每星期都會看傳福音節目。
絕大部份的見證, 都是人們經歷了人生的低潮, 受到天主的眷顧, 站起來重新做人。
有年少時吸毒犯案的, 蒙主恩寵, 變成好人;
有患不治之症的, 蒙主恩寵, 病忽爾痊癒;
有患精神病見幻覺的, 蒙主恩寵, 得別人相助重新融入社會...
很感人。
未來, 會不會有節目, 是這樣的:
家裡人年少吸毒犯案, 被仇家打死了; 作見證的感謝主的恩寵;
患不治之症的, 死了; 家人感謝主的恩寵;
患精神病見幻覺的, 沒有好轉, 受盡社會各人歧視; 病人感謝主的恩寵...
我們看世界的美善, 都是我們被教育是美善的東西: 健康、友愛、平安...
但世上充滿著不健康的人、冷酷的空間、戰亂頻仍的街道(及內心)...
聖伯多祿釘在倒轉的十字架上殉道, 他很快樂。
很多人(有信仰的, 沒信仰的)救了別人丟了自己的命。
因為各種病痛、戰爭而死的好人、壞人更是不計其數。
他們是不是天主的兒女? 聖伯多祿有沒有"主的恩寵"?
世上每個人, 都要死。所以有說: "萬事皆虛"。
人如果不呼吸, 便會死亡。
人呼吸到甜美的空氣, 會覺得心曠神怡。
人呼吸到惡臭的空氣, 會覺得嘔心。
但本質上, 香的空氣臭的空氣, 都是人得賴之為生的空氣。
有人會說, 若要我聞臭的空氣我寧可死。
但臭的空氣香的空氣也屬於天主。所謂的魔鬼, 不過是我們內心做出來的用來"賴"的東西。人軟弱(想想曠野四十天, 是否真的有一異於自己的外在或實體的撒旦??), 離了天主的真光, 又接受不了自己的軟弱, 便"賴"有一外在的魔鬼"引誘"自己而已。
信仰, 是冀望世界只有香氣, 沒有蒼蠅? 是將蒼蠅教養成白鴿? 是嗅香無異嗅臭, 見蠅比如見鴿? 是香是香臭是臭, 見蠅是蠅見鴿是鴿?
小座頭鯨也是天主的恩寵。不知牠甚麼時候返家? (我離遠在網上看牠翻筋斗都很滿足。)
主的恩寵
疑似「國寶」？
我反而留意他那一手字，第一眼感覺是怪：行、隸、篆共治一罏。而且亦盡合於《說文》。恰似顧炎武〈跋李仲璇修孔子廟碑并陰〉所云：「其文一行之中，有篆、有分、有隸、有草，雜亂無倫，而或者以為奇，然則作詩者亦當一句騷、一句漢魏、一句選、一句律而後為奇也。此愚之所不解也。」(《金石文字記》二)又似清‧吴晉《寶硯齋印譜序》：「他若陳師黃、丁錦屏，非不刻劃古人，第好奇之異，間以隸法雜入，近於妖妄。某則章法勝人，但常以古文混配漢隸，何殊今人行楷中忽寫西域梵字，令人了不可讀。此更不只失古人意蘊，其悖理欺世亦與妖妄相等也。」更像王士禎《跋門人閻左汾印譜》所講的，雖然講的是篆刻：「今人以古文奇字概入印章，嗜奇者往往好之，而不知其悖於古。」(《蠶尾集》十) 元‧吾丘衍《學古編》：「不熟其法，不免為百家衣。」但食古不化，專以小學考量抒情為主的藝術作品，豈非在情信中挑文法錯誤，未免焚琴煮鶴，吹毛索瘢。況且章炳麟先生不是說過嗎：「世之論碑版者，徵存缺於一字之內，分明暗於數畫之間，非不詳審，而大體不存焉。故差足以辨真偽，而不足以別妍蚩。自大興翁氏專求形似，體貌愈真，精釆愈遠，筆無己出，見誚諸城。」(《太炎文錄續編》)
不過，過去我老師常強調心正則筆正，以前不以為然，現在倒覺並非過時。尤其知道此君有詐欺金錢前科後。真不知生前睥睨王候，高風亮節的章瘋子知道有此門下走狗，會否從棺材彈起。走著瞧，野狐禪總有露出尾巴的一天的。
黃山谷之「欹側字」
黃庭堅〈諸上座帖〉
如得其情，則哀矜而勿喜
如得其情，則哀矜而勿喜, makuranososhi
一口氣看完張愛玲的《小團圓》，張曾經致讀者的一句話浮上心頭：
「不記得是不是《論語》上有這樣兩句話：『如得其情，哀矜而勿喜。』這兩句話給我的印像很深刻。我們明白了一件事的內情，與一個人內心的曲折，我們也都『哀矜而勿喜』吧。」（《傳奇》序）
書寫是對自己與惶惶生命的審視，其中或得到淨化，或得到救贖。至於讀的人能讀出多少知心，那是各人造化。
[轉貼] 旅行中的眼淚 #3
http://oblivion1938.com/archives/367
我沒有鏡，朋友是鏡，如果我温柔地笑，因為有人跟我温柔地笑。
The world is everything that is the case. - Wittgenstein
《小團圓》的道德教訓
今天看到這篇東西：
張小虹：「合法盜版」張愛玲 從此永不團圓小說是否完成，寫得好不好，看一看就知道了。宋以朗的前言寫什麼，張小虹教授也似乎完全沒有理會。拒讀，卻一味憑二三手資料評論，這就是學術？就是道義？
【聯合報╱張小虹】
2009.02.27
或許我們只聽說過「非法盜版」這個辭彙，難道也有所謂「合法盜版」這檔事嗎？
這幾年來張愛玲的盜版官司打得如火如荼。作為張愛玲「遺產執行人」的宋以朗與擁有張愛玲全球獨家中文版權的皇冠出版社，跨海控告中國大陸數十家知名或不知名出版社的「非法盜版」行徑，未經授權，擅自印行張愛玲的著作，並要求鉅額賠款。這場官司有的已經勝訴，有的還在纏訟，倒是在侵權官司的訴訟過程中，我們才由雙方的攻防辯論，間接了解到張愛玲遺囑未經公證（辯方企圖以此質疑遺囑之合法性），乃是因為她當時的財產不足兩萬美金，無需公證（控方證詞），如果屬實，不難想見其晚年生活之困窘。
囑交代銷毀《小團圓》手稿
那張愛玲過世後，其版權收益與各種衍生權益金究竟所歸何處？張愛玲在一九九二年所立的遺囑中，將財產遺贈給宋淇與鄺文美夫婦。此二人乃張一生的摯友，張與鄺曾為香港美國新聞處的同事，由此認識宋而成為至交，移居美國後也與二人時時魚雁往返，就連想要做件旗袍，也會手繪款式、標明尺寸，寄給鄺代為找尋香港的熟識裁縫縫製，而宋日後更成為張的對外連絡管道、文學顧問與經紀人，他為張的小說、劇本、稿費版稅與電影版權來回奔波、不辭辛勞，他認認真真拜讀、誠誠懇懇回應張寄來的所有手稿，而二○○七年底宋過世後，其子宋以朗便成為法律上合法的「張愛玲文學遺產執行人」。
而張愛玲與台灣皇冠出版社平鑫濤先生的因緣，也來自宋的引薦，張遂於一九六六年的《怨女》起與皇冠出版社維持了卅年的出版合作關係。而張愛玲過世後，皇冠出版社已於二○○四年出版了其生前因覺「毛病很大」而決定擱開的兩萬字未完成中篇小說《同學少年都不賤》（加上數篇譯作與散文），而去年皇冠出版社又出版了張愛玲數篇未發表或新出土的文稿合集《重訪邊城》，據報載此乃張愛玲作品付梓的最後一冊，其餘遺稿不再出版。在過去的四十多年中，張愛玲作為華文世界最重要的作家之一，已為該出版社帶來了無價的聲譽與象徵資本。但在今年皇冠五十五週年的慶祝活動中，我們傻了眼，就連張愛玲在叮囑遺產處理的書信中清楚交代銷毀手稿、不予出版的《小團圓》，也終究難逃被迫登台亮相的命運。
法律上「法」道義上「版」
而檯面上冠冕堂皇的出版理由有二。一說張愛玲終究還是打算出版，銷毀《小團圓》手稿的書信寫於一九九二年，而張在一九九三、一九九四仍討論到修改內容，也曾一度表示（或委婉拒絕）《小團圓》與《對照記》放在一起太厚，不宜合集出版。另一說則是此「神祕自傳體小說」乃張愛玲濃縮畢生心血的巔峰之作，出版《小團圓》乃是因應廣大張迷之期待，千呼萬喚始出來，更引用號稱或自稱張愛玲研究權威學者的話語，此書之出版乃「張迷之福音」。換言之，不為錢、不為利、不為名，《小團圓》的出版，一切都只為張愛玲與張迷。張愛玲一九九五年過世時，在公寓裡幾天沒人發現，當然也不會有人來得及問她《小團圓》改好了沒？決定要出、不出還是仍在猶豫？更進一步想，若以寫作者將心比心，就算張愛玲生前不完全放棄出版的念頭，想她也不會願意以修改中的「未完成」稿出版。但這一切的一切，我們無從猜測揣摩，我們唯一的共同根據是她的遺願，《小團圓》「小說手稿應該銷毀，不予出版」。
因此《小團圓》的出版，在法律程序上是「合法」，但在情感道義上是「盜版」，和那些被控「非法盜版」的大陸出版社一樣，都是未經授權、擅自印行。作為一個張愛玲的忠實讀者，在傷心難過與憤怒之餘，也只能以「拒買、拒讀、拒評」《小團圓》，聊表對張愛玲寫作生涯最基本的敬意。（作者為台大外文系教授）
如果有留心網上舉目皆是的報導，就知道決定出版的不是皇冠，而是宋以朗。宋以朗為什麼要出這部書？如果真是為錢，而忍心辜負張愛玲及雙親囑咐，那自然是極端不合道義的，譏為「合法盜版」亦可謂一針見血，大快人心。但宋以朗有必要為錢幹這種出賣親人的勾當嗎？道德責任要由動機判斷，不論你是阿里士多德抑或康德，相信都不會反對。你大可說你不認識宋以朗，無從知曉其動機－－如果是這樣，應該沉默是金。但可惜，很多人偏又不忍錯過這種「仗義執言」的大好機會。另一方面，如果你懷疑他真是為錢，那就請做點功課，先研究一下宋以朗是什麼人，是否有必要出賣至親所託，來賺那僅佔賣書收益十多巴仙的版權費。宋以朗有多少身家，我不知道，但他自己在網上曾公開月入：
* Am I A 50 Cent Gang Member? (07/16/2008)
This comment is made out of sheer laziness to do long translations after a tiring trip to the USA last week. So this is a departure from norm, but perhaps more stimulating (and also ill-considered).
The initial question is: Is the ESWN blogger a 50 cent gang member? Well, why would you take my YES or NO answer as truth? Tautologically, this is unprovable (that is to say, a 50 cent gang member will deny being such in order to remain effective and that kind of response is indistinguishable from those people who are genuinely not).
But let me make the argument purely from the economic angle. First, it is public information that my official job title is the Chief Technical Officer of the second largest media research organization in the world. As such, I am earning a certain wage, which is neither exceptionally low nor high.
If you offer me 50 cents per blog post, would I be doing what I am doing? NO. YOU MUST BE F*CKING JOKING!
If you offer me 5 RMB per blog post, would I be doing what I am doing? NO. YOU MUST BE F*CKING JOKING!
If you offer me 50 RMB per blog post, would I be doing what I am doing? NO. YOU MUST BE F*CKING JOKING!
If you offer me 500 RMB per blog post, would I be doing what I am doing? NO. YOU MUST BE F*CKING JOKING! I run 3 posts per day on the average, and therefore you are paying me 1,500 RMB per day (or 45,000 RMB per month). With due respect, my regular day job pays much more than that. This is just not worth the hassle.
If you offer me 5,000 RMB per blog post, would I be doing what I am doing? Well, you are the one who needs your F*CKING HEAD examined. I run 3 posts per day on the average, and therefore you are paying me 15,000 RMB per day (or 450,000 RMB per month). This may be in the same order of magnitude as my day wages, but there is no way that what I do here is worth that much money. Your supervisor would have a SH*T FIT if he finds out that is how you are squandering money on me. You cannot squeeze more productivity out of me, because my effectiveness would decline in direct proportion to the display of partisanship. Most people who hurl insults at me do not understand this simple piece of economics.
一位月入至少四五十萬人民幣的專業人士，還要是單身，毫無家庭負擔，有優秀家境及教養，現在竟為了區區十多巴仙的版權費，寧願公然出賣至親，被人臭罵是「合法盜版」也在所不計？ YOU MUST BE F*CKING JOKING! 當然，你依然可以咬定宋是貪得無厭的，甚至冷笑：「現在金融海嘯，說不定宋以朗還是雷曼苦主呢。」不錯，我們永遠不可能確定宋以朗想什麼，但做一點功課，憑一點常識，總會較接近真相。真要講「道義」的話，請花點功夫，至少調查一下宋的背景，考究一下出書理據，判斷一下小說價值--夠厲害的，不妨查一查他是否財困--而不是像張小虹教授一樣，把某句話抽離語境，一味作原教旨主義的理解，還要搬出「合法盜版」這類挑釁、煽情的宣傳標題。這不是學術，也不見得就是道義。
說到底，如何是尊重張愛玲呢？很簡單：如果抱著看X周刊八卦爆料的齷齪心態，你最好連〈色，戒〉都避之則吉，免得走火入魔；心地真夠光明磊落，就不會邊讀《小團圓》而邊想辦告解，而只會欣賞、理解和憐惜張愛玲。
相關文章：
Little Reunion
有關"男同性戀愛滋病"的一些數據
男同性戀愛滋病個案急升
(http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090220/4/ascz.html)
衛生防護中心顧問醫生（特別預防計劃）黃加慶... 表示，男同性性接觸社群感染愛滋病病毒的風險明顯較性工作者及使用針筒人士高10倍以上。
調查顯示，香港男同性性接觸社群的安全套使用率偏低
看到以上兩點, 我到衛生防護中心(http://www.chp.gov.hk/cindex.asp?lang=tc)的網頁想找找這些數據的來源或佐證。
我相信如非真的做了一些調查, 衛生防護中心是不敢發出此類新聞稿的。我找不到這新聞稿裡所說的"調查", 亦無從核證這調查的可信度。我以下列舉的數據亦並非嚴謹的分析, 但望為看官提供另一個看待這些"數據分析"的角度。
衛生防護中心的傳染病直擊第6卷第3期 – 2009年第4週至第5週 (2009年1月18日至1月31日)(http://www.chp.gov.hk/files/pdf/CDW_V6_3s_752814.pdf)做了個有關男男性接觸而又是HIV+的病者感染梅毒的統計, 而樣本來源(sampling)是往Social Hygiene Clinic (SHC)求診的有關病者。到底這sampling有多能反映香港有關患者的情況, 看官可自行定斷。
在衛生防護中心的網頁裡找到的最新近的有關HIV及愛滋病的統計數字, 已是2008年7至9月的數字:
(http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pkebk3i5HXvTHn_2ou-a4Cg)
從這統計可見, 於2008年7月至9月:
- 經異性性接觸感染HIV/AIDS, 佔總患者31.8%;
- 第二高百分比的感染途徑為"不詳", 佔27.2%;
- 經同性性接觸感染HIV/AIDS, 佔總患者22.5%;
- 注射毒品人士(推斷為共用針筒)感染HIV/AIDS, 佔總患者13.2%。
大家請看回文首新聞稿裡一句"男同性性接觸社群感染愛滋病病毒的風險明顯較性工作者及使用針筒人士高10倍以上"。這"明顯地高10倍以上"是怎樣計算出來呢? 就算我們看"累積個案", 同性性接觸 vs 注射毒品人士也不過是22.7% vs 5.9%。當然風險未必完全反映在病者人數上, 若看官可協助找到這個"10倍以上"是怎樣得來的, 請不吝指教。
然後我找到UNAIDS (http://www.unaids.org/en/) 一篇有關來年工作的文章:
This demonstrates that most countries haveset a target of 80% coverage of antiretroviral treatment and prevention of mother-to-child transmission programmes, which is widely accepted as a standard definition of universal
access for these interventions—that is one that is achievable and will also have the most significant impact on the population served. In regions with concentrated epidemics, countries have given priority to availability of services for key populations at higher risk of exposure to HIV such as sex workers, injecting drug users, and men who have sex with men.
(UNAIDS, "What countries need: Investments needed for 2010 targets", p5; http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2009/20090210__investments_needed_2010_en.pdf)
在此報告的第五頁的圖表一, 可見首三項被關注的防治愛滋病項目依次為"治療antiretroviral(HIV為其中一種)病毒"、"防止母嬰傳染"、及"性工作者"。
我想, 相比起世界其他國家, 香港不算是"regions with concentrated epidemics"吧。
大家可連結到這裡(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv#Sexual)一看HIV病毒傳染途徑的數據。雖然這些數據已不updated, 但它們曾刊於醫學刊物上, 應有一定的可信性。
這表列出:
- 每10,000個HIV+血液輸血的個案中, 估計9,000個個案染上HIV;
- 每10,000個有HIV病毒的母親, 估計2,500位誕下HIV+嬰兒;
- 而每10,000個肛交個案(Receptive anal intercourse + Insertive anal intercourse), 其中一方是HIV+, 雙方均沒戴安全套, 另一方染上HIV的估計個案為56.5。
我並不是說同性性行為不會傳染HIV, 但我看到許多新聞報導(例如這則: http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090116_MSMAsia.asp) 都只報導男男性行為HIV+的數據而不報導男女性行為HIV+的數據, 亦不就兩個樣本來源(sampling)及樣本數(sample base)再作深入的數據分析, 而只隨便的用一個看上去好像很嚴重的百分比來支持"男同性戀愛滋激增", 煽情就夠煽情了, 但其實在誤導讀者。
很久以前已寫過一篇短文簡述這些所謂"男同性戀的愛滋病感染百分比遠高於異性戀"是數字遊戲居多, 玩弄這些數字遊戲的人或機構可能真心想減低HIV感染率, 又或別有所圖, 但他們不明白, 他們做出的這些數據, 放在新聞稿裡, 其實很誤導市民, 加深了他們對同性戀的誤解; 異性戀者看見這些數據, 可能會有"愛滋病係同性戀先有"的想法, 而不認識到其實他們如有不安全性行為 (新聞報導裡說的所有同性的不安全性行為, 都可套用於異性性行為上; 就性行為而言, 男男/女女可做的比男/女可做的要少呢), 一樣很容易感染到HIV。
最重要一點, 異性戀不等同異性性行為, 同性亦然。戀不一定要性, 性也不一定是戀, 對不? 這不是咬文嚼字, 而是似乎因"同性性行為"不被接受 (雖然不是唯一原因), 連帶同性間的愛戀亦不容於世。
任何形式的體液接觸都有可能傳染愛滋病。陰道性交與肛交一樣接觸到體液。與HIV+性交不一定必會受感染; 中間涉及很多因素, 例如性交方式, 有甚麼體液的交流, 病者體液裡HIV病毒的concentration(體液裡的HIV concentration因應病者身體及患病狀況會有變更), 交流過的含HIV病毒的體液的量是否足以傳染病毒, 等等。故此, 我們並不能武斷地說其中一種性交方式更容易感染到HIV, 充其量只能說肛交比陰道性交更易製造傷口, 增加了病毒入侵的機會。
此文只有一個目的: 當各位看這些新聞報導時, 請小心別被這些數字及百分比誤導。
Zhuangzi and the Gorgon
Dear Good Old Professor,
The primary purpose of this research is to establish the viability, and to attempt to show the fruitfulness, of understanding the text of the Zhuangzi, the seven inner chapters in particular, in light of the reported experience of meditative practice as taught in the Buddhist tradition. I also try to see what implications and conclusions can be drawn from such study in connection to some related issues in the metaphysics of human nature and the philosophy of consciousness.
Eske Mllgaard wrote at the beginning of his journal article, dated 2005, stating that "In the post-metaphysical climate of the modern Western academy, Chinese thought is often seen as a happy pragmatism free from transcendental pretense." Having said that, he went on to give his analysis of what he saw as "Zhuangzi's notion of transcendental life." In this age a philosopher writing from the metaphysical angle seem to be acutely aware of the hesitant, if not necessarily antagonistic, reception of his peer audience. Nevertheless, this less than favorable reception does not stop the more metaphysically-minded authors from saying what they perceive in the ancient Chinese text. In 2008, there saw the publication of another article written in similar vein, by Chris Fraser, discussing the "Psychological Emptiness in the Zhuangzi."
I have a few points to make by way of mentioning Mllgaard and Fraser. First, I make clear that my interest in the Zhuangzi is metaphysics. Second, the metaphysical angle, while possibly unfashionable, is not necessarily implausible. These two forerunners have made their arguments, and have done so in the near past of recent years. I take it to mean that the burgeoning western interest in Chinese philosophy is still willing enough to hear the metaphysical case. Third, while these recent efforts will give support to my undertaking, they also raise the demanding question as to how my research can further the understanding of the Zhuangzi and improve on what the forerunners have achieved.
It is the hope of this proposal to improve on Zhuangzi scholarship by introducing the study of mindfulness. At least three times the practice of meditation is mentioned in the inner chapters of the Zhuangzi. I would argue in my research that these mentionings are strategically significant in terms of both literary presentation and theoretical understanding. In other words, Zhuangzi the author - suspending for the moment the question of authorship - is not simply making use of meditation as a prop-like device to produce a make-believe drama in which a sage is apt to spout mystical claims, after stereotypically emerging from his daily spiritual practice. It is not just the same old writing technique with which an author creates the sage image in order to add weight to his own messages. Rather, I believe that Zhuangzi's metaphysical messages are deeply rooted in his own meditative experience. I do not harbor the fancy that the archaeological circle will some day supply evidences as solid, or tenous, as Zhuangzi's precious meditation cushion. Instead, I will take the indirect way - some would see it as more direct - of showing how meditation, when properly understood and correctly practiced, can lead to experience that has resonance with the messages contained in the Zhuangzi, in particular the seven inner chapters.
Bringing in the notion of mindfulness will have certain implications on the way we read the Zhuangzi. First and foremost, we bring back the element of experience to the work, referring in particular to that of the metaphysicians. From my reading of Mllgaard and Fraser, their work primarily consists in conceptual analysis and linguistic interpretation (of the dictionary kind). It is certainly true that conceptual analysis and linguistic interpretation is an indispensible part of philosophizing. But these two favorite devices, as it is, are limited to the application to a given text. This leads me to wonder if Zhuangzi had produced his own text by way of reading another earlier text, which were in turn produced by similar work on a still earlier text, ad infinitum. Leaving that aside as a mere possibility, I deem it more probable that Zhuangzi has come up with his text by way of reflecting over his own experience, that the concepts and words making up the text are results of his effort at faithfully reporting his own experience. Readers of the Zhuangzi should be much better poised for the task of understanding when they also engage themselves in similar self-investigation, just as the best way of reading Berkeley is to engage in the characteristically idealistic musing.
Doubtless the most effective way of understanding Zhuangzi is to walk the way Zhuangzi himself has walked. However, it does not mean exactly that the best interpreters of the Zhuangzi are necessarily themselves dedicated and successful meditators. Philosophizing, as long as it is primarily an act of communicative understanding, must center itself around the work of analysis. Those whose conditions do not favor their taking up the perceivedly onerous practice of meditation can in fact borrow insights from those diligent mindfulness practitioners, say, from the Buddhist tradition, who have produced some excellent meditation treatises, sometimes with rigor admirable even from the standard of modern scholarship.
I am of the opinion that a substantial part of the inner chapters is really a report of meditative experience, as accurate as it is beautiful. The reason that the Zhuangzi report does not lend itself to a straight forward and simple reading is that the author was writing with a style that was, while distinguishingly imaginative, suitable to his own cultural and literary milieu. While the intent is expositional, his style is decidedly literary, because it is the Chinese ancient custom to see composition as the proper ornament of an educated person, in addition to being a mere act of communication. And even more specific to the Chinese culture, Zhuangzi's masterful wordplay is a corollary of a genius writing at a time when the word processor has yet to be invented. (As it is well-known, the Chinese words, with their hieroglyphical strokes, are not easy to put together, and therefore ancient Chinese writers are usually great economists of words.) Though not as laconic as the Dao De Jing, and even as wordy as to come up with a series of seven chapters, his pen is actually terse. He does not feel the academic need to explain how a particular keyword is being used, which would only spoil the amusing literary beauty that is more valuable as he sees it. And yet his word usage is not governed by the authority of a commonly accepted dictionary. He is freely using his words to mean things as a magician-metaphorist sees fit. The result of all these factors is that Zhuangzi's report and profound reflection of the enigmatic experience of meditation is at the same time a rare gem of poetic art in Chinese literature. Though definitely accurate and full of insights, it does not readily lend itself to the modern reader's conceptual and linguistic analysis, particularly when he has never imagined that Zhuangzi the literary author is not only a philosopher, but also a meditator.
Having said thus, the basic method of this proposed research is still the essential tools of analysis and interpretation. The major break from the current way of doing things is that it takes the texts of meditation treatises as a more reasonable source of meaning. We put the texts of the Zhuangzi and meditation treatises side by side, and try to see how the words and concepts and passages from the former can be construed as to mean the pointers laid out and the experiences detailed in the latter. This juxtaposing interpretation is still philosophical analysis, but this analysis has its firm foothold in human experience, which is, at the end of the day, the ultimate source of human knowledge regarding the matter in question.
This research will take meditation texts from the Buddhist tradition. The similarity, or dissimilarity, between Buddhist metaphysics and that perceived in the Zhuangzi has long been a subject of comment in traditional Chinese scholarship. Two merits are seen in this choice. First, as already mentioned, some modern-day Buddhist meditators have handed down their practical experience in a prose language that is suitable to contemporary academic readers. In line with western pedagogism, these magnanimous souls not only lay bare their repertoire, they also thoroughly discourse upon the rationale behind and intended effects of their skills. The conceptual clarity of their writings will greatly facilitate the surgical work of connecting the meditative experience to the text of the Zhuangzi. Second, while it is certainly a curious question as to why, if the inner chapters are really some kind of a holy text of meditative experience, a religious lineage of meditation has not been identified as starting directly from Zhuangzi the suspected mystic, the Indian tradition from the adjacent subcontinent has since the early days of the preaching career of the Buddha made clear that meditative experience is the essence of the religion. The religiosity of Buddhism almost ensures that the dedicated spearhead of its followers are in possession of the definitive understanding of Buddhist mysticism. Which is to say, not that in the face of religious passion we can safely relax into credulity, but that we have a better chance of coming upon the truth when these treatise writers are both competent and dedicated.
Buddhism is one of the most formidable players and among the earliest of pioneers in the history of metaphysical inquiry. With the passage of time, the proponents of Buddhism have developed their philosophy and their way of doing it into a fashion that can hardly be recognized as the same as that which can be found in the Zhuangzi. However, I venture to claim that if one would go back to the very source of these disparate discourses, that is our common humanity as revealed in meditative practice, one might find good reasons to say that both brands of metaphysics are saying essentially the same thing. This is a higher ambition that the proposed research will also attempt to achieve. If the relevant part of the Zhuangzi inner chapters can be construed by way of conceptual analysis as to express the Buddhist experience of meditation, then the religious teachings on the nature of Buddhahood that are the guiding spirit of such practice must be somehow correlated with Zhuangzi's metaphysical claims. The second major part of the research will be to develop a theoretical construct that can simultaneously capture the core insights from both brands of thoughts.
In the third part of the research, I will try to bring the construct into dialogue with contemporary philosophy. I look forward to this research as a valuable opportunity to enrich my understanding of contemporary metaphysical theories and the different ways of philosophizing on the human consciousness. This is the part I feel most excited about because I think this is the kind of work that will bring me closer to the heart of philosophizing. I have in mind two major questions. First, from the best of my understanding, Zhuangzi, in resonance with the Buddha, sees the human essence not in the human senses. He would, as I see it, quite probably concur with the Buddha that we are essentially our self-awareness. This stance however is diametrically different from some breed of metaphysics, a pretty dominant way of thinking in the modern day, that says we humans are nothing but our senses. How would I moderate and decide the debate between them?
The second question intrigues me the most. Again from my understanding, the notions of awareness and identification are twin concepts, like the opposite sides of the same coin, like the symbiosis of day and night. The dark night of identification must recede when the sun of awareness shines in the sky. However, as I see it, just as the notion of awareness has but a marginal place in respectable philosophical discourse, the function of identification, its twin brother, is largely ignored if not altogether unknown in the world of philosophy. What could that mean? Looking outward and around, however, we see that identification is a basic principle underlying, though less than consciously, a substantial part of social science researches. In psychology, we see its fruitful application to the study of personalities. In sociology, we have the study of genders, where the postmodernists are quick in spotting dominant discourses and subject positions. Even in the study of social classes, we see that if the group of people sharing a batch of related socio-economic attributes identify with the symbols that have come to represent the group, the group is more likely to bring class actions to the political arena. The same principle applies to the study of nationalism. And, to complete the story, if globalization is inevitable, the best we can do is to give ourselves a very successful globalization. Some school holds that the key to success is the installment of some effective world institution, whether in the form of a full-fledged organization or a minimalistic protocol of acceptable international and national (if that is at all imaginable) conducts. In this case, I would argue that the success of such institution in turn depends on whether a transnational identity is forthcoming. Anything less than a globally concerted effort at building a world institution to rule out evil enemies will be equivalent to laying the groundwork for the seedbed of terrorism.
Just as eyesight, among other senses, is at the root of human experience, identification is the basis of civilization. If I am not mistaken, what I call the function of identification is named klistamanas in the Yogacara school of Buddhism, otherwise known as the seventh consciousness. The Yogacara school comprehends the human psyche as a composite of eight parts or layers of consciousness. In addition to the five well-known parts that correspond to our bodily senses, there are the sixth consciousness of ideation, that is our versatile monkey mind, and the eighth consciousness, which, while commonly understood as the store consciousness, I also take to be the seat of our self-awareness. This picture, and its defense, is to be the best gift that philosophical Buddhism can bring to this age. In connection with my first question, we must ask ourselves, should we include the functions of identification and self-awareness in our understanding of ourselves? Quite simply I think, if we choose to exclude them, we must by the demand of integrity also wipe out our civilization and our will and ability to be better than we are.
To conclude my proposal, let me draw a parallel lesson from the general history of human medicine, by way of quoting the thought exchanges I recently had with a newly-made skeptic friend. I told him that the break in the push for evidence for meridians finally came in 1998 in the form of a medical paper titled "Experimental exploration and research propect of physical bases and functional characteristics of meridians." The research was done by a project team, headed by Prof. Fei Lun from Fudan University. The paper abstract highlights that "Elements of Ca, P, K, Fe, Zn, Mn, etc are found concentrated in the deep connective tissue structures in locations corresponding to acupoints." Making my comments, I say,
"I am not sure if the evidence is clinchingly established, or not. But it is a good story illustrating at least the desparate urge of rescuing some perceived good thing. Here I am not exactly interested in the evidence status of meridians. What I am interested in is, what should be the proper mentality in regarding some potentially important thing, such as meridians, before clinched evidence is obtained? Certainly the attitude of belief before evidence can be problematic. But the lack of evidence should not be taken as equivalent to a stop sign for exploration. Too obvious to be necessary for mentioning. So the mentioning on my part only shows how worried I am."
In reply, my friend says,
"I know the effect of meridians. My wife actually studies Chinese medicine with a practicing Chinese med doctor. And I've seen them done some real magic with some friends. I'm talking about people who can't move their arm, and after some stroking of the meridian points, they can move again. If you don't know what it is, it's real magic. However, my take on this is that before there is real science-based evidence and theory and experiments, it's basically magic. Now, I don't mean to put magic in the negative light here. But we look to science on solving problems only because they give us comfort in knowing why certain things happen within certain assumption and can be repeated..."
Anyone who has ever found and faced off with the gorgon of identification does not doubt the magic of awareness. In the above exchange, what comes to the surface is, of course, the keyword evidence. Where on earth or in the body can I find evidence for the twin phenomena of identification and awareness? Or more to the point, what is to be counted as evidence in these matters? No, I don't believe I can find evidence in the Zhuangzi. But I do believe if we can understand the text better, we stand a better chance of understanding ourselves.
