Joined Toes

百度搜索 Chuangtse: Mystic and Humorist 天涯 或 Chuangtse: Mystic and Humorist 天涯在线书库 即可找到本书最新章节.

    Joioes ara fingers seem to e from nature, yet, funally speaking they are superfluous. Goiters and tumors seem to e from the body, yet in their nature, they are superfluous. And (similarly), to have maraneous does of charity and duty and regard them in practice as parts of a mans natural ses is not the true way of Tao. For just as joioes are but useless lumps of flesh, ara fingers but useless growths, so are the many artificial developments of the natural ses of men and the extravagances of charitable and dutiful duct but so many superfluous uses of intelligence. People with superfluous keenness of vision put into fusion the five colors, lose themselves in the forms and designs, and in the distins of greens and yellows for sacrificial robcs. Is this not so? Of such was Li Chu (the clear-sighted). People with superfluous keenness of hearing put into fusion the five notes, exaggerate the tonic differences of the six pitch-pipes, and the various timbres of metal, stone, silk, and bamboo of the Huang-g, and the Ta-lu. {39} Is this not so? Of such was Shih Kuang (the music master). People who abnormally develop charity exalt virtue and suppress nature in order to gain a reputation, make the world noisy with their discussions and cause it to follow impractical does. Is this not so? Of such were Tseng and Shih. {40} People who it excess in arguments, like piling up bricks and making knots, analyzing and inquiring into the distins of hard and white, identities and differences, wear themselves out over mere vain, useless terms. Is this not so? Of such were Yang and Mo {41}. All these are superfluous and devious growths of knowledge and are not the correct guide for the world. He who would be the ultimate guide never loses sight of the inner nature of life. Therefore with him, the united is not like joioes, the separated is not like extra fingers, what is long is not sidered as excess, and what is short is narded as wanting. For ducks legs, though short, ot be lengthened without dismay to the duck, and a es legs, though long, ot be shortened without misery to the e. That which is long in nature must not be cut off, and that which is short in nature must not be lengthehus will all sorrow be avoided. I suppose charity and duty are surely not i<bdo>?９9lｉｂ?</bdo>ncluded in human nature. You see how many worries and dismays the charitable man has! Besides, divide your joioes and you will howl: bite off your extra finger and you will scream. In the one case, there is too much, and iher too little; but the worries and dismays are the same. Now the charitable men of the present age go about with a look of  sorrowing over the ills of the age, while the non-charitable let loose the desire of their nature in their greed after position ah. Therefore I Suppose charity and duty are not included in human nature. Yet from the time of the Three Dynasties downwards what a otion has been raised about them! Moreover, those who rely upon the arc, the line, passes, and the square to make corres ihe natural stitution of things Those who use cords to bind and glue to piece together interfere with the natural character of things. Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and musid affeg charity aion have lost their inal nature. There is an inal nature in things. Things in their inal nature are curved without the help of arcs, straight without lines,<cite></cite> round without passes, aangular without squares; they are joiogether without glue. and hold together without cords. In this manner all things live and grow from an inner urge and none  tell how they e to do so. They all have a pla the scheme of things and none  tell how they e to have their proper place. From time immemorial this has always been so, and it may not be tampered with. Why then should the does of charity and duty tio remain like so much glue or cords, in the domain of Tao and virtue, to give rise to fusion and doubt among mankind? Now the lesser doubts ge mans purpose, and the greater doubts ge mans nature. How do we know this? Ever sihe time when Shun made a bid for charity and duty and threw the world into fusion, men have run about and exhausted themselves in the pursuit thereof. Is it not then charity and duty which have ged the nature of man? Therefore I have tried to show {42} that from the time of the Three Dynasties onwards, there is not one who has not ged his nature through certaiernal things. If a an, he will die fain. If a scholar, he will die for fame. If a ruler of a townshi>.</a>p, he will die for his aral honors. If a Sage, he will die for the world. The pursuits and ambitions of these men differ, but the injury to their nature resulting in the sacrifice of their lives is the same. Tsang and Ku were shepherds, and both lost their sheep. On inquiry it appeared that Tsang had been engaged in reading with a shepherds stider his arm, while Ku had goo take part in some trials of strength. Their pursuits were different, but the result in each case was the loss of the sheep. Po Yi died for fame at the foot of Mount Shouyang. {43} Robber Cheh died fain on the Mount Tungling. They died for different reasons, but the injury to their lives and nature was in each case the same. Why then must laud the former and blame the latter? All men die for something, a if a man dies for charity and duty the world calls him a gentleman; but if he dies fain, the world calls him a low fellow. The dying being the same, one is heless called a gentleman and the other called a low character. But in point of injury to their lives and nature, Robber Cheh was just another Po Yi. Of what use then is the distin of gentleman and low fellow between them? Besides<cite></cite>, were a man to apply himself to charity and duty until he were the equal of Tseng or Shih, I would not call it good. Or to savors, until he were the equal of Shu Erh (famous cook), I would not call it good. Or to sound, until he were the equal of Shih Kuang, I would not call it good. Or to colors, until he were the equal of Li Chu, I would not call it good. What I call good is not what is meant by charity and duty, but taking good care of virtue. And what I call good is not the so-called charity and duty, but following the nature of life. What I call good at hearing is not hearing others but hearing oneself. What I call good at vision is not seeing others but seeing oneself. For a man who sees not himself but others, or takes possession not of himself but of others, possessing only what others possess and possessing not his own self, does leases others instead of pleasing his own nature. Now one who pleases others, instead of pleasing ones own nature, whether he be Robber Cheh or Po Yi, is just another one goray. scious of my own deficies in regard to Tao, I do not veo practise the principles of charity and duty on the one hand, nor to lead the life of extravagan the other.

百度搜索 Chuangtse: Mystic and Humorist 天涯 或 Chuangtse: Mystic and Humorist 天涯在线书库 即可找到本书最新章节.