In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The t-lis+ov-ical Qt-tes+iol-'\ The Mattef" of TextlAal RecoV\stf"lActioV\ The Intended Meaning of the Author I":'rom a modern sinological perspective, the extent of Buber's 1- contribution toward explicating the thought of the historic Chuang Chou as manifest in the text of Chuang Tzu would likely be the central issue of any investigation into Reden und Gleichnisse. When dealing with ancient philosophical texts, sinologists have been predominantly (though not exclusively) concerned with the reconstruction of authorial intent, to the degree that most contemporary translators and interpreters implicitly equate it with textual "meaning," as though such an identification were self-evident to any reader. The standard methodology combines philological and historical analysis in order to produce a critical distillation of the cultural and literary currents that originally informed the particular document. As discussed in the introduction, the most sophisticated representative of this approach to Chuang Tzu is A. C. Graham, who has tentatively dated the separate strands of the text and provided extensive contextual analyses of both the authentic and inauthentic entries. A typical premise of this approach is Graham's convincing hypothesis that much of the content of the "Inner Chapters" can be made intelligible only when examined in the context of the then prevalent debates on logic, language, and disputation (Graham, 1969-70:137-159). More recently, the ramifications of this position have been further explored by Chad Hansen (1992:233-306) and others. But despite the fact that Buber's work on Chuang Tzu contains a lengthy commentary and the most extensive German translation of its time, very few scholars have ever given serious consideration to the possibility that his work does offer a significant contribution 103 104 I and Too toward resolving the historical question. Ironically, most of those who have engaged Buber's text have lacked sinological expertise, and their interests in it reflected a range of other agendas. The earliest notices came in the form of book reviews, appearing in German newspapers almost immediately after publication and written by emerging literary figures. AB Buber's sometime colleagues, the authors tend to be enthusiastic and uncritical in their celebration of the new availability of Chinese material.1 Buber's work was somewhat influential among leaders of the German Youth Movement , though they approach it with an ahistorical eye for political inspiration and aesthetic appreciation.2 In the instances over the years where Buber scholars have addressed this work, all have virtually ignored the translation in favor of the commentary, examining the latter only inasmuch as it espouses a philosophical perspective similar to that of Daniel and marks a transitional phase in Buber's movement toward the life of dialogue. The essay's original points of reference, the texts of Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu, are rendered all but inconsequential.3 Until quite recently the only noteworthy sinological treatment of this work was an obscure essay by O'Hyun Park entitled "Chinese Religions and the Religions of China," from the 1975 edition of Perspectives in Religious Studies. Park makes a modern statement on the unity of the san chiao-the "three teachings," i.e., Confucianism , Taoism, and Buddhism-and argues that "the so-called three religions of China all aim at attaining the religion of China which proclaims the harmony of Heaven, Earth and Man" (190). He furthers this case through a seemingly unorthodox approach, by summarizing and evaluating the applicability of Buber's statements from "China and Us," "The Teaching of the Tao," and "The Place of Hasidism in the History of Religion," essays dealing ostensively (according to Park) with Confucianism, Taoism, and Zen Buddhism respectively.4 Though Park offers no direct justification or explanation for this bizarre methodology, he does sympathetically examine several key themes from Buber's afterword, particularly those of unity and non-action, and bestow on it a measure of guarded praise: "Buber's interpretation of Taoist religious thought and his evaluation of it comes as close as any to grasping its inwardness and to an appreciation of its non-dualistic character, but his thought is not wholly free of the entanglements of opposites" (176). The Historical Question 105 Nevertheless, while he contends that Buber may offer some helpful insights toward understanding ongoing trends in Chinese religion-e.g., the nontheological character of the teaching, the ontological rather than ethical connotation of inaction-Park shows no apparent interest in historical or textual questions. He makes only passing references to Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu, and specific...

Share