Dao in Zhuangzi Ch. 2

Dan Robins, defending Hansen's anti-metaphysical interpretation of Zhuangzi, wrote,

>He gives a good prima facie case that we should avoid if possible reading "dao" as referring to a metaphysical absolute. The question is, Is it possible? The most difficult cases in the Zhuangzi are in chapter two ("Qiwulun"), and Hansen has discussed them.

To his credit, Hansen does try to address the problems posed for his interpretation by Zhuangzi ch. 2 (in his "A Tao of Tao in Chuang Tzu" in Victor Mair, ed., _Experimental Essays on Chuang Tzu_). (In my opinion, this is one of the two best anthologies on the Chuang Tzu, and Hansen's essay is one of the best ones in this collection.) However, I would like to pose an open question regarding Hansen's interpretation. Here is Watson's translation of part of Zhuangzi, ch. 2:

"The hundred joints, the nine openings, the six organs, all come together and exist here [as my body]. But which part should I feel closest too? ... It would seem as though there must be some True Lord among them. But whether I succeed in discovering his identity or not, it neither adds to nor detracts from his Truth." (_Basic Writings_, p. 33, gloss is Watson's)

Given Watson's translation, the point of the passage seems to be that there is something that determines the proper way for the various parts to interact. This is presumably the "metaphysical entity" that is frequently thought to be referred to by the term DAO4.

However, Hansen challenges Watson's reading, translating as follows:

"Of the hundred joints, nine openings, six inward organs, all present and complete in us, which should I take to be most kin to me? ...Is there rather a chen/real ch"un/king among them? It's as if seeking for the facts and not getting them has no effect on its truth." ("A Tao of Tao," in Mair, pp. 41-42)

So Hansen reads the penultimate sentence as a rhetorical question, while Watson (along with A.C. Graham and W.T. Chan) reads it as an assertion. This materially affects the sense of the passage, because the Watson/Graham/Chan reading seems to commit Zhuangzi (at least tentatively) to the existence of a "True Lord," while Hansen's reading makes Zhuangzi sound more skeptical about the existence of such a "True Lord." (Interestingly, in his recent translation, Victor Mair seems to side with Hansen, reading the penultimate sentence as a question.)

So, here is my question for this list: Can the relevant sentence be read as a question? The Chinese is:

QI2 YOU3 ZHEN1 JUN1 CUN2 YAN1 (Harvard-Yenching text 4/2/17)

I shall refer to this as "the disputed sentence." A word for word translation would be:

(GRAMM. PARTICLE) THERE-IS GENUINE LORD PRESENT IN-THEM

Now, QI2 is a notoriously tricky word. And it can certainly be part of a interrogative construction, as in the pattern QI2...HU1, which in fact occurs in the two sentences immediately preceding the disputed sentence. But QI2 is *not* combined with HU1 or any other interrogative term in the disputed sentence. The QI2 in the disputed sentence seems to simply be the familiar "modal QI2." The modal QI2 can mark a statement as probable or possible (hence Watson's "it would seem as though"). However, it can also "intensify" an assertion: "Shun was surely (QI2) most filial" (Mengzi 6B3). But, in any case, I am aware of no evidence that modal QI2 by itself, without being combined with an interrogative word, can make a sentence into a question.

So, my question is this: Can we read the disputed sentence as a rhetorical question? And, if so, on the basis of what evidence? Can anyone provide an unambiguous case in which QI2 is used to turn a sentence into a question *without the addition of another interrogative word*?

Let me dispose of one possible answer. Someone might say that QI2 *is* combined with another interrogative word in the disputed sentence: YAN1. Now, I know that YAN1 can, in some contexts, be an interrogative term. However, in its interrogative use, YAN1 must be pre-verbal: "If one chooses not to dwell in benevolence, how (YAN1) can one be wise?" (Analects 4:1) But in the disputed sentence YAN1 is post-verbal, and seems to be acting as the familiar fusion word (YU2 ZHI1 = among them).

Comments?

Best wishes,

Date created: 10/28/96
Last modified: 10/28/96
Questions? Contact: Stephen C. Angle