Chan-liang Wu
Department of History
National Taiwan University
To define a fundamental distinction between traditional Chinese and Western thought, the former could be characterized by a world view of becoming and the latter by one of being. The importance of a "world view of being" in the Western tradition has been systematically demonstrated by Lovejoy, Becker, Baumer and others.[1] However, the importance of a world view of becoming in Chinese culture, although proposed by a few modern Chinese thinkers during the first quarter of this century, was never seriously studied by academia and is almost unknown to contemporary scholars.[2] This paper inquires into the world view of becoming presented in the pre-Qin Taoist classics and seeks to illustrate that the ancient Taoists created a full-fledged "cosmo-ontic view of becoming" and that Taoist epistemological and ethical views were inseparable from this cosmo-ontic view. Together, these views formed a "world view of becoming.”
Becoming, as will be illustrated, is a cosmo-ontic idea; discussions about the world view of becoming necessarily focus on the cosmo-ontic part of it. This is why this article is titled the "cosmo-ontic view of becoming" rather than the "world view of becoming.” Earlier authors have shown that the Taoist cosmological view, being a highly developed "naturalistic" interpretation of the basic quality of the world, is the common ground of most later Chinese philosophies.[3] Hence the Taoist cosmological view of "becoming" was also inherited, consciously or unconsciously, by later Chinese thinkers. Given the importance of the role played by the world view of being in the development of Western civilization, an examination of the world view of becoming in the formative period of Chinese culture would greatly aid us in explaining many distinctions between the Chinese and Western civilizations.
The importance of the role that the world view of becoming played in Chinese culture was first proposed by a great modern Chinese thinker, Liang Shu-ming, in 1921. However, as a philosopher, Liang was much more interested in advancing his own beliefs, which were strongly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism and Ming Neo-Confucianism than in documenting his interpretation with historical proof. He also failed to distinguish the original Confucian world view from a later Taoist one and, consequently, did not recognize the true originality of the Taoists.[4] Moreover, Liang's Buddhist background makes people doubt the authenticity of his interpretation of the ancient Chinese tradition.[5] Besides Liang, a few other scholars and thinkers also endeavored to establish an interpretation of the importance of the idea of change in Chinese tradition. Most of their works are broad generalizations, impressionist characterizations, or theories too much influenced by modern Western philosophy. Few scholars really grasped the richness and depth of the world view based on the idea of becoming, and no author seems to have unveiled the true meaning of the rise of a world view of becoming in ancient China.[6] To improve this situation, we should at least consider the following questions: first, what are the contents and meaning of the ancient Chinese world view of becoming?; second, what are the historical origins of this world view?; and third, how does this world view influence later Chinese thinkers? Since a thorough examination of the second and third questions require much more space than is afforded here, this article will focus on the first question, though, not without mentioning the other two questions when necessary.
Studies of the development of ancient Chinese thought in the past several decades clearly show that the ancient Taoists accomplished a naturalistic interpretation of the world.[7] Therefore, the objective in this article is not to prove the existence of a naturalist world view created by the Taoists, but to illustrate the role of the idea of becoming in this world view. Earlier scholars like Yan Fu and Hu Shih indicated, with great insight, that an evolutionary view, or the emphasis on change, played an important role in Taoist, especially Zhuangzi's, philosophy. Nevertheless, their theories still miss some key points of the meaning and importance of a Taoist world view of becoming.[8]
To begin with, a definition of the word "becoming" and an explanation as to why the term "cosmo-ontic" is used to describe what is generally regarded as Taoist cosmological or metaphysical view are required, as well as an examination of the methodological and hermeneutic problems involved in this kind of comparative study. Becoming, in this article, refers to "fundamental qualitative change," as contrasted to "change of position" or quantitative change. A cosmo-ontic view of becoming entails regarding everything as undergoing a constant qualitative change. It also stipulcates the denial or neglect of an ontological realm of being, which is, by definition, timeless and changeless. This denial or neglect of an ontological realm makes the term "ontology of becoming" self-contradictory since ontology, traditionally, is the study of "being qua being."[9] This study illustrates that most Taoist discussions about universe or nature fall, first and foremost, into a cosmological realm. However, as ontological question and stance are unavoidable, these discussions necessarily reveal their "ontic position.” Although Zhuangzi sometimes proclaimed to be an agnostic, the ontic inclination of ancient Taoists is, as a natural result of the view of becoming, a belief in the unity of the substantial world and the phenomenal world.[10] Thus the term "cosmo-ontic," which is alien to the western intellectual tradition, is used to describe their thought.
In the ancient Greek tradition, all kinds of substantialist thinkers, including Parmenides, Zeno, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Plato were protagonists of the "philosophy of being.” Aristotle and the Neo-Platonic master Plotinus also accepted the "primacy of being," though not without accepting the importance of change in the physical or mundane world. Henceforth, the primacy of being became the most important characteristic of the entire Western intellectual tradition. In contrast, in ancient China, since the Taoists were the first to create a full-fledged cosmological or ontological view, a view soon adopted by Confucian, Yin-Yang, Military, and Legalist thinkers, it left a fundamental influence on later Chinese intellectual tradition. Different cosmological and ontological views mark one of the basic differences between the Chinese and Western intellectual traditions—a difference that makes an analysis of the Taoist world view in Western language very difficult but highly necessary.
Many works were written on Taoism in which authors started their analysis of fundamental Taoist theories from certain rudimentary metaphysical or cosmological issues, such as Taoist reflections on being, change, substance, space, time, matter, form, motion, causality, categories, individuality, and universality. However, much current misunderstanding in academia of Taoism and the Chinese tradition is caused by starting our study mainly from a Western point of view. Although Western perspective or terminology can be applied, we must bear in mind that the Chinese generally see things from distinct viewpoints because there are certain fundamental differences between Chinese and Western world views. In our discussion of the cosmo-ontic view of becoming of Taoism, the problem is especially serious because almost all terminologies used in Western academia originated in, or are at least fundamentally influenced by, the Greek world view of being.[11] According to the world view of becoming, the authenticity of these Western terms should be questioned or, at least, reinterpreted.
The Taoist cosmo-ontic view of becoming does not start from reflections on space, time, change, or motion. The Taoists were also uninterested in classifying phenomena of change into change in place, change in time, change in quality, or change as generation or as corruption, so as to analyze them in a systematic way. Besides, unlike Greek thought, Taoist philosophy does not start from dialectic or systematic reasoning. Therefore, from a Western point of view, there is no systematic treatment of well-defined cosmological, metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical questions. On the contrary, we find that Taoist cosmological, metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political thoughts are typically mixed together, pouring out from a single but unutterable origin. The Taoist mode of thinking, which is strongly influenced by the cosmo-ontic view of becoming, is entirely different from that of the Western philosophers.
A fundamental difference is that the Taoists, unlike the Greeks, forced no contrast between reality and appearance. They believed that Tao is everywhere and that the nouminal world and the phenomenal world are one. Therefore, to the Taoists, ontological inquiry cannot be clearly separated from cosmological inquiry, and we can have only very limited knowledge of either.[12] Consequently, they did not believe that speech or words can grasp the essence of our existence. Using Derrida's term, we may say the Taoists "deconstructed" metaphysics and metaphysical language, which is the core of Western intellectual tradition, even at the dawn of Chinese intellectual history.[13] By so doing, they gave Chinese thought and language a character distinct from that of Westerners, a character with which we should deal carefully in this paper.
If we push the Taoist idea of becoming to its logical end and define the term "metaphysics" in a traditional way, we will find that the term "metaphysical view" cannot be applied to Taoist thought. The reason is not only that metaphysics is the systematic study of questions related to being, but also that the other-worldly orientation inherent in Western thought made the study of metaphysics mainly a study of the substantial or nouminal world. In the Taoist world view of becoming, the substantial or nouminal world and the phenomenal world are inseparable. As the term "metaphysics" traditionally refers to the study of a world that does not exist in Taoist philosophy, it is better not to use the term "metaphysical view of becoming," but rather to use the term "cosmo-ontic view of becoming."[14] The unity of cosmology and ontology or the union of a phenomenal world with a nouminal world implied by the term "cosmo-ontic" marks a sharp contrast to the dualist tradition of the West.
Zhuangzi's Cosmo-ontic View of Becoming
Whether it was Laozi, Zhuangzi, or another who first made this cosmo-ontic breakthrough, the first seven chapters of Zhuangzi stood for the original form of ancient Taoism. Laozi and all other Taoist writings came later. However, as this question remains highly controversial and since the basic argument of this paper is unrelated to that issue, this study avoids this chronological contention while starting its analysis from Zhuangzi's thought, mainly for the sake of convenience.[15]
It is well-known that the idea of hua (becoming, change) plays an important role in Zhuangzi's thought. However, what exactly this role is, and, more significantly, how a cosmo-ontic view of becoming relates to the basic character of Zhuangzi's thought, and what its philosophical significance is are questions that were never successfully answered. This section will first examine the contemporary relevance of Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontic view of becoming from a historical perspective and then try to answer the above questions.
Although the idea of becoming plays a crucial role in Zhuangzi's thought, it may not be the starting point of his wisdom. To study Zhuangzi's "cosmo-ontic view" and his special way of thinking, we need to begin with his contemplation on Tian (The Whole, cosmos) and the relation between Tian and human being—the gist and starting place of Zhuangzi's wisdom and thought.[16] That the first two chapters of Zhuangzi open with discussions about Tian and the relation between Tian and human being is not fortuitous. In each case, and this is true of the entire Zhuangzi, we find that "mind's union with The Whole," or "to be one with the cosmic process," is the source of Zhuangzi's wisdom and thought. In fact, Zhuangzi's inquiry into the Way of the universe and the relation between Cosmos and mind make him a "holist," one who believes that things are an inseparable one.[17] His cosmo-ontic view of becoming is a basic characteristic of this holistic view.
In the pre-Confucian, especially pre-Zhou, period, Tian was the center of people's concern. Then, as a legacy of ancient Chinese religions, ideas related to the will of heaven or gods dominated peoples’ minds for thousands of years. Confucius, based on the tradition of Zhougong, created a humanistic world view. However, Mozi, in his subversion of feudalism and Confucianism, tried to revive traditional piety toward the "will of Heaven," so as to support his evangelical gospel of equality. In so doing, Mozi made many people believe that Confucian doctrines were too aristocratic, discriminatory, and narrow-minded. Later Mohists, especially those "Mohist Logicians," advocated "the oneness of everything.” Since everything is one, there should not be any artificial distinction, and we should treat everything with equal love.[18] While trying to prove that everything is one, they created many sophistic or even choplogical arguments in the realm of cosmology and, especially, epistemology. These arguments, although criticized by Zhuangzi, had great influence on his thought and helped him to create a full-fledged cosmo-ontic and epistemological view.[19]
Zhuangzi, like the Mohist, protested against feudalism, Confucianism, discrimination, and the age of Warring States. As a result, he too believed in the Mohist doctrine of the oneness of nature and the indefiniteness of common names or notions. However, he disagreed with Mohist assertiveness in knowledge and their use of "external and indefinite knowledge" to conduct peoples’ lives. He emphasized the immensity and immeasurability of Tian and man's very limited capacity to know. Any concrete knowledge about our existence, according to Zhuangzi, must come from one's innermost—a kind of direct, expansive, indiscrete, completely free, and purified experience.[20] Although he adopted Mohist cosmological and epistemological views in many ways, he preferred to caution us about the limit and subjectivity of our knowledge and persuade us to grasp only the moment while our mind and the external world meet, for in such a transient world, it is the only moment that reality may reveal itself to us.[21] As a result, his interpretation of the universe was a combination of observation, cosmo-ontic beliefs, and, most importantly, a highly purified and indiscrete "experience.” In this "experience," not in the logical debate of the "Logicians," we find the true origin of the idea of becoming, a notion which faithfully mirrors the natural course of things.
Professor Qian Mu pointed out that Zhuangzi's cosmological view, following the humanistic tradition of Confucianism, was based largely on his philosophy of life.[22] It is true that Zhuangzi anchored his world view on his life experience. This attitude alone presupposed man's inability to know god's will or to understand the ultimate reality or truth of the world—a humanistic assumption derived from Confucianism and strengthened by Zhuangzi's dissatisfaction toward Mohist cosmology and epistemology. However, Mohist attention to the external world and its cosmological and epistemological discussions still had great influence on him.[23] Therefore, although Zhuangzi placed so much emphasis on the limit and subjectivity of man's knowledge and the importance of "indiscrete experience," we still find that a clear and coherent cosmo-ontic view was, in and out, his thought. This cosmo-ontic view and his anthropo-cosmic epistemology reinforced each other, and it is hard to tell which one is more fundamental. Zhuangzi himself was not only keenly aware of the inseparability of subjectivity and objectivity, the internal and external world, but continued to remind people of this essential fact.[24] To Zhuangzi, the ultimate fulfillment of mind—a sense of complete freedom and contentment—and a sense of unity with natural or cosmic process are inseparable.
Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontic view emphasized the unity and oneness of nature. He completely discarded the traditional belief of a heaven with will and power. In his interpretation, Tian, or heaven, is no longer high above and untouchable. Tian is everywhere, inside everything, and the sum of everything. Heaven and earth become one, while human beings, together with all other things, are parts of it. The word Tian, which meant "heaven" in the ancient text, means "the Cosmos" in Zhuangzi. Besides this world, there is no such thing as a transcendental or other world.[25] This naturalistic world view beautifully matched the this-world orientation of the post-Confucian era, successfully filled the cosmo-ontic vacancy left in Confucianism, and replaced the ancient belief in heaven and God.
The first chapter of Zhuangzi opens with an allegorical story describing how an ideal person's mind, like a giant bird, can fly to the top of heaven and then cruise the world without obstacle. The ideal person, in Zhuangzi's eyes, is the one who can transcend one's limited existence, completely open his mind, follow "the way of the universe," and set one's mind at one with the Cosmos.[26] As everything comes from the cosmic process, when one is at one with it, the implication is that nothing can offend his mind anymore. The ideal person is more than always at ease with everything; his way of living means the life, the truth, and the Way to the world.[27]
Relying on the notion of "heaven-and-man-are-one" (tianren heyi), Zhuangzi repeatedly uses "huge but useless" things to exemplify the Way.[28] Hugeness, in Zhuangzi's philosophy, is analogous to the wholeness of the universe and is a metaphorical expression of the openness of the mind of an ideal person. To Zhuangzi, all problems stem from people's discriminate and circumscribed perspectives if only one can transcend one's erroneous notions and petty concerns and dissolve oneself into the Cosmos, all the man-made troubles would disappear.
An immediate result of Zhuangzi's holism is his criticism of anything that is partial and fragmentary:
The understanding of the men of ancient times went a long way. How far did it go? To the point where some of them believed that things (with boundaries) have never existed—so far, to the end, where nothing can be added. Those at the next stage thought that things exist but recognized no boundaries among them. Those at the next stage thought there were boundaries but recognized no right and wrong.[29]
The concept of "thing" (wu) means a subjective division of the original unity. Bound by things, then, means the fragmentation of mind, and the loss of the originally serene and free spirit.
If the boundaries between things are unreal, everything is in a process of becoming. The famous story at the end of the second chapter of Zhuangzi (Qiwulun) indicates his idea of "the Transformation of Things" (wuhua) most vividly:
Once Zhuang Zhou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn't know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.[30]
Things may change into each other, and boundaries and identities of things are illusory. The relation between mind and matter is unaccountable, so how do we know things really exist as we see them. Elsewhere, while talking about life, illness, and death, Zhuangzi writes:
If the process continues, perhaps in time he'll transform my left arm into a rooster. In that case I'll keep watch on the night. Or perhaps in time he'll transform my right arm into a crossbow pellet and I'll shoot down an owl for roasting.[…] I receive life because the time had come; I will lose it because things pass on. Be content with this time and dwell in the natural process and then neither sorrow nor joy can touch you. In ancient times this was called the freeing of the bound.[31]
Things pass on and the world changes with time. There is nothing to stick to, and the best way is to follow the change—to be one with the natural process.
Stories about the transformation of things continue to appear in Zhuangzi's work and make it a central theme of Zhuangzi.[32] They not only represent a cosmo-ontic view, seeing everything as undergoing a process of change, but also manifest Zhuangzi's search for complete freedom and contentment of mind. This is because the search for complete freedom, according to Zhuangzi, must begin with discarding all the bounds in our mind; only by fully recognizing the transience of the world can one follow the ever-changing process of things and free himself from conceptual mazes, beguiling memories of the past, and expectations of the future:
Let your ears and eyes communicate with what is inside, and put mind and knowledge on the outside. Then even gods and spirits will come to dwell, not to speak of men. This is the genesis and becoming of things, the key of Yu and Shun [ancient sage kings].[33]
Whether in nature or society, things change beyond prediction. Our knowledge, expectation,s and disturbed emotions always conflict with reality; therefore, the best way is to empty our mind and follow the natural process or the becoming of things.[34] In this world, Zhuangzi said, "A good completion takes a long time; a bad completion cannot be changed later. Can you afford to be careless? Just go along with things and let your mind move freely."[35] Therefore, an ideal person is someone who "knows clearly what is truly independent (inside), and changes not with things. He trusts and follows the change of things, and he holds fast to the source."[36] Things always change, and our mind should "go along with things.” However, this does not mean the mind is dependent on things. On the contrary, just because the mind is truly free and independent, it can roll with the change of things freely without being overruled or getting lost.[37]
What is the basis of the Transformation of Things? In Zhuangzi's view, the entire universe is the "qi in becoming” (yiqi zhihua).[38] Qi, in Zhuangzi's philosophy, is the tiniest, shapeless, air-like essence of the universe. The story at the beginning of Qiwulun tells us vividly how Zhuangzi viewed the world:
The Great Clod belches out breath and its name is wind. So long as it doesn't come forth, nothing happens. But when it does, then thousand hollows begin crying wildly.[…] Blowing on the ten thousand things in a different way, so that each can be itself—all take what they want for themselves, but who does the sounding?[39]
To Zhuangzi, all forms of existence come from the blowing of the qi. Things "take their own shapes by themselves" (ziran, zihua), but they have the same origin and are in a process of transforming.[40] Therefore, all distinctions are only secondary or even subjective. In this naturalistic interpretation of the world, the qi is the formless, omnipresent foundation of everything. Everything comes from the qi, and everything will dissolve into qi again.[41] Nothing is everlasting, and everything is in the process of change, not only the quantity and place, but also the quality. This is "philosophy of process" of a kind.[42]
An important theme derived from Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontic view of becoming is the unity of the nouminal and phenomenal worlds. Since the world as a whole is the qi in a process of becoming, qi is everywhere, and everything is made of qi. Based on this holistic and naturalist world view, Zhuangzi believed that the Way is at one with this world and that the sage should not discuss the unknowable other world. This is indeed a concise cosmo-ontic expression of the most crucial theme in Chinese civilization: this-worldliness.[43]
According to the theme of becoming, nothing is everlasting, so there is no such thing named "substance.” The most important thing for us is to find the Way that is witnessed by the cosmic process of becoming. Things are changing; it is effortless to grasp the substantial world. Substance and phenomena are one. What is a "thing" is "nothing," because the so-called thing (wu) is becoming rather than being. Both the "principle" of this-worldliness and the unity of the substantial world with the accidental world are attributes of the cosmo-ontic view of becoming.[44]
Based on this cosmo-ontic view, Zhuangzi and, especially, his followers readily maintained that words, concepts, theories, and knowledge about specific objects are transient and undependable. To him, "the Way has no boundaries; speech has no constancy."[45] Since he rejected the idea of wu (thing or entity), and believed the boundaries between things to be illusion or secondary, those most important terms in Western philosophy, such as idea, form, and substance, can find no secured place in Zhuangzi's philosophy. To Zhuangzi, all distinctions between things and those concepts arising from these distinctions are subjective, accidental, and unreliable.[46] There is no "substance" behind man's words and ideas:
Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? […] But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of the Cosmos.[47]
Things and words lack constancy, only the Cosmos, or the Whole, is our ultimate guide. As the Way transcends words and form, how can one know the Way of the Cosmos? Zhuangzi says:
Don't listen with your ears, listen with your mind. No, don't listen with your mind, but listen with "qi.” Listening stops with the ears, the mind stops with recognition, but qi is empty and waits on all things. The Way gathers in emptiness alone. Emptiness is the fasting of the mind.[48]
Only when one abandons all given notions about things, can one meet the omnipresent, fundamental, formless, and always changing "essence.” Only then, Zhuangzi says, can one be alert to the richness of the world.
With so many doubts on words and concepts, it is not surprising that Zhuangzi has little interest in "reason:”
Great understanding is broad and unhurried; little understanding is investigative and busy. Great words are plain, little words are shrill and fragmented. In sleep, men's spirits go visiting; in waking hours, their bodies hustle. With everything they meet their minds become entangled. Day after day they use their minds in strife, sometimes grandiose, sometimes sly, sometimes petty. Their little fears are mean and tremble; their great fears are stunned and overwhelming.[49]
In a deeper sense, as the value of reason relies on its ability to lead to substance, and the idea of "substance" has been denied in a world view of becoming, reason certainly would not be treasured by Zhuangzi. Doubts about the validity of words and concepts also lead to doubts about formal logic and dialectics.
A necessary result of these attitudes is that Zhuangzi had little interest in the idea of "truth," pursuit of knowledge of specific object, classification of things, and inquiry into the question of causality. Those things that interested the Greek thinkers most are typically what Zhuangzi sought to avoid. To the Greeks, these questions were the main body of their inquiry into being and substance. However, as Zhuangzi maintained that the world is becoming, and that things and words lack lasting substance, all these inquiries deceased.
Historically, Zhuangzi's epistemology was, in many ways, a refutation of the ancient "Logicians.” The second chapter of Zhuangzi (Discussion on Making all Things Equal) was largely devoted to this purpose. It was not their conclusion but the way they argued that Zhuangzi disagreed with the most. To him, all concepts and theories, proposed by the ancient Logicians, came from an anthropo-cosmic perspective and were subjective and limited. The Way those logicians argued yielded only indeterminacy and unhappiness. Only those who "know the process of becoming" (zhidai) can follow the natural route indiscriminately (yinshi), so as to abide by the Way.[50]
If the major characteristic of epistemology based on a world view of becoming is doubt of word and concept, then the major characteristic of ethical thinking based on such a cosmo-ontic view is distrust toward norms and rules. Zhuangzi criticizes the Confucian ethics as a lesser form of living:
Do you know what it is that destroys virtue, and where wisdom comes from? Virtue is destroyed by fame and name, and wisdom comes out of wrangling.[51]
To Zhuangzi, true virtue is beyond name and form.
So the sage has his wanderings. For him, knowledge is an offshoot, promises are glue, virtues are a patching up.[…] The sage hatches no schemes, so what use has he for knowledge? He does no carving, so what use has he for glue? He suffers no loss, so what use has he for favors?[52]
Ordinary virtues seek certain benefits, but those were not the virtue of the sage. The sage has forgotten all calculation, following the natural route of "the universe as becoming" (dahua) and making himself one with the Way of the Cosmos. How can we limit or judge him by ordinary standards? Ordinary virtues are limited, only the virtue of the Cosmos is all-inclusive, but it belongs only to he who can "trust and follow the change of things, and holds fast to the source."[53]
In summary, Zhuangzi believed that the world is an inseparable one; any division in this "entity" is illusion. The differences and distinctions between things as we see them are not lasting. Nothing is everlasting, and everything is in a process of change. There is no such thing as "thing" or entity. The Way is becoming, and becoming is the Way. A wise person is the one who knows that everything is in a process of change; therefore, he sticks to nothing and always flows with the cosmic process. Never make yourself a prisoner of any desire, idea, or theory. The most important thing is to realize the ever-changing situations, to empty and free your mind, and to feel and follow the natural tendency and "trace" in this process.[54]
The Cosmo-ontic View of Becoming of Laozi
Unlike Zhuangzi, the focus of Laozi's cosmo-ontic reflection was no longer on the Cosmos, but on the Way, "formlessness" (wu), and "state achieved (de)."[55] Regarding Zhuangzi's reflections on the Cosmos, we can see clearly how his thought grew from an ancient tradition and rebelled against, but was also nourished by, Confucianism and Mohism. We also can understand how he derived those abstract ideas, such as qi, becoming (hua), and the Way, from reflections on an observable universe. However, in Laozi's case, we find that he started his discourse with extremely abstract ideas as if they were already there, made for further discussion. Besides, Laozi's cosmo-ontic view appears more mature and complete than Zhuangzi's in many ways. From a historical perspective, it is difficult to explain how anyone could reflect directly on those highly abstract ideas, such as the Way, "state achieved," or formlessness, and then conceptualize and systematize them in the most mature way without previous discussions by Taoists. There needs to have been someone who created prototypes of those ideas based on a less abstract, more observable, source before Laozi, and Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontic view perfectly fits this gap.
In comparison with Zhuangzi, as Laozi wrote much more about the Way, "state achieved," and formlessness than becoming (hua) or qi, it may seem that Laozi paid much less attention to the idea of change or becoming. The truth, however, is that Laozi's philosophy is also underlined by a cosmo-ontic view of becoming. We may find it difficult to explain most central ideas of Laozi, like formlessness, being, the Way, and "state achieved," without referring to an underlying cosmo-ontic view of becoming. Moreover, it is here illustrated that the most abstruse idea in Laozi's philosophy, wu, refers not to nothingness, but to the essential state of the cosmic process of becoming (a formless state). We can prove the above points, even if we put the chronology of Zhuangzi and Laozi aside.
Like Zhuangzi, Laozi's cosmo-ontic view is a naturalistic one that emphasizes the ideas of by-itself (ziran) and the Way:
Man models himself on the Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Way, and the Way models that which is so on its own (ziran, by-itself).[56]
According to this relation, heaven is no longer categorically separated from earth and man and treated as a supreme being. Man, earth, and heaven are united, and what unites them together is the "principle" of by-itself—the Way. To Laozi, the world is no longer dominated by the will of God or certain inexplicable agency, but reveals itself in the route taken by each subject.
Basically, we find all these ideas in Zhuangzi's naturalistic explanation of the world, but in Zhuangzi, these concepts come from discussions about the Cosmos, whereas in Laozi, these ideas become ready made and are arranged in a more systematic way. Here, the major distinction between Laozi and Zhuangzi is that in Laozi, abstract ideas like the Way and by-itself are elevated above heaven and earth. The Way "of heaven" now becomes something prior to heaven.[57] At the same time, the "principle" of by-itself, which was formerly an attribute of heaven, is put before both Tao and heaven. This phenomenon reflects an evolution in intellectual history: ideas gradually obtain their independence from their empirical origins. Cosmic "principles" of heaven were formerly the object of learning and observation, but they became the dictator of the cosmic process. Ideas created by man, which are necessarily more attainable to himself than the infinite universe, obtain a higher position in his own mind than the less-attainable outside world. In so doing, Laozi's thought bears an even more atheistic and rational color than Zhuangzi's.
Both ideas of the Way and by-itself are closely related to Laozi's ideas of formlessness and the nameless:
The Way does nothing, but accomplishes everything. [Mawangdui edition records: The Way is constantly nameless.] Were marquises and kings able to maintain it, everything would transform on its own [zihua]. Having transformed, were their desires to become active, I would subdue them with the nameless simplicity.[58]
In order to understand the relations between these crucial ideas, we must analyze this paragraph step by step. To begin with, we find that the idea of self-transforming (zihua) plays an essential role in this paragraph. A similar idea appears in chapter fifty-seven, in which Laozi wrote "I do nothing, and the people of themselves are transformed [zihua].” In both cases, the term “self-transforming” refers mainly to the people, but Laozi takes it also as a universal rule, so he uses the term "everything" in the first case.[59] The idea of hua (becoming) is crucial to Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontic view of becoming and is discussed repeatedly in Zhuangzi. Here Laozi uses this idea as if it were a well-known one, and adds the word "self (zi)" before "becoming (hua)," making it a complex idea.[60] This feature indicates, again, that Laozi came after Zhuangzi. At least, we can maintain that Zhuangzi's ideas of by-itself (ziran) and taking-its-own-shape (ziqyu) and Laozi's ideas of by-itself (ziran) and self-transforming (zihua) refer basically to the same cosmo-ontic view of becoming.
Both the ideas of self-transforming and by-itself refer to a state in which things find their natural routes if they are let go. Thus Laozi writes "the Way does nothing, but accomplishes everything.” At the end of this quotation, the "nameless simplicity" is a resonance of doing nothing. In Chinese, doing nothing (wuwei) and namelessness (wuming) share the same wu (formlessness, emptiness). Here we confront the idea that greatly stimulates Laozi's imagination and becomes his greatest creation—wu.[61]
When Laozi writes about "wu," he often refers to a mental state or to a way to cultivate one's mind. In his teachings about the cultivation of the mind, Laozi maintains that we have to empty our minds to treat this changing and unpredictable world. However, besides the cultivation of one's mind, does this word possess some cosmo-ontic implications? What is the relation between his cosmo-ontic view and the teaching of cultivating one's mind? The following argues that, cosmo-onticly, the so-called formlessness (wu) refers not to nothingness, but to "the original state of the process of becoming" or "existence without form.”
About the central importance of the idea of formlessness, Laozi writes “the things of the world originate in being, and being originates in formlessness [wu].”[62] Some scholars may take formlessness as the "ultimate principle," but we should recall that Laozi also mentions that "the things of the world originate in being.” To Laozi, both ideas of being and formlessness are important, neither can exist without the other, and neither represents the ultimate. Being and formlessness have a dialectic relation, and the Way is a higher union of the two. For that reason, Laozi writes at the beginning of his book that:
The Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way. […] Formlessness names the beginning of heaven and earth, being names the progenitor of everything.
The Way comes first, and both formlessness and being are attributes of the Way.
But what is the Way? Let us use Laozi's words to answer this question.
The Way is formless and shapeless. Being formless and shapeless, there is something in it. Being formless and shapeless, there are some images in it. Being so profound and immeasurable, there is reality.[63]
The Way is shapeless and formless, but it is not "nothing" or pure emptiness. It is something with "reality," but is never limited by form. It is what is always becoming, but never to be.[64] About the Way, Laozi also writes
There is something shapeless and formless, existing before the emergence of heaven and earth. Being shapeless and formless, it stands on its own and doesn't change. It "circulates" without end, so it can be the progenitor of everything. I do not yet know its name, but call it "The Way.” Were I forced to give it a name, I would name it "the Great.” "Great" means "to proceed (or, to depart);" "to proceed" means "to be far away;" and "to be far away" means "to return."[65]
The Way "circulates" without end; it is a process in proceeding. Heaven and earth come after it, and everything comes from it.
The Way is shapeless and formless; Laozi tells us that:
As for the Way, the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way. As for names, the name that can be named is not the constant name.[66]
Immediately after this sentence, he concludes: "formlessness names the beginning of heaven and earth, being names the progenitor of everything."[67] To Laozi, what could be named or described, or a thing with form, is being; what cannot be named or spoken of, or existence without form, is formlessness—a formless and shapeless essential state of existence. In contrast to things with definite shape and form, it refers to the cosmic process of becoming, existence without form. Thus Laozi writes that "being comes from formlessness.” Things with form (youxing) come from a more essential, shapeless state. This "principle" does not deny the fact the Cosmos has in it both existence with form (you, being) and existence without form (wu, formlessness). For centuries, scholars were puzzled by the relations between Laozi's ideas of being, formlessness, and the Way. This enigma can be solved by interpreting these ideas with the world view of becoming.[68]
Although the Way encompasses both being and formlessness, the state of formlessness represents a more universal and original state of existence. Therefore, the Way is more often linked to ideas of "doing nothing," "the nameless," and emptiness than to things with concrete content. Laozi says that “the valley spirit never dies; we call it the clandestine female. The gate of the clandestine female, this we call the root of Heaven and Earth.”[69] The valley spirit is the metaphorical expression of the Way. The Way has no namable content, just like the valley, the "hollow" place between mountains. However, we should notice that this valley spirit, as the root of everything, never dies. Therefore, it is not pure emptiness.
As a counterpart of emphasis on "formlessness," we also should notice that Laozi's cosmo-ontic view of becoming does not deny the fact that there are "things with form.” Laozi only seeks to indicate that all forms come from a formless state and that the formless, or formlessness, is more basic:
The Way creates, de [trait, quality] nourishes, "thing" shapes it, and tendencies (in and out) complete it. Therefore everything venerates the Way and honors De.[70]
The Way represents the original formless state. De represents the trait obtained. Then it becomes a "thing" with a definite shape, and eventually tendencies in and out complete this process of creation. With this evolutionary interpretation of the forming of things, Laozi completed the "onto-cosmological" view of becoming that was initiated by Zhuangzi.
With a cosmo-ontic view of becoming, it is understandable that the epistemological view of Laozi is very similar to that of Zhuangzi. We recall that the first sentence of Laozi declares that ”the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way; As for names, the name that can be named is not the constant names.” Since then, words, speech, forms, and knowledge have never assumed the crown in Chinese intellectual history.
What marks Laozi's true invention is his dialectic, but it also originates in a cosmo-ontic view of becoming. As a description of the cosmic process, Laozi's dialectic indicates that everything, after reaching its climax, declines and proceeds to its opposite side and eventually returns to the initial state. Hence, everything is in a process of change; there is nothing constant:
Take emptiness to the limit; maintain tranquillity in the center. Everything arises side by side, and by this I see their return. Things are so many, each one returns to its root.[71]
The "root" refers to the original nameless and formless state. All things with form or shape eventually dissolve into this state again. Therefore, he writes,
Bent over, you'll be preserved whole. When twisted, you'll be upright. When hollowed out, you'll be full. When worn out, you'll be renewed.[72]
Take the neglected route or the opposite side, and you may accomplish more. This idea is a major theme in Laozi's book. Although Laozi writes this mainly for strategic use in politics, it also reflects his observation of universal "principles":
The opposite is the agency of the Way; the weak is the function of the Way. Things under heaven come from being, being comes from formlessness.[73]
Being and formlessness represent opposite sides of his dialectics. Everything is undergoing a process of change, and eventually the opposite side manifests itself. The most important rule is "sticking to nothing" and waiting for things to change by themselves.
With a cosmo-ontic view of becoming, Laozi's ethical view, like that of Zhuangzi, is necessarily characterized by his protests toward ethical norms:
When the Great Way is rejected, it is then that we have the virtues of humanity and righteousness.
Therefore,
Eliminate sageness, throw away knowledge, and the people will benefit a hundredfold. Eliminate humanity, throw away righteousness, and the people will return to filial piety and compassion.[74]
To Laozi, both ethical norms and knowledge are things with rigid forms that are obstructive to the unaffected flow of human nature. When the natural course of human nature is thwarted, the so-called sages then create virtues with attractive names. To Laozi, these handsome names are not only symptoms of existing problems but also causes of ensuing suppressions, distortions, and ethical and political disasters. Only by returning to the nameless simplicity—the undisturbed initial state, can we avoid all these problems.
In summary, we state that Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontic view of becoming originated in his holistic experience and interpretation of the cosmic process—the Way of the Cosmos (Tian). By admitting the "oneness" of everything in this world and by taking boundaries between things as illusion, Zhuangzi creates a world view characterized by the ever-changing flow and composition of qi. With this cosmo-ontic view of becoming, he challenges the ideas of entity, object, and thing (wu), and he criticizes the reliability of the idea of Idea itself, human knowledge, and ethical norms. In other words, Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontic view of becoming boycotts anything or any ideas taken with a definite form and makes his thought almost antithetical to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy.
In the other part of our picture, we find that all the major ideas in Laozi, such as the Way, being, formlessness (wu), state-achieved (de), and by-itself (ziran), are also inseparable from a cosmo-ontic view of becoming. These ideas are conceptualized in Laozi's writing in an extremely succinct way. This fact alone makes us doubt that Laozi's philosophy came after that of Zhuangzi. Since Laozi shares basically the same cosmo-ontic view with Zhuangzi, it is not surprising that he also holds anti-form, anti-norm attitudes towards epistemological and ethical issues.
The creation of a cosmo-ontic view by Taoists in ancient China meant a major breakthrough in the development of Chinese civilization. This view later was adopted not only by Taoists, but also by Confucians and the Yinyang school. Today, more and more studies have shown the significance of the Taoist tradition in Chinese culture. I believe that future studies will prove that the Taoist cosmo-ontic view of becoming has fundamentally influenced the epistemological, ethical, and political views of the Chinese and has helped to mold the distinct character of the Chinese civilization[TW1].
[Glossary]
dahua 大化
daoshu 道樞
de 德
Guo Xiang 郭象
hua 化
huanzhong 環中
Hui Shi 惠施
Liang Shu-ming 梁漱溟
qi 氣
Qiwulun 齊物論
Tian 天
tianren heyi 天人合一
wu 物
wu 無
wuhua 物化
wuming 無名
wuwei 無為
wuxingdi 無行地
yinshi 因是
Yinyang 陰陽
yiqi zhihua 一氣之化
you 有
youxing 有形
zhidai 知代
Zhougong 周公
Zhuang Zhou 莊周
zi 自
zihua 自化
ziqyu 自取
ziran 自然
* Bulletin of the Department of History of National Taiwan University,vol.19 (1996.6): 259-289.
[1] See Franklin L.Baumer, Modern European Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1977); Carl L. Becker, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven: Yale UP, 1932); Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of The History of An Idea (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1936). The world view of being was originally a Greek, especially Platonic, tradition. Through linguistic, cultural, and academic channels, this tradition was treasured and absorbed by Romans, Christians, and moderns, and became probably the most important cultural motif of the Western civilization.
[2] Liang Shu-ming first made this observation in 1921. See Chan-liang Wu, “Western Rationalism and the Chinese Mind” (Diss., Yale, 1993), ch. 2-3
[3] See Qian Mu, Zhongguo xueshu sixiangshi luncong, vol. 2 (Taipei: Liangjing1977) 256-282; Qian Mu, Zhuanglao tongbian (Taipei: Liangjing 1957); Dai Jingxian, Zhuzi Lixian Qihou shuo yu Qiqiang Lihou shuo zhi yanjiu (Taipei: Guangxueshe 1985) 3-9, 28-32, 49-58; Cwei Dahua, Zhuang Xue Yanjiu (Beijing: Renming 1992) 384-581. "Naturalistic" in this article means simply not mystic or supernatural—a this-worldly, non-superstitious attitude. Mohist logician Hui Shi initiated the cosmological and epistemological discussions and shared many of his views with his good friend, Zhuangzi. If we accept Zhuangzi as the first great Taoist thinker, then we should admit Hui Shi as the precursor of many Taoist naturalistic ideas.
[4] See Liang Shuming, Dongxi wenhua jiqi zhexue, 3rd ed. (Shanghai: Shangwu1922) 114-125.
[5] Liang 47-50.
[6] Fang Dongmei, influenced by H. Bergson, emphasized the existence of a dynamic and creative world view in ancient China; see Fang Dongmei, Yuanshi rujia daojia zhexue [Taipei: Liming, 1983], 190. Gao Huaiming, relying on his study of Yi jing, pointed out the importance of the idea of change in ancient China (Gao Huaiming, Zhongguo xianqin yu xila zhexue zhi bijiao [Taipei: PUB 1983] 43-47). Both studies are ahistoric.
[7] Yan Fu first pointed out that ancient Taoists created a naturalist interpretation of the world. For later research, see Dai Jingxian, "Xianqin zhuzi jieti," in Guoxued daodu (Taipei: jyuliu, 1990) 614-622; Cwei 105-142.
[8] Both Yan Fu and Hu Shih deemed Zhuangzi an evolutionist, and Hu Shih particularly emphasized Zhuangzi's role as a philosopher of biological evolutionism. (Yan Fu, Houguan Yenshi Pingdian Zhuangzi, "qiwulun" and "Dasheng pian" NEED FULL REFERENCES FOR THESE WORKS FOR CONTINUITY; Hu Shih, Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang [Shanghai: Shangwu, 1926], 255-279.) This perspective mirrored their concern in an age of evolutionism. It is true that Zhuangzi and, especially, his followers are, in many ways, evolutionists. However, modern Western evolutionary theory hasa well-defined interpretation of the mechanism of evolution, while Zhuangzi's thought has none of these features. What really distinguishes the so-called evolutionism of the ancient Taoists is the cosmo-ontological view of becoming, which has much greater philosophical significance than the theory of evolution.
Hu Shih, while emphasizing the importance of the idea of change in Zhuangzi's thought, partially noticed the epistemological significance of Zhuangzi's cosmological view of change by comparing it to Hegel's dialectics. However, he did not fully grasp its philosophical importance, misinterpreting the meaning of Tao and missing the anthrop-cosmic and agnostic character of Zhaungzi's thought, and he held Zhuangzi's entire philosophy in very low esteem. (See later discussions in this article)
Joseph Needham, on the other hand, termed Taoist cosmology as a kind of "organic naturalism.” I agree with him in this aspect. However, he did not really grasp the meaning of the idea of change or becoming in Taoist philosophy either. (Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 2 [Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1970] 36-56, 74-83, 162, 181.)
[9] There are some modern "ontologists," like W. V. Quine, who define ontology from a completely new approach. However, their definitions are often questioned. See. for example, D. W. Hamlyn, Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984) 36-27.
[10] Zhuangzi maintained that the sage only talks about this world, not things beyond or infinite. (Qian Mu, Zhuangzi zuangjian [Taipei: Sanmin, 1962] 16.) Laozi, however, was confident of his cosmo-ontological view.
[11] Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978).
[12] Whitehead, who had a dynamic world view of becoming, seemed to have identified cosmology, ontology, and metaphysics in giving his Process and Reality the subtitle An Essay in Cosmology.
[13] About Derrida and Zhuangzi, see Xi Mi, "Jie jiegou zhi dao: dexida (J. Derrida) yu Zhuangzi bijiao yanjiu," Zhongwai wenxue, 11:6 (Taipei: Taida Waiwen Xi, 1982) 4-31.
[14] The first version of this paper, announced at the International Conference on Modes of Thought in Ancient China, Marburg, 1994, was titled "The Metaphysical View of Becoming in Ancient Chinese Taoism,” in which I said: "In this paper, the term "metaphysical view" is not defined in the traditional Western sense in which metaphysics is taken as the study of "being qua being." […] However, we still need a term to describe the "onto-cosmological" thought of the Taoists. Taking the fact that Aristotle's definition of the study of the "first philosophy" is the study of concepts too universal to be treated within any specific field of knowledge, and bypassing Aristotle's passion for ontology and theology, I maintain, following the practice of "descriptive metaphysics," that what I mean by the "metaphysical view" of the Taoists is a description only of their observations on the most universal and basic "principle" of the universe, a field highly related to what we mean by metaphysics.” However, to avoid misunderstanding, I finally decided to change the term "metaphysical" to "cosmo-ontological."
[15] Nevertheless, as my analysis of Laozi's and Zhuangzi's cosmo-ontological views can improve our understanding of this chronological question, I clarify their relations through my study. In order to achieve this, quotations about Zhuangzi's thought are limited to the first seven chapters. For research on the chronology of Zhuangzi and Laozi, see Qian, Zhuanglao tongbian; Yan Lingfong, Jingzi Congzhu, vol. 9 (Taipei: PUB 1983) 147-173; Xu Fuguan, Zhongguo sixiangshi lunji (Taipei: Xuesheng 1975) 93-105; Xu Fuguan, Zhongguo renxing lun shi (Taipei: PUB 1974) app. 1.
[16] The pre-Qin Confucian thinker Xyunzi's famous comment on Zhuangzi is: "Zhuangzi knows the Tian, but misses the people.” Professor Wang Shu-ming started his analysis of Zhuangzi from the idea of (free and easy) "wandering" (Wang, Zhuangxue guankuei [Taipei: PUB, 1968] 179-222). Professor Benjamin Schwartz started his analysis from Laozi's and Zhuangzi's mysticism (Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China [Cambridge: Harvard UP YEAR], 192-205). Neither of them, it seems to me, found the key to Zhuangzi's thought.
[17] Zhuangzi [THIS IS THE FIRST CITATION—NEEDS FULL INFORMATION] 1-23, 39-40. Also see Qian, Zhuanglao tongbian 139-140.
[18] Zhuangzi 278-280.
[19] See Qian, Zhongguo 484-486; Dai, "Xianqin” 575-579.
[20] Zhuangzi 8-13.
[21] Zhuangzi 24-25.
[22] Qian, Zhuanglao tongbian 135-139.
[23] Professor Qian has pointed out that Zhuangzi's cosmology seems to have been greatly influenced by the Mohist Logician Hui Shi. (Qian, Zhongguo 484-485.)
[24] Zhuangzi 9-23, 47.
[25] Zhuangzi 4-5, 8-9, 17-19, 54-57.
[26]Qian, Zhuangzi Zhuanjian, 4th ed. (Taipei: PUB, 1969) 1-4.
[27] Zhuangzi 1-5; see also 50-51, 39-40.
[28] Zhuangzi 6-7, 36-37, 154. Scholars like Guo Xiang, the most famous commentator of Zhuangzi, used to take those huge but useless creatures in Zhuangzi's writing as metaphors indicating the profound but uncelebrated wisdom of the ideal person. Guo even maintained that because Zhuangzi takes all distinctions between things as illusory, there is no real difference between the biggest and the smallest. (Guo Qingfan, Zhuangzi jishi, 1894 [Taipei: PUB, 1975] 1-14.) However, in so doing, Guo forgot the fact that Zhuangzi never used diminutive things to epitomize his thought and that Zhuangzi frequently criticized what is small and limited.
[29] Zhuangzi 41. Translations of Zhuangzi in this paper are from Burton Watson's The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu (New York: Columbia UP, 1968), but sometimes loaded with my modifications.
[30] Zhuangzi 49.
[31] Zhuangzi 54-55.
[32] Zhuangzi 26, 55-59.
[33] Zhuangzi 31.
[34] See also Zhuangzi 44, 47-48, 50, 58, 62.
[35] Zhuangzi 33.
[36] Zhuangzi 39.
[37] See also Zhuangzi, 53, 57-60.
[38] Zhuangzi 51, 56.
[39] Zhuangzi 36-37.
[40] About zihua (things taking their forms from the cosmic process by themselves), see also "zaiyou," "qiushui," and "zeyang". (Cwei 116). Although Zhuangzi did not use this term in the first seven chapters, the original shape of this idea was already there. The fact that this idea was conceptualized in later chapters indicates that later chapters were written by Zhuangzi's followers.
[41] Zhuangzi 14.
[42] Zhuangzi 55.
[43] The word "principle" originally refers to "a substance from which everything else can be derived." (W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion [London: Humanities, 1980] 457.) This, however, is not what the word "Tao" means, as Tao is the unification of the origin and the derivative. There is no proper translation of the word "Tao" in English, and probably not in any Western language. What I mean by "principle" in this article is something fundamental and universal, but not "a substance."
[44] Many of these thoughts were elaborated or made explicit not by Zhuangzi but by his followers in Zhuangzi's "waizapian" (later chapters). However, the fundamental themes had already been brought forth, often in an allegorical way, by Zhuangzi himself.
[45] Zhuangzi 43.
[46]Zhuangzi 10-12.
[47] Zhuangzi 39-40.
[48] Zhuangzi 57-58.
[49] Zhuangzi 37.
[50]Zhuangzi 11-13.
[51] Zhuangzi 55.
[52] Zhuangzi 75.
[53] Zhuangzi 39.
[54] Zhuangzi 24-25, 16-17.
[55] In Zhuangzi, de referred only to people's virtue, but in Laozi, de also indicated a stable state achieved in the process of change and began to possess cosmo-ontological implications.
[56] Laozi ch. 25. Translations of Laozi in this paper are from Robert G. Henricks, Lao-Tzu te-dao ching (New York: Ballantine, 1989) and will appear, abbr. as Laozi in the notes, but commonly subjected to my modifications.
[57]A paragraph in the fifth chapter of Zhuangzi states that the Way is the progenitor of heaven, earth, and everything else. However, scholars such as Qian Mu and Yan Fu have indicated that the content of this paragraph is doubtful. (See Qian, Zhuangzi 51-52.)
[58] Laozi ch. 37.
[59] Ancient Chinese almost always applied what they believed to be universal principles to cosmo-ontological, epistemological, ethical, and political issues simultaneously.
[60] The term zihua occures twice in Zhuangzi (in "zaiyou" and "qiushui"), but not in the first seven chapters.
[61] We can find the prototype of the idea of nothingness in Zhuangzi, but not in such a succinct form. For example, Zhuangzi's ideas about "taking the middle of a circle (huangzhong)," "the key of the Way (daoshu)," and "stepping on nothing (wuxingdi)" can inspire the idea of nothingness.
[62] Laozi ch. 40.
[63] Laozi ch. 21.
[64] See also Laozi ch.14.
[65] Laozi ch. 25.
[66] Laozi ch. 1.
[67] Some scholars argue that according to Wang Bi, He Shanggong, and the Mawangdui edition, this sentence should be interpreted as "The nameless is the beginning of everything, and the named is the mother of everything." (See Wang Bi, Laozi Wang Bi zhu [Taipei: PUB, 1974] 1; Henricks 188). Scholars since Wang Anshi often disagreed with Wang Bi and He Shanggong. Contemporary scholars also question the Mawangdui edition's authority on this issue. (Yan vol. 1, 120-22.)
[68] To Zhuangzi, the Way, either as a process of becoming and/or the totality of things, is beyond words. Laozi's cosmo-ontological view is basically a recurrence of Zhuangzi's, but in a more succinct way. The major difference is that Laozi created the idea of "nothingness" and the dialectics between nothingness and being.
[69] Laozi ch. 6.
[70] Laozi ch. 51.
[71] Laozi, ch. 16.
[72] Laozi ch. 22.
[73] Laozi ch. 40.
[74] Laozi chs. 18, 19.
[TW1] For different contemporary interpretations, see Yuan Baoxin; hua and sheng; Whitehead, process philosophy, dynamic world view, Wu Kunru.