Texts and Translations: (the source is from ctext.org, and translations has been adapted by me.)

南海之帝為儵，北海之帝為忽，中央之帝為渾沌。儵與忽時相與遇於渾沌之地，渾沌待之甚善。儵與忽謀報渾沌之德，曰：「人皆有七竅，以視聽食息，此獨無有，嘗試鑿之。」日鑿一竅，七日而渾沌死。(《應帝王》內篇)

The Ruler of the Southern Ocean was Shu (Fast), the Ruler of the Northern Ocean was Hu (Quick), and the Ruler of the Centre was Hundun (an undifferentiated and shapeless whole). Shu and Hu were continually meeting in the land of Hundun, who treated them very well. They consulted together how they might repay his kindness, and said, ‘Men all have seven openings for the purpose of seeing, hearing, eating, and breathing, while this (poor) Hundun alone has not one. Let us try and make them for him.’ Accordingly they dug one opening in him every day; and at the end of seven days Hundun died. (Ying Di Wang)

天下有始，以為天下母。既得其母，以知其子，既知其子，復守其母，沒身不殆。塞其兌，閉其門，終身不勤。開其兌，濟其事，終身不救。見小曰明，守柔曰強。用其光，復歸其明，無遺身殃；是為習常。 （《道德經》52）

(The Dao) which originated all under the heavens is to be considered as the mother of them all.
When the mother is found, we know what her children should be. When one knows that he is his mother’s child, and proceeds to guard (the qualities of) the mother that belong to him, to the end of his life he will be free from all peril.
Let him keep his mouth closed, and shut up the portals (of his nostrils), and all his life he will be exempt from laborious exertion. Let him keep his mouth open, and (spend his breath) in the promotion of his affairs, and all his life there will be no safety for him.
The perception of what is small is the secret of clear- sightedness; the guarding of what is soft and tender is the secret of strength. Who uses well his light, reverting to its (source so) bright, will from his body ward all blight, and hides the unchanging from men’s sight. (Dao De Jing 52)

Commentary by Bin Song.

Three interpretations are given by the video on the story of Hundun in Zhuangzi.

The first interpretation is about how to preserve the vitality and longevity of human life: in a Daoist perspective, we should not indulge ourselves too much in our sensuous enjoyments; otherwise, we will leak our energy and eventually die away. This interpretation is quite consistent with Chapter 52 of Dao De Jing, which urges to close our mouths and shut up our nostrils so as to avoid dangers and risks involved by indulging life-styles and complicated social engagements. This is also consistent with the Daoist cosmology I explained before, since the stage of Hundun (an undifferentiated and shapeless whole) comes before human civilization, and hence, any life-nourishing practical regime similar to the stage of Hundun will be thought of as being able to preserve one’s vitality.

However, my critique towards this Daoist view of nourishing life is that: just like our nerve system has its sympathetic and parasympathetic components, we must balance both our active and inactive, agitated and quieted sides of human activities. The Daoist regime quite emphasizes the value of quietude and inaction over agitation and action; however, without an equal emphasis upon both sides, our life cannot be consistently nourished. In a Ruist (Confucian) term, I will aver that no matter whether we move or still ourselves during our contemplative practices, as long as we follow the pattern-principle of realities that dynamically harmonize involved beings, our life is always nourished. (My work on the Ruist way of quiet-sitting meditation can be checked here.)

The second interpretation is to critique the Confucian value of reciprocity as a form of social conformity. Such a Daoist critique, just like many other similar Daoist critiques towards the so-called Confucian values, is normally overboard. Reciprocity in the form of imposing one’s preconception of the other is actually also opposed by Confucianism, since Confucius explicitly advocates in the Analects that the harmonization of human relationship is based upon “non-uniformity” (和而不同). So, in order to critique the inappropriate forms of reciprocity and civility, Daoist texts tend to doubt the value of reciprocity and civility all together. This is the reason why I say their critiques towards Confucian values are normally based upon a straw man argument, and thus, overboard.

The third interpretation is to dismiss the rigid identity of human individuals with suspicious mythologies and ideologies. My critique towards it will be similar to my second one: yes, it is unfortunate to identify oneself with inherited mythologies and ideologies without any further self-reflection upon them. However, this does not mean that we ought to repeal the concept of “identity” all together, and just let our life drift, wander and meander in a spontaneous and shapeless way. Rather than merely deconstructing inappropriate ways of self-identification, we should also think about the right, more appropriate ways to construct one’s identity, isn’t it so?