A name can be named, but that's not a real name.
In the first chapter (13) of Cold Talk about Laozi, Confucius actually hurt the great poet Li Bai with one sentence. 1、
First of all, we have to solve the first problem:
So Lao Tzu said, "a name can be an unusual name."
In the last section, we have said "Tao is extraordinary" and discussed "We can only approach the truth, but we can't reach the truth" through three levels. Because these three levels are unreliable:
The first level is that the objective world is unreliable.
The second level is that people themselves are unreliable.
The third level is that the process of human understanding of the world is unreliable.
In fact, there is a fourth level:
That is to say, even if the objective world is reliable and the subjective people are reliable, the process of our understanding of the world is also reliable. We can reach the other side of truth 100%, or you can know and experience the truth of this world through your own practice.
Then the question is coming, how to express it? At present, we humans have only three expressions:
The first is to use words, that is, to speak in popular terms.
The second is to use language, which is commonly known as writing.
The third is to use silence, which is a hint in layman's terms and can also be called eye contact.
For example, Zhou Liwang, a tyrant in the Western Zhou Dynasty, was headstrong and unwilling to listen to criticism, so he found many wizards to act as spies and eavesdrop on people's conversations in the streets. Anyone who dares to talk about state affairs will be arrested and executed immediately. Finally, people are afraid to say hello when they meet on the road, so they have to "look at the road with their eyes" and communicate with their eyes.
2、
It is obvious that:
"Tao can be Tao, but not Tao" belongs to verbal expression;
"A name can be named, but unusual" is a written expression.
Unfortunately, countless facts have proved that both methods are unreliable. So, the best expression is actually "silence", but can I use "silence" to express it? Can't! Because no one could understand his "silent cry" at that time.
Confucius was only 34 years old when he visited him. He could only understand what he said, but he could not understand what he said. Otherwise, I would never leave all sentient beings behind and ride a green cow westward to leave Hanguguan for seclusion.
Therefore, not every good teacher is as lucky as Sakyamuni. When opening the altar, don't say anything. You only need to pick a flower, and you can get a knowing smile from the respected Ye Jia. Since then, Buddhism has had the Zen of "no words, heart-to-heart".
3、
Later, Confucius finally realized in his later years, so one day in class, he also said a word in front of all his disciples:
"I'm speechless."
It means:
"I don't want to talk about it anymore."
As a result, all the students were silent and no one was laughing. On the contrary, Zi Gong cried as soon as he heard it, so he asked:
"Teacher, if you don't talk, how can we record and communicate in class?"
Confucius looked up in disappointment and sighed:
"Day what words zai? Travel at four o'clock, everything is born, what is the sky? ? "③
Yes! When did heaven speak? But the seasons are still alternating, everything is still alive, isn't everything natural? In fact, what Confucius wants to express is, can I understand "Heaven" without God? Understand God's will, why can't you understand my silence?
4、
I'm afraid Confucius didn't think that after 1000 years, his words indirectly hurt Li Bai, a poet in the Tang Dynasty.
It is said that when Li Bai was 30 years old, he sang every night and drank every day. When he is drunk, he often shouts five times and drinks six times, making himself confused. As a result, one drunk driving in the middle of the night, riding a horse's whip, disrupted the local Changshi (provincial chief of staff) team. Therefore, Li Bai's wine has always been "famous" in Shili Baxiang.
Later, when Pei Kuan, the new long history, took office, Li Bai decided to defend himself. You'll never think that the first sentence he wrote was:
"When the days pass silently, everything will happen silently. White, crowded, not heaven and earth, safe without words and Zhihu? " ④
Pei Changshi can't be ignorant of this allusion of Confucius, so this opening is equivalent to saying:
I am Li Bai, not the sky or the earth, but a person, so I can't be silent. How do you idiots know who I am, Li Bai?
But any normal person may have the impulse to pull out Li Bai's front teeth. However, Pei Changshi is very generous, but he will not be reused, nor has he done anything to Li Bai. Then why did Li Bai blow his own horn through Confucius? In the final analysis, it is because no one can have "silent communication" with him.
No way, "silence" is the most advanced language, and most people can't understand it all their lives.
5、
Because of this, I have to choose the first two expressions that are not very good:
"Words and words."
But also specially remind us:
"Tao can be Tao, very Tao; Famous, very famous. "
This is his original intention of writing the Tao Te Ching.
Well, the problem of why Lao Tzu wrote "a name can be named but not named" has been solved. The next question is: "A name can be named. What do these two "names" mean? " We will discuss it in the next section.
References:
1, "Mandarin? Zhou Yu Shang
2. "Five lights? Volume one? Seven buddha "
3. The Analects of Yang Huo
4. Li Bai's History of Shang 'an Peichang.
The first chapter of Cool Laozi (14) It took the west two thousand years to reach the starting point of oriental philosophy? 1、
Ok, the question about why I wrote "a name can be named" in the last section has been solved. The second question is:
A name can be named. What do these two "names" mean? "
In fact, it is not difficult to understand:
The first "name" is a noun, which means "name"
The second "name" is a verb, meaning "naming".
However, when the ancients created the word "name", there was a very interesting origin. Xu Shen said in Shuo Wen Jie Zi:
"Name, pretentious. From morning till night. In the evening, ghosts came. If you don't meet each other, call yourself by mouth. "
It means that on a dark night in a month, two people meet on a narrow road, without street lights, and they can't see each other's faces clearly. One of them had to ask:
"Who is the newcomer? Sign up! "
The other party had to answer:
"I am Li Kui jy Ye of Black Cyclone!"
This is the origin of "name", which is equivalent to self-reporting. Since it is "pretentious", it shows that "name" is subjective, not objective. There is no essential connection between names and things, but a corresponding relationship in a specific space, a specific time and a specific condition. But what if animals, plants and stones can't talk except people?
We have no choice but to speak for them.
Then, the question is, when we name a thing, does it conform to the true nature of the thing?
2、
For example, there is such a creature:
Two legs, hairy, can lay eggs and crow. We named them "chickens".
But after we called it "chicken", the true colors of chicken became blurred and even narrowed. Why? Because when we talk about "chicken", all we can think of are some superficial features of chicken, such as "hairy legs can lay eggs and crow" In fact, these characteristics are just "labels" that we attach to "chickens" through our own subjective will.
In fact, chicken, as a chordate bird in the animal kingdom, is far more complicated than we thought. And no matter how in-depth and complete our research on chicken genes, breeds, reproduction, development, habits and so on, one thing is certain:
We can't know everything about chickens comprehensively, accurately and 100% from beginning to end.
More importantly, even if we can perfectly understand everything about chickens, we can't perfectly express them.
3、
So what should we do? There are two ways:
The first is addition to improve the accuracy of language description.
Even create new words when necessary, so that we can understand and describe the world in more detail and thoroughly.
The second is to do subtraction to improve the comprehensiveness of human understanding:
We don't need to create any new words, but on the basis of the existing language, we can eradicate the prejudice in our hearts through education and training, so that we can not only see the superficial "language", but also see through the "connotation" wrapped behind "language"
To sum it up in one sentence is:
Addition-that is, making language mathematical.
Subtraction-is to make the language poetic.
So, which method is better?
4、
In fact, for eastern culture, especially for us in China, the answer is obvious:
Second, it is better to do subtraction.
Therefore, the best expression that China has always admired is classical Chinese, which is concise. For example, there is such an allusion in history:
Ouyang Xiu, a great writer in the Song Dynasty, went out to play with several colleagues one day. On the way, he saw a frightened horse stepping on a dog and several people teased each other. How should this matter be described?
The first man said twelve words:
"There was a dog lying on the avenue. It escaped from under the horseshoe and killed it."
The second man thought for a long time, lost a word and said eleven words:
"Mayi was in the street and the lying dog was killed."
Ouyang Xiu laughed and said:
"If you are asked to write history books, I am afraid that 10,000 volumes will not be finished."
These colleagues asked, how should this be described? Ouyang Xiu only said six words:
"Emma wants to kill Ann in tao's dog. ①"
Yes, Ouyang Xiu only used six words to describe the dynamic super-long shot of a movie. Although this story is about the method of writing history, we can read a cultural tradition from the thoughts of ancient literati:
Choose your words carefully and cherish ink like gold.
And this tradition began very early, from Zhouyi to Tao Te Ching. Philosophers in China have long seen the limitations of "name", so they emphasize "seeing the big from the small and knowing the whole leopard from a glimpse".
Because of this, one of the famous schools of thought in the Warring States period, such as Gong Sunlong and Hui Shi, was eloquent and glib, but their philosophical theories could not find the soil to take root and sprout in China, so they were long lost.
5、
However, it is different for westerners. They prefer the first one:
It is a supplement.
Especially after the Enlightenment in17th century, countless philosophers have sprung up in Europe. However, we will find a feature:
More famous and influential philosophers often come from the same country.
For example, I will make a list:
Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Feuerbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Engels, Husserl, Jaspers, Heidegger and so on.
Yes, these philosophers are all Germans. They are only some, not all. So why did a small Germany (the land area is only equivalent to China's Yunnan Province) produce philosophers who occupy half of the world's modern philosophy history?
Of course, we can't deny that they have their own efforts and talents, but there is a very important reason that can't be ignored, that is:
German is recognized by most people in the world as the most meticulous, accurate and rigorous language.
How accurate is it? Tell a short story to illustrate.
For example, Kant wrote a book called Critique of Pure Reason. When it was first published, a reader wrote and complained, "Dear Mr. Kant, do you know how difficult your book is to read?" Every finger of mine will hold down one of your clauses, and as a result, all ten fingers are used up. You haven't finished reading a sentence!
We can imagine what it's like not to see a full stop for three minutes. I can't read a sentence in three minutes. Can you tell me which language in the world can do it? Is Chinese ok? Can you do it in English? Can you do it in French?
I can't even do it! But German is OK.
6、
However, at this point, we will find a problem. Since German is so fine, so precise and so rigorous, has it solved the most fundamental problem of mankind?
The answer is, no!
Not only has it not been solved, but as the language becomes more and more accurate, it leads to more and more problems and bigger differences, so there are more and more schools of philosophy. It was not until around the twentieth century that western philosophy began to turn around and change its research direction, and began to study the language itself.
7、
As we all know, the history of western philosophy can be roughly divided into three stages:
The first stage is ontological stage.
In the ontological stage, philosophers walked out of the myth and began to doubt life and seek the origin of the world.
The second stage is the epistemological stage.
In the stage of epistemology, philosophers began to doubt the world again. Because they realize that the most important thing is not to pursue the origin of the world, but to pursue how to understand it. So he created language, developed logic, accumulated experience, and made various scientific machinery and technical tools.
The third stage is philosophy of language.
Then philosophers began to doubt language! Because they realize that if the language expression is not accurate enough, then the research results of the first two stages are meaningless. So learning a language, how to analyze, how to express, add and subtract.
Westerners have experienced these three stages, starting from ancient Greece, for more than 2500 years. But in the East, as early as 2,500 years ago, Indian Sakyamuni had already walked under the bodhi tree, and China's Laozi had also walked in the library of the Zhou Dynasty. Therefore, China is not only a precocious politician as Marx said, but also a precocious child in China's philosophy.
Therefore, the division of three stages of philosophy is only suitable for Europe, not China.
8、
It is worth mentioning that around the twentieth century, western philosophy finally developed to the stage of philosophy of language, but it began to split again decades later, roughly divided into two factions:
One school advocates addition and constructs an artificial language through logic.
It first germinated in Plato, then broke ground in Leibniz's works, and finally matured in the hands of modern Russell. This school is called logical empiricism.
The other school advocates subtraction and restores the original meaning of everyday language through research.
Of course, there is no soil in the west for two thousand years, and Wittgenstein laid the foundation in the later period, which is the so-called philosophy of everyday language.
So, which method is better? We will continue to explain it in the next section.
References:
1, Feng Menglong, An Overview of Ancient and Modern Tan? Booking for horses and dogs
2. Wittgenstein's philosophical research? Section 1 16 "
Cool Laozi Chapter 1 (15) Oriental philosophy was born at the top of the Himalayas? 1、
As we said in the last section, about the 20th century, western philosophy eventually developed into a philosophy of language, and then divided into two schools:
One school advocates addition and constructs an artificial language through logic. It first germinated in Plato, then broke ground in Leibniz's works, and finally matured in the hands of modern Russell. This school is called logical empiricism.
The other school advocates subtraction and restores the original meaning of everyday language through research. Of course, there is no soil in the west for two thousand years, and Wittgenstein laid the foundation in the later period, which is the so-called philosophy of everyday language.
Then, we face a problem:
When we can't understand and express the world perfectly, should we add or subtract "language"?
Although these two methods have their own reasons, they all have their own advantages and disadvantages. However, personally, I think:
In the ultimate sense of philosophy, the realm of subtraction is probably better.
Because subtraction is more difficult, even to the end, it is necessary to express it with "silence". In fact, Wittgenstein said a famous saying full of oriental wisdom in the preface of On Logical Philosophy:
"What you can talk about can be made clear, and what you can't talk about should be kept silent."
What is "negotiable"?
All propositions about natural science can be said.
What is "can't say"?
Life, ethics, value, emotion, religion, metaphysical ontology, etc ... everything that can give life meaning and value is unspeakable, because these are beyond the scope of language.
So Wittgenstein thinks:
"In the face of real philosophical things, we should choose silence."
But it must be noted that his "silence" is not what we usually understand as "silence without asking questions", but a more advanced expression. This is also the third expression besides "speaking" and "writing" mentioned before. Wittgenstein's real idea is:
Show what you can't say in silence.
2、
But unfortunately, Wittgenstein's thoughts were generally incomprehensible in the western philosophical circles at that time, including his former mentor Russell. It is worth mentioning that the Philosophy of Logic he wrote in this prison camp was his doctoral thesis at Cambridge University.
More interestingly, when he graduated from 1929, his tutors were Russell and Moore (founders of British analytical philosophy). The three men chatted casually, and Russell and Moore were embarrassed. Why? Because they all said they couldn't understand Wittgenstein's paper. At that time, 40-year-old Wittgenstein came up to them with a smile, patted them on the shoulder and said:
"Don't worry, you'll never understand these problems."
Of course, the final graduation defense was passed humorously. Later facts also proved that Russell did not understand Wittgenstein's core thought. The book On Logical Philosophy was published by Russell, who wrote the preface himself. In the preface, he said in confusion:
Since you Wittgenstein said that everything in real philosophy can't be said, but at the same time you said that it can be shown, isn't this contradictory?
Russell frankly admitted that he was "intellectually unhappy" when reading this book. Off-topic, Wittgenstein once claimed in a letter that his theory of logical philosophy is actually two books, one is a written book with words, and the other is an unwritten but implicit book without words. The wordless gobbledygook is the most important unspeakable thing. As a result, many contemporary philosophers talk in Kan Kan every day in the classroom.
Obviously, there must be Russell in Wittgenstein's list of empty talk philosophers. I wonder what Russell will think when he sees this letter. I'm afraid it's not just "intellectual unhappiness", but "mental breakdown" Fortunately, Wittgenstein's letter was never made public.
We can see it from here. Although Russell admired Buddhism very much, he did not have a deep understanding of the cultural connotation of Buddhism. But for us in China, Wittgenstein's "contradiction" is not a problem at all.
For example, "Talk about everything, communicate with your heart"-eye contact. Isn't this the daily life of China Zen since ancient times? Another example is "meeting without saying anything, seeing without saying anything"-suggestive communication, which has been China's ideological tradition since Zhuangzi.
Therefore, even a talented philosopher recognized by the West like Russell can hardly understand the highest expression of "silence". As you can imagine, our philosophy in China is so advanced that our philosophy in the East can be said to have been born at the top of the Himalayas.
3、
Similarly, if we speak from the highest level of philosophy:
Even Wittgenstein, who is praised by western philosophers as "a genius among geniuses and a philosopher among philosophers", has not reached the highest peak of Mount Everest, and his theory is still halfway up the mountain, which is not yet mature.
In his later years, he denied his own logical philosophy. He finally realized that language and the world are not one-to-one correspondence. Language represents different meanings in different times, places, situations and characters, and the language "assembled" with precise logic cannot solve philosophical problems.
He even woke up:
It is wishful thinking for philosophers to try to describe the world in logical language. In fact, all philosophical problems stem from people's misunderstanding of language. The task of philosophy is to eliminate people's misuse of language and return to the track of daily language.
Of course, before he could dispel people's misunderstanding of language, he was eliminated from the world by God in 195 1 at the age of 62. I have to say, Wittgenstein is still very naive. Can restoring everyday language solve all philosophical problems? We will reveal the answer in the next section.
References:
1, Mooney, Contemporary Analytical Philosophy? Chapter V The Boundary of Language "
2. "Five lights? Volume 7
3. Zhuangzi? Tian zifang
4. Wittgenstein's philosophical research? Section 1 16 "
Cool Laozi Chapter 1 (16) The wise Sakyamuni doesn't even know about pigs? 1、
As we mentioned in the last section, Wittgenstein advocated restoring the use of everyday language, thus solving the philosophical dilemma. So, can restoring everyday language solve all philosophical problems?
The answer is, no!
In fact, as early as 2500 years ago, Laozi and Sakyamuni had already sentenced Language to death. Lao Tzu said that "a name can be an unusual name" to illustrate:
Nothing in the world can be described in words, including a chicken, a grass, a stone, even a word.
Because as long as you say it, it will cause two results at the same time:
One is that the description is not accurate enough, the other is that the understanding is not comprehensive enough.
In a word, what is said or written can't be as perfect as 360-degree camera, and there must be deviation. Sakyamuni also has a deep understanding of this. In order to educate his disciples, he often hinted by "silence".
For example, when Sakyamuni was alive, one day he meditated in the refined house. At noon, two butchers carried a pig past him.
Sakyamuni opened his eyes and asked:
"What is this?"
At that time, many disciples were frozen in place, and I couldn't believe it came from the Buddha's mouth. After hearing this, one of the disciples couldn't help laughing and saying:
"Buddhists are wise, and pigs don't know." ①
This laughing disciple means that the Buddha should have all the knowledge of astronomy, geography and personnel. How come he doesn't even know pigs?
Sakyamuni replied:
"I didn't know until I asked."
This Zen case-solving has always been interpreted as that Sakyamuni is sensitive and eager to learn, and he is not ashamed to ask questions, which is a sign of modesty. Actually wrong! Why? Because unless Sakyamuni left the palace at the age of 29, he may have never seen a pig, so he doesn't know. That makes sense. But we need to know:
He didn't realize the Tao under the bodhi tree until he was thirty-five, and then he began to preach Buddhism. There is a gap of six or seven years. In addition to penance, he also visited many famous teachers and traveled to many places. How could he have never seen a pig?
So this story should be about the first time that Sakyamuni used this special "silence" to find a bosom friend, but unfortunately Mahayana was not around at that time. The result is not a knowing smile, but a sneer with a buried face.
2、
Then please ask:
Why didn't Sakyamuni say the name of "pig" directly, but only "this"?
Because he knew that once the word "pig" was spoken, many superficial characteristics of pigs such as "stupid, lazy and fat" would be immediately left in people's minds, which was summed up by the experience handed down from generation to generation, and few people could escape the "thinking inertia" of the ancients. The result is:
People completely ignore the true colors of "pig".
So he wanted to guide his disciples to change their thinking and see the essence of the world through this way of "pointing to one thing without saying anything". If one of the disciples can answer "I don't know", then he may become the second Mahayana in Buddhism.
3、
At this point, we should know:
When we talk about "pigs", the pigs we think of are not real pigs. It is just a pig in our subjective consciousness, just a collection of some characteristics of pigs.
So Spinoza has a very famous assertion:
"The regulation is negative. ②"
It means that as long as we define a thing, we deny its essence at the same time. Why? Because everything that can be defined must be defined by some superficial characteristics. And if words and logic are used to describe the true nature of things, it is too complicated to imagine. In Buddhist terms, it is called "incredible", so the essence of things cannot be accurately described and defined.
The key point is:
Our human brain can only understand the world through logic, and logic can only be recorded and expressed through language.
In other words, we have no choice! We can only understand and imagine everything in the world through those defined superficial features. Then, when we pay attention to the surface features of things wholeheartedly, can we see the essence behind things?
The answer is impossible!
Our minds are actually like movie cameras. If you focus on a certain point, the scenery around this point will automatically blur. Just like when we appreciate a painting, if you focus on a painting, then you can't see the whole picture clearly.
The result is:
We will mistake the part for the whole, the one-sidedness for the whole and the phenomenon for the essence.
4、
So linguistically speaking, such as people, dogs, cattle and sheep, parents and brothers, benevolence and righteousness, courtesy and wisdom, landscapes, flowers and birds, history, chemistry, geography and so on. , even the text itself. All these various conceptual "names" are not their true colors. It's just a "dress" that we subjectively tailored for it.
We can't say "name" is the name itself, just as we can't say "people's clothes" is "people".
Language puts clothes on the content, which facilitates the understanding of the content, but it also blurs the content. The supreme classic of Buddhism, the Diamond Sutra, is actually explaining this truth:
For example, the world, which is not the world, is the famous world.
What do you mean? This "world" in the Tathagata language is not the original world, but the nominal "world" established by people. So, Lao tze also reminded that:
"Names can be named, which is very famous."
References:
1, "refers to the monthly record? volume one
2. Spinoza's letters? The 50th letter "
3. Diamond Sutra? Thirty kinds of products
Author: Zi Xia Wolf, born after 90, the night is like ink, and the moonlight is like me.