Daojia and Huang-Lao

Classical Daoism, Philosophical Daoism, Early Daoism: these terms are increasingly being seen as obsolescent by scholars in the last couple of decades. The general public – those who have heard of Daoism or have read a little bit of it – are largely unaware, despite the fact that for quite awhile writers have admitted that there were no “Daoists” in pre-Han China and that the two most famous “Daoists,” Laozi and Zhuangzi, surely never thought of themselves as Daoists. The more recent interest in what was once called “religious Daoism (Daojiao 道教),” as opposed to “philosophical Daoism (Daojia 道家),” has seen a shift towards using “Daoism” to refer only to the former.

In this series of blog posts I am going to explore this matter. First, I will look at the oldest evidence for a “Daoist school” in the Historical Records (Shiji 史記) and the Han Documents (Hanshu 漢書). Next I will look into both the text and the legendary man Laozi 老子, followed by Zhuangzi 莊子. Texts that will be mentioned along the way will include: the Laozi 老子, Zhuangzi 莊子, Hanfeizi 韓非子 (esp. Jie Lao 解老, Yu Lao 喻老), Lüshi Chunqiu 春秋左傳, Mengzi 孟子, Xunzi 荀子, Guanzi 管子 (esp. Neiye 內業), Huainanzi 淮南子, Heguanzi 鶡冠子, and the Huangdi Sijing 黃帝四經. I will also survey various scholars’ views on early Chinese “schools of thought.”

Daojia 道家 first appears in the Historical Records written by Sima Tan 司馬談 and his son Sima Qian 司馬遷, both of whom served as the “Grand Astrologer” (Taishi 太史) in the early Han Dynasty. In the one hundred and thirtieth chapter of the Historical Records, Sima Qian presented his father’s outlines of the “Six Jia (六家),” commonly thought of as the “ six schools of thought” but probably best understood as the “six areas of expertise” or “six approaches to government.”[1] He lists these as the Yinyang (陰陽), the Ru (儒), the Mo (墨), the Ming (名), the Fa (法), and the Daode (道德; afterwards shortened to Daojia 道家). For Sima Tan, these six categories were methods or techniques of governing (Zhi 治), of which he neither names texts nor exponents of these approaches. After discussing some pros and cons of the others, Sima Tan discussed the Daojia:

道家使人精神專一，動合無形，贍(=澹)足萬物。其為術也，因陰陽之大順，采儒墨之善，撮名法之要，與時遷移，應物變化，立俗施事，無所不宜，指約而易操，事少而功多。
“The Daoists enable the numinous essence within people to be concentrated and unified. In movement they are joined with the Formless, in tranquility they (provide) sufficiently for all living things. In deriving their techniques, they follow the grand compliances of the Yinyang lineage, select the best of the Ru and Mo lineages, and extract the essentials of the Ming and Fa lineages. They shift (their policies) in accordance with the seasons and respond to the transformations of things. In establishing customs and promulgating policies, they do nothing unsuitable. Their tenets are concise and easy to grasp; their policies are few but their achievements are many.”[2]

Unlike the other Jia, Sima Tan enumerated no shortcomings or defects of Daojia, partially, no doubt, because it incorporated the best parts of the others.[3] A bit later some further analysis is offered:

道家無為，又曰無不為，其實易行，其辭難知。其術以虛無為本，以因循為用。無成埶，無常形，故能究萬物之情。不為物先，不為物后，故能為萬物主。有法無法，因時為業；有度無度，因物與合。故曰「聖人不朽(=巧)，時變是守。虛者道之常也，因者君之綱」也。
“The Daoists do nothing, but they also say that nothing is left undone. Their substance is easy to practice, but their words are difficult to understand. Their techniques take emptiness and nothingness as the foundation and adaptation and compliance as the application. They have no set limits, no regular forms, and so are able to penetrate to the genuine basis of living things. Because they neither anticipate things nor linger over them, they are able to become the masters of all living things.

They have methods that are no methods:
They take adapting to the seasons as their practice.
They have limits that are no limits:
They adapt to things by harmonizing with them.
Therefore they say:
The sage is not clever:
The seasonal alternations are what the sage preserves.
Emptiness is the constant in the Way.
Adaptation is the guiding principle of the ruler.”[4]

Going solely on this description, it would seem Daojia has little to do with the Laozi. It is only “doing nothing and yet they say that nothing is left undone” (無為，又曰無不為) which seems to ultimately derive from the Laozi (chapters 37 and 48); although, the “motto” is also found in third century texts such as Zhuangzi chapters 18, 22, 23, and 25, and the Lüshi Chunqiu 25.3. One can also find it in the first chapter of the early Han text, the Huainanzi. One might wonder why he labeled it Dao-Jia, since his descriptions says nothing about Dao. We may surmise that he labeled it such because of its comprehensiveness: it was a Dao that included the other Daos. Or perhaps, as his first expression of it as Daode 道德 suggests, it was derived from the Dao and De sections of the Laozi, (though not yet called the Daodejing 道德經).

No names of individuals or texts are named by Sima Tan for any of these lineages. It is fairly clear that the Laozi, (or Lao Dan, the supposed author), was believed by his son Sima Qian to be an exemplar of Daojia thought. His biography of Laozi mentions that Laozi wrote a book in two parts on Dao and De and in a number of places in the Shiji we find Daojia connected to the teachings and practices of “the Yellow Emperor and Laozi (黃帝、老子, or simply Huang-Lao 黃老),”[5] which seem to be synonymous (see below). In the Han Documents’ “Treatise on Literature” (Hanshu Yiwenzhi 漢書 • 藝文志), Ban Gu’s 班固 bibliographical listing[6] for Daojia presumably included the Laozi, as it included four commentaries on it, as well as known texts such as the Zhuangzi 莊子, Wenzi 文子, Liezi 列子, Heguanzi 鶡冠子, and the Yellow Emperor’s Four Classics (Huangdi Sijing 黃帝四經).[7]

The Hanshu, for its part, describes Daojia thusly:

道家者流，蓋出於史官，歷記成敗存亡禍福古今之道，然後知秉要執本，清虛以自守，卑弱以自持，此君人南面之術也。合於堯之克攘，易之嗛嗛，一謙而四益，此其所長也。及放者為之，則欲絕去禮學，兼棄仁義，曰獨任清虛可以為治。
“The current of the Daoists emanated from the Office of the Historian, which in successive generations recorded the various roads leading to success or failure, survival or destruction, and ill or good fortune from antiquity down to the present. By and by they came to understand how grasping the essentials maintains the root, how purity and emptiness preserves oneself, and how humility and pliancy sustains oneself. These became the techniques of the ruler who faces south. They accord with Yao’s capacity to yield and the Changes hexagram “Modesty and Humility,” wherein one instance of humility brings forth four benefits. These are its strengths. Nonetheless, if taken too liberally, one will desire to disregard ritual education and abandon humaneness and righteousness, claiming that one need only employ purity and emptiness to govern.”[8]

Sima Tan’s Daojia represented an approach to governing that centred on responding and adapting (Yin 因)[9] to changes, in the process adopting any “methods” from other ways of governing or ordering society that proved useful, such as those of the Ru, Mo, Fa and Ming. There appears also to be some concern with Jingshen 精神, “essential and spiritual energies,” Wuwei 無為, “non-purposive or non-interfering action” and Xuwu 虛無, “emptiness and nothingness.” Ban Gu’s Daojia was described quite differently, as responding or adapting to changes is not mentioned once, nor adopting the best from other Jia.[10] His Daojia seems to have had more to do with humility and the way to maintain and preserve oneself, based on acquaintance with events of the past. He also regarded the Daojia as entailing a rejection of typical Ru concerns: ritual/etiquette, benevolence and duty (禮、仁、義). This description has more in common with the Laozi than Sima Tan’s.

We turn now to “Huang-Lao 黃老,” the philosophy and/or practices apparently popular in the first half of the Han Dynasty. Huang-Lao refers to the teachings of the legendary Yellow Emperor (Huang Di 黃帝, trad. c. twenty-seventh century B.C.E.) in combination with those of the Laozi. There are many opinions on what texts Huang-Lao applies to, but many of them have connections to the land of Chu 楚. Some suggestions are the four silk texts from Mawangdui, a.k.a. The Yellow Emperor’s Four Classics 黃帝四經, the Huainanzi 淮南子, the Heguanzi 鶡冠子, a number of chapters of the Guanzi 管子,[11] a number of chapters of the Zhuangzi 莊子,[11b] and a number from the Chunqiu Fanlu 春秋繁露.[12] Besides showing the influence of the Laozi, these so-called Huang-Lao texts appear to be anything that is not distinctly Confucian or Mohist and have theories on statecraft.[13] The Yellow Emperor was increasingly being used to give authority to writings in many, many areas of thought,[14] so what his name is supposed to imply is difficult to know. Perhaps, because he had become known to be China’s first (or most significant) ruler, his name was used to signify a “Laoist” philosophy regarding rulership.

Han Emperor Wen’s wife Empress (Dowager) Dou 竇 is repeatedly proclaimed to have been very fond of the words (Yan 言) and methods (Shu 術) of Laozi, or Huangdi and Laozi. For example, in the forty-ninth chapter of the Shiji we read: “Empress Dowager Dou was fond of the teachings of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi. Emperor (Wen), the heir apparent, and the Dou family members were obliged to study them and prize their methods (竇太后好黃帝、老子言，帝及太子諸竇不得不讀黃帝、老子，尊其術。).”[15] In Shiji 107 we read again of Empress Dowager’s fondness for Huang-Lao but also of a number of scholars who competed with her by advancing Rushu 儒術, literally “Classicists’ methods,” perhaps implying Confucianism. These scholars, as Sima reported elsewhere, “disparaged the teachings of Daojia” (貶道家言).[16] This suggests that Huang-Lao and Daojia refer to the same ideology. Once the Empress asked a staunch defender of the Ru and expert on the Odes what he thought of the “book of Laozi” (老子書). Perhaps unwisely, he answered, “these are nothing but the teachings of a menial” (此是家人言耳), after which he received some severe punishment.[17] Once she died (135 B.C.E.), however, the Ru/Confucians repressed the teachings of Huang-Lao and Confucianism began its ascendency relatively unimpeded.[18]

In addition to Empress Dowager Dou and her family, well over a dozen names are mentioned in the Shiji as being adherents of Huang-Lao, such as Ji An 汲黯, Elder Gao 蓋公, Sima Jizhu 司馬季主, Chen Ping 陳平, and Elder Yue Chen 樂臣公.[19] The Prince of Huainan, Liu An 劉安 (c. 180-122 B.C.E.), put together the Huainanzi 淮南子 in this Huang-Lao and Laozi-friendly environment, and it shows throughout the whole text (which also draws heavily from the Zhuangzi). Generally speaking, this text could be considered a Huang-Lao text and Liu a Huang-Lao advocate.

Some of them lived prior to the Han. In fact, Sima Qian labelled pre-Qin thinkers Shenzi 申子, Hanfei 韓非, and Jixia 稷下 residents Shen Dao 慎到, Tian Pian 田駢, Jiezi 接子, and Huan Yuan 環淵 as being adherents of Huang-Lao.[20] However, these are purely retrospective labels, as it does not appear in any textual sources prior to the Han and these thinkers would not have thought of themselves as following Huang-Lao teachings or practices. Sima Tan does not mention Huang-Lao, which may have been a creation of his son.[21] It does not appear, however, that any of these men founded their theories or grounded their views in those of the Laozi. Sima Qian may have, after reading some of their works, saw some doctrines that resembled those of a current Huang-Lao tradition in the Han. He almost certainly did not read all of their writings, so his views of them are probably skewed and not completely representative. Perhaps his connecting Hanfei with Laozi may be attributed to his seeing the two commentaries included in the Hanfeizi.[22] Or perhaps the de-emphasizing or rejecting of beloved Confucian ideals of Ren, Yi and Li (仁、義、禮) in the sayings found in the Laozi and stories about Lao Dan (in the Zhuangzi) that were shared by Hanfei, Shenzi and their followers created a bond in Sima Qian’s mind.

Tae Hyun Kim thinks that the Jie Lao 解老, Yu Lao 喩老, Zhu Dao 主道, Yang Quan 揚權 chapters of the Hanfeizi could justifiably be called Huang-Lao texts but, like Hagop Sarkissian, does not think they were written by Hanfei.[23] Sarkissian does not think the Jie Lao and Yu Lao are Huang-Lao because there is no discussion of law. If these commentaries and related chapters were not written by Hanfei, we do not know why they found their way into the Hanfeizi, though perhaps to match the belief that he was based in the thought of Laozi or perhaps to add prestige to his work in the early Han.

Wang Chong 王充 (c. 30-100 C.E.), in his Lunheng 論衡 occasionally discussed Laozi, Huang-Lao and Daojia. He associated longevity and immortality with Daojia (chapter 24) as well as associating both Daojia and Huang-Lao with a good understanding of the processes of Heaven and Earth, i.e., their naturalness and lack of purposeful activity (chapter 54 and 42 respectively). He identified a Wuwei-style of government to them (chapter 54) and identified quietism (Tiandan 恬澹) as another trait of Huang-Lao and Lao Dan (chapters 54 and 80).[24]

Next: Laozi 老子

[1] Kidder Smith, “Sima Tan and the Invention of Daoism, ‘Legalism,’ ‘et cetera’” in The Journal of Asian Studies, 2003.

[2] “On the Six Lineages of Thought” by Sarah Queen and Harold Roth in Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. I, Columbia University Press, 1999, 279, modified.

[3] The Zajia 雜家, the “Miscellaneous Jia” of the Hanshu’s Yiwenzhi 漢書 • 藝文志 was described very similarly, taking the best of some of the others: 兼儒、墨，合名、法. Zajia included the Lüshi Chunqiu and Huainanzi.

[4] Ibid. 281-2.

[5] For example, Shiji 56 and 107.

[6] I will refer to the Yiwenzhi chapter of the Hanshu as representing Ban Gu’s view, even though he took this classification from Liu Xin 劉歆 and perhaps his father, Liu Xiang 劉向.

[7] Which may or may not be the Four Texts attached to the Laozi manuscripts found at Mawangdui.

[8] Sarah A Queen, “Inventories of the Past: Rethinking the “School” Affiliation of the Huainanzi,” Asia Major, Volume 14, part 1, 2001, p. 62-3.

[9] Yin 因 appears five times in the two descriptions.

[10] As that was the hallmark of the Zajia 雜家. See note #3.

[11] E.g., the Neiye, Xinshu Shang, Xinshu Xia, Baixin, Zheng, Chi Mi, Zhou He, Shu Yan, Bing Fa, Ba Yan, etc.

[11b] E.g., chapters 12-16 and 33.

[12] Sarah Queen in her From Chronicle to Canon writes that “21 sections from seven chapters 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 77, 78” are Huang-Lao and that these texts pay little attention to Confucian texts. She writes that “these chapters argue that Laozi’s doctrine of non-purposive action, Shen Buhai’s theory of titles and actualities, Hanfei’s advocacy of impartial rewards and punishments, Mozi’s emphasis on elevating the worthy, and Guanzi’s techniques of inner cultivation are indispensible methods of rulership” (Cambridge University Press, 1996, 85-6).

[13] Roger Ames/D.C. Lau wrote, “At this point in time, ‘Huang-Lao’ has become a receptacle for any early Han dynasty text that has a Daoist tincture, and given the syncretism that marks this period, there is little that is excluded by it.” (Yuan Dao, Ballantine, 1998, 12)

[14] See Robin Yates’ Five Lost Classics, Ballantine, 1997, 10-12 and 17-19.

[15] Cf. Shiji 12, 28, 121. Both Emperor Wen and Jing also had a fondness for Xingming 刑名, which by then formed some associations with Daojia/Huang-Lao.

[16] Cf. Burton Watson, Records of the Grand Historian, Vol. II, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 93.

[17] Shiji 121, Cf. Watson, Vol. II p. 364.

[18] Shiji 121.

[19] See Aat Vervoorn’s Men of Cliffs and Caves, The Chinese University Press, 1990, 268 n31 for more names.

[20] In Laozi’s biography both Shenzi and Hanfei are labelled as adherents of Huang-Lao (and Xingming 刑名). It is no coincidence that scholars who specialized in the teachings of Shenzi and Hanfei (along with a few others) were expelled from the royal court by the Ru-supporter and imperial counsellor Zhao Wan (趙綰). (Hanshu 6; see Griet Vankeerberghen, The Huainanzi and Liu An’s Claim to Moral Authority, SUNY Press, 2001, 11).

[21] Kidder Smith, 2003, 146.

[22] These are different enough to suggest that they were not even written by him; see below.

[23] “Other Laozi Parallels in the Hanfeizi” in Sino-Platonic Papers 199, March 2010, 17. Hagop Sarkissian, “Laozi: Re-visiting Two Early Commentaries in the Hanfeizi” M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 2001. Angus Graham also regarded the Zhu Dao 主道 and Yang Quan 揚權 chapters of the Hanfeizi to be Huang-Lao, though he regarded the Huainanzi and (relevant parts of) the Zhuangzi to be more aptly referred to as “Laozi-centred syncretisim” (Chinese Texts and Philosophical Contexts: Essays Dedicated to Angus C. Graham, edited by Henry Rosemont, Jr., Open Court, 1991, 280-1.

[24] This will be discussed more later.

From Tsinghua University News

First Research Results on Warring States Bamboo Strips Collected by Tsinghua University Released

In July 2008, Tsinghua University rescued and received into its collection a massive number of Warring States bamboo strips that had previously been smuggled out of China. These artifacts have been arranged and their quantity calculated. Altogether there are more than 2,500 pieces, some of which are fragments. Most of the inscriptions are texts related to the classics (Jing) and histories (Shi). The Tsinghua bamboo strips are thus concerned with the core of ancient Chinese culture and have already awakened strong interest among researchers both in China and abroad. No doubt this significant discovery will have a broad and deep influence on such disciplines as history, archaeology, ancient character studies and philology.

After two years of intensive effort, the research team, whose first director is Professor Li Xueqin, chief of the Center for Excavated Texts Research and Preservation of Tsinghua University, has completed the compiling work of the Warring States Bamboo Strips Collected by Tsinghua University (Series One). The book was published at the end of 2010 by Zhongxi Shuju of the Shanghai Literature and Art Publishing Group (SLAPG). On January 5th, a news conference and publishing symposium were held at Tsinghua University. Xie Weihe, Tsinghua University Vice President, and Zhang Xiaomin, Board Chairman of SLAPG, both spoken at the ceremony. More than forty scholars and other experts attended, including Professor Qiu Xigui from Fudan University and Professor Huang Dekuan from Anhui University. As the chief editor of the book, Professor Li Xueqin introduced its main content, and academic and cultural value.

The research team of Tsinghua University has discovered more than 60 texts and plans to publish 15 series of arrangement reports. The first series contains nine chapters, including "Yin Zhi", "Yin Gao", "Cheng Wu", "Bao Xun", "Qi Ye", "Jin Teng", "Huang Men", "Zhai Gong" and "Chu Ju". The whole book was edited and published in accordance with standards for arrangement reports. It contains photographs of the front and back of each bamboo strip in their original color and size, as well as photos of characters magnified two-fold. Transcription, annotation and character collection are also attached. Its main content and value to both scholarship and culture can be summarized under the following five points:

1. To represent the Book of Historical Documents (Shang Shu) and similar classical texts.

The first eight of the nine chapters of Warring States Bamboo Strips Collected By Tsinghua University (Series One) are from The Book of Historical Documents and similar classical texts. The Book of Historical Documents [尚書], a collection of ancient texts, is the most important source for research in pre-Qin history. Confucius was said to have compiled The Book of Historical Documents, and his version had as many as 100 chapters, most of which, however, were lost because of Qin’s "burning of books". At the beginning of the Han Dynasty, Fu Sheng from Jinan transmitted 28 chapters, which were called the "New Text" Shang Shu. At a late stage of the reign of the Han Emperor Jing (or in the opinion of some scholars during the time of Emperor Wu), the "Old Text" Shang Shu, which had 16 additional chapters, was excavated from the wall of Confucius’ home in Qufu, but it then disappeared in the mist of history. Another version, called "Qi Shu" (writing in lacquer), which Dulin obtained from Xizhou, was not passed down, either. More than two thousand years then passed before the Tsinghua bamboo strips were discovered.

"Jin Teng" is found in both the "New Text" Shang Shu transmitted from Fusheng and the Tsinghua bamboo strips. The title of the bamboo strip version is "King Wu was sick and the Duke of Zhou wished to suffer the disease for his lord". "Jin Teng" is an important chapter in The Book of Historical Documents. It recounts that shortly after eliminating Shang Zhou’s King Wu was sick in bed and the Duke of Zhou, the King’s brother, prayed to suffer the disease for him, which showed the Duke of Zhou’s loyalty. Compared to the transmitted version, there are many differences in Tsinghua bamboo strips. These are extremely important for research in early Zhou history. Take the following as an example: According to the bamboo strips, King Wu got sick three years after the elimination of Shang, while the transmitted version indicates only two years. Several sentences about augury in the transmitted version are not found in the bamboo strips. In the latter, it is said that "the Duke of Zhou lived in the east for three years", while in the transmitted record we read: "The Duke of Zhou lived in the east for two years."

In the Tsinghua bamboo strips, there are also classical texts similar to The Book of Historical Documents that had not been previously seen, such as "Bao Xun" in the first series, which has never been known from the “burning of books”. The bamboo strips of "Bao Xun" record the last words of Zhou’s King Wen to his royal heir (who became King Wu) and mentions two tales about Shun and Shang’s distant ancestor Shang Jia-Wei. The idea of "Zhong" (middle, centre) contained in this chapter has many philosophical meanings. Its materials were published and have already stimulated a great discussion in the scholarly world.

2. To clarify some long-standing perplexities long existent in Chinese historical scholarship.

The Book of Historical Documents in current Shisan Jing Zhushu claims to be the "old text" version from the wall of Confucius’ home. Many scholars’ research after Song has proved it to be a later forgery. However, until now some researchers have sought to reverse that conclusion. The real "old text" Shang Shu in the Tsinghua bamboo strips can be of great significance for ending this controversy.

Regarding the history of Shang’s King Tang eliminating Xia, "Yin Zhi" and "Yin Gao" are documents of great importance about Yi Yin and Shang Tang. "Yin Gao", also named "Xian You Yide", is one important chapter of the "old text" of Shang Shu. It was excavated from the wall of Confucius’ home but subsequently lost. Comparing "Yin Gao" in the Tsinghua bamboo strips with "Xian You Yide" of the transmitted "old text" Shang Shu, we can be certain that the transmitted version is a later forgery, while the bamboo strip version is genuine. This will deeply influence Chinese historical research.

The Tsinghua bamboo strips can also prove that some chapters of Yi Zhou Shu [逸周書] are no less significant than The Book of Historical Documents, such as the well-preserved strips of "Zhai Gong" and "Huang Men". "Huang Men" recorded that the Duke of Zhou admonished chancellors to assist with his rule by faithfully counseling and recommending the virtuous. "Zhai Gong" includes the last advice of Zhai Gong Moufu, a chancellor of Zhou’s King Mu, as he approached the end of his life. These two documents are of great historiographical value. The scripts, which are quite similar to inscriptions on bronze (Jin Wen), are archaic and abstruse. Through comparisons with them, many errors in the transmitted version can be corrected.

"Cheng Wu" is also found in the Tsinghua bamboo strips. This chapter was once included in Yi Zhou Shu during the Han dynasty, but it was lost after the Tang or Song dynasty. Only fragments of it still exist. By contrast, "Cheng Wu" in the Tsinghua bamboo strips is a complete text, recording in detail Zhou’s King Wen "being chosen" (Shou Ming, that is, having a claim to the throne of King and thus replace Shang). This sheds further light of this legend and might compensate for the loss during the last thousand years.

3. To discover previously unknown odes and songs from the Zhou Dynasty.

The "Qi Ye" chapter in the Tsinghua bamboo strips indicates that in the eighth year of King Wu’s reign, after the Zhou generals had returned from their successful punitive attack on the state of Qi (that is, Li), they held a "Yin Zhi" ceremony in the ancestral temple of King Wen. Among those participating were King Wu, the Duke of Zhou, the Duke of Bi, the Duke of Zhao, Xin Jia, Zuo Ce Yi, and Shi Shang Fu. In their ritual, they drank liquor and composed odes. All those odes are found on the bamboo strips. This relates to the "Chief of the West Conquers Qi" (Xibo Kan Li) chapter of the "Documents of Shang"(Shang Shu) section in The Book of Historical Documents. According to it, we can correct the mistake of the Great Commentary on Shang Shu (Shangshu Dazhuan) that the attack on Li was during King Wen’s reign. This bamboo text thus has both historical value and literary significance. Surprisingly, one stanza of the ode composed by the Duke of Zhou is closely related to the "Xi Shuai", an ode in the "Airs of Tang"(Tang Feng) section of Shi Jing. This was really outside anyone’s expectations.

4. To recover the history and historical geography of the Chu state.

The "Chu Ju" chapter is included in Warring States Bamboo Strips Collected By Tsinghua University (Series One). Its strips are 50 centimeters long, the longest in the Tsinghua bamboo strips. In a style similar to that of the "Ju Pian" chapter of the transmitted ancient book Shi Ben, it records details of every Chu king’s descendants and where they lived or the capital was founded, from Chu’s legendary remotest ancestor Ji Lian to King Dao (401 B.C. – 381 B.C.) in the middle age of Warring States period. The capital place of every generation and the reasons for migration are also listed. The place names can be compared with those on previously excavated Chu bamboo strips. This information provides many clues for research into Chu’s historical geography and relics, and it will certainly deepen the study on Chu culture.

The places of residence and migrations recorded in this chapter prove that most of the "Chu Shijia" in Shi Ji is correct. Some conflicts between them can be resolved by reference to other texts. The legend of Chu’s ancestors at the beginning is also important. Especially it mentions the connection between Chu’s ancestors and the offspring of Shang’s King Pan Geng, as well as the relationship between the Chu and Nuo state, both of which are worthy of extensive reflection.

5. To provide precious textual materials for ancient character study, specially in Chu characters.

The nine chapters in Warring States Bamboo Strips Collected By Tsinghua University (Series One) were written in Chu characters during the Warring States period. The scripts’ structure and form are in a special style. Among them, "Jin Teng", "Huang Men" and "Zhai Gong" can be compared with the transmitted version, which will greatly facilitate research in Chu characters and help scholars interpret many of them.

The task of preserving and doing research on the Tsinghua bamboo strips has received enthusiastic attention from leaders of the Communist Party of China and the government, as well as strong support from the National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC), the Ministry of Education (ME), the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST), the Ministry of Culture (MC) and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH). The ME, the MST and the National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science established special programs and offered financial support. In order to preserve these national treasures permanently, the NDRC has already decided to allocate special funds for a thorough promotion of the Tsinghua bamboo strips’ preserving condition. Leaders of Tsinghua University believe that the work of preserving and conducting research on them is an important part of the maintenance of Chinese history and culture, as well as a crucial breakthrough and engine for the building up and development of the social sciences and humanities. With special attention and collaborative efforts, related agencies of the University overcame various difficulties and provided tremendous aids and support for work in connection with the Tsinghua bamboo strips.

The publishing of Warring States Bamboo Strips Collected By Tsinghua University (Series One) is a wonderful gift presenting to our Alma Mater on her 100th anniversary. The Tsinghua bamboo strips represent classics lost for more than 2000 years and will make an irreplaceable contribution to the flourishing of Chinese traditional culture. Tsinghua University desires continuous coordination and research centered around the bamboo strips with scholars both in China and abroad. Regarding the release of the Tsinghua bamboo strips as a great opportunity, we decided to strengthen further our support in such disciplines as literature, history and philosophy. With bigger strides in building up and developing humanities, we hope to contribute to establishing Tsinghua as the world-class university.

(Translated by Chen Pengyu from the Center for Excavated Texts Research and Preservation of Tsinghua University.)

Wikipedia also has an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsinghua_Bamboo_Slips

There is a paper in the Journal of Chinese Philosophy (Vol. 37, 2010) called "THE TSINGHUA BAMBOO STRIPS AND ANCIENT CHINESE CIVILIZATION" by Li Xueqin and Liu Guozhong. I haven’t read it yet, but hope to in the next few months.

If anyone has more information please share!

I enjoyed most of it. Below consists mainly of quotes that I think are important.

He observes that there are many graphical variations in Warring States unearthed manuscripts:

“Both modern and traditional scholars have observed significant graphical variations between character forms in Warring States China. However, they attributed most of the differences to either temporal (i.e. evolution of character structure in time) or spatial (i.e. graphical differences between the writing systems of various regions where the various scripts showed local characteristics) factors. It has not been commonly recognized, however, that variations also occurred within a corpus from the same general era and location … the differences were due not to external factors but to the flexibility in the writing habits of Warring States scribes and the tolerance of their readers.” (p. 1-2)

He argues that rather than there being one correct form, with all of the others being inferior variants, we would do better to regard them all as correct and forming a “aggregate character form.” (p. 2) He does, however, affirm that there were “dominant forms” of characters (141).

He astutely observes that when we look at the variants, “The most important and obvious practice was the retention of the phonetic element. The scribes could abbreviate or leave out almost any other part of the character, could introduce new components, yet they retained the phonetic component in virtually every instance. This realization reinforces the priority of spoken language (sound) over writing (visual form), a connection easily forgotten when it comes to Chinese writing.” (3) Later, he writes that the “the variability of character forms generally meant the variability of the semantic components. The phonetic component usually did not change. To be exact, it was the sound value of the phonetic component that remained the same, since the scribes sometimes substituted the phonetic component for another, homophonous or nearly homophonous, component.” (145)

Regarding the standardization of the script, he says “starting from the late 3rd century BC, there was a growing tendency to regularize the form, sound, and meaning of characters.” (3) But it wasn’t Lisi’s or Shihuangdi’s doing: “archaeological data reveals that the changes were, to perhaps an event greater extent, a result of a long historical evolution induced by political and administrative consolidation. The absence of any clear-cut border between the form and structure of characters immediately before and after the Qin reforms suggests that there was little distinction between the standards allegedly enforced by the government and the actual customs practiced by the people.” (3)

The Shiji only mentions the Qin reform once. The story generally comes from the Shuowen/Hanshu (31). “Rather than describing the Qin reform as it really happened, Han scholars recorded an idealized version of the event. Similarly, their view of the writing habits of their own times differs from the epigraphical evidence.” (32) Xu Shen’s small seal headings often differ from known Qin small seal characters: “the small seal script displayed in the Shuowen did not match the Qin small seal script … the Shuowen small seal script was not the original Qin seal script. Consequently, we have to distinguish between the Qin small script used at the end of the second century BC and a Han small seal script used around AD 100.” (36-9) “The differences between the character forms on the edict plates prove that the seal script in common use during Li Si’s time was not thoroughly consistent. Despite the reforms, most of the population still wrote characters with variable structures … All in all, it seems that Xu Shen, and his later interpreters, seriously overstated the effect of the writing reform.” (40)

An important point, one which William Boltz has also stated (The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System, p. 145), involves the actual purpose of Xu Shen’s Liushu 六書:

“I believe, however, that Xu Shen did not intend the liushu to explain the etymology of characters. Instead, his primary purpose was to provide a teaching tool for the study of the nine thousand characters students had to master in order to become a historian. Therefore, he intended the liushu to be used as a set of mnemonic principles for the acquisition of characters.” (54)

“… the “incorrect” folk etymologies in the Shuowen can be easily understood as mnemonic explanations.” (58)

Regarding the character 信, he writes “Xu’s explanation of the character etymologically was not correct, because 信 developed as a phonetic compound (xingsheng) character. However, since by his time the phonetic connection between 信 and 人 was perhaps not apparent anymore, he chose the huiyi principle as a mnemonic formula to aid the acquisition of the character. Indeed, even today Chinese language teachers use the same mnemonics to teach the character 信 to students.” (59)

“In fact, Xu never claimed that the liushu described the etymological origins of characters. With respect to the historical process of character formation, he provided the following explanation:

倉頡之初作書也， 蓋依類象形， 故謂之文。 其後形聲相益， 即謂之字。85
When Cang Jie first invented writing, he created graphic forms (xiangxing) according to categories; therefore these were called wen (patterns). After that, forms and sounds (xingsheng) mutually augmented each other; these were called zi.

In the above description, Xu mentioned two historical processes of character formation: xiangxing and xingsheng … Xu’s account does not disagree with our modern understanding of the evolution of Chinese characters embodied in the “three-principle theory.”87 According to the original theory proposed by Chen Mengjia 陳夢家, the three principles consisted of the xiangxing, jiajie, and xingsheng categories. Qiu Xigui has amended the xiangxing category to biaoyi 表意 (semantographs) to include not only pictographs but also characters created from semantic symbols.88 Xu Shen’s description of the evolution of characters differs from the three-principle theory only in not including the jiajie principle. However, an argument can be made that the jiajie principle is not a principle of character formation. Instead, it is a principle of the evolution of character usage. Because when a character is being used as a phonetic loan for another character, graphically it is still the original character. One could argue that since the form of the character has not changed, there has been no character-forming principle at work. Therefore, whether the jiajie principle should be counted as a principle of character formation, depends on the definition of the concept of character. If this concept comprises only the graphic form of the character, then the jiajie principle should not be included. On the other hand, the development of xingsheng characters included the process of phonetic borrowing. Every xingsheng character started its existence as a jiajie character, and only eventually did it acquire an extra component that distinguished it from the “mother” character. Therefore, once again, the jiajie principle could be regarded redundant. The organization of the dictionary itself also reveals the same approach on Xu Shen’s part.” (59-60)

Something I remain skeptical about is his assertion that the “original meaning and pronunciation usually does not completely vanish even when the character is utilized as a semantic or phonetic component in a new character.” In his note, he adds: “Both Karlgren and Boodberg (1937, p. 335) have argued that even when a component is used for its semantic value, it also carries a “weak” phonetic value, and vice versa. Accordingly, the component 之 in the above character form [志] would, at least partially, retain its semantic value and 心 its phonetic one.” (67)

Filed under: Chinese History, Chinese Language, Classical Chinese ]]> http://baopu81.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/galambos-on-the-early-chinese-script/feed/ 1 scottbarnwell http://baopu81.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/t-l-s/ http://baopu81.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/t-l-s/#comments Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:41:50 +0000 Scott "Bao Pu" Barnwell https://baopu81.wordpress.com/?p=148 Continue reading »

I just discovered a new Chinese-English synonym dictionary (and more) called TLS, or Thesaurus Linguae Sericae: An Historical and Comparative Encyclopaedia of Chinese Conceptual Schemes. In Chinese, it is Hanxue Wendian 漢學文典. It is a work in progress, but that progress is already substantial.

The chief editors are Christoph Harbsmeier and Jiang Shaoyu 蔣紹愚. But the list of other editors is nothing less than amazing. Here’s a partial list:
William Baxter, Christoph Aderl, Wolfgang Behr, Françoise Bottéro, Bruce and Taeko Brooks, Carine Defoort, Hans van Ess, David Keightley, Martin Kern, Michael Nylan, Pan Wuyun, Pang Pu, Jens Ostergaard Petersen, Jessica Rawson, Matthias Richter, Axel Schuessler, Kenichi Takashima and Rudolf Wagner.

Other contributors include: Qiu Xigui, Li Ling, Chen Guying, Edward Shaughnessy and Redouane Djamouri.

“TLS offers the functions of a traditional dictionary, full-text database, synonym dictionary etc. But by combining multiple levels of analysis in one overarching structure which is accessible from any possible angle (technically achieved by means of a relational database), the types of questions that can be asked and for which answers can be obtained go far beyond those possible with traditional resources on the history of the Chinese language, whether printed or digital.”

So, it also includes many pre-Han and post-Han texts, including English translations of a great many of these, including some excavated texts from Guodian, Mawangdui and even Oracle-bone inscriptions. I think all the texts here that have been translated at some point in time have translations here, and sometimes alternative translations are given as well (since there are sometimes many to choose from).

One can search in English or with Chinese characters, but not Pinyin, apparently.

“The easiest way to access TLS is by using “Basic Search.” Click on “Basic Search” in the menu above, then choose whether you wish to search for a Chinese or an English expression and what you wish to search for – a word, a synonym, a passage in a text or a translation, etc.”

Searching for 德, for example, under “a headword” brings numerous entries of just 德, but also compounds like 凶德, 功德, 恩德, etc.
Searching for “a Word” just brings results of 德
Searching “a Synonym Group” brings results of synonym labels such as FEATURE, GOOD, TALENT under which 德 can be found.
Searching “a word in a text” results in a list of places in the texts where 德 occurs. There is 2918 records found. The passage is displayed, along with an English translation where available.
Searching “a word attributed to a text” brings (144) results where 德 occurs.
Searching “a character definition” results in a wealth of information on the word/character, but not much in the way of English definitions (search instead in “a word” for this info). References are given to where the word occurs in various resources, but it does not display, or link to the Kangxi Zidian, Shuowen, Yupian or any other historical dictionary. For this IMPORTANT information, I suggest either Han Dian, Donald Sturgeon’s Chinese Text Project, or Shuowenjiezi.com, (which is the only place I know which links to the Hanyu Dacidian). See an older post discussing these and other dictionary websites.

To search for a character (e.g., 德) in a specific text, click “Select File”, then select Texts. In the field labeled Text, you input “德”; in the field labeled Text Reference, you input “莊子,”or whichever text you are interested in.

To search for a specific chapter of a text, (e.g. the Daodejing), in the “Complex Search” input e.g. 道德經 in “Text Reference and” “38” (or whatever) in “Sequence No. 1.”

TLS provides a corpus of classical Chinese texts wherever possible with interlinear [sort of] translations.
It links the texts incorporated with an analytic dictionary of the Chinese language.

TLS seeks to make available up-to-date databases on historical phonology and the history of Chinese characters — Pan Wuyun’s 潘悟雲 Old Chinese reconstructions and E.G. Pulleyblank’s Middle Chinese reconstructions.

There is an almost overwhelming number of help pages, both throughout the website and on the Terminology/Glossary page.

I’m still learning about the site, so I have probably missed some things.
 

Filed under: Chinese Language, Classical Chinese ]]>

Zhuangzi  莊子 chapter 20 (Shan Mu 山木) excerpt (opening passage)

Translated by Burton Watson p. 209-10 (slight modification)
(Cf. Ziporyn p. 84, Mair p. 185-6. This story also appears in the Lüshi Chunqiu 14.8)

莊子行於山中，見大木，枝葉盛茂，伐木者止其旁而不取也。問其故，曰：「无所可用。」

莊子曰：「此木以不材得終其天年。」

“Zhuangzi was walking in the mountains when he saw a huge tree, its branches and leaves thick and lush. A woodcutter paused by its side but made no move to cut it down. When Zhuangzi asked the reason, he replied, “There’s nothing it could be used for!” Zhuangzi said, “Because of its worthlessness (不材), this tree is able to live out the years Heaven gave it (終其天年).”

夫子出於山，舍於故人之家。故人喜，命豎子殺鴈而烹之。豎子請曰：「其一能鳴，其一不能鳴，請奚殺？」

主人曰：「殺不能鳴者。」

Down from the mountain, the Master stopped for a night at the house of an old friend. The friend, delighted, ordered his son to kill a goose and prepare it. “One of the geese can cackle and the other can’t,” said the son. “May I ask, please, which I should kill?”

“Kill the one that can’t cackle,” said the host.

明日，弟子問於莊子曰：「昨日山中之木，以不材得終其天年；今主人之鴈，以不材死；先生將何處？」

The next day Zhuangzi’s disciples questioned him. “Yesterday there was a tree on the mountain that gets to live out the years Heaven gave it because of its worthlessness. Now there’s our host’s goose that gets killed because of its worthlessness. What position (處) would you take in such a case, Master?”

莊子笑曰：「周將處夫材與不材之閒。材與不材之閒，似之而非也，故未免乎累。

Zhuangzi laughed and said, “I’d probably take a position halfway between worth and worthlessness (材與不材之閒). But halfway between worth and worthlessness, though it might seem to be a good place, really isn’t – you’ll never get away from entanglements there (未免乎累).

若夫乘道德而浮遊則不然。无譽无訾，一龍一蛇，與時俱化，而无肯專為；一上一下，以和為量，浮遊乎萬物之祖；物物而不物於物，則胡可得而累邪！此神農黃帝之法則也。

It would be very different, though, if you were to climb up on Dao and its De and go drifting and wandering (浮遊), neither praised nor damned (无譽无訾), now a dragon, now a snake, shifting with the times, never willing to hold to one course only. Now up, now down, taking harmony for your measure (以和為量), drifting and wandering with the ancestor of the ten thousand things, treating things as things but not letting them treat you as a thing – then how could you get entangled (累)? This is the rule, the method of Shen Nong and the Yellow Emperor.

若夫萬物之情，人倫之傳，則不然。合則離，成則毀；廉則挫，尊則議，有為則虧，賢則謀，不肖則欺，胡可得而必乎哉！悲夫！弟子志之，其唯道德之鄉乎！」

“But now, what with the forms of the ten thousand things and the codes of ethics handed down from man to man (人倫之傳), matters don’t proceed in this fashion. Things join only to part, reach completion only to crumble. If sharp-edged, they are blunted; if high-stationed, they are overthrown; if ambitious, they are foiled. Wise, they are schemed against; stupid, they are swindled. What is there, then, that can be counted on? Only one thing, alas! – remember this, my students – only the realm of Dao and its De! (唯道德之鄉)”

This parable works on the assumption that living out one’s natural lifespan (終其天年) is desired/valued. Passing between the extremes of being useful and useless is a fairly good course of action, but avoiding all entanglements can only be achieved by being extremely flexible, elusive and unpredictable and “taking harmony for your measure” (以和為量). Likewise, “avoiding entanglements/attachments” (免乎累) is valued as well.

On page 200, regarding Daoism/the Laozi, he writes, “you do not lessen the explanatory burden on an interpretive theory by observing simply that the orthodoxy accepts it … the ancestry of a bad interpretation does not make it a good interpretation.” I don’t disagree with this, although it’s certainly possible that an interpretation that has a long history may be closer to the correct one. [edit: see Chris Panza's comment below.]

On page 201, he writes, “We [Chad Hansen] share with Neo-Confucianism the assumption that the text [the Laozi] is a philosophy text: that it fits into the philosophical milieu we have been talking about. We have seen that Confucius, Mozi, and Mencius have psychological and linguistic doctrines which differ from Western folk theory. Our assumption amounts to saying the theory of the Daode Jing should emerge from some of the same presuppositions and focus on the same issues. The holistic principles of interpretation rule out the image of a philosopher as a private thinker reflecting on the world de novo from innate Platonic concepts.4 The Daoist is not going to start, inexplicitly, talking of truth and meaning, definitions, proof structure, reality and belief. He is not proposing how to further the debate between Parmedides and Heraclitus. He would be reflecting on the Ru-Mo ^{Confucian-Mencius [Mohist?]} dispute about shi-fei ^{this:not this}, names, dao, guidance in language, and social organization.”

Again, I find much to agree with, but I do not share his assumption that the authors of the Laozi were philosophers in much the same vein as Confucius, Mencius and Mozi. I believe there is evidence that the authors had some interests significantly different from them. For example, I think some of them had much stronger “spiritual” inclinations/experiences. Hansen seems to think that everything they have to say will be on the same topics as Confucians and Mohists. He makes it sound ridiculous to disagree with him by tossing out some Greek names like Plato, Parmedides and Heraclitus. Some might argue that his book subtitle does say his interpretation is a philosophical one (much like Hall & Ames’ Daodejing translation). Indeed it does, and perhaps that is a significant detriment to his reconstruction of “Daoism.”

Hansen and I both share the view that the text of the Laozi is an edited collection of “fragments” and that there was no single author. We also both agree that the Mawangdui versions of the text may or may not be closer to the original. His goal is to challenge the traditional interpretation of the Laozi, and since the Mawangdui texts may differ from this, they are largely irrelevant to this project. In his note to this issue, he wrote, “I agree with Schwartz in treating the Mawang Dui text as belonging to a Huang-Lao cult that became popular with the ruling circles at the onset of the Qin-Han dark age. What has emerged as the contents of those documents so far does not incline me to class the text among the philosophically interesting schools of the classical period. Part of my choice of text reflects a view that the philosophical interest of the text is diminished and subverted by the structural changes. The prominent one is to place the political, purposive part of the text first and to bury the philosophical reflections on language that explain it in the middle. This reflects a split in editorial intentions. One stresses political strategy, the other the philosophical reflections. Similarly the Mawang Dui text adds characters that seem designed to force what I would argue is a less successful interpretation on ambiguous passages. I choose the traditional text partly because it plausibly reflects Daoist and philosophical emphasis more than the Huang-Lao ruler-directed political emphasis. Given the assumptions that have guided this whole work, I treat it as more likely that philosophically interesting things will stem from the classical thinkers than they that they will be added during a period of ruler-dominated superstition orthodoxy and suppression of philosophy.” (p. 400 n6)

Hmmm. Throwing out terms like “Qin-Han dark age” and “ruler-dominated superstition orthodoxy” seem unnecessary and probably untrue. Personally, I don’t think the structural changes diminish and subvert the stuff that is philosophically interesting. I happen think that the Mawangdui’s first chapter (traditionally #38) is quite interesting. I was surprised to learn that Hansen thinks the grammatical particles that we find in the Mawangdui texts were added, and not the more common view that they were removed over time (resulting in the Traditional text). The version of the text found at Guodian (after Hansen had published his book) do not support his conclusion (see chapters 2, 9, 16, 40), but it also doesn’t completely negate his view, as in other places the Guodian and traditional text lack the grammatical particles the Mawangdui texts have. I suspect it is chiefly the traditional first chapter where Hansen objects to the Mawangdui texts’ additional particles (see his note 7 on pages 400-1). Unfortunately, the Guodian text does not contain that chapter (possibly because it hadn’t been written yet). The Mawangdui texts’ use of Heng 恆 in place of Chang 常 seem to be the original word used, as verified in other places in the Guodian text and the likelihood of Heng being replaced because it became a taboo word near the beginning of the Han.

As for his opinion that “philosophically interesting things will stem from the classical thinkers,” and not those from the “Qin-Han dark age,” I snicker.

In a second note, he wrote, “The new discoveries confirm the previously held view that the text was still circulating in a state of flux as late as the Han Dynasty. And they prove the existence of a Huang-Lao cult and render live the hypothesis that adherents of different schools selected and edited texts in different ways. The discovery of one sample neither disproves nor seriously undermines the prior assumption that earlier varieties of the traditional text were also circulating at that time. We should not refer to the Mawang Dui text as the state of the text at that time. To draw that conclusion would be to try to determine the batch from one instance – and in this case an instance drawn from a place that marks it as a biased sample: the tomb of a powerful member of the ruling class! Intellectual hermits were not buried in tombs that would preserve their rotting bones into the twentieth century … I would assign a higher probability to the hypothesis that versions of at least both traditions were circulating at the time …” (p. 400 n7)

I think Hansen makes some excellent points here. (He says a bit more about his view in his note that continues onto page 401). I don’t know what he means when he says the Mawangdui texts (texts, plural, and not singular as he keeps saying) “prove the existence of a Huang-Lao cult.” They certainly don’t. And I don’t really buy his argument that the Mawangdui texts are biased because they were buried in a tomb or his assumption that the original authors were poor “intellectual hermits.”

Hansen writes, “We assume further that the text is a Daoist one. This assumption is particularly troublesome since there was no clear Daoist school in the sense in which there was a Confucian and a Mohist school. Han Historians coined the term Dao Jia [道家] hundreds of years later. The philosophers in question do share some attitudes and doctrines. What justifies the term is that both central texts (The Daode Jing and the Zhuangzi) focus on second-level metadiscussion of dao itself. Daoists were intrigued by the Ru-Mo ^{Confucian-Mohist} dispute about which dao to follow and by the problems of interpreting dao in practical action. Should we even be trying to construct, propose and effect a positive dao? They began to reflect on the very nature of dao and on deep puzzles in the proposal to guide guiding discourse.” (p. 202)

A “second-level metadiscussion of dao” is what makes the authors/texts Daoist. Not sure what to make of this. Both the Laozi and Zhuangzi surely contain more material not dealing with this metadiscussion of dao than they do discussing it. But Hansen points out that those he identifies as Daoists tended “to share an iconoclastic social-political attitude. Daoists lean away from society and convention” (p. 203). I suspect he is right here, though I would also say that some Daoists were very much into politics ande wrote parts of the Laozi, Zhuangzi, Huainanzi, etc.

His view of the development of Daoism comes from his interpretation of chapter 33 of the Zhuangzi where “the Laozi lies between the theory of dao attributed to Shendao and the mature Daoism of Zhuangzi” (p. 202). I find this a bit problematic, as chapter 33 is not an outline of the development of Daoism. If such were the case, the author deemed the sophist Hui Shi as the last of the Daoists, a position I suspect nobody would hold.

Hansen wrote that Zhuangzi “may have felt a deep sympathy for primitive Daoism [of the Laozi], but Zhuangzi obviously knows the Neo-Mohist objection to it and avoids the error himself” (p. 203). Okay, so Hansen likes the Zhuangzi (chapter 2) more than the Laozi. I like both texts for different reasons, though I don’t think chapter 2 of the Zhuangzi is any more useful.

Hansen wrote, “Laozi was, like Mencius, a mystic in one key sense: he was antilanguage. But Mencius backs into that position, where Laozi seems to be fascinated with paradoxes of trying to state the limits of language in language. His theory of those limits however, reflects the Chinese view of the role of language. Language purports to express dao. Dao, as we have argued, is guidance. Laozi discusses the limitations of language as a guide, not as a descriptive system. Laozi shows his mysticism, as Mencius did, in reflecting the prescriptive role of language. The theory of the limit of language and the mystical tenor is practical, not metaphysical” (p. 203).

Without getting bogged down in all this, I don’t see the role of language as either descriptive or prescriptive. It surely is both. Sure language can express a dao, but that is not all it can do, and I do not think we can pigeonhole all of the stuff in the Laozi that Hansen has in mind as talking about language as guidance. Hansen writes that Laozi “has no motivation both to start treating the role of language as representing reality and then denying that representation is possible” (p. 203). Again, it’s not an either-or distinction! He continues, “He certainly does not give any of the familiar Buddhist or Western arguments for the inability of language to describe reality. Traditional interpreters see the focus on limitations of language and the mystical paradoxes and supply the Indo-European justifications as the obvious deep explanations. This requires them to reinterpret dao as a metaphysical object” (203). I’m all for being careful about equating different world traditions or worldviews. I’m skeptical about the “perennial philosophy,” although, from reading Ted Slingerland’s work, some of Lakoff & Johnson (Philosophy in the Flesh) and works on mysticism, I do find a number of similarities, similarities that seem inevitable, considering that we are all physically “identical” (e.g. social bipedal apes). And although I can’t be bothered right now to dig into the texts to prove it, I’m not sure I agree with Hansen that the Laozi or Zhuangzi do not give similar arguments about the limitations of language to describe reality as Western traditions.

Hansen goes on to tell his interpretation of the historical background and development of early Daoism (pp. 204-210). Again, there’s some very good insights there, but also questionable assumptions and mountains constructed from molehills. I get the feeling that Hansen’s Daoist theory is built like a house of cards.

I thought of looking in a neglected pre-Han/Han text, the Chuci 楚辭, specifically Qu Yuan’s famous poem Li Sao 離騷, for passages containing either the Chinese Dao 道 and Lu 路, or David Hawkes’ “way,” “path,” and “road.” Although it reads well, I have often found Hawkes’ translation somewhat odd (when I look at the Chinese text), but I am no expert, so…

With regards to Dao and Lu, the differences aren’t all that obvious to me. Some references seem to refer literally to a road and some metaphorically. I welcome any thoughts on this.

彼堯舜之耿介兮，既遵道而得路。何桀紂之猖披兮，夫唯捷徑以窘步。惟夫黨人之偷樂兮，路幽昧以險隘。
Hawkes: “Glorious and great were those two, Yao and Shun, Because they had kept their feet on the right path. And how great was the folly of Jie and Zhou, Who hastened by crooked paths, and so came to grief.” (p. 69)

First thing to catch my eye:
“Because they had kept their feet on the right path.” (既遵道而得路)
Is this a good translation? Zun Dao 遵道 = follow/obey (the) Dao (the Right Way, the way, the road, etc.) De Lu 得路 = obtain/attain/comprehend (the) road, path.

“Who hastened by crooked paths, and so came to grief.” (夫唯捷徑以窘步)
Is this a good translation? Jie Jing 捷徑 = quick path/way and thereby (以)  Jiong Bu 窘步 = distressed steps/walk

惟夫黨人之偷樂兮，路幽昧以險隘。
Hawkes: “The fools enjoy their careless pleasure, But their way (Lu 路) is dark and leads to danger.” (p. 69)

何方圜之能周兮，夫孰異道而相安。
Hawkes: “How can the round and square ever fit together? How can different ways of life (Yi Dao 異道) ever be reconciled?” (71)

悔相道之不察兮，延佇乎吾將反。回朕車以復路兮，及行迷之未遠。
Hawkes: “Repenting, therefore, that I had not conned the way (Dao 道) more closely, I halted, intending to to turn back again – To turn about my chariot and retrace my road (Lu 路) before I had advanced too far along the path to folly.” (71)

Is the last line a good translation?

湯禹儼而祗敬兮，周論道而莫差
Hawkes: “Tang of Shang and Yu of Xia were reverent and respectful; The House of Zhou chose the true way (Dao 道) without error…” (72)

I’m not sure how he came up with chose the true way, since Lun 論 means “to discuss.”

何離心之可同兮，吾將遠逝以自疏。邅吾道夫崑崙兮，路脩遠以周流。
Hawkes: “How can I live with men whose hearts are strangers to me? I am going a far journey to be away from them. I took the way (Dao 道) that leads to Kun-lun mountain: A long, long road (Lu 路) with many a turning in it.” (77)

Note: Hawkes’ translation and commentary will be re-released later this year by Penguin Classics. Amazon link.

“The point an aphorism makes resides not in the contents of what is said, but in the implicit choice made to bring up this image rather than another. This choice in turn conveys the attitude of the speaker. When someone is deciding whether to take a risk, I might choose say "Better safe than sorry" or I might choose to say "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." The crucial issue behind this choice is not which saying is objectively more true, but which saying I think puts this particular situation in the right perspective. A child who says "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is not explaining an objective truth but is "posturing" – assuming a certain posture or attitude toward a situation, insisting on seeing it in a certain perspective. Everyone saying an aphorism is "posturing" – assuming a certain posture or attitude toward the situation and inviting his or her addressee to share this attitude. In bringing up a particular aphorism, one is not primarily conveying information; one is primarily expressing an attitude. The ultimate basis on which an aphorism hopes to persuade is not the objective truth it directly states, but the attractiveness of the attitude or perspective it "acts out" toward the situation it addresses.

Frequently this attractiveness lies in the particular value orientation underlying the saying. In my view, a relatively unified attitude underlies the entire body of Laoist polemic aphorisms, motivated by a particular value orientation. This attitude, cultivated as a "state or quality of mind," is the Laoist "Tao," the Laoist Way, the Laoist "approach" to life (see p. 214).

This attitude is something "acted out" in a saying ("performed" by the saying, as J. L. Austin³² might say), rather than explicitly spoken about in the saying. This is an important part of what it means to say (43[1]:1) that Tao cannot be named. In the present view, this point is immensely important to understanding the Tao Te Ching. Applying it to Laoist aphorisms reveals the perspectival and value-laden character of Laoist wisdom. Laoists neither teach a relativist skepticism of all values³³ nor is their advice based on a completely objective set of truths. They take a decisive stand in favor of one particular set of values and advocate adopting an attitude toward all situations based on this set of values. Attitude is important also when considering the problem of "consistency" in the Tao Te Ching. The "consistency" of Laoist wisdom is not based on a set of doctrines or moral-spiritual principles, which Laoists consistently apply to all situations. What is most consistent in the Laoist "system" (see pp. 213-214) is the attitude the aphorisms "perform." In un-Laoist fashion I have attempted to give an explicit account of the basic value orientation motivating the Laoist attitude, see p. 239 under "Organic* harmony."

Note that normally, none of the three elements outlined here [the target, the image, and the attitude and the value orientation motivating it] is mentioned explicitly in a given proverb. And yet in every proverb these three elements are essential to its meaning, and highly specific; to guess wrongly about one of them is to misunderstand the proverb. In trying to understand a difficult proverb in the Tao Te Ching, it will not do to stare at the words and try to read directly off of them the meaning of the proverb. What we must do is make educated guesses – with the help of background information and parallel sayings in the Tao Te Ching – about the three essential meaning elements outlined earlier.

The kind of analysis of Laoist aphorisms this leads to can be illustrated by using the famous example: "One who speaks does not understand" (30[56]:1). It is incorrect to take this to mean that literally anyone who ever says anything must lack understanding. One could paraphrase its meaning rather as follows:

1. You might tend to be easily impressed by skillful speech and so assume that the eloquent speaker is a person of great understanding (this is the saying’s "target").
2. To counter this, I want to call your attention to the image of empty-headed eloquence in which you can see a connection between skillful speech and lack of real knowledge.
3. As a reason for accepting this point, I invite you to adopt a value orientation and attitude in which substance is all-important even when not impressive and impressive show is of little importance (this is the attitude or "posture" the saying expresses).

I think reflection on our normal ways of making decisions in life would show that our processes approximate the "aphoristic" way of thinking illustrated here much more closely than they do the "logical deductions from consistent principles" we usually assume as an official ideal. In my view, attention to the meaning- structure of aphorisms is the single most important key to a proper understanding of the Tao Te Ching.”

The Tao of the Tao Te Ching: A Translation and Commentary by Michael Lafargue; State University of New York Press, 1992. Pages 203-205.

=======================

From “Tao and Method,” Chapter Six

“The semantic structure of aphorisms.
1. The proverb as a special genre of speech.

Holmes Welch makes this comment on the saying “A violent man will not reach his natural end” (36[42]:6):

“Lao Tzu is wrong about it, of course.  Violent men usually die natural deaths, but not always.  In our day the dictatorial score is two to one**assuming Stalin was not done in by his doctors.”[1]

Welch’s comment implicitly assumes that sayings like this belong to the genre of “general laws.”  Their formal structure is “A always leads to B,” and so they belong formally to the same linguistic genre as Newton’s, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  The “competence” required to understand the structure of these statements, their relation to reality, and their basis in reality, is formally the same.  Fung Yu-Lan[2] is even more explicit in asserting that much of Laoist wisdom consists of attempts to formulate general “laws of nature.”  This approach has a certain initial appeal, both because it is straightforwardly literal and hence apparently the “simplest” approach, and also because it assimilates Laoist thought to modern scientific and philosophical thought.

When interpreted this way, however, the Tao Te Ching seems to contain many implausible propositions dogmatically asserted without argument.[3]  It also contains many contradictions (see p. 000).  The fact that there are many ways in which the text does not make sense when interpreted this way should serve as an initial suspicion, at least, that this may not be the most plausible hypothesis about the way language is being used here.  And it is relevant to note here (1) that, in their form, Laoist aphorisms[4] resemble proverbs in general use, and (2) that many proverbs in common use also would be subject to a Welch’s objection if they were interpreted as general laws: Consider such wildly implausible general laws as, “When it rains it pours,” and “A watched pot never boils.”  And consider such contradictory pairs of general laws as “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” vs. “Out of sight, out of mind,”; and “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” vs. “It’s never too late to learn.”  If people really regarded these as general laws predicting what will always or even probably happen, only extremely thoughtless people would ever use them.

In what follows, I will argue (1) that the practical and polemic element in Laoist wisdom is cast largely in the form of aphorisms that have the same formal semantic structure as proverbs generally.  And (2) in our everyday use of familiar proverbs, we implicitly understand them as having a formal structure very different from the formal structure of general laws, and we construe them as having a different relation to reality.  It is only when the unfamiliarity of a Laoist proverb prevents such spontaneous implicit understanding, that we revert to the “simple” model of literal discourse.
…….
A proverb’s target is also essential in that the meaning of an proverb consists essentially in the fact that it is corrective.  Consider for example the fact that “Slow and steady wins the race,” is a common proverb although it is not reliable as a general law about who wins races.  “The race usually goes to the swift” is more true, but is not a proverb.  Why?  People have a tendency to assume that being swift is always the only way to win races, and “Slow and steady wins the race” corrects this tendency.  It wakes people up to a different possibility.  Its point, which is its meaning, is to compensate for this tendency.  But there is no tendency to think that fast people will not win. “The race is to the swift” has nothing to compensate for, and so it has no point that is very useful in ordinary life.  As a proverb it lacks significant meaning, because proverbs are essentially corrective, compensatory wisdom. The meaning of an aphorism is exhausted in making a point against a particular target.  The scope of its claims is limited to the  situation in which it is said.  This is a major difference between proverbs and general laws.  In evaluating a statement proposed as a general law, say a law of physics, it is important to compare it to a body of established laws to see if it is logically compatible with them.  An individual general law needs to be logically connected to and consistent with a system of general laws.  Proverbs are not like this.  A person might say on one occasion, “Absence makes the heart grow fonder,” and on another occasion, “Out of sight, out of mind.”  There is no contradiction here, because the meaning of each proverb is exhausted by making a point against a particular target in a particular situation.  “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” does not really make any claim about necessary or even probable connections between things, which could conflict with similar general claims made by “Out of sight, out of mind.”  The meaning of both sayings is completely context-bound, narrowly limited in scope rather than making general claims.  Proverbs are extremely “context-bound” in one sense, if by “context” we mean the concrete life setting in which they are said.  But in another sense their meaning is extremely self-contained and free of context, if by “context” we mean some further body of general theories to which they are connected.5. The attitude expressed and the value-orientation motivating it.”
……

This is excellent stuff, if you ask me (Scott).