This poem has a strong philosophical meaning in content. In terms of language, it is quite obscure. Someone must think this poem is grotesque and difficult to understand. I am writing this analytical article now. I think this poem is very clear, but it is not easy to explain it. The structure of this poem is divided into three parts. The first section is similar to the second section, but different. The first section talks about a subject: "you". Talk about your life and death. The second section says "between". "Between" is the distance between two points. There are two different distances: the distance in space and the distance in time. Twice the distance is open because time and space are inseparable. The third part seems to be the conclusion. For the convenience of explanation, we cut this poem into several paragraphs according to the reading order and explain them one by one. Judging from the grammatical composition, the first section is just a sentence, but it is not finished. The second paragraph is also a sentence, I haven't finished yet. I have to explain paragraph by paragraph, but I have to. The first section is about life and death. The subject is you. This sentence is about your life and death. Your birth-"birth" is a noun here. "Your birth" refers abstractly to a starting point of existence (you) and the event that "you" came into this world. "Your birth" is only a subject, and a complete sentence needs an object to supplement it. So this topic is lagging behind. We don't know whether this event has happened, has not happened, or has failed (abortion, premature death). These four words may be the beginning of a letter written by a writer to a future child after his wife is pregnant. Your birth has been born-reading here, a sentence is complete. "Your birth" is the explanation. We know that the existence of "you" is not imagined and expected, but has come to the real world. So the two "births" here-your birth has been born-seem to refer to the same thing, which can be considered as unnecessary repetition and a language disease of Taoism, but it is not. "Birth (1)" refers abstractly to the beginning of existence, and "birth (2)" refers to the fact that this beginning has become a reality. "Birth (1)" is a noun and "birth (2)" is a verb. Your birth has given birth to you-"Your birth ..." is a complete sentence, and now with the addition of "yours", the original complete sentence becomes the pronoun "you" with lengthy additional elements. The two "you" here are not simple repetitions. "You (1)" only makes sense as the second person in the conversation. As for "you (2)", it is a "born" existence. You are a concrete, flesh-and-blood baby, holding a small fist and screaming about the facts and rights of his existence. You have given birth to what you should have given birth to. You should feel happy in your life in from ruin. It is a happy event to have a newborn at home. Pessimistic and sentimental people may think of the hardships of life, the joys and sorrows of future life, and the hardships and hardships. As soon as philosophers see life, they immediately think of death, which is a malignant disease of philosophers. Schopenhauer said: People are born to the age of death. Heidegger said: As soon as people are born, they will die. Zhuangzi said through Confucius: Life and death laugh. Confucius himself said: If you don't know life, you will know death. Lu Xun told a story in Debate (Weeds). A family gave birth to a boy. At the full moon, the guests came to congratulate him and said many auspicious words. One said, "This child will die in the future." He was beaten up. At the moment of life, it is certainly inappropriate to say that death is coming, but it is a truth or truth. Predicting bad luck is deceptive, because the ups and downs of life are unpredictable plots. As for life and death, there is an inevitable connection. It can be predicted that there is a beginning and an end. The first sentence of Tao Yuanming's Elegy is "Life must die". This sentence can't be wrong, but it's hard to say that your life has been born and your death is not dead-once you know your death, you pray for your immortality. He knows the inevitability of death, and death is still his greatest fear and anxiety. Humans move huge rocks and timber to build pyramids, churches and temples, and decorate them with the rarest and most expensive metals and jewels ..... all in order to pray for or prove "eternal life". Humans use endless language, endless words, endless chanting and orchestral music, endless images and colors to affirm and decorate immortality. In this poem, without the help of careful logic or theological preaching, "death" is transformed into "immortality", but "your death is not death" is written directly. If we change the sentence "... your death is not death" ... you are dead ",we will feel powerless, meaningless and unintentional. Then, the sentence "what should have been born has been born" and "what is dead is dead" makes people feel like the same pattern of nonsense logic. Only the form of "death and immortality" can be established, with ups and downs, mutations and poetic inevitability. Poets can only write in this way, and the inevitability of poetry brings the inevitability of proposition. There are two "already" here, and "already (1)" is an adverb indicating the past tense. "Ji (II)" is the future past tense. This "Ji (II)" has no past tense function, but it is a special way of affirmation. Death seems to say, "this is a prophecy, but now I can be sure of this prophecy: you are immortal." This is a prediction and belief in life in the language of poetry. This is a hope and a belief. Your life has been born, your death is not dead, your life-here it is ":you (3). It is not the second person who calls you in the conversation, such as "you (1)". Not really: it is "you" in the real world, such as "you (2)", but "immortal you". This "you (3)" can only be immortal, detached and true you. Here we use "truth" to represent the world of ideas. Once you are born, you will really live in the real world forever. Your life has been born, your death is not dead, your life has been born-you have been born in this real world, you have been born, such as "you (1)" born on the earth, just as the son of God entered this real and difficult world and became the son of man; As the Buddha said, "If I don't go to hell, who will?" ? "This poem can go on." "You (1)", "You (2)" and "You (3)" ... seem to be repeating, but they are actually rising layer by layer. "You (1)" Not sure; " You entered the real world; "You (3)" is beyond reality; "You (4)" returns to reality from reality ... The reality used here refers to the reality similar to reality, refers to the real world, and actually refers to the world that actually exists. Every time "you" appears, it is a leap and accumulates the content of the previous meaning. The actual you and the surpassing you depend on the wonderful use of one by one. You are a real amphibious existence. You belong to this world and beyond. You live in the world, you die in the world, you die in the world, and you live forever. The second section, this section is about time and space. Between a tree and a tree-the last section talked about the life and death of existence. This poem is similar to a philosophical proposition of abstract thinking. We are not allowed to make any image association. Even the subject "you" is just a dialogue image, such as the receiver at the other end of the telephone line, which does not give us a concrete image. This section talks about all the time and space on which existence is based. Does not involve the subject. But when reading "a tree" for the first time, readers can easily mistake it for the subject of the sentence, because it is usually the subject in this position of the sentence. Read on, "using one tree" will make readers mistakenly think that two trees are the subject of the sentence. It was not until I read the word "space" that I realized that two trees are just two coordinates, which constitute a spatial framework. Here, what happens to the framework. Read on, "one morning", the reader means that he met the subject this time, but the following is "one morning", so these two "mornings" should be subject words, but there is a "time". It turns out that two mornings are just two coordinates, which constitute a framework of the world. In the process of reading, readers expect the subject, and constantly expect an existential subject to appear. He was induced by the rotation of trees and the morning. Trees will play the role of subject one after another in the morning, but the subject immediately becomes a framework of the world and space. However, before being "suddenly" illuminated, they were once a tree and a morning in the reader's mind. Morning is an awakening of life in time, a small new starting point and a small birth in the flow of time. Stendhal said: "A person's life is made up of many mornings." Good morning! The morning when Zarathustra walked down the mountain in the bright sunshine; Tao Yuanming couldn't bend his back for five buckets of rice, so he rowed back to his hometown and "hated getting out as soon as possible" that morning. Socrates, after the party, everyone was drunk. He went to the city to argue with someone in the morning. Mencius said: "In the morning when the cock crows and does evil, it is a good person and obedient to others"; Zu Ti smells chickens dancing in the morning. However, what I want to say here is not morning, but a period of time consisting of morning and morning. Trees are symbols of life. Psychologists should understand a person and let him draw a tree freely. This tree is his shadow. This tree is his self-portrait. Trees! Trees soar into the sky, stretching in all directions, looking for water in the depths and talking to the stormy sun, moon and dark clouds. Standing at the entrance of the ancient village, beside the ancient road, in front of the ancient temple and beside the ancient curtain is a symbol of perseverance and kindness. Confucius said, "If you are cold, you will know the pine and cypress, and then adjust it." Zhuangzi walked with his disciples in the mountains and saw the big and useless bottle. Ulysses sawed off an old olive tree and made a bed with the remaining roots as the foot of the bed. This is a secret he shared with his wife, Penie Lopez. Ulysses came back, from which he learned about his wife's chastity, and Penie Lopez recognized Ulysses. However, what I want to talk about here is not a tree, but a spatial framework composed of trees. Morning among the trees is easier to understand. We can imagine walking in a sparse forest, with the faint morning light passing through the trees, followed by the colorful morning glow, and then the sunset light, which changed from golden to white heat. In the framework of trees and trees, we watched for a while. "A tree between a morning and a morning" is a bit confusing. Trees are characterized by being motionless and time passing. Trees bid farewell to one morning in the long river of time and ushered in another morning. There is day and night between two mornings. It silently grows, germinates, blooms and leaves, bidding farewell to one spring and welcoming another. There are rings that secretly record its life history. Being still, trees may understand the flow of time better than we do. So "a tree between a morning and a morning". There is morning between trees, and there are trees between morning and morning. In this poem, the tree only exists as the coordinate of space; Morning only exists as a sign of time. What poetry wants to say is only the two frameworks of space and time. The use of the word "de" makes the two frameworks interweave and coexist. There are two coordinate systems, and only one exists. The first section says life and death, death and immortality. Poetry is like a philosophical judgment. Poetry proves the correctness of philosophical judgment with its own special structure. The second section talks about the unity of time and space. This poem may be more like a poem, because it brings image association, but in fact it also hides a philosophical judgment. This poem also proves the truth of philosophical judgment with its special structure and continuous interlocking. The wonderful use of the word "de" here makes us step into the time frame from the space frame, and step into the space frame from the time frame again, repeatedly, freely and calmly. The subject of existence only becomes a real existence from the perspective of two systems. The third section is similar to a conclusion in the whole poem. This section is probably the most puzzling: what does "distance" mean? What's twice the distance? Why "there must be"? Why "however" I don't know whether my explanation is in line with the author's original intention. If there are several different interpretations of this section, I think at least my interpretation is reasonable. That distance must be twice this distance-our life is the distance from birth to death. As existence, we exist in the distance of this era. But in fact, we just live in the "present", and "present" is just a point in this distance, constantly moving towards the future. Ordinary animals, whether cattle, sheep, birds or fish, only live in the present. They don't look back, don't look forward to the future, don't recall the past, and don't look forward to the future. Of course, they don't take the time from birth to death as a distance. To realize what we call "life", we must jump out of this trip and stand at another distance to observe. Su Shi has a poem: "I don't know the true face of Lushan Mountain, but toward which corner of the mountain." This means that we should see the situation clearly and jump out of Shan Ye. The same is true of time. Only by jumping out of the present and seeing the past as blue as silk and the future as dusk and snow will there be a sad song of "selling with you all the time" Du Fu's poem "When I come back, I will feel pity" ("Where is Xi Daxing") is a poem that can only be written after I am out of danger. On the way to escape at that time, he was a "fellow temporary worker". You must jump out of the "present" and "temporary" at that time to feel sorry for your life. Sitting in the train carriage, I can't see the distance between the two stops. To put the two stops into view, you have to leave the track and look at it from another distance, which is actually very difficult. In fact, I jumped out of the car by imagination, and I also included the front and rear stops in my imagination, so the distance must be twice. The space-time frame described in the second section is also twice as long. Look at the morning from the distance between trees, and look at the trees from the distance between morning and morning. That is to say, seeing time from the distance of space and seeing space from the distance of time are inseparable, and the distance is in two inseparable coordinate systems, so it is also twice. However, there must be twice the distance-the use of "however" is strange.