(Part 4.4 – – – Part 4.3 – – – Part 4.1 – – – Part 3 – – – Part 2 – – – Part 1)
Cosmogony, Cosmology, and the Dao
This essay will explore cosmogony and cosmology in early China. Cosmogony refers to the creation or origin of the universe and cosmology to how the universe operates. We will find that texts now labeled as Daoist – the Laozi and Zhuangzi, for example – appear to be among the first to write about it, often in terms of Dao 道. But first, let us look at what accounts we can find in texts that pre-date these.
In the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600 – 1045 B.C.E.), the oracle bone inscriptions record numerous Nature Powers, such as the sun, cardinal directions and wind, but most prominently, the river (He 河), and the mountain (Yue 岳) that influenced the weather, crops and some other things. Similarly, many of the deceased ancestors and some culture heroes (e.g. Yi Yin 伊尹) could affect the weather, crops and the outcomes of many events. A deity (or deities) named Di 帝 also had these powers, but to a greater extent, and was apparently more powerful and more distant than royal ancestors. Later written as Shangdi 上帝, it has often been translated as Lord on High or High God, but, as Robert Eno has emphasized, it may refer instead to a collective body of deities.[1] Whatever the case, nowhere in the Shang or Zhou dynasty literature is Shangdi said to have created or generated the world or anything else. In the Classic of Odes (Shijing 詩經) both Shangdi and Tian 天, the sky, heavens or perhaps “Heaven” are the higher powers and, as often been mentioned, seem to be largely synonymous. Ode # 235, “King Wen” (文王) begins:
文王在上、於昭于天。
周雖舊邦、其命維新。
有周丕顯、帝命丕時。
文王陟降、在帝左右。
King Wen is on high;
Oh, he shines in Heaven!
Zhou is an old nation,
But its mandate (to rule) is new.
The land of Zhou became illustrious,
Blessed by God’s mandate.
King Wen ascends and descends
On God’s left hand, on His right.
Tian – the sky – is the place were the highest power resides along with the spirits of highly revered royal ancestors. There is little reason not to translate Di as “God” and Tian as “Heaven,” with the caveat that Di is not said to have creative powers. As for Tian, we find in ode #255, “Mighty” (蕩):
蕩蕩上帝!下民之辟。
疾威上帝!其命多辟?
天生烝民,其命匪諶?
靡不有初,鮮克有終!
Mighty is God on High,
Ruler of His people below;
Swift and terrible is God on High,
His charge has many statutes.
Heaven gives birth to the multitudes of the people,
But its charge cannot be counted upon.
To begin well is common;
To end well is rare indeed.[3]
Seeing that Heaven “gives birth to” (sheng 生) and that Di on High resides above (in the heavens), it is not unreasonable to propose that Di on High is a creative force, or is in some way involved in creative acts, though we never encounter the Chinese “Shangdi gives birth to” (上帝生). Perhaps Shangdi exercised his creative powers through Tian-Heaven. Mozi 墨子 (c. 470-390 B.C.E.) grounded a significant amount of his philosophy in the authority of Heaven. For him, his followers, and likely a significant portion of society, Tian appears to have been a personified “sky god.”[4] In “Heaven’s Will, Middle Section” (Tianzhi zhong 天志中, ch. 27), he argues:
且吾所以知天之愛民之厚者,有矣。曰以磨[歷]為日月星辰,以昭道之;制為四時春秋冬夏,以紀綱之;霣降雪霜雨露,以長遂五穀麻絲,使民得而財利之;列為山川谿谷,播賦百事,以臨司民之善否;為王公侯伯,使之賞賢而罰暴;賦金木鳥獸,從事乎五穀麻絲,以為民衣食之財。自古及今,未嘗不有此也。
Further, how I know that Heaven’s love of the people is profound is this. I say it is through putting the sun, moon, stars, and planets in proper sequence to light the way for them. It fixed the four seasons – spring, autumn, winter and summer – to regulate them. It sent down snow, frost, rain and dew so the five grains, hemp and silk would grow, and it caused the people to gain the benefits of these materials. It aligned the mountains, rivers, streams and valleys and made proliferate the many officials to oversee the people and keep watch on what was good and bad. It sanctioned kings, dukes, marquises and earls and caused them to reward the worthy and punish the wicked. It provided metal and wood, birds and beasts, as well as the production of the five grains, hemp and silk so the people had the materials for clothing and food. From ancient times until now, it has always been like this.[5]
Many texts cite Heaven as that which gives birth to either human beings or all living things,[6] although in many of these cases, and in perhaps the second ode above, “Heaven” may be better understood as “Nature,” and a few texts write it as “Heaven and Earth create…” (Tiandi sheng 天地生).[7] While there is no doubt that many in early China understood Tian to be a conscious deity, with likes, dislikes, desires and moral authority, Tian also clearly referred to the sky above and the forces of Nature herself. While there is the possibility that when we encounter “Heaven gives birth to/creates” we are witnessing the belief, or the remnants of a belief, that a conscious deity (Tian) somehow fashioned humans and all living things, there is strong evidence that suggests that it often refers to the “activity” and resources of Nature allowing or perhaps encouraging life to evolve. In the 1st century C.E. the philosopher Wang Chong 王充 found it still necessary to argue against the religious conception of Tian as a conscious and purposeful deity. Explicitly deriving his argument from the Laozi (or Daojia 道家), he explained that “When Heaven moves, it does not desire to generate things thereby, but things are generated of their own accord. This, then, is spontaneity. In dispersing its vital energy, it does not desire to create things, but things are created of themselves. This, then, is non-intentional action” (天動不欲以生物,而物自生,此則自然也。施氣不欲為物,而物自為,此則無為也。).[8]
In what follows I will often translate Tian as “the heavens” to specify the referent as the sky above, including the sun, moon, stars and planets and sometimes as “Nature” to widen the referent to include the earth and imply the natural, dynamic forces at work in the universe.
We may now ask, who (or what) was believed to have created the heavens and earth? An excavated text from Zidanku 子彈庫, Hunan province usually called the “Chu Silk Manuscript” (Chu Boshu 楚帛書) contains the earliest evidence of a myth involving Baoxi 雹戲 (a.k.a. Fuxi 伏羲) and Nüwa 女媧, who, in a time described as “indistinct and dark”(夢夢墨墨), gave birth to four children, who helped separate above and below (上下), that is, the heavens and the earth. Eventually, after thousands of years had passed the sun and moon were somehow born. Later[9] myths tell of Nüwa creating living things (out of already existing materials); for example, the late-Han Shuowen Jiezi 說文解字 records that (Nü)Wa was an “ancient female deity that transformed (=made) the myriad things” (古之神聖女,化萬物者也).
Aside from this text, it would appear that some of the authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi were the first to attempt a “non-mythological” answer. What is traditionally the 25th chapter of the Laozi 老子, and included among the passages located in “bundle A” of the Guodian 郭店 proto-Laozi, offers:
有物混成,先天地生。寂兮寥兮獨立不改,周行而不殆,可以為天下母。吾不知其名,字之曰道。強為之名曰大。大曰逝,逝曰遠,遠曰反。故道大、天大、地大、王亦大。域中有四大,而王居其一焉。人法地,地法天,天法道,道法自然。
There was something nebulous (yet) complete prior to the birth of the heavens and earth. Placid! Vacuous! Unaccompanied and immutable, circulating everywhere yet secure. It can be considered the Mother of the World. I do not know its name and so will style it “Dao.” If forced to name it, (I would) say it is great. Being great, (I would) say it progresses on. Progressing on, (I would) say it is far-reaching. Far-reaching, (I would) say it returns. Accordingly, Dao is great, the heavens are great, the earth is great, and the king is also great. Within all the lands there are four “greats” and the king counts as one of them. Humankind conforms to the earth; the earth conforms to the heavens; the heavens conform to the Dao; and the Dao conforms to (what is) so-of-itself.[10]
The Chinese word dao 道 (found spelled as Tao in English dictionaries) is a common word in early Chinese literature. Experts are unsure whether it was originally a noun or a verb. The earliest attestation I have found is on a Western Zhou bronze inscription from the mid-9th century B.C.E.:
where it appears six times, each referring to a different (named) “road.”[11] The ode #35 Gufeng 谷風 also has this meaning: “(I) travel the road slowly” (行道遲遲).[12] The cognate word dao 導/道 “to lead, to guide, to go along” may derive from dao as “road”; that is, one goes along the road or is guided by the road, or, dao as “road” may be the derivation: that upon which one goes along or is guided by.[13] By extension, dao is the “path” one takes, or the path anything takes as it proceeds. In turn, it is the “way” something is done or occurs, the “method” one uses, and, quite commonly, the “proper way” to do things. Chad Hansen has called these “performance daos” and when communicated to others – offered as guidance – can be understood as “guiding discourse.”[14] I refer the reader to an impressive essay on pre-Confucian meanings and usages of dao by Bradford Hatcher entitled “The Other Original Dao: The Path, before Kongzi and Laozi Paved It.”[15] For now, I will note that in the Analects (Lunyu 論語) we not only find dao meaning “road,” (combined with lu 路, “road” to add further specificity) but we also come across the “way(s) of one’s father” (父之道), the “way(s) of the former kings” (先王之道) and the “way(s) of the superior man” (君子之道). Mengzi refers to the “way(s) of Confucius” (孔子之道), the “way(s) of Yao and Shun (堯舜之道) and Mozi criticizes the “way(s) of the Ru” (儒之道). Let us note that dao can be either singular or plural and that it generally refers to the teachings, practices and ethos of those mentioned, although these need not be expressed verbally to be conveyed. We should also note that dao is also used in this “everyday” sense in the Zhuangzi and the Laozi as well.
Also in the Analects we find that a state or “(all that is) below the heavens” (天下) can “have possession of the Way” (有道) or “not have possession of the Way” (無道).[16] This suggests “The Right Way” to live or function. In a recently discovered ancient text we find:
禹之行水,水之道也。造父之御馬,馬也之道也。后稷之藝地,地之道也。莫不有道焉,人道為近。是以君子人道之取先。
Yu’s direction of water (used) the way of water; Zaofu’s horsemanship, the horse and its way; Hou Ji’s skill with the land, the way of the earth. There is nothing not having a way, the human way (人道) being nearest (to man). Thus is the human way a superior person’s first choice.[17]
We may note here also that Yu, Zhaofu and Houji based their actions on the situation at hand, or the nature of the subjects in these situations, and, being successful, could be understood to have followed or possessed the “Right Way.” Finally, in many texts we encounter the “right” or “most efficacious” dao/way to do any number of things; for example: the “way to order the state” (治國之道), the “way to nourish the people” (畜人之道), the “way of winning the hearts (of the people)” (得其心有道),[18] and the “way of harmonizing the qi-energy” (合氣之道).
Above we saw reference to the “human way” (ren dao 人道). The distinction between the human (ren 人) and the Heavenly, or Natural (tian 天), (and their “ways”), was an important one for the early Chinese and for our discussion here. While some early sources talk of Tian as a deity and its dao as the way the deity operates or prescribes humans to operate,[19] what is more prevalent and relevant to us is the usage of Tian to refer to Nature and its dao as Nature’s Way(s). While “the Way of Heaven and Earth” (Tiandi zhi Dao 天地之道) would presumably be a more accurate expression indicating the “Way of Nature,” the “Way of Heaven” (Tian Dao 天道, or Tian zhi Dao 天之道) appears to have been the most common expression. The Analects records that Confucius was rather silent on the Way of Nature[20] and Zi Chan 子產 (c. 6th century B.C.E.) declared that, unlike the Human Way, it was too remote to be understood.[21] We find the Confucian Xunzi saying: “The Way of which I speak is not the Way of Heaven or the Way of Earth, but rather the Way that guides the actions of mankind and is embodied in the conduct of the gentleman” (道者、非天之道,非地之道,人之所以道也,君子之所道也。),[22] and we find Heguanzi 鶡冠子 counselling Pangzi 龐子 that the way of a sage (聖人之道) gives precedence to humankind over the heavens, the earth or the seasons (shi 時), saying, “These three cannot make transformations stand nor implant customs, therefore the sage does not take them as standard.” (三者,不可以立化樹俗,故聖人弗法。).[23]
This was the common attitude, especially among Confucians. Yet some did talk of Nature’s ways, among them the authors of the Laozi and Zhuangzi:
Laozi 77:
天之道其猶張弓與。高者抑之,下者舉之。有餘者損之,不足者補之。天之道,損有餘而補不足。人之道,則不然,損不足以奉有餘。孰能有餘以奉天下,唯有道者。
The Way of Nature, is it not like the drawing of a bowstring? What is high is pressed down, what is low is raised up. (That which) has excess is diminished and (that which) is deficient is increased. The Way of Nature (thus) diminishes excess and dispenses it to what is deficient. The Way of Humankind is not like this, (but rather) diminishes what is (already) deficient and provides it to (those who) have excess. Who is it that can dispense his excess to the world? Only one who has the Way.[24]
Here, the Way of Nature is recommended as something to emulate, as opposed to the Way of Humankind and one who emulates the Way of Nature is said to “have possession of the (right) way (you dao 有道).” In Zhuangzi chapter 11 we have:
何謂道?有天道,有人道。無為而尊者,天道也;有為而累者,人道也。主者,天道也;臣者,人道也。天道之與人道也,相去遠矣,不可不察也。
What is this thing called Way? There is the Way of Nature, and there is the Way of Humankind. To engage in no intentional activity, and yet be respected – this is the Way of Nature. To engage in action and become entangled in it – this is the Way of Humankind. The ruler (models) the Way of Nature; his subjects the Way of Humankind. The Way of Nature and the Way of Humankind are far apart. This is something to consider carefully![25]
But let us return to our question regarding what came before or gave rise to Heaven and Earth. The author of Laozi 25 proposes that there was an indeterminate, nebulous state of affairs; placid and seemingly empty, yet unquestionably dynamic. The closest name (ming 名) he could imagine was to name it one of the “great” things in the universe, but he offers us a “style name” or “courtesy name” (zi 字) of dao 道. Why would he refer to this primordial environment as a dao, as a road or a/the way of operating or doing something? This is a question that has troubled some scholars. Yet our reflections on Tian Dao above shed some light. Herrlee Creel once wrote, “In the Warring States period, ‘the dao of Heaven’ came to mean the way nature works: the progression of the seasons, and so forth. This dao of nature was, however, precisely what the early Daoist philosophers were interested in. For them, dao was the course of nature.”[26] Thus, this usage of Dao was derived from the notion of Tian Dao as the Way of Nature. It would seem that some in ancient China either speculated about, or had an experience with a dao that not only encompassed but also preceded the emergence of Heaven and Earth (and their ways/daos), and like other daos, one could follow or be guided (dao 導) by this one as well.[27] Accordingly, Laozi 53 declares that “the Great Way is very flat and even (to go along), yet people are fond of byways” (大道甚夷,而人好徑).
Whereas Robert Eno writes that in Daoist texts, Dao is used “both as a prescriptive model for people and as a descriptive cosmic force,”[28] Chad Hansen asserts that this “cosmic” usage of Dao involves an implausible meaning-change,[29] and further, that a mystical inner experience of the source of the world is “something quite alien to their philosophical scheme.”[30] I find Hansen’s narrow focus on philosophy and denigration of early Chinese religious/spiritual sensibilities to be a significant handicap to understanding these texts. With regards to this primordial Dao being something one can be guided by, Laozi 25 concludes by saying Heaven and Earth conform to the standard (fa 法) epitomized by Dao, and that, ideally, humankind can take it as a guide and model themselves on it. And in a figurative manner of speaking, Dao itself conforms to the nature of things operating or evolving naturally of–themselves, which, among other things, reveals that this Dao is still present: it does not exist only at the beginning of time.
This “cosmogonic Dao” appears elsewhere in the Laozi. Chapter 42 begins:
道生一。一生二。
二生三。三生萬物。
萬物負陰而抱陽,
沖氣以為和
Dao gave birth to One; One gave birth to Two;
Two gave birth to Three; Three gave birth to all living things.
All living things shoulder the yin and embrace the yang,
The blending of (these two) energies produce harmony.
Much ink has been spilled in attempts to identify what the one, two and three are. The first two things almost always appearing first in cosmogonies in early China are Heaven and Earth,[31] but I find it most likely these numbers merely represent growth, that all things have their origin in the Dao.[32] Regarding all the living things in the world, chapter 51 says “The Dao gives birth to them, its power (De 德) nourishes them, things shape them and circumstances complete them” (道生之,德畜之,物形之,勢成之) and chapter 34 explains that “The Great Dao inundates (the world, flowing) in all directions. All living things depend on it for life and it does not refuse them … All living things turn to it and yet it does not rule them” (大道氾兮,其可左右。萬物恃之以生而不辭 … 萬物歸焉,而不為主). And finally, chapter 4 says that the Dao “seems to be the ancestor of all living things” (似萬物之宗), and the author remarks that he “does not know whose child it is, but it would appear to be prior to Di” (不知誰之子,象帝之先).[33] This again signifies that this Dao is primordial, that it existed prior to the heavens and earth, to all living things and even prior to the highest and most ancient divinity, Di 帝, who dwells in Heaven. Dao is that which inundates (fan 氾) the world with its power and implicit guidance, is responsible for the generation (sheng 生) of all things and is personified as a primeval mother (mu 母) or ancestor (zong 宗).
A few passages in the Laozi would appear to speak of this “Dao” using other terms, like the label “Mother” mentioned above. Two of these are relevant to the cosmogony – or perhaps ontology – we are addressing here. The influential chapter 40 of the Laozi asserts that “All things in the world are born from Existence; Existence is born from Non-existence,” (天下之物生於有,有生於無) where You 有 and Wu 無 signify reified concepts of existence and non-existence. Another way of expressing this, although still dealing with reified concepts, is that the myriad forms in the world are born of Form (xing 形) and Form is born of the Formless (wuxing 無形) – which is an oft-mentioned attribute of the Dao[34] and near synonymous with chapter 25’s “nebulous” (hun 混). Thus Wu 無, if not an epithet for Dao, at the very least conveys something fundamental about this mysterious cosmogonic creator/creative power. Chapter 1 affirms that Non-existence (無) “names the beginning of all living things” (名萬物之始) and Existence (有) “names the Mother of all living things” (名萬物之母也).[35] The first half has near-parallels in the Guanzi’s 管子 “Techniques of the Mind, Upper Section” (Xinshu shang 心術上), which reads “Emptiness is the beginning of all living things” (虛者,萬物之始),[36] and the 5th chapter of the Hanfeizi 韓非子, which affirms that it is “Dao (that is) the beginning of all living things” (道者,萬物之始).[37]
No discussions of this subject matter is found in the Venerable Documents (Shangshu 尚書), the Classic of Odes (Shijing 詩經), the Zhou Changes (Zhouyi 周易), the Analects (Lunyu 論語), or the works of Mozi 墨子, Mengzi 孟子 or Xunzi 荀子. Cosmogony, cosmology and the conceptions of a cosmogonic Dao are to be found in the roughly contemporary work Zhuangzi 莊子, as well as in a few texts of the 3rd and 2nd century B.C.E. that show interest in this new domain of discourse, apparently influenced by the Laozi and Zhuangzi, (or their communities/lineages).[38]
The Zhuangzi discloses cosmological assumptions in its many anecdotes, parables and colloquies. Three in particular are quite interesting; the first one an overt attempt at an explanation of the nature of Dao.
Zhuangzi 6: Da Zongshi 大宗師
夫道,有情有信,無為無形;可傳而不可受,可得而不可見;自本自根,未有天地,自古以固存;神鬼神帝,生天生地;在太極之先而不為高,在六極之下而不為深,先天地生而不為久,長於上古而不為老。
As for the Dao, it has reality and reliability, (but) lacks intentional activity and lacks form. It can be passed on but cannot be received;[39] can be apprehended but cannot be seen. It is its own basis, its own root; when there was not yet the heavens and earth, it was persistently self-existent. It empowered the spirits and empowered Di, gave birth to the heavens and gave birth to the earth. Existing beyond the supreme ultimate, yet it cannot be considered high; existing below the six nadirs, yet it cannot be considered deep; (existing) before the heavens and earth were born, yet it cannot be considered perennial; enduring from the highest antiquity, yet it cannot be considered old.
As we have seen in the Laozi, this author affirms a formless, self-existent, primordial Dao that gave rise to the heavens and earth as well as empowers the spiritual entities of the world.[40] Thinking of it as high, low, old, etc. is considered too limiting and obfuscating, and the Laozi and Zhuangzi often describe the Dao in paradoxical ways, in addition to explicit counsels about the difficulty in talking about it. Later in this chapter – significantly entitled “The Great Ancestral Teacher (大宗師)” – the legendary Xu You 許由 (c. 23rd century B.C.E.) praises his “teacher,” described in near-identical ways to that describing the Dao above. For example: “it covers and supports the heavens and earth and carves out the multitudes of forms, yet it cannot be considered skilful (覆載天地刻彫眾形而不為巧).”
This passage reassures us that although this Dao is formless and cannot be seen, it is possible to apprehend it and have trust in it (as a guide). The Laozi also speaks of an invisible and mysterious force or presence in the world, though does not always explicitly call it Dao. In fact, throughout all of the “Daoist” texts discussed above and below, it is remarkable how often we find expressed sentiments like: “(we) look for it, yet it cannot be seen” (視之而不見), “(we) listen for it, yet it cannot be heard” (聽之而不聞), “(we try to) grasp it, yet it cannot be obtained” (搏之而不得也) and “no one can see its form” (莫見其形).[41]
泰初有無,無有無名。一之所起,有一而未形。物得以生,謂之德;未形者有分,且然無間,謂之命;留動而生物,物成生理,謂之形。
In the Great Beginning there was nothing; nothing existed, nothing (that could be) named. The One arose; there was the One, yet it had not yet taken any form. (That which) things obtained in order to live, (we) call De.[42] Before anything had formed, there were allotments, yet undivided; (we) call these fates. Gradually movement occurred and things were born, they developed distinctive patterns; (we) call these forms.
This passage goes on to propose that one can go through a process of cultivation (xiu 修) and reversion (fan 反), become psychologically empty and “bewildered,” and mysteriously “join together with Heaven and Earth” (與天地為合). This may be an indication that a transpersonal or mystic unitive state was the means used to access knowledge of the beginning of the universe for these authors.[43] In chapter 21, “Tian Zifang” (田子方), Laozi explains that while in trance he was “wandering at the Beginning of Things” (遊於物之初). Reminiscent of Laozi 42 above, he explains that things come to life by a blending and harmonizing of the yin and yang energies and like Laozi 4, suggests that the mysterious force that lies behind the processes of Nature is like an ancestor (zong 宗).
In addition to the Ancestor, other epithets for a personified creator occur in the text, such as the “Great Clod” (Da Kuai 大塊)[44] and the “Maker of Things” or the “Initiator of Things” (Zaowuzhe 造物者).[45] The synonymous “Maker/Initiator of Transformations” (Zaohuazhe 造化者) occurs in chapter 6 and a number of times in the Huainanzi 淮南子. This is a personification of that force that drives the transformations (hua 化) living and non-living things go through. This Maker of Things is not located in Heaven, but his place of work spans the heavens and earth (天地), metaphorically referred to as his “great smithy” (Da Lu 大鑪).[46] Zhuangzi himself is reported to have “wandered above with the Maker of Things” (上與造物者遊) and “attuned himself” (調適) to the ancestor (宗), suggesting that, like Laozi, Zhuangzi had intimate experiences with a higher, creative power.[47]
Zhuangzi 23: Geng Sang Chu 庚桑楚
有實而無乎處者,宇也。有長而無本剽者,宙也。有乎生,有乎死,有乎出,有乎入,入出而無見其形,是謂天門。天門者,無有也,萬物出乎無有。有不能以有為有,必出乎無有,而無有一無有。
What is substantial but located in no position is the whole expanse of space. What has duration but no beginning or end is the whole expanse of time. There is somewhere from which we are born, into which we die, from which we emerge, through which we exit, but in all this emerging and exiting, we do not see its form. This is called the Gates of Heaven. The Gates of Heaven are Non-existence, for all living things emerge from Non-existence. Existence cannot constitute its existence out of Existence; it must come forth from Non-existence. Yet Non-existence is one and the same as non-existing.[48]
This passage has obvious parallels with Laozi 40’s asserting that all that exists “is born from Non-existence” (生於無) as well as the passage from chapter 12, where, in the Great Beginning, the formless “One” arose from Non-existence (無). The “Gates of Heaven” (Tianmen 天門) also appear in Laozi chapter 10 and are also reminiscent of chapter 6 of the Laozi, which reads:
谷神不死,是謂玄牝。玄牝之門,是謂天地根。綿綿若存,用之不勤。
The Valley Spirit does not die. This is called the mysterious female. The gateway of the mysterious female, is called the root of Heaven and Earth. Subtle and gossamer, it seems to exist, (yet) using it will not exhaust it.
The Gates of Heaven, which, although they are “nothing” (無), are those through which all living things enter into existence and through which they all finally exit. Similarly, Laozi 6 speaks of an everlasting, spiritual, mysterious “female” whose gates Heaven and Earth are rooted in, or emerge from. These metaphors suggest the image of a dark and mysterious fertile womb, though a womb that has no walls or boundaries and is invisible and intangible.[50]
Later in the Zhuangzi, when asked by Dongguozi 東郭子 (the master of the eastern wall?) where the Dao exists, Zhuangzi replies: “there is no place it does not exist” (無所不在), and offers ‘pervasive,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘omnipresent’ (zhou, bian, xian 周徧咸) as descriptive terms.[51] The Guanzi’s Xinshu shang 心術上 – a text with numerous parallels to the Laozi, Zhuangzi and Huainanzi – similarly declares, “The Dao exists between the heavens and earth: it is so large that there is nothing external to it and so small that there is nothing internal” (道在天地之閒也,其大無外,其小無內).[52]
A short text entitled “Inner Workings” (Neiye 內業), located as the 49th chapter of the Guanzi anthology is stylistically related the Laozi and the thought in it also shows some similarity. Most of the text is written in rhyme and advocates quietistic “psychosomatic” practices primarily conducive to a healthy mind and body.[53] Here is not the place to engage in a lengthy analysis of this text, its authorship or dating, but I will say that I am not persuaded by the views of Allyn Rickett, Harold Roth and Angus Graham that the text dates from the early 4th century B.C.E. and pre-dates the Laozi.[54] With its focus on self-cultivation, it is most similar to Han texts such as the Huainanzi and the syncretic/Huang-Lao materials in the Zhuangzi. The absence of yin-yang 陰陽 and Five Phases (wuxing 五行) correlative cosmological ideas perhaps signals an “early” date of composition – i.e., 4th century B.C.E.,[55] though the parts of the Huainanzi and Zhuangzi that discuss self-cultivation do not often mention yin and yang or wuxing either.[56]
In the Neiye, we find claims like “In principle, the Dao is without roots, without stalks, without leaves and without flowers. (That by which) all living things live and are completed is declared the Dao (凡道無根無莖,無葉無榮。萬物以生,萬物以成,命之曰道。) Like the Laozi and Zhuangzi, this text argues that Dao is that by which all things live; however, the Neiye uses a number of terms synonymously,[57] as it begins by claiming that it is “essence” (jing 精) that is what gives life to all things, constitutes the stars and planets and flows throughout the universe. This essence, moreover, is a basic constituent of “vital energy” (qi 氣), which was believed to vitalize all things. More often than not, however, Dao in the Neiye is something that exists only in a well-cultivated and tranquil heart-mind (xin 心) and thus is not cosmological in nature.
More elaborate cosmogonies and cosmologies were formulated during the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.E. They are largely consistent with what we have seen in the Laozi and Zhuangzi, two of which appear associated with the Laozi and the others are in acknowledged anthologies containing the writings of many authors who would have been familiar with the Laozi, or the ideas therein, to varying extents. The first two are the recently unearthed “Supreme One Generates Water” (Taiyi Sheng Shui 太一生水) from the Guodian tomb and the “The Source (that is) the Dao” (Dao Yuan 道原) from the Mawangdui 馬王堆 tomb. The oldest of these is the Taiyi Sheng Shui, which may date from the late 4th century B.C.E.:
太一生水,水反薄太一,是以成天。天反薄太一,是以成地。天地复相薄也,是以成神明。神明复相薄也,是以成陰陽。陰陽复相薄也,是以成四時。四時复相薄也,是以成滄熱。滄熱复相薄也,是以成濕燥。濕燥复相薄也,成歲而止。
故歲者,濕燥之所生也。濕燥者,滄熱之所生也。滄熱者,四時之所生也。四時者,陰陽之所生也。陰陽者,神明之所生也。神明者,天地之所生也。天地者,太一之所生也。
是故太一藏於水,行於時,周而又[始],… [故太一為]以己為萬物母,一缺一盈,以己為萬物經。…
The Supreme One gives birth to water, water returns and joins with the Supreme One—this is how it completes Heaven. Heaven returns and joins with the Supreme One—this is how it completes Earth. Heaven and Earth (repeatedly join with each other)—this is how they complete the spirits and the luminaries. The spirits and the luminaries repeatedly join with each other—this is how they complete the yin and the yang. The yin and the yang repeatedly join with each other—this is how they complete the four seasons. The four seasons repeatedly join (with each other)—this is how they complete coldness and heat. Coldness and heat repeatedly join with each other—this is how they complete moisture and dryness. When moisture and dryness repeatedly join with each other, completing the year, (the circle) stops.
Therefore, the year is begotten by moisture and dryness. Moisture and dryness are begotten by coldness and heat. Coldness and heat (are begotten) by the four seasons. The (four seasons) are begotten by the yin and the yang. The yin and the yang are begotten by the spirits and the luminaries. The spirits and the luminaries are begotten by Heaven and Earth. Heaven and Earth are begotten by the Supreme One.
From this it follows that the Supreme One is stored in the water, moves with the (four) seasons, (finishes) a circle, and then (starts over again) . . . (Hence the Supreme One is) the mother of the myriad things; at times lacking, at times full, it takes itself to be the alignment of all living things.[58]
This cosmogony does not mention Dao, but as we will shortly see, the Supreme One, although centuries later received cult as a god as well as also being identified with an astral body in the heavens, is likely one and the same as the Dao (“One” is a numerical “one,” not “being” or “entity”). The creation story begins with the “Supreme One giving birth to water” (太一生水),[59] which then “returns and joins with the Supreme One” (反薄太一),thereby completing (creating?) the heavens, which in turn “returns and joins with the Supreme One” in order to complete the earth. Then the heavens and earth conjoin in order to complete the spirits and luminaries, etc. We end with the completion of the yearly cycle. Then it is explained in reverse, repeatedly using “beget/generate” (sheng 生) instead of “complete, achieve” (cheng 成), but ending with “the heavens and earth are begotten by the Supreme One.” (天地者,太一之所生也). Water is not mentioned here. This may suggest that water is not as significant as many believe in this cosmogony. The fact that Taiyi is further said to be “stored in the water” (藏於水) may indicate that water is simply part of Taiyi, or perhaps that shui 水 is primarily verbal – suggesting a flooding or flowing forth (shuiliu 水流) – like the amniotic fluids prior to the birth of a child – rather than a substantive “water.” Sarah Allan has theorized that this water is better understood as a river; more precisely, the celestial river we call the Milky Way, and Taiyi as the Pole Star.[59b] Additionally, when we read of Taiyi (or Dao) “giving birth to” (sheng 生) the world or living things, we need be careful not to consider this intentional generation or birthing.[60]
While neither the Laozi nor the Zhuangzi describe the generation of the universe in such detail, preferring instead to focus on the very beginning (Non-existence, formless, nebulous Oneness) and often the ends (all living things), this text does connect with the Laozi in referring to Taiyi as the “mother of all living things” (萬物母), as preceding the heavens and earth, and by circulating or moving (周, 行). What’s more, the text continues:
下,土也,而謂之地。上,氣也,而謂之天。道亦其字也。請問其名? … 天地名字亚立,故過其方,不思相當。
Below is soil, yet we call it ‘earth’. Above is vapour/air, yet we call it ‘heaven’. ‘Dao’ likewise is (only) a style name for it—May I (thus) ask for its (real) name? … As for Heaven and Earth, their name and style name stand together; as a result, moving beyond these realms, (we) do not judge them as suitable.[61]
As in Laozi 25, “Dao” is only the “style name” (zi 字) for what pre-exists the heavens and earth, the appropriate name (ming 名) of which is not known. Dirk Meyer explains: “Just as ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ prove to be nothing other than style names for what ‘vapour’ and ‘soil’ describe in their entirety (thus describing the phenomenological actuality of a thing and so presenting their ‘real names’), the ‘Ultimate One’ (Taiyi 太一) is considered to be the phenomenological actuality behind the style name ‘dao’.”[62] As many scholars have pointed out, the Dao both transcends the world of things, the heavens, and the earth, and is immanent throughout them.
Before looking at the “Source (that is) the Dao” (Dao Yuan 道原) text unearthed at Mawangdui, the “Great Music” (Da Yue大樂) section (5.2) in Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals (Lüshi Chunqiu 呂氏春秋, c. mid-3rd century B.C.E.) as well as the opening section of chapter 14, “Sayings Explained” (Quanyan 詮言), of the Huainanzi (c. mid-2nd century B.C.E.) also regard Dao and Taiyi as equivalent. The Da Yue explains:
太一出兩儀,兩儀出陰陽。陰陽變化,一上一下,合而成章。渾渾沌沌,离則复合,合則复离,是謂天常。天地車輪,終則复始,極則复反,莫不咸當。… 萬物所出,造於太一,化於陰陽。… 道也者,視之不見,聽之不聞,不可為狀。有知不見之見、不聞之聞,無狀之狀者,則幾於知之矣。道也者,至精也,不可為形,不可為名,彊為之名謂之太一。
From the Supreme One emerged the Two Standards; from the Two Standards emerged yin and yang. Yin and yang altered and transformed, the one rising, the other falling, joined together in a perfect pattern. Turbid, nebulous, chaotic and confused: when dispersed, they rejoin, and when joined, disperse again. This is called “Nature’s Regularity.” The heavens and earth turn like the wheel of a carriage. Reaching the end, it begins again; reaching its limit, it reverts again, there is nothing that is not appropriate … All living things that emerged were initiated by the Supreme One and transformed by yin and yang … It is the nature of the Dao that when we look for it, it is invisible, and when we listen for it, it is inaudible, for it cannot be given material form. Whoever is aware of the visible in the invisible, the audible in the inaudible, and the shape of the shapeless is near to understanding it. The Dao is the most quintessential, and cannot be taken to have form or name. If forced to give it a name, call it the Supreme One.[63]
Like Laozi 25 and the Taiyi Sheng Shui, the process of creation is epitomized by dynamic cycling and joining. Translators Knoblock & Riegel believe that the “Two Standards” (Liang Yi 兩儀) are Heaven and Earth,[64] which appears to be the most plausible interpretation, although why the author did not just write Tiandi 天地 is a mystery. Like the Taiyi Sheng Shui, but unlike the Laozi, yin and yang are included as important factors in the generation and working of the cosmos. Finally, we will notice the obvious parallel of: “If forced to name it, call it the Supreme One (彊為之名謂之太一)” and Laozi 25’s: “If forced to name it, (I would) say it is great (強為之名曰大).”[65]
Chapter 14 of the Huainanzi opens with:
洞同天地,渾沌為樸,未造而成物,謂之太一。… 非不物而物物者也,物物者亡乎萬物之中。… 稽古太初,人生於無,形於有,有形而制於物。能反其所生,若未有形,謂之真人。真人者,未始分於太一者也。
Cavernous and undifferentiated Heaven and Earth, turbid and inchoate Uncarved Block, not yet created and fashioned into things: this we call the Supreme One … It is not that there was nothing that made things into things; rather, what made things into things is not among the myriad things … In antiquity, at the Grand Beginning (太初), human beings were born from Non-existence and were formed from Existence. Having a physical form, (human beings) came under the control of things. But those who can return to that from which they were born, as if they had not yet acquired physical form, are called Real Persons. Real Persons are those who have not yet begun to differentiate from the Supreme One.[66]
Sarah Queen comments, “This chapter opens with a description of the ‘Grand One’ (Taiyi 太一), portrayed as a personification of the primordial state of the Way before things as discrete entities came into existence.”[67] The adjectives Hun 渾 and Tun 沌: turbid, inchoate, nebulous, chaotic, confused, etc. occur once again, as seen in the cosmogony in the Lüshi Chunqiu above, and link with Laozi 25’s cognate Hun 混. Further, she writes:
The Grand One personifies the state of things at the primeval time before time began, when there was only Oneness, a state of utter nondifferentiation. The Grand One represents unmediated unity characterized by emptiness and nondifferentiation, thus containing the full potentiality of all that will come to be in the world but that has not yet been formed and fashioned. The Grand One is both anterior to the creative (that is, differentiating) process of the Way and implicit in it as the source from which the differentiation of things proceeds: ‘It is not that there was nothing that made things into things; rather, what made things into things is not among the myriad things.’[68]
The Daoist sage – the Real Person (Zhenren 真人) – is portrayed as one who is able to psychologically revert (fan 反) to the point where he or she has “not yet begun to differentiate from the Supreme One” (未始分於太一). This is like Laozi wandering at the (Grand) Beginning (Zhuangzi 21), Zhuangzi wandering with the Maker of Things (Zhuangzi 33), Xu You wandering with his teacher, the Ancestor (Zhuangzi 6), and like Liezi’s 列子 teacher Huzi 壺子, who in Zhuangzi 7 astonishes and frightens a “fortune-teller” when he reaches an altered mental state where he says he has “not yet begun to emerge from my ancestor” (未始出吾宗).[68b] It is probably significant that these accounts in the Zhuangzi and Laozi (and some parts of the Huainanzi) are not as detailed as those that run through a chronologically-ordered progression of Dao/Taiyi, Heaven and Earth, yin and yang, the four seasons, etc. The accounts of the former seem clearly to be insights gained while in meditative trance, while the latter are developed using intellectual reasoning. If we are to consider the latter writers “Daoists,” they would appear to be Daoists who did not engage personally in inner cultivation or mystical practices that others did.
The Dao Yuan (道原) text from Mawangdui, immediately preceding a Laozi manuscript, also tells of the beginnings of time and space and the positive results of one who can identify with it. Written perhaps sometime between the mid-3rd and early 2nd centuries B.C.E., it begins
恆無之初,迵同大虛。虛同為一,恆一而止。濕濕夢夢,未有明晦。神微周盈,精靜不熙。… 故無有形,大迵無名。天弗能覆,地弗能載。小以成小,大以成大。盈四海之內,又包其外。… 一者其號也,虛其舍也,無為其素也,和其用也。 … 是故上道高而不可察也,深而不可測也。顯明弗能為名,廣大弗能為形,獨立不偶,萬物莫之能令。天地陰陽,[四]時日月,星辰雲氣,蚑行蟯動,戴根之徒,皆取生,道弗為益少;皆反焉,道弗為益多。
In the beginning of constant Non-existence (it was) cavernous, undifferentiated and vastly empty. This emptiness being homogenous, (we can) regard it as One: Constantly One and nothing more. Misty, aqueous, dreamy and indistinct: there did not yet exist “light” and “dark.” Numinous and subtle, it circulated everywhere. Quintessential and tranquil and not effervescing or shining … Thus it did not have form; so vast, it is nameless. The heavens cannot cover it, the earth cannot support it. What is small is complete because of it, what is large is complete because of it. It fills all within the four seas and embraces all without … “One” is its nickname (hao 號), emptiness its dwelling place,[69] ‘nonaction’ is its raw condition and harmony is its faculty … For this reason, the preeminent Dao is so high that it cannot be discerned; so deep that it cannot be fathomed; so radiant, yet (we are) unable (to know) its name; so extensive, yet (we are) unable (to comprehend) its form; unaccompanied, with nothing as its peer; of all the living things, none can command it. The heavens and earth, the yin and yang, the four seasons, the sun and moon, the stars and planets, the clouds and air, the creatures that walk, the creatures that wriggle and all those which are supported with roots: each takes its life from it, yet the Dao does not become diminished; each returns to it, yet the Dao is not increased.[70]
Once again, we find the same themes as found in the Laozi, Zhuangzi and the Huainanzi: a formless and nameless state of non-existence and emptiness, yet profoundly fecund and potent. The Dao is likewise omnipresent, as we find asserted time and again. Although a gate (men 門) is not mentioned, we still have described a “place” where all life enters and exits through. That the Dao is not increased or diminished no matter what emerges or enters is something also said of the “Heavenly Repository” (Tian Fu 天府) in Zhuangzi 2 and the “Great Reservoir” (Da He 大壑) in Zhuangzi 12, which likely point to the same phenomenon.[71] The text goes on to explain that only true sages can examine the formless and understand the primal state of Non-existence. These sages, if they can attain emptiness (虛), they can “merge with the essences of the heavens and earth” (通天地之精), much like encountered earlier in Zhuangzi 12. If these sages can achieve a state “without likes and dislikes” (無好無惡) and “without desires” (無欲), then the world will achieve harmony and, if occupying the position of king, “(all) beneath the heavens will submit” (天下服). All of these ideas we find in the Laozi and Zhuangzi as well as the Huainanzi. The Neiye (and related chapters of the Guanzi) focus on similar experiences of mental tranquility and stability and the practical application of this state to the art of governing.
Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Huainanzi all open with more cosmogonic and cosmological expositions. I agree with Harold Roth that this text is a Daoist work, a Huang-Lao work, or at the very least, a text strongly-influenced by earlier works such as the Laozi and Zhuangzi.[72] At the risk of overkill, I will cite some passages which will complete the cosmogonical/cosmological picture thus described so far.
Huainanzi 1, “The Dao (that is) the Source” (Yuan Dao 原道):
“As for the Dao, it covers the heavens and supports the earth, reaches beyond the four quarters and divides the eight pillars …” (夫道者,覆天載地,廓四方,柝八極) — similar to claims found in the Zhuangzi and Dao Yuan.
“By means of it (i.e., the Dao) mountains are high, reservoirs are deep, animals can run, birds can fly, the sun and moon are luminous …” (山以之高,淵以之深,獸以之走,鳥以之飛,日月以之明 …) — similar to claims found in the Laozi, Zhuangzi, Hanfeizi (20), Neiye, Dao Yuan and elsewhere in the Huainanzi.
“Now the most eminent Dao generates all living things, but does not possess them …” (夫太上之道,生萬物而不有 …) — similar to claims found in the Laozi.
“Now, the Formless is the Great Ancestor of all things … That which we call the Formless is a designation for the One” (夫無形者,物之大祖也 … 所謂無形者,一之謂也) — similar to claims found in the Laozi, Zhuangzi, Taiyi Sheng Shui, Lüshi Chunqiu (3.5 and 5.2) and elsewhere in the Huainanzi.
“Existence is born from Non-existence, the substantial emerges from the insubstantial and empty …” (有生於無,實出於虛 …) — similar to claims found in the Laozi, Zhuangzi and elsewhere in the Huainanzi.
Huainanzi 3, “Celestial Patterns” (Tianwen 天文):
天墬未形,馮馮翼翼,洞洞灟灟,故曰太始。太始生虛霩,虛霩生宇宙,宇宙生元氣。元氣有涯垠,清陽者薄靡而為天,重濁者滯凝而為地。… 天先成而地後定。天地之襲精為陰陽,陰陽之專精為四時,四時之散精為萬物。
When Heaven and Earth were yet unformed, all was ascending and flying, diving and delving. Thus it was called the Grand Inception. The Grand Inception produced the Nebulous Void. The Nebulous Void produced space-time; space-time produced the original qi. A boundary (divided) the original qi. That which was pure and bright spread out to form Heaven; that which was heavy and turbid congealed to form Earth … Heaven was completed first; Earth was fixed afterward. The conjoined essences of Heaven and Earth produced yin and yang. The supersessive essences of the yin and yang caused the four seasons. The scattered essences of the four seasons created the myriad things.[73]
Huainanzi 7, “Quintessential Spirit” (Jingshen 精神):
古未有天地之時,惟像無形,窈窈冥冥,芒芠漠閔,澒濛鴻洞,莫知其門。有二神混生,經天營地,孔乎莫知其所終極,滔乎莫知其所止息,於是乃別為陰陽,離為八極,剛柔相成,萬物乃形。
Anciently, in the time before there were Heaven and Earth, there were only formless simulacra. Obscure! Dark! Vast plain, mournful desolation, boiling turbulence, fathomless grotto! No one knows its Gates. Two spirits inchoately were born, giving structure to the heavens and a plan to the earth. Vast! None knew its limits. Overflowing! None knew its resting place. From this (condition), they separated to become yin and yang, separated as the eight endpoints, after which all living things were formed.[74]
The first chapter of the Liezi 列子, “Celestial Signs” (Tianrui 天瑞) also contains cosmogonic and cosmological material. This text was composed many centuries after the others being considered here, although it has been shown to contain some earlier material. Briefly, we may note that it talks of “all that has form was born from the formless” (有形者,生於無形), of the Great Beginning (太初 and 太始) and of a state of “nebulous murkiness” (Hunlun 渾淪) when everything “had not yet separated” (未相離).
To repeat what was mentioned earlier, nothing like this material appears in Confucian texts like the Analects, Mengzi or Xunzi; the Mohist text of Mozi, the “Legalist” texts of Shangjunshu 商君書, Shenzi 慎子, Hanfeizi[75]; the “Confucian” Classics: Shangshu, Shijing, Chunqiu 春秋 or Zhouyi. Multi-authored anthologies such as the Lüshi Chunqiu and the Guanzi do contain some material like this, and no doubt illustrates the influence this discourse was having on others in the 3rd century B.C.E.[76] Whether we call the Laozi, Zhuangzi, Huainanzi and the few other texts discussed “Daoist” or not, it should be clear that this domain of discourse appears to have been started by those who authored these texts and is moreover something which distinguished these authors (and/or practitioners).[77]
Part 4.3 will be a thorough exploration of mysticism, self-cultivation and longevity in the texts of Laozi, Zhuangzi, Huainanzi, etc.
[1] “Was There a High God Ti in Shang Religion?” in Early China 15, 1990, pp. 1-26. The inscriptional evidence makes it clear that Shang ancestors in the main line of descent were referred to as Di. See also Robert Eno’s “Shang State Religion and the Pantheon of the Oracle Texts” in Early Chinese Religion: Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD), Vol. 1, John Lagerwey and Marc Kalinowski eds., Brill, 2009, pp. 41-102. Cf. Sarah Allan “On the Identity of Shang Di 上帝 and the Origin of the Concept of a Celestial Mandate (Tian Ming 天命)” in Early China 31, 2007.
[2] Arthur Waley, The Book of Songs, Grove Press, 1996, p. 227, slightly modified. (Originally published in 1937). Mozi 墨子, chapter Minggui xia 明鬼下 quotes this ode to help prove his case that human spirits exist. Note: I have replaced the two 不 in this CHANT Shijing text with 丕, as this was the earliest form of 丕.
[3] Waley, p. 261, Cf. Ode #260 which also mentions that Heaven gave birth to the people (天生烝民). Many texts quote this ode and the line about Heaven’s creation, including the Mengzi, Xunzi and Hanshi Waizhuan 韓詩外傳, which writes 天生蒸民.
[4] I would suggest that when Tian refers to a deity (with likes, dislikes, desires and purposeful action) it should be understood more as an aggregate deity; that is, it represents the combined will and preferences of Di and the spirits who reside above.
[5] Ian Johnston The Mozi: A Complete Translation, Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 253, modified.
[6] E.g., the Shijing, Chunqiu Zuozhuan, Shangshu, Mengzi, Xunzi, Guanzi, and the Lüshi Chunqiu.
[7] E.g., Xunzi and the Lunheng.
[8] “Balanced Discourses” (Lunheng 論衡) chapter 54, translation based on Alfred Forke’s.
[9] Because our records of (relevant) early mythology are scant, at least until the Han Dynasty, judging the age of these myths (e.g., those with Nüwa 女媧) is impossible. The Chu Silk Manuscript is believed to date from around 300 B.C.E. (Defining Chu: Image and Reality in Ancient China, University of Hawai’i Press, 1999, p. 171).
[10] This is the received version of this chapter: there are a number of variants between versions found in the Guodian and Mawangdui excavated texts as well as the Fuyi and Xiang’er texts, but most of them are not very significant. The Guodian and Mawangdui texts do not contain the passage “circulating everywhere yet secure” (周行而不殆), however, and the 2nd character in the Guodian version is Zhuang 狀 (actually: 爿 + 𦣻), meaning “shape” or “form.” The fact that it is described as nebulous or indeterminate (hun 混) should discourage us from considering it a thing. (In the Guodian text hun 混 is written as chong 蟲, which is likely to be an allograph of kun 䖵 [which itself has an allograph form of kun 蜫] and is likely a phonetic loan for hun 混.)
[11] Li Feng, “Literacy and the Social Contexts of Writing in the Western Zhou” in Writing & Literacy in Early China: Studies from the Columbia Early China Seminar, Li Feng and David Prager Branner eds., University of Washington Press, 2011, p. 289-90. See also Robert Eno’s online translation in his “Inscriptional Records of the Western Zhou” p. 64-5: http://www.iub.edu/~g380/3.10-WZhou_Bronzes-2010.pdf
[12] Appearing again in ode #167, Caiwei 采薇.
[13] See Axel Schuessler, ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, University of Hawai’i Press, 2007, p. 48, 207. David Hall & Roger Ames take the verbal meaning (i.e., 導) to be primary and the noun (道) to be secondary, thus leading to their “gerundive, processional, and dynamic” interpretation of the word. (Daodejing: A Philosophical Translation, Ballantine Books, 2003, p. 57). Hall & Ames argue that “the most familiar yet derivative “pathway” sense of dao is a post hoc combination of its more primary meanings. The dynamic disposing of experience and our creative way-making that goes on within it is conceived of not as a process, but as a product. As a “way” that has already been laid, dao is stipulated and defined. This, then, is the objectified use of dao that would allow for the familiar demonstrative translation of the term dao as “the dao.” But to thus nominalize and conceptualize dao betrays its fluidity and reflexivity, and to give priority to that use is to take the first step in overwriting a process sensibility with substance ontology.” (ibid. p. 59) While the two words are certainly cognate, Schuessler admits we don’t know which word derived from which (p. 48, 207). I lean the opposite way of Hall & Ames, because the earliest usage (bronze inscriptions, the Shangshu and Shijing) often seem to denote an actual road or route. I don’t believe that this commits one to a “substance ontology,” but I also don’t believe “the ancient Chinese worldview” is as process-oriented as they emphasize in their work.
[14] A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 1992.
[15] http://www.hermetica.info/OriginalDao.html
[16] Likewise, the Way can be “obtained” (de 得) or “lost” (shi 失).
[17] Zun Deyi 尊德義, “Revering Virtue and Propriety,” trans. by Bradford Hatcher, 2012, slightly modified. This text was found in the tomb at Guodian, the same one that contained the proto-Laozi text(s).
[18] Literally: “winning their hearts has a way.”
[19] E.g, Shangshu Zhonghui zhi Gao 尚書 • 仲虺之誥: “To revere and honour the path prescribed by Heaven is the way ever to preserve the favouring appointment of Heaven. (欽崇天道,永保天命。) (trans. James Legge).
[21] Chunqiu Zuozhuan 春秋左傳, Duke Zhao 昭公 18.3.
[22] Xunzi 8; trans. by John Knoblock in Xunzi: A Translation and Study of the Complete Works, Vol. II, Stanford University Press, 1990, p. 71.
[23] Heguanzi 7; trans. By Angus C. Graham in “The Way and the One in Ho-kuan-tzu” in Epistemological Issues in Classical Chinese Philosophy, SUNY, 1998, p. 34.
[24] Similar claims are made in Shangshu “Da Yu Mo” 尚書 • 大禹謨, Yijing: Qian: Tuanzhuan 易經 • 謙 • 彖傳 and the Taiyi Shengshui 太一生水 discovered at Guodian. Laozi 7 also conceives of Sages as those who model Heaven and Earth to achieve a similar efficacy as they possess. The fact that this chapter (i.e., Laozi 7) does not mention the dao of Heaven and Earth is inconsequential.
[25] Translated by Burton Watson, The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, Columbia University Press, 1968, p. 125, modified. This passage, which comes from a chapter Angus Graham and Liu Xiaogan consider syncretic or Huang-Lao Daoism shares with political theorists Shen Buhai and Han Fei (whom Sima Qian considered Huang-Lao thinkers but were later considered Legalists – Fajia) the opinion that the role of the ruler is sharply different from his ministers and officers. This may be the source of Arthur Waley’s understanding that the Laozi presents “a description of how the Sage through the practice of Dao acquires the power of ruling without being known to rule,” but is not intended as a way of life for ordinary people. (The Way and Its Power, Grove Press, 1958, p. 92, (originally published in 1934).
[26] Shen Pu-Hai: A Chinese political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C., University of Chicago Press, 1974, p. 168. Zhang Dainian also affirmed this view: “This notion of the Way is derived from the notion of the Way of Heaven. The Way of Heaven is the rule governing all in heaven, but the Way is even more fundamental than heaven.” (Key Concepts in Chinese Philosophy, Yale University Press, 2002, p. 15, trans. By Edmund Ryden).
[27] Steve Angle and John Gordon write: “‘Dao’ is chosen as the nickname because it captures an aspect of the thing: the thing is something on which one can model, something that one can, in a sense, follow … Way is an appropriate nickname because the thing is like a way” (“ ‘Dao’ as a Nickname,” in Asian Philosophy 13:1, 2003, p. 19-20). Note that the Heshanggong commentary (Laozi Heshanggong Zhangju 老子河上公章句) mentions that dao is an appropriate style name because things live by following (cong 從) it, commentator Wang Bi 王弼 says that things conform/follow (you 由) it, and Guo Xiang, in his commentary on a relevant passage in Zhuangzi 25 also says it is appropriate because things “conform/follow and proceed along” (you er xing 由而行) it, just like one would on any road or way (dao).
[28] The Confucian Creation of Heaven: Philosophy and the Defense of Ritual Mastery, SUNY, 1990, p. 250 n56, emphasis mine.
[29] A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 1992, p. 204 ff.
[31] Although yin and yang are mentioned a couple lines later, these appear to be two energies internal to living things – a usage found elsewhere, including the Zhuangzi – and not two cosmic forces or energies as found in some later texts that we will explore shortly. In early cosmological schemes, yin and yang almost always come after Heaven and Earth.
[32] The One (yi 一) begotten by Dao here would seem to be inconsistent with other places in the Laozi and other texts where the One is an epithet for Dao (e.g., ch. 39). However, if we take this numerical progression less literally, this inconsistency loses significance.
[33] Chapter 3.5 of the Lüshi Chunqiu 呂氏春秋, Yuan Dao 圜道, says of the One (yi 一) (Dao?) that “all living things regard it as their ancestor” (萬物以為宗).
[34] See the Heshanggong commentary, which also appears to regard “Form” as the heavens and earth (天地). Others have suggested that You 有 refers to the sum total of all Qi 氣 “energy-matter-force.”
[35] A plausible alternate reading of these two lines is “Nameless, is the beginning of all living things; named, is the Mother of all living things” (無名,萬物之始也;有名,萬物之母也). This would correspond with chapter 25 where the name (ming 名) of that which gave rise to the universe (where all living things exist) is not known, though we can style it Dao. However, Laozi 32 affirms that the “Dao is constantly nameless” (道恆無名), or, to put it another way, is not some-thing that can be named, which makes the second half of this alternate reading problematic by naming it. It may be worth nothing that the Earth was commonly regarded as the Mother to all things and Heaven their father: e.g., Zhuangzi 19: 天地者,萬物之父母也 and Huainanzi 7: 以天為父,以地為母. The significance of the Laozi calling the Dao a Mother is not clear. Finally, the received text has 無名天地之始 instead of 無名萬物之始, but this variant appears to be late, as none of the early witnesses confirm it, e.g., the Mawangdui and Beida manuscripts and the Shiji (127). In fact, even Wang Bi’s commentary shows that the text he commented on read 無名萬物之始. Nonetheless, both readings make sense from the perspective of early Daoist discourse.
[36] This is one of several chapters/texts in the Guanzi which can be shown to be related to the Laozi, Zhuangzi, etc.
[37] Hanfeizi 5, “The Dao of Ruling” (Zhu Dao 主道) – a chapter recognized by most to be influenced by the Laozi and sometimes considered a “Huang-Lao” text. It may or may not have been written by Hanfei.
[38] I say “apparently” because we have reason to believe that both the Laozi and Zhuangzi were still actively being composed, edited and revised in the 3rd century B.C.E. – and perhaps even the 2nd century B.C.E. for the Zhuangzi – and thus may have been influenced by these other texts or their authors, or they all may be the work of a certain group of contemporary thinkers.
[39] The “Daoist” influenced poem “Far-off Journey” (Yuan You 遠遊) in the Elegies of Chu (Chuci 楚辭) says the reverse: “The Dao can be received but not passed on” (道可受兮,不可傳), though the intended meaning is likely the same.
[40] It is interesting to note that the 4th century C.E. editor and commentator Guo Xiang 郭象 could not accept these words, for, contrary to this text and the Laozi as well, he maintained that “Non-existence” (Wu 無), which he equated with Dao, “could not generate the heavens and earth” (不生天地) nor “empower the ghosts and Di” (不神鬼帝), for it is an impotent Nothing. Rather, these things generate and empower themselves, spontaneously. He asserts this time and again throughout his commentary. His view, it should be added, does appear to derive ultimately from the Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s discourse on spontaneity / what-occurs-of itself (ziran 自然), but does contradict a number of these texts’ assertions on cosmology, perhaps because he disdains the figurative use of sheng 生. The Laozi Zhigui 老子指歸 by Zhuang Zun 莊遵 (a.k.a. Yan Junping 嚴君平, Yan Zun 嚴遵; c. 80–0 B.C.E.) also denies the Dao “gives birth to” things: 道德不生萬物,而萬物自生焉.
[41] We find these sentiments in the Laozi 14 and 35, Zhuangzi 2, 6, 14, 21, 22, Hanfeizi 5 and 20, the Neiye, Xinshu shang and Baixin of the Guanzi, the Huainanzi 1, 2, 12, Lüshi Chunqiu 5.2, the Mawangdui “Dao Yuan” and the Liezi 1. We may add Laozi 1’s 道可道也,非恆道也 to this list, though I am doubtful that the traditional interpretation of “The Dao that can be told of is not the eternal Dao” is correct.
[42] De here denotes the salutary and empowering potency or power of Nature or the Dao. See my forthcoming “The Evolution of the Concept of De 德 in Early China” in Sino-Platonic Papers (#235, March 2013).
[43] Such being the case, these accounts provide one answer to questions posed in the “Heavenly Questions” (Tian Wen 天問) chapter of the Chuci, such as: “Who transmitted the story of the ancient Beginning? How can one examine (the time) when above or below had not yet formed? Who can set the limits of the dark and light? These are but fluttering images: by what means does one know?” (遂古之初,誰傳道之?上下未形,何由考之?冥昭瞢闇,誰能極之?馮翼惟像,何以識之?). Michael LaFargue regards the Laozi, for instance, to contain no truly cosmological passages. He believes they are instead references to qualities of mind (e.g., Dao, Mother, Feminine, Emptiness, Valleys, Nothingness, One, Pu, etc.) – although, he does grant that the authors may not have been conscious of this: “To interpret Laoist origin sayings in this way is not to deny that some Laoists may have taken these primarily celebratory sayings also as literal pictures of the world’s origin. In the absence of any competing, scientifically based picture of world origins, this would be a very easy and natural thing to do.” (The Tao of the Tao Te Ching: A Translation and Commentary, SUNY 1992, p. 212. Cf. his Tao and Method, SUNY, 1994, p. 266.) Similarly, Harold Roth has proposed that “it is precisely the practice of inner cultivation, carried to its ultimate conclusion, that produces the profound noetic experiences from which this characteristic cosmology derives” (“Evidence for Stages of Meditation in Early Taoism” in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume 60.2, 1997, p. 296). Mysticism and self-cultivation will be explored thoroughly in the next essay.
[45] In chapters 6, 7, 32 and 33.
[47] In Zhuangzi 20, Zhuangzi says that one who “mounts the Dao and its De … floats and drifts with the ancestor of all living things” (乘道德 … 浮游乎萬物之祖) and Xu You 許由, in the passage mentioned above also went on to state that he wandered (you 遊) with his teacher, the Dao.
[48]Translation based mainly on Brook Ziporyn (Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings, Hackett, 2009, p. 100), but also Angus Graham (Chuang-Tzu: The Inner Chapters, Hackett, 2001, p. 103), Victor Mair (Wandering on the Way: Early Taoist Tales and Parables of Chuang Tzu, Bantam Books, 1994 p. 232-3), Burton Watson (The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu, p. 256-7), and James Legge, Chuang Tzu: Genius of the Absurd, arranged by Clae Waltham, Ace Books, 1971, p. 268-9).
[50] Red Pine has thus translated Xuan Pin 玄牝 as “Dark Womb” (Lao-tzu’s Taoteching, Mercury House, 1996). The valley (gu 谷) also suggests fertility.
[51] Zhuangzi 22: Zhibeiyou 知北遊.
[52] Cf. Rickett p. 76. This “space between the heavens and earth” (Tiandi zhi jian 天地之閒, or 天地之間) is mentioned in a number of places, including Laozi 5, where it is a fecund and potent empty place, like a bellows (tuoyue 橐籥); the Mengzi (where qi 氣 flows), the Neiye, (where jing 精 flows), the Zhuangzi, Huainanzi, Yijing, etc. This is where all life is situated.
[53] The text also contributes ideas on longevity, “omniscience” and even of control and submission of the people/things of the world.
[54] See Rickett, Guanzi: Political, Economic, and Philosophical Essays from Early China, Vol. II, Princeton University Press, 1998, p. 37, Roth, Original Tao: Inward Training (Nei-yeh) and the Foundations of Taoist Mysticism, Columbia University Press, 1999, p. 27 and Graham, Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China,, Open Court, 1989, p. 100. Many others defer to Roth’s analysis, like Russell Kirkland and Louis Komjathy.
[55] Cf. Roth p. 25, Rickett p. 37.
[56] Roth has argued that the political application of inner cultivation – of which very little is seen in the Neiye, but is found in the Laozi and Zhuangzi and Huainanzi – must logically come after the inner cultivation tradition developed. This is no doubt true, but that does not mean that after this had occurred, all practitioners applied it to governing. The Neiye authors could have remained disengaged from politics, leaving that application for others to pursue.
[57] This is due, I believe, because it is made up of many separate stanzas that existed independently, (like those of the Laozi), and had different authors. Consistent vocabulary use thus should not be expected. See Rickett p. 27-8.
[58] Translation by Dirk Meyer, Philosophy on Bamboo, p. 214-15, slightly modified. I have tentatively accepted his reading of 㭪 as bo 薄, as per Donald Harper (“The Nature of Taiyi in the Guodian Manuscript ‘Taiyi sheng shui’: Abstract Cosmic principle of Supreme Cosmic Deity?” paper prepared for the “International Symposium on the Guodian Chu Bamboo Slips and Related Excavated Materials,” 2000, p. 4). Harper points out that xiangbo 相薄 is well-attested in early cosmological discussions, e.g., Huainanzi 3, 4, 13. The alternative is fu 輔, “assists.”
[59] Which is the source of the title given to it by modern scholars.
[59b] “The Great One, Water, and the Laozi: New Light from Guodian” in T’oung Pao, Second Series, Vol. 89.4-5, 2003.
[60] Wang Chong again provides an apt analogy: “The many things between Heaven and Earth are like a child in his mother’s womb. The child is enveloped in the mother’s vital energy. After ten months pregnancy the mother gives birth to the child. Are his nose, his mouth, his ears, his hair, his eyes, his skin with down, the arteries, the fat, the bones, the joints, the nails, and the teeth grown of themselves in the womb, or has the mother made them?” (諸物在天地之間也,猶子在母腹中也。母懷子氣,十月而生,鼻口耳目,髮膚毛理,血脈脂腴,骨節爪齒,自然成腹中乎?母為之也?), Lunheng 54, trans. By Alfred Forke, modified.
[61] Trans. by Meyer, ibid. p. 215, modified.
[62] Ibid. p. 223. Chapter 39 of the Laozi also appears to associate One (yi 一) with Dao, where it is said that in antiquity “the heavens by attaining the One became clear, the earth by attaining the One became stable, the spirits by attaining the One became numinous, valleys by attaining the One became full, and all living things by attaining the One became alive” (天得一以清。地得一以寧。神得一以靈。谷得一以盈。萬物得一以生。).
[63] Translation based on John Knoblock & Jeffrey Riegel, The Annals of Lü Buwei: A Complete Translation and Study, Stanford University Press, 200, p. 136-138.
[64] Ibid. p. 719, a reading endorsed by the Kangxi Zidian 康熙字典, p. 118:
http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=77415&page=118#21
[65] In fact, Tai 太 was often written as 大, an example being the Taiyi Sheng Shui, which is actually written as 大一生水. Another example is the Liji Liyun 禮記 • 禮運 (9.31), which contains “For this reason, the rites must originate with the Great One [大一]: It separates, forming heaven and earth; revolves, creating yin and yang; changes, creating the four seasons; and orders all things, creating ghosts and the gods.” (是故夫禮,必本於大一,分而為天地,轉而為陰陽,變而為四時,列而為鬼神。) Trans. By Robert Henricks, Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: A Translation of the Startling New Documents Found at Guodian, Columbia University Press, 2000, p. 125. Liji commentator Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (128 -200 C.E.) says that Dayi [Taiyi] is the “primordial vital energy of (the time of) nebulous chaos” (混沌之元氣也) in his Liji Zhengyi 禮記正義.
[66] Translated by Sarah A. Queen in The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China by John S. Major, Sarah A. Queen, Andrew Seth Meyer and Harold D. Roth, Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 536-7, modified.
[68b] In Zhuangzi 19, Liezi is informed by Guanyin 關尹 that the “Ultimate Person” (Zhiren 至人) “communicates/merges with that which makes all things” (通乎物之所造).
[69] Note, this locating of the Dao in emptiness (xu 虛) is also found in Zhuangzi 4, Huainanzi 2, Hanfeizi 8, Wenzi 1 and 3. Similar things are said in the Guanzi’s Xinshu chapters.
[70] Translation “inspired” by Harold Roth & Sarah Queen in Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume One, Columbia University Press, 1999, pp. 253-55 and Robin Yates, Five Lost Classics: Tao, Huang-Lao, and Yin-Yang in Han China, Ballantine, 1997, 173-77. Dao Yuan is one of four (named texts) that precede the De and Dao sections of the Laozi on what is referred to as manuscript B (yi 乙) and often referred to as the Yellow Emperor’s Four Classics (Huangdi Sijing 黃帝四經). I am in agreement with Matthias L. Richter who argues that “the perception of MS.B as consisting of two main parts, one being the Laozi and the other the Huangdi Sijing, is a misconception founded on dubious interpretive habits and neglect of the codicological features of the manuscript.” (“Textual Identity and the Role of Literacy in the Transmission of Early Chinese Literature” in Writing & Literary in Early China, Li Feng and David Prager Branner eds., University of Washington Press, 2011, p. 220). A fuller explanation is given ibid. p. 218-220.
[71] Similar things are found in chapter 4, 5, 6 and 35 of the Laozi. Accompanied with the recurrent water symbolism, the Dao would seem to be like a cosmic ocean.
[72] See The Huainanzi, p. 32.
[73] Translation by John S. Major, in The Huainanzi, p. 114-15.
[74] John S. Major, Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought, SUNY, 1993, p. 48-9, modified. We may note that here there is some divine design involved (e.g., 二神), which demonstrates that not all cosmological theorizing was identical or homogenous.
[75] Except in Hanfeizi 20 – Jie Lao 解老 – which is a commentary on the Laozi and not likely written by Hanfei.
[76] The Lüshi Chunqiu and Guanzi appear to be the first to preserve what Sima Tan referred to as specialists in Yinyang theories.
gar said:
Greetings Bao Pu,
Do you think there was an outside “Buddhist, Hindu” influence on the early Daoists that taught meditation? A way of experiencing “Oneness”.
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
Hi gar,
As you may know, Victor Mair has argued for such influence. I can see some similarities, but I haven’t been convinced that it occurred. I see no reason why the Chinese could not have developed such practices without influence from India. Meditation could plausibly develop within a culture like China’s that contained spirit mediums and possibly shamans.
LikeLike
Robert Garrigan said:
Thanks for your reply, Scott. What seems interesting is the rise of meditation in the East and not in the West. There seems to be a split in cultural evolution between East and West as far as how”enlightenment” was achieved.
LikeLike
Yun said:
Robert,
Actually there are spiritual practices in every major religion (including Christianity and Islam) that can be classified as meditation. The idea that there is more meditation in “Eastern religions” is to a large extent, a Western stereotype.
Scott,
I don’t agree that spirit mediums and shamanism have much to do with the existence of meditative practices. After all, meditation is quite distinct from trance-like states or spirit possession.
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
Hi Yun,
re: “I don’t agree that spirit mediums and shamanism have much to do with the existence of meditative practices. After all, meditation is quite distinct from trance-like states or spirit possession.”
— Well, I hope to explain this better in the next essay. For now, I will say that I think there is the possibility that the mental preparations that spirit mediums and shamans go through prior to their experiences may have developed in the direction of meditation. If we look at the Guanzi‘s Neiye or Xinshu shang, we find instructions to empty out the mind so that the spirit can enter. While I don’t think this is instruction for spirit mediums, I find that it appears to derive from it.
Do you have any suggested reading for the origins of meditation in China, or in general? I suppose this is an anthropological question. What prompted some people to sit down quietly and meditate? What cultural conditions favour this practice? Do you subscribe to Victor Mair’s theory that it was introduced from India?
LikeLike
ChiDragon said:
“The Dao gives birth to them, its power (De 德) nourishes them, things shape them and circumstances complete them” (道生之,德畜之,物形之,勢成之)”
I think it would be more appropreate to translate the following phrase:
德畜之: its virtue nourishes them
Why does the westerners transalate 德 as “power”…??? The original logic was that 道生之(Tao engenders them),and 德畜之(its virtue nourishes them),…….
The reason for using “virtue” is because Tao does not process nor control all the things which she’d created. Thus Tao was considered to be virtuous. By saying that, the logic was all the things were grown freely by the virtue of Tao rather than her power.
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
I’m not fond of “virtue” as a translation in texts like the Laozi. I explain in detail in my forthcoming “The Evolution of the Concept of De 德 in Early China” in Sino-Platonic Papers (early 2013). I think “power” is quite appropriate, but perhaps this word has different connotations for you.
LikeLike
ChiDragon said:
This is not fond for you or me. It is a matter of the scholastic interpretation to the closest meaning of what the text was intended. “power” is a very poor poor trasnslation with a total misunderstanding of the basic fundamental principle of LaoZi’s philosophy. The Tao Te Ching is about Tao(道) and the virtue(德) of Tao.
If one insist to the mistranslation, then, the Tao Te Ching would be read as 道力經, Tao Power Ching, which make no sense at all. Let’s interpret what it is instead of what you think it is.
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
ChiDragon,
re: “If one insist to the mistranslation, then, the Tao Te Ching would be read as 道力經, Tao Power Ching, which make no sense at all.”
— I agree that makes little sense, and it seems obvious that the word “power” has connotations for you that it does not for me (or Waley, Graham, etc.). If you can wait a month or two for my aforementioned paper to be published, you can read why I translate it as “power” in this context. (I also address what “virtue” (virtus) means.)
re: “Let’s interpret what it is instead of what you think it is.”
— It is clear that what you mean to say is “Let’s interpret what I think it is instead of what you think it is.” If you don’t agree with my interpretation, feel free to write about it on your own blog.
LikeLike
ChiDragon said:
“If you don’t agree with my interpretation, feel free to write about it on your own blog.”
I like your open-mindedness and your scholastic approach. I guess we’ll cease here. Happy writing.
LikeLike
ChiDragon said:
Scott,
I took your advice. Here is my own blog:
http://scholasticviewofttc.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-meanings-of-tao-te.html#!/2013/02/the-meanings-of-tao-te.html
LikeLike
Yun said:
Hi Scott,
I am sympathetic to your reluctance (which, as you know, is widely shared among Western Sinologists) to translate 德 as “virtue,” and I look forward to your article on the concept of 德. But as you have just seen, Chinese readers tend to have narrower understandings of the meaning of “power”; to them it sounds too purposive and coercive to correspond to 德. I myself use the more specific “moral power” when translating the word in a classicist (“Confucian”) context; this is similar to Arthur Waley’s “moral force,” which contrasts with “physical force,” 力 (I presume ChiDragon is unacquainted with Waley’s translation of the Analects). In a “Daoist” context, translating 德 as “potency” or “efficacy” might help avoid any misunderstandings related to the connotations of “power.”
Best regards,
Yun
LikeLike
ChiDragon said:
In a “Daoist” context, translating 德 as “potency” or “efficacy” might help avoid any misunderstandings related to the connotations of “power.”
It is even worse if the above translations were used which will bring the meaning further off course. The definition of 德 was well definited in many chapters of the TTC. Thus there is no need to look for the definition outside of the TTC or presumptions.
LikeLike
ChiDragon said:
(I presume ChiDragon is unacquainted with Waley’s translation of the Analects)
FYI The 德 in the Analects is a definition of Confucius which means “morality”. It is a complete different definition as defined in the Lao Tze’s Tao Te Ching. The 德 in the Tao Te Ching was simply means those who follow the principles of Tao are considered to be virtuous as Tao Te(道德), “the virtue of Tao”. Where as in the Analects, Tao Te(道德) is the “morality of conduct” in the Confucian philosophy.
I wouldn’t be confused with the two definitions of the two different philosophers.
LikeLike
Stefan said:
In fairness to Scott, a few points:
First of all, he’s already said that in a little while he is publishing a serious paper on the matter of 德, so that is something to look forward to, and I hope he posts a notice on this thread when it comes out.
Secondly, the binome 道德 does not occur in the Analects. (Nor in the Inner Chapters of the Zhuangzi, for that matter.) So we all need to be precise.
Finally, even when we communicate in our native tongues, we search for words as we do so, and we translate the sense of what we hear others saying to us into our own terms all the time. So it is possible to get too hung up on this, even while we try to be as accurate and precise as we can.
Today, I was reading Wing-tsit Chan’s translation of Wang Yang-ming’s “Inquiry on the ‘Great Learning'” (1527). There, Chan translates 明明德 as “manifesting the clear character.” Wing-tsit Chan was a tremendously energetic scholar, full of good humor, a native of China, and an important teacher of Chinese philosophy in America. He was not a native English speaker, and the phrase “clear character” is not exactly idiomatic, vernacular English, yet we all know what he means, and it’s an interesting translation. Perhaps it’s worth quoting a bit of what Master Wang said about 明明德: “The great man regards Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body. He regards the world as one family and the country as one person. As to those who make a cleavage between objects and distinguish between the self and others, they are small men…” The text continues. It’s a great read.
LikeLike
ChiDragon said:
“Secondly, the binome 道德 does not occur in the Analects. (Nor in the Inner Chapters of the Zhuangzi, for that matter.) So we all need to be precise.”
It was scholarly understood that the document was talking about the subject as such. 道德 doesn’t need to be mentioned in the document of interest. Besides, the subject was already understood and known by the native scholars. Hence, there is no need to await for other writings for confirmation.
LikeLike
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 1 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 2 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 3 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 4.1 « Bao Pu 抱朴
Khanbaliqist said:
I find your post absolutely fascinating. I’ve always had a vague notion of what Dao is, being an outsider to Chinese or any other philosophy, and your post helps plug a gaping hole 🙂
One thing that I now understand slightly better, after reading your post, is why most Chinese translations of the Bible passage ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God’ translate Word (Logos) as 道. Curiously, none of the other Asian traditions (e.g., Japanese) follow this approach.
LikeLike
Stefan said:
南海之帝為儵,北海之帝為忽,中央之帝為渾沌。儵與忽時相與遇於渾沌之地,渾沌待之甚善。儵與忽謀報渾沌之德,曰:「人皆有七竅,以視聽食息,此獨無有,嘗試鑿之。」日鑿一竅,七日而渾沌死。
Regarding HunTun (渾沌), the above Zhuangzi story is pretty canonical (the one about Shu and Hu wanting to repay HunTun’s kindness by digging seven holes in his head). I’m not sure I saw it in your article (maybe you did mention it somewhere in there, but I somehow missed it).
Also, I tend to understand ChiDragon’s problems with calling de (德) “power”, not that “virtue” is particularly good either.
I guess I would point to 大學之道,在明明德,在親民,在止於至善 in the Liji,
or to 禹為人敏給克勤;其德不違,其仁可親,其言可信;聲為律,身為度,稱以出;亹亹穆穆,為綱為紀 in the Shiji as canonical examples of usages of 德. In these cases, do you believe “power” is the proper reading?
Isn’t 德 a kind of inherent goodness that needs to be popularly acclaimed or externally confirmed, or enjoy some kind of consensus?
(By the way, 大學之道 is a great instance of the use of 道.)
Although these several examples of 德 may not be properly “Daoist”, nevertheless doesn’t a strong theory need to contend with them because they are prime examples of usage?
(Also, by the way, seal impressions of yogis in seated meditation from Mohenjo-Daro, Indus Valley, document the significance of meditation in India c. 2500-1500bce. Yoga is a remarkably portable pastime. Seems hard to rule out an influence on next door neighbor, China.)
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for your interest in my writings. Regarding Hundun, I am familiar with “his” place in early Chinese cosmogony; however, the story you cite does not appear to me to have anything to do with the creation or operation of the cosmos. I believe Hundun featured in creation stories centuries later, but am open to being corrected.
Regarding De, I refuse to endorse a single definition for every occurrence and every text from ancient China. It was used with some fairly drastic differences, but mostly different nuances.
Your example from the Liji Daxue (大學之道,在明明德,在親民,在止於至善) seems to me to connote (good) character … perhaps even “virtue.” Power does not seem appropriate to me. However, later in the Daxue we find this:
是故君子先慎乎德。有德此有人,有人此有土,有土此有財,有財此有用。德者本也,財者末也,外本內末,爭民施奪。
Irene Bloom translates: “Therefore the ruler is watchful first over his virtue (德). Having virtue, he will have the people; having the people, he will have the land; having the land, he will have its wealth; having its wealth, he will have its resources for expenditure. Virtue is the root; wealth, the branch. But if the ruler regards the root as inconsequential, and the branch as consequential, he will contend with the people and teach them to plunder.”
— Now, I would not object to “virtue” here, though I prefer the broader notion of “character.” Regardless, we can see that the possession of 德 gives one power. It is a “soft power” something akin to charisma. I cover all the nuances 德 had in early China in my forthcoming paper.
LikeLike
Stefan said:
Hi Scott,
[Apologies for my bad romanization. I was raised on Wade-Giles and Yale romanization, and it still annoys to have to convert everything to pin-yin, especially since pin-yin merely pirates Yale while simultaneously dis-improving it as a guide to pronunciation for the native English speaker. But don’t get me started…I hope it goes without saying that I am by no means any type of expert in Chinese texts.]
I only mention Zhuangzi’s 渾沌 because when that binome came up in your text, I wondered, “Isn’t that the same as in the story of Shu and Hu?” Sure enough, and since that story is so well known, I thought I’d throw that in for your readers. Maybe I didn’t understand where your article is going, but to my way of feeling, the Shu/Hu story has everything to do with creation from primordial chaos, but perhaps that’s because I like to carve wood and stone. (Mair translates 渾沌 as Wonton, but I would have thought it has more to do with hot and sour than wonton.)
Do you know the book “Key Concepts in Chinese Philosophy” by Zhang Dainian (translated by Ryden, Yale U. Press 2002)? Zhang has a full section (#44, pp. 337-344) on 德 and 道德, where he cites and analyzes over 30 classical usages of the terms. A useful source book for cross-references.
From Zhang, three points stand out. 1) Scholars remain unsure about 德’s original meaning. (Personally, I’ve always liked “ten eyes looking into the squareness of the heart, action resulting from”, or something along those lines that I must have from Wieger or Fenollosa/Pound. Gets at the notion of consensus that the Shwowen emphasizes.) 2) Confucian usage (hardly ever see the binome). Pretty much as “virtue.” 3) Latterday Daoist usage of the binome 道德 (though not found in the Zhuangzi Inner Chapters, interestingly), where the combination might be something like “the way and its power.” Maybe the first coalesce in the Xunzi (or from the Han dynasty on). Perhaps this goes to your point.
Naturally, not every character can translate the same way in every context. Quite the opposite, much of the really interesting (or poetical) stuff is nearly impossible to translate. Nevertheless, one of the things about working on the ancient Chinese texts is that a reader can develop a real connotative feeling for the terms despite being non-native. This is not necessarily true of French or German poetry, say.
LikeLike
dawei said:
Bao Pu,
Great stuff. I am particularly interested in topics like this and your series is a gem. So I will make various comments which may not really produce any deep discussion but I’ll share some thoughts and further links.
1. There is a general absence of Shamanism and it’s roots in creation (and the article). I am not the authority to debate this but I think there is amble info on this. For one, you post a bronze inscription but you don’t interpret it… It is the Shaman wearing the immortal symbol of the deer antler.
I appear to be alone in seeing a possible seal character to Wang Mu and her Sheng Crown. She is said to have this as her crown in the Shan Hai Jing (山海经), which I think you do not mention for any cosmology references.
http://www.suppressedhistories.net/goddess/xiwangmu.html
IN “Chinese Shamanic Cosmic Orbit Qigong” By Zhongxian Wu is stated:
‘In Chinese Shamanism, we believe that when the universe created Earth, it first gave birth to water…’
This is very reminiscent of The Supreme One Generates Water (大一生水). And the Shuide (水地) of the Guanzi (管子) talks of water as a basic element. I think too many overlook the position of Water in cosmology. We had a discussion on the 大一生水… and I don’t want to repeat what is said, so if interested you can read it here:
http://thetaobums.com/topic/18957-the-water-book/
Another link to pass along for some relationship between the big dipper (Tai Yi) and the Yi Jing (Book of Change), and shamans:
Click to access YiJingIntroduction050209.pdf
2. De: This is a tricky translation but in the sentence where you used ‘power’, I understand the meaning well enough… although I am not a fan of power and even less of virtue. For me, it is the capacity [De] of Dao to produce its result; thus efficacy works on some level.
I wondered if you have seen Mair’s Sino-Platonic Paper where he talks of his use of De as ‘integrity’. While I don’t think I agree with this usage I think his paper is worth a read. Also see his paper on translating Dao as ‘tracks’. Again, just passing along some links which may be an interesting read.
Click to access spp020_tao_te_ching_translation.pdf
Click to access spp023_tao_zen.pdf
3. In the Huainanzi, you translate a line as “The Grand Inception” (太始). I find this a quite insightful translation. Kudos. I personally translate it as “The Primal Illumination” due to the next lines mention of Qi and my strong belief in microcosm relationships. Physically speaking, Qi should relate to something in the Wu-state (spiritual) realm… and Illumination is my choice word.
Great Stuff… Thanks for this series !
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
Thanks for the kind words and taking some interest in my work, dawei.
I must admit that I do not share your interpretation of the bronzescript character for Dao. (For the record, I do not find graphical analysis very helpful. The “head” component in the character is a phonetic.) Even if it did depict a”Shaman wearing the immortal symbol of the deer antler,” this tells us nothing about the various daos – “roads” being mentioned. The context is very important. As for shamanism, this is a difficult topic which I deal with in the next essay (currently being written). I would like to write an essay on shamanism in early China and the Wu 巫 in the future.
The article on Xi Wangmu you cite states: “After the oracle bones, no written records of the goddess appear for a thousand years, until the “Inner Chapters” of the Zhuang Zi, circa 300 BCE.”
— This makes me skeptical that this Shang dynasty Ximu 西母 “Western Mother” is Xi Wangmu 西王母 “Western Spirit Mother” of the late-Warring States period. It would seem that she was believed by (one of the authors of) the Shanhaijing 山海經 to be a “Controller of the calamities of heaven and the five punishments” (是司天之厲及五殘). This might be cosmological. The date of this text is still debated, but I would lean towards the 3rd century BCE, which doesn’t affect my “argument.” As I mention in note #9, judging the age of the myths is extremely difficult. By the time they are put down in writing, they most likely have been around for awhile. But how long?
re: “In the Huainanzi, you translate a line as “The Grand Inception” (太始). I find this a quite insightful translation. Kudos.”
Thanks, but I cannot take credit. It is John Major’s translation.
LikeLike
dawei said:
Hi Scott,
1. Indulge me. What is the protrusion over the central part of the bronze picture? Do you see that as bad-hair day or a headdress? My hair is cut short so it cannot approximate this bronze beauty. And have you seen the Oracle bone for Shou? At this point, the Chu Shamanism comes through… It is clearly, to me, an animal with horns. Reminds me of the Chu Silk Manuscript pictures of such horned animals (or aliens). And other Chu art work of that time period. It is my opinion that there is a Chu connection as there appears to arise in Chu something unique in regards to the accusation from the north of their “superstitions”, “barbarianism”, and “beliefs in ghosts and spirits”.
2. Xi Wangmu: She is mentioned in at least two works prior to Zhuang Zi. The Travels of Mu and the Songs of Chu. But skeptical on what basis? Readings of others or your own energetic request to her?
3. I don’t want to get too off-topic with Chu and Shaman references… so I’ll share a few:
a. Speaking of John Majors… Maybe you have this: DEFINING CHU; Image and Reality in ancient China.
b. The Formation of Chinese Civilization; An Archaeological Perspective
c. K.C. Chang:
1. Art, Myth and Ritual: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China and
2. The Archaeology of Ancient China.
thanks,
Dawei
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
Hi Dawei,
1. I do not know what that is over the head/eye/nose, but maybe an eyebrow (judging by the bronze script characters of shou). But as I said, this doesn’t tell us anything about the meaning of the word. How does a shamanic headdress relate to the notion of roads, paths, waterways, the conduct of Yao and Shun, the way to order the state or the “nebulous yet complete thing” that generated the cosmos? In the Guodian Laozi, dao is written as 𧗟, but I don’t believe either graphic representation of the word dao tells us much, other than the use of the semantic signifier 彳/ 辶. While I will agree that Chu had a very colourful and perhaps shamanic culture, I do not understand what this has to do with the use of the word dao; after all, writers prior to the Laozi (and from all over “China”) surely used the same character for dao.
2. I wasn’t aware of the Mu Tianzi Zhuan mention of Xi Wangmu. Nevertheless, I do not see any reason to regard a generic-sounding 西母 of 1200 B.C.E. with the specific 西王母 of the mid- to late-Warring States period (c. 350-300 B.C.E.) without more evidence.
3. Yes, I have read Defining Chu and Chang’s Art, Myth, and Ritual. [All my books can be found on LibraryThing; – I would suggest filtering them by TAG, “Ancient China”] While I do not subscribe to Chang’s hypothesis that the Shang kings were shamans, I have long been interested in possible Chu religious beliefs influencing the Laozi and Zhuangzi. I don’t really see much in the way of ecstatic spirit flights and communion with spirits in the Laozi. (In fact, I don’t believe we are doing justice to either the ancient Chinese Wu 巫 or the shamanism as found in Siberia, North America, etc. by equating the two. But that’s another matter.)
LikeLike
Stefan said:
RE: your question, “Do you have any suggested reading for the origins of meditation in China, or in general? I suppose this is an anthropological question. What prompted some people to sit down quietly and meditate? What cultural conditions favour this practice?” and a connection to shamanism:
First, perhaps one needs some rough definition of terms.
Shamanism arises from the animal world of the hunt. An Eskimo shaman: “The greatest peril of life lies in the fact that human food consists entirely of souls.” Souls must be placated. Typical of shamanism where we know of it: ecstatic trance, divine election, animal transformation, bird-like flight of the soul, knowledge of the worlds of the spirits and the dead, mastery of fire, rebirth from bones, magic arts of curing, and guardianship of the traditions and the psychic and physical equilibrium of the community.
For the moment, let’s consider meditation as “seated meditation.” In that case, the earliest textual advocacy of meditation is found in the Vedic Upanishads (perhaps dating from 1200-500 bce). The word ‘upanishad’ itself means “sitting at the feet of the teacher.” And the Sanskrit word for meditation, “dhyana”, was pronounced phonetically “ch’an-no” in Chinese, and Zenna (abr. Zen) in Japanese.
If we look for early visual imagery, we can see 25,000-year-old cave art in France and Spain that seems to illustrate shamans–ecstatic human figures, with animal headgear, among animals.
The earliest images of seated meditation (people argue about this) seem to be in seal impressions and sculptures from Mohenjo-Daro, perhaps as old as 2500 bce. One such seal shows an ecstatic seated “yogi” with animal headdress, surrounded by animals.
An idea: perhaps meditation arises as an attempt to “endrun” the cycle of birth and death that shamanism sought in its own way to placate. Hence, meditation’s vegetarianism. Also, while shamanism is necessarily hunter-gatherer, meditation in its earliest known contexts is civilized, seated, learned–“settled” and agricultural.
Readings:
D.T Suzuki has an informed, succinct description of the introduction of dhyana into China in his book, “Zen and Japanese Culture”, Princeton University Press, 1959. pp. 47-55. [A worthwhile text on many levels, as well as helping to understand the process of cultural diffusion.]
Artscanada, Dec 73/Jan 74, Numbers 184-87, “Stones, bones and skin: Ritual and Shamanic Art”. [A great issue, well worth finding.]
Kira van Deusen, Singing Story, Healing Drum: Shamans and Storytellers of Turkic Siberia, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004. [Scholarship woven together with first-hand experience.]
[By the way, in my earlier comments I failed to commend you for your effort and ambition. Let me congratulate you belatedly for pulling a lot of things together here, and encourage you in your effort.]
LikeLike
dawei said:
1. I’ve never seen ancient chinese artwork with three eye brows crookedly standing up over the head but I’ve seen countless antler depictions, even around the world. But if it is an eyebrow then no need to discuss the shaman angle.
2. I mention the Mu Tianzi Zhuan since it would be a 300 BC bamboo strip story putting Xi Wangmu back to almost 1000 BC. That is not too big a gap to Shang…
http://chinaknowledge.org/Literature/Novels/mutianzizhuan.html
In Defining Chu, they talk of Xi Wangmu and “her eastern counterpart, Dongwanggong”, similar the Oracle bone mention of the two. While they do not directly link them back to the oracle bone reference, there seems really no arguments against the association. But I accept not everyone has accepted it.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/orient1960/26/0/26_0_1/_pdf
Some interesting read here. Cahill won’t go as far as to link the two.
http://www.amazon.com/Transcendence-Divine-Passion-Mother-Medieval/dp/0804725845
http://www.amazon.com/Footbinding-Jungian-Engagement-Chinese-Psychology/dp/0415485061 ; Chapter 5 – Xi Wang Mu
3. Look forward to your work on Shamans and then Wu. I think there is a link to the daoist idea of Wu and thus to Wu Wei. There was other mention of seated meditation but I find the pottery of the shaman standing pose probably standing meditation we see today in Qigong practices.
As this is a cosmology article:
4. A book hard to get but interesting as far as “creation myths” go. It has english and chinese. At almost 800 pages, it is hardly just “Ten Chinese Myths of the Creation”… probably closer to 100 folktales from chinese majority groups:
http://www.szlib.gov.cn/Search/searchdetail.jsp?v_tablearray=bibliosm&v_recno=229159&v_curtable=bibliosm&site=
5. Defining Chu had an interesting comment:
“But the widely held image of the Chinese universe as “uncreated” is in need of revision; the gods in the Chu Silk Manuscript are depicted unambiguously as cosmic creator-ancestors.”
6. This looks interesting; http://www.amazon.com/Heresiarch-Chinese-Philosophy-Culture-ebook/dp/B008UXZZI6
LikeLike
Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell said:
Regarding #5, I did mention the Chu Silk Manuscript in the essay, and its reference to Fuxi and Nüwa. Paul Goldin mentions some others in his paper “The Myth that China has no Creation Myth” (Monumenta Serica 56, 2008)
LikeLike
dawei said:
I didn’t mean for those two links to appear as graphics. Feel free to fix that if you want. Look forward to your future posts.
LikeLike
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 4.3 | Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 4.4 | Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 1 | Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 5.2 | Bao Pu 抱朴
Pingback: Classical Daoism – Is There Really Such a Thing? Part 5.3 | Bao Pu 抱朴