El legado del filósofo taoísta ZhuangZi

El Tratado Segundo de Zhuang Zi, La Identidad de los Seres, ÆëÎïÂÛ, presente en el texto que lleva su mismo nombre, ׯ×Ó, es, sin duda, uno de los testimonios arqueológicos más importantes para una exégesis preparatoria sobre la reflexión Pre-Han sobre el Nombre y el Hecho. Nuestro preguntar histórico, estrictamente provisional, se descubrirá ahora en un ir y venir, una suerte de regreso categorial, en esta fuente, supuestamente “original”, y buscará comprender a través de las significativas peculiaridades de este legado invaluable, lo que los 6 juan de Gong Sun Long Zi aún dicen de digno. Así y dentro del marco presente del Tratado Segundo seguirá pues nuestra reflexión.

El taoísmo filosófico está sujeto, extrañamente, al Relativismo. Este, fijado para muchos en el punto de vista espiritual, la Gran Masa (´ó¿é) , “El Aliento del Mundo” , cae numinoso, sobre los rostros de los que se refugian lejos de lo determinado y lo estricto. Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi, son taxativos y firmes en su natural incorporación a lo que acontence en Mundo: el mismo Acontecer. El Dao, µÀ, que es secreto aún no siendo secreto, pues no admite jerarquia ontologica, y que, como la misma pregunta que se interroga por el Ser, es indemostrable onticamente, vive en el adjetivo y la cualidad, y no en la mirada penetrante y analítica de “multilateral” (¶à·½) Hui Shi (»ÝÊ©), que gustaba de acertijos analiticos y era habil sofista. Kun y Peng , el pez inmenso y su metamorfosis, el ave de alas inmensas. Y la cigarra y la tortolica, no significan honor ni deshonor. Ninguna irradia preeminencia. La orientación de aquel que busca el Camino es la de ser una pregunta retórica. El tema de la constitución de lo ente, y de su estructura, como algo cercano o lejano, grande o pequeño, del comparativo geografico, está ciertamente ausente (si exceptuamos la Teoria Medica y el Taoismo Religioso) de la reflexión Protocientífica del Taoísmo Filosofico. Hay en los Libros Canónicos del Taoísmo Filosófico, decimos, una radical corpulencia anti-constructiva, una suerte de revolucion espiritual que no puede identificarse con el Antihumanismo o el chato Nihilismo de las tradiciones occidentales. Su comprensión del Mundo no se funda en una analítica ontológica, sino en una interpretación de lo que es esencial. La búsqueda de esta esencia, Misteriosa, es el Camino.

Considerar al Taoismo de irreflexivo, prematuro o primitivo, significaría arremeter contra la fundamentación de una lógica creadora. Y es esto, lo sobresaliente, con lo que el estudioso de textos taoistas se topa y se admira.

El Tratado Segundo del Zhuang Zi discurre sobre la Identidad de los Seres. Y puntualiza, en una suerte de disquision parmenidea, la “mala subjetivizacion del Universo de los seres” . Se trata de un documento sobrecogedor e inquietante: por un lado, conceptual, desarrolla el destino de los que buscan la fundamentación de la anterioridad; y por otro lado, testimonia la existencia de un Debate, a menudo sospechado, a saber: la relacion entre los verdadero y lo falso, y entre lo correcto y lo incorrecto (ÊÇ·Ç). Por último, filologicamente, utiliza los mismos instrumentos categoriales y gramaticales que los Tratados Lógicos Neo-mohistas y que los atribuidos a Gong Sun Long Zi.

¿Existe algún texto del Zhuang Zi vinculado a GongSunLong? Sí. Se trata del capitulo segundo del tratado primero, el de los Capítulos Internos: 莊子: 內篇: 齊物論

Dice el texto:

物無非彼,物無非是。自彼則不見,自知則知之。故曰:彼出於是,是亦因彼。彼是,方生之說也。雖然,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。是以聖人不由,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?果且無彼是乎哉?彼是莫得其偶,謂之道樞。樞始得其環中,以應無窮。是亦一無窮,非亦一無窮也。故曰「莫若以明」。

La traduccion del sinólogo escocsoes James Legge fue la que sigue:

There is no thing that is not “that”, and there is no thing that is not “this”. If I look at something from “that”, I do not see it; only if I look at it from knowing do I know it. Hence it is said, ‘That view comes from this; and this view is a consequence of that:’ – which is the theory that that view and this (the opposite views) produce each the other. Although it be so, there is affirmed now life and now death; now death and now life; now the admissibility of a thing and now its inadmissibility; now its inadmissibility and now its admissibility. (The disputants) now affirm and now deny; now deny and now affirm. Therefore the sagely man does not pursue this method, but views things in the light of (his) Heaven (-ly nature), and hence forms his judgment of what is right. This view is the same as that, and that view is the same as this. But that view involves both a right and a wrong; and this view involves also a right and a wrong – are there indeed the two views, that and this? Or are there not the two views, that and this? They have not found their point of correspondency which is called the pivot of the Dao. As soon as one finds this pivot, he stands in the centre of the ring (of thought), where he can respond without end to the changing views; without end to those affirming, and without end to those denying. Therefore I said, ‘There is nothing like the proper light (of the mind).’

Dice el texto en relación al Tratado Tercero Significar las Cosas de GongSunLong:

以指喻指之非指,不若以非指喻指之非指也;以馬喻馬之非馬,不若以非馬喻馬之非馬也。天地,一指也;萬物,一馬也。
可乎可,不可乎不可。道行之而成,物謂之而然。惡乎然?然於然。惡乎不然?不然於不然。物固有所然,物固有所可。無物不然,無物不可。故為是舉莛與楹,厲與西施,恢恑憰怪,道通為一。
其分也,成也;其成也,毀也。凡物無成與毀,復通為一。唯達者知通為一,為是不用而寓諸庸。庸也者,用也;用也者,通也;通也者,得也。適得而幾矣。因是已。已而不知其然,謂之道。勞神明為一,而不知其同也,謂之朝三。何謂朝三?曰狙公賦芧,曰:「朝三而莫四。」眾狙皆怒。曰:「然則朝四而莫三。」眾狙皆悅。名實未虧,而喜怒為用,亦因是也。是以聖人和之以是非,而休乎天鈞,是之謂兩行。

Desafortundamente Legge traduce 指 por finger

By means of a finger (of my own) to illustrate that the finger (of another) is not a finger is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not so by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a finger; and by means of (what I call) a horse to illustrate that (what another calls) a horse is not so, is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not a horse, by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a horse. (All things in) heaven and earth may be (dealt with as) a finger; (each of) their myriads may be (dealt with as) a horse.
Does a thing seem so to me? (I say that) it is so. Does it seem not so to me? (I say that) it is not so. A path is formed by (constant) treading on the ground. A thing is called by its name through the (constant) application of the name to it. How is it so? It is so because it is so. How is it not so? It is not so, because it is not so. Everything has its inherent character and its proper capability. There is nothing which has not these. Therefore, this being so, if we take a stalk of grain and a (large) pillar, a loathsome (leper) and (a beauty like) Xi Shi, things large and things insecure, things crafty and things strange; they may in the light of the Dao all be reduced to the same category (of opinion about them).
It was separation that led to completion; from completion ensued dissolution. But all things, without regard to their completion and dissolution, may again be comprehended in their unity – it is only the far reaching in thought who know how to comprehend them in this unity. This being so, let us give up our devotion to our own views, and occupy ourselves with the ordinary views. These ordinary views are grounded on the use of things. (The study of that) use leads to the comprehensive judgment, and that judgment secures the success (of the inquiry). That success gained, we are near (to the object of our search), and there we stop. When we stop, and yet we do not know how it is so, we have what is called the Dao. When we toil our spirits and intelligence, obstinately determined (to establish our own view), and do not know the agreement (which underlies it and the views of others), we have what is called ‘In the morning three.’ What is meant by that ‘In the morning three?’ A keeper of monkeys, in giving them out their acorns, (once) said, ‘In the morning I will give you three (measures) and in the evening four.’ This made them all angry, and he said, ‘Very well. In the morning I will give you four and in the evening three.’ The monkeys were all pleased. His two proposals were substantially the same, but the result of the one was to make the creatures angry, and of the other to make them pleased – an illustration of the point I am insisting on. Therefore the sagely man brings together a dispute in its affirmations and denials, and rests in the equal fashioning of Heaven. Both sides of the question are admissible.