A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  Without them (the feelings mentioned above) there would not be I. And without me who will experience them? They are right near by. But we don’t know who causes them. It seems there is a True Lord who does so, but there is no indication of his existence.

  Comment. This sentence has exerted profound influence on Chinese thought and has fortified the long tradition of agnosticism. Later Chuang Tzu speaks of the Creator, but as it will be pointed out later, that does not mean a God directing the operation of the universe. Demieville thinks that questions in the Chuang Tzu about the existence of the Creator are not to deny his existence but, rather, a peculiar way to indicate, without a name, the principle which has a strongly religious character.13 The naturalism in Chuang Tzu is so strong that Demieville is right only if by principle he means Nature. Any personal God or one that directs the movement of things is clearly out of harmony with Chuang Tzu’s philosophy.

  There is evidence of activity (of the self?) but we do not see its physical form. It has reality but no physical form.14 The hundred bones, the nine external cavities and the six internal organs are all complete in the body. Which part shall I love best? Would you say to love them all? But there is bound to be some preference. Do they all serve as servants of someone else? Since servants cannot govern themselves, do they serve as master and servant by turn? Surely there must be a true ruler who controls them!15

  But whether we discover its reality or not, it does not affect its being true. Once it received the bodily form complete, it does not fail to function until the end. Whether in conflict or in harmony with things, it always pursues its course like a galloping horse which no one can stop. Is this not pitiful indeed? To toil all one’s life without seeing its success and to be wearied and worn out without knowing where to end—is this not lamentable? People say there is no death. But what is the use? Not only does the physical form disintegrate; the mind also goes with it. Is that not very lamentable? Are men living in this world really so ignorant? Or am I alone ignorant while others are not?

  If we are to follow what is formed in our mind as a guide, who will not have such a guide? Not only those who know the succession [of day and night] and choose them by exercising their own minds have them (opinions). Stupid people have theirs too. To have opinions as to right or wrong before [the feelings] are produced in the mind is as mistaken as to say that “one goes to the state of Yüeh today and arrives there yesterday.”16 This is to turn what is not into what is. Even Yü17 with his spiritual intelligence cannot know how to turn what is not into what is. How can I?

  For speech is not merely the blowing of breath. The speaker has something to say, but what he says is not final. Has something been said? Or has something not been said? It may be different from the chirping of chickens. But is there really any difference? Or is there no difference?

  How can Tao be so obscured that there should be a distinction of true and false? How can speech be so obscured that there should be a distinction of right and wrong? Where can you go and find Tao not to exist? Where can you go and find speech impossible? Tao is obscured by petty biases and speech is obscured by flowery expressions. Therefore there have arisen the controversies between the Confucianists and the Moists, each school regarding as right what the other considers as wrong, and regarding as wrong what the other considers as right. But to show that what each regards as right is wrong or to show that what each regards as wrong is right, there is no better way than to use the light (of Nature).

  There is nothing that is not the “that” and there is nothing that is not the “this.” Things do not know that they are the “that” of other things; they only know what they themselves know. Therefore I say that the “that” is produced by the “this” and the “this” is also caused by the “that.” This is the theory of mutual production.18 Nevertheless, when there is life there is death,19 and when there is death there is life. When there is possibility, there is impossibility, and when there is impossibility, there is possibility. Because of the right, there is the wrong, and because of the wrong, there is the right. Therefore the sage does not proceed along these lines (of right and wrong, and so forth) but illuminates the matter with Nature. This is the reason.

  The “this” is also the “that.” The “that” is also the “this.” The “this” has one standard of right and wrong, and the “that” also has a standard of right and wrong. Is there really a distinction between “that” and “this”? Or is there really no distinction between “that” and “this”? When “this” and “that” have no opposites,20 there is the very axis of Tao. Only when the axis occupies the center of a circle can things in their infinite complexities be responded to. The right is an infinity. The wrong is also an infinity. Therefore I say that there is nothing better than to use the light (of Nature).

  Comment. Things are not only relative, they are identical, for opposites produce each other, imply each other, are identical with each other, and are both finite series. In some respects Chuang Tzu is surprisingly similar to Hegel and Nāgārjuna (c. 100–200).21 It must be quickly added, however, that both the dialectic of Hegel and the relativity of Nāgārjuna are much more conceptual than Chuang Tzu’s synthesis of opposites.

  To take a mark (chih) to show that a mark is not a mark is not as good as to take a non-mark to show that a mark is not a mark. To take a horse to show that a [white] horse is not a horse (as such) is not as good as to take a non-horse to show that a horse is not a horse.22 The universe is but one mark, and all things are but a horse. When [people say], “All right,” then [things are] all right. When people say, “Not all right,” then [things are] not all right. A road becomes so when people walk on it,23 and things become so-and-so [to people] because people call them so-and-so. How have they become so? They have become so because [people say they are] so. How have they become not so? They have become not so because [people say they are] not so. In their own way things are so-and-so. In their own way things are all right. There is nothing that is not so-and-so. There is nothing that is not all right. Let us take, for instance, a large beam and a small beam, or an ugly woman and Hsi-shih (famous beauty of ancient China), or generosity, strangeness, deceit, and abnormality. The Tao identifies them all as one. What is division [to some] is production [to others], and what is production [to others] is destruction [to some]. Whether things are produced or destroyed, [Tao] again identifies them all as one.

  Only the intelligent knows how to identify all things as one. Therefore he does not use [his own judgment] but abides in the common [principle]. The common means the useful and the useful means identification. Identification means being at ease with oneself. When one is at ease with himself, one is near Tao. This is to let it (Nature) take its own course.24 He has arrived at this situation,25 and does not know it. This is Tao.

  Those who wear out their intelligence to try to make things one without knowing that they are really the same may be called “three in the morning.” What is meant by “three in the morning”? A monkey keeper once was giving out nuts and said, “Three in the morning and four in the evening.” All the monkeys became angry. He said, “If that is the case, there will be four in the morning and three in the evening.” All the monkeys were glad. Neither the name nor the actuality has been reduced but the monkeys reacted in joy and anger [differently]. The keeper also let things take their own course. Therefore the sage harmonizes the right and wrong and rests in natural equalization. This is called following two courses at the same time.

  Comment. The doctrine of following two courses at the same time has become a cardinal one in practically all Chinese philosophical schools. We have read in the Doctrine of the Mean that several courses can be pursued without conflict.26 The reference there is to the rotation of heavenly bodies, but the Chinese have taken it to mean life in general. In the Book of Changes, it is said that “in the world there are many different roads but the destination is the same.”27 The upshot is that most Chinese follow the three systems of Confucianism, Taoism, and B
uddhism, and usually take a multiple approach to things.

  The knowledge of the ancients was perfect. In what way was it perfect? There were those who believed that nothing existed. Such knowledge is indeed perfect and ultimate and cannot be improved. The next were those who believed there were things but there was no distinction between them. Still the next were those who believed there was distinction but there was neither right nor wrong. When the distinction between right and wrong became prominent, Tao was thereby reduced. Because Tao was reduced, individual bias was formed. But are there really production and reduction? Is there really no production or reduction? That there are production and reduction is like Chao Wen28 playing the lute [with petty opinions produced in his mind]. That there is no production or reduction is like Chao Wen not playing the lute,29 [thus leaving things alone]. Chao Wen played the lute. Master K’uang30 wielded the stick to keep time. And Hui Tzu31 leaned against a drayanda tree [to argue]. The knowledge of these three gentlemen was almost perfect, and therefore they practiced their art to the end of their lives. Because they liked it, they became different from others, and they wished to enlighten others with what they liked. They were not to be enlightened and yet they insisted on enlightening them. Therefore Hui Tzu lived throughout his life discussing the obscure doctrines of hardness and whiteness.32 And Chao Wen’s son devoted his whole life to his heritage but ended with no success. Can these be called success? If so, even I am a success. Can these not be called success? If so, then neither I nor anything else can be called a success. Therefore the sage aims at removing the confusions and doubts that dazzle people. Because of this he does not use [his own judgment] but abides in the common principle. This is what is meant by using the light (of Nature).

  Suppose we make a statement. We don’t know whether it belongs to one category or another. Whether one or the other, if we put them in one, then one is not different from the other. However, let me explain. There was a beginning. There was a time before that beginning. And there was a time before the time which was before that beginning. There was being. There was non-being. There was a time before that non-being. And there was a time before the time that was before that non-being. Suddenly there is being and there is non-being, but I don’t know which of being and non-being is really being or really non-being. I have just said something, but I don’t know if what I have said really says something or says nothing.

  There is nothing in the world greater than the tip of a hair that grows in the autumn, while Mount T’ai is small.33 No one lives a longer life than a child who dies in infancy, but P’eng-tsu (who lived many hundred years) died prematurely. The universe and I exist together, and all things and I are one. Since all things are one, what room is there for speech? But since I have already said that all things are one, how can speech not exist? Speech and the one then make two. These two (separately) and the one (the two together) make three. Going from this, even the best mathematician cannot reach [the final number]. How much less can ordinary people! If we proceed from nothing to something and arrive at three, how much more shall we reach if we proceed from something to something! Let us not proceed. Let us let things take their own course.34

  Comment. The Taoist goal is to become one with all things and to coexist with Heaven and Earth. It is obviously not a philosophy of life negation. One does not reject the world. Instead, he enlarges it to include the whole universe.

  In reality Tao has no limitation, and speech has no finality. Because of this there are clear demarcations. Let me talk about clear demarcations. There are the left and the right. There are discussions and theories. There are analyses and arguments. And there are competitions and quarrels. These are called the eight characteristics. What is beyond the world, the sage leaves it as it exists and does not discuss it. What is within the world, the sage discusses but does not pass judgment. About the chronicles of historical events and the records of ancient kings, the sage passes judgments but does not argue. Therefore there are things which analysis cannot analyze, and there are things which argument cannot argue. Why? The sage keeps it in his mind while men in general argue in order to brag before each other. Therefore it is said that argument arises from failure to see [the greatness of Tao].

  Great Tao has no appellation. Great speech does not say anything. Great humanity (jen) is not humane (through any special effort).35 Great modesty is not yielding. Great courage does not injure. Tao that is displayed is not Tao. Speech that argues is futile. Humanity that is specially permanent or specially attached to someone or something will not be comprehensive.36 Modesty that is too apparent is not real. Courage that injures the nature of things will not succeed. These five are all-comprehensive and all-embracing but tend to develop sharp edges. Therefore he who knows to stop at what he does not know is perfect. Who knows the argument that requires no speech or the Tao that cannot be named? If anyone can know, he is called the store of Nature (which embraces all). This store is not full when more things are added and not empty when things are taken out. We don’t know where it comes from. This is called dimmed light.37

  Of old Emperor Yao said to Shun,38 “I want to attack the states of Tsung, Kuei, and Hsü-ao. Since I have been on the throne, my mind has not been free from them. Why?”

  “The rulers of these states are as lowly as weeds,” replied Shun. “Why is your mind not free from them? Once there were ten suns shining simultaneously and all things were illuminated. How much more can virtue illuminate than the suns?”

  Nieh Ch’üeh asked Wang I,39 “Do you know in what respect all things are right?”

  “How can I know?” replied Wang I.

  “Do you know that you do not know?”

  Wang I said, “How can I know?”

  “Then have all things no knowledge?”

  “How can I know?” answered Wang I. “Nevertheless, I will try to tell you. How can it be known that what I call knowing is not really not knowing and that what I call not knowing is not really knowing? Now let me ask you this: If a man sleeps in a damp place, he will have a pain in his loins and will dry up and die. Is that true of eels? If a man lives up in a tree, he will be frightened and tremble. Is that true of monkeys? Which of the three knows the right place to live? Men eat vegetables and flesh, and deer eat tender grass. Centipedes enjoy snakes, and owls and crows like mice. Which of the four knows the right taste? Monkey mates with the dog-headed female ape and the buck mates with the doe, and eels mate with fishes. Mao Ch’iang40 and Li Chi41 were considered by men to be beauties, but at the sight of them fish plunged deep down in the water, birds soared high up in the air, and deer dashed away. Which of the four knows the right kind of beauty? From my point of view, the principle of humanity and righteousness and the doctrines of right and wrong are mixed and confused. How do I know the difference among them?”

  Comment. Chuang Tzu’s spirit of doubt has substantially contributed to China’s long tradition of skepticism.

  “If you do not know what is beneficial and what is harmful,” said Nieh Ch’üeh, “does it mean that the perfect man does not know them also?”

  “The perfect man is a spiritual being,” said Wang I. “Even if great oceans burned up, he would not feel hot. Even if the great rivers are frozen, he would not feel cold. And even if terrific thunder were to break up mountains and the wind were to upset the sea, he would not be afraid. Being such, he mounts upon the clouds and forces of heaven, rides on the sun and the moon, and roams beyond the four seas. Neither life nor death affects him. How much less can such matters as benefit and harm?”

  Ch’ü-ch’iao Tzu asked Ch’ang-wu Tzu,42 “I have heard from my grand master (Confucius) that the sage does not devote himself to worldly affairs. He does not go after gain nor avoid injury. He does not like to seek anything and does not purposely adhere to Tao. He speaks without speaking, and he does not speak when he speaks. Thus he roams beyond this dusty world. My grand master regarded this as a rough description of the sage, but I regard this to be the way the wonderful Tao ope
rates. What do you think, sir?”

  “What you have said would have perplexed even the Yellow Emperor,” replied Ch’ang-wu Tzu. “How could Confucius be competent enough to know?” Moreover, you have drawn a conclusion too early. You see an egg and you immediately want a cock to crow, and you see a sling and you immediately want to roast a dove. Suppose I say a few words to you for what they are worth and you listen to them for what they are worth. How about it?

  Comment. It is interesting that to Chuang Tzu, the wisest man was neither Yao nor Shun, idols of Confucianists, but the Yellow Emperor of far greater antiquity. Although it is true that ancient Chinese schools competed in going as far back in history as possible to find their heroes, it would be a great mistake to interpret Chuang Tzu as backward-looking. He was purposely not following any popular tradition. Like Lao Tzu, he does not glorify any particular ancient sage-king.

  “The sage has the sun and moon by his side. He grasps the universe under the arm. He blends everything into a harmonious whole, casts aside whatever is confused or obscured, and regards the humble as honorable. While the multitude toil, he seems to be stupid and non- discriminative. He blends the disparities of ten thousand years into one complete purity. All things are blended like this and mutually involve each other.

  “How do I know that the love of life is not a delusion? And how do I know that the hate of death is not like a man who lost his home when young and does not know where his home is to return to? Li Chi was the daughter of the border warden of Ai. When the Duke of Chin first got her, she wept until the bosom of her dress was drenched with tears. But when she came to the royal residence, shared with the duke his luxurious couch and ate delicate food, she regretted that she had wept. How do I know that the dead will not repent having previously craved for life?