A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (37 page)

362..

NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

things, and how can one thing produce another?...Therefore there is no Creator, and everything produces itself. Everything produces itself and is not produced by others. This is the normal way of the universe." (Ch. 1.)

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu denied the existence of a personal Creator by substituting in His place an impersonal Too, which is that by which all things come to be. Hsiang-Kuo went a step further by insisting that the Too is really nothing. According to them, the statement of the earlier Taoists that all things come into being from the Too simply means that all things come to be by themselves. Hence they write: The Too is capable of nothing. To say that anything is derived from the Too means that it comes of itself. (Ch. 6.)

Likewise, the statement of the earlier Taoists that all things come into being from Being, and Being comes into being from Non-being, simply means that Being comes into being by itself. In one passage of the Commentary it is said: "Not only is it the case that Non-being cannot become Being, but Being also cannot become Non-being. Though Being may change in thousands of ways, it cannot change itself into Non-being. Therefore there is no time when there is no Being. Being eternally exists. (Ch. 2-2..) The " Self-transformation" of Things

That everything spontaneously produces itself is what Hsiang—Kuo call the theory of tu hua or self-transformation. According to this theory, things are not created by any Creator, but these things are nevertheless not lacking in relalions, one with another. Relations exist and these relations are necessary.

Thus the Commentary states: "When a man is born, insignificant though he be, he has the properties that he necessarily has. However trivial his life may be, he needs the whole universe as a condition for his existence. All things in the universe, all that exist, cannot cease to exist without some effect on him.

If one factor is lacking, he might not exist. If one principle is violated, he might not be living. (Ch. 6.) Everything needs every other thing, but everything nevertheless exists for its own sake and not for the sake of any other thing. The Commentary says: "In the world, everything considers itself as 'this and other things as other.' The 'this' and the 'other' each works for itself. [They seem to be far away from each other like] the mutual opposition of east and west. Yet the 'this' and the 'other' have a relation to each other like that between the lips and the teeth. The lips do not exist for the teeth, but when the lips are lost, the teeth feel cold. Therefore the work of the 'other for itself has contributed a great deal to help the ' th i s. " (Ch. IJ.) According to Hsiang-Kuo, the interrelationship of things is like that between the armies of two allied

364

NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

forces. Each army fights for its own country, but each at the same time helps the other, and the defeat or victory of the one cannot but have an effect on the other.

Everything that exists in the universe needs the universe as a whole as a necessary condition for its existence, yet its existence is not directly produced by any other particular thing. When certain conditions or circumstances are present, certain things are necessarily produced. But this does not mean that they are produced by any single Creator or by any individual. In other words, things are produced by conditions in general, and not by any other specific thing in particular. Socialism, for instance, is a product of certain general economic conditions, and was not manufactured by Marx or En-gels, still less by the former s Communist Manifesto. In this sense, we can say that everything produces itself and is not produced by others.

Hence everything cannot but be what it is. The Commentary states: It is not by accident that we have our life. It is not by chance that our life is what it is. The universe is very extended; things are very numerous. Yet, in it and among them, we are just what we are....What we are not, we cannot be. What we are, we cannot but be. What we do not do, we cannot do. What we can do, we cannot but do. Let everything be what it is, then there will be peace." (Ch. 5.)

This is also true of social phenomena. The Commentary says again: There is nothing which is not natural....Peace or disorder, success or failure....are all the product of nature, not of man." (Ch. 7.) By "the product of nature," Hsiang—Kuo mean that they are the necessary result of certain conditions or circumstances. In chapter 14 of the Chuang-tzu, the text states that sages disturb the peace of the world; to which the Commentary says: "The current of history, combined with present circumstances, is responsible for the present crisis. It is not due to any certain individuals. It is due to the world at large.

The activity of the sages does not disturb the world, but the world itself becomes disorderly.

Institutions and Morals

Hsiang-Kuo consider the universe as being in a continuous state of flux. They write in their Commentary: Change is a force, unobservable yet most strong. It transports heaven and earth toward the new, and carries mountains and hills away from the old. The old does not stop for a moment, but imme-

366

NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

diately becomes the new. All things ever change....All that we meet secretly passes away. We ourselves in the past are not we ourselves now. We still have to go forward with the present. We cannot keep ourselves still. (Ch. 6.)

Society, too, is always in a state of flux. Human needs are constantly changing. Institutions and morals that are good for one time may not be good for another. The CommtmUiry says: The institutions of the former kings served to meet the needs of their own time. But if they continue to exist when time has changed, they become a bogey to the people, and begin to be artificial." (Ch. 14.) Again: "Those who imitate the sages imitate what they have done. But what they have done has already passed away, and therefore it cannot meet the present situation. It is worthless and should not be imitated. The past is dead while the present is living. If one attempts to handle the living with the dead, one will certainly fail." (Ch. 9.)

Society changes with circumstances. When the circumstances change, institutions and morals should change with them. If they do not, they become artificial and are "a bogey to the people." It is natural that new institutions and new morals should spontaneously produce themselves. The new and the old differ from each other because their times are different. Both of them serve to meet the needs of their time, so neither is superior nor inferior to the other. Hsiang-Kuo do not oppose institutions and morals as such, as did Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. They simply oppose those institutions and morals that are out-of-date and therefore unnatural for the present world.

Yu—wei and Wu—wei

Thus Hsiang-Kuo give a new interpretation to the earlier Taoist ideas about the natural and the artificial and about yu—wei or having activity, and wu—wei or having no activity (also Iranslated as non-action). When there is a change of social circumstances, new institutions and morals spontaneously produce themselves. To let them go means to follow the natural and be wu-wei, i.e., without action. To oppose them and to keep the old ones that are already out—of—date is to be artificial and yu—wei, i.e., with action. In one passage of the Commentary it is said: "When water runs down from a high to a low place, the current is irresistible. When small things group with what is small, and large things with what is large, their tendency cannot be opposed. When a man is empty and without bias, everyone will contribute his wisdom to him. What does he do, who is the leader of men, when facing these currents and tendencies? He simply trusts the wisdom of the time, relies on the necessity of circumstances, and lets the world take care of itself. That is all."

NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

(Ch. 6.)

If an individual, in his activities, allows his natural abilities to exercise themselves fully and freely, he is wu—wei. Otherwise he is yu—wei. In one passage of the Commentary it is said: "A good driver must let his horse exercise itself to the full of its ability. The way to do so is to give it freedom....If he allows his horses to do what they can do, compelling neither the slow ones to run fast nor the fast ones to walk slowly, though he may travel through the whole world with them, they rather enjoy it. Hearing that horses should be set free, some people think that they should be left wild. Hearing the theory of non-action, some people think that lying down is better than walking. These people are far wrong in understanding the ideas of Chuang Tzu. (Ch. 9-) Despite this criticism, it would seem that in their understanding of Chuang Tzu such people were not far wrong. Yet Hsiang-Kuo, in their own interpretation of him, were certainly highly original.

Hsiang-Kuo also give a new interpretation to the ideas of simplicity and primitivity of the earlier Taoists. Tn their Commentary they write: If by primitivity we mean the undistorted, the man whose character is not distorted is the most primitive, though he may be capable of doing many things. If by simplicity we mean the unmixed, the form of the dragon and the features of the phoenix are the most simple, though their beauty is all surpassing. On the other hand, even the skin of a dog or a goat cannot be primitive and simple, if its natural qualities are distorted by, or mixed with, foreign elements."

(Ch.I5.)

Knowledge and Imitation

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu both opposed sages of the sort ordinarily regarded as such by the world. In the earlier Taoist literature, the word "sage" has two meanings. By it, the Taoists either mean the perfect man (in the Taoist sense) or the man with all sorts of knowledge. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu attacked knowledge, and hence the sage of the latter kind, the man who has knowledge. But from the preceding pages we can see that Hsiang-Kuo had no objection to some men s being sages. What they did object to is the attempt of some people to imitate the sages. Plato was born u Plato, and Chuang Tzu a Chuang Tzu. Their genius was as natural as the form of a dragon or the features of a phoenix. They were as "simple" and "primitive as anything can be. They were not wrong in writing their Republic and Happy Excursion, for in so doing they were merely following their own natures.

This view is exemplified in the following passage from the Commentary:

370

NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

"By knowledge we mean [the activity that attempts] what is beyond [one's natural ability j. That which is within the proper sphere Lof one's natural a— bilityj is not called knowledge. By being within the proper sphere we mean acting according to one's natural ability, attempting nothing that is beyond. If carrying ten thousand ch'un [thirty catties] is in accordance with one's ability, one will nol feel the burden as weighty. If discharging ten thousand functions [is in accordance with one's ability], one will not feel the task as taxing.' (Ch. 3.) Thus if we understand knowledge in this sense, neither Plato nor Chuang Tzu should be considered as having any knowledge.

It is only the imitators that have knowledge. Hsiang-Kuo seem to have regarded imitation as wrong for three reasons. First, it is useless. They write in the Commentary: "Events in ancient times have ceased to exist. Though they may be recorded, it is not possible for them to happen again in the present.

The ancient is not the present, and the present is even now changing. Therefore we should give up imitation, act according to our nature, and change with the times. This is the way to perfection. (Ch.

13.) Everything is in a flux. Every day we have new problems, new needs, and meet new situations. We should have new methods to deal with these new situations, problems, and needs. Even at a single given moment, the situations, problems, and needs of different individuals differ from one another. So must their methods. What, then, is the use of imitation?

Second, imitation is fruitless. One passage of the Commentary tells us: With conscious effort, some people have tried to be a Li Chu La great artisan] or a Shih K Liang La great musician], but have not succeeded. Yet without knowing how, Li Chu and Shih K'uang were especially talented in their eye and ear. With conscious effort, some people have tried to be sages, but have not succeeded. Yet without knowing how, the sages became sages. Not only is it the sages and Li Chu and Shih K. uang who are difficult to imitate. We cannot even be fools, or dogs, by simply wishing or trying to be so. (Ch. 5.) Everything must be what it is. One thing simply cannot be the other.

Third, imitation is harmful. The Commentary states again: "There are some people who are not satisfied with their own nature and always attempt what is beyond it. This is to attempt what is impossible, and is like a circle imitating a square, or a fish imitating a bird....They go ever further, the more remote their goal seems to be. The more knowledge ihey gain, the more nature they lose." (Ch.

2..)

Again: "The nature of everything has its limit. If one is led on by what is beyond it, one s nature will be lost. One should disregard the inducement, and live according to oneself, not according to others. In this way the in-

372

NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

tegrity of one's nature will be preserved." (Ch. lo.) Not only is there no possibility for one to succeed by imitating others, but by that very act, there is a great probability that one will lose one s self. This is the harm of imitation.