest in all his annotations on the Zhuangzi. Guo Xiang rarely wrote such long passages, showing that he put a lot of effort into it. “Effort is rewarded,” so for thousands of years, no matter how people questioned him, Guo Xiang has always been considered an authoritative figure in annotating the Zhuangzi.