Mencius said, “The nature of man is good.” I say that this is not true. By goodness at any time in any place is meant true principles and peaceful order, and by evil is meant imbalance, violence, and disorder. This is the distinction between good and evil. Now do we honestly regard man’s nature as characterized by true principles and peaceful order? If so, why are sages necessary and why are propriety and righteousness necessary? What possible improvement can sages make on true principles and peaceful order?
Now this is not the case. Man’s nature is evil. Therefore the sages of antiquity, knowing that man’s nature is evil, that it is unbalanced and incorrect, and that it is violent, disorderly, and undisciplined, established the authority of rulers to govern the people, set forth clearly propriety and righteousness to transform them, instituted laws and governmental measures to rule them, and made punishment severe to restrain them, so that all will result in good order and be in accord with goodness. Such is the government of sage-kings and the transforming influence of propriety and righteousness.
But suppose we try to remove the authority of the ruler, do away with the transforming influence of propriety and righteousness, discard the rule of laws and governmental measure, do away with the restraint of punishment, and stand and see how people of the world deal with one another. In this situation, the strong would injure the weak and rob them, and the many would do violence to the few and shout them down. The whole world would be in violence and disorder and all would perish in an instant. From this point of view, it is clear that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.
The man versed in ancient matters will certainly support them with evidences from the present, and he who is versed in [the principles of] Nature will certainly support them with evidences from the world of men. In any discussion, the important things are discrimination43 and evidence. One can then sit down and talk about things, propagate them, and put them into practice. But now Mencius said that man’s nature is good. He had neither discrimination nor evidence. He sat down and talked about the matter but rose and could neither propagate it nor put it into practice. Is this not going too far? Therefore if man’s nature is good, sage-kings can be done away with and propriety and righteousness can be stopped. But if his nature is evil, sage-kings are to be followed and propriety and righteousness are to be greatly valued. For bending came into existence because there was crooked wood, the carpenter’s square and ruler came into existence because things are not straight, and the authority of rule is instituted and propriety and righteousness are made clear because man’s nature is evil. From this point of view, it is clear that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity. Straight wood does not depend on bending to become straight; it is straight by nature. But crooked wood must be bent and heated before it becomes straight because by nature it is not straight. Now, the nature of man is evil. It has to depend on the government of sage-kings and the transforming influence of propriety and righteousness, and then all will result in good order and be in accord with goodness. From this point of view, it is clear that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.
The questioner may say, “It is by the nature of man that propriety and righteousness [can be produced] through accumulated effort and hence the sages can produce them.” I answer that this is not true. The potter pounds the clay and produces the piece of pottery. Is the pottery [inherent] in the nature of the potter? The artisan hews wood and produces a vessel. Is the vessel [inherent] in the nature of the artisan? What the sages have done to propriety and righteousness is analogous to the potter’s pounding and producing the pottery. This being the case, is it by the original nature of man that propriety and righteousness are produced through accumulated effort? With reference to the nature of man, it is the same in (sage-emperors) Yao and Shun, (wicked king) Chieh, and (robber) Chih.44 It is the same in the superior or inferior man. If propriety and righteousness are products of accumulated effort and to be regarded as [inherent] in man’s nature, then why are Yao and (sage-king) Yü highly honored, and why is the superior man highly honored? Yao, Yü, and the superior man are highly honored because they can transform nature and arouse effort. As effort is aroused, propriety and righteousness are produced. Thus the relation between the sages and propriety and righteousness produced through accumulated effort, is like the potter pounding the clay to produce the pottery. From this point of view, is it by the nature of man that propriety and righteousness are produced through accumulated effort? Chieh, Chih, and the inferior man are despised because they give rein to their nature, follow their feelings, and enjoy indulgence, and lead to the greed for gain, to quarrels and rapacity. It is clear that man’s nature is evil and that his goodness is the result of his activity.
Heaven is not partial to Tseng, Ch’ien, and Hsiao-i45 and negligent to the common multitude. Then why did Tseng, Ch’ien, and Hsiao-i alone abundantly demonstrate the actuality of filial piety and preserve its good name? It is because they observed propriety and righteousness to the fullest extent. Heaven is not partial to the people of Ch’i and Lu46 and negligent to the people of Ch’in.47 Then why is it that in the righteous relation between father and son and the distinction of function between husband and wife, the people of Ch’in are inferior to those of Ch’i and Lu in filial piety and in the mutual respect between husband and wife? It is because the people of Ch’in give rein to their nature and feelings, enjoy indulgence, and neglect propriety and righteousness. Is it because their natures are different?
“Any man in the street can become (sage-king) Yü.”48 What does this ancient saying mean? I say that Yü became sage-king Yü because he practiced humanity, righteousness, laws, and correct principles. This shows that these can be known and practiced. Every man in the street possesses the faculty to know them and the capacity to practice them. This being the case, it is clear that every man can be Yü.
Comment. To all ancient Chinese philosophers, the ideal human being was always an historical person. But whereas Confucius and Mencius idolized Yao and Shun, Hsün Tzu preferred to idolize Yü. Instead of going as far back in history as possible to find the ideal man, as practically all schools did, Hsün Tzu looked to someone later. It is possible that he choose Yü because he was not satisfied with men of perfect morals like Yao and Shun, but sought a man of great practical accomplishments. Yü was such a person, especially noted for his diverting water into nine channels and thus preventing flood.
Shall we consider humanity, righteousness, laws, and correct principles as basically impossible to be known or practiced? If so, even Yü could not have known or practiced them. Shall we consider every man in the street to be without the faculty to know them or the capacity to practice them? If so, at home he would not be able to know the righteous relation between father and son and outside he would not be able to know the correct relation between ruler and minister. But this is not the case. Every man in the street is capable of knowing the righteous relation between father and son at home and the correct relation between ruler and minister outside. It is clear, then, that the faculty to know them and the capacity to practice them are found in every man in the street. Now, if every man’s faculty to know and capacity to practice are applied to the fact that humanity and righteousness can be known and practiced, it is clear that he can become Yü. If in his practices and studies day after day for a long time, he concentrates his mind, has unity of purpose, thinks thoroughly and discriminately, and accumulates goodness without stop, he can then be as wise as the gods, and form a trinity with Heaven and Earth. Thus the sage is a man who has reached this state through accumulated effort.
Some one may say, “The sage can reach that state through accumulated effort but not everyone can do so. Why?” I answer that he can, but he does not do it. An inferior man can become a superior man, but he does not want to. A superior man can become an inferior man, but he does not want to. It is not that they cannot become each other. Th
ey do not do so because they do not want to. It is possible for every man to become Yü, but it does not follow that every man in the street is able actually to do so. However, the fact that he is not able actually to do so does not destroy the possibility of his doing so. It is possible for a man with feet to walk all over the world and yet so far there has not been any who is able actually to do so. It is possible for the artisan, farmer, or merchant to exchange their professions, and yet there has not been any who is able actually to do so. From this point of view, what is possible is not the same as what is able actually to be done. But not being able actually to be done does not destroy the possibility. There is a great difference between what is possible on the one hand, and what is able actually to be done, on the other. It is clear that they are not interchangeable. . . .49 (sptk, 17:la-12b)
▪ ▪ ▪--7--▪ ▪ ▪
THE NATURAL WAY OF LAO TZU
Chinese civilization and the Chinese character would have been utterly different if the book Lao Tzu had never been written. In fact, even Confucianism, the dominant system in Chinese history and thought, would not have been the same, for like Buddhism, it has not escaped Taoist influence. No one can hope to understand Chinese philosophy, religion, government, art, medicine—or even cooking—without a real appreciation of the profound philosophy taught in this little book. It is true that, while Confucianism emphasizes social order and an active life, Taoism concentrates on individual life and tranquillity, thus suggesting that Taoism plays a secondary role. But, in reality, by opposing Confucian conformity with non-conformity and Confucian worldliness with a transcendental spirit, Taoism is a severe critic of Confucianism. In its doctrines on government, on cultivating and preserving life, and on handling things, Taoism is fully the equal of Confucianism.
In some respects Taoism goes even deeper into the Way of life, so much so that while every ancient Chinese school taught its own Way (Tao)1 Taoism alone is known by that name. Of course the name “Taoist School” was not used until the first century b.c.,2 but the teachings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu about Tao were so impressive and influential before that time that the name was inevitable.
Whereas in other schools Tao means a system or moral truth, in this school it is the One, which is natural, eternal, spontaneous, nameless, and indescribable. It is at once the beginning of all things and the way in which all things pursue their course. When this Tao is possessed by individual things, it becomes its character or virtue (te).3 The ideal life for the individual, the ideal order for society, and the ideal type of government are all based on it and guided by it. As the way of life, it denotes simplicity, spontaneity, tranquillity, weakness, and most important of all, non-action (wu-wei). By the latter is not meant literally “inactivity” but rather “taking no action that is contrary to Nature”—in other words, letting Nature take its own course.
The Taoist philosophy is perhaps best summed up in the Chuang Tzu, which says, “To regard the fundamental as the essence, to regard things as coarse, to regard accumulation as deficiency, and to dwell quietly alone with the spiritual and the intelligent—herein lie the techniques of Tao of the ancients. Kuan Yin4 and Lao Tan (Lao Tzu) heard of them and were delighted. They built their doctrines on the principle of eternal non-being and held the idea of the Great One as fundamental. To them weakness and humility were the expression, and openness and emptiness that did not destroy anything were the reality.”5
One should not be misled by its ideals of weakness and emptiness into thinking that Taoism is a philosophy of negativism or one of absolute quietism. The book advocates not only non-action, but also practical tactics for action. It teaches submission, but strongly opposes oppressive government. The philosophy of the Lao Tzu is not for the hermit, but for the sage-ruler, who does not desert the world but rules it with non-interference. Taoism is therefore not a philosophy of withdrawal. Man is to follow Nature but in doing so he is not eliminated; instead, his nature is fulfilled. Any comparison of Taoism with Logos or Brahman must take these facts into account.
All this philosophy is embodied in a small classic of about 5,250 words, called the Lao Tzu or Tao-te ching6 (Classic of the Way and its Virtue). No other Chinese classic of such small size has exercised so much influence. More commentaries have been written on it than on any other Chinese classic. About 350 are extant, besides some 350 that are lost or found only in fragments. There are also more English translations of it than of any other Chinese book—already over forty. It is a combination of poetry, philosophical speculation, and mystical reflection. Its vague and cryptic character makes interpretation and translation extremely difficult. Its literary style, grammatical patterns, rhymes, and ideas are in many places inconsistent. Certain terms are indisputably later interpolations. Passages attributed to the Lao Tzu in other works are either not found here or are different. On the basis of these facts, some scholars have assigned it to the fourth or third century b.c. or even later. But other scholars, contending that these objections apply to practically all ancient Chinese texts, see sufficient evidence to uphold the traditional sixth-century b.c. date. The argument that the style (e.g., it is not in question-and-answer form) or ideas do not belong to the sixth century b.c. and must come after such and such a style or ideas (as the idea of Tao must follow the idea of the Will of Heaven in the Mo Tzu, a work of the fourth century b.c.), is purely subjective. It is reasonable to believe that the book probably contains the basic teachings of Lao Tzu but was compiled later by more than one person.
As to this person Lao Tzu, opinion has been just as much divided as on the book itself. The Records of the Historian7 states that he was a native of Ch’u (in modern Honan Province), that his family name was Li, private name Erh and posthumous name Tan, that he was a custodian of imperial archives, that Confucius visited him for information on rituals, that at old age he retired to the West and, at the request of a gate keeper, wrote more than 5,000 words on the Way and its virtue. In the midst of this story, the Records of the Historian inserted two brief accounts about Lao Lai Tzu, also a native of Ch’u and a contemporary of Confucius, and Tan, an historian of the Chou in the fourth century b.c. It added that no one knew whether they were the same person as Lao Tzu, and said that Lao Tzu’s son was a general of Wei.
Obviously, these accounts—of Confucius’ visit, generally dated 518 b.c., and of Lao Tzu’s son’s serving as a general in 273 b.c.—cannot both be true. Chinese tradition has accepted the former and placed Lao Tzu about twenty years senior to Confucius. In the 1920’s and 1930’s many Chinese and Western scholars rejected tradition and dated Lao Tzu at the fourth or even the third century b.c. But opinions among Chinese scholars were about evenly divided. Since then there has been a tendency to revert to tradition. In mainland China since 1949, however, scholars have held to the later dates.8 In any case, the theory that Lao Tzu never existed or is merely a legend compounded of three different accounts is no longer seriously entertained. Whether the name Lao means old (hence the translation, “an Old Philosopher”), whether it is a family name, a private name, or the title “viscount” is uncertain.
In view of its importance, the Lao Tzu is here translated in full; the following list gives its main concepts and references.
Being and Non-being: 1, 2, 11, 40
Desires: 3, 19, 34, 37, 57
Female, Water: 8, 10, 20, 25, 28, 52, 55, 59, 78
Government: 3, 17, 26, 29-31, 57, 60, 61, 65, 74, 75, 80
Humanity and Righteousness: 18, 19, 38
Knowledge: 3, 70, 71
Name: 1, 25, 32, 41
Natural (tzu-jan): 17, 23, 25, 51, 64
Non-strife: 3, 7-9, 22, 24, 66, 73, 81
One: 10, 14, 22, 39, 42
Relativity, Good and Evil, Paradoxes: 2, 7, 20, 36, 45, 58
Reversal: 14, 16, 28, 40, 52
Simplicity: 19, 28, 32, 37, 57
Tao: 1, 4, 8, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40-42, 51
Tranquillity: 16, 37, 61
Virtue: 10, 21,
23, 38, 51, 65
Weakness: 10, 22, 36, 40, 43, 52, 76, 78
Wu-wei (taking no action): 2, 3, 10, 37, 43, 48, 63, 64
THE LAO TZU (TAO-TE CHING)9
1. The Tao (Way) that can be told of is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the mother of all things.
Therefore let there always be non-being so we may see their subtlety,10
And let there always be being11 so we may see their outcome.
The two are the same,
But after they are produced, they have different names.12
They both may be called deep and profound (hsüan).13
Deeper and more profound,
The door of all subtleties!
Comment. While ancient Chinese philosophical schools differed in many respects, most of them insisted on the correspondence of names and actualities. They all accepted names as necessary and good. Lao Tzu, however, rejected names in favor of the nameless. This, among other things, shows the radical and unique character of Taoism. To Lao Tzu, Tao is nameless and is the simplicity without names, and when names arise, that is, when the simple oneness of Tao is split up into individual things with names, it is time to stop.14
2. When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty,
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 18
