Nan Guo Ziqi leaned on his armrest, sat, looked up to heaven and breathed out gently, absent-mindedly as if he had lost his counterpart. Yan Cheng Ziyou stood attending before him and said: “How is this? Can the body indeed be made like withered wood and the mind like dead ashes? The one leaning on the armrest now is not the one who leaned on it before.” Ziqi said: “Yan, your question is excellent! Now I have lost myself – do you understand? You have heard the human music but not the earth music; you have heard the earth music but not the heavenly music!”
Ziyou said: “May I ask for its principle?” Ziqi said: “When the great mass of earth exhales breath, it is called wind. If it does not stir, fine; when it stirs, all the myriad apertures howl in rage. Have you not heard the long-drawn sound? The crags and forests, the hollows of huge trees of a hundred spans – some like noses, some like mouths, some like ears, some like mortise joints, some like rings, some like mortars, some like hollows, some like puddles. They make rushing, shrieking, scolding, sucking, shouting, wailing, deep, and shrill sounds; the front ones sing yu and the following ones sing yong. A gentle breeze makes a small harmony, a whirlwind makes a great harmony; when the fierce wind passes, all the apertures become empty. Have you not seen the trembling and swaying?”
Ziyou said: “Earth music is the multitude of apertures; human music is pipes and flutes. May I ask about heavenly music?” Ziqi said: “The wind blows on the ten thousand things differently, yet each makes itself sound. All take from themselves; who is it that stirs them?”
Great knowledge is broad and leisurely; small knowledge is petty and discriminating. Great words are blazing and sweeping; small words are chattering and trivial. In sleep, their souls are entangled; upon waking, their bodies are relaxed. They engage with things and daily contend in mind. Some are slow, some deep, some secret. Small fears make them anxious; great fears make them listless. Their utterances shoot forth like arrows – this is what is called judging right and wrong. Their hesitations are like sworn oaths – this is what is called holding on to victory. Their decay is like autumn and winter – it shows their daily diminishment; immersed in what they do, they cannot be restored. Their stifling is like sealed-up – it shows their old exhaustion; their near-dead hearts cannot be revived to yang. Joy, anger, grief, delight, worry, regret, fickleness, fear, recklessness, indulgence, coquetry – music issues from emptiness, steam rises into mushrooms. Day and night they replace each other before us, yet no one knows whence they sprout. Enough, enough! If we get this at dawn or dusk, is it not from this that life arises?
Without that there is no I; without I, nothing to seize upon. This is close, yet we do not know what makes it so. If there is a true ruler, we simply cannot find its trace. It can be followed and trusted but not seen in form; it has feelings but no shape. The hundred bones, nine orifices, six viscera – all exist in completeness. Which am I to cherish? Do you delight in them all? Or have a preference? Are they all servants and maids? Are these servants and maids insufficient to govern one another? Do they in turn become ruler and minister? There must be a true ruler among them! Whether we seek its reality or not, it does not increase or diminish its truth. Once we receive this formed body, we do not perish but wait for exhaustion. Clashing and rubbing with things, our course races on and cannot be stopped – is that not sad? Toiling all life and seeing no success, worn out and not knowing where to return – is that not lamentable? People say one does not die, but what benefit? The body decays and the mind decays with it – can that not be called great sorrow? Is human life really so benighted? Am I alone benighted, while others are not?
To follow and take as master one’s formed mind – who alone has no master? Why must one know transformations, since each mind has its own taking? Even fools have that! If before having a formed mind there are right and wrong, that is like going to Yue today and arriving yesterday. Thus one takes non-being as being. If non-being is taken as being, even divine Yu could not know it – what can I alone do?
Words are not just puffs of air; speakers have something to say. But what they say is never fixed. Have they really said something? Or have they never said anything? They think their words differ from chirps of fledglings; is there indeed a distinction or not? Where is the Way obscured that there are true and false? Where are words obscured that there are right and wrong? Where does the Way go that it does not exist? Where do words abide that they are not admissible? The Way is obscured by small achievements; words are obscured by flowery embellishment. Hence there are the right and wrong of Confucians and Mohists, affirming what the other denies and denying what the other affirms. To affirm what they deny and deny what they affirm, nothing is better than using clarity.
Things are none not “that”; things are none not “this”. From “that” it is not seen; from knowing oneself one knows it. Hence it is said: “that” arises from “this”; “this” depends on “that”. This is the theory that “this” and “that” are co-arising. However, when they arise, they die; when they die, they arise; when they are acceptable, they are unacceptable; when they are unacceptable, they are acceptable; relying on right makes wrong; relying on wrong makes right. Therefore the sage does not proceed with this but illuminates it by Heaven, also relying on “this” alone. “This” is also “that”; “that” is also “this”. There is also a right-and-wrong in “that” and a right-and-wrong in “this” – are there indeed “this” and “that”? Or are there no “this” and “that”? If “this” and “that” find no opposites, that is called the pivot of the Way. Once the pivot attains the center of the ring, it can respond to the infinite. “This” is also one infinite; “not-this” is also one infinite. Therefore: nothing is better than using clarity.
To illustrate with a finger that a finger is not a finger is not as good as illustrating with non-finger that a finger is not a finger. To illustrate with a horse that a horse is not a horse is not as good as illustrating with non-horse that a horse is not a horse. Heaven and earth are one finger; the ten thousand things are one horse.
What is acceptable is acceptable; what is unacceptable is unacceptable. The Way is walked and becomes so; things are named and become so. Why are they so? They are so because they are so. Why are they not so? They are not so because they are not so. Why acceptable? Acceptable because acceptable. Why unacceptable? Unacceptable because unacceptable. Things inherently have what is so and what is acceptable. Nothing is not so; nothing is not acceptable. Thus for this reason, if we hold up a stalk and a pillar, a leper and Xi Shi, the strange and the monstrous, the Way pervades them as one.
Their division is their formation; their formation is their destruction. All things have no formation or destruction; they again return to oneness. Only the accomplished understands this oneness and therefore does not use it but lodges it in the ordinary. Ordinary means use; use means passage; passage means attainment; to attain appropriately is nearly it. Simply rely on this. Having done so but not knowing how it is so – that is called the Way. To exhaust spirit in seeking oneness without knowing it is the same – this is called “Three in the morning”. What is “Three in the morning”? The monkey keeper doled out acorns and said: “Three in the morning and four in the evening.” All the monkeys were angry. So he said: “Then four in the morning and three in the evening.” All the monkeys were pleased. The name and reality were not diminished, yet their joy and anger were used – this too is relying on this. Therefore the sage harmonizes right and wrong and rests in the heavenly balance; this is called “walking both ways.”
The knowledge of the ancients had its utmost. What was the utmost? Some thought that in the beginning there were no things – this was utmost, complete, beyond addition. The next thought that there were things but no boundaries. The next thought that there were boundaries but no right and wrong. When right and wrong appeared, the Way was impaired. With the impairment of the Way, love/partiality was formed. Are there indeed formation and impairment? Or no formation and impairment? If there is formation and impairment, therefore Zhao Wen played the zither; if no formation and impairment, therefore Zhao Wen did not play the zither. Zhao Wen’s playing the zither, Shi Kuang’s conducting with his baton, Hui Shi’s leaning on the parasol tree – the knowledge of these three was nearly perfect! They were all renowned, so their deeds are recorded to later years. Because they were fond of it, they differed from others; because they were fond of it, they wished to make it clear. They made clear what was not to be made clear, so they ended in the obscurity of the “hard and white” sophistry. And their sons ended with their textual threads, attaining nothing throughout life. If this can be called attainment, then even I would be accomplished; if this cannot be called attainment, then things and I are all unaccomplished. Therefore the flickering of doubt and wonder is what the sage plans to avoid. For this reason he does not use it but lodges it in the ordinary – this is called “using clarity”.
Suppose I now say something here; I do not know whether it is of the same kind as this or not. If kind and not-kind are in turn mutually kind, then it is not different from that. Nevertheless, let me try to speak: There is a beginning; there is a not-yet beginning; there is a not-yet having that not-yet beginning. There is being; there is nonbeing; there is a not-yet having nonbeing; there is a not-yet having that not-yet having nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing, but I do not know whether being and nonbeing indeed have being or nonbeing. Now I already have this saying, but I do not know whether what I have said really has been said or really has not been said.
Under heaven nothing is larger than the tip of an autumn hair, yet Mount Tai is small; nothing is longer-lived than a child who dies young, yet Peng Zu is short-lived. Heaven and earth were born together with me, and the ten thousand things are one with me. Since they are already one, can there be words? Since I already call it one, can there be no words? The one and words make two; two and one make three. From here onward, even a skillful calculator cannot reach it, how much less an ordinary person! Thus from nonbeing to being leads to three; how much more from being to being! Do not proceed; simply rely on this.
The Way has never had boundaries; words have never had constancy. It is because of “this” that there are divisions. Let me speak of these divisions: there is left and right, there is relation and duty, there is division and discrimination, there is competition and contention – these are called the eight virtues. Beyond the six directions, the sage preserves them but does not discuss; within the six directions, the sage discusses but does not deliberate; in the Spring and Autumn Annals, the records of the former kings for governing the age, the sage deliberates but does not dispute.
Thus in division there is that which is not divided; in discrimination there is that which is not discriminated. “What does that mean?” “The sage embraces them; the multitude discriminate them to show each other. Therefore it is said: those who discriminate have something they do not see.” The Great Way is not named; great discrimination does not speak; great benevolence is not benevolent; great modesty is not humble; great courage is not aggressive. If the Way is displayed, it is not the Way; if words discriminate, they fall short; if benevolence is constant, it is incomplete; if modesty is pure, it is not trustworthy; if courage is aggressive, it is incomplete. These five are round and yet almost square! Therefore knowing to stop at what one does not know is the utmost. Who knows discrimination without words, the Way without naming? If one can know this, it is called the Heavenly Storehouse. Pour into it and it is never full; draw from it and it is never exhausted; and one does not know whence it comes – this is called hidden light.
Thus formerly Yao asked Shun: “I wish to attack Zong, Kuai, and Xu’ao, yet sitting on the throne I am not at ease. Why is that?” Shun said: “Those three rulers still dwell among mugwort and brambles. Why are you not at ease? In ancient times ten suns came out together, illuminating all things; how much more should virtue surpass the sun!”
Nie Que asked Wang Ni: “Do you know what all things agree upon as right?” Wang Ni said: “How would I know that!” “Do you know that you do not know?” “How would I know!” “Then are things without knowledge?” “How would I know! Yet let me try to speak. How do I know that what I call knowing is not not-knowing? How do I know that what I call not-knowing is not knowing? Let me ask you: If people sleep in damp places, they get backaches and become half-paralyzed; do eels do that? If people live in trees, they tremble with fear; do monkeys do that? Which of the three knows the proper dwelling? People eat grain-fed meat; deer eat grass; centipedes relish snakes; owls and crows enjoy mice – which of the four knows the proper taste? Monkeys take female gibbons as mates; deer mate with deer; eels play with fish. Mao Qiang and Xi Shi are what humans consider beautiful; but when fish see them they dive deep, when birds see them they fly high, when deer see them they flee. Which of the four knows the proper beauty under heaven? From my view, the beginnings of benevolence and righteousness, the paths of right and wrong are all mixed in confusion – how can I know their distinctions!” Nie Que said: “If you do not know benefit and harm, then does the Perfect Man indeed not know benefit and harm?” Wang Ni said: “The Perfect Man is spirit-like! Even if great marshes burn, he is not hot; even if the Yellow River freezes, he is not cold; even if thunderbolts split the mountains, he is not hurt; even if typhoons shake the sea, he is not alarmed. One like this rides the clouds and air, mounts the sun and moon, and wanders beyond the four seas. Life and death do not change him, how much less benefit and harm!”
Qu Quezi asked Chang Wuzi: “I have heard from the Master that the sage does not engage in affairs, does not pursue profit, does not avoid harm, does not delight in seeking, does not follow the Way; he speaks without speaking, and does not speak while speaking, and wanders beyond the dust and grime. The Master considered this reckless talk, but I consider it the practice of the wonderful Way. What do you think?”
Chang Wuzi said: “Even the Yellow Emperor was confused by this; how could Qiu [Confucius] be enough to know it! Moreover, you are too hasty: seeing an egg you expect a crowing rooster; seeing a crossbow pellet you expect a roasted owl. Let me speak wildly to you, and you listen wildly. How about leaning on the sun and moon, embracing the universe, blending with it, placing confusion aside, and treating the humble and the honored as equal? The multitude toil; the sage is simple and dull. He blends ten thousand years into one pure unity. All things are so, and they are stored in this. How do I know that loving life is not a delusion? How do I know that hating death is not like a child who left home long ago and does not know the way back?
Li Ji, the daughter of the border guard of Ai, when the state of Jin first took her, wept so that her tears soaked her robe. But when she reached the king’s court, shared his cushioned bed, and ate the finest meats, she regretted her tears. How do I know that the dead do not regret their former craving for life? One who dreams of drinking wine may weep in the morning; one who dreams of weeping may go hunting in the morning. While dreaming, he does not know it is a dream; and in the dream he may even interpret his dream; only upon waking does he know it was a dream. And when there is a great awakening, one will know that this is a great dream. Yet the fool thinks he is awake and secretly believes he knows: ‘Here is a ruler! There is a shepherd!’ How stubborn! You and I are both dreaming; my telling you that you are dreaming is also a dream. These words are called ‘strange paradoxes’. If after ten thousand generations we meet a great sage who understands them, it will be as if we met him in a morning or evening.”
Suppose you and I argue. If you defeat me, and I do not defeat you, are you indeed right and I indeed wrong? If I defeat you, and you do not defeat me, am I indeed right and you indeed wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both right? Are both wrong? You and I cannot know each other. Thus others will inevitably be in darkness; whom shall I ask to decide? If we ask someone who agrees with you, since he already agrees with you, how can he decide? If we ask someone who agrees with me, since he already agrees with me, how can he decide? If we ask someone who differs from both of us, since he differs from both, how can he decide? If we ask someone who agrees with both of us, since he agrees with both, how can he decide? Thus you, I, and others cannot know one another – shall we wait for someone else?
“What is meant by harmonizing with the Heavenly Balance?” He said: “Right and not-right, so and not-so. If right were really right, then its difference from not-right would have no dispute. If so were really so, then its difference from not-so would have no dispute. The transformation of voices, depending on each other, is as if they did not depend on each other. Harmonize with the Heavenly Balance and follow the endless flow – that is how to pass your years. Forget years and forget rightness; vibrate in the boundless, and so dwell in the boundless.”
The shadow’s fringe asked the shadow: “A while ago you walked, now you stop; a while ago you sat, now you rise. Why have you no independent constancy?” The shadow said: “Is it that I depend on something and therefore do so? Is it that what I depend on also depends on something and therefore does so? Do I depend on the snake’s scales and the cicada’s wings? How do I know why it is so? How do I know why it is not so?”
Formerly, Zhuang Zhou dreamed that he was a butterfly, a butterfly fluttering about, feeling pleased with itself and doing as it pleased! He did not know that he was Zhou. Suddenly he awoke, and there he was, Zhou. He did not know whether Zhou had dreamed of being a butterfly or the butterfly had dreamed of being Zhou. But Zhou and the butterfly must be distinct. This is called the transformation of things.
Note
Nan Guo Ziqi (南郭子綦) and Yan Cheng Ziyou (颜成子游):
Daoist fictional characters. Ziqi’s “leaning on the armrest” and loss of self illustrate the ideal of emptying the mind. Ziyou is his disciple.
Yao and Shun (尧舜):
Yao and Shun are legendary sage-kings of ancient China, models of virtuous rule. Here Yao asks Shun about attacking three small states; Shun advises tolerance, comparing virtue to the ten suns that once illuminated everything.
Zong, Kuai, Xu’ao (宗、脍、胥敖):
Three small tribal states or chiefdoms mentioned in the dialogue; historical details are obscure, but they symbolize petty targets of imperial ambition.
Ten Suns:
From Chinese mythology: ten suns once appeared together, causing drought, until the archer Yi shot down nine. In the text it is used metaphorically: virtue should shine even more broadly than the sun.
Nie Que (啮缺) and Wang Ni (王倪):
Wang Ni and Nie Que are two legendary figures in Zhuangzi. Nie Que once asked Wang Ni a series of questions about the ultimate truth of the world. Wang Ni refused to give definite answers, his replies question whether any absolute standard of knowledge, taste, beauty, or right and wrong exists, illustrating Zhuangzi’s idea that absolute judgments of right and wrong are unreliable. They represent wise beings who transcend ordinary human distinctions and conventional values.
Mao Qiang (毛嫱) and Xi Shi (西施):
Mao Qiang and Xi Shi, famous ancient beauties. The text uses them to show that beauty is subjective: fish, birds, and deer all react differently to them.
Peng Zu (彭祖):
Peng Zu, legendary figure who lived 800 years; used here to relativize longevity against a child who dies young.
Zhao Wen (昭文):
Zhao Wen, a master zither player; Shi Kuang (师旷): a blind musician of the Jin state; Hui Shi (惠子): a logician and friend of Zhuangzi, known for paradoxes. Their skills are praised yet critiqued because they tried to make explicit what cannot be fully expressed.
“Hard and white” (坚白):
A famous paradox of the School of Names (Logicians), associated with Gongsun Long, arguing that “hardness” and “whiteness” are separate qualities.
Confucians and Mohists (儒墨):
Two major schools in Warring States China. Confucianism emphasized ritual and benevolence; Mohism stressed universal love and utility. They often disputed each other’s views.
The Monkey Keeper (狙公) and “Three in the morning” (朝三暮四):
This story is the origin of the Chinese idiom 朝三暮四 (zhao san mu si), meaning changing only the presentation while keeping the substance the same, so as to manipulate reactions.
Li Ji (丽姬, 丽之姬):
A beautiful woman from the state of Li, taken by the Jin ruler. She wept bitterly at first but later enjoyed luxury and regretted her tears. Zhuangzi uses her to question whether death is really worse than life.
Zhuang Zhou Dreaming of a Butterfly (庄周梦蝶):
One of the most famous stories in Chinese philosophy. It questions the boundary between reality and dream, self and other, and points to the “transformation of things” (wuhua).
Six Directions (六合) and Spring and Autumn Annals (春秋):
“Six directions” means the whole universe (up/down/east/west/north/south). The Spring and Autumn Annals is a classic chronicle of the state of Lu, traditionally attributed to Confucius; in the text it represents historical records and judgments.
内篇·齐物论第二
南郭子綦隐机而坐，仰天而嘘，嗒焉似丧其耦。颜成子游立侍乎前，曰：“何居乎？形固可使如槁木，而心固可使如死灰乎？今之隐机者，非昔之隐机者也。”子綦曰：“偃，不亦善乎，而问之也！今者吾丧我，汝知之乎？汝闻人籁而未闻地籁，汝闻地籁而未闻天籁夫！”
子游曰：“敢问其方。”子綦曰：“夫大块噫气，其名为风。是唯无作，作则万窍怒呺。而独不闻之翏翏乎？山林之畏隹，大木百围之窍穴，似鼻，似口，似耳，似枅，似圈，似臼，似洼者，似污者。激者、謞者、叱者、吸者、叫者、譹者、宎者，咬者，前者唱于而随者唱喁，泠风则小和，飘风则大和，厉风济则众窍为虚。而独不见之调调之刁刁乎？”
子游曰：“地籁则众窍是已，人籁则比竹是已，敢问天籁。”子綦曰：“夫吹万不同，而使其自己也。咸其自取，怒者其谁邪？”
大知闲闲，小知间间。大言炎炎，小言詹詹。其寐也魂交，其觉也形开。与接为构，日以心斗。缦者、窖者、密者。小恐惴惴，大恐缦缦。其发若机栝，其司是非之谓也；其留如诅盟，其守胜之谓也；其杀如秋冬，以言其日消也；其溺之所为之，不可使复之也；其厌也如缄，以言其老洫也；近死之心，莫使复阳也。喜怒哀乐，虑叹变慹，姚佚启态。乐出虚，蒸成菌。日夜相代乎前而莫知其所萌。已乎，已乎！旦暮得此，其所由以生乎！
非彼无我，非我无所取。是亦近矣，而不知其所为使。若有真宰，而特不得其眹。可行己信，而不见其形，有情而无形。百骸、九窍、六藏、赅而存焉，吾谁与为亲？汝皆说之乎？其有私焉？如是皆有为臣妾乎？其臣妾不足以相治乎？其递相为君臣乎？其有真君存焉！如求得其情与不得，无益损乎其真。一受其成形，不亡以待尽。与物相刃相靡，其行尽如驰而莫之能止，不亦悲乎！终身役役而不见其成功，苶然疲役而不知其所归，可不哀邪！人谓之不死，奚益！其形化，其心与之然，可不谓大哀乎？人之生也，固若是芒乎？其我独芒，而人亦有不芒者乎？
夫随其成心而师之，谁独且无师乎？奚必知代，而心自取者有之？愚者与有焉！未成乎心而有是非，是今日适越而昔至也。是以无有为有。无有为有，虽有神禹且不能知，吾独且奈何哉！
夫言非吹也，言者有言。其所言者特未定也。果有言邪？其未尝有言邪？其以为异于鷇音，亦有辩乎？其无辩乎？道恶乎隐而有真伪？言恶乎隐而有是非？道恶乎往而不存？言恶乎存而不可？道隐于小成，言隐于荣华。故有儒墨之是非，以是其所非而非其所是。欲是其所非而非其所是，则莫若以明。
物无非彼，物无非是。自彼则不见，自知则知之。故曰：彼出于是，是亦因彼。彼是方生之说也。虽然，方生方死，方死方生；方可方不可，方不可方可；因是因非，因非因是。是以圣人不由而照之于天，亦因是也。是亦彼也，彼亦是也。彼亦一是非，此亦一是非，果且有彼是乎哉？果且无彼是乎哉？彼是莫得其偶，谓之道枢。枢始得其环中，以应无穷。是亦一无穷，非亦一无穷也。故曰：莫若以明。
以指喻指之非指，不若以非指喻指之非指也；以马喻马之非马，不若以非马喻马之非马也。天地一指也，万物一马也。
可乎可，不可乎不可。道行之而成，物谓之而然。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。故为是举莛与楹，厉与西施，恢诡谲怪，道通为一。
其分也，成也；其成也，毁也。凡物无成与毁，复通为一。唯达者知通为一，为是不用而寓诸庸。庸也者，用也；用也者，通也；通也者，得也；适得而几矣。因是已。已而不知其然，谓之道。劳神明为一而不知其同也，谓之“朝三”。何谓“朝三”？狙公赋芧，曰：“朝三而暮四。”众狙皆怒。曰：“然则朝四而暮三。”众狙皆悦。名实未亏而喜怒为用，亦因是也。是以圣人和之以是非而休乎天钧，是之谓两行。
古之人，其知有所至矣。恶乎至？有以为未始有物者，至矣，尽矣，不可以加矣！其次以为有物矣，而未始有封也。其次以为有封焉，而未始有是非也。是非之彰也，道之所以亏也。道之所以亏，爱之所以成。果且有成与亏乎哉？果且无成与亏乎哉？有成与亏，故昭氏之鼓琴也；无成与亏，故昭氏之不鼓琴也。昭文之鼓琴也，师旷之枝策也，惠子之据梧也，三者之知几乎！皆其盛者也，故载之末年。唯其好之也，以异于彼，其好之也，欲以明之。彼非所明而明之，故以坚白之昧终。而其子又以文之纶终，终身无成。若是而可谓成乎，虽我亦成也；若是而不可谓成乎，物与我无成也。是故滑疑之耀，圣人之所图也。为是不用而寓诸庸，此之谓“以明”。
今且有言于此，不知其与是类乎？其与是不类乎？类与不类，相与为类，则与彼无以异矣。虽然，请尝言之：有始也者，有未始有始也者，有未始有夫未始有始也者；有有也者，有无也者，有未始有无也者，有未始有夫未始有无也者。俄而有无矣，而未知有无之果孰有孰无也。今我则已有有谓矣，而未知吾所谓之其果有谓乎？其果无谓乎？
夫天下莫大于秋毫之末，而太山为小；莫寿乎殇子，而彭祖为夭。天地与我并生，而万物与我为一。既已为一矣，且得有言乎？既已谓之一矣，且得无言乎？一与言为二，二与一为三。自此以往，巧历不能得，而况其凡乎！故自无适有，以至于三，而况自有适有乎！无适焉，因是已！
夫道未始有封，言未始有常，为是而有畛也。请言其畛：有左有右，有伦有义，有分有辩，有竞有争，此之谓八德。六合之外，圣人存而不论；六合之内，圣人论而不议；春秋经世先王之志，圣人议而不辩。
故分也者，有不分也；辩也者，有不辩也。曰：“何也？”“圣人怀之，众人辩之以相示也。故曰：辩也者，有不见也。”夫大道不称，大辩不言，大仁不仁，大廉不嗛，大勇不忮。道昭而不道，言辩而不及，仁常而不成，廉清而不信，勇忮而不成。五者圆而几向方矣！故知止其所不知，至矣。孰知不言之辩，不道之道？若有能知，此之谓天府。注焉而不满，酌焉而不竭，而不知其所由来，此之谓葆光。
故昔者尧问于舜曰：“吾欲伐宗、脍、胥敖，南面而不释然。其故何也？”舜曰：“夫三子者，犹存乎蓬艾之间。若不释然何哉！昔者十日并出，万物皆照，而况德之进乎日者乎！”
啮缺问乎王倪曰：“子知物之所同是乎？”曰：“吾恶乎知之！”“子知子之所不知邪？”曰：“吾恶乎知之！”“然则物无知邪？”曰：“吾恶乎知之！虽然，尝试言之。庸讵知吾所谓知之非不知邪？庸讵知吾所谓不知之非知邪？且吾尝试问乎汝：民湿寝则腰疾偏死，鳅然乎哉？木处则惴栗恂惧，猨猴然乎哉？三者孰知正处？民食刍豢，麋鹿食荐，蝍蛆甘带，鸱鸦耆鼠，四者孰知正味？猿猵狙以为雌，麋与鹿交，鳅与鱼游。毛嫱、西施，人之所美也；鱼见之深入，鸟见之高飞，麋鹿见之决骤。四者孰知天下之正色哉？自我观之，仁义之端，是非之塗，樊然淆乱，吾恶能知其辩！”啮缺曰：“子不知利害，则至人固不知利害乎？”王倪曰：“至人神矣！大泽焚而不能热，河汉沍而不能寒，疾雷破山而不能伤，飘风振海而不能惊。若然者，乘云气，骑日月，而游乎四海之外。死生无变于己，而况利害之端乎！”
瞿鹊子问乎长梧子曰：“吾闻诸夫子：圣人不从事于务，不就利，不违害，不喜求，不缘道，无谓有谓，有谓无谓，而游乎尘垢之外。夫子以为孟浪之言，而我以为妙道之行也。吾子以为奚若？”
长梧子曰：“是黄帝之所听荧也，而丘也何足以知之！且女亦大早计，见卵而求时夜，见弹而求鸮炙。予尝为女妄言之，女以妄听之。奚旁日月，挟宇宙，为其脗合，置其滑涽，以隶相尊？众人役役，圣人愚芚，参万岁而一成纯。万物尽然，而以是相蕴。予恶乎知说生之非惑邪！予恶乎知恶死之非弱丧而不知归者邪！
丽之姬，艾封人之子也。晋国之始得之也，涕泣沾襟。及其至于王所，与王同匡床，食刍豢，而后悔其泣也。予恶乎知夫死者不悔其始之蕲生乎？梦饮酒者，旦而哭泣；梦哭泣者，旦而田猎。方其梦也，不知其梦也。梦之中又占其梦焉，觉而后知其梦也。且有大觉而后知此其大梦也，而愚者自以为觉，窃窃然知之。“君乎！牧乎！”固哉！丘也与女皆梦也，予谓女梦亦梦也。是其言也，其名为吊诡。万世之后而一遇大圣知其解者，是旦暮遇之也。
既使我与若辩矣，若胜我，我不若胜，若果是也？我果非也邪？我胜若，若不吾胜，我果是也？而果非也邪？其或是也？其或非也邪？其俱是也？其俱非也邪？我与若不能相知也。则人固受其黮暗，吾谁使正之？使同乎若者正之，既与若同矣，恶能正之？使同乎我者正之，既同乎我矣，恶能正之？使异乎我与若者正之，既异乎我与若矣，恶能正之？使同乎我与若者正之，既同乎我与若矣，恶能正之？然则我与若与人俱不能相知也，而待彼也邪？”
“何谓和之以天倪？”曰：“是不是，然不然。是若果是也，则是之异乎不是也亦无辩；然若果然也，则然之异乎不然也亦无辩。化声之相待，若其不相待。和之以天倪，因之以曼衍，所以穷年也。忘年忘义，振于无竟，故寓诸无竟。”
罔两问景曰：“曩子行，今子止；曩子坐，今子起。何其无特操与？”景曰：“吾有待而然者邪？吾所待又有待而然者邪？吾待蛇蚹蜩翼邪？恶识所以然？恶识所以不然？”
昔者庄周梦为胡蝶，栩栩然胡蝶也。自喻适志与！不知周也。俄然觉，则蘧蘧然周也。不知周之梦为胡蝶与？胡蝶之梦为周与？周与胡蝶则必有分矣。此之谓物化。
Leave a Reply