“How are you today Fred? I’ve been looking over Fung Yu-lan’s exposition of  Xuanzang’s thought. It’s pretty complicated.”
​
“You’re telling me? Nevertheless, we should have a go at it. I’ve read over Chan (Source Book In Chinese Philosophy) and am ready to give it the old college try.”

“Let’s go.”
​
“I’ll start with a background based on Chan’s introductory remarks. Xuanzang (596-644) was quite a character. He entered a Buddhist monastery when he was thirteen. Then moved around China studying under different masters. Finally he went off to India to study Buddhism at its source and with Sanskrit masters. He spent over ten years in India, wrote a famous book about his journey, and returned to China with over six hundred original manuscripts. He spent the rest of his life with a group of translators rendering seventy five of the most important works into Chinese. All of this work was sponsored by the Emperor of the newly established Tang Dynasty (618-907).”

“Sounds like he had an interesting life.”

“He certainly did, but too short. He died in his forty eighth year. He created what Chan calls the ‘most philosophical of Buddhist schools.’ It is called the ‘Consciousness-Only School’ and is based on the Indian Buddhist school, founded by Asanga (c.410-500) and his brother Vasubandhu (c.420-500), known as Yogacara (way of Yoga). What Xuanzang did, among other things, was to take a major work of Vasubandhu, Treatise in Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only (Vijnatimatratrimshika), plus ten commentaries on it, including that of Dharmapala (439-507), add his own views, stir all this together and come up with his own concoction called  Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only. This work was in Sanskrit , Vijnaptimatratasiddhi, but was translated into Chinese by his student Kuiji (632-682) who wrote sixty chapters of commentary based on his translation notes. This is the Notes on the Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only. Chan says we couldn’t really understand Xuanzang without it.”

“Great. Now we are going to try to understand him based on our own notes from Chan, Fung (Short History of Chinese Philosophy)and a few others.”

“That’s how it goes Karl.”

“Well, finish up on Chan’s intro so we can get to the text.”

“OK. In outline, it goes like this. Humans have eight forms of consciousness which are (1-5) the different senses, (6) a concept forming ‘sense-center’ which organizes the raw data of the senses into ordered ideas, (7) a willing and reasoning consciousness or ‘thought-centered’/ self-centered one, and finally (8) one called the “storehouse” or alaya consciousness.”

“What’s that last one? Is it ‘memory’?”

“Much more than that. It's not memory in any conventional Western sense which would be in number seven.”

“So why is it called alaya?”

“It's called alaya because all the other ones are ‘stored’ in this one. All these eight consciousnesses are in constant flux. Chan says, ‘It is so called because it stores the “seed” or effects of good and evil deeds which exist from time immemorial and become the energy to produce manifestation. This storehouse consciousness is in constant flux, constantly “perfumed” (influenced) by incoming perceptions and cognitions from external manifestations. At the same time, it endows perceptions and cognitions with the energy of the seeds, which in turn produce manifestations.’”

“Let me chime in here with some Fung. He says, ‘According to the teachings of this school, all sentient beings suffer from two erroneous beliefs: that in the subjective existence of an ego or atman (wo), and that in the objective existence of external things or dharmas (fa). The purpose of the [Consciousness-Only] or Wei-shi school is to destroy these two beliefs by showing that both are equally unreal (empty or shunya). Thus the Treatise maintains that what we call the “ego” and “things” have “only a false basis and lack any real nature of their own”; their manifestations are “all mental representations dependent upon the evolutions of consciousness.”’”

“Very interesting. Is that it?”

“No, Fung also gives Kuiji’s comment, which is a good gloss on your quote from Chan. Namely: ‘From this (it may be seen that) the inner consciousness is not, in its essential nature, non-existent, whereas the ego and things, considered as external to the mind, are not, in their essential nature, existent. In this way we exclude the heterodox doctrine which clings to the additional reality of objects aside from the mind; we also exclude the erroneous view which, because it wrongly believes in “emptiness,” sets aside consciousness itself as non-existent, thus reducing (everything) to “emptiness.” Equally to avoid (the dogmas of) “emptiness” on the one hand and “being” on the other: this is what the School of [Consciousness-Only] teaches.’”

“That’s great. So we know the alaya is the fundamental consciousness. The other seven are ‘in’ it. Now we must note the three transformations that are always going on as well. The first is just the alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness) itself. The second is the transformation brought about by the ‘thought-centered consciousness’ which objectifies the alaya-vijnana as the ‘self’-- specifically as a personal self ‘always accompanied by the evils of self-interest.’ The third is the result of the actions of the senses and the coordinator of the senses (the sixth consciousness) constructing out of the alaya-vijnana (unconsciously) an external world (illusory as ‘external’). ‘Because these six consciousnesses,’ Chan says, ‘ have external things [he means so called ‘external’ things] as their objects, they are conditioned by them and are therefore crude, superficial and discontinuous.’”

“Let me interrupt here Fred. This is the place, I think, for me to jump in with my notes from the Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion as they clarify much of what you have said.”

“Go ahead. I welcome the relief.”

“In Chinese this school is called Fa Xiang or ‘Marks of Existence School.’ Remember the Chinese use ‘fa’ for ‘dharma.’ Let’s take up with the ‘thought-centered’ consciousness, number seven. This is the go between the first six and number eight-- the alaya-vijnana. The ‘self’ arises in this interaction so I’m just going to refer to this seventh type of consciousness as the ‘Ego.’ For this school, the task is to overcome the Ego, recognize the ‘illusory nature of the world’ and thus gain enlightenment -- that is to become bodhi (‘awakened’) so it is suggested that awakening is a better term to use.”

“Awakening to what? To the ultimate ‘Truth’?”

“That is correct Fred. There are three levels of ‘Truth.’ Namely, 1) The Parikalpita level: ‘that which is imagined or conceptualized.... that which people take to be the “objective” world is imagined or conceptualized; i.e., this world is illusory and deceptive; it exists only as a semblance but not as a true reality.’”

“So this is like Kant I suppose-- the noumenal world and the phenomenal world of appearances. I think we can sort of accept this, Karl, if we think of the everyday world on the one hand and the worlds explained by science on the other. What is the second level?”

“The Paratantra level: ‘The level of “contingent nature”.... on this level dharma enjoy only temporary existence, since everything that arises contingently (i.e., interdependently) possesses neither self-nature nor “reality”....’”

“This is a special use of ‘reality,’ I guess.”

“Yes, somewhat like Plato’s. The ‘real’ is self-subsistent and eternal as well as external-- the objects in the realm of the ideas (the forms) for Plato. Everything in our empirical world is in flux and change, so by this definition ultimately unreal. I think we can accept this level also.”

“What’s the last level?”

“The Tathata (suchness) level: ‘central notion of the Mahayana referring to the absolute, the true nature of things. Tathata is generally explained as being immutable, immobile, and beyond all concepts and distinctions. “Suchness” is the opposite of “that which is apparent”-- phenomena.’ This is the Absolute Reality.”

“Very similar to Kant in many respects, Karl.”

“I think so. The noumenal realm is beyond our ability to comprehend (Kant)-- pure reason breaks down. Buddhists can become mystical here but they really don’t know what they are talking about. I don’t say that disparagingly but as a consequence of their own doctrines.”

“Well, this is all very interesting, but Chan points out this school did not have much of a future in China.”

“And why is that?”

“For two reasons. First, it was too ‘Indian.’ Chan says both it and the Three Treatise School we discussed last time were simply Indian schools transplanted into China where they ultimately didn’t mesh with the Chinese ‘psyche,’ if I can put it that way. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the school didn’t believe that all people were capable of salvation! As Chan says, it lost prestige ‘because it advocated that some people, being devoid of Buddha-nature, can never achieve Buddhahood, thus clearly betraying the Mahayana ideal of universal salvation.’ This was a really big objection.”

“Are we ready to hit the texts?”

“Yes. I’m going to quote from eight selections from Xuanzang’s Treatise.”

“So what’s the first selection?”

“Its called The Nonexistence of the Self and in it Xuanzang says: ‘Both the world and sacred doctrines declare that the self and dharmas are merely constructions based on false ideas and have no reality of their own.... On what basis are [the self and dharmas] produced. Their characters are all constructions based on the evolution and transformation of consciousness....’”

“Is there a comment?”

“Yes. Chan says: ‘The denial of the ego is the starting point of Buddhist philosophy in general and the Consciousness-Only School in particular. The idealism of Berkeley (1685-1753)  and that of this school are very much alike. But while Berkeley’s philosophy is built on the assumption of individual minds and therefore finds itself in an “ego-centric predicament” — you only know the ideas in your own mind so how do you get to things external to your own mind- e.g., an external world.Buddhist idealism rejects the ego to start with and is therefore able to be free from solipsism.’”

“Fred, we should note that Berkeley also escapes from solipsism as he has more than just individual minds. He rejects ‘matter’ and thinks things only exist as objects of mentation-- esse est percipi- to be is to be perceived- but everything is perceived by the mind of God. Even for Xuanzang there is an ‘ego’-- it's just not the ultimate reality which is the alaya-vijnana.”

“Here is the second selection: The Nonexistence of Dharmas. I’m not going to quote from this selection. You remember the comment I quoted from Chan previously when we discussed Jizang, I mean his point on the ‘Four Points of Argumentation.’”

“You mean all that ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ ‘yes and no.’ ‘neither yes nor no’ type of argumentation. I remember.”

“Well, in the same way Jizang used the Four Points to refute our ordinary conceptions of causality, Xuanzang uses them to argue for the nonexistence of dharmas. The point is, of course, not the absolute nonexistence of dharmas -- but rather that they are phenomenal, not noumenal. Chan says, ‘The Four Points of Argumentation are ... employed to refute the doctrines of existence of dharmas. Whether the logic is sound or not, it cannot be denied that Buddhist thinking is rational and methodical, absolutely contrary to the common belief, even among some scholars, that the only mental activity of the Buddhist is intuition. It is significant that in a school chiefly concerned with the thinking process, the rationalistic and methodical elements are so strong.’”

“An interesting point Fred. The rationalistic aspect of Buddhist argumentation is often neglected.”

“Time to move on to selection three: The First Transformation of Consciousness. Here is a quote: [I]t is clear that the self and dharmas separated from consciousness conceived by the heterodoxical and other schools are all unreal.... From this we ought to know that there is really no external sphere of objects. There is only inner consciousness which produced what seems to be the external sphere....’”

“This is Descartes’ Evil Demon with a vengeance!”

“And without the demon. “The characters transformed by consciousness are infinite in variety, but the consciousnesses that transform can be divided into three kinds. The first is the consciousness where fruits ripen at a later time. It is the eighth consciousness. [It is so called] because it possesses in abundance the nature to ripen at later times. The second is called deliberation. It is the seventh consciousness. [It is so-called] because it is continuously in the process of deliberation. The third is called the consciousness that discriminates spheres of objects. It is the same as the first six consciousnesses (the five sense-consciousnesses and the sense-center consciousness. [It is so called] because it discriminates gross spheres of objects....’”

“Vasubandhu called this first (the eighth) the ‘storehouse consciousness’ (alaya-vijnana). This is the fundamental root of all consciousness and it contains the ‘seeds’ of all that we will later experience as the ‘external’ world. The other consciousnesses are responsible for our conception of an ‘external’ world by the way they interact with the alaya-vijnana and cause as it were the germination of the seeds. This process is called ‘perfuming.’”

“That seems to be what is going on Karl. Xuanzang says, ‘The act of enabling the seeds that lie within what is perfumed (the storehouse consciousness) to grow, as the hemp plant is perfumed, is called perfuming. As soon as the seeds are produced, the consciousnesses which can perfume become in their turn causes which perfume and produce seeds. The three dharmas (the seeds, the manifestations, and perfuming) turn on and on, simultaneously acting as cause and effect....’”

“I wonder how much the hemp plant had to do with this. At any rate, this is a perpetual transformation.”

“Yes it is and from it arise what we experience as the four realms of existence, the five stages of transmigration, and the four kinds of living beings.”

“What are you talking about?”

“This is the medieval or ancient Buddhist world view-- their pre-scientific outlook on reality. Here, this will make it clear. This is how Chan puts it in a footnote. ‘In Buddhism, there are four realms which constitute the substances of all existence: earth, water, fire, and air; the five stages of transmigration: the hells, those of ghosts, animals, human beings, and heavenly beings; the four kinds of beings: those produced from the womb, from eggs, from moisture, and through metamorphosis. The Consciousness-Only School, because it denies the reality of the self and dharmas, regards all these as constructions of consciousness.’”

“Well, indeed, I agree this is a construction of consciousness! The ‘four realms’ are the same primary elements of the Greeks (Empedocles). Today we have the Periodic Table. We can’t take transmigration seriously from a scientific point of view, and hells, ghosts, and heavenly beings are definitely out in any case. The ‘four kinds of beings’ is also a group to revise in the light of modern biology. But even then, the modern scientific world view will be considered as only a ‘construction of consciousness.’ I think this would require that the alaya-vijnana be the universal first principle of the world.”

“Lets see. Xuanzang says, ‘By “transformation” is meant that this consciousness [the alaya], from time immemorial, comes into and goes out of existence every moment and changes both before and after, for while it goes out of existence as cause, it comes into existence as effect, and thus is neither permanent nor one.... Being like a violent torrent, it neither comes to an end nor is eternal. As it continues for a long time, some sentient beings will float and others will sink. It is the same with this consciousness....’”

“And I have no idea what that would be like.”

“I don’t think anyone has. Here is an interesting comparison to Hume (1711-1776) made by Chan. ‘The theory that consciousness is a constant stream of ideas inevitably reminds one of Hume. The comparison between him and the Consciousness-Only School has been made by Fung Yu-lan among others. Both that school and Hume hold that the mind is nothing but a stream of ideas, that ideas are governed by a causal relationship, and that the external world is ultimately unreal [this may be too much of a claim as to what Hume says]. But Buddhism is free from the skepticism of Hume, for Nirvana is realizable through spiritual cultivation. Furthermore, in Buddhism, but not in Hume, the source of ideas is known and can be controlled.’”

“Fred, I don’t think this is quite right. You can’t really say that Hume held to the unreality of the external world. That’s too positive for a skeptic. What he holds is that all our ideas come from impressions of sense but he doesn’t claim to know where these originate-- externally or internally. This is a far cry from claiming that the external world is unreal.”

“Now I’m going to turn to selection four, The Second Transformation of Consciousness.”

“OK.”

“Here Xuanzang explains how the thought-centered consciousness interacts with the alaya-vignana. He writes: ‘...Spontaneously this thought-centered consciousness perpetually takes the storehouse consciousness as an object and is associated with the four basic defilements. What are the four? They are self-delusion, self-view, self-conceit, and self-love. These are the four. Self-delusion means ignorance, lack of understanding of the character of the self, and being unenlightened about the principle of the non-self. Therefore it is called self-delusion. Self-view means clinging to the view that the self exists, erroneously imagining certain dharmas to be the self that are not the self. Therefore it is called self-view. Self-conceit means pride. On the strength of what is being clung to as the self, it causes the mind to feel superior and lofty. It is therefore called self-deceit. Self-love means a greedy desire for the self. It develops deep attachment to what is clung to as the self. It is therefore called self-love.... These four defilements constantly arise and pollute the inner mind and cause the [six] other transforming consciousnesses {the five senses and the self-centered consciousness}to be continuously defiled. Because of this, sentient beings are bound to the cycle of life and death and transmigration and cannot be free from them. Hence they are called defilements.’”

“I can see the benefit of trying to overcome these ‘defilements’ Fred. Not because of any imaginary ‘transmigration’ but just in terms of living a calmer and happier life here and now. If you want to take the cycle of life and death and transmigration in a philosophical way-- in this case metaphorically-- we can say that these defilements of an individual are spread about things (s)he comes into contact with and this perpetuates the cycle. ‘Transmigration’ is just a poetic way of talking about how we can transmit influences from our own lives to those of others. If my self-love influences your self-love then, in a manner of speaking, a little bit of me is ‘reincarnated’ or has transmigrated to you. Let us not, as do hoi polloi, take these images literally.”

“I agree, Karl. We must transcend the literal meaning to get any insight from this way of thinking. I would also maintain this has to be done with all religious writings-- not just Buddhism.”

“What a world of misery would be overcome if people only understood this.”

“Now I’m going on to the fifth selection, The Third Transformation of Consciousness. This is the relation of the five senses plus the sense-centered or coordinating consciousness. Xuanzang puts it this way: ‘The root consciousness is the storehouse consciousness because it is the root from which all pure and impure consciousnesses grow.... By ‘causes’ are meant rising activities of the mind, the sense organs, and spheres of objects. It means that the five consciousnesses arise and manifest themselves, internally based on the root consciousness and externally as a result of a combination of the causes like the rising activities of the mind, the five sense organs, and spheres of objects.’”

“This is fairly confusing, especially when he says the ‘causes’ behind the activities of the mind are both ‘internal’ and ‘external.’ If you hold to consciousness-only there is no ‘external’-- only an apparent external. The external should be an illusion produced by the sense-centered consciousness.”

“You think Xuanzang is confusing? This comment by Chan is just as confusing. ‘[T]he primary concern of the school has always been on characters of dharmas. In accepting them as real, is not quite Mahayana and has therefore been regarded as quasi-Hinayana which, generally speaking, accepts the external world as real. One wonders if the Chinese refusal to regard the world as illusory did not have something to do with the school’s position.’”

“But Fred, this is an Indian school transplanted into China. Chan has already established that this is one of the reasons it failed to ultimately catch on. I don’t know about calling it ‘quasi-Hinayana.’ The problem has to do with the concept ‘real.’ If ‘real’ means ultimately reducible to the alaya-vijnana, then the dharmas are ‘real’ and one doesn’t have to say the world is illusory. The same as with Berkeley. There is no matter. The tree is a percept. Everything ultimately exists because it is a perception in God’s mind. That doesn’t make the things illusory, just non-material. I think the same thing goes for what Xuanzang is saying. Maybe Chan is so confusing because he too is a victim of the ‘Chinese refusal."

“Lets look at selection six then: Consciousness-Only. This section begins with a quote from Vasubandhu: "Thus the various consciousnesses transform and change. Both discrimination (consciousness) and the object of discrimination Are, because of this, unreal. For this reason, everything is consciousness only." This is explicated thusly by Xuanzang: ‘”The various consciousnesses” refer to the three transforming consciousnesses previously discussed and their mental qualities. They can all transform and appear as the perceiving and the perceived portions. The term “transformation” is thus employed.... Therefore everything produced from causes, and everything seemingly real or unreal, are all inseparable from consciousness. The word “only” is intended to deny that there are real things separated from consciousness, but not to deny that there are mental qualities, dharmas, and so forth inseparable from consciousness. The word “transform” means that the various inner consciousnesses transform and manifest the characters which seem to be the external spheres of the self and dharmas.... Therefore everything is consciousness only, because erroneous discrimination in itself is admitted as a fact. Since “only” does not deny the existence of dharmas not separated from consciousness, therefore true Emptiness [mental qualities--Kuiji] and so forth have the nature of being. In this way we steer away from the two extremes of holding that dharmas are real [although they have no natures of their own] or holding that dharmas are unreal [although they do function as causes and effects], establish the principle of Consciousness-Only, and hold correctly to the Middle Path.’”

“These quotes, Fred, clear up the issue we just discussed about the confusion between ‘internal’ and ‘external.’ There really is no ‘external.’ It also clarifies that Chan comment about the dharmas being ‘real.’”

“The next selection concerns several objections raised against the Consciousness-Only School. I’m not going to go over all of them, but since, as Xuanzang says, ‘One’s own principle cannot be established by demolishing those of others,’ I will point out some of his responses to criticisms.”

“I for one am interested in the ‘Two Levels of Truth’ doctrine.”

“His discussion of this point comes from the criticism that if everything is ultimately ‘Emptiness’ then his philosophy of Consciousness-Only is also Empty. He rejects this view. ‘Empty’ is not the same as ‘Nothing.’ It just means the view of hoi polloi that dharmas have real external being is wrong. But consciousness is real. He says, ‘If there were no such consciousness, there would be no worldly (relative) truth, and if there were no worldly truth, there would be no absolute truth, for the Two Levels of Truth are established on the basis of each other. To reject the Two Levels of Truth is to have evil ideas of Emptiness, a disease the Buddhas consider to be incurable. We should realize that some dharmas [which are imagined] are empty and some [which depend on something else, i.e., cause, to be complete-- Kuiji] are not....’”

“So why do we think that some dharmas are external?”

“His answer is that, ‘At the time the external spheres are realized through immediate apprehension, they are not taken as external. It is later that the sense-center consciousness discriminates and erroneously creates the notion of externally. Thus the objective spheres immediately apprehended are the perceived portion of the consciousnesses themselves.’”

“So, ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘Awakening’ is when we realize that, just as our dreams in sleep, the so-called world of independent reality is really a creation of the mind.”

“Yes. Xuanzang says, ‘This is why the Buddha spoke of the long night of transmigration, because of our failure to understand that the objective spheres of color [and so forth] are consciousness only.’”

“So, is there one big mind-- an ocean of consciousness-- or just individual minds?”

“There appear to be many individual streams of consciousness. I think the best view is that the alaya-vijnana of each person is always an endless stream. Individuals are perfumed seeds that develop from the other seven consciousness interactions with the alaya as temporary aggregates. They dissolve eventually back into the stream. Then a new ‘Ego’ is perfumed. Reincarnation may be that the new aggregate contains reperfumed seeds from the old aggregate-- but there is no permanent ego or self. I have to agree with Chan when he says, ‘In the final analysis, Buddhism is mysticism and a religion. All speculation is but a way to Nirvana.’”

“That’s it?”

“More or less. There is a final section which is just a lot of quotes from Vasubandhu but we have basically covered this philosophy.”

Well, we have finished our agenda Fred. Remember, we wanted some background in classical  Chinese thought and we have covered the foundations of Confucianism. Daoism, and Buddhism so we could understand better what are the “Chinese characteristics” that may be at work in the Marxism of present day China. I think we can read Fung Yu-Lan’s A Short History of Chinese Philosophy for the Medieval  and early modern period leading up to the Chinese Revolution.

OK, Karl, and we still have Chan”s Source Book as well and we have a good foundation for self-study.

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.
To read the Doctrine of The Mean Dialogue click here. 
To read the Book of Changes Dialogue click here.
To read the Dong Zhongshu Dialogue click here.
To read the Wang Chong Dialogue click here.
To read the Philosophy of Liezi Dialogue click here.
To read the Guo Xiang and Neo-Daoism Dialogue click here.
To read the Jizang Dialogue click here. 

​“Well Fred, are you ready to discuss Jizang (549–623 AD)?”

“I read the selections on his philosophy [in Chan: Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy], but it’s rather confusing. I’m still sort of in a fog Karl.”

“That’s natural for anyone who hasn’t been exposed to ‘Buddhist speak.’ A real problem is that he represents a Chinese version of a philosophy that was developed in India in a different historical and cultural context than that of China.”

“That I know. Chan refers to the ‘Philosophy of Emptiness’ or ‘The Three Treatise School.’ Briefly, he points out that Jizang’s school was one of the two major schools of Indian Mahayana Buddhism, that it was developed by an Indian philosopher named Nagarjuna  (c.150-c.250)in the Second Century A.D. and brought to China by Kumarajiva (344-413) who arrived in 384 A.D. Kumarajiva translated into Chinese many Indian Buddhist texts including the three most important texts of this form of Buddhism (hence ‘Three Treatise School’).”

“And those texts were...?”

“The three are, by Nagarjuna Treatise On The Middle Doctrine and Twelve Gate Treatise and by his student Aryadeva (fl. 3rd century AD) One Hundred Verses Treatise.”

“That’s a good summary, Fred. Buddhism had been in China before Kumarajiva, but he got the ball rolling. It became very popular, powerful, and prestigious due to the unsettled political and social conditions of the times and because of its apparent congruence with Neo-Taoism which was dominant at this time: the Wei-Jin period (220-420 A.D.) we mentioned in our previous discussion.” 

“OK, Karl, this needs explaining.”

“What does?”

“The term or concept which is the central point of the philosophy of the Three Treatise School, namely, Shunyata, a Sanskrit word meaning ‘Emptiness’ or ‘Void’. I don’t understand what Chan means when he says this is the ‘central concept’ of this philosophy in ‘the sense that the nature and characters of all dharmas, together with their causation are devoid of reality.’ What are ‘dharmas’?”

“If we are going to play the Buddhist game I see we will have to learn some basic rules on how to play! First I’ll explain ‘dharma’ and then ‘shunyata.’ The rule book I’m using is one we have used before: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion.”

“So you are being influenced by Wittgenstein again: Buddhism as a language game.”

“Only as a heuristic device Fred. I just want to understand what is going on and seeing how words are used, or misused, in the context of a philosophical or religious system is one way of doing so. As to whether the ‘game’ is also congruent with ‘reality’, I’ll let you be the judge, but I think as ‘Westerners’ and people committed to the Prime Directive [using logic and reason instead of faith and authority] we may be playing a different game.”

“I got it Karl. Let the game begin.”

“OK. In Buddhism the word ‘dharma’ can mean both the doctrine of the Buddha and also the law of the cosmos (Spinoza: 1632-1677 would say the law of nature) but normatively applied according to one’s karma. The dharma are also appearances of things or the phenomena we experience as reality. In Chinese the word is ‘fa’ 法.”

“Well, Chan [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy] explains what fa means in his Appendix and concludes that it is very difficult to translate and best left untranslated unless it means ‘the Law of the Buddha’--i.e., his teachings. ‘It connotes all things,’ he says, ‘with or without form, real or imaginary, the material or principle of an entity, something that holds on to its nature as a particular thing.’ The closest we can get in English is ‘element of existence.’ Dharma itself means ‘that which is held to.’”

“This could also be the Vedic ‘rita’ and what the Ancient Egyptians called maat.”

“Now I know what dharma are. Here is the rest of Chan’s quote. After pointing out the dharma are ‘devoid of reality,’ he continues, ‘Thus all differentiations, whether being or non-being, cause or effect, or coming-into-existence or going-out-of-existence are only “temporary names” and empty in nature.’”

“What this means, Fred, is that things don’t have their power ‘to be’ built into themselves-- they don’t last, they come and go. The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion says shunyata ‘does not mean that things do not exist but rather that they are nothing besides appearances’. This means that things ‘arise conditionally’ not on their own. There is a very big Sanskrit word for this Fred.”

“So, what is it?”

“It's the doctrine of pratitya-samutpada (‘conditioned arising’). I again quote the Encyclopedia: ‘The doctrine of conditioned arising says that all psychological and physical phenomena constituting individual existence are interdependent and mutually condition each other; this at the same time describes what entangles sentient beings in samsara (the cycle of existence).’”

“Well it’s a mouthful Karl. It’s also translated as ‘dependent origination’ isn’t it?”

“Yes. That or ‘conditioned’ or ‘conditional arising’ or ‘interdependent arising’ or ‘conditioned nexus’ or ‘causal nexus’ among other possibilities. You get the idea. That’s what ‘Emptiness’ really means-- ‘dependent origination.’”

“What does the Encyclopedia say about this?”

“We should note that this doctrine (pratitya-samutpada) is ‘together with the anatman [no- self or no self subsisting permanent Ego] doctrine, the core teaching of all Buddhist schools. Attainment of enlightenment and thus realization of buddhahood depends on comprehending this doctrine.’ So it is very important we get this down, Fred.”

“Anything specific to the San-lun, I mean ‘Three Treatise School’ ?”

“I see you used the Chinese name. But yes, the Encyclopedia continues, ‘In the Madhyamika system pratitya-samupada is equated with emptiness (shunyata). Here conditional arising is taken to show that because of their relativity, appearances have only empirical validity and are ultimately unreal.”

“Now we can turn to Jizang who represents the culmination of this school in China. He lived from 549 to 623 A.D. His father was Persian and his mother Chinese. Too bad for Jizang was the fact that he was never able to mix any Chinese elements into his interpretation of the Three Treatise School: “San-lun” in Chinese (san = three). So, Chan says, the Chinese never took to it; ultimately because it was too ‘Indian’. By the ninth century it had declined. Let’s note the three foundational views of the San-lan School: 1. Two levels of truth: This is hoi polloi truth and philosophical truth; i.e., things exist vs. ‘all dharma are empty.’ Ultimately things neither exist nor do not exist-- dependent origination being a middle way between these two extremes.``

“An Hegelian synthesis? Being, Nothing, Becoming?”

“Anyway Karl, this is why its Indian name is the Madhyamika (Middle Doctrine) School. Now, 2. The Refutation of Incorrect Doctrines: We get to Emptiness by replacing an incorrect view with a correct one, realizing that the new view is itself incomplete so it needs to be replaced, etc., until we arrive at Emptiness.”

“Fred, that is so much like the Hegelian dialectic as it is popularized with thesis--antithesis--synthesis = new thesis, etc., culminating in the Absolute.”

“Finally, 3. Eightfold Negation which is the dialectical method of argument employed by Nagarjuna and which, as Chan says, ‘denies that dharma come into existence or go out of existence, that they are permanent or come to an end, that they are the same or different, and that they come or go away (p.359).’ Jizang uses the Four Points of Argumentation to arrive at his conclusions. These points are, for any x, 1) x is; 2) x is not 3) x both is and is not; 4) x neither is nor is not. Chan doesn’t seem to approve of all this. ‘It is obvious that this approach is as nihilistic as it is destructive.’”

“What writings are we going to go over?”

“Two of them: the Treatise on the Two Levels of Truth and the Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises. So, from the first Jizang says: ‘Ordinary people say that dharma, as a matter of true record, possesses being, without realizing that they possess nothing. Therefore the Buddhas propound to them the doctrine that dharma are ultimately empty and void. When it is said that dharma possesses being, it is ordinary people who say so. This is worldly truth, the truth of ordinary people. Saints and sages, however, truly know that dharma are empty in nature.’”

“OK, there are two levels.”

“That’s right Karl. He calls this the ‘first level of twofold truth.’ The second level is to grasp that for hoi polloi things have being and non-being but for philosophers they have neither. Thus Jizang says, ‘Because the absolute [truth of non-being] and the worldly truth [truth of being] and the cycle of life-and-death and Nirvana are both two extremes, they therefore constitute worldly truth, and because neither-the-cycle-of-life-and-death-nor-Nirvana are the Middle Path without duality, they constitute the highest truth.’”

“This is getting problematic.”

“Hold on, big comment from Chan coming up soon.”

“OK.”

“Let’s go to the third level. ‘Previously it has been explained that the worldly and the absolute and the cycle of life-and-death and Nirvana are two extremes and one-sided and therefore constitute worldly truth, whereas neither-the-worldly-nor-the-absolute and neither-the-cycle-of-life-and-death-nor-Nirvana are the Middle Path without duality and therefore constitute the highest truth. But these are also two extremes. Why? Duality is one-sided while non-duality is central. But one-sidedness is an extreme and centrality is also an extreme. One-sidedness and centrality, after all, are two extremes. Being two extremes, they are therefore called worldly truth. Only neither-one-sidedness-nor-centrality can be regarded as the Middle Path or the highest truth.’”

“Clear as mud.”

“Here is Chan’s comment. Does it help? ‘The similarity of this dialectic is strikingly similar to that of Hegel and Zhuangzi. With Zhuangzi, both the right or the wrong, or the “this” or the “that” are infinite series and are to be synthesized in the all-inclusive Dao. It has been said that while the dialectic of Hegel includes all in the Absolute, that of Nagarjuna excludes everything from Emptiness. This is not correct, for worldly truth is not denied but accepted as such. However, like Hegel, every new synthesis is regarded as higher, and worldly truth is therefore considered inferior. In this respect, Daoism is different from both of them, for Daoism grants equality to all things, whether worldly or not.”’

“It helps somewhat, but let me read to you what I think is a little clearer.”

“Go ahead.”

“This is from Alan Fox’s commentary on Jizang in Great Thinkers of the Eastern World. Fox quotes a passage from Kumarajiva’s translation of The Treatise On The Middle Doctrine: 'The Great Sage [Buddha] taught the Dharma of emptiness In order to overcome all views. If one persists in viewing emptiness as an existent [thing], Such a one cannot be saved by all the Buddhas.' This means that shunyata is actually only a heuristic device-- not an ontological commitment to a metaphysical reality! Buddha doesn’t want us to suffer, to have sorrow ( duhkha-Skt.), by being attached to things, so the doctrine of Emptiness is put forth to help us overcome duhkha -- it's for the ‘annihilation’ of sorrow or suffering-- what Hindus call Duhkha-Nirodha in Sanskrit. Fox says the point is to not commit to the doctrine of emptiness itself making it a new ‘thing’ or dharma. He says this is ‘emptying of emptiness’ or shunyata, shunyata, and then gives a quote of his own from Jizang : 'One speaks of non-being only because there is initially the illness of [attachment to] being. If the illness of [attachment to] being subsides, then the medicine of emptiness is discarded, and one finally realizes that the holy path has nothing to do with being and non-being. Originally nothing is asserted; subsequently nothing is denied.' This makes a lot of sense to me. ‘Emptiness’ is one of those ladders we throw away after we climb it, as we discussed earlier, Fred.”

“Well I’m glad we figured this out. Now here are some selections from Jizang’s’the Profound Meaning of the Three Treatises. Chan has four selections from this work, namely selections 2,3,4 and 5. Let’s begin with number 2 “Causes and Effects.”

“Fine with me. Let’s do it.”

“Jizang  writes: ‘Some heterodoxical schools say that the Great Lord of Heaven can produce the myriad things, and that when they perish, they return to the original Heaven. Therefore they say that if the Great Lord is angry... living beings will suffer, and if the Great Lord is pleased, there will be happiness.... But Heaven is not the cause of things and things are not the effects of Heaven. They are imagined by an erroneous mind and are therefore called erroneous causes and erroneous effects. The objection is this: Good deeds invite happy reward, and evil influence bring fruits of suffering. For [this world] is the home of interactions [of cause and effect] and the realm of retribution. These schools do not understand this principle and therefore produce such falsehood.’”


“This is, for the time, very forward looking. The denial of a creator God is certainly advanced compared to Western thought at this time and would not clash with educated opinion in China. His views about karma are more problematic.”

“This next quote confuses me Karl. He speaks of effects without causes! ‘There are other heterodoxical schools that have exhaustively traced the origin of the myriad things and have found that they are derived from nothing. Therefore they say that there are no causes, but that if we presently look at the various dharma we should know that there are effects....The shadow exists because of the body, and the body exists because of the Creator. But the Creator originated from nowhere. If the root exists of itself, it means that the branches are not caused by anything else. Therefore there are no causes but there are effects.’”

“Perhaps, to some, this way of thinking doesn’t make too much sense today. We can say that the branches are ‘caused’ by the root meaning no root, no branches. And it appears I was wrong to jump the gun and say that Jizang didn’t believe in a Creator God. Not as advanced as I thought! But then again this may just be a metaphorical use of the word 'God'. Let’s use his notion of a ‘Creator’ then to argue that since God creates everything the things emanate from him as branches from roots, so they are just him in another form-- so there are ‘effects’ but no ‘causes.’ This is pantheism. He means there is no completely separate independent reality (the ‘cause’) that produces another completely independent separate reality (the ‘effect’). This just seems to be an argument over how to use words!”

“Jizang next considers the possibility that things exist ‘spontaneously.’ He is asked a question concerning the difference between ‘absence of cause and spontaneity (ziran). Jizang says, ‘Absence of cause is based on the fact that no cause exists, whereas spontaneity shows that the effect exists.’ This is very confusing, but he concludes with an observation borrowed from Laozi. Jizang says, ‘Cause and effect produce each other very much like long and short contrast each other. If there is already an effect, how can there be no cause? And if there is no cause,how can there be an effect alone?’ “ What is he doing here? Does he believe in cause and effect or not?

“He doesn’t seem to be attached to a particular view, Fred.”

“But I have to figure out what his view is first!”

“His view is that all four opinions-- there are effects and no causes, causes and no effects, both causes and effects, and neither causes nor effects are all wrong.”

“I’m trying to get this. I note he says the last of the four ‘perverse’ doctrines ‘is the most harmful’ because it maintains there is no fruit of actions good or bad.”

“I thought there was a problem about karma earlier.”

“I did too-- but he says this is perverse because ‘It cuts off good for the present and produces an evil state of life for the future....’”

“His objection shouldn’t be acceptable.”

“Why not?”

“Because both ‘cuts’ and ‘produces’ are causal words and he is supposed to be rejecting causality.”

“He is rejecting and not rejecting, that’s what is confusing. Here is Chan’s comment: 'We see here the Four Points of Argumentation at work. The various theories on cause and effect are reduced to four: theories of ens [Greek for "being"], of non-ens, of both ens and non-ens, and neither ens nor non-ens. This pattern of thought is prominent not only in the Three Treatise School but in other Buddhist schools as well. Some Buddhist scholars maintain that, generally speaking, Western thought has not gone beyond the third stage, that of “both-and,” whereas the fourth stage of “neither-nor” has been reached in Emptiness which defies all descriptions.' But does not the Absolute in Western [Hegel] thought include all, the negative as well as the positive?”

“So we have to describe the world somehow, Fred. I guess ‘causality’ is supposed to be a hoi polloi way of doing so.”

“Jizang has another section, (3), ‘The Four subsidiary causes’ in which he discusses so-called causal effects of the four ‘subsidiary’ causes.”

“There are, if I remember Chan, the Active Cause (e.g., fire causes smoke, the Immediate Condition (e.g., smoke following on striking a match), the Objective Condition (e.g., the wood of the match), and the Upheaving Condition(e.g., the motion of the hand in striking the match).”

“You remember correctly Karl. Jizang says about these that ‘If the Four Causes exist of themselves and are not produced by something else, then the myriad things, too, must not be produced by the Four Causes, and should fall into the condition of having no cause at all. Therefore if things are produced by something else, the process would be unlimited, and if there is a limit, there is no cause. From these two points, one may not believe in the existence of causes or effects.’”

“He is attacking an Indian view of Buddhism-- the Hinayana’s Abhidharma School which developed well before the Mahayana version of Buddhism subscribed to by Jizang. This other school held to the reality of dharma and to the reality of causation.”

“Here, Karl, is a comment about that by Chan: 'The problem of causality is one of the most important in Buddhist schools. It is central in the Three Treatise School, because its basic concept of Emptiness is untenable unless causality is rejected. The four causes here remind one of Aristotle and Scholasticism. They also underlie the fact that all Buddhist schools think of plurality of causes and effects instead of the one-to-one relationship between cause and effect. They, of course, all reject the First Cause. It is also interesting to note that the argument against the First Cause here is practically the same as that advanced by the Daoists. As the Shadow in the Zhuangzi asks, ‘Do I depend on something else to be this way? Does this something on which I depend also depend on something else?’"

“Hmmmm. Sort of like Aristotle I think. Aristotle’s causes are a little different. His ‘final cause’ —the for what end— is lacking here.

Also I would hardly call the reference to the Shadow an ‘argument.’ If anything it is the prelude to the reason the notion of a ‘first cause’ was developed. If we treat the arguments against causality so seriously that Emptiness would be rejected without them are we not taking the ladder too seriously? Doesn’t the whole concept of conditioned arising involve causality of a sort?”

“Its all very mind boggling Karl.”

“Well, I think Oliver Leaman’s summary in Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy explains what is going on quite nicely.”

“Let’s hear it.”

“As follows-- his comments on Nagarjuna’s views on causation: ‘Nagarjuna rejects all theories of causality that do not acknowledge the way in which everything that we take to be reality is interlinked. Causation as understood by most of the theories he attacked distinguishes between causes and effects in the sense that one side of the relation, the cause, is more real than the effect, since the latter emerges out of the former and might be regarded as part of it. Dependent origination implies that nothing has any stability or priority, and so leads to the notion of emptiness.’”

“That backs up what you said. What does Leaman say about ‘emptiness’?”

“I hope this helps. Leaman says the following: ‘Nagarjuna accepts that in absolute terms all arguments are empty, but on the relative level it is acceptable to use them to show that one cannot stay at that level if one is going to make progress.... The doctrine of emptiness should be used to cure ourselves of belief in the absolute reality of what we experience, and then it also should be expunged from our conceptual system, in just the same way that the Buddha after enlightenment was reluctant to speak and teach anymore. The paradoxical strategy of claiming that everything is empty is nonetheless impossible to state, since it is self-refuting. But its supporters have a point in arguing that although the argument cannot be proposed, it could still be valid, although not once stated. In any case, one could always hold the emptiness doctrine as applying to the nature of reality, but not as describing our experience of the material world.’”

“What good is a philosophy that doesn’t explain our experience of the world?”

“This is not a philosophy, Fred. It violates the Prime Directive of philosophy which is to base your views on the outcome of reason and logic. I have no idea what Leaman means when he says an “argument’ that cannot be stated can still be ‘valid.’ Validity is a property of argument forms and an ‘argument’ that cannot be stated has no form. We are in the world of religion and mysticism here and philosophy must make way for faith. This type of argument is itself empty and I would say meaningless.”

“That is harsh Karl! But now we can better understand Chan’s selection number four from Jisang—i.e., ‘Existence, Nonexistence, and Emptiness.’”

“I’ve had my say. Let’s get back to the text.”

“OK. Jizang is replying to objections to Nargarjuna’s version of Buddhism. He is trying to explain the dialectic by which everything seems to be denied-- no causes or non-causes, no existence nor non-existence, etc. ‘The idea of nonexistence is presented primarily to handle the disease of the concept of [absolute] existence. If that disease disappears, the useless medicine is also discarded. Thus we know that the Way of the sage has never held to either existence or nonexistence.... Once perverseness [holding one sided views] has been stopped, correctness will no longer remain. Therefore the mind is attached to nothing.’ Jisang then quotes a verse from the Madhyamika shastra:

The Great Sage preached the Law of Emptiness
In order to free men from all (personal) views.
If one still holds the view that Emptiness exists,
Such a person the Buddhas will not transform.

"Finally Jisang says, ‘If the mind is attached to something, it is bound to it and cannot be emancipated from birth and old age, sickness and death, sorrow and grief, and suffering and distress. Therefore the Lotus Scripture says, “I (the Buddha) have used an infinite number of convenient means to lead sentient beings and to enable them to be free from various attachments."

“This last sentence shows the primarily religious rather than philosophical inspiration of this treatise.”

“Finally we come to the last selection, number five, ‘Substance and Function.’ Here is a true dialectic I think. We get some insight and refrain from dogmatism-- both philosophy and religion can benefit from this attitude. ‘[T]he true nature [lakshana -Skr] of all dharma is entirely inexplicable in speech and unrealizable in thought [Kant!]. As it has never been either absolute or worldly, it is therefore called substance..... Although it is neither existent nor nonexistent, we are forced to speak of it as absolute and worldly. Therefore we call it function. It is regarded as correct because this being both absolute and worldly is not one-sided or perverse. Therefore we call it correctness in function.... Things are produced by causes and therefore have dependent existence. That is regarded as worldly. But dependent existence should not be said to be definitely existent, nor should it be said to be definitely nonexistent. This type of dependent existence is far from the two extremes and therefore is called correctness. Worldly existence being what it is and absolute nonexistence also being what it is, dependent nonexistence should not be said to be either definitely nonexistent or definitely existent. It is far from the two extremes, and is therefore regarded as correct....’”

“Well, I think we have a good idea of what this school is trying to teach. Madhyamika is, however, only one of the two major schools that the Chinese elite supported from the Fifth to the Seventh centuries A.D.”

“Let’s discuss this other school. the Yogacara, and its greatest Chinese representative Xuanzang.”

“OK Fred, maybe between both schools we will get a better understanding of Buddhism.”

“Non hoi polloi Buddhism, Xuanzang and Yogacara.

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.
To read the Doctrine of The Mean Dialogue click here. 
To read the Book of Changes Dialogue click here.
To read the Dong Zhongshu Dialogue click here.
To read the Wang Chong Dialogue click here.
To read the Philosophy of Liezi Dialogue click here.
To read the Guo Xiang and Neo-Daoism Dialogue click here.

“Well Fred, are you ready to discuss Guo Xiang (252-312)? We are now dealing with thinkers in the Wei-Jin period (220-420 AD) are we not?”

“We are. This period is named after dynasties that succeeded the Han Dynasty We have moved on a long way from the kind of thinking represented by Dong Zhongshu (179-104 BC). A move that has led us closer and closer to naturalistic ways of thinking.”

“Then I guess Xunzi (c.310-c.235 BC) should be popular again.”

“That may be, but we are going to discuss philosophers who, while paying lip service to Confucius (551-479 BC), wrote commentaries on the Laozi and the Zhuangzi as a way of expressing themselves. We call them ‘Neo-Daoists.’”

“Yes, but that’s not what they called themselves as I remember. I think Fung says they were known as  Xuanxue or ‘Dark’ (Xuan) or ‘Mysterious Learning.’” [History of Chinese Philosophy vol. 2]

“That’s right Karl. Besides, the Neo-Daoists there was another group of thinkers at this time called the ‘Light’ or ‘Pure Conversation School.’ They seem to have been of minor importance-- at least from the strictly philosophical point of view.”

“And who were they?”

“Just groups of men who liked to get together and discuss contemporary issues, ethics, philosophy, etc. They hung out in bamboo groves drinking and arguing and rejecting social conventions and propriety.”

“Sounds like a wild bunch! They would fit in today, no doubt.”

“They seem to have been harmless. The most famous group was called the ‘Seven Worthies of the Bamboo Grove.’ We are not going to deal with them as such.”

“OK. On to the ‘Dark Learning’ of the Neo-Daoists. The most important was Guo Xiang, was he not.”

“ Yes, but first, as an introduction, we have to go over two predecessors who were instrumental in the development of Neo-Daoism.  First is a gentleman called Wang Bi.”

“Yes, I remember studying about him. He died when he was only 23 or 24 years old-- living from 225 to 249 in Wei. That is unusually young to have left behind really important philosophical works.”

“At any rate, Chan [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy] has given us three excerpts from his writings. You ready?”

“Ready.”

“This is from his Simple Exemplifications of the Principle of the Book of Changes. He is trying to explain hexagrams in the YI Jing. He develops the idea of ‘the one’ and the key to this passage is his statement, ‘Things never err; they always follow their principle.’ This is actually a scientific way of looking at things-- i.e., the laws of science don’t change [I mean the underlying ‘laws’ of the world which the ‘laws of science’ attempt to describe] so ‘things never err.’ The entire quote is: ‘Now, the many cannot be regulated by the many. They are regulated by the smallest in number (the one). Activity cannot be controlled by activity. They are controlled by that which is firmly rooted in the one. The reason why the many can exist is that their ruling principle returns always to the one and all activities can function because they have all come from the same source. Things never err; they always follow their principle. There is the chief to unite them, and there is the leader to group them together. Therefore, though complex, they are not chaotic, and though many, they are not confused. Hence the intermingling of the six lines in a hexagram can be understood by taking up one [of them, for one is always the ruling factor of the six] and the interaction of weakness (yin) and strength (yang) can be determined by having the basic controlling principle well established.... Therefore if we investigate things by approaching them as a united system, although they are many, we know we can handle them by adhering to the one, and if we view them from the point of view of the fundamental, although their concepts are broad, we know we can cover all of them under a single name.’”

“You know Fred, Fung Yu-lan remarks on this [HCP:2, p.180] that the key to this passage is to understand that for Wang all multiplicity stems from oneness-- just as everything in our universe goes back to or stems from the one singularity, if it really was a singularity, we call the ‘Big Bang’. This is an analogy, of course, Wang Bi didn’t know anything about the ‘Big Bang.’ He is really explaining why there is always a leading line in the hexagrams comprising the YI Jing. Here is what Fung says: ‘In this passage Wang Bi’s aim is to explain the general concept underlying the statements made by the First Appendix on the separate hexagrams.’ He also says, with respect to Wang’s mentioning a ruling hexagram, that ‘he means that among the six lines comprising any given hexagram, there is always one that acts as ruler over the others. That is why he begins his treatise with the general thesis that all multiplicity must be ruled by oneness, and all activity controlled by quiescence. This is the first of his metaphysical principles.’”

“OK. We next turn to Wang’s Commentary On The Book of Changes itself. Here again we see the ‘one’: ‘Only because there is ultimate principle in the world is it possible to employ strength and uprightness completely and to drive far away those who ingratiate by flattery.... If we understand the activities of things, we shall know all the principles which make them what they are’ [On hexagram one ‘Heaven’].

“Very empirical Fred, if you ask me. Study the activities of things to determine their principles. This is consistent with a materialist worldview.”

“And this next passage shows how his views apply to society and politics: ‘If one is agreeable but does not follow indiscriminately and is joyful without deviating from the Mean, one will be able to associate with superiors without flattery and with subordinates without disrespect. As he understands the causes of fortune and misfortune, he will not speak carelessly, and as he understands the necessary principles, he will not change good conduct.’ [On hexagram sixteen ‘Happiness’] "

“A science of society is possible based on his views.”

“And no simple minded one either Karl. Listen to this: ‘[A superior man sees] similarity in general principles but diversity in function and facts.’ [On hexagram thirty eight ‘To part’] "

“To see the one in the many and vice versa is almost the definition of philosophy. Remember the Prime Directive? "

“How could I forget it?” [Use science and logic NOT emotion and religious dogma-- see Dialogue #1: Confucius].

“And the Second Directive?”

“Don’t discuss things with people who reject the Prime Directive.”

“Well, I think we get another directive about philosophy here-- based on Wang Bi. Here is Schopenhauer’s version: ‘Knowledge of the identical in different phenomena, and of difference in similar phenomena is, as Plato so often remarks, a sine qua non of philosophy.’ [The World as Will and Idea: 2nd bk, 1st aspect, sec. 22] What Plato says is, ‘’those who are able to grasp what is always the same in all respects are philosophers, while those who are not able to do so and who wander among the many things that vary in every sort of way are not philosophers...’ [Republic 484b].

“You certainly get a lot out of one sentence from Wang! Chan’s comment is: ‘Note the contrast between principle and facts. Later, in Chinese Buddhism, the realm of principles and the realm of facts constitute the two realms of existence. They are, however, not to be sharply contrasted, for they involve each other and are ultimately identical. This one-is-all and all-is-one philosophy is a common heritage of all Chinese philosophical systems-- Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist.’”

“The more we discuss Chinese philosophy, the more parallels I see to certain Western trends Fred.”

“Here is his commentary on hexagram twenty four ‘To return’: ‘Whenever speech ceases, there is silence, but silence is not opposed to speech. Thus although Heaven and Earth are vast, possessing the myriad things in abundance, where thunder moves and winds circulate, and while there is an infinite variety of changes and transformations, yet its original [substance] is absolutely quiet and perfect non-being. Therefore only with the cessation of activities within Earth can the mind of Heaven and Earth be revealed.’”

“Let me read to you what Fung says about this passage. ‘When Wang speaks of the ‘myriad things’ of Heaven and Earth and the ‘myriad transformations’ resulting from their operations, what he means is all being and all transformations, that is all phenomenal activity. But the cause of all transformations or activity must itself be unchanging and quiescent.... It cannot itself be being, for if it were, it would simply be one among all the many other kinds, and as such it could not be the origin of ‘all’ being. ‘ [HCP:2, p.181] Thus Wang maintains that non-being (wu) is the basis of being. I don’t think we just equate non-being with ‘nothingness’ either. And, so we don’t anthropomorphize, let us remember that the ‘mind of Heaven and Earth’ is just the set of natural principles or operant laws of physics, etc. It would be like saying if you understand general relativity you understand the mind of Heaven.”

“We will trudge along to find out because Wang Bi’s views are going to be developed by succeeding generations. Here is Chan’s remark on this passage: ‘Wang Bi is characteristically Daoistic in saying that only in a state of tranquility can the mind of Heaven and Earth be seen.... [Neo-Confucianists] maintained that the Mind of Heaven and Earth is to be seen in a state of activity instead of tranquility"

“Fred, that passage from Wang on wu is also commented upon by Fung. He says, ‘Wu or “non-being” is, in Wang’s philosophy, equivalent to the “super-ultimate” or “Supreme Ultimate” (Taiji) of the Book of Changes, or to the Dao of the Laozi. Its functioning, however, can only be made manifest on the form of being (you).’” [HCP:2, p.183]

“Time for our last selection--Commentary on the Laozi.”

“Bring it on.”

“Chan lets us know that Wang Bi was really interested in metaphysics. He considers ultimate reality to be ‘original non-being’ or ben-wu. It’s not ‘nothing’ but rather the original substance, ben-ti, that is the basis of all existing things. He develops this idea in the Laozi commentary. Chan says, ‘Where Laozi had destiny (ming, fate), Wang Bi would substitute principle, thus anticipating the Neo-Confucianists, who preferred to speak of the Principle of Nature (Tien-Ming).’”

“Are you ready to read Wang’s text?”

“Yes I am. Wang says, ‘All being originated from non-being... After forms and names appear, Dao (the Way) develops them... becomes their Mother. This means that Dao produces and completes things with the formless and nameless. Thus they are produced and completed but do not know why. Indeed it is the mystery of mysteries.’ [ch 1].”

“What else?”

“He continues, ‘Man does not oppose Earth and therefore can comfort all things, for his standard is the Earth. Earth does not oppose Heaven and therefore can sustain all things, for its standard is Heaven. Heaven does not oppose Dao and therefore can cover all things, for its standard is Dao. Dao does not oppose Nature and therefore it attains its character of being.’ [ch. 25]. He tells us ‘By Nature is meant something that cannot be labeled and something ultimate’ [Ibid.].”

“This seems to give a materialist basis to his metaphysics. What would knowledge of ‘Nature’ lead to?”

“He says, ‘The sage understands Nature perfectly and knows clearly the conditions of all things. Therefore he goes along with them but takes no unnatural action. He is in harmony with them but does not impose anything on them. He removes their delusions and eliminates their doubts. Hence the people’s minds are not confused and things are contented with their own nature.’ [ch. 29] And also, ‘How is virtue to be attained? It is to be attained through Dao. How is virtue to be completely fulfilled. It is through non-being as its function. As non-being is its function, all things will be embraced. Therefore in regard to things, if they are understood as non-being all things will be in order, whereas if they are understood as being, it is impossible to avoid the fact that they are products (phenomena). Although Heaven and Earth are extensive, non-being is the mind, and although sages and kings are great, vacuity (xu) is their foundation. Therefore it is said that by returning and seeing [absolute quiet and perfect non-being], the mind of Heaven and Earth will be revealed.’ [ch. 38].”

“This reminds me of Buddhist notions.”

“Some Buddhist notions in China may actually come from Wang Bi! Remember, all the things that exist (‘the myriad things’) have their own unique being-- their own substance and function. Chan comments, ‘This is the first time in the history of Chinese thought that substance (ti) and function(yong) are mentioned together.... The concepts of substance and function definitely originated with Wang Bi. They were to become key concepts in Chinese Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism.’”

“I see that Chinese Buddhism and Daoism are mixed up together, but who is influencing whom?”

“It was probably a two way street Karl. Here is how Wang Bi relates existing things to his ultimate substance. ‘The ten thousand things have ten thousand different forms but in the final analysis they are one. How did they become one? Because of non-being.... Therefore in the production of the myriad things, I know its master.’ [ch. 47].”

“So much for Wang Bi. How about He Yan? He was also an important contributor to this school.”

“Yes. He, born 195 AD, also died in 249 AD, the same year as Wang Bi. Like Wang, although a Daoist, he considered Confucius to be the ‘Sage.’ That is to say, in things social and political-- in practice-- he followed Confucius, but he nevertheless turned to Laozi in things metaphysical, an area that Confucius was not particularly interested in. We can see Wang’s influence in the following quote from He’s Treatise on Dao: ‘Being, in coming into being, is produced by non-being. Affairs, as affairs, are brought into completion by non-being. When one talks about it and it has no predicates, when one names it and it has no name, when one looks at it and it has no form, and when one listens to it and it has no sound-- that is Dao in its completeness. Hence it is able to make sounds and echoes brilliant, to cause material force (qi) and material objects to stand out, to embrace all physical forms and spiritual activity, and to display light and shadow.’”

“Does Chan say anything about this?”

“He has the following comment: ‘It is characteristic of both the Light Conversation movement and the Metaphysical School to reject all words and forms as descriptions of the ultimate reality. These may be used, then forgotten, as the fish trap is forgotten once the fish is caught. The whole spirit is to get at the ultimate totality, which is not to be limited even by a name.’”

“That fish analogy is similar to one used by Wittgenstein (1889-1951), another ‘mystic.’ Just as our Daoist friends keep saying that ‘Dao’ is unnamable and we can’t really grasp it, Wittgenstein ends his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by saying, ‘My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them-- as steps-- to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)’”

“Very apt Karl.”

“And mystics are not the only ones to think this way.”

“What do you mean?”

“Listen to Sextus Empiricus (c.160-c.210 ) the Greek Skeptic, explaining how it’s possible to ‘know’ that you can't ‘know’--i.e., that you can use logic against logic! He says, ‘just as it is not impossible for someone, after climbing up a ladder to a higher place, to knock down the ladder with his foot after he gets up there, so too it is not unreasonable for the skeptic, after arriving at the establishment of his point by using the argument which demonstrates that there is no demonstration as a kind of step-stool, thereupon to destroy this argument itself.’”

“So Daoists are not the only ones with these problems of trying to explain what seems at first glance unexplainable. Now listen to this from He’s Treatise On The Nameless: ‘Now Dao never possesses anything. But since the beginning of the universe it has possessed all things and yet it is still called Dao because it can exercise its ability not to possess them. Therefore although it dwells in the realm of the namable, it shows no sign of the nameless.’”

“Hmmmm. I’m not ready to throw away the ladder.”

“Maybe this will help. He continues: ‘Essentially speaking, Dao has no name. This is why Laozi said that he was “forced to give it a name.” Confucius praised (sage emperor) Yao, saying, “The people could find no name for him,” but continued to say, “How majestic” was “his accomplishment!” It is clear that to give a name perforce is merely to give an appellation on the basis of only what people know. If one already has a name, how can it be said that people could find no name for him? It is only because he has no name that all possible names in the world can be used to call him. But are these really his names? If from this analogy one still does not understand, it would be like looking at the loftiness and eminence of Mount Tai and yet saying that the original material force [which makes the productions of things possible] is not overwhelming or extensive.’”

“Now I see, Fred. The names and descriptions we give to reality in order to try and understand it are ‘only what people know.’ Reality, the Dao, is much more extensive than what can be conceptualized by the human understanding. This is what Wittgenstein (1889-1951) meant. He says it even better, right after the passage I just quoted, when he writes ‘He must transcend the propositions [Wittgenstein’s philosophical claims] and then he will see the world aright.’ Somehow or other, I think Ho Yen and Wittgenstein are are on the same wavelength.”

“Be that as it may Karl, we must now turn to our title Neo-Daoist. His name was Guo Xiang [Kuo Hsiang] and he expressed his views in his Commentary on the Zhuangzi. To prepare you for what is to come, let me read what Chan says is the great difference between Guo and Wang; ‘Just as Wang Bi went beyond Laozi, so Guo Xiang went beyond Zhuangzi. The major concept is no longer Dao, as in Zhuangzi  but Nature (Ziran). Things exist and transform themselves spontaneously and there is no other reality or agent to cause them. Heaven is not something behind this process of Nature but is merely its general name. Things exist and transform according to principle, but each and every thing has its own principle. Everything is therefore self-sufficient and there is no need of an over-all original reality to combine or govern them, as in the case of Wang Bi. In other words, while Wang Bi emphasizes non-being, Guo emphasizes being. To Wang Bi, principle transcends things, but to Kuo it is immanent in them.’ And Chan also notes, ‘In their philosophy of life, Guo Xiang differed greatly from Wang Bi in one respect. Guo was a fatalist while Wang was not. Since according to guo everything has its own nature and ultimate principle, everything is determined and correct. Therefore he taught contentment in whatever situation one may find himself. Neither free will nor choice has meaning in his system.’”

“Guo sounds like a radical pluralist. But I think modern science points towards an original unity with everything in Nature evolving from the Big Bang. At any rate, let’s go over Guo Xiang’s Commentary.”

“First, let’s note that this is not just Guo’s Commentary. One of the Seven Worthies of the Bamboo Grove was a man named Xiang Xiu (c. 221-c. 300 AD) who wrote commentaries on the Zhuangzi . Guo’s commentary is either an edited version of Xiang’s or an expanded version. However, it is traditionally called Guo’s commentary!”

“Next!”

“There are thirty nine numbered paragraphs in Chan from this commentary , and I will begin with number three. ‘To be natural means not to take any unnatural action. This is the general idea of [what Zhuangzi means by] roaming leisurely or freedom. Everything has its own nature and each nature has its own ultimate.’”

“This clarifies a lot Fred, especially the Daoist confusion about doing ‘nothing’-- it means ‘nothing unnatural.’ Even more interesting is the definition of man via Aristotle (384-322 BC)— i.e., ‘rational animal’ and ‘political animal.’ One could argue that since that is the nature of humans, the Confucian approach is perfectly natural and there is no ultimate conflict with Daoism!”

“Let’s look at number four: ‘Being natural means to exist spontaneously without having to take any action. Therefore the fabulous peng bird can soar high and the quail can fly low, the cedrela [Chinese mahogany tree] can live for a long time and the mushroom for a short time.’”

“This confirms my view. Everything has its own nature and way of acting.”

“Listen to number five: ‘It is he who does no governing that can govern the empire. Therefore Yao governed by not governing. It was not because of his governing that his empire was governed. Now (the recluse) Xu You [who refused the empire] only realized that since the empire was well governed, he should not replace Yao. He thought it was Yao who did the actual governing. Consequently he said to Yao “You govern the empire.”’” Guo thinks Yao is a good example of governing by not governing.”

“This looks bad for my theory.”

“Just wait a minute. Xu You was a recluse, his example seems to have been sitting ‘in silence in the middle of some mountain forest’ and had the approval of Laozi and Zhuangzi. Kuo seems not to have approved of their ideas in this respect and thought one should remain ‘in the realm of action.’”

“My theory is back.”

“Pay attention now to the end of number five: ‘[R]esponsible officials insist on remaining in the realm of action without regret.... For egotistical people set themselves up against things, whereas he who is in accord with things is not opposed to them.... Therefore he profoundly and deeply responds to things without any deliberate mind of his own and follows whatever comes into contact with him. He is like an untied boat drifting, claiming neither the east not the west to be its own. He who is always with the people no matter what he does is the ruler of the world wherever he may be.’”

“Oh no, Fred, that’s no good either. A drifting untied boat is a poor representation of the Ship of State. A good ruler should guide the state by certain plans and principles and not just drift along. Also, ‘being with the people’ must be interpreted as being ‘for the people’ if it is to make any sense. The ‘people’ can be wrong headed sometimes and a good ruler has to know how to counter that. I know that Chan and Fung, among others, say the Neo-Daoists rated Confucius higher that Lao or Zhuang when it came to practical actions, but obviously they did not really understand Confucianism if they thought analogies such as the ‘drifting boat’ were compatible with it.”

“Well in number six he says, ‘When everything attains its reality, why should it take any action? Everything will be contented and at ease. Therefore, although Yao and Xu You and Heaven and Earth are different, their freedom is the same.’”

“Yes, I understand this determinist outlook. Nevertheless, the freedom of Yao and of Heaven and Earth differs in one essential respect which is that Yao is conscious of his freedom and also self-conscious.”

“In number eight Guo says, ‘The mind of the sage penetrates to the utmost the perfect union of yin and yang and understands most clearly the wonderful principles of the myriad things. Therefore he can identify himself with changes and harmonize with transformations, and finds everything all right wherever he may go. He embraces all things and thus nothing is not in its natural state. The world asks him [to rule] because of disorder. He has no deliberate mind of his own.’”

“I take this to mean that the sage doesn’t use his leadership position for personal emolument, but because he knows ‘the wonderful principles of the myriad things’ he rules according to the true requirements of every situation and always in the interests of the ruled. He is a philosopher king.”

“In number eleven he reinforces this objective outlook: ‘Everything is what it is by nature, not through taking any action. Therefore [Zhuangzi] speaks in terms of Nature.... Nature does not set its mind for or against anything. Who is the master to make things obey? Therefore all things exist by themselves and come from nature. This is the Way of Heaven.’”

“The subjective interests of the sage must not try to force themselves on to reality.”

“What you just said Karl about the sage and leadership is borne out by the following: ‘If people with the capacity of attendants are not contented with the responsibilities of attendants, it will be a mistake. Therefore we know that whether one is a ruler or a minister, a superior or an inferior, and whether it is the hand or the foot, the inside or the outside, it is naturally so according to the Principle of Nature.’ And also, by number 14: ‘”This” and “that” oppose each other but the sage is in accord with both of them. Therefore he who has no deliberate mind of his own is silently harmonized with things and is never opposed to the world.’”

“It's all very Stoic Fred.”

“I’ll say. How about this from number 15: ‘When their physical forms are compared, Mount Tai is larger than an autumn hair. But if everything is in accord with its nature and function, and is silently in harmony with its ultimate capacity, then a large physical form is not excessive and a small one is not inadequate.... As there is nothing small or large, and nothing enjoys longevity or suffers brevity of life [since all natures are equal], therefore the chrysalis does not admire the cedrela but is happy and contented with itself, and the quail does not value the Celestial Lake [destination of the peng bird]  and its desire for glory is thus satisfied.’”

“Some might say this type of worldview leads to quietism, but I’m not so sure. I will say it’s more passive than a Confucian would be comfortable with.”

“Here is number 18, an example of the Sage vs. hoi polloi: ‘The ordinary people will consider it lack of simplicity to harmonize all the changes throughout ten thousand years. With a tired body and a frightened mind, they toil to avoid this and to take that. The sage alone has no prejudice. He therefore proceeds with utter simplicity and becomes one with transformation and always roams in the realm of unity. Therefore, although the irregularities and confusions over millions of years result in a great variety and infinite multiplicity, as “Dao operates and given results follow,” the results of the past and the present are one.’”

“And we should note that hoi polloi still exist, even as in Guo’s day, although in some societies universal educational opportunities have brought about qualitative differences in hoi polloi. The Confucian ‘Utopian’ ideal, as the Marxist, is that some day all humans will be sages.”

“And now for some metaphysics. Listen to this from number 19: ‘If we insist on the conditions under which things develop and search for the cause thereof, such search and insistence will never end, until we come to something that is unconditioned, and then the principles of self-transformation will become clear.... ‘”

“A monistic view, Fred. Modern science, at least speculative forms of it, has this view too. The search for the so-called unified field theory-- the one big equation that unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity would, hopefully, bring it about that the ‘principles of self-transformation will become clear.’”

“This same paragraph, Karl, also rules out the existence of a religious, in the Western sense, explanation for the universe. Guo says, “There are people who say that shade is conditioned by the shadow, the shadow by the body, and the body by the Creator. But let us ask whether there is a Creator or not. If not, how can he create things? If there is, he is incapable of materializing all the forms. Therefore before we can talk about creation, we must understand the fact that all forms materialize by themselves. If we go through the entire realm of existence, we shall see that there is nothing, not even the shade, that does not transform itself behind the phenomenal world. Hence everything creates itself without the direction of any Creator. Since things create themselves, they are unconditioned. This is the norm of the universe.’” And Chan remarks, ‘The denial of a Creator is complete. Whereas Zhuangzi raised the question whether there is a Creator or not, Guo Xiang unreservedly denied its existence. Given the theory that all things come into existence by themselves and that their transformation is also their own doing, this is the inevitable outcome. Thus Daoist naturalism is pushed to its ultimate conclusion.’”

“Yes, but we must not forget that, ‘Dao operates and given results follow.’ Fung is useful at this point as he says, concerning this passage [HCP:2, p. 210], ‘The statement: “Everything produces itself and does not depend on anything else,” means merely that we cannot designate any particular thing as the cause of any other particular thing. It does not at all mean that there are no relationships between one thing and another.’ In fact he maintains that this view is compatible with Marxism! He says [Ibid., p. 112], ‘This point of view is very similar to the materialistic concept of history. The Russian Revolution, for example, was, according to this concept, the inevitable result of the total objective environment of its time; it was not caused by Lenin or any other particular individual. The statement quoted earlier, that things, “though mutually opposed, at the same time are mutually indispensable,” may also be interpreted as an illustration of Hegelian dialectic....’ So we must not think that there is no underlying unity to reality. That there is no Creator is, I take it, put forth to ward off the type of superstitious religious explanations for things that Mozi tried to use to bolster his system.”

“In number 20 Guo says, ‘When a person loves fame and is fond of supremacy and is not satisfied even when he has broken his back in the attempt, it is due to the fact that human knowledge knows no limit. Therefore what is called knowledge is born of losing sight of what is proper and will be eliminated when one is in silent harmony with his ultimate capacity. Being silently in harmony with one’s ultimate capacity means allowing one’s lot to reach its highest degree, and [in the case of lifting weights] not adding so much as an ounce. Therefore though a person carries ten thousand pounds, if it is equal to his capacity he will suddenly forget the weight upon his body.’”

“This isn’t just Daoist either. I think almost any philosopher would hold a similar outlook. It amounts to ‘nothing in excess’ and would be applauded by Plato as support for his views in the Republic on education and finding the employment best suited for each citizen.”

“In number 21 he maintains, ‘ Where does gain or loss, life or death, come in? Therefore, if one lets what he has received from Nature take its own course, there will be no place for joy or sorrow.’”

“This is a little more than human! The sage qua sage may understand this, but it is difficult to believe that qua human it would be possible to be completely exempt from all feelings of joy and sorrow. After all, Zhuangzi , when his wife died, felt sorrow and his drum beating only meant that he did not give in to despair. And Confucius , the sage par excellence, mourned for Yan Hui.”

“I think the following, number 24, could be used to justify the extension of public education. Any Confucian would be able to subscribe to it. ‘When a thousand people gather together without a person as their leader, they will either be disorderly or disorganized. Therefore when there are many virtuous people, there should not be many rulers, but when there is no virtuous person, there should be a ruler.’”

“I agree Fred. Education leads to virtue, therefore the more educated people are the less a “leader” is needed-- i.e., a Hobbesian absolutist type leader.”

“In number 25 he says, ‘Things happen by necessity, and principle, of course, prevails at all times. Therefore if we leave things alone, they will accomplish their purpose.’”

“A scientific outlook if our goal is to understand the world. We get in trouble when we try to change it. The problem is it just cries out to be changed! At least humans think so. How can we leave things alone since it appears to be our principle to change things?”

“Perhaps we have to think of the problems that cry out for change doing so as a result of a previous disruption of principle. Reforms, even revolutions, are only attempts to reestablish principle at least in the social world.”

“A worthy thought, Fred.” 

“Do you find any problem with the following? It is number 28. ‘The principles of things are from the very start correct. None can escape from them. Therefore a person is never born by mistake, and what he is born with is never an error. Although heaven and earth are vast and the myriad things are many, the fact that I happen to be here is not something that spiritual beings of heaven and earth, sages and worthies of the land, and people of extreme strength or perfect knowledge can violate.... Therefore if we realize that our nature and destiny are what they should be, we will have no anxiety and will be at ease with ourselves in the face of life or death, prominence or obscurity, or an infinite amount of changes and variations, and will be in accord with principle.’”

“Well, let’s think of a person born with a birth ‘defect’-- no arms, or only a brain stem, or something like that. Would Guo really want to say ‘what he is born with is never an error,’ that principles ‘are from the very start correct?’”

“I guess not Karl. Maybe Guo didn’t think this through?”

“And maybe he did!”

"What do you mean?”

“I mean, using modern examples, think of the laws of genetics and heredity. These are principles of the transmission of inherited characteristics and also of the effects of outside influences on the genetic composition of DNA-- say exposure to radiation or certain chemicals. It is not by a ‘mistake’ that deformed or ‘defective’ animals are born. They are ‘defective’ only in relation to our expectations and social constructions of ‘perfection.’ In reality, the li, the principles, are always correct. A certain combination of genes, or exposure to chemicals, etc., will result in, for example, only a brain stem. That is just as much a regular feature of development as the frequency of having blue eyes. This is why, with respect to the li, Kuo says, ‘None can escape from them.’ It is not an error that a birth defect occurs! If we don’t want them we had better understand the li involved and clean up the environment and/or the gene pool.”

“It seems like this requires too much action on the part of a Daoist. What happened to the drifting boat?”

“Well, what if while you are drifting along you see rapids and a water fall coming into view? Li will take you right over Niagara. I think even Guo would start to row his boat. That too ‘will be in accord with principle.’”

“And Chan’s comment is: ‘Determinism and fatalism are here explained in terms of principle and correctness. Fate is not something merely beyond human control or understanding; it is necessary truth. Nowhere else in Chinese thought is it asserted so strongly.’”

“Fate and determinism are always difficult concepts to reconcile with our ideas of choice and freedom. Life and death may be ‘determined,’ but you still don’t let your children play in traffic.”

“This is from number 29. ‘To cry as people cry is a manifestation of the mundane world. To identify life and death, forget joy and sorrow, and be able to sing in the presence of the corpse is the perfection of the transcendental world.... Therefore principle has its ultimate, and the transcendental and the mundane world are in silent harmony with each other. There has never been a person who has roamed over the transcendental world to the utmost and yet was not silently in harmony with the mundane world, nor has there been anyone who was silently in harmony with the mundane world and yet did not roam over the transcendental world. Therefore the sage always roams in the transcendental world in order to enlarge the mundane world.’”

“This only makes sense, Fred, if we think of the ‘transcendental world’ not in some mystic sense as ‘another world’ but rather as the world of li. Take Einstein as an example. The mundane world is the world we all share in common-- work, social relations, politics, etc. But the ‘transcendental world’ is the world revealed by physics and mathematics-- what is ‘really’ going on behind the scenes: E=mc2 and all that. So there is nothing supernatural about it.”

“Chan has a comment on this passage.”

“Let’s hear it”

“OK: ‘As pointed out before, neither Wang Bi nor Guo Xiang considered Laozi a sage. Instead, their sage was Confucius. This is amazing, but the reason is really not far to seek. For to Guo Xiang, especially, the ideal person is a sage who is “sagely within and kingly without” and who travels in both the transcendental and mundane worlds. According to the Neo-Daoists, Laozi and Zhuangzi traveled only in the transcendental world and were thereby one-sided, whereas Confucius was truly sagely within and kingly without.’”

“Interesting, but I don’t think it entirely true, at least with regard to Zhuangzi. I think he too traveled in the mundane world, he just didn’t focus on it-- it wasn’t his ultimate concern. As for Confucius, well he didn’t pay that much attention to the transcendental world ( the metaphysical aspects of li). He had little interest in metaphysical speculation (science) as his concerns were primarily practical. So I think for the Neo-Daoists, whatever their considerable virtues may have been, accurate historical understanding of their predecessors may not have been one of them.”

“Here is some political philosophy from number 34. ‘If the ruler does the work of his ministers, he will no longer be the ruler, and if the ministers control the ruler’s employment, they will no longer be ministers. Therefore when each attends to his own responsibility, both ruler and the ruled will be contented and the principle of taking no action is attained. We must not fail to discern the term “taking no action.” In ruling an empire, there is the activity of ruling. It is called “taking no action” because the activity is spontaneous and follows the nature of things. And those who serve the empire also do so spontaneously. In the case of ministers managing affairs, even Shun and Yu, as ministers, would still be regarded as taking action. Therefore when the superior and inferior are contrasted, the ruler is tranquil and the minister is active.... But in each case they allowed their nature to work and their destiny to unfold itself in its wonderful way. Thus neither the superior not the inferior, neither antiquity nor the later period takes any action. Who then will?’”

“We must always remember to keep in mind that ‘taking no action’ means ‘no unnatural action.’”

“And number 35. ‘The past is not in the present and every present event is soon changed. Therefore only when one abandons the pursuit of knowledge and lets Nature take its own course, and changes with the times, can one be perfect.’”

“Well, Fred, we just have to disagree here. The li are always operative and the effects of the past are in the present. Who could deny that the past of China-- its feudalism, its victimization by the West in the last couple of centuries, its invasion by Japan in World War II, is responsible for and still influences the Communist Revolution and the present day actions of the Chinese government? Kuo is just off base on this. The past is transmitted in a myriad of ways not just in writings, and the answer to the question ‘can the past exist in the present’ is yes. As for abandoning the pursuit of knowledge, Guo’s own model for the Sage, Confucius, is remembered for saying, ‘Is it not a pleasure to learn and to repeat or practice from time to time what has been learned.” It is the first sentence of the Analects!”

“Finally, number 39. ‘Not only is it impossible for non-being to be changed into being. It is also impossible for being to become non-being. Therefore, although being as a substance undergoes infinite changes and transformations, it cannot in any instance become non-being....’”

“This must refer to ordinary ‘non-being’-- i.e, ‘from nothing, nothing comes’-- but not to ‘original non-being’ as the major Thesis of Neo-Daoism is that everything comes from original non-being-- i.e., pen-wu ‘pure being’.”

“Well, that about wraps up Guo Xiang, what should we do next?”

“Well, Buddhism was coming to China just after the development of Neo-Daoism, and I think we should discuss one of the most important early Chinese Buddhists-- namely, Jizang (Chi-tsang).”

“So, Buddhism from a Marxist point of view as well, Chinese Buddhism, ok, Jizang next.”

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.
To read the Doctrine of The Mean Dialogue click here. 
To read the Book of Changes Dialogue click here.
To read the Dong Zhongshu Dialogue click here.
To read the Wang Chong Dialogue click here.
To read the Philosophy of Liezi Dialogue click here.

​“Well, Fred, are you ready to discuss Liezi?”

“There isn’t much to discuss, Karl. Only four pages of text in Chan [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy] are devoted to him.”

“He has to be in there for something. What’s his claim to fame?”

“Why don’t you look in your Great Thinkers of the Eastern World book?”

“I will, then it’s back to Chan. James D. Sellman wrote this article on Liez. Listen to this: ‘Liezi is the third major classic of philosophical Daoism (Taoism). As with the other two classics--- the Laozi (Lao Tzu) and the Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu), the author and the date of composition of the Liezi are obscured by a lack of historical evidence...”

“At least we know we have the third Daoist classic-- all four pages of it in Chan!”

“And note this from The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion. ‘Liezi was fond of transmitting his ideas and thoughts by reinterpreting ancient folk tales and myths. A characteristic feature of his view of life were mechanical processes, not admitting of free will.’”

“We will see something of that aspect of his thought in the last section I’ll read Karl.”

“It sounds a lot like Wang Chong to me.”

“Let me tell you Karl, that I don’t think Liezi’s book is really third in rank. Chan says it’s unoriginal, except perhaps for his skepticism, and borrows heavily from Zhuangzi. We should also note that the book dates from around 300 AD and that Liezi lived around 400 BC! so how many of his own views are present is questionable. The book is a compilation by much later scholars. Also the section right after Wang Chong and before Liezi in Chan is on the Daoist Huainanzi  He dies in 122 BC and Chan calls him ‘the most prominent Taoist philosopher between ancient Daoism of the fourth century B.C and Neo-Daoism of the third and fourth centuries A.D.’”

“So why did we skip him?”

“Chan says his ‘originality is negligible.’ He just reiterated Lao and Zhuang. And he was very politically active, not just taking the world as it comes. He had to commit suicide due to a failed plot of rebellion. He was also rationalistic like Wang Chong and the Liezi.”

“So Daoism is not so passive as we have been led to think! Let’s get back to ‘LIezi’ then.”

“The selection is divided into A and B sections. Section A is called ‘The Yang Zhu Chapter.’”

“ Yes, I remember Yang Zhu from our discussion on Mencius. Yang was the fellow who advocated egoism and wouldn’t sacrifice even one hair to help the world.”

“That’s right Karl. Here is the quote from Mencius: ‘7A:26. Mencius said, ‘Yang Zhu’s choice was “everyone for himself.” Though he might save the entire world by plucking out a single hair, he would not do it.’ The ‘Yang Zhu Chapter’ is included as one of the eight chapters (its actually number seven) of the Liezi, but it was probably a separate work, according to many scholars, and just ended up being part of the Liezi when it was eventually compiled in the Third Century AD.”

“Go ahead and read some of the chapter.”

“The following is Liezi's view of life. He starts by saying how ‘Pain and sickness, sorrow and suffering, death [of relatives] and worry and fear’ take up so much of one’s life.’ Then he asks, ‘This being the case, what is life for?’ “

“If he were Sartre he might say it’s not ‘for’ anything other than what you choose to make of it.”

“But he has a negative view anyway. He says, ‘Being alone ourselves, we pay great care to what our ears hear and what our eyes see, and are much concerned with what is right and wrong for our bodies and minds. Thus we lose the great happiness of the present and cannot give ourselves free rein for a single moment. What is the difference between this and many chains and double prisons?’”

“The Buddhist view to be sure! Life is suffering.”

“He goes on, sounding Daoist to me, ‘Men of great antiquity knew that life meant to be temporarily present and death meant to be temporarily away. Therefore they acted as they pleased and did not turn away from what they naturally desired. They would not give up what could amuse their own persons at the time. Therefore they were not exhorted by fame. They roamed as their nature directed and would not be at odds with anything.’”

“Chan calls this Daoism?”

“He calls it ‘negative Daoism’. He says this compilation of writings came about because, as many scholars suggest, ‘that at the time of political chaos in the third century, some writers, trying to escape from intolerable situations, utilized the names of Liezi and Yang Zhu and took refuge under the purely negative aspects of Daoism.’”

“That political chaos was occasioned by the fall of the Han Dynasty in 220 AD and the contentions of three kingdoms fighting each other to build up an Empire again (the states of Shu, Wu and Wei.) Wei finally won out and set up the Jin Dynasty which lasted until 420 AD. Just thought you would like to know the history.”

“Thanks for the info Karl. I have one last quote from Yang here; ‘Yang Zhu said, “The myriad creatures are different in life but the same in death. In life they mat be worthy or stupid, honorable or humble. This is where they differ. In death they all stink, rot, disintegrate, and disappear. This is where they are the same. However, being worthy, stupid, honorable or humble is beyond their power, and to stink, rot, disintegrate, and disappear is also beyond their power. Thus life, death, worthiness, stupidity, honor, and humble station are not of their own making. All creatures are equal in these, [that is, they all return to nature]. The one who lives for ten years dies. The one who lives for a hundred years also dies. The man of virtue and the sage both die; the wicked and the stupid also die. In life they were (sage-emperors) Yao and Shun; in death they were rotten bones. Thus they all became rotten bones just the same. Who knows their difference? Let us hasten to enjoy our present life. Why bother about what comes after death?”...’.”

“Spoken like a true Daoist, or perhaps, a contemporary secular humanist. What do we have from the rest of the Liezi?”

“Chan has two sections so we can get a ‘feeling tone’ from Lie’s philosophy.”

“A ‘feeling tone’? An interesting term you lifted from Christopher Caudwell’s Illusion and Reality.”

“Actually I lifted it from you Karl. You use it a lot when we discuss art and I know you like Caudwell.”

“Its a good term Fred. In art or philosophy or a poem, when you experience these things, besides their rational content they should also provide a ‘feeling tone.’ Caudwell, a major Marxist thinker, maintained that all our experience is a fusion of objective and subjective reality. I would say the larger our intellectual and emotional consciousness, the larger our understanding of the world. We have a larger intellectual world and a world of feeling tones (i.e., of emotional responses) for having studied Chinese philosophy as well as Western philosophy.”

“That’s why I said ‘feeling tone’ Fred. The type of feeling tone in this case is not just ‘pure’ emotion but a feeling we get from rationally directed emotional understanding. Reason ruling emotions in a Platonic or Spinoza sense. Does what follows ‘feel’ like Daoism from what you know about it. If it does and we can rationally explain why then our emotions and reasons are harmonious.”

“We are getting too far afield here Fred. Read the passages.”

“This is from the one on ‘Skepticism.’ We have a discussion between King Tang of Yin [part of the Shang Dynasty] and his minister Xia Ji. The King wants to know about the existence of the past and asks ‘don’t things have before or after.’ Xia Ji tells him ‘There is no ultimate in the beginning or end of things. The beginning may be the end and the end may be the beginning. Who knows their order? As to what exists outside of things or before the beginning of events, I do not know.’ Next King Tang asks, ‘Is there any limit to the above, the below, or the eight directions?’ Xia Ji responds, ‘If there is nothing, then it is infinite. If there is something, then there must be a limit. How do I know?’”

“Looks to me like King Tang should get a new minister since Xia doesn't know anything.”

“Very funny Karl. But this is the nature of skepticism. I think Xia is trying to make the point that people, even kings, ask a lot meaningless questions that don’t have much to do with the important things in life. Here is a more practical question. The King wants to know what the world outside of China is like. Xia tells him the world outside China is just as the same as China. He knows from traveling around many places and talking to people from remote places. He then speculates, ‘ From this I know the regions within the four seas, the four wildernesses, and the four outermost regions are no different. Thus the lesser is always enclosed by the greater, and so on without end. Heaven and earth, which enclose the myriad things, never reach a limit. Likewise, the enclosing of heaven and earth never reaches an end. How do I know that there is not a greater universe outside our own? This is something I do not know?’”

“He has the same basic ignorance of the ultimate nature of reality as do our contemporary speculative cosmologists.”

“That he does. He ends by saying, ‘Those who maintain that heaven and earth are destructible are wrong and those who maintain that they are indestructible are also wrong. Whether they are destructible or indestructible, I do not know.’ He adds, however, that practically speaking this type of knowledge doesn’t affect our lives. ‘However, it is the same in one case and also the same in the other.’ In other words what difference does it make to us if, to use a modern example, the Sun explodes in four billion years or not!. Socrates also didn’t have much interest in cosmological speculations”.

“This is a bit like Confucius’ refusal to discuss abstract metaphysical problems divorced from the real world. In Lie it is called ‘skepticism.’ The feeling tone I am getting is that Daoists shouldn’t bother themselves with such questions.”

“What do you think of this last excerpt on ‘Fatalism’? ‘Effort said to Fate (Ming, Destiny), “How can your achievement be equal to mine?” “What effect do you have on things,” replied Fate, “that you wish to compare with me?” “Well,” said Effort, “longevity and brevity of life, obscurity and prominence, honorable and humble stations, and poverty and richness, are all within my power.”’ Effort is making quite a claim here. I guess we like to think these things may be in our control. But Fate produces examples along the line of ‘why do bad things happen to good people’ if it’s all due to Effort. Finally Fate says, ‘If what you mentioned were all within your power, how is it that one enjoyed longevity while the other suffered brevity of life [i.e., wicked King Zhou vs.Yan Hui, Confucius’ favorite student, who died young), that the sage was obscure while a violator of virtue was in a prominent position, that the worthy had a humble station while the stupid enjoyed honor, and that the good were poor but the wicked were rich?’ Then ‘Effort said. “If, as you say, I have no effect on things, then are things, being what they are, the result of your control?” “Since you already speak of it as fate,” replied Fate, “how can there be any control? As for me, if a thing is straight, I push it straighter, and if it is crooked, I let it remain so. Longevity, brevity of life, obscurity, prominence, humble and honorable stations, and richness and poverty all come of themselves.”’”

“Well, Fred, it looks like Effort gets kicked out of the picture entirely. Perhaps it would be better for us, as opposed to Lie, to agree that Fate pushes things along or leaves them alone, but that Effort joins in on the side of agents so that Effort is also present when the results ‘all come of themselves.’ “

“That makes more sense to me Karl, and I don’t want to get into a big discussion on ‘freedom vs. determinism’, but what you propose is NOT the negative Daoism of the Liezi.”

“C’est la vie.”

“Well it’s getting Late, Karl. How about we study another Neo-Daoist around this time tomorrow, namely Guo Xiang”.

OK, next up, Guo Xiang”.

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.
To read the Doctrine of The Mean Dialogue click here. 
To read the Book of Changes Dialogue click here.
To read the Dong Zhongshu Dialogue click here.
To read the Wang Chong Dialogue click here.

“Well Fred, are we ready to discuss our next Chinese thinker?”

“You mean Wang Chong? I am, but maybe you should put him in context. I’m not really familiar with the historical background. Chan [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy] speaks of the ‘Western Han’ period from 206 BC to 8 AD and the ‘Eastern Han’ period from 25 to 220 AD. Wang was living in this latter period, but there is a gap of sixteen years! “

“I’ll give you a brief update from where we left off in the Qin Dynasty. “

“I remember the Qin Dynasty from our discussion on the Legalists.”

Karl walked over to his book case and pulled down a blue paperback. “I’m going to base this on Jacques Gernet’s A History of Chinese Civilization. I read this book a few years ago when my TV was in the shop.”

“Fill me in.”

“Basically it goes like this. In the 3rd Century BC the Qin Kingdom expanded and conquered the six or seven other major independent states in China and by 221 BC had established the first historical empire in Chinese history [in the sense of complete centralized control]. The Qin ruler, King Zheng, then called himself huangdi which we translate as ‘emperor’ or ‘august sovereign.’ Notice the word ‘august.’ By choosing to translate huangdi based on the title of Augustus Caesar we assimilate Chinese reality to a Western understanding. But no harm done in this instance. Huangdi is the title of the Chinese supremo so we translate it ‘emperor.’ King Zheng is known as the first [shi] emperor so we call him by the name Shi Huangdi or Qin Shi Huangdi which was shortened to Qin Shi Huang, First Emperor (of Qin). He lived from 259 to 210 BC. He died prematurely, please note, from taking Daoist [religious not philosophical ] elixirs for youth and longevity so this should remind us, especially the Daoists among us, not to mess with Mother Nature!”

“Get on with it!”

“The Legalists, as you remember, influenced  Qin Shi Huang  (First Emperor) who was fairly intolerant. He thought that in order to hold his empire together everyone should basically think the same way-- his way.”

“We’ve seen how successful that tactic is!”

“In 213 BC First Emperor ordered the destruction of all books (he kept copies for his files) in order to get rid of different ways of thinking. So there was a big bonfire in his capital city Xianyang. He also wiped out all his critics that he could find. But he overdosed on his Daoist potion three years later and his son became emperor (Second Emperor). By the way, that big terra cotta army that has become so famous of late, as a big Chinese tourist attraction, that’s from the recently discovered tomb of First Emperor.”

“Oh yeah! That’s a famous discovery. You see stuff about the terra cotta army everywhere.”

“To make a long story short, after the death of First Emperor all sorts of revolts and insurrections broke out against Second Emperor and the Qin state was gone by 202 BC. It was replaced by the Han Dynasty founded by Han Gaozu (Liu Bang, one of the rebels). This dynasty lasted until 220 AD with one interruption by a usurper named Wang Mang who ruled from 9 to 23 AD. Wang Chong lived right in the middle of this period, more or less, from c. 27 to 100 AD or so.”

“Are we ready to get into his philosophy now?”

“Almost Fred. I just need to point out that after the book burning of 213 BC a new script for writing developed and all the texts that survived were copied or reconstructed with this script. This was called ‘new text’ and, please note, that Dong Zhongshu’s philosophy was developed on the basis of the new texts.”

“So?”

“So this. Under the Emperor Wudi (147-87 BC) a big discovery was made of a cache of the ancient Chinese classics from before the Qin period. They were found hidden in Confucius’ old house! These were written in the old script and a school grew around them called the Old Text School.”

“I see. There were differences between the same works depending on whether they were old texts or new texts.”

“That is exactly right. The upshot of all this is that the mystical magical tendencies of Dong derive from the new texts. Wang Chong based himself on the old texts and these became the orthodox version of the classics. Here is what Gernet says (p.165)-- i.e., ' that the victory, after the Han period, of the old texts ‘was to cause the almost total disappearance of the vast esoteric literature of the Han period, and it was only in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that certain scholars and philosophers took it into their heads to rehabilitate the forgotten tradition represented by the works of Dung Zhongshu and others.”

“So Dong really is only of historical interest.”

“Yes, and I should note Wang Chong was dormant as well until a couple of centuries ago. Now, Fred, what have you got there on Wang Chong?”

“Here is what Chan [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy] says, and I’m glad for the digression into history-- it makes Chan a little clearer. He lists six characteristics of Wang’s intellectual environment. 1.) Dominance of Confucianism-- thanks to Dong Zhongshu by the way. 2.) The Yin-Yang mysticism had corrupted Confucianism into less than rational positions-- also thanks to Dong. 3.) Man and Nature were reciprocally influencing one another. 4.) Omens and unexplained events were to be interpreted in the light of #3. 5.) Heaven had ends and purposes but it was ‘not anthropomorphic.’ It’s ‘will’ could be determined by omens and such. 6.) Spiritual beings abounded and could also influence us by means of signs and wonders. ‘Wang Chong rose in revolt against all these prevalent beliefs. He was a new Xunzi!’”

“Yes, he is considered a rationalist or a naturalist according to what I’ve read. But I don’t think he surpasses Xunzi.”

“OK. The quotes I’m going to read to you all come from Wang’s book The Balanced Inquiries, or Lunheng.”

“Lets hear them!”

“This is called ‘On Original Nature’-- chapter 13: ‘Man’s feelings and nature are the root of government by men and the source of ceremonies and music. Therefore as we investigate the matter, we find that ceremonies are employed to check the excess of the nature and feelings and music is used to regulate them. In man’s nature there are the qualities of humbleness, modesty, deference, and compliance. Hence ceremonies have been instituted to adjust them to their proper expression. In men’s feelings there are the qualities of like and dislike, pleasure and anger, and sorrow and joy. Hence music has been created to enable their feelings of reverence to be expressed everywhere. Nature and feelings are therefore the reason why systems of ceremonies and music have been created.’”

“Good explanation, but sounds Mencian rather than like Xunzi.”

“He continues: ‘Shi Shi of the Zhou ( Zhou Dynasty: 1111-249 BC) maintained that in nature some are born good and some are born evil. Take the good nature and cultivate it, and goodness will develop. Take the evil nature and cultivate it, and evil will develop. Thus in nature some belong to yin (passive cosmic force) and some belong to yang (active cosmic force), and some are good and some are evil. It all depends on cultivation.’ So he has influences from Mencius and Xunzi.”

“ Shi Shi was a third generation Confucian, but I don’t go for some are born good and some evil. I’m holding out for nurture not nature. I agree with Wang about ‘cultivation’ but I think in general we are born neutral and we turn out as we are cultivated in whatever society we are born into.”

“Well Wang seems to like Shi Shi as he goes on to maintain that both Mencius and Xunzi are wrong about human nature being at birth one (good) or the other (evil). He also attacks Dong Zhongshu’s position that Mencius and Xunzi were both correct as the former was talking about yang (nature) and the latter about yin (feelings). But Wang thinks it’s more complicated as both nature and feelings are a mixture of yin and yang.”

“Well, so much for my speculations, how does Wang resolve all this?”

“His thesis is: ‘The truth is that in nature, some people are born good and some born evil. It is just as some people’s capacity is high and some people’s is low.’ And so he concludes, ‘At bottom I consider Mencius’ doctrine of the goodness of human nature as referring to people above the average, Xunzi’s doctrine of evil nature of man as referring to people below the average, and Yang Xiong’s (53 BC - AD 18) doctrine that human nature is a mixture of good and evil as referring to average people.’”

Y”ang Xiong?”

“Chan has a little three page chapter on him right before Wang. He is mostly remembered for the theory that Wang mentions.”

“There seem to be a lot theories about this Fred, and they all seem non-verifiable. Anyway, since all the sages agree that it is education that brings about the correct activity all the theories are practically equivalent. A pragmatist would think they are all the same in the long run.”

“Chan has a comment on this as follows: ‘Wang’s own theory is new but it is not a real advance, for the presence of either good or evil is not explained. In accepting Yang Xiong’s theory of mixture as referring to average people, he seems to believe in three grades of human nature.... However, his main thesis is dualism. Inasmuch as the Western Han period is characterized by a dualistic approach to human nature, in terms of good nature and evil feelings, Wang’s own dualism, in terms of good and evil natures, shows little progress.’”

“So we have a dualism of some sort-- either of natures or of nature versus feelings?”

“Thus far Wang hasn’t particularly distinguished himself. I will now turn to ‘On Spontaneity’-- his chapter 54.”


“OK.”

“He says, ‘When the material forces (qi) of Heaven and Earth come together, all things are spontaneously produced, just as when the vital forces (qi) of husband and wife unite, children are naturally born. Among the things thus produced, blood creatures are conscious of hunger and cold. Seeing that the five grains are edible, they obtain and eat them. And seeing that silk and hemp can be worn, they obtain and wear them. Some say that Heaven produces the five grains in order to feed man and produces silk and hemp in order to clothe man. This is to say that Heaven becomes a farmer or a mulberry girl for the sake of man. This is contrary to spontaneity. Therefore their ideas are suspect and should not be followed.’”

“This must be the aspect of his thought that leads to his being called a naturalist.”

“I think you are correct Karl. He continues, ‘Let us discuss these concepts according to Daoism. Heaven (Tien, Nature) gives forth and distributes material force universally into all things. Grains overcome hunger and silk and hemp save people from cold. Consequently people eat grains and wear clothing of silk and hemp. Now, that Heaven does not purposely produce the five grains and silk and hemp in order to feed and clothe man is very much like the fact that there are calamities and strange transformations but not for the purpose of reprimanding man. Things are spontaneously produced and man eats them and wears them, and material forces spontaneously change [in strange ways] and people are afraid of them. To talk otherwise may be agreeable to the minds of people. But if lucky influences from Heaven are intentional. where would spontaneity be, and where would non-action (wu wei) be found?’”

“It looks like his naturalism stems from his study of Daoism. But this is also the Confucianism of Xunzi or at least very similar to it .”

“Listen to this: ‘Someone asks: Man is born from Heaven and Earth. Since Heaven and Earth take no action [that is, Karl, they just are as they are] and since man is endowed with the nature of Heaven [and Earth] , he should take no action either. And yet he does take action. Why?’”

“A good Daoist question Fred. What does Wang say?”

“He says, ‘I reply: A person who is rich and pure in perfect virtue is endowed with a large quantity of vital force and is therefore able to approximate Heaven in being spontaneous and taking no action. Those who are endowed with little vital force do not follow moral principles and do not resemble Heaven and Earth. They are therefore called unworthy. By that is meant that they are not similar to Heaven and Earth. They are therefore called unworthy. Since they do not resemble Heaven and Earth, they do nor belong to the same class as sages and worthies and therefore take action.’ And he concludes, ‘Heaven and Earth are like a furnace. Their work is creation. Since the endowment of the vital force is not the same in all cases, how can all be worthy?...’”.

“I have a problem with Wang about this Fred.”

“What is it?”

“I don’t like the idea of transmission of virtue or worthiness being based on Nature. I understand that people are worthy and unworthy but I’m not going to grant that it is due to their original vital force given at birth by Heaven or some such idea. I don’t see that the view that some people are born good and some evil is actually an advance on Mencius or Xunzi. They at least don’t break humanity into two contrary groups-- the worthy and the unworthy based on what we today would call hereditary principles. Except in rare and unusual instances Mencius and Xunzi at least hold to the basic unity of humanity. We can all be sages with the right education in both of their systems. But in Wang’s I don’t see that this is the case. There is a ‘class’ of sages and worthies based on an original endowment of vital force. However progressive Wang is with regard to rejection of spirits and omens, etc., he is definitely a social reactionary with regard to his ideas on the origin of a ‘class’ of worthies.”

“I tend to agree with you about this Karl. But let’s see what else Wang has to say.”

“Go on.”

“He says, ‘The way of Heaven is to take no action. Therefore in the spring it does not act to start life, in summer it does not act to help grow, in autumn it does not act to bring maturity, and in winter it does not act to store up.... When we draw water from wells or breach water over a dam in order to irrigate fields and gardens, things will also grow. But if rain falls like torrents, soaking through all stalks, leaves and roots, in an amount equivalent to that in a pond, who would prefer drawing water from wells or breaching water over a dam? Therefore to act without acting is great. ‘”

“I get it Fred. If we just follow nature things will work out for us. But, you know, sometimes we are forced to act whether we like to or not. Wang’s Daoist view, however, does have a lot of merit. Look what our economic system based on private profit is doing to the environment!”

“Here is Chan’s comment about all this. ‘The net effect of Wang Chong’s naturalism is to depersonalize Heaven and to deny the existence of design in any form. One would expect that his rationalism and naturalism would promote the development of natural science in China. Joseph Needham, however, has suggested that instead of fostering the development of science, Wang actually deterred it, for according to Needham [Science and Civilization in ], there must be a lawgiver before there can be natural laws. If Wang Chong were alive, the first question he would ask would be, “What is your evidence to prove it?”’”

“And quite rightly so Fred. Needham misses the ball here. Xunzi had the same idea about Heaven and Naturalism before Wang came along so why didn’t he get blamed for retarding science? The reason is that major intellectual events such as the growth and development of science are not due to this or that individual but to the circumambient cultural forces of a given historical environment in toto.”

“So you don’t need a ‘lawgiver’?”

“I don’t think so, but at least the notion of regularity such as the non-personal nous postulated by Anaxagoras. ‘Spontaneity’ may be a confusing concept from the scientific point of view if it implies that there is no regularity involved, which I don’t think is what Wang and the Daoists mean.”

“Now we come to his ‘Treatise on Death’, his chapter 62. We have a view similar to that of Epicurus! Wang says, ‘People today say that when men die they become spiritual beings (gei, ghosts), are conscious, and can hurt people.... If a man has neither ears nor eyes (senses), he will have no consciousness.... When the vital forces have left man... [The whole body] decays and disappears. It becomes diffused and invisible, and is therefore called a spiritual being (gei shen, earthly and heavenly spirits).... When a man dies, his spirit ascends to heaven and his flesh and bones return (gei) to earth, and that is why an earthly spiritual being (gei) [and a heavenly spiritual being (shen) ] are so called. To be an earthly spiritual being (gei) means to return (gei) .... To be a heavenly spiritual being (shen) means to expand (shen). When the expansion reaches its limit, it ends and begins again. Man is born of spiritual forces. At death he returns to them. Yin and Yang are called gei shen. After people die, they are also called gei shen).... After a man dies he does not become a spiritual being, has no consciousness, and cannot speak. He therefore cannot hurt people.’”

“Today we would call that a secular humanist position.”

“Chan also has additional selections of Wang’s views. This one, from Chapter Five, concerns ‘Accidents vs. Necessity’: ‘Crickets and ants creep on the ground. A man lifts his foot and walks across it. Those crickets and ants he steps on are pressed to death, whereas those he does not step on remain completely alive and unhurt. When fires sweep through wild grass, that which has been pressed down by wheels does not burn. Some ordinary folks are delighted and call it lucky grass. Now, what the feet do not step on and what the fire does not reach are not necessarily good, for the lifting of the foot and the spread of the fire are accidental.’”

“So what goes down, goes down not as a result of Heaven’s ‘plan’ it’s just sort of random-- i.e., accidental. He doesn’t mention necessity at all in what you read Fred. This more than anything might explain the failure on his part to have stimulated the growth of science, not, as  Needham said, the lack of a ‘law giver’. We are like crickets and ants in the face of Nature.”

“This is his view on ‘Strange Phenomena’ -- chapter 43: ‘As the ruler acts below, the material force of Heaven comes after man accordingly. But I say: This is also doubtful. For Heaven can activate things, but how can things activate Heaven? Why? Because man and things are bound by Heaven and Heaven is the master of man and things.... Therefore man living in the universe is like a flea or louse being inside a garment or a cricket or an ant inside a hole or a crack. Can the flea, louse, cricket, or ant, by being obedient or disobedient, cause the material force inside the garment or the hole to move or to change? Since the fleas, louse, cricket, or ant cannot do so, to say that man alone can is to fail to understand the principle of the material force of things. As the wind comes, trees’ branches swing. But trees’ branches cannot cause the wind.’”

“Crickets and ants again! This is pretty good in some respects for the first century AD. Just think of the kinds of superstition about things like this even today. But there is a down side.”

“And what might that be Karl?”

“The science problem again. It's this passive attitude towards Nature or Heaven. Humans are different from crickets and ants in the Western tradition. We are rational animals says Aristotle. Bacon set out to understand Nature and control it. ‘knowledge is power’,’Nature to be commanded must first be obeyed,’ etc. So we learn about the material force, unlike the crickets and ants, and use it to our advantage. Failure to think in these terms inhibited the development of theoretical science more than a lack of a ‘law giver.’”

“You have a point Karl. Now, another question. Have you ever wondered why bad things happen to good people?”

“Often.”

“Well then, here is Wang on ‘Fate’ (Chapter Six): ‘With respect to man’s appointment of fate, when his parents give forth their vital forces, he already gets his fortunes and misfortunes.’”

“Sounds like genetic determinism! Don’t tell me Wang is a nature over nurture determinist.”

“Hold your horses Karl. Let me finish with Wang’s ideas here. ‘Man’s nature is different from his fate. There are people whose nature is good but whose fate is unlucky, and there others whose nature is evil but whose fate is lucky. Whether one is good or evil in his conduct is due to his nature, but calamities and blessings, and fortunes and misfortunes, are due to fate. Some people do good but get calamities. This is a case of good nature but unlucky fate. Some people do evil but get blessings. This is a case of evil nature but lucky fate.”

“So what can this mean? The transformative power is neglected here-- good and evil is by nature he says. And fate is due to the vital force from the parents? I think I know where he is coming from here, but I see you only have one quote left so let me return to this with a little end presentation I have here.”

“OK. I think we see the philosopher kings putting in an appearance in this last quote. It's from chapter 56 ‘The Equality of Past and Present.’ Here is what he says, ‘The world was well governed in earlier ages because of sages. The virtue of sages earlier or later was not different, and therefore good government in earlier ages and today is not different.... In ancient times there were unrighteous people, and today there are gentleman of established integrity [as in olden times]. Good and evil intermingle. What age is devoid of them?’”

“And that is the end of Chan on Wang?”

“Yes.”

“Well, before we say goodbye to Wang, I want to be sure we have him down pat, as it were, so I will make a few concluding remarks.”

“Go ahead.”

First, I just want to list here the five ‘Major Ideas’ that are attributed to Wang. This list is from Randall L. Nadeau’s article on Wang in Great Thinkers of the Eastern World. The list sums up our discussion.”

“So list the list.”

“OK. 1. Natural events have natural causes. 2. Beliefs in gods, ghosts, and supernatural phenomena are superstitious falsehoods. 3. There is no correspondence between human events and natural phenomena; the processes of nature are not influenced by human behavior and have no moral significance. 4. There is no correspondence between moral virtue and personal destiny; fortune and misfortune are the result of fate. 5. Human nature may be good or evil; those of good nature can become evil, and those of evil nature can become good.”

“Finished?”

“Just about. Our discussion and my list indicate that Wang Chong was pretty much of a rationalist, but he had one weakness of his era.”

“Such as?”

“It appears that number three on the list above may have to be modified since he had a weakness for astrology. Jacques Gernet writes, ‘Criticizing the notion of individual destiny (ming)... he sees the diversity of human destinies as the result of three independent factors: innate physical and intellectual aptitudes, the chance combination of circumstances and accidents, but also-- and here Wang Chong shows how much he remains a prisoner of his age-- the astral influences which acted on the individual at his birth (p.165).’”

“Well then, as they say, ‘his virtues were his own, his vices those of the age.” 

Next UP: The Daoist Liezi whose work dates from around 300 AD.

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.
To read the Doctrine of The Mean Dialogue click here. 
To read the Book of Changes Dialogue click here.
To read the Dong Zhongshu Dialogue click here.

“Well Fred, what do you think of Dong Zhongshu?”

“He doesn’t seem to be as important as the thinkers we have looked at. Chan [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy] says he appears to be of little philosophical value but that he played an important historical role.”

“He’s right about that. Dong lived from around 179 to 104 BC and was a major player in getting the Han Dynasty to adopt Confucianism as the official philosophy of China in 136 BC.”

“I know. Chan says this lasted right up until 1905 AD. I think it was the emperor Wu of Han (r.141-87 BC) who established it.”

“Yes, and Dong was the mastermind behind it all. I’m looking at the Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion and it says Dong constructed his brand of philosophy synthesizing three things.”

“Confucianism and what else?”

“He added ideas from the old Yin Yang School based in the Yi jing mixed together with ideas about the five elements (wuxing)—i.e., water, fire, wood, metal and earth.”

“Sort of like Empedocles’ four elements in Ancient Greece-- only adding wood and metal and not having air.”

“This was originally a separate philosophical tradition based on the energy transformations of the five elements but by the time of the Han Dynasty it had been subsumed into the Yin Yang School.”

“Chan says he based himself on the Spring and Autumn Annals supposedly written by Confucius! His own work, a collection of brief essays on various topics, he called Chūnqiū fánlù: Luxuriant Gems of the Spring and Autumn Annals. Chan says his fame as a great Confucianist lasted for hundreds of years.”

“Why don’t you read some of the quotes I see you have taken down from Dong’s Luxuriant Gems and we will see if his reputation is warranted?”

“OK, but don’t be disappointed if he isn’t up to snuff.”

“Get on with it!”

“Here goes. I'm beginning with Dong’s chapter 35 in Chan: ‘The Spring and Autumn Annals examines the principles of things and rectifies their names. It applies names to things as they really are, without making the slightest mistake. Therefore in mentioning [the strange event of] falling meteorites, it mentions the number five afterward [because the meteorites were seen first and their number discovered later], whereas in mentioning the [ominous event of] fish hawks flying backwards, it mentions the number six first [because six birds were first seen flying away and upon a closer look it was found they were fish hawks].’”

“Well, he’s right to emphasize the ‘rectification of names’. Like modern philosophical analysis, Dong thinks philosophical (and practical) problems will solve themselves by proper use of language. But, he violates the PRIME DIRECTIVE [see discussion in the Confucius dialogue in this series] by saying Confucius does this ‘without making the slightest mistake.’ This sounds more like a quasi-religious faith commitment rather than a model for philosophical inquiry. And what's with the backward flying fish hawks?”

“Chan indicates that the original Annals recounts this as an omen-- i.e., that six backwards flying fish hawks flew over the capital of Song in 642 BC.”

“I see. But that is well before the time of Confucius, so I don’t see how Dong could believe that Confucius, the putative author (real author unknown) of the Annals, wrote them without ‘making the slightest mistake.’”

“Next Dong says, ‘It is the mind that keeps the various evil things within so that they cannot be expressed outside. Therefore the mind (xin) is called the weak (ren). If in the endowment of material force (qi) one is free from evil, why should the mind keep anything weak?.... Heaven has its dual operation of yin and yang (passive and active cosmic forces), and the person also has his dual nature of humanity and greed.... [The way of man] and the Way of Heaven are the same. Consequently, as yin functions, it cannot interfere with spring and summer (which correspond to yang), and the full moon is always overwhelmed by sunlight, so that at one moment it is full and at another it is not. This is the way Heaven restricts the operation of yin. How can [man] not reduce his desires and stop his feelings (both corresponding to yin) in order to respond to Heaven? As the person restricts what Heaven restricts, it is therefore said that the person is similar to Heaven. To restrict what Heaven restricts is not to restrict Heaven itself. We must know that without training our nature endowed by Heaven cannot in the final analysis make [the feelings and the desires] weak.’”

“This doesn’t sound too bad. It is the typical Confucian emphasis on training.”

“Chan has a comment here. He says, ‘Dongs own theory is unique: there is goodness in human nature, but it is only the beginning of goodness and it requires training to be realized. His whole emphasis is on education.’”

“I don’t see what is so unique about that. Mencius can be interpreted this way, maybe even Xunzi.”

“As an analogy, Dong says, ‘Therefore man’s nature may be compared to the rice stalks and goodness to rice. Rice comes out of the rice stalk but not all the stalk becomes rice. Similarly, goodness comes out of nature but not all nature becomes good.’”

“Well I guess that is not Mencius. I think Mencius would say the rice stalk is good and that is why the rice is good, unless the rice is spoiled by lack of education or an inadequate social system.”

“Karl, I think Nature, Heaven, is neutral about ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ Here is Dong again: ‘If we inquire into principles according to their names and appellations, we shall understand. Thus names and appellations are to be rectified in accordance with [the principles] of Heaven and Earth.... If we say that nature is already good, what can we say about feelings [which are sources of evil]? Therefore the Sage never said that nature is good, for to say so would be to violate the correctness of the name.’”

“I think that proves your point Fred. Nature is neutral and education is needed. Is Dong more specific?”

“He goes on: ‘It is the true character of Heaven that nature needs to be trained before becoming good. Since Heaven has produced the nature of man which has the basic substance for good but which is unable to be good [by itself], therefore it sets up the king to make it good. This is the will of Heaven. The people receive from Heaven a nature which cannot be good [by itself], and they turn to the king to receive the training which completes their nature.” Christianity: Humans are made in God’s Image - their original nature is good but has been stained by “original sin” so they need Grace from God for them to be good. Somewhat parallel views only the Chinese are more earthbound —the king rather than God.’

“Getting political here! However, this idea of the role of the king reminds me of the philosopher-king of The Republic. The king has political power but the Confucians will advise him so it's not so much the philosopher-king as it is a ‘brain trust’-- a philosopher plus a king. The way it is expressed, however, looks like pandering to the Han emperors.”

“He continues: ‘Now to claim on the basis of the true character of the basic substance of man that man’s nature is already good [at birth] is to lose sight of the will of Heaven and to forego the duty of the king.... Now the nature of all people depends on training, which is external, before it becomes good. Therefore goodness has to do with training and not with nature.’”

“This is not exactly Mencius! I think we can understand now why Xunzi was more influential than Mencius until the Song Dynasty when the Neo-Confucianists brought the latter to the fore.”

“You might be right Karl. We saw that Mencius thinks we are by nature good. Dong seems to deny this, yet he maintains that he is following Mencius! Listen to this quote and tell me if it sounds like Mencius or a mixture of things. ‘Heaven has produced mankind in accordance with its great principle, and those who talk about nature should not differ from each other. But there are some who say that nature is good and others who say that nature is not good. Then what is meant by goodness differs with their various ideas. There is the beginning of goodness in human nature. Let us activate it and love our parents. And since man is better than animals, this may be called good---this is what Mencius meant by goodness. Follow the Three Bonds [ruler-minister, father-son, husband-wife] and the Five Relationships [ uncles, brothers, fellow clansmen, teachers, friends]. Comprehend the principles of the Eight Beginnings [ feelings of commiseration, of right and wrong, of deference and compliance, of shame and dislike which lead to love, righteousness, propriety and wisdom]. Practice loyalty and faithfulness and love all people universally. And be earnest and deep and love propriety. One may then be called good---this is what the Sage meant by goodness.’”

“I think this is back peddling on Mencius' position. Anyway, by the ‘Sage’ Dong means Confucius and this is one way you could plausibly interpret him. The reference to ‘universal love’ recalls the position of Mozi so it’s all very eclectic.”

“Chan notes that, ‘Ever since Han times, in the Confucian ethic, the ruler has become the “standard” of the ruled, and so forth. In view of the fact that to him [Dong] yang is superior to yin [rather than two equal but contrasting forces], it is logical to say that the ruler, who corresponds to yang, is superior to the ruled. The same is true of the other relations. Thus the double standard is put on a natural basis.’” For Dong, it seems, each ruler has his own Little Red Book.

“That is too bad as these relations are socially conditioned with respect to the particular forms they developed in feudal China. They are ‘natural’ only in that sense, i.e., ‘natural’ to the feudal outlook. The influence of yin and yang is, I think, detrimental to this early Confucianism. To update it we would have to get rid of the male (yang) and female (yin) notions and replace them with something along the lines of human reason as yang and passions and instincts as yin (or vice versa if you like). That is to sublate the female-male dichotomy under the general concept of ‘humanity.’ This eliminates the double standard as ‘natural.’”

“What does this remind you of Karl? Dong writes, ‘Confucius said, “A good man is not mine to see. If I could see a man of constant virtue, I would be content.”’”

“Cute Fred. It sounds like Diogenes the Dog in Ancient Greece going about with his lantern searching for an honest man. A cute historical parallel.”

“Now Karl, here is the clincher for you that Dong is not following Mencius.”

“Lets hear it.”

“ Dong says, ‘My evaluation of life and nature differs from that of Mencius. Mencius evaluated on the lower level the behavior of animals and therefore said that man’s nature is good [at birth]. I evaluate on the higher level what the Sage considers to be goodness, and therefore say that man’s nature is not good to start with. Goodness is higher than human nature, and the sage is higher than goodness. The Spring and Autumn Annals are concerned with the great origin. Therefore they are very careful in the rectification of names.’”

“This is my position Fred. I said he was following the way of Xunzi more than of Mencius. This just proves my point.”

“He even goes beyond both Confucius and Xunzi, according to Chan. Listen to this comment: ‘Dong Zhongshu actually departs from Confucius and Mencius in the matter of education. Early Confucianism emphasized self-education, although teachers and rulers are helpful and even necessary. But Dong insists that people by nature and by their very name are in the dark (in sleep) and cannot be good without instructions from the ruler. Then he offers human nature as a justification for authoritarianism. In this he goes even further than Xunzi.’”

“ Well, there is the connection with Xunzi. But now we see why Dong  was so popular with the emperors! Confucius would never have perverted philosophy to justify absolutism, and Mencius even approved of getting rid of a ruler who oppressed the people (too much at least). Now we have Dong saying the Emperor is the Standard! This is just pandering to the Han emperor again. Definitely I agree with Chan that he may be of historical importance but is not really a world class philosopher. Fung isn’t as critical as Chan and he sums up Dong’s program as follows: 'What Dong Zhongshu tried to do was to give a sort of theoretical justification to the new political and social order of his time. According to him, since man is a part of Heaven, the justification of the behavior of the former must be found in the behavior of the latter. He thought with the Yin-Yang school that a close interconnection exists between Heaven and man. Starting with this premise, he combined a metaphysical justification, which derives chiefly from the Yin-Yang school, with a political and social philosophy which is chiefly Confucianist ( Fung, p. 192).' With all due respect to Fung, however, I think Dong’s “Confucianism” was a perversion of the humanistic aspects of Confucius’ thought in support of authoritarianism. We have seen similar perversions of Marxism-Leninism in our own times.

Does that sum it up Fred?”

“Pretty much so Karl. I’m glad you again brought out the point about the Yin and Yang metaphysics. There are a few more points to be made from Dong’s book but because of the outmoded metaphysic he uses I’m going to pass over what Chan has from Dong’s chapter 42, on the five agents (elements), and his chapter 56, speculations about man’s correspondences to Heaven, if that’s alright with you that is.”

“That is fine with me.”

“Just to give you a taste, however, here are some of his views taken from chapter 57: ‘All things avoid what is different from them and follow what is similar to them. Therefore similar forces come together and matching tones respond to each other this is clear from evidence.... For example, when a horse neighs, it is horses that will respond, and when an ox lows it is oxen that will respond. Similarly, when an emperor or a king is about to rise, auspicious omens will first appear [cf. Chan chapter 24 of The Mean] . Therefore things of the same kind call forth each other. Because of the dragon, rain is produced, and by the use of the fan, heat is chased away. Wherever armies are stationed, briers and thorns grow. All beautiful and ugly things have their origins and have their lives accordingly. But none knows where these origins are.’”

“This is really dated emperor propaganda! Anyway he forgot ‘opposites attract’ and that the neighing of horses and the lowing of oxen can just as well attract hungry wolves and bears.”

Chan makes the following remark: ‘The belief in portents is as old as Chinese thought. What is new in Dong Zhungshu is that he explains it in terms of natural law. Instead of expressions of the pleasure or displeasure of spiritual beings, portents are results of the cosmic material forces of yin and yang.’”

“That’s not good enough. Xunzi was a part of this culture and he didn’t talk about omens and such stuff. That is, he regarded them as the product of yin and yang, as natural happenings but not as ‘omens.’ Remember he said that the so-called omens happen all the time and have nothing to do with what happens to us. ‘Of things that have happened, human portents are the most to be feared.’ I remember that quote Fred”

“Yes, the whole discussion is on pages 120-121 of Chan.”

“This makes Xunzi the major figure in philosophy that he was and underscores the view that Dong was only of historical interest and not really such great shakes as a philosopher.”

“Then what do you think of this Karl? ‘When the universe’s material force of yin arises, man’s material force of yin arises in response. Conversely, when man’s material force of yin arises, that of the universe should also arise in response. The principle is the same. He who understands this, when he wishes to bring forth rain, will activate the yin in man in order to arouse the yin of the universe. When he wishes to stop rain, he will activate the yang in man in order to arouse the yang of the universe. Therefore the bringing forth of rain is nothing supernatural. People suspect that it is supernatural because its principle is subtle and wonderful.... In all cases one starts something himself and other things become active in response according to their kind. Therefore men of intelligence, sageliness, and spirit introspect and listen to themselves, and their words become intelligent and sagely. The reason why introspection and listening to oneself alone can lead to intelligence and sageliness is because one knows that his original mind lies there. Therefore when the note of F is struck in the seven-stringed or twenty-one stringed lute, the F note in other lutes sound of themselves in response.’ So, what about that?”

“Well, he says this is not supernaturalism and that is a plus, but it is still prescientific. The idea that we can cause it to rain by activating our yin to resonate with the yin of the universe sounds like sympathetic magic to me. I think we should also note the term ‘original mind’ that Dong uses when he maintains that we can become sagely by introspection. This is not original Confucianism. Confucius liked to study and putter around in old books. This idea of introspection, perhaps even of meditation, has a mystical air about it. It seems Daoist or even Buddhist, although I think Dong is too early to have been influenced by Buddhists.”

“Oh yeah, I think so. Dong died around 104 BC. That’s a hundred years before Buddhism in China”

“Well then, only Daoist I guess.”

“Listen Karl, I disagree with you about the original mind. I think we can look at that concept as what we are potentially as rational beings. The sage should be able, as Xunzi, to see what is our essential nature versus what we are by means of cultural construct. I don’t think this is too advanced a way of looking at things for really bright Confucians even if Dong himself may not have this in mind.”

“I can go along with that Fred.”

“Now Chan adds some extra sections from Dong’s book. This is from chapter 13 ‘The Origin’”:

It is only the Sage who can relate the myriad things to the One and tie it to the origin. If the source is not traced and the development from it followed, nothing can be accomplished. Therefore in the Spring and Autumn Annals the first year is changed to be called the year of yuan (origin). 
The origin is the same as source (yuan). It means that it accompanies the beginning and end of Heaven andEarth. Therefore if man in his life has a beginning and end like this, he does not have to respond to the changes of the four seasons. Therefore the origin is the source of all things, and the origin of man is found in it. 
How does it exist? It exists before Heaven and Earth.
 Although man is born of the force of Heaven and receives the force of Heaven, he may not partake [of] the origin of Heaven, or rely on its order and violate what it does. Therefore the first month of Spring is a continuation of the activities of Heaven and completing it. 
The principle is that [Heaven and man] accomplish together and maintain the undertaking. How can it be said to be merely the origin of Heaven and Earth? What does the origin do? How does it apply to man? If we take the connections seriously, we shall understand the order of things. 
The Sage [Confucius] did not want to talk about [the behavior] of animals and such. What he wanted to talk about was humanity and righteousness so as to put things in order….’”

“The ‘One’! This is interesting metaphysics. Monism was popular in India and the West at this time too. Dong seems to say at the start that Confucius (the ‘Sage’) can relate the One and the ‘origin’ but he at last remembers that Confucius, like Socrates and Buddha, did not go into ultimate ontological questions-- ‘he wanted to to talk about... humanity and righteousness’-- i.e., he was interested in ethics and politics.”

“Well, Chan comments on that quote and says Dong was casting Confucius in the role that Jesus played in the West: ‘a bridge between god and man.’”

“That’s really stretching it Fred! In the first place, Christians don’t see Jesus as a ‘bridge between god and man,’ he is God! In the second place, there are many people who could be considered ‘bridges’ such as the prophets such as Moses, or John the Baptist, or Mohammed, etc. So I think it a little far-fetched to think Dong’s views of Confucius are analogous to Western views on Jesus. In any case the bridge between humans and God is a bridge to nowhere.

“Here is a quote on ‘Humanity and Righteousness’ from chapter 29. ‘Humanity is to give others peace and security and righteousness is to rectify the self. Therefore the word “humanity” (ren) means others (people, ren) and the word “righteousness” means the self. ... The principle of humanity consists in loving people and not in loving oneself, and the principle of righteousness consists in rectifying oneself and not in rectifying others. If one is not rectified himself, he cannot be considered righteous even if he can rectify others, and if one loves himself very much but does not apply his love to others, he cannot be considered humane....’

“An excellent quote, Fred. It’s very good, very Confucian. I think this should be the motto of every would be sage. Dong has outdone himself here!.”

“Chan indicates that it is new with Dong. The view that ren = love, he says, is characteristic of Confucianism in the Han period and it was introduced by Dong. Chan means the exclusive use of ren = love. He acknowledges that Mozi, Zhuangzi, Xunzi and Han Feizi used ren in that way too, but they also used it with other meanings. Chan says in Dong  ‘it is the meaning.’”

“What else?”

“There are two selections to go. The first is on ‘Humanity and Wisdom’ from chapter 30. ‘What is meant by humanity? The man of humanity loves people with a sense of commiseration.... He does not do anything treacherous or cunning. And he does not do anything depraved. Therefore his heart is at ease, his will is peaceful, his vital force is harmonious, his desires are regulated, his actions are easy, and his conduct is in accord with the moral law. It is for this reason that he puts things in order peacefully and easily without any quarrel. This is what is meant by humanity. What is meant by wisdom? It is to speak first and then act accordingly. It is to weigh one’s wisdom whether to act or not and the proceed accordingly.’”

“At least for all his retrograde ideas compared to the classical Confucians, Dong has the proper attitude towards the type of conduct expected of a philosopher.”

“You like that eh? You think that is how philosophers should be?”

“I really do, Fred. Don’t you think Socrates, Epicurus, and Spinoza, to name just three, would fit this bill?”

“But what about philosophers such as Schopenhauer or Heidegger who seem to have been rotten human beings with hardly a trace of ren? I don’t think they would live up to Dong’s expectations.”

“Well, yes. I shouldn’t be so exclusive I suppose. What I want to maintain is that this is the ideal of the philosopher - sage and one can be a great philosopher without also being a sage.”

“I see. I’m not going down that path with you Karl. I see no end of controversy along it. Chan ends with a quote from chapter 23 explicating Dong’s views on ‘Historical cycles’ but they are so time dependent on the prescientific outlooks of people in the Han Dynasty as to be of no philosophical interest to people today.”

“I agree. I read about his theory of history in Fung. He talks about the movement of history as the rise and fall of dynasties represented by colors-- the Black, White and Red ‘Reigns’ each with its own distinctive ‘powers’. These three reigns go in a cycle B-W-R-B-W-R-B etc. Thus Xia Dynasty -- Shang Dynasty -- Chou Dynasty, etc. The changes come about due to the loss of the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ by one and its gain by another. This is very unilluminating, especially Fung’s musings on the theory whereby we might ‘say that Fascism represents the Black Reign, Capitalism the White Reign, and Communism the Red Reign (p.199).’ Fung adds however, this ‘is only a coincidence.’ But we really can’t use Dong’s mechanical theories today, unlike many of the theories of his great Confucian predecessors.”

OK, Karl, the next philosopher we should discuss is one you will find more congenial, namely Wang Chong and his ‘Naturalism’.”

All right, Wang Chong it is.

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.
To read the Doctrine of The Mean Dialogue click here. 
To read the Book of Changes Dialogue click here.

A Marxist Discussion

“Karl, are you ready to begin going over the Yi jing?”


“That I am Fred. Why don’t you start.”


“Delighted. I can tell you from Chan’s intro [Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy] that he says this book has had more influence in Chinese philosophy than any other classic. He also points out that it had its origin in divination. That is to say, something like tea leaf reading. Only instead of reading dregs in a cup of tea, the ancient Chinese tried to tell the future by tossing tortoise shells into the fire and then, after the fire had cracked them, pulling them out and ‘interpreting’ the meaning supposedly contained in the pattern of cracks. By the time we find it, as a classic, it has considerably evolved from these primitive beginnings. Did you find out anything about it Karl, or should I go on?”


“Just finish up Chan’s intro.”


“Well, the book is based on Eight Trigrams. Each Trigram is made up of a combination whole lines (-----) or broken lines (--- ---). These lines are symbols for such things as ‘Heaven’ or qian which would be three whole lines one on top of the other or ‘Earth’ or kun which would be three broken lines on top of each other. These Trigrams are put together two Trigrams at a time to make a total of sixty-four Hexagrams. Chan says, ‘When the Eight Trigrams, each containing three lines, multiply themselves to become sixty-four hexagrams, they are taken to represent all possible forms of change, situations, possibilities, and institutions. Thus a complex civilization is conceived of as a process of systematic and progressive development which can be traced to its simplest beginning.’”


“Fred, now I will point out that whatever the original use of this book, divination or whatever, by the time of the Han Dynasty all sorts of commentaries and ‘appended remarks’, etc., had been added which were of a philosophical nature. The book then became used as a philosophical text NOT as a tool for fortune telling. The philosophical comments were attributed to Confucius but were actually put into the book long after his time by his so-called followers. Let me read you some comments from Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy by Oliver Leamen. He says the Yi jing ‘can also easily be extended to provide a philosophy of history, which comes out as a kind of political humanism and organic naturalism. It is interesting how a book that deals with the occult structure of the world can have such important use in Chinese metaphysics and ethics.’ He adds, ‘...the Book of Changes has even been detected in the thought of Mao Zedong, especially in his reflections that change is the only constant phenomenon in the universe.’ All this change is brought by the interaction of the two basic energy forces of the universe--the negative Yin and the positive Yang. These two forces are how the Dao manifests itself. Leamen says, ‘the notion of dao is very different from that current among the Daoist philosophers. The version in the Book is of the multiple causes of change in the universe, and are the principles behind the various kinds of productions and creation in the universe. What makes one thing distinct from something else is its dao, which accords with a particular name.’ Please notice that this last implies the importance of the rectification of names which we have discussed before. Finally, he says, "Change is the basic feature of the universe, and the idea that the Yi jing values is that of balance and lack of excess [i.e., The Mean!].”


“Now let’s turn to the text itself and see what we can make of it.”


OK, Fred. Let's go!”


“Chan’s selections are in four parts. This is from the ‘Commentaries’: Hexagram No. 1, Qian (Heaven). ‘Great is qian, the originator! All things obtain their beginning from it. It unites and commands all things under heaven. The clouds move and the rain is distributed, and the various things are evolved in their respective forms. Thus the beginning and the end are profoundly understood, and the six positions of the hexagram [...the hexagram consists of two trigrams, it therefore consists of six lines in their six positions-Chan n.5] are achieved in the proper time.’ Hexagram No. 2, Kun (Earth) . ‘Being straight means correctness, and being square means righteousness.’ Chan’s comment is “The two complementary ethical formulae, seriousness to straighten the internal life and righteousness to square the external life, eventually became the keystone in the method of moral cultivation for many Neo-Confucianists, especially Cheng I (Cheng I-chuan, 1033-1107 A.D.).’ We will get to him later.”


“Well, I can see how the trigrams or hexagrams are being used as jumping off points for general philosophical points without any suggestion of their original use in divination. It’s a cultural accident that the Yi jing is used to stimulate speculation rather than just having a treatise written on these subjects. We must be careful to reflect on the philosophical substance we find in the work and not be distracted by the historical circumstances of the form.”


“I can see that. Here are some views from ‘The “Appended Remarks,” PT. 1.’ ‘Ch.1. Heaven is high, the earth is low, and thus qian (Heaven) and kun (Earth) are fixed. As high and low are thus made clear, the honorable and the humble have their places accordingly. As activity and tranquillity have their constancy, the strong and the weak are thus differentiated. Ways come together according to their kind, and things are divided according to their classes. Hence good fortune and evil fortune emerge. In the heavens, forms (heavenly bodies) appear and on earth shapes (creatures) occur. In them change and transformation can be seen. Therefore the strong and the weak interact and the Eight Trigrams activate each other.’”


“Naturalism at work. Heaven’s laws determine the course of events here below. But this is just a way of saying that universal laws or interactions (yin and yang) are responsible for the development of the world. Heaven = yang and Earth = yin.”


“Chapter 4. ‘The system of Change is tantamount to Heaven and Earth, and therefore can always handle and adjust the way of Heaven and Earth. Looking up, we observe the pattern of the heavens; looking down, we examine the order of the earth. Thus we know the causes of what is hidden and what is manifest.’”


“This looks like the basis of the doctrine of the ‘investigation of things’ which we will see plays a big role in Neo-Confucianism.”


“The chapter continues, ‘The refined material force (qi) [integrates] to become things. [As it disintegrates,] the wandering away of its spirit (force) becomes change. From this we know that the characteristics and conditions of spiritual beings are similar to those of Heaven and Earth and therefore there is no disagreement between them. The knowledge [of spirit] embraces all things and its way helps all under heaven, and therefore there is no mistake. It operates freely and does not go off course. It rejoices in Nature (T’ian, Heaven) and understands destiny. Therefore there is no worry. As [things] are contented in their stations and earnest in practicing kindness, there can be love.... it penetrates to a knowledge of the course of day and night. Therefore spirit has no spatial restrictions and Change has no physical form.’”


“This is beginning to sound mystical. We know from the Analects that Confucius doesn’t philosophize about ‘spirits’ so this is faux Confucianism at work here Fred.”


“Chan says, ‘Exactly what is meant by “spirit” is not clear, but it is surely not the spirit of a deceased person that influences human affairs.... [H]ere it [means] the unfathomable force behind all transformations. Later in Neo-Confucianism it is to be understood purely as the spontaneous activity of yin and yang.’”


“That makes more sense. We should think ‘force’ instead of ‘spirit’.”


“The next quote, from chapter five, backs up what Chan says. ‘Change means production and reproduction. Qian means the completion of forms, and kun means to model after them. Divination means to go to the utmost of the natural course of events in order to know the future. Affairs mean to adapt and accommodate accordingly. And that which is unfathomable in the operation of yin and yang is called spirit.’”


“Please NOTE that by saying divination goes to the utmost in the NATURAL course of events that there is no supernatural claim being made. This is just what is done in science. We try to predict future events, the weather for example, by prognosticating based on previously studied Natural events. Xunzi could go along with this.”


“And Chan makes a small comment to alert us as to what is coming later. ‘The concept of production is new and will form an important part of Neo-Confucianism.’ But now we come to a passage in Chapter 11 which does seem to have an air of ‘fortune telling.’ Listen to this Karl, ‘Therefore kun means closing and qian means opening. The succession of closing and opening constitutes transformation.... Therefore in the system of Change there is the Great Ultimate. It generates the Two Modes (yin and yang). The Two Modes generate the Four Forms (major and minor yin and yang). The Four Forms generate the Eight Trigrams. The Eight Trigrams determine good and evil fortunes. And good and evil fortunes produce the great business [of life]....’”


“Granted that reading about the determination of fortune by the trigrams certainly implies using the Yi jing like a tea cup, still we must remember this is really Han Dynasty superstition masquerading as Confucianism. Nothing in the Analects would lead you to believe Confucius would have written anything like that. Let me just quote one short passage from Fung’s A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol I. ‘The underlying idea in [this] quotation is that all things in the universe follow a definite order according to which they move everlastingly.’ So no ‘fortune telling’ motive need be postulated.”


“OK, on to Chapter 12. Here we have, ‘what exists before physical form [and is therefore without it] is called the Way. What exists after physical form [and is therefore with it] is called a concrete thing.’”


“This reminds me of Hegel’s Science of Logic. Hegel says, ‘This realm [Logic] is truth as it is without veil and in its own absolute nature. It can therefore be said that this content is the exposition of God [the Way] as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature [physical forms] and a finite mind.’ So this book shows the Chinese to have had a metaphysical bent they are not often given credit for!”


“And this brings us to ‘Selections from the “Appended Remarks,” PT. 2.’ I am only going to read some passages from Chapter 5 in this section. ‘It is said in the Change, “Full of anxious thought you come and go. [Only] friends will follow you and think of you.” The Master [Confucius?] said, “What is there in the world to think about or to deliberate about? In the world there are many different roads but the destination is the same. There are a hundred deliberations but the result is one. What is there in the world to think about or to deliberate about?” And Chan makes the following comment about this passage. ‘The idea of a hundred roads to the same destination is a direct expression of the spirit of synthesis which is extremely strong in Chinese philosophy. It is the Confucian version of Zhuangzi’s doctrine of following two courses at the same time.”’


‘Yes, I remember that from our discussion on Zhuang.”


“Let me read this last bit from Chapter 5. ‘The sun and the moon push each other in their course and thus light appears... The winter and summer push each other and thus the year is completed... Contraction and expansion act on each other and thus advantages are produced.’”


“Yes. The point being that we must understand transformation and change. Where do we go from here Fred?”


“This last little section in Chan. ‘Selections from “Remarks On Certain Trigrams.”’


“Well, let’s hear it!”


“The first chapter in this section is full of nonsense about a ‘hidden spiritual intelligence’ that helps the sages in the efforts at divination, all of which we may put down to the credulity of the age. Into this mish-mash are woven the ideas of principle (li), nature and destiny. These concepts, although in this time period tainted with superstition and the ignorant notions associated with the trigrams as predictors of the future, will become the main focus of the later philosophers of the Song Dynasty who create what we call Neo-Confucianism.”


“Maybe Fred, considering the great number of people who believe in astrology, numerology, Bible prophecy, etc., in our own time, we should not be too harsh in condemning the superstitions of the Han Dynasty.”


“Except that in our time it is hoy polloi who believe such nonsense not our educated class.”


“I stand corrected!” 


“Anyway, here is Chan’s comment on all this: ‘The three subjects of principle, nature, and destiny cover practically the whole philosophy of the Neo-Confucian movement. In fact, the movement is called the Philosophy of Nature and Principle. In essence, the teaching is no different from Mencius’ teaching of fully developing one’s mind, knowing Heaven, and fulfilling one’s destiny. But Mencius did not provide the metaphysical basis for Neo-Confucianism as did the Book of Changes. It is also to be noted that unlike the Daoists who require vacuity (xu) of mind for one to become identified with Nature, here Confucianists advocate the fulfillment of one’s own nature to achieve the same objective.’”


“Its too bad they didn’t turn to Xunzi instead of Mencius. The history of Confucianism might have been more progressive. On the other the hand, this is just an after the fact speculation. Historical circumstances no doubt dictated the turn to Mencius.”


“I will end with this--the complete Chapter 2 of Section 4: ‘In ancient times, the sages instituted the system of Change in order to follow the principle of the nature and destiny. Therefore yin and yang were established as the way of Heaven, the weak and the strong as the way of Earth, and humanity and righteousness as the way of man. [Each hexagram] embraced those three powers (Heaven, Earth, and man) and doubled them. Therefore in the system of Change a hexagram is completed in six lines. They are distinguished as yin and yang and the weak and the strong are employed in succession. Thus in the system of Change there are six positions and the pattern is complete.’”


“I see we are well past ‘Ancient Times’ by now. We have left the great classical and formative period of Chinese philosophy and will be dealing with those thinkers who developed philosophy up to the founding of the Neo-Confucian synthesis in the Song Dynasty.”


“That’s right Karl. But I think this period may be interesting in its own light. We will have to plunge in and see!”


“With whom do we start?”


“With a philosopher called Dong Zhongshu, and a movement Chan calls ‘Yin Yang Confucianism.’”

"O.K., Dong Zhongshu next."

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.
To read the Doctrine of The Mean Dialogue click here. 

“Well, Fred, are you ready to begin with the Doctrine of the Mean?”

“Yes, but what is its background?”

“It is one of the Four Books (Analects, Mencius, Great Learning, Doctrine of the Mean) that Zhu Xi (1130-1200) selected as the basis of Confucianism and was used in all the ‘civil service’ tests in China up to modern times. Zhu was in the Song Dynasty [960-1279 AD]. Just as the Great Learning it was originally part of the Book of Rites which, before Zhu Xi’s time, was one of the Five Books which was the original canon of Confucianism (Spring and Autumn Annals, Book of Rites, Book of Changes, Book of History, Book of Odes.) Chenyang Li in Great Thinkers of the Eastern World, says the four main points in this work are 1) heaven and man are one; 2) following our heaven endowed nature constitutes virtue; 3) sincerity is the way of Heaven and of human morality; 4) the way to exemplify the Mean is to become a ‘superior person’ by following the moral ideal. I hope this agrees with what Chan, Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy, has to say!”

“Chan is basically in agreement with that. He says The Great Learning deals with social and political matters, while the Doctrine of the Mean is a discourse on psychology and metaphysics. The Great Learning discusses the mind but not human nature, whereas with the Doctrine of the Mean the opposite is true. The Great Learning emphasizes method and procedure, whereas the Doctrine of the Mean concentrates on reality. The Great Learning is generally rational in tone, but the Doctrine of the Mean is religious and mystical.’”

“From my point of view that makes it less important for our age since we must stress the rational at the expense of the religious and mystical. It is the religious and mystical that is at the root of all the present social upheaval associated with religious conflict and justifications for war. That is to say, the real economic factors responsible for the sad conditions of the present world order are obfuscated and hidden because so many people are under the darkness of religious and mystical beliefs. Therefore, I think Marxists would believe the Great Learning is a much more contemporary book.”

“Interesting comment Karl. Now back to Chan. This is how ‘human nature’ is portrayed in the Doctrine of the Mean : ‘Human nature, endowed by heaven, is revealed through the states of equilibrium and harmony, which are themselves the “condition of the world” and the “universal path.” The Way of Heaven transcends time, space, substance, and motion, and is at the same time unceasing, eternal, and evident.’ And maybe you should not be so critical of it as Chan also points out that it ‘is a philosophical work, perhaps the most philosophical in the whole body of ancient Confucian literature.’”

“You’re right. I spoke too soon. I should give my views after the discussion, not at the start!”

“Well, some modesty at last! Note the Chinese title of this work: zhong yong. Chan says it is translated as ‘mean’ and separately zhong means ‘central’ and yong means ‘universal harmony’. “

“So, this book could just as well be called the Central Universal Harmony . In fact, it has been given other names in translation. Chenyang Li mentions some of them such as The Golden Mean, The Golden Medium, The Mean-in-action, The Central Harmony, and my favorite, used by Ezra Pound, The Unwobbling Pivot.”

“Anyway, Chan says that these terms ‘taken together [mean] that there is harmony in human nature and that this harmony underlies our moral being and prevails throughout the universe. In short, man and Nature form a unity. Here is an early expression of the theory that was to dominate Chinese thought throughout its history.’”

“A big problem. It is true that humanity is a part of Nature so we are law governed as is everything else in Nature--that is the ‘harmony’--but our moral systems do not seem to be something in Nature in quite the same way. It remains to be seen how a moral system can base itself on the laws of Nature and use this for its justification.”

“Finally, Chan says, ‘It is obvious that the Doctrine of the Mean represents an advance over Confucius. It and the Great Learning seem to embody two different ancient Confucian tendencies, just as later Mencius and Xunzi represented two different schools of thought.’”

“Or at least two different styles of Confucianism, Fred. “

“We begin the book with a comment of Zhu Xi: ‘Master Cheng Yi (1033-1107) said, “By zhong (central) is meant what is not one-sided, and by yong (ordinary) is meant what is unchangeable. Zhong is the correct path of the world and yong is the definite principle of the world.” “This work represents the central way in which the doctrines of the Confucian school have been transmitted.”’

“This is the Neo-Confucian view at least. But I will still consult the Analects for what I think is the original Confucian view!”

“This is from Chapter One of the book: ‘What Heaven (Tien, Nature {vide Spinoza}) imparts to man is called human nature. To follow our nature is called the Way (Dao). Cultivating the Way is called education. The Way cannot be separated from us for a moment. What can be separated from us is not the Way. Therefore the superior man is cautious over what he does not see and apprehensive over what he does not hear. There is nothing more visible than what is hidden and nothing more manifest than what is subtle. Therefore the superior man is watchful over himself when he is alone. Before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused it is called equilibrium (zhong, centrality, mean).’ Equilibrium is called the foundation of the world, and when the emotions are aroused they must be measured and kept in balance--this is called ‘harmony.’”

“This is just like Plato in the Republic, Fred. Only Plato calls it ‘justice’ rather than ‘harmony’, but the points are very similar.”
“The book goes on to show that these are the views of Confucius. ‘Zhòngní (Confucius) said, “The superior man [exemplifies] the Mean (zhong yong).”’ And, ‘the superior man maintains harmony [in his nature and conduct] and does not waver. How unflinching is his strength!’”

“This does not sound different from the Confucius we encountered in the Analects.” “Zisi, according to Zhu Xi, compared Heaven and the ‘superior man’ thusly, ‘Great as Heaven and earth are, men still find something in them with which to be dissatisfied. Thus with [the Way of] the superior man, if one speaks of its greatness, nothing in the world can contain it, and if one speaks of its smallness, nothing in the world can split it.’ This was from chapter 12, and Zhu Xi says this vein of thought (‘the Way cannot be departed from’) is the subject for the next eight chapters (through number 20).”

“So, read some of the highlights from these chapters and we will see if it is so!”

“OK, from 13: ‘If we take an axe handle to hew another axe handle and look askance from the one to the other, we may still think the pattern is far away. Therefore the superior man governs men as men, in accordance with human nature, and as soon as they change [what is wrong], he stops. Conscientiousness (Zhong) and altruism (shu) are not far from the Way. What you do not wish others to do to you, do not do to them.’”

“I guess that is ‘the Way.’ Confucius’ version of the ‘Golden Rule’ must be followed not to depart from it! The Negative Golden Rule.”

“This is said of the ‘superior man’ in chapter 14: ‘He rectifies himself and seeks nothing from others, hence he has no complaint to make. He does not complain against Heaven above or blame men below. Thus it is that the superior man lives peacefully and at ease and waits for his destiny (ming, Mandate of Heaven, fate), while the inferior man takes to dangerous courses and hopes for good luck.’”

“Actually, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Who is this speaker, anyway?”

“Zisi, the pupil of Confucius, also his grandson.”

“I thought so. He might be taking Confucius too literally. After all, Confucius did not live in Lu at peace and at ease but went off trekking all over China gathering students and teaching his doctrine!”

“A good point Karl. I would like to know what you say about this so called quote from Confucius given by Zisi.”

“Lets have it!”

“Its from chapter 17. Zisi quotes Confucius as saying, ‘he who possesses great virtue will certainly attain to corresponding position, to corresponding wealth, to corresponding fame, and to corresponding long life. For Heaven, in the production of things, is sure to be bountiful to them, according to their natural capacity.... Therefore he possesses great virtue will surely receive the appointment of Heaven.’” 

“You can be sure, Fred, that whoever wrote this was not Confucius but some boot licking functionary of the Court. After having been kicked around from feudal court to feudal court in his wanderings about China trying to find a position to put his social theories into practice, can you imagine his coming up with ‘great virtue’ leads to a ‘great position’? Or, after the premature death of his most beloved student, Yan Hui, would Confucius spout off about the rewards of ‘great virtue’ resulting in ‘long life?’ No! I am afraid that, as the Analects indicate, Confucius was all too familiar with the tragic sense of life to have come up with this fabrication attributed to him by Zisi. And it is no good reflection on Zhu Xi that he passed over this without comment!”

“If it is the case that Zisi is actually the compiler of the Doctrine of the Mean then I agree."

“That is true too. I don’t want to suggest that this passage was fabricated by the grandson of Confucius! This issue will crop up again when we get into discussions of philosophers in the Han Dynasty and the consequences of all that book burning we mentioned under the Qin Dynasty dictatorship.”

“Here is a quote from chapter 20. Confucius allegedly speaking: ‘government is comparable to a fast growing plant. Therefore the conduct of the government depends upon the men.... Humanity (ren) is [the distinguishing characteristic of] man, and the greatest application of it is in being affectionate towards relatives. Righteousness (yi) is the principle of setting things right and proper, and the greatest application of it is in honoring the worthy.’”

“I think if we refer back to Mozi we will see the problem with this concept of ren which should be a little more universal than indicated. Couldn’t this formulation be a justification for nepotism rather than merit? Again, I doubt it is really from Confucius.”

“Chan makes the following comment about this passage. ‘The sentence “Humanity is [the distinguishing characteristic of] man” is perhaps the most often quoted on the subject of humanity (ren). In Chinese it is ‘ren is ren,’ the first ren meaning humanity and the second referring to man. It is not just a pun, but an important definition of the basic Confucian concept of humanity, for to Confucianism, the virtue of humanity is meaningless unless it is involved in actual human relationships.’”

“I don’t get the difference between ‘humanity’ and ‘man’ in ‘humanity is man.’ That is like ‘a small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.’ It’s the same as A = A. But Chan’s comment is still useful. It at least points out how the Chinese think about the concept of ren.”

“There is more to this chapter Karl. Confucian formulae as it were. Here is one, ‘...the ruler must not fail to cultivate his personal life, he must not fail to serve his parents. Wishing to serve his parents, he must not fail to know man. Wishing to know man, he must not fail to know heaven.’ And: ‘There are five universal ways [in human relations], and the way by which they are practiced are three. The five are those governing the relationship between ruler and minister, between father and son, between husband and wife, between elder and younger brothers, and those on the intercourse between friends. These five are universal paths in the world. Wisdom, humanity, and courage, these three are the universal virtues. The way by which they are practiced is one.’ Nothing about sisters or daughters here. O tempora, o mores.”

“These are certainly dated and show how Confucianism is embedded in the old feudal order. If we updated the ‘five’ to the modern capitalist order we would have the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, between employers and employees, between men and women, between family members, and between friends and strangers. Something like that I suppose. The three universal virtues would remain unchanged.”

“Very good. Now for something called ‘the Nine Standards’: ‘There are nine standards by which to administer the empire, its states, and the families [feudal lords]. They are: cultivating the personal life, honoring the worthy, being affectionate to relatives, being respectful toward the great ministers, identifying oneself with the welfare of the whole body of officers, treating the common people as one’s own children, attracting the various artisans, showing tenderness to strangers from far countries, and extending kindly and awesome influence on the feudal lords.’ And this position is further emphasized a few passages later: ‘There are nine standards by which to govern the empire, its states, and the families, but the way by which they are followed is one. In all matters if there is preparation they will succeed; if there is no preparation they will fail. If what is to be said is determined beforehand, there will be no stumbling. If the business to be done is determined beforehand there will be no difficulty. If action to be taken is determined beforehand, there will be no trouble. And if the way to be pursued is determined beforehand, there will be no difficulties.’ This can be summed up in the following five steps which Chan says ‘could have come from John Dewey.’ “Study it (the way to be sincere) extensively, inquire into it accurately, think it over carefully, sift it clearly, and practice it earnestly.’”

“It is interesting that Chan mentions Dewey the American pragmatist. Dewey was very popular in China in the early 20th Century. Let me read this passage from Reese [Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy] about Dewey’s five steps of inquiry and judge for yourself how these would apply to the study of how to be ‘sincere.’ ‘Inquiry, properly speaking, begins in situations which are indeterminate, disturbed, troubled, ambiguous, obscure, or full of conflict. It is the object of inquiry to transform the indeterminate situation into one which is determinate. Given such a situation, and such an outcome, the intervening steps outlined by Dewey are: (a) locating and defining the problem of the situation; insight is as important in stating the problem as in any subsequent step; (b) setting out the relevant possible solutions to this problem, an “either-or” stage; (c) developing the consequences of the possible solutions, an “if-then” stage; (d) relating these developed alternatives to further observation and experiment; (e) concluding with the alternative which unifies the situation.’[p.128]

“I can see how Chan might think Confucianism could follow these five steps except, perhaps, for experiment which doesn’t play much of a role in the Doctrine of the Mean.”

What’s next Fred?”

“This, from chapter 22, where we have the following sequence--being absolutely sincere = fully developing your nature = fully developing the nature of others = the same for the nature of things = if you can do those things, then you can help in the transformation and nourishing of Heaven and Earth--thus, ‘If they [they = those who became absolutely sincere et. seq.] can assist in the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth, they can thus form a trinity with Heaven and Earth.’ All of this, Chan comments, is ‘another way of saying the unity of man and Heaven or Nature, a doctrine which eventually assumed the greatest importance in Neo-Confucianism.’”

“Well, Neo-Confucianism is still a way off in our discussions. But this points out the central importance of ‘sincerity’ (zheng). Again the equivalence of Heaven = Nature reminds me of Spinoza. “

“Now these next views I know you will not want to accept as genuinely Confucian, neither do I, because when we discussed the Analects we found no trace of popular superstition or unbridled mysticism.”

“What are these views?”

“In chapter 24 we find Zisi speaking of omens and divination and such which the ‘sincere’ man will be especially able to interpret. ‘When calamity or blessing is about to come [for nations and families], it can surely know beforehand if it is good, and it can surely know beforehand if it is evil. Therefore he who has absolute sincerity is like a spirit.’”

“A spirit! The very sort of thing Confucius refused to speculate about! This is further evidence that original Confucianism has been corrupted in this work. We have to be very careful in discussing a work like this so that we can discern the layers of bogus from authentic Confucianism.”

“Perhaps you will accept chapter 25 as more genuine. ‘Sincerity means the completion of the self, and the Way is self-directing. Sincerity is the beginning and the end of things. Without sincerity there would be nothing. Therefore the superior man values sincerity. Sincerity is not only the completion of one’s own self, it is that by which all things are completed. The completion of the self means humanity. The completion of all things means wisdom. These are the character of the nature, and they are the way in which the internal and the external are united. Therefore whenever it is employed, it is done right.’”

“I don’t see a problem with this. Except to note that Fung [p.176] wonders if, in the passage you read, the terms ‘humanity’ [ren] and ‘wisdom,’ ‘should not be interchanged.’”

“Here is Chan’s comment: ‘In no other Confucian work is the Way (Dao) given such a central position. This self-directing Way seems to be the same as the Dao in Daoism. But the difference is great. As Qian Mu has pointed out [in his Si-shu shi-yi (Explanation of the Meaning of the Four Books), 1953], when the Daoists talk about Dao as being natural, it means that Dao is void and empty, whereas when Confucianists talk about Dao as being natural, they describe it as sincerity. This, according to him, is a great contribution of the Doctrine of the Mean. It should be pointed out that with Confucianists, “The Way is not far from man.” Contrary to the Dao of Daoism, the Confucian Dao is strongly humanistic.’ And I will end this passage with the first sentence of chapter 26: ‘Therefore absolute sincerity is ceaseless. Being ceaseless, it is lasting.’”

“So then, let’s forge on to chapter 27.”

“That chapter goes thusly: ‘Great is the Way of the sage!... It waits for the proper man before it can be put into practice. Therefore it is said, “Unless there is perfect virtue, the perfect way cannot be materialized.” Therefore man honors the moral nature and follows the path of study and inquiry.... He is earnest and deep and highly respects all propriety. Therefore when occupying a high position, he is not proud, and when serving in a low position, he is not insubordinate.”’

“This is certainly pro-sage! But I think we can ignore the idea that ‘perfect virtue’ and the ‘perfect way’ are involved with real sages or there wouldn’t be any! Fawning second rate Confucianists may go around thinking of Confucius as a perfect sage but we know that he made errors and mistakes and would be the first to admit as much.”

“Your theory that the sayings of Confucius in this work are sometimes bogus, as you earlier mentioned, gets a big boost from Chan in a footnote to Chapter 28.”

“What do you mean Fred? Let’s hear it.”

“Well, Confucius is quoted as saying something to the effect that the world has standard measurements and standard characters for writing, etc. Chan points out that this was not true in Confucius’ time but happened as a result of the Qin Dynasty [221-206 B.C.]. This means that parts of the Doctrine of the Mean are not older than that time.”

“Yes, that backs up my view about the Confucius quote in Chapter 17 that we discussed. Once you get a ‘feel’ for the Analects you can tell when some so-called Confucian quote doesn’t sound right. Even the Analects has some problems of authenticity, but it is the oldest layer of Confucian thought and I think the ‘real’ Confucius is to be located within its pages in so far as that is possible.”

“In chapter 29 we are told that in order to get rules and regulations, ceremonies, etc. adopted, the person who puts them forth must not be of humble or common origin. ‘The position not being honored does not command credence, and not being credited, the people will not follow them. Therefore the Way of the true ruler is rooted in his own person-
al life and has its evidence [in the following] of the common people.’”

“That isn’t very clear Fred. If the Way is rooted in personal life then ‘low position’ doesn’t have anything to do with it.”

“It goes on, ‘Since it [the Way] can wait for a hundred generations for a sage without a doubt, it shows that he knows [the principles of man]. Therefore every move he makes becomes the way of the world, every act of his becomes the model of the world, and every word he utters becomes the pattern of the world.’”

“That is just nonsensical ‘sage worship’ and is not in the true spirit of Confucius. This is obviously an attempt to establish Confucianism as some sort of official ideology in a post Qin world.”

“If you think that then you will love this encomium to the sage from Chapter 31:
All embracing and extensive as heaven and deep and unceasingly springing as an abyss!
He appears and all people respect him, speaks and all people believe him, acts and all people are pleased with him. Consequently his fame spreads overflowingly over the Middle Kingdom (China, the civilized world), and extends to barbarous tribes. Wherever ships and carriages reach, wherever the labor of man penetrates, wherever the heavens overshadow and the earth sustains, wherever the sun and the moon shine, and wherever frosts and dew fall, all who have blood and breath honor and love him. Therefore we say he is a counterpart of Heaven.

So there you have it Karl..”

“I see. This is the basis almost of a religion. There will be no sages like this. Maybe the Buddha would qualify but this work is too early for Buddhism to have influenced it.”

“I am going to finish up now with some quotes from Chapter 33. Get out your Book of Odes Karl, because there are some quotes from it in these passages.”

“I have it right here Fred.”

“'The Book of Odes says, "Over her brocaded robe, she wore a plain and simple dress, for she disliked the loudness of its color and patterns. Thus the way of the superior man is hidden but becomes more prominent every day, whereas the way of the inferior man is conspicuous but gradually disappears."’”

“This Ode (number 57) says just the opposite of what you read Fred, so some liberty was taken in this quote. Waley translates the passage as ‘A splendid woman and upstanding;/ Brocade she wore, over an unlined coat....’ It is reversed but this does not undermine the philosophical point.”

“’The Book of Odes says, “Although the fish dive and lie at the bottom it is still quite clearly seen.” Therefore the superior man examines his own heart and sees that there is nothing wrong there, and that he is not dissatisfied with himself.’”

“This is number 192 Fred:
The fishes are in the pond,
But they still cannot be happy,
For the deeper they dive,
The clearer they shine.
My grieved heart is deeply saddened
Thinking about the state’s vicious ways.

“Maybe there is more here than meets the eye. Is this an indication that the Confucian philosopher is not really happy serving an unjust state but still tries to do his best to live up to Confucian ideals? But it would be better to withdraw--or would it. This is the problem of giving up your post to protest injustice, but then having no influence, or staying in the hopes of being able to do a little good that otherwise would never get done.”

“’The Book of Odes says, “Though the ceiling looks down upon you, be free from shame even in the recesses of your own house.” Therefore the superior man is reverent without any movement and truthful without any words.’”

“That ode, Fred, is No. 256. In itself it is not as good as the use to which it has been put in your quote. Waley has:
When receiving gentlemen of your acquaintance
Let your countenance be peaceful and mild;
Never for an instance be disolute.
You are seen in your house;
You do not escape even in the curtained alcove.
Do not say: ‘Of the glorious ones
None is looking at me.’
A visit from the spirits
Can never be foreseen;
The better reason for not discussing them.”

“The quote you gave suggests that the philosopher should be upright both in public and private. This is just the proper attitude to have. The ode suggests that you should be so because the ‘spirits’ may be watching! This is a very primitive view and would not be consistent with what we know about Confucius’ attitude toward such supernatural balderdash. There is another part of this long ode that I like so I will share it with you. It is good advice and for the right reason this time. ‘Be always mild and good tempered./ A scratch on a scepter of white jade/ Can be polished away;/
A slip of the tongue/ Cannot ever be repaired.’”

“’The Book of Odes says, “Throughout the sacrifice not a word is spoken, and yet [the worshipers are influenced and transformed] without the slightest contention.” Therefore the superior man does not resort to rewards and the people are encouraged to virtue.’”

“This is ode 302 Fred, and á la Waley the quote is ‘Because we come in silence/ Setting all quarrels aside,/ They [the ancestors] make safe for us a ripe old age....’ I can’t see anything in this ode that makes it relevant to your quote. It is all about ‘rewards’ and sacrifices to the ancestors to get them to do things for the people making the offerings. The conclusion regarding the behavior of the ‘superior man’ and the resulting ‘virtue’ of the people just doesn’t seem related to the subject matter of the ode!”

“It seems odes are quoted out of context just to make a point Karl. At any rate our last quote goes ‘The Book of Odes says, “He does not display his virtue, and yet all the princes follow him.” Therefore when the superior man is sincere and reverent, the world will be in order and peace.’”

“Again, Waley’s version is somewhat different. ‘None are strong save the men of Zhou,/ Every land obeys them./ Nothing so glorious as their power,/ All princes imitate them.’ The power or virtue is on display, else how could they be imitated? Anyway, we are not going to have world peace and order because of the imitation by others of some role model Are you done with Chan?”

“Yes.”

“OK, here is the closing quote from Chenyang Li on the work. ‘The Doctrine of the Mean presents a Confucian system of moral metaphysics and philosophy of moral practice. This work has helped shape Chinese civilization for more than two thousand years, and there is no doubt that it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.’ But I hope people will be a little more critical of some of its views along the lines I have suggested in this discussion.”

“What should we turn to next Karl?”

“I think we should spend some time on Yi Jing or Book of Changes. I know Chan doesn’t devote a lot of space to this work but it is very popular and we should read and discuss it.”

“Fine by me. A Marxist look at the Yi Jing”

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.
To read the Great Learning Dialogue click here.

“Well Fred, I see you are ready to start our new discussion. You seem to have a lot of notes from the Chan book.” [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy]

“That I do, Karl, but what is that big black book you have?”

“This is very useful for anyone interested in Eastern philosophy. It’s edited by Ian P. McGreal and it’s called Great Thinkers of the Eastern World, published in 1995 by Harper Collins. It gives a good outline of the Great Learning and I thought I would go over it before we went over the actual text.”

“That’s fine with me. It’s better sometimes to have an advance outline of what’s coming up before you read the actual text itself. What does your book have to say?”

“This section is by Chenyang Li and he gives the Major Ideas in this book as the following: we have to look for the three aims and the eight steps.”

“Yeah? Well, what are they?”

“OK, ‘The three aims are manifesting one’s luminous virtue, renewing the people, and abiding in perfect goodness.’ While, ‘The eight steps are the investigation of things, extension of knowledge, sincerity of will, rectification of the heart, cultivation of the personal life, regulation of the family, national order, and world peace.’”

“That sounds pretty good Karl.”

“It would take ‘Great Learning’ indeed to do all this. But you know, making allowances for time and clime, these aims and steps could be adapted for our own times, of course with different cultural content in some instances.”

“Now I’m going to turn to Chan, but feel free to break in with anything from Chenyang Li’s presentation whenever you feel like it.”

“Thanks, I will.”

“Chan points out that this work really became important in Neo-Confucianism, that is, in the Song Dynasty--that’s 960 to 1279 A.D.--so we have jumped several centuries into the future from our B.C. philosophers, but this is an old book, it was originally chapter 42 of the Book of Rites but now has an independent existence--its very short-- because the greatest of the Neo-Confucianist thinkers, Zhu Xi, 1130 to 1200 A.D., saw it as the epitome of Confucian thinking. As we said in a former discussion it became one of the Four Books as a result. The ‘three aims’ (Chan calls them ‘items’) and the ‘eight steps’, which make up this book, are called by Chan ‘the central Confucian doctrine of humanity “ren” [仁] in application.... The eight steps are the blueprints for translating humanity into actual living.’”

“Now Fred, I want to bring up this observation. Zhu Xi was a really good Confucian because he wanted all the people to be educated. ‘Zhu Xi believed that the Great Learning was a text not only for the ruler, but for the common people as well.’”

“It should be pointed out that the Chinese title, Da Xue, really means ‘adult education.’ Chan, in a note, says, ‘It means, therefore, education for the good man or the gentleman, or using the word in the sense of “great”, education for the great man.’”

“I see, Fred. I also want to note that Zhu Xi thought this was the FIRST book to be read when beginning to study Confucianism, so we really messed up our discussion order!”

“We should be ok, Karl, just think what a good background we now have!”

“You’re right. Let’s get on with it!”

“It gets a little complicated now, Karl, as the Confucianists emphasize learning but ‘have never agreed on how to learn,’ as Chan says. As a result, he writes, ‘the different interpretations of the investigation of things in this Classic eventually created bitter opposition among Neo-Confucianists. To Zhu Xi, ge-wu meant to investigate things, both inductively and deductively, on the premise that principle (li), the reason for being, is inherent in things. He believed that only with a clear knowledge of things can one’s will become sincere. He therefore rearranged the ancient text of the classic [oops!] to have the sections on the investigation of things appear before those on sincerity of the will. Wang Shou-jen, 1472-1529 A.D., on the other hand, believing that principle is inherent in the mind, took ge to mean “to correct,” that is, to correct what is wrong in the mind. To him, sincerity of the will, without which no true knowledge is possible, must come before the investigation of things. Therefore he rejected both Zhu Xi’s arrangement of the text and his doctrine of the investigation of things, and based his whole philosophy on the Great Learning, with sincerity of the will as its first principle.’”

“Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, Fred. After we do this discussion there are still several centuries to go before we get near to Zhu Xi and Wang.”

“True enough. I’m going to start the Great Learning , Zhu Xi’s edition and with his ‘comments’ now instead of Chan”s.”

“And of course with my pertinent interruptions with Chenyang Li!”

“Of course!”
“So, start!”

“Here are the three aims: ‘The Way of learning to be great (or adult education) consists in manifesting the clear character, loving the people, and abiding (zhi) in the highest good.’ “

“I see that Chan’s translation is a little different than that in my book, Fred. This is one of the little inconveniences we will have to put up with. I don’t think it really hinders our understanding.”

“No, it is easy to make these little translation adjustments. If there is a BIG difference in meaning we will certainly have to have a discussion about it. Shall I continue?”

“By all means!”

“’Those who wished to bring order to their states would first regulate their families. Those who wished to regulate their families would first cultivate their personal lives. Those who wished to cultivate their personal lives would first rectify their minds. Those who wished to rectify their minds would first make their wills sincere. Those who wished to make their wills sincere would first extend their knowledge.’ Now come the eight steps. ‘The extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things. When things are investigated, knowledge is extended; when knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere; when the will becomes sincere, the mind is rectified; when the mind is rectified, the personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, the family will be regulated; when the family is regulated, the state will be in order; and when the state is in order, there will be peace throughout the world.’ And then follows a ‘democratic’ admonition that Mencius and all good Confucians would want to support. ‘From the Son of Heaven down to the common people, all must regard cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation.’”

“I would like to say that despite all the references to ancient Kings and sages we have been thus far exposed to, and taking notice of the objections to this made by the Legalists, it is obvious here that the Great Learning, and thus Confucianism, by stressing the extension of knowledge implies that old models are not really the best models. As knowledge is extended through the investigation of things then society as whole becomes more educated and the people and the state more perfected. This is a completely modern idea. One which the current quasi-Marxist Chinese state could well subscribe to. Chenyang Li says, ‘It should be noted that, in the Confucian view, the state is not a mechanism for balancing various pressure groups of conflicting interests. Rather, it is an enlarged family with mutual trust among its members.’”

“What do you think of that Karl?”

“It is wrong of course. But remember, this is the self-consciousness of the feudal elite living under a totally different type of class system than that produced over the last few centuries by industrial capitalism. States today are so obviously mechanisms for class rule that the Great Learning can not be taken at face value based on the outmoded views of the state that underlie it. Nevertheless, the essential philosophy it delineates can be adapted to modern times. I think, therefore, Confucianism can be harmonized with Marxism. They do not have to be antagonistic. Those Confucians who refuse to see this have turned their backs on the common people, the main concern of Confucius, and are just functioning as mealy mouthed spokespeople for continuing class repression. That's how I think at any rate.”

“I’m almost sorry I asked! But here is a quote that sort of backs up your interpretation. ‘The Book of Odes says, “Although Zhou is an ancient state, the mandate it has received from Heaven is new” Therefore, the superior man tries at all times to do his utmost [in renovating himself and others.]’”

“That’s ode 235 King Wen. He is the King who overthrew the Shang Dynasty. I have Arthur Waley”s translations [The Book of Songs, Grove Press., NY, 1996]. The ode also says, ‘By Zhou [Chou] they were subdued;/Heaven’s charge is not for ever.’ So if you don’t extend knowledge and renovate the people--look out!”

“This is from chapter 6: ‘What is meant by “making the will sincere” is allowing no self-deception, as when we hate a bad smell or love a beautiful color. This is called satisfying oneself. Therefore the superior man will always be watchful over himself when alone.... For other people see him as if they see his very heart. This is what is meant by saying that what is true in a man’s heart will be shown in his outward appearance. Therefore the superior man will always be watchful over himself when alone.... Wealth makes a house shining and virtue makes a person shining. When one’s mind is broad and his heart generous, his body becomes big and is at ease. Therefore the superior man makes his will sincere.’”

“This idea of sincerity is linked to the Confucian ideal of ‘humanity.’ A Confucian pursues ren with single-mindedness, self-cultivation and moral effort. Sincerity comes about by such single-mindedness and that leads to the self cultivation which allows for the perfection of ren. I remember this from Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy by Oliver Leaman (Routledge, 1999).”

“Good memory. Chapter 8 is a little bit hard for me to understand. ‘What is meant by saying that the regulation of the family depends on the cultivation of the personal life is this: Men are partial toward those from whom they have affection and whom they love, partial toward those whom they despise and dislike, partial towards those whom they fear and revere, partial towards those whom they pity and for whom they have compassion, and partial toward those whom they do not respect. Therefore there are few people in the world who know what is bad in those whom they love and what is good in those whom they dislike. Hence it is said, “People do not know the faults of their sons and do not know (are not satisfied with) the bigness of their seedlings.’”

“I think it means that if one cultivates his or her own personal life, that is if he/she rectifies his/her mind according to Confucian philosophy then that person won’t be blinded by these partialities. We should note it was just these kinds of partialities that Mozi thought could only be eliminated by means of universal love, so he probably had the Great Learning in mind when he composed his own philosophy” (Cf Mozi Discussion).

​To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.
To read the Gongsun Dialogue click here.

“So, Fred, are you ready to begin our discussion of the Logicians of ancient China?”

“Yes, I am. First thing we should note is what Chan says about this school [Source Book in Chinese Philosophy]. He points out that ‘logic’ as a special subject was never in vogue in China. No Chinese Aristotle ever developed logic as a separate science. The school we call the ‘Logicians’ (primarily the two thinkers Hui Shih and Gongsun Longzi) was the only one devoted to what we might call ‘logic’ per se and ‘it constituted one of the smallest schools and exercised no influence whatsoever’ on the later development of philosophy in China.” 

“Let me add a few words from Fung Yu-lan [Short History of Chinese Philosophy], Fred. He says the school was founded by the ancient Chinese ‘lawyers.’ Like all lawyers, winning one’s case was more important to them than some abstract ‘truth.’ While the two thinkers you just mentioned were the most famous, there were many lesser lights associated with this movement. They seem to have formed a group analogous to the Sophists in Ancient Greece. What is interesting is that Fung describes the contemporary opinion about one of these (Deng Xi) with almost the same words used in the indictment of Socrates as recorded in Plato’s ‘Apology’. That is, Deng Xi ‘succeeded in changing right into wrong and wrong into right, until no standards of right and wrong remained, so that what was regarded as possible and impossible fluctuated from day to day.’ And Plato wrote that Anytus charged Socrates by saying ‘he makes the worse into the stronger argument, and he teaches these same things to others’ ( ‘Apology’ 19b).”
​
“Chan tells us also that Hui Shih (c. 380-305 B.C.) used to hang out with Zhuangzi. Hui was a relativist holding just the opposite position of his fellow ‘sophist’ Gongsun Longzi who was an ‘absolutist.’ This shows there was no unanimity in this school. The Chinese call it ‘The School of Names’ as the members seem to be squabbling over what names to apply to things. Not much of Hui’s works have survived, just some quotes in other people’s works, especially Zhuangzi’s. As a result of this we can’t make any sense of his writings since what  has come down to us are a lot of paradoxes but none of Hui’s reasons or explanations of them. These writings are so corrupted that it is almost impossible to figure out what they meant.”

“Fung makes the same point.”

“Here is what Zhuangzi said: ‘Hui Shih had many tricks. His books filled five carts. His doctrines are contradictory and his sayings miss the truth.’”

“Before going any further Fred, I want to point out what Fung says is the root of the problem that these thinkers were dealing with. This is the distinction between two Chinese words meaning ‘name’ (ming) and ‘actuality (shih). If we remember that Confucius was interested in the ‘Rectification of Names’, we can see that philosophy must deal with the proper relation between language and reality so that we will not misunderstand the nature of the world by being misled by the use of language to incorrectly describe reality.”

“Well, Karl, here are some of the statements of Hui Shih that have survived. The first one, there are thirty one preserved in the ‘Zhuangzi’,  has a Taoist flavor: ‘The greatest has nothing beyond itself: it is called the great unit. The smallest has nothing within itself; it is called the small unit.’ I will now quote a few more of these propositions from Chan. I have selected those that I think we can make some sense out of in discussion.”

“Lets hear them.”

“Here goes: ‘5.) A great similarity is different from a small similarity; this is called the lesser similarity-and-difference. All things are similar to one another and different from one another; this is called the great similarity-and-difference. 6.) The South has no limit and yet has a limit. 10.) Love all things extensively. Heaven and earth form one body. 21.) Take a stick one foot long and cut it in half every day and you will never exhaust it even after ten thousand generations.’ That's it Karl.”

“That's it? Only four out of the thirty one?”

“If you don’t believe me I’ll give a few examples of the remaining quotes. They are more or less just like these. But first note that the quotes are in two groups of 1-10 and 1-21.All the above quotes except the last come from the first group. The ones I’m giving now come from the second. ‘1.) The egg has hair; 5.) The horse has eggs; 10.) The eye does not see; 15) The shadow of a flying bird never moves; 20.) An orphan colt has never had a mother.’”

“In other words, most of what remains doesn’t make any sense.”

“That's right Karl, and Chan leaves it at that basically. He then moves on to ‘The Gongsun Longzi’.”

“Before we go there, perhaps Fung Yu-lan can throw a little light on Hui Shih. In his ‘Short History’ he maintains that what Hui is trying to do is articulate a theory of relativism. He is, I might add, like Heraclitus ‘the obscure’ whose fragments are also often unintelligible--because they are fragments. Anyway, Fung gives some interpretations, of which I will quote a few, to back up his view. He also leaves many of the positions unremarked, however. Here is what he says about #5 in the first group. If we take people, for instance, (we could take anything) they are similar--being part of the ‘universal’ concept ‘human being’ but also different in each being an ‘individual.’ “Thus since we can say that all things are similar to each other, and yet can also say that all things are different from each other, this shows that their similarity and difference are both relative. This argument of the School of Names was a famous one in ancient China, and was known as the “argument for the unity of similarity and difference”[Fung:1948:86].’”

“Most interesting.”

“Wait, there is more. Look at #6 above, about the limit of the South. Fung points out that the ancient Chinese didn’t know much about the South. They thought it just ‘went on’. Hui Shih probably knew better. At any rate it’s a good example of Fung’s relativity interpretation as , ‘Most probably, however, it means to say that the limited and the unlimited are both only relatively so.’ Also #10 in the first group, about loving all things equally. ‘Hui Shih argues that all things are relative and in a state of flux. There is no absolute difference, or absolute separation among them. Everything is constantly changing into something else. It is a logical conclusion, therefore, that all things are one, and hence that we should love all things equally without discrimination [Ibid., p.87].’ Of course the trouble with this is that everything is also not one (to be a consistent flux- relativist) so we should love everything both equally and with discrimination! To op for just one of the alternatives is to make an absolutist commitment. There, Fred, I have just set you up for Gongsun Long!”

“‘The Gongsun Longzi’ is very brief, only six confusing chapters. I’m going to go over what I got out of it and you can use Fung to explicate what's really going on.”

“I’ll give it a shot.”

“The book is in a question and answer dialogue form just like our discussion. ‘A’ asks questions and ‘B’ gives the answers of Gongsun Long. By the way, he lived around 380 to 305 B.C. just like Hui. His most famous pronouncement is ‘A white horse is not a horse.’ All the quotes are from Chan’s translation. This is from 1) ‘On the White Horse.’ And the reason he says this is,”Because “horse” denotes the form and “white denotes the color. What denotes the color does not denote the form. Therefore we say a white horse is not a horse.’ But since all horses have color ‘A’ asks if there are no horses in the world. He gets this response, ‘Horses of course have color. Therefore there are white horses. If horses had no color, there would simply be horses. Where do white horses come in? Therefore whiteness is different from horse. A white horse means a horse combined with whiteness. [Thus in one case it is] horse and [in the other it is] a white horse. Therefore we say that a white horse is not a horse.’ “

“its beginning to make sense, sort of.”

“It gets better. ‘A’ now says, ‘[Since you say that] before the horse is combined with whiteness, it is simply a horse, before whiteness is combined with horse it is simply, and when the horse and whiteness are combined they are collectively called a white horse, you are calling a combination by what is not a combination. This is incorrect. Therefore it is incorrect to say that a white horse is not a horse.’ Chan says this sentence is unclear.”

“His translation makes sense, but not the logic. It seems as if it means whiteness is not a combination, nor is horse, so you can’t make a combination from two non-combinations but this is just going against the way the word ‘combination’ is used in language.”

“A also makes this critique, “[When we say that] a white horse cannot be said to be not a horse, we are separating the whiteness from the horse. If [the whiteness] is not separated from the horse, then there would be a white horse and we would not say there is [just] a horse. Therefore when we say that there is a horse, we do so simply because it is a horse and not because it is a white horse.’ And the reply by ‘B’ is, ‘The term “horse” does not involve any choice of color and therefore either a yellow horse or a black one may answer. But the term “white horse” does involve a choice of color. Both the yellow horse and the black one are excluded because of their color. Only a white horse may answer. What does not exclude [color] is not the same as what excludes [color]. Therefore we say that a white horse is not a horse.’”


“He is making a distinction between universals. The universal ‘horse’ is different from the universal ‘white horse.’ That is clear. Horse is one universal [general idea] and white horse is a combination of two universals, ‘white’ and ‘horse.’ I get this from Fung’s comments on the Platonic universal which he says is what Gongsun Long has in mind.


This was in his discussion of Chan’s ‘2. On Marks (chih) and Things.’”

“I didn’t go over it because Chan says the text is so corrupt no one can figure out what it actually means.”

“What do you want to go over?”

“This from ‘3. On the Explanation of Change.’ You tell me, what is anyone to make of the following pronouncements? ‘A horse has a mane but both a ram and an ox have none. Therefore I say that a ram and an ox together are not a horse. By that I mean there is no horse [in this case]. As there is no horse, neither a ram nor an ox is two, but a ram and an ox are two. Consequently it is correct to say that a ram and an ox together are not a horse.’ And this is also noteworthy. ‘When we speak of an ox or a ram’s leg [as such], it is one. But when we count their [particular] legs, they are four. Four and one put together make five. Thus a ram or an ox have five legs while a fowl has three. Therefore I say that an ox or a ram together are not a fowl. There is no other reason that [an ox or a ram] are not a fowl.’ And if this is not enough, there is this gem from a discussion about colors. Here he is explaining why white and green don’t mix to become yellow. They have different positions. Here is green, here is white. So they can’t mix because left and right cannot be mixed, ‘Therefore it is impossible to unite [white] with green, nor is it possible to unite [green] with white. Then where does yellow come in? Yellow is a standard color, and can be given as a correct case. This is like the relation between the ruler (corresponding to white) and the minister (corresponding to green) in the state (corresponding to yellow). Hence there are health and long life.’ So what do you make of all this?”

“You know Fred, these paradoxes have often been compared to those of Zeno in Ancient Greece. You know, the arrow can never hit the target because it first has to go half way, but first it must go one quarter way, but first one eighth, etc., ad infinitum so it never gets to go anywhere.”

“So the moving arrow doesn’t move, as Gongsun Long might say.”

“Exactly. These people were just beginning to fool around with logic and the literal meaning of words and the relations of concepts to things. As you noted, formal logical studies never got off the ground in China. If these statements seem nonsensical it is because they are, but not simply due to their being nonsense. These are aborted attempts to come to grips with the relation between language and reality. As Bertrand Russell said in another context ( a critique of Plato’s theory of Ideas): ‘Such troubles are among the infantile diseases of philosophy ‘(Russell:1945, p. 129 of ‘History of Western Philosophy’).”

“The next section, number 4 in Chan, is called ‘On Hardness and Whiteness.’ Using the logicians, now familiar way of speaking, Gongsun Long is asked if hardness, whiteness and stone make three. The answer is they don’t. Stone and whiteness make two as do stone and hardness. Why? Because different senses are involved. Hardness doesn’t exist for seeing nor whiteness for touch. He says, ‘Whether one perceives the whiteness [of the stone] or perceives the hardness [of the stone] depends on whether one sees or not. Seeing and not seeing are separate from each other. Neither one perceives the other, and therefore they are separate. To be separate means to be hidden.’ I guess that means ‘hidden’ from the other senses. We should also note that he says hardness and whiteness are common to many things, not just the stone. He adds, ‘As it does not have to be combined with things to be hardness, it is hardness by necessity of its being hardness.’”

“This looks like a universal to me, Fred.”

“He becomes more obscure. ‘If whiteness is necessarily white, it is then white not because it is the whiteness of a thing. It is the same with yellow and black. However the stone is no longer there. How can we speak of a hard stone or a white stone? Therefore they are separate.’”

“Fung has some interesting comments on all this.”


“OK, but save them. Chan has comments on Fung’s comments, but there is one last interesting section, and this one I can even understand (sort of).”

“Well then, by all means, let’s hear it.”

“It’s Chan’s number 5, ‘On Names and Actually.’ Gongsun Long says, ‘Heaven, earth, and their products are all things. When things possess the characteristics of things without exceeding them, there is actuality. When actuality actually fulfills its function as actuality, without wanting, there is order. To be out of order is to fall into disorder.To remain in order is to be correct. What is correct is used to rectify what is incorrect. [What is incorrect is not used to] doubt what is correct. To rectify is to rectify actuality, and to rectify actually is to rectify the name corresponding to it.’ He goes on about the ‘this’ and the ‘that’, like the Hegel example you used in the beginning of our discussion on Zhuangzi, but we don’t really have to go there.”

“I like this passage Fred. It is the good old ‘Rectification of Names’ program we have seen so many times before. If we use words correctly we should not have too many philosophical or practical problems that we don’t understand. This program for the rectification of names is similar to Wittgenstein’s idea that the purpose of philosophy was to show ‘the fly the way out of the fly bottle.’ Which is to say, that we can’t get out of philosophical predicaments until we start using the proper meanings for words and concepts.”


“You said Fung had some comments you wanted to present.”

“Just for the record. Then you can give Chan’s comments on Fung.”

“OK.”

“This is from the section ‘Significance of the Theories of Hui Shih and Gongsun Long’ from his chapter on the School of Names in the ‘Short History’. Fung says, ‘In Chinese philosophy a distinction is made between “being that lies within shapes and features,” and “being that lies beyond shapes and features.” “Being that lies within shapes and features” is the actual. the shih. For instance, the big and the small, the square and the round, the long and the short, the white and the black, are each one class of shapes and features. Anything that is the object or possible object of experience has shape and feature, and lies within the actual world. Conversely, any object in the actual world that has shape and feature is the object or possible object of experience.’ In the above quotes from Gongsun Long, he was discussing what lies beyond shapes and features, because, says Fung, ‘the universals he discussed can... not be objects of experience. One can see a white something, but one cannot see the universal whiteness as such.’”

“Chan objects to Fung’s use of the term ‘universal’ in Gongsun Long’s philosophy. Chan maintains the word at issue (chih) which he renders as ‘marks” as in ‘Marks are what do not exist in the world, but things are what do exist in the world’ ( #2 ‘On Marks (chih) and Things’) is a better translation than ‘Universals are what do not exist in the world, but things [particulars] are what do exist in the world.’ Chan says, ‘The word chih has so many meanings that scholars have found it easy and even tempting to read their own philosophies into Gongsun Long.... But the text is simply too corrupt to enable anyone to be absolutely sure [of the meaning of chih].’ Chan thinks Fung is guilty of falling into this temptation. He says Fung ‘is reading the ‘Gongsun Longzi’ in the framework of the Neo-realists to whom particulars exist while universals subsist.’ But again it all hinges on the uncertain meaning of chih.”

“That's very interesting. Here is a bit of info from Reese [Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion] with respect to ‘existence’ and ‘subsistence.’ ‘In chapter nine of Problems of Philosophy [Bertrand] Russell discussed [these] two categories. We say of objects that they exist, he suggested, and of universals that they subsist, i.e., have a timeless being (Reese, 1980:555).’ But I don’t want to get into Neo-realism. We will eventually get to Fung’s philosophy itself. Here, I only want to say that Fung’s interpretation is one possible interpretation and it has only its usefulness in interpreting the history of Chinese philosophical development in its favor. The School of Names, however, is not an end but a beginning to these problems. I am going to give Fung the last word in this discussion. “Hui Shih spoke of “loving all things equally,” and Gongsun Long also “wished to extend his argument in order to correct the relations between names and actualities, so as thus to transform the whole world.” Both men thus apparently considered their philosophy as comprising the “Dao of sageliness within and kingliness without.” But it was left to the Daoists fully to apply the discovery made by the School of Names of what lies beyond shapes and features. The Daoists were the opponents of this school, but they were also its true inheritors.’”

“So it's Daoism rather than either Moism or Confucianism that the School of Names people had the most influence on.”

“It would seem to be so, according to Fung. Yet Gongsun Long’s discussion on the rectification of names is, I think, fully in accord with the ideas of Confucius. But this doesn’t mean Fung’s assessment is off base. I think it shows that the School of Names was influenced by Confucius and tried to give a more technical account of what might be involved in name rectification.”

Now we should look at a famous Confucian book. We have discussed Confucius, Mencius and Xunzi but as Chinese civilization advanced from ancient times to the modern world and developed a “civil service system’’ to employ the most educated people in ruling the empire there were four books that everyone had to study because the examinations were based on them — they were The Analects, the Mengzi (Mencius), the Great Learning, and the Doctrine of the Mean (Xunzi, Mozi, the Daoists, and everyone else were left out!). So our next discussion will  be on The Great Learning. ​

​To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Zhuangzi Dialogue click here.

“Well, Fred, are you ready to discuss Zhuangzi?”

“Yes. I have just finished reviewing the text of the “Zhuangzi” in Chan [“Source Book in Chinese Philosophy”] and reading Chan’s introductory remarks. Zhuang  lived in the 4th Century BC and was a Daoist.”

“Fung [“A Short History of Chinese Philosophy”] says he might have been the greatest of the early Taoists! This would elevate him even over Laozi."
 
“And Chan might agree. He thinks that an advance was made by Zhuang over the views of Lao. His book seems to have been compiled after his death. It's an amalgam of his writings and those of his followers, so Chan has selected those passages considered most authentically Zhuang’s own. We will start with Chapter Two which Chan says ‘reveals his philosophy.’ Here is a short passage: Ziqi of Nan guo sat leaning on a low table. Looking up to heaven, he sighed and seemed to be at a loss as if his spirit had left him. Yan Cheng Ziyou, (his pupil), who was standing in attendance in front of him, said, “What is the matter? The body may be allowed to be like dry wood but should the mind be allowed to be like dead ashes? Surely the man leaning on the table now is not the same man leaning on the table before.' Chan says this expression of body as ‘dry wood’ and the mind as ‘dead ashes’ has become famous in Chinese philosophy and literature as metaphors regarding the question of the status of the human spirit or mind--’whether man is a spirit and whether the mind is alert’ - as he puts it.”
 
“Fred, it reminds me, the last part of the passage, of both Heraclitus the ancient Greek and Sartre the existentialist.”
 
“How so?”
 
“The part about not being the ‘same man’ seems to suggest we are always changing and being different from what we were before, This certainly suggests Sartre’s view that human beings have no fixed ‘essence’ but are always able to create themselves anew. Also, Heraclitus believed in an eternal ‘flux’ we are never the same from one moment to the next. Also dialectical materialism would agree with this. So there are elements of Daoism that seem in harmony with Western ways of seeing the world.”
 
“I see what you mean. I have always thought that the so-called big separation or difference between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ ways of thinking was a bit artificial. When we humans start to think about things we will create very similar philosophies despite whatever superficial cultural differences may indicate.”
 
“You know, Fred, there is a passage in Chan that I find ironic. Look at the top of page 179, about Zhuang’s influence.”
 
“...’ since the fifth century [AD] , his doctrines have never been propagated by any outstanding scholar’.”
 
“Yet his views, we will see, influence everyone right up to the present day so that is a way of ‘propagating’ doctrines. Chan himself said, as you mentioned before, that his comment about the body and mind and ‘dry wood’ and ‘ashes’ became a standard expression in literature and philosophy. But let’s go on and we will better see what I mean.”
 
“ OK. Ziqi likes Ziyou’s comment. He then speaks of the relations of humanity with nature and heaven i.e., all the similarities and mysteries thereof. He especially talks about the ‘mind’ which is far from being ‘dead ashes’ at least until the end of life. When he says, ‘it is old and exhausted. And finally it is near death and cannot be given life again. Pleasure and anger, sorrow and joy, anxiety and regret, fickleness and fear, impulsiveness and extravagance, indulgence and lewdness come to us like music from the hollows [the music of the wind] or like mushrooms from the damp.’ All this seems to indicate that the ‘self’ is responsible for these feelings. But then in a famous passage Zhuang goes on to say ‘Without them (the feelings mentioned above) there would not be I. And without me who will experience them? They are right nearby. But we don’t know who causes them. It seems there is a True Lord who does so, but there is no indication of his existence.’”
 
“The ‘problem of God’ I see. What is this ‘True Lord’. I thought we had established that only Mozi had ‘God ideas’.” [Cf. Mozi discussion]
 
“Don’t worry Karl. The ‘True Lord’ will turn out to be Spinoza’s ‘God’--that is, Nature.”
 
“What does Chan say?”
 
“Basically he has a comment to the effect that Chinese agnosticism has been reinforced by this attitude expressed by Zhuang. The rule of interpretation is that Zhuang, whenever he uses the term ‘creator’ is best understood as referring to ‘nature.’ “Any personal God or one that directs the movement of things is clearly out of harmony with Zhuangzi’s philosophy.’”
 
“It only makes sense, Fred, since the supreme principle is the DAO.”
 
“Indeed, and Zhuang says, ‘Dao is obscured by petty biases and speech is obscured by flowery expressions. Therefore there have arisen the controversies between the Confucianists and the Moists, each school regarding as right what the other considers as wrong, and regarding as wrong what the other considers as right.”
 
“That's a great observation Fred, and it goes to the heart of Zhuang’s dialectics as he maintains that opposites flow back and forth interchanging with one another.”
 
“Wait, Karl, there is more in this vein. He says,'to show what each regards as right is wrong or to show what each regards as wrong is right, there is no better way than to use the light (of Nature).’ He goes on: 'There is nothing that is not the “that” and there is nothing that is not the “this.” Things do not know that they are the “that” of other things; they only know what they themselves know. Therefore I say that the “that” is produced by the “this” and the “this” and the “this” is also caused by the “that.” This is the theory of mutual production.... Because of the right there is the wrong, and because of the wrong, there is the right. Therefore the sage does not proceed along these lines (of right and wrong, and so forth) but illuminates the matter with Nature.... When “this” and “that” have no opposites, there is the very axis of Dao. Only when the axis occupies the center of a circle can things in their infinite complexities be responded to. The right is an infinity. The wrong is also an infinity. Therefore I say that there is nothing better than to use the light (of Nature).’”
 
“if we, Fred, equate the ‘light (of Nature)’ with our ability to think and reason about the Dao of things, the ‘this’ and ‘that’ distinctions become intertwined. This reminds me of Hegel’s discussion of ‘sense-certainty’ in the beginning of his “Phenomenology of Spirit.”
 
Karl pulled down a volume from his book shelf and began to read: “A simple entity of this sort, which is by and through negation, which is neither this or that, which is a not-this and with equal indifference this as well as that [he is discussing the ‘Now’--is it night or day] --a thing of this kind we call a Universal.... the universal which the object has come to be, is no longer such as the object was to be for sense-certainty. The certainty is now found to lie in the opposite element, namely in knowledge....” “Here is another example of how Eastern and Western thought have points of convergence,” Karl said.
 
“This next passage is a little difficult, at least for me: ‘Only the intelligent knows how to identify all things as one. Therefore he does not use [his own judgment] but abides in the common [principle]. The common means the useful and the useful means identification. Identification means being at ease with oneself. When one is at ease with himself, one is near Dao. This is to let it (Nature) take its own course. He has arrived at this situation and does not know it. This is Dao.’”
 
“This is a little mystical. You know, Fred, you forgot to name this famous second chapter of the “Zhuangzi” that is, ‘The Equality of all things (Qi Wu Lun). From the limited individual point of view we look out upon a universe made up of millions of different and conflicting entities, ‘the one thousand things’, but the sage comes to understand that they are really one. An example from the life of our time. In the Middle East, as elsewhere in our world, unfortunately, different groups of humans, innocent of philosophy, are fighting and killing one another because they think they are so different from one another because they speak different languages or subscribe to different culturally imposed superstitions or have different eating habits or historical experiences. But they are really all just human beings cast into the world to live and die the same. Shylock’s speech in “The Merchant of Venice” catches this exactly for all of us. This is the equality of all humans, all evolved from the same primordial glop as everything else. We can extend this to the rest of life as well. All this is just the way it is, the way Nature is as the result of the Dao. The sage knows this and can be just as happy in Brooklyn as on the West Bank,  the earth too is one--all things are, ultimately. So Zhuang tells us when we figure this out (identification) and it is second nature to us, as it were, so we don’t even have to think about it all the time (being at ease) then we are arrived at Dao without having to think it through each time we confront a worldly situation--the sage ‘knows’ and ‘does not know it’--i.e. have to think about it all the day long.”
 
“That is just so true Karl. All our social problems, at least, come from non recognition of this Dao. If only we could solve our problems as easily as the monkey keeper! ‘A monkey keeper once was giving out nuts and said, “Three in the morning and four in the evening.” All the monkeys became angry. He said, “If that is the case, there will be four in the morning and three in the evening.” All the monkeys were glad. Neither the name nor the actually has been reduced but the monkeys reacted in joy and anger [differently]. The keeper also let things take their own course. Therefore the sage harmonizes the right and the wrong and rests in natural equalization. This is called following two courses at the same time.’”
 
“As I remember it, this is a very important point in Chinese philosophy.”
 
“It sure is. Chan says that almost all Chinese schools of thought adopt it--the doctrine of following two courses at the same time. They even follow three courses. He says in his comment: ‘In the ‘Book of Changes' [the ‘YI Jing’, which we will get to], it is said that “in the world there are many different roads but the destination is the same.” The upshot is that most Chinese follow the three systems of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, and usually take a multiple approach to things.’”
 
“And we can now add Marxism! If they are non-dogmatic they can follow four systems depending on the requirements of life. The so-called ‘Cultural’ Revolution was a big mistake by this way of thinking.”
 
“O.K. Karl, back to Zhuang. He says ‘When the distinction between right and wrong became prominent, Dao was thereby reduced, individual bias was formed.... Therefore the sage aims at removing the confusions and doubts that dazzle people. Because of this he does not use [his own judgment] but abides in the common principle. This is what is meant by using the light (of Nature).’"
 
“Wittgenstein said doing philosophy was like showing the fly the way out of the fly bottle that is the same as removing confusions and doubts that dazzle people.”
 
“O.k. Karl, Zhuang now talks about what he calls the ‘eight characteristics’--left and right, discussions and theories, analyses and arguments, competitions and quarrels. And he says ‘What is beyond the world, the sage leaves it as it exists and does not discuss it. What is within the world, the sage discusses but does not pass judgment. About the chronicles of historical events and the records of ancient kings, the sage passes judgments but does not argue. Therefore there are things which analysis cannot analyze, and there are things which argument cannot argue. Why? The sage keeps it in his mind while men in general argue in order to brag before each other. Therefore it is said that argument arises from failure to se [the greatness of Dao].... Therefore he who knows to stop at what he does not know is perfect.’”
 
“This seems to be pretty good advice. It seems that with regard to religion and such other worldly stuff the philosopher won’t be wasting his or her time, that he or she will be nonjudgmental regarding what actually exists [this can be regarded as ‘quietism’ in the social realm and seems a departure from Laozi’s views] and as far as history goes it looks a little dogmatic, this making judgments but no arguments allowed. Plato tells us the philosopher has to be ready to argue his or her position and be willing to follow the argument wherever it leads. The problem is, of course, that if one understands the Dao one understands the inner necessity and whatness and whyness of all things--therefore argument is not necessary. But it would seem some type of argument and reasoning with people is necessary if you want to remove the confusions and doubts that dazzle people. Maybe you can have ‘discussions’ and ‘theories’ because he thinks arguments are more for people who want to show off their (limited) knowledge.”
 
“You might be right Karl. Chan says that Zhuang exhibits a spirit of doubt that has influenced ‘China’s long tradition of skepticism.’ This is another reason he might consider ‘arguments’ as a waste of time as opposed to discussions with other people.”
 
“Indeed. You really can’t force people to believe things by arguments [except of course philosophers]. They have to come to see the truth of things themselves. The Daoist sage is one who comes to this position. I think the Confucian sage might use arguments a bit more often.”
 
“Look a little further in the text Fred. Zhuang, as I remember it, gives some reasons for not relying on arguments to find the truth.”
 
“Well, he does say this:’ Suppose you and I argue. If you beat me instead of my beating you, are you really right and am I really wrong. If I beat you instead of your beating me, am I really right and are you really wrong? Or are we both partly right and partly wrong? Since between us neither you nor I know which is right, others are naturally in the dark. Whom shall we ask to arbitrate?’”
 
“What is needed is obviously a decision mechanism by which good arguments can be separated from the bad. There was no Aristotle in ancient China to develop the science of the syllogism and logic in general. Zhuang here exhibits an admirable open mindedness but the accumulation of knowledge by experience and science and the logical analysis of truth claims would be paralyzed by this attitude. Daoist mysticism may have some good points but you can clearly see the wisdom the Chinese show by using simultaneously different systems and taking what Chan called ‘a multiple approach to things’”
 
“Now Karl, we come to a famous passage which shows the Daoist attitude par excellence towards the unity of everything encompassed by the Dao. Zhuang Zhou is Zhuangzi’s given name. ‘Once I, Zhuang Zhou, dreamed that I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Zhou. Suddenly I awoke, and there I was, visibly Zhou. I do not know whether it was Zhou dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that it was Zhou. Between Zhou and the butterfly there must be some distinction. [But one may be the other.] This is called the transformation of things.’”
 
“It is a great passage despite the fact that lacking the higher centers of the mammalian brain it doesn’t seem that it is possible for a butterfly to dream. The ‘transformation of all things’ is undoubtedly true. All the atoms that make up everything on earth had their origin in our Sun or at least they are the direct result of the so-called ‘Big Bang.’ Hence everything that we know that exists is just a recombination of the same elemental particles in different proportions and arrangements. The atoms that make up me will eventually be those of a butterfly or a rock and atoms from past butterflies and even dinosaurs make up people today. This is a Daoist understanding I think. It is not unique. Anaxagoras held that ‘All things were together’ and arranged themselves by ‘Mind’ [νουs] which is like Dao. The Greek Atomists would also agree.”
“
Now we move on to Chapter Six of the ‘Zhuangzi’, ‘The Great Teacher.’ Zhuang writes, ‘He who knows the activities of Nature (Tian, Heaven) and the activities of man is perfect. He who knows the activities of Nature lives according to Nature. He who knows the activities of man nourishes what he does not know with what he does know, thus completing his natural span of life and will not die prematurely half of the way .... However, there is some defect here.... How do we know that what I call Nature is not really man and what I call man is not really Nature? Furthermore, there must be the pure man [i.e., simple and in accord with the Dao] before there can be true knowledge.’”

“I think it fits with what we today might agree to. Before the universe there was nothing (non-being) --if we can use the word ‘before’ in this context--there is then the ‘Big Bang’ (the One originates) and the rest of the universe evolves into what we have now by means of the laws of nature (ming, li or fate and principle). If we want to live intelligent and happy lives, we must understand the natural laws and conform to them (virtue). If we follow this Daoist outline of virtue, we will be in harmony both with ourselves and with Nature. But I must stress, Fred, that Zhuangzi is of course not privy to the type of modern scientific understanding of the universe that has developed over the last few centuries, nevertheless this passage of his is not contrary or out of step with modern notions. It is certainly nearer to contemporary scientific understanding than anything the spokesmen of the currently popular so-called ‘world’ religions are dishing out!”
 
“There is some strange evolutionary speculation that Chan includes about insects turning into horses and horses turning into men! This may not be a meant to be taken seriously but Chan says it shows the Zhuang saw everything in Flux (Heraclitus) and ‘conceived reality as ever changing and as developing from the simple to the complex.’”
 
“Don’t forget Zhuang is only a few hundred years away from the Pre-Socratics who also had strange, by our lights, views on evolution, especially Empedocles. Not so much Anaximander who thought we came from fish, since we in fact did."
 
“O.K., now it's time for supplement five ‘Tao as Transformation and One.’ Ready?”
 
“Ready!”
 
“’Although the universe is vast, its transformation is uniform. Although the myriad things are many, their order is one. Although people are numerous, their ruler is the sovereign. The sovereign traces his origin to virtue (de, individual and essential character), and attains his perfection in Nature. Therefore, it is said in the cases of sovereigns of high antiquity no [unnatural] action (wu-wei) was undertaken, and the empire was in order.... When all things in general are seen through Dao, the response of things to each other becomes complete. Therefore, it is virtue that penetrates Heaven and Earth, and it is Dao that operates in all things. Government by the ruler means human affairs, and when ability is applied to creative activities, it means skill. Skill is commanded by Nature. Therefore, it is said that ancient rulers of empires had no [selfish] desires and the empire enjoyed sufficiency.’”
 
"Anything more in this section?”
 
“Yes-- the Ten Points that the great man or the sage must adhere to if he wants the world to listen to him. This is the Grand Master talking....”
 
“The 'Grand Master'?”
 
“It's really Confucius but Zhuang calls him the ‘Grand Master’. By the way, these may be Daoist points but from what we discussed about Confucius, I think he really would agree with all of them.”
 
“Let’s hear them!”
 
“’ [1] To act without taking an [unnatural action] means Nature. [2] To speak without any action means virtue. [3] To love people and benefit all things means humanity (ren). [4] To identify with all without each losing his own identity means greatness. [5] To behave without purposely showing any superiority means broadness. [6] To possess an infinite variety means richness. [7] Therefore to adhere to virtue is called discipline. [8] To realize virtue means strength. [9] To be in accord with Dao means completeness. [10] And not to yield to material things is called perfection.’”
 
“I also think the real Confucius would go along with these, Fred. But I would add ‘unnatural’ before ‘action’ in number 2 as it doesn’t make that much sense to me without it.”
 
“Supplement Six: ‘Nature vs. Man’: This is the Spirit of the North Sea speaking to Uncle River--’An owl can catch fleas at night, and sees the tip of a hair, but in the daytime even with its eyes wide open it cannot see a mountain, which shows that different things have different natures. Therefore, it is said, “Why not let us follow the right instead of the wrong, and follow order instead of chaos?” This is to misunderstand the principle (li) of nature and the reality of things.’ This confuses Uncle River as to what he should be doing, so the Spirit of the North Sea adds, ‘Never stick to one’s own intention and thus handicap the operation of Dao.’”
 
“I see. This means, of course, that we must first understand the Dao and then not be bull headed and try to force the world to do what we want rather than to adjust ourselves to reality. This is reminiscent of Descartes’ third maxim in his ‘Discourse on Method’ where he says he will always try ‘to conquer myself rather than fortune, and to alter my desires rather than change the order of the world’ so he too seeks to be in tune with the Dao.”
 
“Uncle River next wants to know the value of Dao. He is told ‘One who knows Dao will surely penetrate the principle of things, and one who penetrates the principles of things will surely understand their application in various situations.’ I take it that was what Descartes was also interested in. The Spirit of the North Sea continues, ‘It means that he discriminates between safety and danger, remains calm whether he suffers calamity or enjoys blessing, and is careful about taking or not taking an action, so that none can harm him. Therefore, it is said that what is natural lies within and what is human lies without, and virtue abides in the natural.’ The Spirit then gives an example of just what he means by Nature. ‘A horse or a cow has four feet. That is Nature. Put a halter around the horse’s head and put a string through the cow’s nose, that is man. Therefore it is said, “Do not let man destroy Nature.”’
 
“Very good Fred, but must we not admit that man is also part of Nature, and it is not against the Nature of a horse to put a halter on it and to ride it, as it would say, to try to do that to a tiger. Men ride horses not tigers and that is also Nature and due to Dao.”
 
“Then the Spirit of the North Sea is giving bum answers to Uncle River?”
 
“Let us just say that the Spirit of the North Sea may have a point but there is no Chinese Wall between man and Nature. It is because of this that Confucianism is able to function as an enlightened philosophy and the true sage is not exclusively a Daoist nowadays.”
 
“In Supplement Seven, Zhuang further develops his ideas of objectivity. He says, ‘Exercise fully what you have received from Nature. In one word, be absolutely vacuous (xu) [having no selfish desires or bias--Chan]. The mind of the perfect man is like a mirror. It does not lean forward or backward in its response to things. It responds to things but conceals nothing of its own. Therefore, it is able to deal with things without injury to [its reality].’”
 
“I remember that Chan said the mirror symbolism was important. Why don’t you read his comment?”
 
“O.k.--he says it's an important symbol for the mind both in Zen Buddhism and in Neo-Confucianism. The difference is that with Buddhism, external reality is to be transcended, whereas with Zhuangzi and the Neo-Confucianists, external reality is to be responded to naturally and faithfully, like a mirror objectively reflecting all.’”
 
“This is like naive realism in Western epistemology and in some forms of Marxism. I remember Lenin’s opinion that the mind ‘reflects’ external reality. This seems to be a rejection of Kantian views.’”
 
“In Supplement 8 ‘Sageliness and Kingliness’ we find the following: ‘The evolution of the Dao of Nature goes on without obstruction. Therefore, all things are produced. The evolution of the Dao of the sovereign goes on without obstruction and therefore the whole empire comes to him. The evolution of the Dao of the sage goes on without obstruction and therefore the whole world pays him homage.’”
 
“I’m glad the term ‘evolution’ is used, Fred. We live in vastly different times here in the West as do many of the people of the East undergoing ‘modernization’. Zhuang’s views still can hold but they must be seen to have ‘evolved.’ The Dao of Nature is the same, but the Dao of the sovereign no longer can be seen in terms of the emperor system of pre-revolutionary China. The ‘sovereign’ of today is the mass of the people and in China this means the workers and peasants. If the Chinese Communist Party truly represents their interests--i.e., if it represents the sovereign--then we can interpret the phrase ‘the whole empire comes to him’ to mean that the party has the support of the people in its policies. In this way of speaking, I would say that updated Zhuang means as long as the Dao of the people’s interests is without obstruction the party will have the ‘Mandate of Heaven.’ This analysis goes for any country--not just China--but you have to be clever enough to match Zhuang’s views with the objective reality you are confronting in each case. Finally, the sage should not care if the whole world gives him/her homage but if the sage correctly understands the Dao this may happen. Sages, however, are often out of tune with the times.”
 
“I agree with you Karl. I think Zhuang would too. Here is another quote: ‘Vacuity, tranquility, mellowness, quietness, and taking no [unnatural] action characterize the things of the universe at peace and represent the ultimate of Dao and virtue. Therefore, rulers and sages abide in them.’”
 
“Amen!”
 
“Finally, Zhuang says, ‘One who is in accord with the world is in harmony with men. To be in harmony with men means human happiness, and to be in harmony with Nature means the happiness of Nature.’ What do you make of that Karl.?”
 
“In the first place ‘the happiness of Nature’ must be our happiness with Nature since Nature is neither happy nor unhappy, it just is what it is. In the second place, does the statement about the one who is in accord with the world being in accord with men mean (1) going along with what everyone thinks is being in accord with them and hence with the world [don’t rock the boat] or does it mean [2] if you correctly understand the nature of the world that means you will find yourself in accord with your fellow men [definitely counterfactual!]. If it means (1) it is trivial and unworthy of the Sage [so Zhuang doesn’t mean this] and if it is (2) then it must be false as οἱ πολλοί predominate and they do not see the world as the Sage does in most instances and so the Sage will be out of accord on many issues. Of course, it is happiness to be in harmony with men but only if the men in question are themselves in harmony with the Dao. For example, the German Nazi philosopher Heidegger found himself in ‘harmony’ with most of his fellow Germans believing that the Dao of Hitler was the Dao itself. But would we want to say he was ‘happy’--maybe for a short while. And if he was in accord with ‘men’, was he with Nature? You may reply that ‘men’ means ‘all men’ and so the Nazis lost because their Dao was a false Dao. As you can see, Fred, this is a very complicated issue.”
 
“So I see. Coming up is a famous vignette about the death of Zhuang’s wife.”
 
“Lets hear it!”
 
“This is Chan’s Ninth Supplement ‘The Equality of Life and Death’ I’m going to read all of it because it is so famous:
 
"Zhuangzi’s wife died and Huizi went to offer his condolences. He found Zhuangzi squatting on the ground and singing, beating on an earthen bowl. He said, “Someone has lived with you, raised children for you and now she has aged and died. Is it not enough that you should not shed any tears? But now you sing and beat the bowl. Is this not too much?”
 
“No,” replied Zhuangzi. “When she died, how could I help being affected? But as I think the matter over, I realize that originally, she had no life; and not only no life, but she also had no form; not only no form, she had no material force (qi).
 
"In the limbo of existence and non-existence, there was transformation, and the material force was evolved. The material force was transformed to be form, for was transformed to become life, and now birth has transformed to become death. This is like the rotation of the four seasons, spring, summer, fall, and winter. Now she lies asleep in the great house (the universe). For me to go about weeping and wailing would be to show my ignorance of destiny. Therefore, I desist.”’”
 
“That says it all, Fred. No Stoic, Epicurean or classical Skeptic, let alone any religious thinker, could have put it any better. Secular humanists, atheists, and agnostics would be hard pressed to top Zhuang here. But I think it takes a real sage -AKA philosopher-to find comfort in this view of life.”
 
“Maybe ‘comfort’ is not what this view offers.”
 
“True. Maybe ’resignation’ and ‘acceptance’ of the Dao is a better understanding than ‘comfort’.”
 
“One last vignette, Karl. Supplement Ten--’Subjectivity’—’Zhuangzi and Huizi were taking a leisurely walk along the dam of the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, “The white fish are swimming at ease. This is the happiness of the fish.”
 
“You are not a fish.” said Huizi. “How do you know its happiness?”
“
You are not I,” said Zhuangzi. “How do you know that I do not know the happiness of the fish?”
 
Huizi said, “Of course I do not know, since I am not you. But you are not the fish, and it is perfectly clear that you do not know the happiness of the fish.”
 
“Let us get to the bottom of the matter,” said Zhuangzi. “When you asked how I knew the happiness of the fish, you already knew that I knew the happiness of the fish but asked how. I knew it along the river.”’
 
“This is a cute story, Fred, but Zhuang’s logic can be used right back at him by Hui. I don’t suppose, though, that these vignettes are supposed to be taken as logical.”
 
“You are surely correct Karl. That ends our readings in the ‘Zhuangzi’. 
 
 
“Well Fred, we should discuss Gongsun Longzi next.”
 
“Who?”
 
Yes, I know that’s not a name anyone would normally recognize unless they were Chinese, but for completeness sake we should have a brief discussion of his views. He was a founder of the School of Names and had no influence whatsoever, but this school was the closest the Ancient Chinese ever came to doing work on Logic. There was no Chinese Aristotle and perhaps we will understand why after we discuss what Chan has to say about the School of Names. It may be a big detour from the mainline of Chinese philosophy but it’s interesting and at least helps Westerners to understand why Logic as a separate subject did not develop. 
 
OK, Karl, if you insist. 
 
Next Up: “Gongsun Longzi and The School of Names: A Marxist Dialogue” ​

​To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.
To read the Laozi Dialogue click here.

​After finishing their previous discussions of Chinese philosophy, [check blog archive] Karl and Fred were ready to look at the philosophy of Laozi. Karl, who knew more about Chinese philosophy than Fred, began by asking Fred what he knew about Laozi.
    
“The philosophy of Laozi is called Daoism, do you know much about it Fred?”
    
“I have read a little. Karl. I know that the philosophy of Laozi is contained in a book called the “Daode Jing” or “The Way and its Virtue”.  Also that not much is really known about him. The Chinese think he lived around the time of Confucius, maybe twenty or so years before him. It is unlikely they ever met.  It is also possible that he really lived hundreds of years after Confucius. Legend has it that he got tired of all the hassles in China and departed for the West riding on the back of an ox, but was stopped by the gatekeeper of the Western Pass and not allowed to proceed unless he wrote down his thoughts. That is how the “Daode Jing” came about. Having complied, he disappeared over the mountains heading for India--or so they say.”
    
“Pretty good introduction seeing as we don’t even know if he was a real person or a mythical one!  Well, you have the book, Chan’s translation, let’s see if we can figure out what it means.” [A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy by Wing-Tsit Chan]
    
Fred picked up the book and began to read. “I, that’s Chapter One, of eighty six,--’The Dao (Way) that can be told of is not the eternal Dao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; the Named is the mother of all things. Therefore let there always be non-being so we may see their subtlety, And let there always be being so we may see their outcome.’ Now what is that all about?”
    
“This is a mystical book. Daoism is a tradition at odds with what will develop out of the Analects. The DAO is incapable of being pinned down by human language. If someone thinks they know what it is you can be sure they are wrong because it will be even more than that. You know, Maimonides in his “Guide for the Perplexed” says that God is undefinable so that we really can’t say anything about it correctly--in just this sense is the DAO nameless.”
    
“OK, here is 2: ‘When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty, there arises the recognition of ugliness. When they all know the good as good, there arises the recognition of evil. Therefore: Being and non-being produce each other; Difficult and easy complete each other; Long and short contrast each other; high and low distinguish each other; Sound and voice harmonize with each other; Front and back follow each other. Therefore the sage manages affairs without action (wu-wei) And spreads doctrines without words.’ “
    
“The term for ‘non-action’, i.e.,  wu-wei, means no action contrary to nature. I think Chan points this out. In general, we see here a dialectical approach to reality. Everything has its opposite and complements that opposite. Until we know what the ‘good’ is we don’t know ‘evil.’ It looks like we have to use a lot of ‘names’ after all since ‘good.’ ‘evil,’ ‘beauty,’ ‘ugliness,’ etc., are all names. Thus while the DAO, as ground of the world' is ‘nameless’ the things in the world are known by names. This seems not to contradict Confucius's views about the Rectification of Names--remember Rule Two from a previous discussion? [Cf. Confucius reference above. Rule Two- Language must be in accord with truth]. Also, note that Confucius did not allow himself to be drawn into discussions about the ultimate metaphysical basis of the world so he too seems not to be in disagreement with the view of the DAO as nameless. The part about spreading doctrines without words may mean that it is by EXAMPLE that influence is spread, and I don’t think Confucius would disagree with this.”
    
“I thought you said Daoism was in conflict with Confucianism. It looks like they agree on everything!”
    
“What can I say? We have only looked at the first two chapters. I’m sure the big differences will soon manifest themselves.”
    
“3: ‘Do not display objects of desire, so that the people’s hearts shall not be disturbed. Therefore in the government of the sage He keeps their hearts [peaceful and pure] (xu), Fills their bellies, Weakens their ambitions, And strengthens their bones, He always causes his people to be without knowledge (cunning) or desire, And the crafty to be afraid to act.’”
  
“I really don’t know what to make of this! The sage ruler evidently keeps his wealth under lock and key so the masses won’t see the class differences in the state. He provides bread and circuses as a Roman emperor so that the people remain content and don’t mess with the government. This is obviously the product of a feudal mentality.”
    
“5: ‘Heaven and Earth are not humane (ren). They regard all things as straw dogs. The sage is not humane. He regards all people as straw dogs.’ That doesn’t sound very good to me Karl.”
    
“Well let’s not read too much into it. I remember Chan on this selection saying that it means that Nature and the Sage are really IMPARTIAL and not playing favorites unjustly. Heaven and Earth are just following Dao, as we would say, ‘the laws of nature’, and as you know the sun shines on the just and the unjust alike. The Sage too has to be impartial and examine things according to their merits. The Prime Directive! [Cf. Confucius discussion. The Prime Directive of philosophy is ‘Always seek the truth by means of logic and reason without appeals to faith and emotion.’]
 
    
“7: ‘Heaven is eternal and Earth everlasting. They can be eternal and everlasting because they do not exist for themselves. And for this reason can exist forever. Therefore the sage places himself in the background but finds himself in the foreground’.”
    
“Now I understand the last part. Don’t toot your own horn and all that, lead by example, but the first part is just mystical excess as far as I can tell. Heaven and Earth not existing for themselves what can that mean? Perhaps he means they are manifestations of Dao, but this passage is all too mystical for me.”
 
“I like the following from 9: ‘To be proud with honor and wealth Is to cause one’s own downfall. Withdraw as soon as your work is done. Such is Heaven’s Way.’”
    
 
“Yes, don’t overstay your welcome. At least this counteracts the view that Daoists are recluses. You have a job or function to perform and you should stick with it until its done--but then leave!”  
    
“Chapter Eleven is a little mysterious. ‘Doors and windows are cut out to make a room but it is on its non-being that the utility of the room depends. Therefore turn being into advantage, and turn non-being into utility.’”
    
“I think Lao is saying that the room is ‘empty’ hence ‘non-being’ and because it is empty it can be used for something--a dining room, bedroom, study, etc. The ‘being’ would be the material of the room from which the doors and windows were cut.”
    
“And what can this mean? 12:’Goods that are hard to get injure one’s activities. For this reason, the sage is concerned with the belly and not the eyes, Therefore he rejects the one but accepts the other.’”
    
“Your guess is as good as mine Fred. But look at it this way. It is easy to get a bowl of rice to eat, all the simple fare required, really, for a Daoist sage, but you can see palaces and treasures and things of that sort which others have and will never be yours so it is better to avoid that kind of ‘concern’ and stick to your proper activities.”
    
“Sounds good to me Karl. Here is 13: ‘If I have no body, what trouble could I have? Therefore he who values the world as his body may be entrusted with the empire.’”
    
“I remember this. Chan says something about it doesn’t he?”
    
“Here is his comment on page 145 of his “Source Book”: ‘On the basis of this attitude toward the body, it is difficult to accept the theory that Yang Chu who would preserve one’s own life under any circumstances, was an early Daoist, as some have maintained.’ Remember Yang Chu was a character we ran into when we discussed Mencius.”
    
“OK, and....”
    
“And Chan is, I think, wrong. This passage from Lao is not putting down the body. He says we value it and even love it --otherwise there is trouble. Since this is the case the person who loves the world just as much as himself, since he will love himself, will be the best ruler. If Yang Chu thought as much of the world as he did of himself, he would be a good ruler. He was, however, an egotist. Yang may not have been an admirable Daoist, a sage, but his being an early Daoist hasn’t been proven wrong by this comment by Lao.”
    
“14: ‘We look at it and do not see it; Its name is the Invisible. We listen to it and do not hear it; Its name is the Inaudible. We touch it and do not find it; its name is the Subtle (formless). These three cannot be further inquired into, And hence merge into one.’”
    
“A typical mystical statement. The hidden ground of the universe is not available to our knowledge, at least not to our sense knowledge so we will have no direct empirical knowledge of it. “
   
“Chan says this view of the non-detectability of ultimate reality--the ‘formless’ is in contradistinction to the Confucian view that reality is ‘manifest.’ He also points out that as Chinese philosophy developed under the influence of Buddhism, centuries later, the so called Neo-Confucianists made a synthesis and he quotes a Neo-Confucianist Cheng Yi who wrote ‘there is no distinction between the manifest and the hidden.’”
    
“That is a very Hegelian type of synthesis. Hegel did not have a high regard for Chinese thought, perhaps because of limited access to it in his day. But Hegel taught that ‘Thought’ advances by developing concepts that engender counter concepts that then result in a synthesis of the two into a new ‘higher’ concept that combines what was the one-sidedness of the original concepts. This is really quite a simplification, but from what you just read from Chan, I’m sure Cheng YI’s unification of these two concepts the ‘hidden’ and the ‘manifest’--’there is no distinction’ would meet with Hegel’s approval.”
    
“I notice here a reference to pu in 15 and ’uncarved wood’? What is that image about?”

​“That, Fred, is one of the most famous Taoist images. A sage is like an ‘uncarved block of wood.’ I see it as meaning we are all ‘potential’. An uncarved block could become anything under the hands of an artist--a horse, a figure of a man, or anything at all. But once carved that's it--the carved horse can’t later be a carved man.  Also, Lao calls the uncarved block ‘genuine.’ So there is something artificial about the carved block. This somehow implies that human actions are not fully natural, they contrast to the Dao. This is, I think, incorrect on Lao’s part! Everything is comprehended under the Dao so humans are too and the uncarved block and the carved block originate from the same universal process. There is an unresolved contradiction at the heart of Daoism which we will have to see played out. Sartre, in his Existentialism, would say humans have to live in the world even when trying not to interfere with it--they are committed to some ‘project’ or other so even being an ‘uncarved block’ is a form of being ‘carved’. For now, I’ll leave this as an unresolved ‘Hegelian’ contradiction.”
    
“18: ‘When the great Dao declined, the doctrines of humanity (ren) and righteousness (yi) arose. When knowledge and wisdom appeared, there appeared great hypocrisy. When the six family relationships [father, son, elder and younger brother, husband and wife--Chan] are not in harmony, there will be the advocacy of filial piety and deep love to children. When a country is in disorder, there will be praise of loyal ministers.’”
    
“Pretty obvious. All of these things are a reflection that there are problems and imperfections, a sign that Dao is not working properly--the Dao of human affairs that is, the Dao of Nature is something else it seems. Look at our example.  We like to think we care about the environment and other people--but look at the reality. It is just because we degrade both the environment and our fellow beings that we have to have so many laws to protect them. Big corporations such as GE, Exxon-Mobil, etc., spend millions in ad campaigns telling us how corporate America is environmentally conscious--but the fact that we need anti-pollution laws and regulations aimed at these very companies shows that what they claim they are and what they are vastly different. Do you think that if there were freedom and equality in the United States, we would need civil rights laws? And why did they pass a law in Texas against having sex with sheep? This is the message of Laozi. “
    
“Lao goes on in 19: ‘Abandon sageliness and discard wisdom; then the people will benefit a hundredfold. Abandon humanity and discard righteousness; Then the people will return to filial piety and deep love. Abandon skill and discard profit; Then there will be no thieves or robbers. However these three things are ornament (wen) and not adequate. Therefore let people hold on to these: Manifest plainness, Embrace simplicity, Reduce selfishness, Have few desires.’”
    
“Its too late for this Daoist program, I fear. Civilization was even so far advanced in Lao’s time that a program such as this, a going back to ‘nature’ program as it were, was not realistic. Daoism is reactionary--it reacts to the problems of the times by harking back to a mythical past when the Dao was not in decline and we didn’t need all the regulations and rules that have evolved along with our social development. Nevertheless, the four rules he gives at the end are not so bad--just on utilitarian grounds--if we all practiced them many of the negative aspects of our technological world system would be mitigated. I’m sure you can see how their application would bring this about.”
    
“Now this is really important Karl--Chapter 21, Chan says it’s the most important in the entire book--philosophically that is.”
    
“Well, let’s hear it then!”
    
“OK, here goes, ‘The all-embracing quality of the great virtue (de) follows alone from the Dao. The thing that is called Dao is eluding and vague. Vague and eluding, there is in it the form. Eluding and vague, in it are things. Deep and obscure, in it is the essence [intelligence, spirit, life-force]. The essence is very real; in it are evidences. From the time of old until now, its name (manifestations) ever remains, by which we may see the beginning of all things. How do I know the beginnings of all things are so? Through this (Dao).’”
    
“In itself this passage is too vague. What do we learn from saying ‘the Tao is all encompassing and is the ultimate explanation for everything?’ Not much. Chan thinks it so important because it is similar to passages in the Book of Changes [of which more later] which were utilized in Neo-Confucianist metaphysics.”
    
“Here is 22, some more ‘mysticism’--’To have plenty is to be perplexed. Therefore the sage embraces the one and becomes the model of the world. He does not show himself; therefore he is luminous. He does not justify himself; therefore he becomes prominent. He does not boast of himself; therefore he is given credit. He does not brag; therefore he can endure for long.’”
    
“Next!”
    
“23: ‘Nature says few words. For the same reason a whirlwind does not last a whole morning, Nor does a rainstorm last a whole day. What causes them? It is Heaven and Earth (Nature). If Heaven and Earth cannot make them last long, How much less can man? Therefore he who follows Dao is identified with Dao.’”
    
“Very interesting. He seems to be saying don’t mess with Nature. You have heard of the ‘Three Gorges” dam project in China?”
    
“It’s supposed to be the world’s largest dam project--displacing thousands of people and completely changing the face of the land.”
    
“And you know that projects like this, and many other man-made attempts to change the environment have ended in disasters. Think of the problems in the Everglades since we have monkeyed around with the water levels in Florida--and the extinction of many species throughout the world due to the destruction of habitats. I think those in power could learn a thing or two from this passage in Lao. Work with Nature, don’t try to completely rearrange the natural processes that have developed on the planet--that is following Dao.”
    
“This chapter, 25, reminds me of the opening: ‘There was something undifferentiated and yet complete, which existed before heaven and earth. Soundless, and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger. It may be considered the mother of the universe. I do not know its name; I call it Dao. If forced to give it a name; I call it great...Being far-reaching means returning to the original point. Therefore Dao is great.’”
    
“As Chan says, this passage is representative of the Chinese view that history and nature operate cyclically. [Of course, now that they are Marxists they are not supposed to believe this.] Whereas we in the West more or less think in terms of progress and continual betterment, the Chinese in classical times thought in terms of cycles rather than progress.”
    
“26: ‘The tranquil is the ruler of the hasty. Therefore the sage travels all day Without leaving his baggage.... How is it that a lord with ten thousand chariots Should behave lightheartedly in his empire? If he is lighthearted, the minister will be destroyed. If he is hasty, the ruler is lost.’”
    
“Not really a Daoist paradox. The ruler is secure and tranquil being lighthearted is a sign of assuredness. On the other hand, the function of the minister is to carry out his duties--lightheartedness ill behooves him.”
 
“This next chapter is interesting and I don’t think it really needs any explication--27: ‘A well-tied knot needs no rope and yet none can untie it. Therefore the sage is always good at saving men and consequently no man is rejected. He is always good in saving things and consequently nothing is rejected. This is called following the light (of Nature) Therefore the good man is the teacher of the bad, And the bad is the material from which the good may learn. He who does not value the teacher, Or greatly care for the material, Is greatly deluded although he may be learned. Such is the essential mystery.’”
    
“A lot of faith in the salvation power of the sage! Confucius wants to enlighten people, this is a form of salvation but a bit more limited than Lao here. Remember the ‘square’--if you don’t get the other three sides from the one Confucius gives to you, you get dropped!” [Cf. the Confucius dialogue]
    
“I remember. Here is something about the ‘sage’--28: ‘He will be proficient in eternal virtue and returns to the state of simplicity (uncarved wood). When the uncarved wood is broken up, it is turned into concrete things (as Dao transformed into the myriad things). But when the sage uses it, he becomes the leading official. Therefore the great ruler does not cut up’”
    
“The Daoist Sage is using and not using the uncarved block it would seem. This is because he prefers things to remain in their original state of simplicity--he rules by not ruling. This is all very fine if you have a well-ordered state in the first place but what if you come along in a ‘time of troubles’ and forceful action is needed? Would this Daoist minimalism work in that case, or must the Daoist wait for a natural cyclical return to simplicity? I don’t think Lao has an answer to this problem.”
    
“Well, we may find one later on in the book. This is chapter 29, it has relevance to your questions: ‘When one desires to take over the empire and act on it (interfere with it), I see that he will not succeed. The empire is a spiritual thing and should not be acted on.’ He then says, ‘...the sage discards the extremes, the extravagant, and the excessive.’”
    
“That last part is like Aristotle’s ‘mean’--you know, virtue is a mean between two extremes--e.g., ‘courage’ is a mean between ‘foolhardiness’ and ‘cowardice.’”
    
“But what about the other part, about not ‘acting’? What if the ‘empire’ needs some ‘action’--such as tax reform or an agricultural reform or something like that? I’m beginning to agree with what you just said a few minutes ago. This might be a real problem with Lao’s views.”
    
“I’m glad you agree. What is next?”
    
“Something our gun toting friends in the NRA will appreciate. 31: ‘Fine weapons are instruments of evil. They are hated by men. Therefore those who possess Dao turn away from them.’”
     
“I remember this chapter. Forget the NRA, read some more and then try to reconcile Lao’s ideas with our government’s or any government’s obsession with military spending. This quote goes well beyond the NRA!”
    
“’Weapons are instruments of evil, not the instruments of a good ruler. When he uses them unavoidably, he regards calm restraint as the best principle. Even when he is victorious, he does not regard it as praiseworthy, For to praise victory is to delight in the slaughter of men.... For a victory, let us observe the occasion with funeral ceremonies.’”
    
“This shows real understanding of the horrors of war on Lao’s part. Something we have yet to understand, it seems. Yet he admits the ruler may not be able to avoid the use of weapons--think of trying to stop Hitler without them. Nevertheless, even when defeating Hitler, it was wrong to celebrate with a Roman triumph. The fact that we did so shows how far we are from the real spirit of the Dao.”
    
“I wonder what Lao would think about our current and past warlike activities in the Balkans and Iraq.”
    
“We have not very good rulers, I fear.”
    
“In 33 he says, ‘He who dies but does not really perish enjoys long life.’ Is he talking about the immortality of the soul?”

“I don’t think so. If you read on you will find that Chan points out that the Chinese think of immortality not in terms of individual survival but in terms of an immortality of reputation--your writings and your deeds. Look at it this way--some older person helps a child, say by sending her to school, she grows up to be a doctor and saves the life of someone who later becomes a ruler, etc. etc., a causal sequence extending over a thousand years--these people in the sequence, their deeds have never really perished.”
    
“OK, now I’ll read parts of 34; ‘The Great Dao flows everywhere....It clothes and feeds all things but does not claim to be master over them. Always without desires, it may be called The Small. All things come to it and it does not master them; it may be called The Great. Therefore (the sage) never strives himself for the great, and thereby the great is achieved.’”
    
“I can’t help but think of this in Western terms! It means, to my mind, that there is some universal ‘law’ or ‘power’ which is responsible for all that happens--but the expression ‘does not claim to be master’ allows for freedom of action at least on the part of self-conscious beings as ourselves, so Lao is not a Calvinist or Augustinian predestinationist. I admit, however, that this is a Western interpretation and may or may not coincide with what Lao had in mind.”
    
“Just when you think Lao isn’t so bad, he comes up with a recommendation that is just awful and shows how out of line his views are to democratic thinkers today.”
   
“What are you talking about?”
    
“Listen to this from 36: ‘Fish should not be taken away from water. And sharp weapons of the state should not be displayed to the people.’”
    
“I see what you mean, but his advice is generally followed even today by so called democratic governments, although I don’t consider governments that practice this really democratic at all in the true sense of the term.”
    
“Now what are you talking about?”
    
“You know, all this stuff you read about in the papers about the FBI and the CIA how they run all kinds of secret operations without any seeming control trying to assassinate people they deem a threat to their power--or the really terrible secret weapons systems the military creates such as the poison gases and germ warfare toxins they have made--not to mention the nuclear weapons they have and now all this information coming out about depleted uranium weapons or the training of terrorists at the School of the Americas run by the military (even if they changed the name to further conceal what goes on there). Don’t you think all this falls under Lao’s dictum that sharp weapons shouldn’t be displayed to the people?”
    
“Its all very confusing to me. I would have thought that Lao would be against ‘sharp weapons’ and things like you described. He says in the same chapter ‘The weak and the tender overcome the hard and the strong’ so he should be against ‘sharp weapons’--the state should get what it wants by being ‘weak and tender’ that is by education and treating people as people and following the Dao.”
    
“So there seems to be a contradiction in his teachings, just look back at 31 when he attacks ‘fine weapons’ and says they go against the Dao!  I’ll admit there can be a lot to argue about here.”
    
“And Chan points out that this doctrine of ‘deceit’ really upset the Confucianists. I guess Confucius would want the people to be educated and know what is going on in their state. After all, he thought government was for the benefit of the people and ultimately had to be extended to the whole world so people who are not displaying their ‘sharp weapons’ must be up to no good!”
    
“So noted! What’s next?”
    
“I’ll read part of 38: ‘The man of superior virtue is (not conscious of) his virtue, and in this way he really possesses virtue. The man of inferior virtue never loses (sight of) his virtue, and in this way he loses his virtue. The man of superior virtue takes no action, but has no ulterior motive to do so. The man of inferior virtue takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior humanity takes action, but has no ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior righteousness takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so. The man of superior propriety takes action, and when people do not respond to it, he will stretch his arms and force it on them. Therefore, only when Dao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise...propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder...the great man...dwells in the fruit (reality), and does not rest with the flower (appearance). Therefore he rejects the one, and accepts the other.’”
    
“This is a passage which again puts forth the view that the simple and natural are best, closest to the Dao. This is almost like Rousseau in the rejection of the artificialities of civilization.”
    
“Here in 39 Lao talks about the ‘One’--which I take to be Dao-- he says ‘Heaven obtained the One and became clear.... If heaven had not thus become clear, It would soon crack.’ He makes similar remarks about the efficacy of the One with regard, for example to the earth (without the One ‘It would soon be shaken’) and about kings and barons who became rulers by it and ‘They would soon fall’ without it. But then he says ‘Therefore humble station is the basis of honor. The low is the foundation of the high.’ I just don’t understand the conclusion he draws!”
    
“Well, this isn’t a syllogism after all. If you equate the One with the Dao this implies again the power of the Dao to have the ultimate influence over reality. Lao is being ‘mystical’ not ‘logical’ by referring to the ‘humble’ and the ‘low’--you see he is using the ‘One’ as a symbol for the ‘low’--a low number--and the ‘humble’. The ‘One’ is the beginning but the ‘thousand’, so to speak, is ultimately dependent upon it.”
 
“OK Karl, here is a verse from 40--’All things in the world come from being. And being comes from non-being.’”
    
“Now is the time to bring in some outside assistance,” Karl said as he went to his bookcase and pulled down a book.
    
“What is this book,” Fred asked.
    
“This is “A Short History of Chinese Philosophy” by Fung Yu-Lan, edited by Derk Bodde. It’s really required reading if we are interested in Chinese philosophy. Fung was a major philosopher in his own right and this is based on his great two volume work “History of Chinese Philosophy”. I think it is the best of the histories because it is by one of the most important philosophers in the modern Chinese tradition. It is similar to having “A History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell, although without some of the major misinterpretations.”
    
“So now we can use Fung as well as Chan for clarification, why didn’t you bring it out earlier?”
    
“Its better to introduce these aids slowly, besides Confucius wasn’t into all this metaphysical speculation but Lao’s work is full of these kinds of statements so where Chan does not give any clarification we can turn to Fung. I remember he had interesting comments to make on this Chapter from Laozi.”
    
“Chapter 40?”
    
“That is correct,” said Karl, flipping through Fung’s book. “Ah, here is the passage I was looking for. Listen to this Fred, it’s on page 96: ‘...the being of all things implies the being of Being. This is the meaning of Laozi saying [40].... The saying of Laozi does not mean that there was a time when there was only Non-being, and that then there came a time when Being came into being from Non-being. It simply means that if we analyze the existence of things, we see there must first be Being before there can be any things. Dao is the unnamable, is Non-Being, and is that by which all things come to be. Therefore, before the being of Being, there must be Non-being, from which Being comes into being. What is here said belongs to ontology, not to cosmology. It has nothing to do with time and actuality. For in time and actuality, there is no Being; there are only beings.’”
    
“And you think that quote is helpful?”
    
“Well, it looked better when I was reading this book as a student. Fung was a metaphysician himself and sometimes requires to be explained even more than what he is explaining!”
    
“So why bring him up.”
    
“Because he brings all the latent issues to the fore.”
    
“Well then, what else is there besides ‘time and actuality’? Are not ‘time and actuality’ circumlocutions for ‘existence’ so that Fung is saying ‘in existence there is no Existence only existents’. And I would say that what is true of ‘cosmology’ is true of ‘ontology.’”
 
“Fred, I wouldn’t disagree with you. This passage from Fung is turning out to be nonsense!  I think Fung should have said ‘Being’ is a logical category that precedes ‘being’ but even that is taking us far and away from the, I think, much more simple meaning of Laozi’s words.”
    
“So, how would you explain 40?”
    
“First, I want to say these digressions are philosophically interesting. Second, I think the best way to look at Lao’s saying is to think of ‘all things come from being’ as meaning ‘whatever exists today comes from previously existing things’. Things just don’t pop up out of nothing. And ‘being comes from non-being’ means there is some principle or cause that is responsible for the state of the existing world as we know it and this is DAO which is not itself the same as the beings of this world which are ultimately dependent upon it and for this reason Lao calls it ‘non-being.’ “
     
“I’m moving on Karl, to Chapter 41.”
     
“OK”
    
“’When the highest type of men hear Dao, They diligently practice it. When the average type of men hear Dao, They half believe in it. When the lowest type of men hear Dao, They laugh heartily at it. If they did not laugh at it, it would not be Dao. Therefore there is the established saying: The Dao which is bright appears to be dark.’”
    
“Two observations about this Fred. How can the three types ‘hear Dao’ since (Chapter One) the Dao that can be spoken of isn’t the Dao. I mean, how would they know they actually knew what they heard was Tao? Second, since this is supposed to be Lao’s book introducing his views how can there be an ‘established view’? Anyway, since I’m not interested in the history of the text but the idea content, I will restrict myself to this idea of the ‘bright’ appearing as the ‘dark’. This view is right out of the species of doctrines that gave rise to Plato’s views of the reception of philosophical ‘Truth” as he expressed it in “The Republic”. I mean this is at one with the Allegory of the Cave. The ultimate ‘Truth’ is the Dao, so if we replace ‘Dao’ with ‘Truth’ in the quote you read we have the exact meaning intended by Lao. We also have a theme which is common to almost all philosophy whether in China, India or Greece at this time and that is that philosophical truth is ultimately esoteric and limited to a few individuals. The great mass of humanity, hoi polloi, are unable, why is the big question, to grasp the truth and so while it is bright for the sage or philosopher it remains dark to them. The average sort of understand it but it really doesn’t motivate them. So we have three groups of people--a small group motivated by the truth (they get into a lot of trouble most of the time), a middle group that is neither motivated nor hostile (too busy living the everyday problems of life) and a ‘low’ group that is hostile and prefers to continue along in a dark and ignorant and unthreatening life style based on unreflective acceptance of common ideas.”
    
“You seem to be giving a Confucian twist to this! Wouldn’t Lao praise the simple unreflective lifestyle as the manifestation of the Dao? In fact, once you have the ‘highest type of men’ and the ‘lowest type’ of men, hasn’t the Dao already been lost?”
     
“You know, you are right Fred. This is a bit of a contradiction. But the fact is the Dao has been lost from the point of view of Lao--and a long time ago too. So we must make do with the world we live in. “
    
“Does Fung cast any light on this?”
    
“Actually he does and his comment is based on part of Chapter 40 you didn’t quote a few minutes ago.”
    
“What was that?”
    
“Go back and read the first line.”
    
“’Reversion is the action of Dao.’”
     
“Fung points out that this sums up Lao’s views on what we would call dialectics. He says ‘The idea is that if anything develops certain extreme qualities, those qualities invariability revert to become their opposites. This constitutes a law of nature.’”
    
“Sounds like Hegel or Marx.”
    
“In a way, but Lao’s ‘law’ is more mechanical than really dialectical in the Hegelian sense.”
    
“How so?”
    
“Well, in Lao the ‘hard’ becomes the ‘soft’ and then the ‘soft’ becomes the ‘hard’ or the ‘weak’ overcomes the ‘strong’ and then the ‘strong’ becomes the ‘weak’ etc. There appears to be just alteration going on but no advance. When Hegel or Marx and Engels say something like ‘things transform into their opposites’ they don’t intend by this mere alteration back and forth ad infinitum but an advance to a higher level or if you object to ‘higher’ a radically different level. An imaginative but simple example is Lao would give opposites as water-ice, ice-water whereas Hegel might say something like ‘hydrogen is the “opposite” of oxygen, but the two opposites transform into water’ (and other things as well). Fung says this ‘law’ is so paradoxical that hoi polloi can’t grasp it and that is why they laugh at it. Anything really ‘true’ about the world is like that--if hoi polloi grasps it, it can’t be true! Of course, Marxists would like it to be the other way around.”
    
“You know, Karl, for all his praise of the simple, he is really a snob. This view of the ‘low’ never understanding anything, along with ‘hiding the sharp weapons of the state’ call into question Lao’s sincerity about the concern he is alleged to express for the ‘common people.’”
    
“A case can be made for this. It is Confucius who wants to educate as many people as possible seeing in education an almost universal panacea.”
    
“Yes, but he won’t show you the other three corners if you can’t get them yourself after he shows you the first.” [Cf. Confucius dialogue]
    
“Why don’t you read the next interesting tidbit?”
   
“This is from 42: ‘Dao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things [i.e. everything] carry the yin and embrace the yang [Chan:’ Yin is the passive, female[!] cosmic principle or force while yang is the active[!] or male principle.’] {You can see males thought this one up!}, and through the blending of the material force (qi) [Chan: ‘Variously translated as matter, matter-energy, vital force, breath, etc.] they achieve harmony.... What others have taught, I teach also: “Violent and fierce people do not die a natural death.” I shall make this the father (basis or starting point) of my teaching.’”
    
“I remember Chan on this passage. He made some good points. Why don’t you read the salient passages?”
    
“His main point is ‘...the natural evolution from the simple to the complex without any act of creation. This theory is common to practically all Chinese philosophical schools.’”
     
“The word ‘creation’ is confusing. In the West, following the developments of Neo-Platonism, the ‘ten thousand’ things also came about by emanation from the One or ‘God’ this is how they were ‘created’. I think Chan has in mind the Western notion of creation ex nihilo which was read back by Christians (and then Jews) into the Genesis creation account and has become a dogma. And out of the blue comes this new starting point--I mean, the comment about fierce people. I think it is better to retain the starting point as the Dao and regard this new passage as the starting point of his ethics or social or moral ideas.”
    
“44:’ Which is worse, gain or loss? Therefore he who has lavish desires will spend extravagantly. He who hoards will lose heavily. He who is contented suffers no disgrace. He who knows when to stop is free from danger. Therefore he can long endure.' There is a string of quotable quotes here which I will just read to give more of a flavor of Daoism in these middle chapters. Go ahead and chime in, Karl, if you think any explication is needed.”
   
  “I will.”
    
“46: ‘When Dao prevails in the world, galloping horses are turned back to fertilize (the fields with their dung). When Dao does not prevail in the world, war horses thrive in the suburbs.’”
 
“I guess the fact that we spend so much on the military and have such big budgets dedicated to killing and maiming our fellow human beings all over the world doesn’t say much for the prevalence of the Dao in the current world order.”
    
“47: ‘The further one goes, the less one knows. Therefore the sage knows without going about, Understands without seeing, And accomplishes without any action.’”
    
“That might have been true in the days of yore, Fred, before the development of the scientific method and the realization of the importance of research programs. If Lao thinks that knowledge and understanding come about just through contemplation and intuition, he is wrong, at least by our standards. Darwin would never have come up with his theory of evolution without his ‘going about’ on the HMS Beagle.”
    
“49: ‘The sage has no fixed (personal) ideas. He regards the people’s ideas as his own. I treat those who are good with goodness, And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. I am honest to those who are honest, And I am also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained.”
    
“I don’t see how this agrees with Chapter 41. The sage follows Dao on a higher level than ‘the people’ who appear to be indifferent if average or if ‘low’ laughing at it. So, it may be that the sage, like the ideal scientist or philosopher, leaves him or herself out of the equation (knowledge being ideally objective) but the ‘people’ is too much of an abstraction nowadays, especially since the Dao is not prevailing, to believe the sage’s ideas are the same as the people’s. The only way this could be the case is if the sage represents the ‘general will’ in Rousseau’s sense, and this might, after all, just be what Laozi actually means.”
    
“51: "Dao produces them (the ten thousand things). Virtue fosters them. Matter gives them physical form. The circumstances and tendencies complete them. Therefore the ten thousand things esteem Dao and honor virtue. Dao is esteemed and virtue honored without anyone’s order. They always come spontaneously. Therefore Dao produces them and virtue fosters them.’”
    
“The word being used for ‘virtue’ is ‘de'--which also means ‘power’. Fung says that Dao is the ‘ground’ and the things come to be by the power manifested in them. Think of Dao as the laws of nature by which material things come to be what they are and manifest their ‘virtue’ or power. It’s as when Aristotle said the virtue of a knife is its ability to cut. In this we see Spinoza’s universe reflected in the ideas of the Chinese sage.”
    
“54: ‘He who has a firm grasp (of Dao) cannot be separated from it.... When one cultivates virtue in the world, it becomes universal.’”
    
“The point of this chapter is that such cultivation begins with the person then extends to the family, then to the community, the country and finally the whole world.”
 
“You get the idea from this next quote of the remoteness of the sage from the concerns of most people. 56: ‘Become one with the dusty world. This is called profound identification. Therefore it is impossible either to be intimate and close to him or to be distant and indifferent to him.’ A little before this quote he says, ‘He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.’”
    
“A real problem since Lao has to ‘speak’ in order to give this bit of information to us!”
    
“57: ‘The more laws and orders are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be. Therefore the sage says: I take no action and the people of themselves are transformed. I love tranquility and the people of themselves become correct. I engage in no activity and the people of themselves become prosperous. I have no desires and the people of themselves become simple.’ Chan says this laissez-faire attitude was also that of Confucius.”
    
“I can’t agree with Chan. How can Confucius say ‘I take no action’ and the people are transformed. This is an attack on Confucius. Confucians seek to take a lot of actions to improve the world and correct and make new laws to govern society.  According to Fung this ‘laissez-faire’ attitude is preceded by the sage ruler first undoing ‘all the causes of trouble in the world’ which is very ‘proactive’--if I may use this pretentious and ridiculous word being currently substituted by the semi-literate for ‘active.’ After the troubles have been eliminated then the sage ruler rules by means of wu-wei--i.e., by non-action [meaning no unnatural action]. Fung says, ‘The Daoists agree with the Confucianists that the ideal state is one which has a sage as its head.’ They both agree with Plato on this. But they are different kinds of sages.
    
“I feel another rule coming on.”
    
“Why not? We can review our rules from the discussion on Confucius when we finish with Laozi but now I am proposing Rule Four-’Always strive to have a philosopher-sage as the chief executive of the state.’”
    
“That's too abstract. What really qualifies a person as a philosopher-sage? Laozi’s ideas on this are different from those of Confucius.”
    
“I know, I know. This is just the framework the rule will have to be further discussed when we evaluate the different philosophies as we go along. I now want to make a comment about the laws being made leading to the conclusion that ‘the more thieves and robbers there will be.’ Of course, there are some minimum laws that any society needs, but when the state begins to make more and more new laws it also makes criminals where there were none before.”
    
“What do you mean?”
 
“During the rise of Capitalism, for example, when the government closed off the commons to the peasants, as in England, many people were forced into criminal activity just to survive. By making new laws about who can use the commons then actions which were legal--grazing you animals on such and such land or hunting-- became illegal and you became a criminal for doing today what yesterday was a right. Prohibition in the United States turned millions of people technically into criminals and also fostered the development of criminal industries which became non-criminal as soon as prohibition was repealed. The criminalization of certain drugs in this country has filled the prisons with non-violent ‘offenders’--recreational pot smokers right along with drug gang lords. This is certainly an exemplification of Laozi’s dictum.”
    
“Here are some more political views--58: ‘When the government is non-discriminative and dull, the people are contented and generous. When the government is searching and discriminative the people are disappointed and contentious.... The people have been deluded for a long time. Therefore the sage is as pointed as a square but does not pierce.... He is as bright as light but does not dazzle.’”
    
“Well, Fred, that’s the way it is when the Dao is not being observed. Even in our world today special interest groups bombard the people with biased self-serving messages. It is so easy to delude the people about what should be done with respect to the environment, fighting diseases such as AIDS or COVID, fighting starvation in the world, or domestic homelessness. ‘Sages’, that is philosophers and scientists, may be able to devise solutions to these problems but with a ‘discriminative’ government catering to special interests rather than the general welfare, how are the deluded people to know what to do to get the Dao of society back on track?”
    
“What do you think of this? 61: ‘A big country may be compared to the lower part of a river. It is the converging point of the world; It is the female of the world. The female always overcomes the male by tranquility, and by tranquility she is underneath. A big state can take over a small state if it places itself below the small state; And the small state can take over a big state if it places itself below the big state. Thus some, by being (naturally) low, take over (other states) ....’”
    
“What is this--the political missionary position? The first part sounds like sexist nonsense, to be expected, I’m afraid, considering the time and place of Laozi. I think big states treat little states in a more canine fashion. This appears to be some more ‘mysticism’ which is impracticable in our day. Yet the recommendation that small states will be better being ‘tranquil’--I mean by humoring and trying to get along with big states--is probably good advice. In our day, however, big states try to get their way by throwing around their ‘bigness’."

​“62: ‘Dao is the storehouse of all things.... Even if a man is bad, when has (Dao) rejected him? Therefore on the occasion of crowning an emperor or installing the three ministers [grand tutor, grand preceptor, and grand protector], Rather than present large pieces of jade preceded by teams of four horses, it is better to kneel and offer this Dao’”
    
“Well, this makes sense. Wisdom, knowledge of the Dao in so far as it is knowable, is to be preferred to the outward show of ceremony. Even Confucius would agree, though he liked the ceremonies.”
     
“The next chapter is interesting both in itself and because of Chan’s comment. 63: ‘Whether it is big or small, many or few, repay hatred with virtue... Difficult undertakings have always started with what is easy, and great undertakings have always started with what is small. Therefore the sage never strives for the great, and thereby the great is achieved... He who takes things too easily will surely encounter much difficulty. For this reason, even the sage regards things as difficult, And therefore he encounters no difficulty.’  “
    
“What does Chan say?”
    
“He says this is the ‘Daoist doctrine of walking the second mile, which was unacceptable to Confucius.’  He means the comment about repaying hatred with virtue. Remember Analects 14:36? “
   
“Yes, Confucius said, repay hatred with uprightness and virtue with virtue. But uprightness is the same as impartially and that is a virtue in itself (most of the time) so this difference between Confucius and Lao doesn’t amount to a whole lot in my opinion.”
    
“Now we go to 64: ‘A journey of a thousand li [ a li = about 1/3 mile] starts from where one stands.’ Hey! I always thought that was from Confucius--’A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step’....”
    
“What’s that from --a fortune cookie?”
    
“Not funny, Karl. Well, live and learn. One of my favorite quotes turns out to come from Laozi instead of Confucius. I shall continue. ‘He who grasps things loses them. For this reason, the sage takes no action and therefore does not fail. He grasps nothing and therefore does not lose anything... If one remains as careful at the end as he was at the beginning, there will be no failure. Therefore the sage desires to have no desire... He learns to be unlearned, and returns to what the multitude has missed (Dao). Thus he supports all things in their natural state but does not take any action.’ What do you make of all this?”
    
“Again, that ‘no action’ means no unnatural action. The sage tries to understand Dao--still a dubious prospect from his opening verses! And there is another negative thought about hoi polloi. I’m still pro-Confucius here. We can study the Dao and we should then try to impart it to the multitude. I think Lao doesn’t share this idea fully.”
 
“Karl, the very next chapter bears on this question--Chapter 65 I mean.”
    
“Excellent! Read it because Fung also comments on this chapter.
    
“65: In ancient times those who practiced the Dao well did not seek to enlighten the people, but to make them ignorant. People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge. Therefore he who rules the state through knowledge is a robber of the state: He who rules a state not through knowledge is a blessing to the state.’ There is some more about returning to the natural standard, but what about this keeping the people ignorant?”
    
“A greater contrast to Confucius could not be found. But to understand this in the Chinese context, I’m going to read this passage from Fung. ‘”Ignorant” here is a translation of the Chinese "you", which means ignorance in the sense of simplicity and innocence. The sage not only wants his people to be you, but wants himself to be so too.... In Daoism you is not a vice, but a great virtue’ And Fung goes on to say, however, that the you of the sage is really higher than that of the common people. This means it's not really you at all! ‘The you of the sage is the result of a conscious process of cultivation. It is something higher than knowledge, something more, not less. There is a common Chinese saying: “Great wisdom is like ignorance.” The you of the sage is great wisdom, and not like the you of a child or of ordinary people. The latter kind of you is a gift of nature, while that of the sage is an achievement of the spirit. There is a great difference between the two. But in many cases the Daoists seem to have confused them.’”
    
“I’ll say! Using the same word for the uneducated ignorance of hoi polloi--and calling that a ‘gift of nature’! and the sophisticated understanding of the philosopher is no good. This is a clear case where a Confucian ‘rectification of names’ is needed!”
    
“I couldn’t agree more, Fred. Naturally people become more difficult to govern the more they get away from the ‘gift of nature’ and find out what is really going on. Thinking of all the peasant uprisings in Chinese history, I imagine that the Chinese ruling class must have identified with this passage from Laozi.”
    
“Yet they were officially Confucian and thus believed in education even if not to the extent of Confucius himself.”
    
“That’s right. It only shows how impractical Daoism is in the real world. People are not going to stay ignorant, and you need knowledge and education and Confucian norms to make sure people are not ‘over exploited’ and thus rebel. When we look at more Confucians, we will see this.”
    
“Here is Chapter 66: ‘The great rivers and seas are kings of all mountain streams Because they skillfully stay below them. That is why they can be their kings. Therefore, in order to be the superior of the people, one must, in the use of words, place himself below them. And in order to be ahead of the people, One must, in one’s own person, follow them. Therefore the sage places himself above the people and they do not feel his weight. He places himself in front of them and the people do not harm him. Therefore the world rejoices in praising him without getting tired of it. It is precisely because he does not compete that the world cannot compete with him.’”
    
“If this is interpreted as ‘learn from the people’ it would be acceptable. But with the doctrine of keeping people ignorant it looks more like a plan for simply making the ruler’s life easy. Considering the feudal system in China, I suspect that the latter interpretation may be more on the mark.”
   
“He says something incomprehensible to me in 69: ‘There is no greater disaster than to make light of the enemy. Making light of the enemy will destroy my treasures. Therefore when armies are mobilized and issues joined, The man who is sorry over the fact will win.’ Now how is being ‘sorry’ got anything to do with winning a battle?”
    
“This is mystical (that is, ‘meaningless’) to me, Fred. Unless to ‘win’ refers to some inner state. Anyway, a sage ought not to have ‘enemies’. If things come to blows, the Daoist sage must have screwed up royally!”
    
“70: ‘My doctrines are very easy to understand and very easy to practice, but none in the world can understand or practice them. My doctrines have a source (Nature); my deeds have a master (Dao). Few people know me, and therefore I am highly valued. Therefore the sage wears a coarse cloth on top and carries jade within his bosom.’”
    
“Lao seems to be preoccupied about being ‘highly valued’, but this chapter is expressing a truth that sages need to and do understand.  Most people don’t understand ‘Nature’. That is, they have no conception of science or scientific method--not that Lao did either--and so really don’t understand the workings of the world around them and this is one of the great reasons why many people are not happy and cannot attain their ends. For Lao, I think this notion of ‘Nature’ is more like ‘fatalism’ but this is an advanced concept in itself for his age. The closest thing to understanding in a scientific way is the ‘Dao’ which operates in a law-like manner. The sage tries to live according to ‘Nature’ and understand the ‘Dao’. Thus far what Lao says makes sense. The question is whose Dao, Lao’s or Confucius’s?”
    
“OK Karl, here is 71: ‘To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.’”  And Chan refers us to a part of the Analects we missed! Namely 2:17: ‘Confucius said, “Zilu, shall I teach you [the way to acquire] knowledge? To say when you know that you do know and to say that you do not know when you do not know--that is [the way to acquire] knowledge.”’
    
“Sometimes I think sages are the same the world over! Remember that Socrates' claim to wisdom was that he knew that he did not know.”
    
“And 72 has both a warning for the people and some sage advice or at least a motto for sages. ‘When the people do not have fear of what is dreadful, Then what is greatly dreadful will descend on them.’ The motto goes ‘...the sage knows himself but does not show himself. He loves himself but does not exalt himself.’”
    
“Sage advice indeed, Fred.”
    
“This is interesting, 73: ‘Who knows why Heaven dislikes what it dislikes?...Heaven’s net is indeed vast. Though its meshes are wide, it misses nothing.’ Chan says the idea of Heaven’s net greatly reinforced the Chinese idea about ‘retribution.’”
    
“Sounds like a Daoist version of karma. There is nothing directly related to the concept of karma in this quote, but it is easy to conjecture that after the arrival of Buddhism this concept was read back into Laozi.”
    
“Next we have some good social commentary, actually not at all inconsistent with Confucian notions and must have endeared Lao to many of the more uptight emperors. 75: ‘The people starve because the ruler eats too much tax-grain. Therefore they starve.They are difficult to rule because their ruler does too many things. Therefore they are difficult to rule. The people take death lightly because their ruler strives for life too vigorously. Therefore they take death lightly.’”
     
“Yes, Fred, you’re on the money. It is certainly wrong to think that Daoists, at least of the Laozi stripe, as not being interested in social questions. A Confucian could have easily stated the same ideas expressed in this passage.”
    
“How do you make sense of the following? Its number 76: ‘When man is born, he is tender and weak. At death, he is stiff and hard. All things, the grass as well as trees, are tender and supple while alive. When dead, they are withered and dried. Therefore the stiff and hard are companions of death. The tender and weak are companions of life. Therefore if the army is strong, it will not win. If a tree is stiff it will break. The strong and the great are inferior, while the tender and the weak are superior.’ I get most of it--but what can it mean to say a strong army won’t win?”
    
“I think this is very subtle, but I’ll give an example from Chinese history and you can try to think up examples from other historical periods. In 222 B.C. the first Chinese empire was created when the state of Qin vanquished all the rival petty states that existed at that time. Qin was led by a man called Zheng who was now called Qin Shi Huang or ‘First Emperor.’  He had a very strong army and ran his new empire practically like a ‘fascist’ dictator. He killed all his opponents violent and non-violent alike, and burned all the books by anyone whose philosophy he didn’t like--which was everyone except those who supported without question his government and personal rule. These methods were supposed to assure that his empire would last ten thousand generations. But he so alienated everyone that that after he died in 210 B.C. his whole empire was gone within three years. So much for having a strong army. If he had been more ‘tender’ and not so harsh perhaps his empire would have lasted and not fallen due to internal disintegration. You can perhaps make analogies to what happened to the ‘Thousand Year Reich’ and to the American Army in Vietnam which was defeated by the ‘weak’ because, while ‘strong’ it was harsh and cruel rather than showing a ‘tender’ side to the poor and impoverished peasants. So real ‘strength’ may be just the opposite of what those ignorant of the Dao think it is.”
    
“This makes sense, Karl, and seems reinforced by this from 77: ‘Heaven’s Way is indeed like the bending of a bow. When (the string) is high, bring it down. When it is low raise it up.... The Way of Heaven reduces whatever is excessive and supplements whatever is insufficient. The way of man is different. It reduces the insufficient to offer to the excessive. Who is able to have excess to offer to the world? Only the man of Dao. Therefore the sage acts, but does not rely on his own ability ‘ [i.e. he follows the Dao].”
    
“Absolutely, Fred. First Emperor was not following the Way of Heaven but that of man, that is of the man ignorant of Dao.”
    
“Right, and Lao continues in 78: ‘All the world knows that the weak overcomes the strong and the soft overcomes the hard. But none can practice it. Therefore the sage says: He who suffers disgrace for his country Is called the lord of the land. He who takes upon himself the country’s misfortunes Becomes the king of the empire. Straight words seem to be their opposite.’”
    
“I can only add, ‘in the long run.’”
    
“Now here is 79: ‘To patch up great hatred is surely to leave some hatred behind. How can this be regarded as good? Therefore the sage keeps the left-hand portion (obligation) of a contract And does not blame the other party.’ And he ends this passage with what Chan calls a ‘common ancient proverb’ to wit: ‘The Way of Heaven has no favorites. It is always with the good man.’”
    
“And the ‘good man’ is the one who follows the Dao of things of course.”
    
“Now here is an interesting quote having nothing to do with Daoism, other than Lao’s usual back to nature and down with civilization motif, I mean this from 80: ‘Let the people again knot cords and use them (in place of writing).’ What does that remind you of Karl?”
    
“It reminds me of the Inca.”
    
“That is correct. The Inca did not have a writing system and they kept records and even sent messages by means of knotted cords called quipu. I just find it very interesting that both ancient China and the Inca civilization had these methods of communication. It may even be pre-Inca. Who knows how far back in time this went?” [We can’t read the quipu today.]
    
“Well it can certainly lead to interesting speculation. Are you suggesting some prehistoric contact between the Chinese and the Inca or their predecessors? The Inca were rather late you know, around 1200 AD or so.”
    
“Not really. I just thought it was a strange coincidence.”
    
“You know, Fred, if that quote was from 80 we have come to the end of the “Daode Jing.” It only has 81 chapters.”
    
“Right you are Karl, and here is the last quote I’m going to read: ‘A good man does not argue; He who argues is not a good man. A wise man has no extensive knowledge; he who has extensive knowledge is not a wise man. The sage does not accumulate for himself. The more he uses for others, the more he has himself. The more he gives to others, the more he possesses of his own. The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure. The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.’”
    
“I see an altruistic moral sense at work here, but it contradicts some of the previous passages about keeping the people ignorant, etc., it can’t really benefit the people to be lacking in knowledge....”
    
“Ignorance is bliss.”
    
“When knowledge is folly--but you still need knowledge to be aware of folly. If Laozi had been consistent he would have thought the “Daode Jing” itself was folly and never have written it! And he is just wrong about the relation between the wise man and knowledge. Extensive knowledge of the uses of plants and herbs, etc., in medicine or how to take care of animals, or what foods to grow and how to do it, or how to read the weather signs to be able predict storms or floods, etc., are all examples of being ‘wise’ by accumulating ‘extensive knowledge.’ I can see why the Confucian sages were upset with many of the ideas floated about in this book. But I’m glad we went over it since it is so important in the history of Chinese thought.”
 
“The most important Daoist was actually Zhuangzi (369-286 B.C.) and we won’t understand Daoism without discussing him.”
 
“OK. We will do him next. A Marxist Discussion of Zhuangzi.”

​To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
​To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.

​“Well, Karl, what do you know about the Legalists and Han Fei in particular?”
 
 
“I remember what Reese [“Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion” by William L. Reese] says.  That he lived in the Third Century B.C., that he was the Prince of Han and committed suicide in 233 B.C. because the King of Qin wouldn’t accept his services. He is the major philosopher in the Legalist School.”
 
 
“Pretty good. Chan calls this school the most radical of the schools for its rejection of Confucianism (morality) and Moism (religion). Remember, the Qin Kingdom conquered the other Chinese Kingdoms and the Qin Dynasty (221-206 B.C.) set up the imperial system, under the First Emperor, that ruled China until 1912. The dubious claim to fame of the Legalists is that they helped set up the ideological framework for the Qin. Han Fei was the most important of a line of Legalist philosophers. He also studied under Xunzi and, unjustly I think, some of his more ‘totalitarian’ tendencies have been read back into his teacher. Legalist predecessors were Kuan Chung (Seventh Century B.C.), Lord Shang, Prime Minister of Qin (Fourth Century B.C.), his contemporary, the Prime Minister of Han, Shen Buhai and Shen Dao (c.350-275 B.C.). Chan notes that his fellow student with Xunzi, Li Si, who died in 208 B.C. was behind the suicide of Han Fei. I can’t believe he killed himself just because he couldn’t get a job with the future First Emperor!”
 
 
“That does seem strange. Here is some more info in Creel [H.G. Creel “Confucius and the Chinese Way”]. It seems Li Si actually turned the King against Han Fei by telling him that he would not support Qin in a war against Han. Han Fei was tossed into prison and forced to kill himself by Li Si. That makes more sense.”
 
 
“It also makes Li Si a fake sage! That type of behavior seems completely against all the teachings of the philosophers we have so far discussed! Xunzi would not have liked that at all. Why did he do it?”
 
 
“His motive makes it even worse. He knew that Han Fei was a better philosopher than he, and he was jealous that the King would prefer him. Li Si was already a minister in Qin when Han Fei came to offer his services.”
 
 
“So, are we ready to look at the “Han Feizi” and see what this new philosophy was all about?”
 
 
“I’m ready, Fred.”
 
 
“Chan says Han Fei is most famous for his synthesis of Legalist views and for his discussion of the Dao which influenced all the Daoists of note. I will begin with Chan’s first selection ‘1. The Synthesis of Legalistic Doctrine.’ Han Fei starts by noting that Confucianism and Moism are the most popular philosophies and attacks them for trying to pretend they represent the wisdom of the old sage kings. Han Fei is against using the past as a model for the present and future. He says, since no one can really tell what the old sage-kings' true teachings were or how to apply them today, then, ‘To be sure of anything without corroborating evidence is stupidity, and to base one’s argument on anything about which one cannot be sure is perjury. Therefore those who openly base their arguments on the authority of the ancient kings and who are dogmatically certain of Yao and Shun are men either of stupidity or perjury.’ “
 
 
“Technically, while Mo may have mentioned Yao and Shun, it was Wen and Tang and Wu and Yu that he appeals to most of the time in the Chan extracts. But in principle Han Fei’s argument is against both Mo and Confucius.”
 
 
“This next quote shows that the Legalists were in favor of a government of laws and not of men! ‘Although there is a naturally straight arrow or a naturally round piece of wood [once in a hundred generations] which does not depend on any straightening or bending, the skilled workman does not value it. Why? Because it is not just one person who wishes to ride and not just one shot that the archer wishes to shoot [so bending and straightening of wood is needed as a skill-tr]. Similarly, the enlightened ruler does not value people who are naturally good and who do not depend on reward and punishment. Why? Because the laws of the state must not be neglected, and government is not for only one man. Therefore the ruler who has the technique does not follow the good that happens by chance but practices the way of necessity ....’ And Chan remarks, ‘In the necessity of straightening and bending, note the similarity to Xunzi. The theory of the originally evil nature of man is a basic assumption of the Legalists.”
 
 
“I still say that Xunzi was not like the Legalists. I pointed this out at the start of our discussion on the Xunzi.”
 
 
“And I said I agreed with you. You will be happy to know that Chan also agrees with you and not with Fung [Fung Yu-lan, “A Short History of Chinese Philosophy”] who holds that Han Fei based his doctrines on those of Xunzi.”
 
 
“Well, I like that! Just what does old Chan have to say about this issue Fred?”
 
 
“He says the bending and straightening in Xunzi meant education and the like, but Han Fei only relied on rewards and punishments. Chan said, ‘Xunzi had a firm faith in man’s moral reform but the Legalists have no such faith.’ And, he adds, ‘It is misleading, at least, to say, as Fung does, that Han Feizi based his doctrines on the teachings of Xunzi.’ This is because they ‘were utterly different in their attitudes toward man as a moral being.’”
 
 
“I’ll buy that. So, let’s go on with some more of the ‘Han Feizi’.”
 
 
“Sure. Han Feizi says the enlightened ruler needs four things to ensure his success. Namely, the ‘timeliness of the seasons,’ the support of the people, ‘skills and talents,’ and finally a position of power. He says, ‘Acting against the sentiment of the people, even Meng Pen and Xia Yu (famous men of great strength) could not make them exhaust their efforts. Therefore with timeliness of the seasons the grains will grow of themselves.’ In fact with all four conditions, then, ‘Like water flowing and like a boat floating, the ruler follows the course of Nature and enforces an infinite number of commands. Therefore he is called an enlightened ruler....’”
 
 
“Sounds like Daoism.”
 
 
“You couldn’t be more right Karl. Chan’s comment on that quote I just gave is, ‘Of all the ideas of the Legalists, perhaps the most philosophical is that of following Nature, which was derived from the Daoists.’ And, although he did not include it in his “Source Book”, Chan says that one of the chapters in the “Han Feizi” is a commentary on the thought of Laozi.”
 
 
“That’s excellent. Does he get more specific about law?”
 
 
“Try this. ‘The important thing for the ruler is either laws or statecraft. A law is that which is enacted into the statute books, kept in government offices, and proclaimed to the people. Statecraft is that which is harbored in the ruler’s own mind so as to fit all situations and control all ministers. Therefore for law there is nothing better than publicity, whereas in statecraft, secrecy is desired....’”
 
 
“Sounds a little like Machiavelli.”
 
 
“He goes on, ‘Ministers are afraid of execution and punishment but look upon congratulations and rewards as advantages. Therefore, if a ruler himself applies punishment and kindness, all ministers will fear his power and turn to the advantages.’”
 
 
“Yes, I remember this. The ‘two handles’ of government--reward and punishment. Machiavelli says a prince is better off being feared than loved, and I see that Han Fei also goes in for the fear factor.”

“Yes he does. A minister gets punished if he does something small after having said he would do something big, but also if he expects to do something small and it turns out to be big. Han Fei says, ‘It is not that the ruler is not pleased with the big accomplishments but he considers the failure of the big accomplishments to correspond to the words worse than the big accomplishments themselves. Therefore he is to be punished....’”
 
 
“That certainly won’t encourage ministers to surpass themselves! That seems counter-productive. I understand being punished for big talk and little deeds, but if you set out to do only a little yet accomplish something big despite yourself, I think it is not wise for the ruler to punish you. Suppose you said you would delay the enemy while the ruler collects his forces and instead you are able to defeat the enemy. What is the sense of being punished?”
 
 
“I agree with you Karl but that is the way Legalists play the game. Here is what Chan says about it. ‘Like practically all ancient Chinese schools, the Legalists emphasized the theory of the correspondence of names and actualities. But while the Confucianists stressed the ethical and social meaning of the theory and the Logicians stressed the logical aspect, the Legalists were interested in it primarily for the purpose of political control. With them the theory is neither ethical nor logical but a technique for regimentation.’”
 
 
“Well that it is, but it will not really work in the interests of the ruler. In fact the Qin Legalist state fell apart shortly after the death of the First Emperor. Don’t forget that Han Fei had to commit suicide, a victim perhaps of his own Machiavellian position.”
 
 
“Here is a big attack on the Confucianists.”
 
 
“This should be good!”
 
 
“This attack is also directed at Mozi so his doctrines were still around. ‘At present Confucianists and Moists all praise ancient kings for their universal love for the whole world, which means that they regarded the people as parents [regard their children].... Now, to hold that rulers and ministers act towards each other like father and son and consequently there will necessarily be orderly government, is to imply that there are no disorderly fathers or sons. According to human nature, none are more affectionate than parents who love all children, and yet not all children are necessarily orderly.’”
 
 
“So here come the ‘two handles’.”
 
 
“It seems to be the case Karl. Han Fei says that you have to have laws against the disorderly people in the state. He makes the point that ‘people are submissive to power and few of them can be influenced by the doctrines of righteousness.’”
 
 
“That’s the case in empirical states that haven’t been designed to conform to Confucian ideals. Why should we limit ourselves to these kinds of state?”
 
 
“Because that is being realistic. Look, Han Fei says, at what happened to Confucius in the real world. In the real world ‘Duke Ai of Lu was an inferior ruler. When he sat on the throne as the sovereign of the state, none within the borders of the state dared refuse to submit. For people are originally submissive to power and it is truly easy to subdue people with power. Therefore Confucius turned out to be a subordinate and Duke Ai, contrary to one’s expectation, became a ruler. Confucius was not influenced by Duke Ai’s righteousness; instead, he submitted to his power. Therefore on the basis of righteousness, Confucius would not submit to Duke Ai, but because of the manipulation of power, Confucius became a subordinate to him. Nowadays in trying to persuade rulers, scholars do not advocate the use of power which is sure to win, but say that if one is devoted to the practice of humanity and righteousness, one will become a true king.’”
 
 
“Just the view of Plato as well as al-Farabi [872-950 A.D, great Islamic Aristotelian]. But you don’t have to tell me that Han Fei thinks that that is bunk.”
 
 
“With a vengeance! It looks to me that he wouldn’t support any of the Confucian policies and would rather see a big military state--Sparta rather than Athens! He says, ‘The state supports scholars and knights-errant in times of peace, but when an emergency arises it has to use soldiers. Thus those who have been benefited by the government cannot be used by it and those used by it have not been benefited.’”
 
 
“It does look like a professional army would fulfill his ideas. But, that type of army is parasitical in times of peace and it makes oppression by the government so much the easier. I presume his reference to ‘knights-errant’ is a swipe at the Moists.”
 
 
“Here are some more of his ideas, ‘If in governmental measures one neglects ordinary affairs of the people and what even the simple folks can understand, but admires the doctrines of the highest wisdom, that would be contrary to the way of orderly government. Therefore subtle and unfathomable doctrines are no business of the people.... Therefore the way of the enlightened ruler is to unify all laws but not to seek for wisemen and firmly to adhere to statecraft but not to admire faithful persons. Thus laws will never fail and no officials will ever commit treachery or deception.’”
 
 
“You know Fred, I don’t think that this is an either/or type of situation. I’m sure the Confucians would also agree that the people should not be left out of consideration. They always advocated education. That doesn’t mean that just because you have the elementary schools you have to abandon the university--which is what Han Fei seems to be saying. His emphasis on ‘statecraft’--the secret machinations of the ruler’s brain seems to conflict with his confidence in the ‘laws’ and introduces arbitrariness into the system. As for officials never committing treachery or deception--look what happened to him. Either Li Si, a Legalist himself, committed treachery or Han Fei was engaged in deception and the future First Emperor was right to imprison him. But the consensus is that Han Fei was innocent. Therefore he was the victim of ‘statecraft’ and in this instance the laws failed. I think it was this contradiction in his system that led to its untenability in the long run and why Confucianism, which is more balanced and nuanced, somewhat succeeded. I would also like to point out that his stress on the ‘common people’ is probably due to the influence of Daoism and this influence is also the reason he failed to integrate popular education and ‘the doctrines of the highest wisdom.’ For him these doctrines didn’t exist in the Confucian or Moist sense.”
 
 
“I think you are right Karl. These next words have a real Daoist flavor. He says, ‘In regard to the words [of traveling scholars], rulers of today like their arguments but do not find out if they correspond to the facts. In regard to the application of these words to practice, they praise their fame but do not demand accomplishment. Therefore there are many in the world whose talks are devoted to argumentation and who are not thorough when it comes to practical utility.... In their deeds scholars struggle for eminence but there is nothing in them that is suitable for real accomplishment. Therefore wise scholars withdraw to caves and decline the offering of positions.’”
 
 
“Very Daoist! Too bad Han Fei did not take his own advice. If he had gone to live in a cave somewhere instead of going off to take a position in Qin, and struggling for eminence with Li Si, he would not have ended up having to commit suicide.”
 
 
“Here is the last quote from this section of Chan. ‘Therefore in the state of the enlightened ruler, there is no literature of books and records but the laws serve as the teaching. There are no sayings of ancient kings but the officials act as teachers. And there are no rash acts of the assassin; instead, courage will be demonstrated by those who decapitate the enemy [in battle]. Consequently, among the people within the borders of the state, whoever talks must follow the law, whoever acts must aim at accomplishment, and whoever shows courage must do so entirely in the army. Thus the state will be rich when at peace and the army will be strong when things happen.’”
 
 
 
“Wow! This is no good. ‘No literature of books’--this will result in a violation of the Prime Directive as the only views available will be Legalist and thus authority rather than reason will end up ruling people’s minds.”

“Chan says, ‘The advocation of prohibiting the propagation of private doctrines eventually led to the Burning of Books in 213 B.C. and in the periodic prohibitions of the propagation of personal doctrines throughout Chinese history.’”
 

“Chan wrote that before the ‘Cultural Revolution’, which was neither ‘cultural’ nor a ‘revolution,’ we can see the bad effects of this doctrine are still alive. Not allowing ‘personal doctrines’ means only state sanctioned ‘truth’ is allowed, a sure condition for ending up as far away from being able to find ‘truth’ as you can imagine. I hate to seem critical of the Chinese government, especially as it has raised the Chinese people out of feudal despair and into the modern world, but they should heed Carl Sagan’s advice that ‘The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.’” I’m not singling out China. Every government in the world could do better in this respect.”
 
 
“Well put Karl, but now I’m going to go over the other section that Chan has in his “Source Book”, namely Han Fei’s discussion of Daoism, which Chan calls ‘one of the most important.’ Chan calls this section ‘Interpretations of Dao.’ Are you ready for this?”
 
 
“Ready!”

 
“OK, here goes, ‘Dao is that by which all things become what they are. It is that with which all principles are commensurable. Principles are patterns (wen) according to which all things come into being, and Dao is the cause of their being. Therefore it is said that Dao puts things in order (li). Things have their respective principles and cannot interfere with each other, therefore principles are controlling factors in things. Everything has its own principle different from that of others, and Dao is commensurate with all of them [as one]. Consequently, everything has to go through the process of transformation. Since everything has to go through the process of transformation, it has no fixed mode of life. As it has no fixed mode of life, its life and death depend on the endowment of material force (qi) [by Dao]. Countless wisdom depends on it for consideration. And the rise and fall of all things is because of it. Heaven obtains it and therefore becomes high. The earth obtains it and therefore can hold everything....’”
 
 
“He seems to be following Laozi fairly closely.”
 
 
“Yes indeed, as the following shows as well. ‘Whatever people use for imagining the real [as the skeleton to image the elephant] is called form (xiang). Although Dao cannot be heard or seen, the sage decides and sees its features on the basis of its effects. Therefore it is called [in the ‘Laozi ] “shape without shape and form without objects.”’”
 
 
“Sort of like ‘Gravity” with Newton. It couldn’t be seen or heard but the effects, as with the falling apple, led Newton to work out its features. The great law that controls everything, like Gravity, that is the Dao.”
 
 
“Han Fei goes on. ‘In all cases principle is that which distinguishes the square from the round, the short from the long, the course from the refined, and the hard from the brittle. Consequently, it is only after principles become definite that Dao can be realized.’”
 
 
“But Dao is the basis of principle! To keep my Newton analogy going, I would have to say that it is only when objects are manifesting their attraction that Gravity can be realized.”
 
 
“It is the ‘eternal’ Dao that Han Fei is interested in. He says, ‘Only that which exists from the very beginning of the universe and neither dies nor declines until heaven and earth disintegrate can be called eternal. What is eternal has neither change nor any definite particular principle itself. Since it has no definite particular principle itself, it is not bound in any particular locality. This is why [it is said in the ‘Laozi’] that it cannot be told. The sage sees its profound vacuity (xu) and utilizes its operation everywhere. He is forced to give it the name Dao. Only then can it be talked about. Therefore it is said, “The Dao that can be told of is not the eternal Dao.”’”
 
 
“Does Chan say why this is ‘most important’?”
 
 
“Yes he does. He goes into this passage with a long comment. ‘This is one of the earliest and most important discussions of Dao. It is of great importance for two reasons. First, principle (li) has been the central concept in Chinese philosophy for the last eight hundred years, and Han Fei was one of the earliest to employ the concept. Secondly, to him Dao is not an undifferentiated continuum in which all distinctions disappear. On the contrary, Dao is the very reason why things are specific and determinate. This is a radical advance and anticipated the growth of Neo-Daoism along this direction in the third and fourth centuries A.D.’”
 
 
“That completes our treatment of Han Fei?”
 
 
“It does. You know, I think we need to discuss Laozi and Daoism as this philosophy is almost equal to Confucianism in Chinese thought. If we want to really understand China today then we must understand the ‘Dao’ of Chinese Communism so we should get a grip on the thought of Laozi.
 
 
O.K., let’s do it next.

​To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.
To read the Xunzi Dialogue click here. 
To read the Mozi Dialogue click here.

​After a restful evening, Karl and Fred were together again in Karl’s study for an early morning discussion of the philosophy of Xunzi. 
 
“I see you have Chan’s text [Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy] of The Xunzi open before you Fred. Are you ready to begin our discussion? Let's find out if his views are compatible with Marxism or, as they say: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics."
 
“Ready and willing Karl.”
 
“Well then, let's begin.”
 
“What do you know about Xunzi?”
 
“Only that he lived a couple of generations after Mencius. I remember that Mencius was born around 371 and died around 289 BC, while Xunzi lived from about 298 to 238 BC. I also know that he is usually considered the anti-Mencius because, as opposed to Mencius’ view that people are born naturally ‘good’, he said they are naturally ‘evil’. And I do remember reading in Chan that ancient Confucianism is seen as developing along two different roads leading away from Confucius himself. Namely, the Idealist School or Road of Mencius and the Naturalistic School or road of Xunzi.
 
“What else do you remember?”
 
“Let’s see. You better help me out.”
 
“Ok. Chan remarks that 1. His philosophy was dominant over that of Mencius up until and throughout the Han period--206 BC to 220 AD. He is also said to have been partially responsible for the Qin Dynasty and the repressive dictatorship of the ‘First Emperor’. That must be the first ‘modern’ emperor as we have those olden time emperors the sages are always talking about. The Qin Dynasty was short lived--221-206 BC....”
 
“Don’t forget we have Goodrich’s Short History here [L. Carrington Goodrich, A Short History of the Chinese People]. Qin unified China under the First Emperor (Qin Shi Huang). The first one to unify China into a large empire--a unification that has lasted until modern times. He was a real tyrant, and his empire was overthrown a few years after his death by the people who founded the Han Dynasty. He is, as I recall, best known to most people today as the emperor who had all those terracotta warriors made that are such a tourist attraction in modern day China. He also has an opera written about him named “The First Emperor.’”
 
“That’s right Karl. And Chan says two of Xunzi’s students Han Fei and Li Si were ministers of Qin.”
 
“I don’t see how Xunzi can be tarred with the brush of Qin totalitarianism. He died before the rise of the Qin to total control of China. Anyway, he was honored as the greatest Confucianist until the end of Han times and the Han would never have allowed him that status if they considered him as an ideological forerunner of their mortal enemies the Qin.”
 
“That sounds right. But to continue. Chan points out that he was a native of Zhao one of the seven major states of ancient China and moved to Qi when he was fifty so he could hang out with other scholars. Later he went to Chu, served briefly as a magistrate, taught students, and then died there. He wrote his own book rather than relying on his students to make a compilation of his sayings. Chan writes that he ‘was contemporaneous with Mencius but there is no evidence that the two ever met.’”
 
“Which is not too strange as by Chan’s own dates for these two Xunzi would have been nine years old when Mencius died!”
 
“Chan has translated three of the most important chapters of the Xunzi which covers all the main points of Xunz’s philosophy. There are thirty-two chapters in the Xunzi, but these are the big one’s for philosophy. Ready?”
 
“Ready!”
 
“We begin with chapter seventeen, ‘On Nature.’ Xunzi says, ‘Nature (Tian, Heaven) operates with constant regularity.... Respond to it with peace and order, and good fortune will result. Respond to it with disorder, and disaster will follow.... If the Way is cultivated [followed?] without deviation then Nature cannot cause misfortune. Therefore flood and drought cannot cause a famine, extreme cold or heat cannot cause illness, and evil spiritual beings cannot cause misfortune. But if the foundations of living are neglected and used extravagantly. the Nature cannot make the country rich.’”
 
“It is obvious that this is an advanced view for the times Fred. The laws of nature are invariable and if human beings learn them and work with them all will be well. Nature does not cause famines is a good example of this. We can figure out the cycles of Nature, knowing that droughts, etc., are common, that floods occur, etc., we make sure we plan on storing up food for the lean years. If we fail to take proper actions we will have a famine. It is not to be blamed on Nature but on our lack of foresight and knowledge.”
 
“That makes sense, he continues saying famines, sickness, etc., ‘cannot be blamed on Heaven: this is how the Way works. Therefore one who understands the distinctive functions of Heaven and man may be called a perfect man.’ But you know, this sounds like ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’”
 
“It certainly does. I think Xunzi would agree with that. But note, since we know that people use guns to kill people and there are many irresponsible people, it would make sense to limit the gun supply. This would be knowing ‘the distinctive functions of Heaven and man.’”
 
“Chan’s comment is interesting. ‘Xunzi’s concept of Heaven is obviously closer to the Dao of the Daoists than to the Tian (Heaven) of Confucius and Mencius. Their Tian is still purposive, and the source and ultimate control of man’s destiny, but Xunzi’s Tian is purely Nature so that in most cases the word has to be translated as Nature rather than as Heaven. The marvelous thing is that while he accepted the Daoists’ naturalistic view, he was not influenced by their intuitionism and mysticism. In Xunzi, we have rationalism and empiricism instead.’”
 
"While there may be relics of ‘purpose’ in the Tian of Confucius and Mencius it is nothing like we would find Mozi. I think the position adopted by Xunzi is the culmination of tendencies already at work in Confucius and Mencius. This naturalistic way of thinking has simply become more completely manifest in Xunzi. His concept of Heaven is similar to Spinoza’s concept of God. Where Spinoza says ‘Deus siva Natura’, Xunzi says ‘Heaven or Nature’."
 
“We see this naturalism pretty well in the next quote Karl. Xunzi says, ‘Each of the ten thousand things [idiom for ‘everything’] attains its harmony, and thus grows. Each obtains its nourishment and thus achieves full development.... The heart (mind) occupies the cavity in the center to control the five organs. This is called the natural ruler.... The sage purifies his natural ruler, rectifies his natural organs, sufficiently provides for his natural nourishment, follows the natural government, and nourishes his natural feelings so as to bring to completion the work of Nature. In this way he knows what to do and what not to do. Thus he rules heaven and earth and directs the ten thousand things.’”
 
“Except for the usual ancient mix up of the heart and brain, this is well said: an appeal to the use of our reason to guide both our social life and our understanding of Nature.”
 
“He then goes on to say, ‘Therefore great skill consists in not doing certain things, and great wisdom consists in not debating over certain things.’ He illustrates this by pointing out that we should study the stars and the earth and the four seasons, the yin and yang [positive and negative forces], etc., in order to discover the regularities of Heaven/Nature. And Chan adds, ‘Most ancient Confucianists either emphasized humanity (ren) and wisdom equally or stressed humanity. Xunzi, however, emphasizes wisdom. Obviously, inborn humanity has no room in his theory of the innate evil nature of man. As an acquired virtue, humanity is valued. But being a tough-minded realist, he relies on wisdom rather than such an idealistic quality in humanity.’”
 
“Please note that he is not saying that there are no inborn qualities, what today would be called instincts, but that the Confucian idea of ren is not inborn. Specifically he is rejecting the Mencius’ notion of ‘The Four Beginnings’.”
 
“Xunzi also sounds very modern when he proclaims that Heaven’s laws are not designed with humanity in mind. ‘Heaven does not give up winter because people dislike cold.’ And, ‘Heaven has a constant way of action, earth has a constant size, and the superior man has a constant personal demonstration of virtue. The superior man pursues the constant principle, but the inferior man calculates results.’ How does this jive with what you said in our Mencius discussion about Fletcher and situation ethics?”
 
“What do you mean?”
 
“I mean, does not the ‘constant principle’ put Xunzi in the Kantian camp. Wouldn’t he have to be for ‘calculating results’ if he was for situation ethics? So this seems to be another big difference between him and Mencius.”
 
“Wait a minute Fred. I don’t want to concede this point. Let’s look a little more closely at this quote. I think it can be legitimately interpreted to show that Xunzi and Mencius are not really in disagreement.”
 
“I’m all ears.”
 
“Xunzi says what is constant is ‘personal demonstration of virtue’. This amounts to doing the right thing in every circumstance or situation. This is what he means by the ‘constant principle’. The non-philosopher ‘calculates results.’ I take this to mean that he looks for personal advantage and not necessarily what is the right thing to do. Morality is not something you just look up in a book or some iron clad rule [never have an abortion, never mislead someone, etc.] it does depend on results. So when Xunzi says the inferior man ‘calculates results’ he means how the ‘results’ relate to him personally or some plan of his that he wants to accomplish. It can’t mean that the philosopher does not also calculate results. He does. He calculates if his action furthers virtue or not.”
 
“What about this then? ‘As to cultivating one’s will, to be earnest in one’s moral conduct, to be clear in one’s knowledge and deliberations, to live in this age but to set his mind on the ancients (as models), that depends on the person himself. Therefore the superior man is serious (jing) about what lies in himself and does not desire what comes from Heaven. The inferior man neglects what is in himself and desires what comes from Heaven.’ I would think Xunzi would say just the opposite. Heaven’s laws are constant or the same thing, Nature’s. We are part of Nature so we should follow what comes from Nature and just do it. This would be following the Way. The inferior man would try to get out of it and just do what he wants to do--what ‘lies in himself.’”
 
“Hmmm! I see the difficulty, but I think there is an easy explanation of this seeming conundrum. Look back at the word ‘seriousness’ in the quote, the word ‘jing.’ If I remember correctly that word conjures up the idea of ‘effort’ of working hard at attaining something. This is the clue to Xunzi’s meaning. Heaven is neutral, remember, no ‘Four Beginnings’, so we have to work at cultivating virtue. What ‘lies in himself’ is the product of one’s education and struggle to attain virtue. For example, some knowledge of Chinese philosophy now lies within you Fred. This is because you are making efforts to learn about it. What lies in you is a desire to improve yourself and work hard to attain wisdom. The inferior man does not delve into his internal resources to make this effort. He just expects to attain what he wants out of life automatically without making much effort, without seriousness. This is what Xunzi means by saying the inferior man neglects what is in himself and just wants what comes from Heaven.”
 
“Well, that makes sense but seems a little forced to me. But let’s proceed. Things will become clearer as we go along, I’m sure.”
 
“Ok!”

​“I think we are getting into his naturalism in these next quotes. ‘When stars fall or trees make a [strange] noise, all people in the state are afraid and ask, “Why?” I reply: There is no need to ask why. These are changes of heaven and earth, the transformation of yin and yang, and rare occurrences. It is all right to marvel at them, but wrong to fear them. For there has been no age that has not had the experience of eclipses of the sun and moon, unseasonable rain or wind or occasional appearance of strange stars.”
 
“It is obvious Fred, that Xunzi doesn’t believe in portents and the like. There is no supernatural message to be conveyed by what happens in nature.”
 
“And this reinforces his views, ‘When people pray for rain, it rains. Why? I say: There is no need to ask why. It is the same as when it rains when no one prays for it. When people try to save the sun or moon from being eclipsed, or when they pray for rain in a drought, or when they decide an important affair only after divination, they do so not because they believe they will get what they are after, but to use them as ornament (wen) to governmental measures. Hence the ruler intends them to be an ornament, but the common people think they are supernatural. It is good fortune to regard them as ornamental but it is evil fortune to regard them as supernatural.’”
 
“Meaning that if you realize they are ornamental you are one of the educated people and have some idea as to how the world is actually constituted--otherwise you are hoi polloi and will be a manipulated fool for your whole life!”
 
“That is a bit strong don’t you think?”
 
“Not at all Fred. The common people have been manipulated by their rulers since the beginning of history by means of religion and other superstitious beliefs. Even today the government makes sure it has religious professionals on its staff in the armed forces to reinforce and bolster up the superstitious ideas of the soldiers and other cannon fodder it recruits. You see religion being encouraged everywhere. It’s a method for keeping people stupid and docile. Xunzi realizes that and simply explains it so his fellow Confucians will be free from its baneful influence, having as he says ‘good fortune.’ I needn’t tell you how stupid people can be manipulated by religion Fred, just look out of the window at our altered New York skyline after 9/11.
 
“Well, Chan says about the same thing but he is not as vitriolic as you Karl. His comment is as follows, ‘The influence of supernatural forces over man is completely ruled out by Xunzi. What he called spirit is but cosmic change and evolution. To him, in religious sacrifice, whether there are really spiritual beings to receive them does not matter. The important thing is one’s attitude, especially sincerity, in the performance. The sacrifices are “ornaments,” or refined manifestation of an inner attitude.’”
 
“I don’t know if that is really the ‘important thing’ i.e., a refined inner attitude. I don’t know what to make of that. I agree that attitude is important--the attitude of not really believing in the efficacy of the ceremonies. This is what Fung [A Short History of Chinese Philosophy] says in the passage, ‘We pray for rain, and divine before we make any important decision, because we want to express our anxiety. That is all. If we were to take prayer as really able to move the gods, or divination as being really able to make predictions about the future, this would result in superstition with all its consequences (p.150).’”
 
“There is a problematic quote coming up which Chan says looks like it contradicts what has gone before.”
 
“That is just great. There is nothing like an inconsistent opinion to knock over a nice tidy interpretation.
 
Let’s hear it.”
 
"'If propriety and righteousness are not applied in the country, then accomplishments and fame would not shine. Therefore the destiny of man lies in Heaven, and the destiny of the state lies in propriety.’”
 
“I see. This looks like the inferior man is right after all--to want what comes from Heaven since that is where his destiny lies.”
 
“So we do have a contradiction! “
 
“What does he say next? Maybe that will clear up this problem.”
 
“He lists six questions he thinks we should consider. I think these two are the most germane. ‘Instead of regarding Heaven as great and admiring it, Why not foster it as a thing and regulate it? Instead of obeying Heaven and singing praise to it, why not control the Mandate of Heaven and use it?’”
 
“This answers our question about a contradiction. Now I don’t see any. If we would view the rule of propriety to be the constitution of the state, then of course the destiny of the state lies in its constitution, in following its fundamental laws. In China these would be based on Confucian philosophy, so we see where Xunzi is coming from in this respect. Heaven or Nature also follows laws, what we think of as the ‘laws of nature.’ If we understand the laws of nature we can use them to enhance our lives, such as knowing how to control floods, have better agricultural yields, cure disease, etc. That is what he means by ‘the destiny of man lies in Heaven’, he means in the study of its laws, in what we call science. When he says the inferior man just relies on what comes from Heaven he means that kind of man does not see Nature as an object to study and manipulation but, as Spinoza said, prefers ‘to gape at it like a fool.’ When Xunzi said the philosopher cares about ‘what lies in himself and does not desire what comes from Heaven’ he means he doesn’t just wait around to see what happens in Nature. Again, as Spinoza said, he ‘desires as a wise man to understand Nature.’ He doesn’t just sit around and ‘desire’ Nature. He works at trying to understand and manipulate it.”
 
“Yes, that must be the meaning for he goes on to say, ‘Therefore to neglect human effort and admire Heaven is to miss the nature of things.’ And Chan follows this up with the comment, ‘Nowhere else in the history of Chinese thought is the idea of controlling nature so definite and so strong. It is a pity that this did not lead to a development of natural science. One explanation is that although Xunzi enjoyed great prestige in the Han dynasty, his theory of overcoming nature was not strong enough to compete with the prevalent doctrine of harmony of man and nature, which both Confucianism and Taoism promoted.’”
 
“I think we have solved this problem of a potential contradiction in the Xunzi.”
 
“Now we have a quote which shows that situation ethics, which you used to explain some of Mencius’ views, won’t do at all with respect to Xunzi. Listen to this: ‘The [moral principles] that have remained unchanged through the time of all kings are sufficient to be the central thread running through the Way. Things come and go, but if they are responded to according to this central thread, one will find that the principle runs through all without any disorder. He who does not know this central thread does not know how to respond to changing conditions. The essential nature of the central thread has never ceased to be. Chaos is the result of a wrong application of the central thread, whereas order is the result of a complete application of it. For what is considered good according to the Way, namely, the Mean, should be followed.’”
 
“I hope we can deal with a work called The Doctrine of the Mean later Fred, but even so I think this quote does not mean that Xunzi and Mencius are not reconcilable. I said Mencius was not an absolutist and you think this passage shows that Xunzi was, but it is more complicated than that.”
 
“How so? Xunzi definitely speaks of unchanged moral principles--that sounds absolutist to me.”
 
“I think ‘absolutist’ should be used to describe positions that consider both the moral position AND its application as unchanging. Xunzi says that there is a ‘central thread’ but also ‘changing conditions’ and that while the ‘essential nature of the central thread’ doesn’t change only the person who knows how to apply it in ‘changing conditions’ really understands it. Say for a Christian that practicing agape is the central thread. That would be the unchanging moral principle. Now take the idea of ‘abortion’. Is it right or wrong to have an abortion? The Christian thinker would have to look at the situation of the person involved. Following agape the Christian might recommend an abortion to person A and not to person B. The central thread and unchanging moral principal isn’t ‘abortions are bad’ or vice versa but what agape requires. This is situational and is exactly what both Mencius and Xunzi would advocate, except that ren (jen) is substituted for agape. In fact, I would maintain that stripped of the mythological shell that has congealed around its essential heart, Christianity boils down to ren and there is a dialectical identity with Confucianism.”
 
“What!”
 
“Confucianism and Christianity are an identity in difference. They are the same in the same way that ice and steam are the same. They appear different but are really the same. I mean in respect to a humanist morality, a Christianity such as Thomas Jefferson indicated without supernatural overtones added to it.
 
“Well, that is a different conversation entirely Karl. But you have at least convinced me that Xunzi is no absolutist in the way I originally thought.”
 
“That’s good.”
 
“Maybe we will get to your great theory after we finish with Chinese philosophy, but now there is one more point to be made regarding this chapter from the Xunzi. Xunzi makes a lot of comments about other philosophers both of his own times as well as the past. I’m not going into specific criticisms, the point to be made is the following observation by Chan ‘that Xunzi was the most critical of ancient Chinese philosophers. [And] that a great variety of thought and extreme freedom of discussion existed in ancient China, a situation comparable to that in ancient Greece.’”
 
“What is the next chapter in Chan’s translation?”
 
“The next one is chapter twenty-two from the Xunzi, Chan’s selection 2, ‘On the Rectification of Names.’”
 
“A major topic for the ancient Chinese. Please begin Fred.”
 
“Xunzi has reference to the olden days of the sage-kings when he writes, ‘Then the people were carefully led and unified. Therefore, the practice of splitting terms and arbitrarily creating names to confuse correct names, thus causing much doubt in people’s minds and bringing about much litigation, was called great wickedness. It was a crime, like private manufacturing of credentials and measurements, and therefore the people dared not rely on strange terms created to confuse correct names. Hence the people were honest.’”
 
“It looks as if this problem originally arose as a practical problem, a problem of the marketplace. Later, however, it became a more abstract philosophical problem of name rectification.”
 
“I agree. Xunzi thinks that there are three issues involved here. He writes, ‘Should a true king appear, he would certainly retain some old names and create new ones. This being the case, [1] the reason for having names, [2] the causes for the similarities and differences in names, and [3] the fundamental principles on which names are instituted, must be clearly understood.’”
 
“What is the reason he gives for having names?”
 
“’ When different forms are separated from the mind and denote each other, and when different things are made mutually identified in name and actuality, the distinction between the noble and the humble is not clear and similarities and differences are not discriminated. Under such circumstances, there is bound to be danger that ideas will be misunderstood and work will encounter difficulty or be neglected. Therefore men of wisdom sought to establish distinctions and instituted names to indicate actualities, on the one hand clearly to distinguish the noble and the humble and, on the other, to discriminate between similarities and differences.’”
 
“That sounds like a good reason Fred. How does he account for the similarities and differences of names?”
 
“He says, ‘It is because of the natural organs. The organs of members of the same species with the same feelings perceive things in the same way. Therefore things are compared and those that are seemingly alike are generalized. ... The mind [actively] collects the knowledge of the senses. ...But the collection of knowledge must also depend on the natural organs first registering it according to its classification. If the five organs register it without knowing what it is, and the mind collects it without understanding it, then everyone says there is no knowledge. These are the causes for the similarities and differences in names.’”
 
“This sounds just like Hume’s theory of the ‘Association of Ideas!’ It is really amazing how philosophical traditions parallel one another!”
 
“What is this reference to Hume all about?”
 
“Hume thought that ideas also naturally associated. They would sort of stick together and the world would appear to us. Hume used Resemblance, Contiguity (in space and/or time) and Cause and Effect. But this even goes back as far as Plato. He spoke of Contiguity and Similarity [Resemblance] in the Phaedo.”
 
“Well, based on this Karl, we come to the third point Xunzi wanted to make. He continues, right after the last quote I read, ‘Then, accordingly, names are given to things. Similar things are given the same name and different things are given different names.’ But it is very important to note the following: ‘Names have no correctness on their own. The correctness is given by convention. When the convention is established and the custom is formed, they are called correct names. If they are contrary to convention, they are called incorrect names. Names have no corresponding actualities by themselves. The actualities ascribed to them are given by convention. When the convention is established and the custom is formed, they are called the names of such-and-such actualities.’”
 
“And yet, Fred, these conventions are not just arbitrary. If the conventions don’t somehow correspond to reality then names won’t be of much help!”
 
“Xunzi next criticizes the ‘School of Names’--i.e., the so-called ‘Logicians.’ There are three big fallacies he wants to expose. So he begins. ‘”It is no disgrace to be insulted.” “The sage does not love himself.” “To kill a robber is not to kill a man.” These are examples of the fallacy of so using names as to confuse names.’ “Mountains are on the same level as marshes. “The desires seek to be few.” “Tender meat adds nothing to sweet taste, and the great bell adds nothing to music.” These are examples of the fallacy of so using actualities as to confuse names.’ And now this most famous example from the School of Names “’A [white] horse is not a horse.’ “Which he says is an example of the fallacy of so using names as to confuse actualities.’ And finally, the chapter ends with Chan’s comment about all this: ‘The rectification of names was a common topic of discussion among ancient Chinese philosophical schools. Only in Xunzi, however, did it develop into some sort of systematic logical theory.... In fact, this is the nearest approach to logic in Ancient Chinese philosophy.’”
 
“Very informative indeed, Fred. So this brings us to the last excerpt from Chan, doesn’t it?”

“That’s right Karl. Chan’s ‘3. The Nature of Man is Evil’ from chapter 23 of the Xunzi.’
 
“OK, let’s get on with it. What are Xunzi’s reasons for taking this diametrically opposed view to Mencius?”
 
“He says, ‘The nature of man is evil: his goodness is the result of his activity. Now, man’s inborn nature is to seek for gain.... By inborn nature one is envious and hates others.... If these tendencies are followed, lewdness and licentiousness result, and the pattern and order of propriety and righteousness disappear. Therefore to follow man’s nature and his feelings will inevitably result in strife and rapacity, combine with rebellion and disorder, and end in violence. Therefore there must be the civilizing influence of teachers and laws and the guidance of propriety and righteousness, and then it will result in deference and compliance, combine with pattern and order, and end in discipline. From this point of view, it is clear that the nature of man is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.’ And, he adds, ‘Crooked wood must be heated and bent before it becomes straight.’”
 
“So much for the ‘Four Beginnings!’ But this is only an assertion, just as in Mencius. Neither Xunzi nor Mencius give any real arguments. Except that Mencius does give some examples such as preventing the child from falling into the well.”
 
“Chan points to another big difference as well. ‘In the Xunzi, rules of propriety and law are often spoken of together, giving the impression that, unlike Confucius and Mencius who advocated propriety (li) as inner control, Xunzi advocated it for external control. Thus rules of propriety shifted from being a means of personal moral cultivation to one of social control.’”
 
“Chan should have re-thought that one Fred. Propriety doesn’t just pop up in a person. These rules are culture specific and learned as we grow up. They are the result of the crooked wood being made straight. One of the ways that social control takes place is by having accepted rules of inner moral cultivation recognized as appropriate--i.e., this is what constitutes propriety.”
 
“I suppose you are right Karl. Now here is a frontal assault on Mencius! ‘Mencius said, “Man learns because his nature is good.” This is not true. He did not know the nature of man and did not understand the distinction between man’s nature and his effort. Man’s nature is the product of Nature; it cannot be learned and cannot be worked for. Propriety and righteousness are produced by the sage. They can be learned by men and can be accomplished through work. What is in man but cannot be learned or worked for is his nature. What is in him and can be learned and accomplished through work is what can be achieved through activity. This is the difference between human nature and human activity.”
 
“I see the distinction Xunzi is trying to make, Fred, but I’m not sure this is really so different from Mencius! The Four Beginnings are, after all, potentialities that have to be cultivated by education. The seed has to be in the right soil.”
 
“Maybe this will make Xunzi’s position clearer. In this passage he further contrasts Mencius’ views with his own. ‘By the original goodness of human nature is meant that man does not depart from his primitive character but makes it beautiful and does not depart from his original capacity but utilizes it, so that beauty being [inherent] in his primitive character and goodness being [inherent] in his will are like clear vision being inherent in the eye and distinct hearing being inherent in the ear. Hence we say that the eye is clear and the ear is sharp.’ “
 
“So the question is, is this idea of Mencius true or not. Left to his or her own devices a normal baby will grow up with “good” sight and “good” hearing. That is to say, normal senses. They won’t need any special training just to work and do their function. Xunzi seems to think that Mencius’ view is that a baby will grow up morally ‘good’ as well because this kind of ‘goodness’, like the ability to see clearly, is just part of our ‘nature.’ But this is not a good analogy Fred. If you go back and look on page 66 of Chan you will find that Mencius says that when the Four Beginnings are properly developed they will work to protect you in life but if they are not developed they won’t.”
 
Fred flipped back some pages in Chan’s book. “Here is the quote, Karl. I’ll read it. ‘When they are fully developed, they will be sufficient to protect all people within the four seas (the world). If they are not developed, they will not be sufficient even to serve one’s parents.’”
 
“So you see the Four Beginnings are not like clear vision and sharp hearing. They have to be developed by outside means which can only be a Confucian educational program in the last analysis.”
 
“I am forced to agree, Karl. But now let Xunzi continue with his notion of ‘nature’ as he wants to contrast his own opinion to that of Mencius. ‘Now by nature man desires repletion when hungry, desires warmth when cold, and desires rest when tired. This is man’s natural feeling. But now when a man is hungry and sees some elders before him, he does not eat ahead of them but yields to them. When he is tired, he dares not seek rest because he wants to take over the work [of elders].... Deference and compliance are opposed to his natural feelings. From this point of view, it is clear that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.’”
 
“It is getting more complicated. Perhaps the word ‘raw’ should be substituted for ‘evil.’ Man’s raw uncultivated nature is egocentric and needs to be socialized. But this isn’t evil, it’s natural. I am surprised that Xunzi, who is otherwise, a naturalist, is still animating Nature with a human moral concept! It is clear that by ‘activity’ he means education. So the practical result of either his view or that of Mencius is that without education we are not going to get deference and compliance. The real question is, is education helped out, given a boost as it were, by something innate such as the Four Beginnings or Four Seeds, or however you want to translate this conception.”
 
“We will have to go more deeply into Xunzi’s thought to determine this Karl. I think he was aware of your kind of comment and has an answer to it.”
 
“OK then. Let’s hear some more of the Xunzi.”
 
“'Someone may ask, “If man’s nature is evil, whence come propriety and righteousness? “I answer that all propriety and righteousness are results of activities of sages and not originally produced from man’s nature.’”
 
“And how did that come about?”
 
“He explains how that came about. ‘The sages gathered together their ideas and thoughts and became familiar with activity, facts and principles, and thus produced propriety and righteousness and instituted laws and systems.’ He goes on to point out the pleasures of the senses ‘are natural reactions to stimuli and do not require any work to be produced. But if the reaction is not naturally produced by the stimulus but requires work before it can be produced, then it is the result of activity. Here lies the evidence of the difference between what is produced by man’s nature and what is produced by his effort. Therefore the sages transformed man’s nature and aroused him to activity.’”
 
“I can see problems with this view Fred.”
 
“Just hold your horses. Xunzi is going to give what he considers some evidence for his view. He thinks loving gain and profit is natural and talks about what would naturally happen if brothers have to divide up some property. ‘If they follow their natural feelings, they will love profit and seek gain, and thus will do violence to each other and grab the property. But if they are transformed by the civilizing influence of the pattern and order of propriety and righteousness, they will even yield to outsiders. Therefore, brothers will quarrel if they follow their original nature and feeling but, if they are transformed by righteousness and propriety, they will yield to outsiders.’”
 
“Are you done?”
 
“Not yet! I want to hammer this home as I think Xunzi is onto something here. He says, ‘Now by nature a man does not originally possess propriety and righteousness; hence he makes strong effort to learn and seeks to have them. By nature he does not know propriety and righteousness; hence he thinks and deliberates and seeks to know them. Therefore, by what is inborn alone, man will not have or know propriety and righteousness. There will be disorder if man is without propriety and righteousness. There will be violence if he does not know propriety and righteousness. Consequently, by what is inborn alone, disorder and violence are within man himself.’”
 
“Well, correct me, but didn’t Mencius only propose with his ‘Four Beginnings’ that the basis or potential for propriety and righteousness was inborn? He didn’t say propriety and righteousness were inborn. They are the result of education, which if neglected will lead to the greedy brothers Xunzi speaks of.”
 
“Xunzi obviously thinks Mencius had a stronger position, but I think you are right, at least from what we read in our Mencius discussion. Nevertheless, I want to continue with Xunzi’s thought. I think you will discover that he anticipates your objection about the status of the Four Beginnings as mere potentialities.”
 
“So then, let us proceed!”
 
“He says, ‘Man’s nature is evil. Therefore the sages of antiquity, knowing that man’s nature is evil, that it is unbalanced and incorrect, that it is violent, disorderly, and undisciplined, established the authority of rulers to govern the people, set forth clearly propriety and righteousness to transform them, instituted laws and governmental measures to rule them, and made punishment severe to restrain them, so that all will result in good order and be in accord with goodness.”
 
“How nice. The Hobbesian rabble are running about unrestrained in a state of nature giving vent to their true inborn natures until they are domesticated by the sages. Only how did sages develop? How did they overcome their Hobbesian natures and arrive at propriety and righteousness? Who broke the natural order and taught them?”
 
“Before that can be answered, Xunzi’s position must be further developed. ‘In any discussion, the important things are discrimination and evidence. One can then sit down and talk about things, propagate them, and put them into practice. Now Mencius said that man’s nature is good. He had neither discrimination nor evidence. He sat down and talked about the matter but rose and could neither propagate it nor put it into practice. Is this not going too far? Therefore if man’s nature is good, sage-kings can be done away with and propriety and righteousness can be stopped.’ And he goes on again about how bent wood has to be made straight while straight wood is naturally so.”
 
“These facile analogies go both ways. The bent wood could not be made straight if being straight was not potentially in it. Anyway, Xunzi may have been correct about the propagation of Mencius’ view in his day, but as history developed Mencius’ view trumped the view of Xunzi. This is not an argument in favor of the truth of a view. Aristarchus of Samos developed what later became the Copernican view of the heliocentric solar system back in the Ancient World, but he could not propagate it and Ptolemy’s geocentric view won out until the time of the scientific revolution in the Seventeenth Century. Mencius did have evidence. Just remember the example of the child about to fall in the well--the most famous--and he gave other examples as well. So I don’t think this passage from Xunzi holds water.”
 
“Now you will see Karl, that Xunzi was aware of your type of critique, but did not accept it. He says, ‘The questioner may say, “It is by the nature of man that propriety and righteousness [can be produced] through accumulated effort and hence the sages can produce them.” I answer that this is not true. The potter pounds the clay and produces the pottery. Is the pottery [inherent] in the nature of the potter?... What the sages have done to propriety and righteousness is analogous to the potter’s pounding and producing the pottery.... With reference to the nature of man .... It is the same in the superior or inferior man.... As effort is aroused, propriety and righteousness are produced. Thus the relation between the sages and propriety and righteousness produced through accumulated effort, is like the potter pounding the clay to produce the pottery. From this point of view, is it by the nature of man that propriety and righteousness are produced through accumulated effort...? [Inferior men] are despised because they give reign to their nature, follow their feelings, and enjoy indulgence, and lead to the greed for gain, to quarrels and rapacity. It is clear that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.’”
 
“The problem with Xunzi’s position here is that it cannot explain how the sages originally got going. If the nature of man is evil, then all humans would be evil and self-indulgent, and no one would be putting out any accumulated effort to develop propriety and righteousness. We would still be running around like animals. Mencius’ position, however, allows for the show to get on the road. If the Four Beginnings are there waiting to be developed, then we can have a primal horde running about, splitting up into other hordes and the individuals finding themselves in all sorts of different existential situations some of which begin to trigger the Four Beginnings which by accumulated effort lead to being a sage and promulgating propriety and righteousness. But I can’t see how this can come about without the Four Beginnings in the first place. They have to be there as Mencius indicates in potential, so Xunzi is just wrong about this. The Four Beginnings must be accepted as a logical prerequisite to get the Confucian system started.”
 
 
“With regard to what you have just said Karl, listen to Xunzi’s explication of the following old saying.” ‘Any man in the street can become (sage-king) Yu.’ What does this ancient saying mean? I say that Yu became sage-king Yu because he practiced humanity, righteousness, laws, and correct principles. This shows that these can be known and practiced. Every man in the street possesses the faculty to know them and the capacity to practice them. This being the case, it is clear that every man can be Yu.’”
 
“Well, there you have it. The Four Beginnings are just the faculty that we have to practice the ‘good.’ I will grant this to Xunzi. That while he is wrong to say the nature of man is evil, Mencius is also wrong to say that the nature of man is good. They should have both said that man has a nature that has the capacity to be good or evil depending on the circumstances. Listen to these observations from Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. He says, ‘Virtue, then, is of two kinds, of thought and of character--of thought comes through experience and time and is the result of teaching, while virtue of character is the result of habit. Clearly, therefore, by nature, we get none of the virtues of character [1103a15]. The virtues do not arise in us either thru nature or contrary to nature. But we can by nature attain them and achieve complete perfection by means of habit [1103a25].’ And Aristotle also holds that what is by nature cannot be overcome by habit so that if people were either good or evil by nature nothing could make them different from what they are. Habit can be inculcated by education. So, this dispute on the nature of humans between Mencius and Xunzi is a non-issue. Neither of our sages has the right answer. We have the capacity to be either ‘good’ or ‘evil’-- which are social determinations anyway (for the most part). But they are both right as they believe that it takes (Confucian) education to bring about the ‘good’. Their positions are really the same and their so-called dispute is just one of words and not actualities. I think, therefore, we can keep the expression the ‘Four Beginnings’ in our philosophical terminology, but not in the sense that it implies man is ‘innately good’.”
 
“I can’t disagree with you Karl. I think you have hit the nail on the head! Just a few more quotes from Xunzi, now, to answer the question that if everyone can become a sage why don’t they do so. Xunzi’s reply is, ‘An inferior man can become a superior man, but he does not want to. A superior man can become an inferior man, but he does not want to. It is not that they cannot become each other. They do not do so because they do not want to. It is possible for every man to become Yu, but it does not follow that every man in the street is able actually to do so. However, the fact that he is not able actually to do so does not destroy the possibility of his doing so.’”
 
“I don’t think this is wrong, and it does not contradict my views at all. It is all of a piece with Mencius’ view that every man can be like Yao and Shun, also sage-kings from the past.”
 
“Finally, Xunzi concludes, ‘There is a great difference between what is possible on the one hand, and what is actually able to be done on the other.’”
 
"I think Xunzi would also be fine with both Marxism and Confucianism as both agree that it is through education that right and wrong are learned and class consciousness (education through struggle and practice) develops. Activity is required for both. They have some terminological problems, but in the end, they don’t really have any antagonistic contradictions. This applies to Mencius as well."

To read the Confucius Dialogue click here.
To read the Mencius Dialogue click here.

​“Well, Fred, I see you have the Chan book [Source Book In Chinese Philosophy]. Are you ready to begin our study of Mencius?”
 
“Yes I am Karl. But first, why don’t you see what you can remember about the background to the life and times of Mencius?”
 
“As I recall, he lived around the same time that Plato was active in Ancient Greece. What dates does the book give for him?”
 
“Around 371 to 289 BC.”
 
“Well Plato was around 447 to 327 BC.”
 
“Mencius was contemporary with Zhuanzi (Zhuang Zhou, 369-286 B.C.)  and Xunzi (Xun Kuang, c. 319-235 BC)  but it is unlikely they had any personal contact.” [The -zi suffix means “master” so Master Zhuang, Master Xun an honorific for “teacher”). 
 
“I don’t know about them, maybe we can discuss them later. Anyway I remember that Mencius’ claim to fame was his doctrine that human nature is innately good. Also that he studied under Confucius’ grandson, or under someone who had, thus unlike Confucius he had a teacher. He is also considered the second greatest Chinese philosopher after Confucius himself. I read Fung last night [Fung Yu-Lan,(modern, Feng Youlan) A Short History of Chinese Philosophy] and he said Mencius was a native of Zou in East China--modern Shantung. He also says that Mencius represents the idealist wing of Confucianism as opposed to the upcoming Xunzi who was a realist. Mencius is so important that his book, the Mencius as we will call it, was studied for the civil service exams which on and off throughout Chinese history almost everyone who wanted a government position had to take. The only philosophers as such who were so honored were he and Confucius. His life was also like Confucius’ in that he never got that big government job and he wandered about China just as Confucius had collecting a following of disciples. He retired and wrote his book. It became one of the Four Books, as I indicated, which everyone had to study for the ancient civil service tests.
 
“The ‘Four Books’?”
 
“The ones used for the tests. The Analects, of course, the Mencius, the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean.”
 
“A pretty good little introduction Karl. Now let’s look at his philosophy. I’m just going to use the headings from Chan who reproduces Book Six, Part I of the Mencius. He says this is the most important part of the book but he will quote other portions in a section of ‘Additions’. In this selection Mencius’ foil appears to be a philosopher called Gaozi who holds opposite opinions to Mencius. In 6A:2 Mencius declares ‘Man’s nature is naturally good just as water naturally flows downward.’ He doesn’t give any argument here. He is just contradicting Gaozi who said man’s nature can be good or bad just as water can flow east or west.”
 
“I think we need to get to an argument. What is next?”
 
“Next, Gaozi says that what we refer to as ‘inborn’ is the same as ‘nature.’ Mencius wants to contest everything Gao says it seems for we get the following exchange beginning with Mencius: ‘When you say that what is inborn is called nature, is that like saying that white is white?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Then is the whiteness of the white feather the same as the whiteness of snow? Or again, is the whiteness of snow the same as the whiteness of white jade?’ ‘Yes.” ‘Then is the nature of a dog the same as the nature of an ox, and is the nature of an ox the same as the nature of a man?”
 
“That is a very bad argument. Mencius has to go take a Logic course! ‘White’ is being used as an adjective and ‘nature’ as a substantive. I feel sorry for Gaozi. I wonder how he would have fared if he composed a book?”
 
“Now in 6A4 Mencius and Gao have another exchange.”
 
“Let’s hear it. I hope the logic is a little better!”
 
“This time Gao maintains that ‘humanity’ is internal and ‘righteousness’ is external. Nature versus Nurture. He says that the pleasant feeling of love for the younger brother comes from within (humanity) but the respect for an old person is due to the person’s age (without/external). But Mencius says that we love roast beef if it’s our own or another's so would Gao say the love of roast beef is ‘external?’” This is supposed to take care of Gao’s position.”
 
“A very bad example. It might have been better if Mencius had said ‘food’ instead of roast beef since we love and need food regardless of where it comes from but ‘roast beef’ is an external culturally determined food--I doubt that Buddha would have loved it! In any event I don’t think Gao is refuted by any of these musings of Mencius.”
 
“Well, here is another bad argument. This time Meng Jizi asked Gongduzi ‘What does it mean to say that righteousness is internal?” and he gets the reply ‘We practice reverence, and therefore it is called internal.’ Not a very helpful answer if you ask me Karl. Meng Jizi now gives a lot of examples of ‘reverence’ all of which seem influenced by the context one finds oneself in so that one has to know what the external circumstances are before one can show the proper kind of ‘reverence.’ Gongduzi gets all confused and runs off to Mencius who gives him some examples which actually seem to confirm Meng Ji’s views in that they are also contextual in nature. Gongdu gets the point, even if we don't, and goes back to Meng Ji with this crushing reply: ‘In the winter we drink things hot. In the summer we drink things cold. Does it mean that what determines eating and drinking also lies outside?’”
 
“I see what you mean Fred. We would say to Gongdu, ‘of course it is--you just said its determined by winter or summer and that means by what is ‘outside’. The reasoning so far in this chapter is terrible. I hope it gets better or I won’t understand how Mencius got the reputation as a ‘sage’." 
 
“6A:6 Maybe this is a little better Karl. Gongduzi is speaking to Mencius: ‘Gaozi said that man’s nature is neither good nor evil. Some say that man’s nature may be made good or evil, therefore when King Wen and King Wu were in power [founders of the Zhou Dynasty r. 1171-1122 and 1121-1116 B.C.] the people loved virtue, and when Kings You and Li were in power [bad kings r. 781-771 and 878-842 B.C.] people loved violence. Some say some men’s nature is good and some men’s nature is evil. Therefore even under (sage emperor) Yao [3rd millennium B.C.] there was evil man Xiang [who daily plotted to kill his brother], and even with a bad father there was [a most filial] Shun (Xiang’s brother who succeeded Yao), and even with (wicked king) Zhou [last Shang Dynasty ruler 1175-1112 B.C.] as uncle and ruler, there were Viscount Qi of Wei and Prince Began [good guys]. Now you say that human nature is good. Then are those people wrong?’”
 
“I hope Mencius is convincing as most people today would think Gaozi was on the money!”
 
“Well, Mencius said ‘If you let people follow their feelings (original nature), they will be able to do good. This is what is meant by saying that human nature is good. If man does evil, it is not the fault of his natural endowment.... Humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not drilled into us from outside. Only we do not think [to find them]! Therefore, it is said, ''Seek and you will find it, neglect and you will lose it.''' He thinks that different people develop their original natures more than others as ‘no one can develop his original endowment to the fullest extent.’ He then quotes the Book of Odes, ‘Heaven produces the teeming multitude. As there are things there are their specific principles. When the people keep their normal nature they will love excellent virtue.’ He also quotes Confucius to the same effect.’ Now before you say anything Karl, I want to also read you what Chan says about this passage. 'Mencius is the most important philosopher on the question of human nature, for he is the father of the theory of the original goodness of human nature. In spite of variations and modifications, this has remained the firm belief of the Chinese.’ And he adds that ‘evil or failure is not original but due to the underdevelopment of one's original endowment. Later Confucianists, especially Neo-Confucianists, devoted much of their deliberations to these subjects, but they have never deviated from the general direction laid down by Mencius.’”
 
“I’m still unimpressed Karl. Mencius is not arguing for his position he is simply declaiming his position. Look here for a moment.” Karl got up and pulled down a volume from his bookcase. “This is a classic study of Chinese thought by Herrlee G. Creel, Chinese Thought From Confucius to Mao Tse-Tung. I want to read a couple of passages on what you might call Mencius’ ‘technique’ if you don’t mind.”
 
“Sure Karl, go ahead all of this is interesting to me.”
 
“Here are a couple of quotes from pages 75 and 74: ‘The discussions of Confucius with his disciples were conducted in a relatively calm atmosphere and were devoted, at least in considerable part, to an attempt to arrive at and to examine the truth. [That is the Prime Directive again Fred!] The discussions of Mencius, on the other hand, are largely taken up with the enterprise of defending and propagating the true doctrine, which is of course another thing entirely.’ He also notes that ‘Mencius was usually more interested in winning the argument than in trying to find the truth. Not that he cared nothing for the truth but that he was convinced that he had it already, and needed only to persuade his opponent of that fact.’”
 
“But you say he isn’t doing anything but disclaiming not giving arguments.”
 
“True, but some arguments are coming up I’m sure. He just hasn’t made any yet. I think Creel’s observations will be borne out the farther we progress into the text.”
 
“The following may be more like an argument Karl. 6A:7--’Although there may be a difference between the different stalks of wheat, it is due to differences in the soil, as rich or poor, to the unequal nourishment obtained from the rain and the dew, and to differences in human effort. Therefore all things of the same kind are similar to one another. Why should there be any doubt about men? The sage and I are the same in kind. Therefore Longzi [an ancient worthy] said, “If a man makes shoes without knowing the size of people’s feet, I know that he will at least not make them to be like baskets.” Mencius then says that the whole world [all men] agree with Yi Ya [ancient chef] with regard to flavor, Kuang [ancient musician] with regard to music and that Zidu [ancient handsome man] was handsome. He concludes, 'Therefore I say there is a common taste for flavor in our mouths, a common sense for sound in our ears, and a common sense for beauty in our eyes. Can it be that it is in our minds alone we are not alike? What is it that we have in common in our minds? It is the sense of principles and righteousness (i-li, moral principles). The sage is the first to possess what is common in our minds. Therefore moral principles please our minds as beef and mutton and pork please our mouths.’”
 
“Well I can tell you right off that these are very bad examples for modern people to mull over. Nothing is more relative than taste in food, music and concepts of beauty. Mencius is just taking Chinese standards as universal. This may perhaps be forgiven for someone living well over two thousand years ago except that there were people in his age, as we shall see, who were very much more advanced in their thinking. His analogy of the stalks is a bit better but only goes to show that humans may have a common nature before environmental factors come into play. It does not give any evidence that that common nature is ‘originally good.’"
 
“I agree with you completely Karl, but now I’ll read you Chan’s comment on that very same passage. ‘In saying that one is of the same kind as the sage, Mencius was pronouncing two principles of utmost significance. One is that every person can be perfect, and the other is that all people are basically equal. Also, in pointing to the moral principle which is common in our minds, he is pointing to what amounts to the Natural Law. Belief in the Natural Law has been persistent in Chinese history. It is called Principle of Nature (T’ien-li) by Neo-Confucianists. It is essentially the same as Mencius’ i-li.’”
 
“But Mencius has not established that there is any common moral principle in our minds. He has only made a lot of assertions of his opinions but these opinions have not been grounded in anything like a philosophical demonstration. One may speak of T’ien-li as the Law of Nature with regard to the physical universe that we are a part of, and of the human mental and cognitive apparatus as a part of it as well, but this should not be confused with i-li, that is to say, with principle and righteousness. I think we will have to wait until we come to the Neo-Confucianists to see if they really do, as Chan asserts, confuse moral principles with physical principles. It may be that some do and some don’t.”
 
“Here is 6A:8, ‘Mencius said, “The trees of the Ox Mountain were once beautiful.... When people see that it is so bald, they think there was never any timber on the mountain. Is this the true nature of the mountain?.... People see that [a certain man] acts like an animal, and think that he never had the original endowment (for goodness). But is that his true character? Therefore with proper nourishment and care, everything grows, whereas without proper nourishment and care, everything decays.”’
 
“This is fine Fred. He is simply saying environmental conditions are responsible for how things appear. That an original X can end up not-X due to the environment. But it proves nothing with respect to his main thesis about humanity.”
 
“Well what about this in 6A:10, ‘I like life and I also like righteousness. If I cannot have both of them, I shall give up life and choose righteousness. I love life, but there is something I love more than life, and therefore I will not do anything improper to have it. I also hate death, but there is something I hate more than death, and therefore there are occasions when I will not avoid danger.... There are cases when a man does not take the course even if by taking it he can preserve his life, and he does not do anything even if by doing it he can avoid danger. Therefore there is something men love more than life and there is something men hate more than death. It is not only the worthies alone who have this moral sense. All men have it, but only the worthies have been able to preserve it.’”
 
“He has only established that the worthies have it. They may have gotten it by the study of philosophy. He has given no evidence that all men have it and just lost it. So far Creel is right. Mencius is just trying to convince us without any real evidence and discussion. It's as Creel said, he is convinced of his brand of truth and just keeps repeating it over and over. He is a far cry from the methods of Confucius!”
 
“6A:15, ‘The function of the mind is to think. If we think, we will get them (the principles of things). If we do not think, we will not get them. This is what Heaven has given to us. If we first build up the nobler part of our nature, then the inferior part cannot overcome it. It is simply this that makes a man great'.”
 
“Most interesting. Now he says we have 'superior' and 'inferior' parts to our nature. This is somewhat different from saying our (original) nature is 'good.' Now it appears as mixed and it is up to us to develop the right part. This is, of course, dependent on our environmental circumstances-- for which a Confucian government is responsible. This appears to me to be more realistic that the notion that our original nature is good--for which Mencius has so far provided no evidence. Indeed this passage seems to contradict it!”
 
“That is because he is so unsystematic Karl. Chen says this passage has a great influence on later Neo-Confucianists. He says, ‘that the idea of building up the nobler part of our nature became an important tenet in the moral philosophy of Lu Jiuyuan 1139-1193), leader of the idealistic school of Neo-Confucianism.’”
 
“Next!”
 
“6A:16, ‘The ancient people cultivated the nobility of Heaven, and the nobility of man naturally came to them. People today cultivate the nobility of Heaven in order to seek for the nobility of man, and once they have obtained the nobility of man, they forsake the nobility of Heaven. Therefore their delusion is extreme. At the end they will surely lose (the nobility of man) also.’”
 
“Does he say what this ‘nobility’ of Heaven is?”
 
“Yes, he says it consists of, ‘Humanity, righteousness, loyalty, faithfulness, and the love of the good without getting tired of it....’”
 
“And of man?”
 
“He says it's ‘to be a grand official, a great official, and a high official....’”
 
“Ok, I’ve found Fung’s comment on this on page 77 of his book [A Short History of Chinese Philosophy]. Shall I read it to you?”
 
“Go ahead.”
 
“’According to Mencius and his school of Confucianism, the universe is essentially a moral universe. The moral principles of man are also metaphysical principles of the universe, and the nature of man is an exemplification of these principles. It is this moral universe that Mencius and his school mean when they speak of Heaven, and an understanding of this moral universe is what Mencius calls “knowing heaven.”’ And then Fung explains the meaning of that quote which you just gave Fred. He says it means that, ‘heavenly honors [the nobility of Heaven] are those to which a man can attain in the world of values, while human honors [the nobility of man] are purely material concepts in the human world. The citizen of Heaven...cares only for the honors of Heaven, but not those of man.’” Does that remind you of anything?”
 
“Plato?”
 
"Yes indeed.” Karl pulled down a copy of The Republic. “This is a quote from the end of Republic IX in Reeve’s revision of Grube published by Hackett. Plato has just finished describing the best possible state based on justice and the Good but grants that it is too ideal, perhaps, to ever be seen on earth, yet he has Socrates say there might be ‘a model of it in heaven, for anyone who wants to look at it and to make himself its citizen on the strength of what he sees. It makes no difference whether it is or ever will be somewhere, for he would take part in the practical affairs of that city and no other.’ This is also similar to Augustine’s City of God. You know, the city of man, Rome, and then Heaven to which our real loyalties must ultimately be given. In so far as Mencius’ ‘sage’ or philosopher identifies with heaven rather than with man he and Plato are in agreement.”
 
“But how would that work Karl? How could we live in the 21st Century US of A and live by these Confucian or Platonic principles?”
 
“It would work like this Fred. I’ll use Plato as an example. Suppose you accepted Socrates’ argument for equality of the sexes. Now, if you live in a country which has sexual discrimination you will support measures for equality and your reason will be--in Plato’s republic equality is advocated and since I’m going to support his philosophy I’ll make my political, social, cultural decisions down here on earth according to the laws of the ideal republic. I may never get all the laws and customs of my country to be similar to that republic but the more they become that way the more like the republic will my actual country become.”
 
“So we have a Confucian model like a Platonic one if we are Confucians and we live according to the model, as best we can, and only really support the actual customs and conditions of our society in so far as they conform to our model.”
 
“That’s right Fred. The real crux is your qualifier ‘as best we can.’ How much will we compromise to safeguard our own personal interests, how committed are we to our beliefs, how much risk will we take in coming into conflict with the status quo? The answers to these questions define the hypocrite and the sage.”
 
“In 6A:17 Mencius says, ‘...all men have within themselves what is really honorable. Only they do not think of it. The honor conferred by men is not true honor. Whoever is made honorable by Zhao Meng [high official in Chin] can be made humble by him again. The Book of Odes says, “I am drunk with wine, and I am satiated with virtue.” It means that a man is satiated with humanity and righteousness, and therefore he does not wish for the flavor of fat meat and fine millet of men. “
 
“In his own way, I think Mencius is saying something like the quote from the Republic I gave. I think his words are just another way of saying what I just said before.”
 
“Here is 6A:19--’Mencius said, “The five kinds of grain are considered good plants, but if they are not ripe, they are worse than poor grains. So the value of humanity depends on its being brought to maturity.”’
 
“This little saying is, of course, dependent on his still unproved assumption that the original nature of human beings is ‘good’ so it only has to be properly ‘matured.’ His position is if you take a seed and put it in bad soil you get a bad plant but if you put it in good soil you get a good plant. In one sense the soil determines the type of plant. But the good soil only allows the original potency or nature within the seed to come forth to be a good plant i.e., just the type of plant it was meant to be by its internal nature. The bad plant has had its original nature destroyed or corrupted by the bad soil it was put in. The human beings’ internal nature and potency is the same. The right environment just brings out the true inner nature of the human. But this has to be better argued. Suppose the nature is really evil and sinful, as Christians maintain, what then? Or maybe the human being’s nature is a ‘blank slate’ so it is neither good nor bad. Mencius hasn’t adequately addressed these issues.”

​“We have come to the end of the main section in Chan’s anthology. Now I am going to turn to the ‘Additional Selections’ he has chosen. Hopefully he will address the problems you have raised with respect to his position on human nature.”
 
“This (1B:7) is the advice Mencius gave to King Xuan. He told him that with respect to all of his ministers and great officers telling him that such a person was worthy or unworthy or that such and such a person should be executed, that this consensus of big shots was not enough for the King to make the right decision. The King has to ask the people what they think and only if the people agree with the advice of the big shots should the King then look into the recommendations and if he follows them it can be said that the people actually are responsible for them. ‘Only in this way can a ruler become parent of the people.’ And Chan remarks, apropos, of this passage: ‘No one in the history of Chinese thought has stressed more vigorously the primary importance of the people for the state.’” Marxism would agree.
 
“And Mencius will provide other examples, Fred, of this proto democratic spirit. I think this is a good example of the positive influence some Confucians had in Chinese history. It also explains why he never got a real job at any of the Chinese courts!”
 
“Then what about this--1B:8. ‘King Xuan of Ch’i asked....”Is it all right for a minister to murder his king?” Mencius said, “He who injures humanity is a bandit. He who injures righteousness is a destructive person. Such a person is a mere fellow. I have heard of killing a mere fellow Chou [murdered an evil king], but I have not heard of murdering [him as] the ruler.”’ And Chan adds, ‘The doctrine of revolution is here boldly advanced and simply stated. A wicked king has lost the Mandate of Heaven and it should go to someone else.’” Actually this more of a revolt than a revolution.
 
“The Chinese Marxists should support Mencius on this one. It shows that the king is king only so long as he rules in the interest of the people. Since most of the people were peasants in China it appears that Mencius is in some sense a representative of peasant interests. Confucians in general favored benevolent rulers, and although the peasants were often ruthlessly exploited this was not in the spirit of Confucianism anymore than the Vietnam War, say, was waged in the spirit of Christianity whatever so called Christian leaders from Billy Graham to Cardinal Spellman may have said. This is something the Chinese party should take to heart in case the economic reforms being pushed end up only benefiting a narrow portion of Chinese society. This does not, however, seem to be the case.”
 
“Now we are coming to what looks like some ideas concerning man’s internal constitution. Mencius says (2A:2) ‘The will is the leader of the vital force, and the vital force pervades and animates the body. Therefore I say, “Hold the will firm and never do violence to the vital force.”’ Later he says, ‘I am skillful in nourishing my strong, moving power’ but he has difficulty saying just what this power is although he says, ’It is produced by the accumulation of righteous deeds but is not obtained by incidental acts of righteousness. When one’s conduct is not satisfactory to his own mind, then one will be devoid of nourishment. I therefore said that Gaozi [putting him down again!] never understood righteousness because he made it something external.’ Chan says the concept he translated as ‘strong moving power’ is hao-jan chih ch’i in Chinese.”
 
“I remember that term from Fung. He translated it as ‘Great Morale.’”
 
“That seems to be really a different concept from Chan. Read out what Fung says Karl.”
 
“You mean about why he calls it the ‘Great Morale.’ He says this is a special term for Mencius. Fung says the ‘Great Morale is a matter concerning man and the universe, and therefore is a super-moral value. It is the morale of the man who identifies himself with the universe, so that Mencius says of it that “it pervades all between Heaven and Earth.”' In order to develop this Great Morale, Fung says two things are needed: ‘One may be called the “understanding of Dao;” that is, of the way or principle that leads to the elevation of the mind.’ The other is what Mencius mentioned in the quote you read from Chan concerning the accumulation of ‘righteousness.’ The Dao and the righteousness together will produce the Great Morale, or as Chan calls it, ‘the strong moving power’ i.e., our moral identification with ‘Heaven’--but this cannot be forced.”
 
“That’s right Karl. Mencius says ‘let there be no artificial effort to help it grow.’ To underscore this he tell us not to act like the man from Sung....”
 
“Let me read the story. Its right here on page 79 of Fung. Mencius is speaking: ‘There was a man of Sung who was grieved that his grain did not grow fast enough. So he pulled it up. Then he returned to his home with great innocence, and said to his people: “I am tired to-day, for I have been helping the grain to grow.” His son ran out to look at it, and found all the grain withered.’ You can’t ‘help’ the Great Morale to grow by taking shortcuts. As Fung says, ‘If one constantly practices righteousness, the Great Morale will naturally emerge from the very center of one’s being.’ The point of all this is that Mencius still has superstitious notions about the nature of ‘Heaven.’ That it is in favor of certain moral rules and regulations and we should follow ‘Heaven’ by carrying them out. According to Fung ‘righteousness’ is similar to the Kantian concept of ‘duty.’ “
 
“Very good, Karl. Chan says more or less the same thing. Mencius is against artificial efforts. Mencius says, ‘Always be doing something [in accordance with righteousness] without expectation.’ The Great Morale will follow of its own accord. The Buddhists have similar views but they are more concerned with our mental states rather than our actions. Chan says, ‘The difference between the Buddhists and the Confucianists is that the former emphasize the state of mind while the latter emphasize activity.’”
 
“I think we have said enough about this Fred.”
 
“OK, here is some political philosophy, from 2A:3: ‘Mencius said, “A ruler who uses force to make a pretense at humanity is a despot.... When force is used to overcome people, they do not submit willingly but only because they have not sufficient strength to resist. But when virtue is used to overcome people, they are pleased in their hearts and sincerely submit, as the seventy disciples submitted to Confucius.” And he gives us a comment which encapsulates Confucian political philosophy: ‘The foundation of Confucian political philosophy is “humane government,” government of the true king, who rules through moral example. His guiding principle is righteousness, whereas that of the despot is profit. This contrast between kingliness and despotism has always remained sharp in the minds of Confucian political thinkers.’”
 
"That is a good summary, Fred. I think if we looked at the policies of our own government and many others which are based on the control of the world’s oil resources and hegemony over financial and other markets backed up with the use of military might we would find this contradicts Confucianism completely.”
 
“This next quote isn’t very philosophical but it affords us a glimpse of economic life in ancient China. We can see what type of rules and regulations were considered good and bad by what Mencius approves of. There are FIVE THINGS which the ruler must do in order to have his neighbors ‘look up to him as parent.’ So here is Mencius version of NAFTA: 1.) honor the worthy and employ the competent; 2.) in cities if he charges rent but does tax goods OR enforces the regulations but does not charge rent; 3.) at his borders--inspections but no tax; 4.) the farmers should mutually cultivate the public field and pay no taxes: 5.) no fines for idlers or families who fail to meet the cloth quota. Mencius adds, this is all in 2A:5, ‘Ever since there has been mankind, none has succeeded in leading children to attack their parents. Thus such a ruler will have no enemy anywhere in the world, and having no enemy in the world, he will be an official appointed by Heaven.’”
 
“A little optimistic, I think. Such a ruler would presumably have a prosperous kingdom so Mencius should not discount the desire of greedy rival kingdoms or barbarian nations to take over his country. Having a good constitution is no guarantee that you ‘will have no enemy anywhere in the world.’”
 
"Now we have a VIP [Very Important Passage]! This quote (2A:6) is a major statement of Mencius’ doctrine about the ‘innate goodness’ of humankind. Mencius details what he means by THE FOUR BEGINNINGS and Chan says, ‘Practically all later Confucianists have accepted the Four Beginnings as the innate moral qualities.’”
 
“So let’s hear the quote Fred!”
 
“’Mencius said, “All men have the mind which cannot bear [to see the suffering of] others. The ancient kings had this in mind and therefore they had a government that could not bear to see the suffering of the people....When I say that all men have the mind which cannot bear to see the suffering of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: Now, when men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they all have a feeling of alarm and distress, not to gain friendship with the child’s parents, nor to seek the praise of their neighbors and friends, nor because they dislike the reputation [of lack of humanity if they did not rescue the child]. From such a case, we see that a man without the feeling of commiseration is not a man; a man without the feeling of shame and dislike is not a man; a man without the feeling of deference and compliance is not a man; and a man without the feeling of right and wrong is not a man. The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity; the feeling of shame and dislike is the beginning of righteousness; the feeling of deference and compliance is the beginning of propriety; and the feeling of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Men have these Four Beginnings just have they have their four limbs.”’”
 
“He thinks his example proves all this! Actually he has only shown that some people experience a feeling of alarm when they see a child about to fall into a well. This might be the beginning of a feeling of humanity. I think this is the only immediate feeling. The others come about as a result of reflection. Mencius’ views are of course a result of his having lived in ancient China. I doubt that today we would consider these attitudes ‘innate’, that is, genetically constituted. We will see a better account of all this if we discuss Xunzi down the line. In the meantime I can only say that Mencius’ views have deleteriously affected all subsequent Chinese thought by having pushed Xunzi s theories [man’s original nature is evil] into the background.
 
“More political philosophy in 3A:3. ‘Duke Wen of Teng asked about the proper way of government. Mencius said, “The business of the people should not be delayed.”’ He means that the government should be making sure that the people have secure living arrangements, education, etc. He has in mind a government, within the feudal context, that is ‘for the people’. The welfare state or a socialist approach as in Cuba would be a contemporary example of his basic attitude. If the government fails to provide for the people--say there is a lot of homelessness, drug addition, unemployment [to use modern examples]-- the people will not be secure in their minds. ‘And,’ Mencius goes on, ‘if they have no secure mind, there is nothing they will not do in the way of self-abandonment, moral defection, depravity, and wild license. When they fall into crime, to pursue and punish them is to entrap them. How can such a thing as entrapping the people be allowed under the rule of a man of humanity? Therefore a worthy ruler will be gravely complaisant and thrifty, showing a respectful politeness to his subordinates, and taking from the people according to regulations.’ The ruler must also: ‘Establish seminaries, academies, schools, and institutes to teach the people.’ It is the responsibility of the ruler to set a good moral example and to instruct the people. ‘If human relations are made clear and prominent above, then the common people below will have affection to one another. When a true king arises, he will surely come to take you [Duke Wen] as an example, and thus you will be the teacher of kingly rulers.' Duke Wen was impressed by all this and sent Bi Chan to consult with Mencius about the ‘well-field’ land system.’ What is that Karl?”
 
“It is the system of land tenure recommended by Mencius. He claims it was the system of olden times but many scholars doubt that it ever existed. The land was to be divided into nine equal sections. Eight families would cultivate their own plots and the left over plot would belong to the state and all eight families would take turns cultivating it. Since the state would own zillions of these plots it would have much wealth of produce, etc., to do all the state business and every family would enough for its needs as well. A perfect mixture of state and individual ownership [with respect to the technical developments of the time]. What a fortunate country China would have been had Mencius’ theory been put into practice!”
 
“Anyway, this is what Bi Chan was told by Mencius: ‘Now that your ruler is about to put in practice humane government and has chosen you for this service, you must do your best. Humane government must begin by defining the boundaries of land. If the boundaries are not defined correctly, the division of the land into squares will not be equal, and the produce available for official salaries will not be fairly distributed. Therefore oppressive rulers and corrupt officials are sure to neglect the defining of the boundaries.’”
 
“To better understand the wisdom of Mencius as a practical reformer, Fred, I just want to mention that most of the suffering and killing and tyrannical government behaviors of the last century, and so far in this one too, has been the result of a failure to have fair land distribution and neglect in the ‘defining of the boundaries’. This is what is behind all the massacres and killing of people from the Palestinians, to the Mayan Indians in Guatemala, also the Indians in Mexico and throughout Brazil and the rest of South America. the Bantu and others in South Africa, the people in Zimbabwe, in India, it was behind the Russian [and French] revolutions, the Communist victories in China, Cuba, and Vietnam, it's one of the reasons behind the overthrow of the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, it's the reason Turkey and Iraq kill Kurds and American Indians are confined to reservations. Everywhere you look the big, powerful governments of today spend trillions of dollars just to repress and kill the poor all over the world so that they won’t have to be fair about sharing the land. Humane government is very rare indeed.”
 
“I agree with that Karl, and you haven’t begun to list all the examples!”
 
“Enough of my going on about this. What is next Mencius?”
 
“Next is 3A:4 which has been criticized for being undemocratic. It also discusses what are called the ‘Five Relations.’ Here is what Mencius said: ‘If one must make the things himself before he uses them, this would make the whole empire run about on the road. Therefore it is said, “Some labor with their minds and some labor with their strength. Those who labor with their minds govern others; those who labor with their strength are governed by others.” Those who are governed by others support them; those who govern them are supported by them. This is the universal principle....’ It’s a little like Plato’s Republic. Chan has the following comment ‘Mencius, generally considered the most democratic of Chinese philosophers, has been severely criticized for this undemocratic class distinction. It does not seem to be in harmony with his idea of the basic equality of the people [Chan then gives a reference,7A:4, that has nothing to do with anything]. We should not overlook, however, that the distinction is essentially one of function, not of status, as in Plato, for no one is confined to one class by birth.’ “
 
“I don’t think we should be calling Mencius ‘democratic.’ The concept of democracy was not in use in China at this period. It developed in Greece around this time, or a little before, with its system of city states, but China was not organized into city states and did not have democratic ideals at this time. Mencius’ philosophy grew up in a system of feuding feudal territories based on a hereditary nobility. His thrust is to try to humanize this system and minimize the suffering and degradation within it. He should not be faulted for having ‘feudal’ notions--that is, the notions more or less of his historical time. He is simply describing the actual social reality around him. It is also ingenuous for Chan to say that people are not confined to one class by birth. In reality 99.9% are.
 
“I think you are correct Karl. Mencius goes on to say that the people will be like animals if they are only fed and looked after by the lords. Education is needed. He said, ‘The Sage (emperor Shun) worried about it and he appointed Xie to be minister of education and teach people human relations, that between father and son, there should be affection; between ruler and minister, there should be righteousness; between husband and wife, there should be attention to their separate functions; between old and young, there should be a proper order; and between friends, there should be faithfulness.’ Chan then makes the following comment about the FIVE RELATIONS. ‘It is often said that these do include the stranger and the enemy. But to Confucianists, no one is unrelated, and a stranger is therefore inconceivable. He is at least related as older and younger. As to the enemy, there should never be such a person, for all people should be friends.’ Finally a bon mot as it were from Mencius: ‘It is the nature of things to be unequal.’”
 
“Just a minute Fred. I remember that bon mot. It has to do with his attack on equality of prices, the economic theory of some other scholar of the day.”
 
“Yes, Xu Xing. Most of what Mencius said before in this chapter was in response to Xu and so was the bon mot.” 
 
“Well, I think you should go ahead and contextualize the whole thing.”
 
“Xu Xing had put forth the theory of economic equality. ‘Linen and silk of the same length should be sold at the same price. Bundles of hemp and silk of the same weight should be sold at the same price. Grains of the same quantity should be sold at the same price. And shoes of the same size would be sold at the same price.’ You can see that he knows nothing about the cost of production of different things!”
 
“What else does he say?”
 
“After he says things are unequal he says ‘If you equalize them all, you will throw the world into confusion. If large shoes and small shoes were of the same price, who would make them? If the doctrines of Xuzi were followed, people would lead one another to practice deceit. How can these doctrines be employed to govern a state?’”
 
“Here again, Fred, is an example of the lack of logical training, or if not that, of not paying attention to an opponent’s argument.”
 
“What do you mean?”
 
“Xu said ‘shoes of the same size would be sold at the same price’ and we get a criticism from Mencius referring to large shoes and small shoes for the same price. This is not really attacking Xu on what he actually said. Mencius should have criticized his views on hemp and silk of the same weight being sold for the same price where he could have made a point, if he really understood economics, that silk costs more to produce than hemp on an equal weight basis. I mean, Mencius had a valid point to make but he used sloppy logic.”
 
“Regardless, Chan thinks the bon mot that came out of all this is important because it was later used by the Neo-Confucianists to argue against a metaphysical point, namely ‘that reality is not an undifferentiated continuum’.”
 
“That is even better. A casual comment regarding an economic theory in the context of a political discussion is used by his successors to bolster a metaphysical position! We may eventually get to the Neo-Confucianists but I hope they have better arguments for their positions that you just indicated a la Chan.”
 
“We will find out. Now I have a great comment of Mencius that shows his attitude towards women. An attitude I fear that was pervasive in Chinese society and is even today a big problem in China. Remember the FIVE RELATIONS? Well, here is an elaboration of that between men and women. Mencius is speaking in 3B:2, ‘At the marriage of a young woman, her mother instructs her. She accompanies the daughter to the door on her leaving and admonishes her, saying, “Go to your home. Always be respectful and careful. Never disobey your husband.” Thus, to regard obedience as the correct course of conduct is the way for women.’”
 
“This will have to go, of course, if Confucianism is to be updated for our new century. The idea that women are somehow inferior to men is just rampant, not only in China, but in India, in Islamic lands (the Koran even says men are ‘superior’) in the plethora of Christian sects (with maybe a few exceptions) and in most third world countries (always excepting Cuba where a real struggle is being waged by the government for sexual equality.) It is a shame that neither Confucius nor Mencius recognized the potential of women, especially since such philosophers as Pythagorus, Plato, and Epicurus did so and encouraged women to study philosophy. Hypatia was in fact a famous woman philosopher (brutally murdered by Christians) in the ancient world. I can’t think of an equivalent in ancient China.”

​“In 3B:9 Mencius proclaims his purpose in being a philosopher, his ‘Manifesto’ as it were.”
 
“Let’s hear it!”
 
“’Do I like to argue? I cannot help it.... Sage emperors have ceased to appear. Feudal lords have become reckless and idle scholars have indulged in unreasonable opinions. The words of Yang Zhu and Mo Di [Mozi] fill the world. Yang advocated egoism, which means a denial of the special relationship with the ruler. Mo advocated universal love, which means a denial of the special relationship with the father. To deny the special relationship with the father and the ruler is to become an animal.... If the principles of Yang and Mo are not stopped, and if the principles of Confucius are not brought to light, perverse doctrines will delude the people and obstruct the path of humanity and righteousness.... I am alarmed by these things, and defend the doctrines of the ancient kings and oppose Yang and Mo.’’
 
“Of course we must remember that ‘the doctrines of the ancient kings’ is just code for ‘the principles of Confucius.’
 
It seems to be de rigor for a Chinese philosopher to make appeals to mythological past policies of ancient kings.”
 
“And Chan makes the following comment on this passage: ‘The dispute between Mencius and the Moists involves a fundamental issue of ethics, namely, whether there should be distinction in love....Applied to ethics, this means that while love is universal, its applications to the various [human] relations are different.”
 
“I know that Fred. Mencius thinks we must love our own parents, kin and countrymen more than other people’s in the sense that we owe our first responsibilities to them and then we should love the parents, kin and countrymen of others, while Mo says we should make no distinctions in love.” 
 
“Karl, here is an interesting observation in 4A:12. ‘If one does not understand what is good, he will not be sincere with himself. Therefore sincerity is the way of Heaven, and to think how to be sincere is the way of man.’”
 
“Actually the way of the philosopher or sage. People ignorant of the ethical requirements of jen [ren] or humanity really don’t know the ‘good’ they will not be sincere because knowing and doing the good are not priorities for them. To be ‘sincere’ of course means to be trying to implement the Confucian ideals of humanity. Otherwise people just try to do what is good for themselves without much thought of the consequences for others or at least not for others outside their own immediate circle and sometimes not even then. Examples are everywhere. Every time a business person or corporate executive makes a decision to cut costs in order to increase profits--as in moving a factory to a cheaper labor zone, skimping on safety checks (almost the rule in business) it is obvious these people, and they dominate the world system we live under, are enemies of the Confucian ideal of the good and of humanity.”
 
“You are a little too radical Karl, but Mencius might just be radical too. Here is what he thinks about war for territory. I can’t help but think of the constant fighting in the West Bank and Gaza that is going on. 
 
This is 4A:14--’Mencius said, ”When a ruler failed to practice humane government. all those ministers who enriched him were rejected by Confucius. How much more would he have rejected those who are vehement to fight for their rulers? When they fight for territory, they slaughter so many people that the field is full of them. When they fight for a city, they slaughter so many people that the city is full of them. This is what is called leading on the land to devour human flesh. Death is not enough for such a crime. Therefore those who are skillful in fighting should suffer the heaviest punishment.”’”
 
“It is fairly obvious that Mencius and Mozi at least agree that only a defensive war not one to take some other people’s land is acceptable. In today’s world the equivalent to land taking is resource taking. Wars to get control of other peoples resources is equally a great crime. There are very few governments of today, at least in the so-called capitalist world, that a Confucian sage could work for. In fact the so called ‘free enterprise’ system itself, since it puts profits before humanity, might be totally inconsistent with a modern day Confucianism.”
 
“Or maybe, like feudalism Karl, the Confucian should work in the system to try and mitigate its worst features.”
 
“Maybe.”
 
“At any rate this is 4B:11: ‘Mencius said, “The great man does not insist that his words be necessarily truthful [at all times and under (all) circumstances] or his actions be necessarily resolute. He acts only according to righteousness.”’”
 
“This is really interesting for it shows that Mencius was a precursor of situation ethics.”
 
“What is that?”
 
“Look Fred, take Kant for instance. He would say you should never lie or steal in general you can never break any ethical commandments--no exceptions. But Mencius has just said you don’t have to always be truthful--it depends on righteousness. This can only mean that you can sometimes lie, etc., if righteousness is promoted. Suppose you had to lie in order to save the child from falling into the well? There are situations in which righteousness outweighs our common notions of truth telling, etc. As for ‘situation ethics,’ let me read to you from Reese’s dictionary (1980: p. 531), ‘The position of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics, 1966) that any action may be good or bad depending on the situation. What is wrong in most situations may sometimes be right if the end it serves is sufficiently good.’ There is more about how this works in Christianity (it's based on agape) but it applies to Confucian ends as well i.e., jen or ren.”
 
“Sounds like ‘the end justifies the means’ to me and that can lead to all kinds of problems. What Hitler considers ‘sufficiently good’ may not be either agape or ren.”
 
“I understand the complications Fred. I just wanted to point out that Mencius is not an ‘absolutist’ except on the ren question which is, after all, the basis of Confucianism. It's their prime directive and for us, we can make it the second directive after our own prime directive we set up in the discussion we had on Confucius.”
 
“First the truth of reason then the good of humanity. It doesn’t sound right. Shouldn’t it be reversed or the two rules given equal status?”
 
“This can take all day. Since I think that we can’t begin to know what constitutes ren without recourse to the Prime Directive given before, that is why I put them in that order. But they are inextricably bonded.”
 
“Here is 4B26: ‘Mencius said, “All who talk about the nature of things need only [reason from] facts [and principles will be clear]. The fundamental principle [of reasoning] from facts is to follow [their natural tendencies].”’”
 
“This is practically our own Prime Directive!”
 
“This next quote (4B:30) is just to remind us of the special role of ‘family values’ in Ancient China. ‘Mencius said, “There are five things which in common practice are considered unfilial. The first is laziness in the use of one’s body without attending to the support and care of one’s parents. The second is chess-playing and fondness for wine, without attending to the support and care of one’s parents. The third is love of things and money and being exclusively attached to one’s wife and children, without attending to the support and care of one’s parents. The fourth is following the desires of one’s ears and eyes, thus bringing his parents to disgrace. And the fifth is being fond of bravery, fighting and quarreling, thus endangering one’s parents.”’”
 
“Well, I think these five rules could be boiled down to ‘attend to the support and care of one’s parents’--i.e., ‘Honor thy father and thy mother.’”
 
“Sounds familiar.”
 
“What’s next?”
 
“In 5A:5 there is a discussion of just how we should understand the term ‘the will of heaven’ when we are using it politically. It is a rather long passage but the gist of it goes like this. In ancient times the good emperor Yao gave the empire not to his own son but to Shun. One of Mencius’ students, Wan Chang, asks him about this. Mencius replies that only Heaven can give the empire to someone. So how does Heaven show it’s ‘will’ so to speak. Well, Yao presented Shun to the people and, Mencius says, ‘the people accepted him. I therefore say that Heaven did nor speak, but that it simply indicated its will by his character and his conduct of affairs.’ The people were aware of the type of person Shun was and it ‘was Heaven that gave the empire to him. It was the people that gave the empire to him. Therefore I said, “The emperor cannot give the empire to another person.”’ Now after the death of Yao, Shun withdrew from Yao’s son but the people went to him anyway. ‘The feudal lords of the empire, however, going to court, went not to the son of Yao but to Shun, litigants went not to the son of Yao but to Shun, and singers sang not to the son of Yao but to Shun. Therefore I said, “Heaven [gave the empire to him].”’”
 
“This is vox populi, vox dei. Mencius is saying that the will of Heaven is made known through the consciousness of the people, intimations of democracy, and that the person the people think most likely to champion their interests, peace, fair taxation, eliminating poverty, feeding the poor, preventing famines, etc., is the person they would support. This is a good Confucian notion--the ruler is last, the people first and the will of Heaven is just a symbolic way of saying the Dao of Government is the Dao of the interests of the masses of people."
 
“So you think, Karl, that ‘Heaven’ is just a metaphor for conditions and events that can be given more properly a naturalistic or ‘scientific’ explanation. Do you think that was all ‘Heaven’ meant to Mencius?”
 
“I think that was the track that he was on. The fully developed logical conclusion of his ideas would end up with what you just said. I’m not sure Mencius was fully conscious of this conclusion which first becomes explicit in the thought of Xunzi which we are yet to discuss.”
 
“Well, Chan gives a comment on all this as a part of 7A:1 when he discusses the different notions the Chinese had of the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ or ming = ‘fate’. Here is what Chan says: ‘In ancient China there were five theories about destiny or the Mandate of Heaven. The first was fatalism: the Mandate was fixed and unchangeable. The second was moral determinism: Heaven always encourages virtue and punishes evil; therefore man can determine his reward and punishment through moral deeds. The third was anti-fatalism, advocated by the Moist school. The fourth was naturalistic fatalism which means that destiny is not controlled by Heaven in the sense of an anthropomorphic God but by Nature and works automatically. Lastly, there was the Confucian theory of “waiting for destiny.” According to this doctrine, man should exert his utmost in moral endeavor and leave whatever is beyond our control to fate. It frankly admits that there are things beyond our control but that is no reason why one should relax in his moral endeavor. The tendency was definitely one of moralism and humanism. The Confucian theory represents the conviction of enlightened Chinese in general.’”
 
“I would say about these, Fred, that the first theory is just classical determinism--no event could have happened otherwise. The second theory is like karma but is confusing because people argue about what ‘moral deeds’ are. It also opens up the option of an anthropomorphic God. The third one of Chan, Mo’s view, I hope we can discuss later if have a talk on his philosophy. I don’t get the fourth one--it just seems to be a rehash of the first in other words. This fifth one, the Confucian, does not seem very clear. What does it mean to leave what is beyond our control to ‘fate’. It can only mean that we live in a non-deterministic universe but one which has deterministic sequences in it. We should do our best to live according to morality but when we bump into one of the deterministic sequences we just go with the flow. That doesn’t sound right at all. And what does it mean to say ‘we leave whatever is beyond our control to fate.’ What is beyond our control is going to happen whether we ‘leave it’ or not. I don’t think Chan really clears up the notion of ‘fate’ very well.
 
“This next quote from Mencius (7A:2) is even more confusing. ‘Everything is destiny (ming). A man should accept obediently what is correct [in one’s destiny]. Therefore, he who knows destiny does not stand beneath a precipitous wall. Death sustained in the course of carrying out the Way to the limit is correct destiny. But death under handcuffs and fetters is not due to correct destiny.’”
 
“So ming isn’t really ‘fate’. There seems to be a configuration of factors making up the world at any given time and one of those factors is the individual and his or her mental make up and ability to make choices based on the educational level of the person, position in society, etc. Its like Sartre’s being thrown into the world then you have to make choices. You make the best choices you can given your circumstances but since you don’t have control over all the factors you can’t really control ming. Even looked at this way Mencius’ statement still has some problems. Suppose, in correctly following the Way, you end up in fetters? E.g., suppose you oppose some unjust action of the government. Was it not ‘correct destiny’ for Martin Luther King, Jr. to end up in the Birmingham jail?"
 
“Like most philosophers, from the Ancient Greeks to modern times, Mencius doesn’t think much of hoi polloi! Here is what he says in 7A:5-- ‘To act without understanding and to do so habitually without examination, following certain courses all their lives without knowing the principles behind them--this is the way of the multitude.’”
 
“Yes, Fred, this is the traditional view but it does not mean that the multitude should be abused or exploited by the rulers who must be guided by the Confucian principles of ren. And please note, that in the historical circumstances of the past this attitude is justified. Only now have we the ability to see to it that all humans can have the educational opportunities such that the ‘multitude’ will be able to approach the wisdom of the Sage. Remember 6A:7? In theory Mencius held that every person could be a sage [he may not have included women, so I am updating him] it was the material conditions of his time that held people back. In our time it is possible to achieve this goal or at least lay the foundations for it but for us it is the property relations not the material conditions [i.e, scarcity as a brute rather than social fact] that are holding us back. The institution of socialism would lead to the educational advance of the multitude and without a ruling class there would be no motivation to impart a false consciousness to the people.”
 
“Here is a good passage that really spells out Mencius’ view of ‘love’. Mencius says, in 7A:45, ‘In regard to [inferior] creatures, the superior man loves them but is not humane to them (that is, showing them the feelings due human beings). In regard to people generally, he is humane to them but not affectionate. He is affectionate to his parents and humane to all people. He is humane to all people and feels love for all creatures.’”
 
“Nicely put. If humanity could just get to this level, as opposed to the almost impossible level of ‘love’ that Mozi aspires to (equal love) it would be a great advance. This position is possible, I think, with proper education and the restructuring of society to human needs rather than the accumulation of money and wealth and profit. One thing should be noted. When Mencius says ‘love for all creatures’, I think that commits him to vegetarianism and an anti-hunting ethic, neither of which, as far as I know, the historical Mencius committed himself to.”
 
“OK, Karl, here is the last passage from Mencius. This is 7B:14, ‘Mencius said, “[In a state] the people are the most important; the spirits of the land and grain (guardians of territory) are the next; the ruler is of slight importance” Oops, and one more [7B:33] to just sum up--’The superior man practices principle (Natural Law) and waits for destiny (ming, Mandate of Heaven) to take its own course.’”
 
“So, Fred, this has been a long discussion, but I think we have a pretty good idea of Mencius’ philosophy and its relation to Confucius and how Marxists could deal with it in a positive way.”