Alright y’all, this may be a little incoherent (and for some reason the text changes throughout -now you all know i'm computer illiterate), but here goes. When reading the two syllogisms of Blake’s that we read (No Natural Religion and All Religions Being One), something that jumped out to me was what struck me as a great number of connections to the East Asian philosophy of Taoism. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell struck me in the same way. After searching a little bit online, I found this is a connection that has been explored before, though to what depth I couldn’t say. Anyway, I thought I’d just point out a couple of connections that I found. The texts being used are a work of Chuang Tzu (Discussion on Making All Things Equal) , a taoist writing around 4th century BCE (more at the wikipedia site (yes, it’s wikipedia, but it’s a fine introduction)) and The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.
First up is Plate 4 of Marriage
THE VOICE OF THE DEVIL
All Bibles or sacred codes, have been the causes of the following Errors.
1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, called Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, called Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.
But the following Contraries to these are True.
1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that called Body is a portion of Soul discerned by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal Delight. (pg xvi)
This is clear an echo of a sentiment of Chuang Tzu’s
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 to? I should delight in all parts, you say? But there must be one I ought to favor more. If not, are they all of them mere servants? But if they are all servants, then how can they keep order among themselves? Or do they take turns being lord and servant? 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 (pg 38).
In both these statements, the authors are saying that humans cannot be divorced from their bodies. Just as Chuang Tzu urges we cannot find the seat of consciousness, Blake argues that our bodies are “portion[s] of Soul.”
The conflation of two things usually viewed as separate is one of the most important themes of both of these works. Chuang Tzu presents one of the most effective images on the problems that arise with making clear distinctions between two things:
Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven.6 He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity (pg 39).
And, much more succinctly,
What is acceptable we call acceptable; what is unacceptable we call unacceptable. A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called so. What makes them so? Making them so makes them so. What makes them not so? Making them not so makes them not so. Things all must have that which is so; things all must have that which is acceptable. There is nothing that is not so, nothing that is not acceptable (pg 40).
This is a belief very evident in Marriage as well. Blake praises
Note. The reason Milton
And when Blake criticizes Swedenborg saying “Swedenborg has not written one new truth” and “he has written all the old falsehoods,” the reason he gives is this: “He conversed with Angels who are all religious, & conversed not with Devils who all hate religion, for he was incapable thro' his conceited notions” (plate 22). This is also evidenced in plate 20 in which the Angel showing Blake his fate says his “eternal lot” is “between the black and white spiders,” and is further tied to Blake’s critique of reason seen in plate four, above. Perhaps the best example of this in Blake, however, is in the third plate, in which he says
Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
And finally, also tied into all this, in plate 19, when Blake is shown his future, he sees the true nature of his fate after the angel leaves him. Here, he says, “All that we saw was owing to your metaphysics,” then Blake takes the angel to show him his fate, after which the angel says, “thy phantasy has imposed upon me & thou oughtest to be ashamed.” To which Blake replies, “we impose on one another.”
All this is simply a further example of the questions raised about labels (“this” and “that”) and ideas of right and wrong. It is exemplified in Chuang Tzu in the section deemed
Lady Li was the daughter of the border guard of Ai. When she was first taken captive and brought to the state of Chin, she wept until her tears drenched the collar of her robe. But later, when she went to live in the palace of the ruler, shared his couch with him, and ate the delicious meats of his table, she wondered why she had ever wept. How do I know that the dead do not wonder why they ever longed for life? (pg 47).
So that’s the gist of it. Just giving you a taste of the connections I think are pretty obvious. I definitely recommend checking out the rest of Chuang Tzu’s work (the entirety of them are provided in a link below (in a pretty sweet translation to boot)).
Blake, William. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.
1975.
Tzu, Chuang. The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. Trans. Watson,
Complete works found at these sites, for convenience.
http://www.terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html
http://www.gailgastfield.com/mhh/mhh.html
No comments:
Post a Comment