LAO-TZŬ,
老子
A STUDY
IN CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
by
T. WATTERS, M.A.,
Mem. N.C.B. of the Asiatic Society of London, Hon. Mem. Asiatic
Society of Paris, and a Junior Assistant in H.M.’s
Consular Service in China.
HONGKONG:
PRINTED AT THE “CHINA MAIL” OFFICE.
1870
LONDON:
WILLIAMS & NORGATE.
PREFACE.
A considerable portion of the following pages has already appeared in
“The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal,” and its reappearance in
its present form requires an apology. The subject of the work is one
in which very few take any interest, and the author is very sensible
of his numerous imperfections in attempting to deal with matters so
difficult and abstruse as are treated of in the Tao-tê Ching. Having
thus made confession; it only remains for him to thank Mr. Baldwin and
his other friends for their kindness in assisting to get the book
through the press.
T. W.
Foochow, _October_ 19, 1869.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
One of the most remarkable men in the history of China, as also in the
history of philosophy, is Lao-tzŭ, the author of the _Tao-tê-ching_
(道德經). This book deserves, and has obtained with those who know it,
a high place among philosophical works, and the posthumous fortunes of
its author have very rarely been surpassed. That his own followers—or
at least those who professed to be and probably believed that they
were his followers—should magnify his name was only what we would have
expected. They have raised him from the rank of ordinary mortals, and
represented him as an incarnation of deity, showing himself on this
earth at sundry times and in various manners. His conception and
birth, his personal appearance, and everything about him have been
represented by them as supernatural; and the philosophic little
treatise which he composed is regarded as a sacred book. Much of this
has arisen from a spirit of rivalry with Buddhism. The Taoists did not
wish to be behind the Buddhists in the amount of glory and mystery
attaching to the reputed originator of their religion; and they
accordingly tried to make the fortunes of Lao-tzŭ like those of
Shâkyamuni, the Buddha of the Present.
Both Confucianists and Buddhists, however, also regard the
_Tao-tê-ching_ as a book of deep mysteries, and admit the
supernatural, or at least marvellous, character of its author, though,
as will be seen, many censure him for teaching doctrines either in
themselves mischievous or leading to evil results when fully
developed. At several periods of Chinese history Lao-tzŭ has enjoyed
the patronage of government, and almost supplanted Confucius. Indeed,
during several of the dynasties which reigned within the first few
centuries of our era, there seems to have been a constant struggle for
ascendancy between the followers of these two philosophic chiefs.
Emperors have done honour to Lao-tzŭ in his temple, and the sovereigns
of the great Tʽang dynasty were proud to deem him their lineal
ancestor. One emperor has even written an excellent commentary on his
book; and one of the best editions of the _Tao-tê-ching_ as regards
textual excellence is that by a Confucian mandarin under the present
dynasty. Buddhist monks also have edited the book with annotations,
and many of them regard it and its author with a reverence second only
to that with which the Taoists regard them.
It is not only, however, his own countrymen who have given honour to
this prophet. By Western writers also great and mysterious things have
been attributed to him. Some have found in his book an enunciation of
the doctrine of the Trinity. The illustrious Rémusat discovered in it
the sacred name Jehovah, and many curious analogies with the best
philosophic writings of ancient times, and more especially with those
of Greece. Pauthier, who has read and written largely about Lao-tzŭ,
finds in his teachings the triple Brahma of the ancient Hindoos, the
Adibuddha of the Northern Buddhists, and an anticipated Christianity.
The _Tao_ (道) of which Lao-tzŭ speaks so much has been likened to God,
to the Logos of Plato and the Neoplatonists, to “the nonentity of some
German philosophers,” and to many other things. Pauthier says:—“Le
dieu invoque et decrit par _Lao-tseu_ est la _Grande Voie_ du monde,
la _Raison suprême universelle_ (道) materiellement identique avec le
mot qui sert á designer Dieu dans les langues grecque (_φεὸς_) latine
(Deus) et leurs derivèes modernes; mais les attributs qu’il lui donne
ne sont point ceux qu’ont données à l’Etre suprême toutes les
doctrines spiritualistes de l’Orient, transmises à l’Occident par une
voie juive et grecque; par les therapeutes et les esséniens, dont
Jesus, le fils de l’homme, fut le revelateur et le representant à
l’état philosophique.”[1] Our missionaries have used this word _Tao_
to represent _λόγος_ in their translation of the New Testament, and
the first five verses of St. John’s Gospel are nearly as much Taoist
as Christian in the Chinese text.
Some writers on the other hand, such as Gutzlaff, have represented
Lao-tzŭ as writing nonsense, and they seem to insinuate that he did
not even know the meaning of what he was writing. Others, as Voltaire,
have charged on him all the follies and superstitions practised by the
Taoists, and have consequently decried him and his teachings. This is
just about as wise and just a proceeding as to reproach the Apostle
Paul on account of the sayings and doings of sects like Muckers, and
Mormons, and Muggletonians. Many also regard Lao-tzŭ as a mere
speculative recluse, shutting himself up from the turmoils and
miseries of social life, and publishing theories in politics and
morals of no practical tendency whatever. In these respects he is
constantly contrasted with Confucius, who is looked upon as an
eminently practical man, teaching to the people only things which they
could easily understand, and ever refusing to wander into the regions
of uncertainty and mystery.
There are, so far as I know, very few translations of the
_Tao-tê-ching_ in western languages. According to Sir J. F. Davis, a
manuscript copy of a Latin translation is preserved in the Library of
the Royal Society of England. Pauthier has translated part of the book
into French, and has announced his determination, to complete the
work. Julien, however, perhaps the best and soberest of Lao-tzŭ’s
expounders, has translated into French the entire book, along with
many Chinese notes and fragments illustrating the life and teachings
of its author. Hegel says there is at Vienna a translation of the
_Tao-tê-ching_, or as he calls it _Tao-king_, which he himself had
seen.[2] He does not, however, mention the name of the translator or
the language of the translation, but I think we are justified in
inferring that it is German. In English we have the recent work of the
Rev. Mr. Chalmers, a missionary and scholar of no ordinary
attainments. He has some excellent remarks in his Introduction, but
the translation itself, being almost unaccompanied with note or
comment, and being apparently made from a bad text, is rather
disappointing. Ritter, Cousin, Hardwicke, Edkins, and many others
have given short accounts of Taoism; but few of these have clearly
separated Lao-tzŭ and his doctrines from the later Taoists and their
doctrines. The “extravagant vagaries” of the latter may have arisen
often from misinterpreted or misapplied statements of Lao-tzŭ, but
they are not to be imputed to him.[3] We must ascribe to Lao-tzŭ only
the things which are his—the merits and defects of his own direct
teachings.
[1] Chine, p. 114.
[2] Geschichte der Philosophie, B. 1. p. 142.
[3] Compare Rémusat, Mémoire sur la vie et les opinions de Lao-tseu,
&c., p. 20.