GENERAL VIEW OF LAO-TZŬ’s TEACHINGS.
Before proceeding to examine in detail the doctrines of the _Tao-tê
Ching_, I shall briefly indicate their general nature; and by way of
preface to my own remarks, I now present to the reader the statements
of two critics of different countries, and of rather widely separated
dates. One of these, _Chu-hsi_ 朱熹, a Chinese philosopher who lived in
the 12th century, says:—“Lao-tzŭ’s scheme of philosophy consists in
modesty, self-emptiness, the saving of one’s powers, and the refusal
in all circumstances to agitate the bodily humours and spirits.
Lao-tzŭ’s learning consists, generally speaking, in being void of
desires, quiet, and free from exertion—in being self-empty, retiring,
and self-controlling (lit., self-keeping) in actual life. Accordingly,
what his words are ever inculcating is to have in outward deportment a
gentle tenderness and modesty, and to be at the core void of all
selfishness, and unhurtful to all things in the world.”[1] The other
critic, a French philosopher still living, says:—“La conception de
_Lao-tseu_ est un Rationalisme panthéistique absolu dans lequel le
monde sensible est consideré comme la cause de toutes les
imperfections et de toutes les misères, et la personalité humaine
comme un mode inférieur et passager du grand Être, de la grande _Uité_
qui est l’origine et la fin de tous les Êtres. Elle a, comme nous
l’avons déjà dit ailleurs une grande analogie avec le système de
l’_Identitè absolue_ de Schelling. Il y a cette difference, cependant,
que la conception du premier n’est en quelque sorte qu’à l’état
rudimentaire, comme la civilization de son époque, tandis que le
système du dernier embrasse tous les progrès que la pensée
philosophique a fait pendant plus de deux mille ans d’incessants et
souvent d’infructueus labeurs.”[2] I am unable to coincide perfectly
with the opinions of the above critics, especially with those of the
latter; and I shall probably refer to them again. There is at least
one respect in which the writings of Lao-tzŭ resemble those of
Schelling—that is, in being frequently quite unintelligible to all
ordinary mortals.
Pauthier, however, seems to have observed what the Chinese critic
apparently failed to notice—namely, that all Lao-tzŭ’s teachings are
the elucidation and development of his idea of the relations between
something which he names _Tao_ and the Universe. In taking a general
view of Lao-tzŭ’s philosophy, this is the first observation I have to
make:—It is a system which refers all things to _Tao_, as the ultimate
ideal unity of the universe. The sum of the _Tao-tê Ching_ may be said
to be that Tao originated all things, is the everlasting model of rule
for all things, and that into it all things are finally absorbed. It
behoves us then, at the outset, to endeavour to ascertain what that is
which Lao-tzŭ designates by this name, and to find some sort of an
equivalent for it in our own language, if possible.
Now the character Tao 道 is used in several very different senses in
the _Tao-tê Ching_. (1) It is used in the sense of the _way or means_
of doing a thing.[3] (2) In some passages it means to speak of or
describe.[4] (3) It is used in the sense of the course—literal and
metaphorical—characteristic of and pursued by Heaven, Earth, the
perfect man, &c.[5] This usage of the word is common to Lao-tzŭ with
the Confucianists and all other Chinese writers. In some places also
it seems to be used in the sense of good principles—truth—as in
Confucianist writings. (_See Ch._ 46.). (4) There is the
transcendental use of the word, perhaps originated by Lao-tzŭ,[6] but
at least chiefly transmitted through him. It is with _Tao_ used in
this last sense alone that we have to deal at present, and I shall
accordingly now give a sketch of Lao-tzŭ’s own account of the _Tao_
which has given a name to his philosophy.
_Tao_, then, is something which existed before heaven and earth were,
before Deity was, and which is, indeed, eternal.[7] It has not any
name really,[8] and it never had a name; but Lao-tzŭ feels himself
obliged to devise an epithet for it, and he adopts the word _Tao_.
This word, however, is not to be taken in any of its ordinary
significations,[9] but is used in a peculiar sense, to denote that
which would otherwise be nameless. This _Tao_ cannot be apprehended by
any of the bodily senses.[10] It is profound, mysterious, and
extremely subtle.[11] Represented as existing eternally, it is in its
nature calm, void, solitary, and unchanging;[12] but represented as in
operation, it revolves through the universe of being, acting
everywhere, but acting “mysteriously, spontaneously, and without
effort.”[13] It contains matter, and an inherent power of production;
and though itself formless, it yet comprehends all possible forms.[14]
It is the ultimate cause of the universe, and it is the model or rule
for all creatures, but chiefly for man.[15] It represents also that
ideal state of perfection in which all things acted harmoniously and
spontaneously, and when good and evil were unknown; and the return to
which constitutes the _summum bonum_ of existence.[16] Lao-tzŭ speaks
of the _Tao_ under various metaphors—it is the spirit of the void[17]
(lit., spirit of the valley)—a hollow utensil[18]—a river or
ocean[19]—a parent[20]—a ruler.[21] We will have more to say of this
_Tao_ shortly; but the above will perhaps suffice for the present to
give an idea of what meaning Lao-tzŭ attached to the word, or rather,
it should be said, the meanings; for he does not seem to have had in
his mind a very clear conception of what _Tao_ actually was.
The next thing we have to do is to endeavour to find a word which will
translate _Tao_ in this, its transcendental use—a matter of no easy
accomplishment. Pauthier, as has been seen, renders it by “_Grande
voie_ du monde,” by “Raison suprême universelle:” he also sometimes
speaks of it simply as “Raison”[22] or “Logos.” Rémusat[23] also
renders it by “Logos” or “Raison;” and it is by the term “Raison” or
“Logos” that English writers translate the character _Tao_ when it
refers to the peculiar doctrines of Lao-tzŭ and his real or pretended
followers. Julien, however, dissents from this interpretation, and
rightly I think. After giving an account of _Tao_ as taught by the
Taoists themselves, he says “Il parait donc impossible de le (i.e.,
_Tao_) prendre pour la _raison primordiale_, pour _l’intelligence
sublime_ qui a créé et qui régit le monde.”[24] It is with great
hesitation and reluctance, however, that I find myself unable to adopt
Julien’s own translation—“Voie,” or Way. I quite agree with him as to
the reason for not adopting the term Reason—namely, that _Tao_ as
represented by Lao-tzŭ is devoid of thought, judgment, and
intelligence (as to action, Lao-tzŭ is apparently not quite consistent
with himself.) Thus it is quite impossible to make it identical with
the _Logos_ of Plato, and almost absurd to identify it with the divine
_Logos_ of the Neoplatonists of Alexandria. But I do not think that
the word _way_ is the best we can use to translate _Tao_, and this for
several reasons. A way implies a way-maker apart from and antecedent
to it, but _Tao_ was before all other existences. Again, when Lao-tzŭ
speaks of it as indeterminate, as profound, and finally as producing,
nourishing, and absorbing the universe, these terms can scarcely be
applied to a way, however metaphorically used. Julien says:—“Le sens
de _Voie_, que je donne au mot _Tao_ 道, résulte clairement des
passages suivants de _Lao-tseu_: ‘Si j’étais doué de quelque prudence,
je marcherais dans le grand _Tao_’ (dans la grande _Voie_).—Le grand
_Tao_ est tres-uni (la grande _Voie_ est tres-unie), mais le peuple
aime les sentiers (ch. LIII).” “Le _Tao_ peut être regardé comme la
mere de l’univers. Je ne connais pas son nom; pour le qualifier, je
l’appelle le _Tao_ ou la _Voie_ (ch. XXV).”[25] Now in the former of the
two cases here cited the expression _ta tao_ 大道 means, I think, the
great course of duty which all men ought to pursue, but especially
those who are in authority—the way of the magistrate or ruler; an
interpretation which seems to be supported by the rest of the chapter,
though some of the commentators seem to be of the same opinion with
Julien.[26] It is to be observed that this scholar translates the
words “_ta tao_” by “la grande Voie,” but in the same chapter renders
the words “_fei tao tsai_” 非道哉 simply by “ce n’est point pratiquer le
_Tao_.” The chapter from which the latter of the above two passages is
cited by Julien also seems to require another word than _way_ to
translate _Tao_, and the same remark applies to the occurrence of the
word in several other places throughout the _Tao-tê Ching_.[27] We may
say of the _Tao_, as “Voie” or Way, that it revolves everywhere; but
we can scarcely speak of it as being parent of the Universe—the first
and highest existence. _Way_ or _road_ is, no doubt, one of the
earliest meanings of the character _Tao_, and that which underlies
many of its other uses. Nor is it very difficult to trace its progress
from the perfectly concrete _course_ or _channel_, and the abstract
_line_ or _guide_, to the ideal _path_ or _course_ which universal
nature eternally and unchangingly pursues. What Lao-tzŭ does, as it
seems to me, is to identify Nature and her ideal course; and as he
could find no more general word whereby to express this ultimate ideal
unity, he uses the word _Tao_ to designate it, just as a mathematician
uses _x_ to express an unknown quantity.
In order to appreciate Lao-tzŭ’s system properly, we must substitute
for _Tao_ a word corresponding as closely as possible to it in width
of meaning and vagueness of association. It bears a somewhat close
analogy to the _Apeiron_ of the old Ionic philosopher Anaximander; but
the Indeterminate or the Indefinite is rather an awkward word to be
frequently using, and we do not know enough of Anaximander’s system to
warrant us in substituting the _Apeiron_ for _Tao_. In modern times,
again, the _Substance_ in Spinoza’s philosophy, and the _Absolute_ in
Schelling’s, resemble it in many points; but neither could serve as a
proper translation. I have accordingly determined to express _Tao_ by
our word _Nature_, using it in its widest and most abstract
sense—“great creating Nature.” But I do not wish to be understood as
implying that this word corresponds exactly to _Tao_—far from it. I
use it simply as in my opinion the nearest approach we can get.[28]
So, then, we may say of Lao-tzŭ’s system that it refers all matter and
spirit in the universe to one original Nature, from which they both
originated, by which they are maintained, and into which they are to
be finally absorbed. This is the first general observation I have to
make on his philosophy.
Again, Lao-tzŭ’s philosophy is eminently an ethical or rather a
politico-ethical system. All his teachings aim at making man a better
individual, and a better member of society. Whatever the subject be on
which he discourses, there is generally a moral allusion or a moral
lesson taught in allegory; and the high value which he assigns to
moral excellence above all showy accomplishments deserves our greatest
commendation, even though we dissent from his disparaging view of
intellectual acquirements. He appeals more to the heart than to the
mind—more to the Hebraistic side of our nature than to the Hellenistic
(to use Mr. Matthew Arnold’s language); and the _Tao-tê ching_ is more
a book of skeleton sermons than a book of “reasoned truth.” The
intellect, indeed, is not only depressed; but is even sometimes spoken
of unfavourably, as opposed to the beneficial operation of Nature
(_Tao_) on men’s hearts.
Further, the system of Lao-tzŭ is one purely speculative, and _a
priori_ (in the Kantian sense). There is in it no gathering of
facts—no questioning of nature—no rising from particular facts or
truths of greater and greater generality. There is, in short, little
or nothing of the spirit of the inductive philosophy of modern times
to be found in the _Tao-tê ching_. It “nobly takes the _a priori_
road,” beginning with the universal cause, and coming down to
particular facts; frames hypotheses about nature and morals, and tries
to make existing circumstances conform to them. This is the character,
however, which it has in common with nearly all early systems of
philosophy, and even with some of very modern times. An utterly wrong
method we believe it to be; but we can easily forgive it in Lao-tzŭ,
when we take into consideration the circumstances amid which he lived,
and the nature and amount of the materials at his hand.
The last characteristic of Lao-tzŭ’s teachings to which I shall allude
at present is that they are all imbued with a genial and sympathetic
spirit, regarding man not merely as an individual, and not merely as a
member of human society, but also a citizen of the universe, if I may
use the expression. Modesty, gentleness, forbearance, and self-denial
are his constant watchwords. He ever inculcates on man, especially in
his highest development, a sympathy not only with his fellow men, but
also with all the creatures of the earth, and even with inanimate
nature. This doctrine results, no doubt, from the leading idea that
all owe their origin to the one all-producing, all-nourishing nature;
and it is a doctrine of which Lao-tzŭ seems to have been very fond. He
frequently alludes to it as the duty and advantage of man to be
humble, gentle, and never striving; and he utterly abhors the idea of
violence, and the ostentation of superiority. He goes to excess,
however, I think, in his notions about a peaceful, non-interfering
mode of life; and carries his doctrine of the imitation of Nature
(_Tao_) to unwarranted lengths.
Having thus described generally the nature of the teachings of the
_Tao-tê ching_, I shall now proceed to examine them more in detail. In
doing so it will be convenient to consider them under the three
leading divisions of Speculative Physics, Politics and Ethics. I must,
however, beg pardon of the pale shade of their author for doing so, as
I am certain that he would not sanction this division; and at the same
time I must forewarn the reader that he is not to think that subjects
in his opinion appertaining to these three departments are kept
rigorously distinct. Lao-tzŭ, like Plato and some other philosophers,
makes Physics and Politics subordinate parts of Ethics—the grand, all
embracing study. So when reading in the _Tao-tê ching_ about matters
which we regard as belonging peculiarly to one or other of these
divisions, we must endeavour to regard them from Lao-tzŭ’s point of
view—viz., as part of one universal, all containing nature. If we
leave out the important word which I enclose in brackets, and
substitute some such word as _yet_ or _still_, we find in the writings
of a great English poet of the 18th century sentiments very similar to
those of the Chinese sage who lived more than two thousand years
before him:—
“All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body nature is, and [God] the soul;
That, changed through all, and yet in all the same;
Great in the earth, as in the ethereal frame;
Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees,
Lives through all life, extends through all extent,
Spreads undivided, operates unspent:
Breathes in our soul, informs our mortal part,
As full, as perfect, in a hair as heart:
As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns,
As the rapt seraph that adores and burns:
To _it_ no high, no low, no great, no small;
_It_ fills, _it_ bounds, connects, and equals all.”
[1] Collected Writings, ch. 58.
[2] Chine Moderne, p. 351.
[3] Ch. 59.
[4] Ch. 1. This passage is, however, also rendered according to the
metaphor of a road. See Wu-chʽêng’s note.
[5] Chs. 47, 49, 73, 77.
[6] See Ch. 25.
[7] Chs. 25, 26.
[8] Ch. 41.
[9] Ch. 1. The word chʽang (常), however, may mean lasting, eternal.
[10] Chs. 14, 35.
[11] Ch. 1, &c.
[12] Ch. 25.
[13] Chs. 25, 37.
[14] Chs. 14, 21.
[15] Chs. 1, 51.
[16] See chs. 18, 38.
[17 Ch. 6. The character 谷 is, however, also rendered otherwise in
this page. See Yi-yuan’s edition and that in the 十子全書.
[18] Ch. 4.
[19] Ch. 32.
[20] Chs. 24, 52.
[21] Ch. 51. The _Tao_ is also, however, said not to rule over the
world. See ch. 34.
[22] Chine Moderne, p. 351.
[23] Melanges Posthumes, p. 167, and in the Melanges Asiatiques. See
also Julien’s Introduction, p. xii.
[24] Introduction, p. xiii.
[25] Introduction, p. xiii.
[26] See Wu-chʽêng’s note to the passage.
[27] _E.G._, chs. 16, 14, &c.
[28] There are several passages in the _Tao-tê ching_ where Nature
could not be used to translate _Tao_; but this may in some cases arise
from the fact that Lao-tzŭ’s conception of Nature was very different
from ours.