But if you ignore your mind but insist you know right from wrong, you are like the saying,
‘Today I set off for Yueh and arrived yesterday.’
This is to claim that what is not, is;
That what is not, does exist –
why, even the holy sage Yu cannot understand this,
let alone poor old me!
Our words are not just hot air. Words work because they say something, but the problem is that, if we cannot define a word’s meaning, it doesn’t really say anything. Is it possible that there really is something here? Or does it really mean nothing? Is it possible to make a proper case for it being any different from the chirruping of chicks? How is it that we have the Tao so obscured that we have to distinguish between true and false? What has clouded our words so that we can have both what is and what is not? How can it be that the Tao goes off and is no longer? How can it be that words are found but are not understood? When the Tao is obscured by pettiness and the words are obscured by elaboration, then we end up having the ‘this is, this is not’ of the Confucians and Mohists, with what one of them calls reality being denied by the other, and what the other calls real disputed by the first. If we want to confound what they call right and confirm what they call wrong, we need to shed light on both of them.
Nothing exists which is not ‘that’, nothing exists which is not ‘this’. I cannot look at something through someone else’s eyes, I can only truly know something which I know. Therefore ‘that’ comes out of ‘this’ and ‘this’ arises from ‘that’. That is why we say that ‘that’ and ‘this’ are born from each other, most definitely.
Compare birth with death, compare death with life; compare what is possible with what is not possible and compare what is not possible with what is possible; because there is, there is not, and because there is not, there is.
Thus it is that the sage does not go down this way, but sheds the light of Heaven upon such issues. This is also that and that is also this. The ‘that’ is on the one hand also ‘this’, and ‘this’ is on the other hand also ‘that’. Does this mean he still has a this and that? Does this mean he does not have a this and that?
When ‘this’ and ‘that’ do not stand against each other, this is called the pivot of the Tao. This pivot provides the centre of the circle, which is without end, for it can react equally to that which is and to that which is not. This is why it is best to shed light on such issues. To use a finger to show that a finger is not a finger, is not really as good as using something that is not a finger to show that a finger is not a finger; to use a horse to show a horse is not a horse is not as good as using something other than a horse to show that a horse is not a horse. Heaven and Earth are as one as a finger is, and all of creation is as one as a horse is.
What is, is, what is not, is not.
The Tao is made because we walk it,
things become what they are called.
Why is this so? Surely because this is so.
Why is this not so? Surely because this is not so.
Everything has what is innate,
everything has what is necessary.
Nothing is not something,
nothing is not so.
Therefore, take a stalk of wheat and a pillar,
a leper or a beauty like Hsi-shih,
the great and the insecure,
the cunning and the odd:
all these are alike to the Tao.
In their difference is their completeness;
in their completeness is their difference.
Through the Tao they are all seen as one, regardless of their completeness or difference, by those who are capable of such extended vision. Such a person has no need for distinctions but follows the ordinary view. The ordinary view is firmly set on the ground of usefulness. The usefulness of something defines its use; the use is its flexibility; its flexibility is its essence and from this it comes to a stop. We stop but do not know why we stop, and this is called Tao.
To tax our spirits and our intellect in this way without realizing that everything is the same is called ‘Three in the Morning’. And what is ‘Three in the Morning’? A monkey trainer was giving out acorns and he said, ‘In the morning I will give you each three acorns and in the evening you will get four.’ The monkeys were very upset at this and so he said, ‘All right, in the morning you will get four and in the evening, three.’ This pleased the monkeys no end. His two statements were essentially the same, but got different reactions from the monkeys. He gained what he wanted by his skill. So it is with the sage, who manages to harmonize right and wrong and is content to abide by the Natural Equality of Heaven. This is called walking two roads.
The men of old understood a great deal. How much?
In the beginning they did not know that anything existed; this is virtually perfect knowledge, for nothing can be added. Later, they knew that some things existed but they did not distinguish between them. Next came those who distinguished between things, but did not judge things as ‘being’ or ‘not being’. It was when judgements were made that the Tao was damaged, and because the Tao was damaged, love became complete. Is anything complete or damaged? Is anything not complete or damaged? There is completion and damage, just as Chao Wen12 played the lute. There is nothing which
