In Praise of Nothing: An Exploration of Daoist Fundamental Ontology

By Ellen M. Chen

This is the fi rst work devoted to an expositi on on Daoist metaphysics and
presenti ng Dao as a feminine principle. The work should be of interest to
scholars and general readers in many disciplines: Comparati ve philosophy,
religious studies, metaphysics, Asian studies, Chinese studies... etc.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Dec 22, 2010
• ISBN: 9781456826116

Ellen M. Chen

Ellen M Chen received her Ph.D. in philosophy from Fordham University. She taught philosophy at St. John’s University, reti ring in 1996. She is the author of Tao Te Ching, A New Translati on with Commentary, Paragon House, 1989 (available at Amazon.com). This volume In Praise of Nothing, An explorati on of Daoist Fundamental Ontology will be followed by a volume on Daoist Cosmology, with the central theme: on the harmony of opposites.

Book preview

Copyright © 2011 by Ellen M. Chen.

Library of Congress Control Number:  2010917910

ISBN:    Hardcover     978-1-4568-2610-9

              Softcover       978-1-4568-2609-3

              Ebook             978-1-4568-2611-6

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

87587

Contents

Preface

Introduction

1. What is Daoism?

a. From Laozi to Confucius:

i. The Declension from Dao and De to Ren, Yi, and Li

ii. From Great Harmony to Small Prosperity

b. Political Theories Developed from the Laozi (Huang-Lao)

c. Mystical Thought Inspired by the Laozi (Lao-Zhuang)

d. Answering the Question, What is Daoism?

2. Whether There Is a Daoist Metaphysics

Chapter Summaries

Chapter 1: Toward a Metaphysical Key Idea in Daoism A Comparative Study on Greek and Daoist Metaphysics

1. The Ultimate as Being in Greek Metaphysics, as Nothing in Daoism

2. The Divine as Immobile in Greek Metaphysics, as Change in Daoism

3. The Divine as Transcendent in Greek Metaphysics, as Immanent in Daoism

4. Mind as Vehicle to the Divine in Western Metaphysics, as Agent of Alienation in Daoism

Chapter 2: Western Metaphysics as the Flight from Death (Chaos) The Evolution of Greek Metaphysics to Aristotle

1. Time as Supreme Deity—Anaximander

2. Repudiation of Time and Identity of Ousia with Form—the Pythagoreans

3. The Invention of Space and Immobility—Xenophanes, Parmenides, and the Pluralists

4. Plato

5. Aristotle, from Physis (Nature) to Ousia (Substance)

Chapter 3: Daoist Fundamental Ontology

1. Dao as Nothing (Wu)

a. Nothing as Suprasensible and Inexhaustible

b. Nothing as a Dynamic Emptiness

c. Nothing as a Female Principle

2. Dao as Reversion (Fan)

a. Why is There Something rather than Nothing?

b. Everlastingness through Reversion

c. Reversion in the Daodejing and the Yijing

d. Reversion as the World’s Return to Nothing, or Nothing’s Return to the World?

e. Feng You-lan’s Criticism of Wang Bi’s Interpretation of Reversion in the Daodejing and the Yijing

3. Dao as Being (You), as Chaos

a. Dao as Being Is Mother, a Chaos Mixture (Huncheng)

b. Chaos as the Unconscious in the Zhuangzi

c. Chaos as Qi, Cosmogonic and Soul Principle

Chapter 4: Daoist Chaos Compared to Chaos in Greek Thought

1. Rejection of Chaos (as Matter) in Greek Thought

2. Affirmation of Chaos (Huntun) in Daoism

3. Masculine and Feminine Ways of Creativity

4. Taotie, the Ancient Chinese Swallowing Monster

Chapter 5: Nothingness in Recent Western Thought

1. Peirce’s Evolutionary Logic

2. Whitehead’s Philosophy of Creativity

3. Heidegger and the Daodejing

Chapter 6: Conclusion: The Benedictions of Nothing

1. Mind’s Return to Earth

2. The Nothing that Lets All Things Be

3. The Peace of the Daoist

Select Bibliography

Chinese Glossary, Pinyin (Wade-Giles)

To the memory of my father

Preface

Philosophy is a conversation, a continuing discourse. Richard Kroner says:

The history of philosophy is like a long conversation in which many minds in many periods participate. Although there is much that is accidental in the conversation, and much that is not to the point, still there is an inner consistency and inner progress in its development. Only this conception makes a real history of philosophy possible and meaningful.¹

Different conversations have been carried on in different traditions. In this work, Daoism joins the world conversation for a fruitful dialogue in a common adventure.

As a student of Western thought, I have listened in for years to the world conversation, always finding a great divide between the Daoist and Western notions of the Ultimate reality; Daoist metaphysics is almost the mirror image of metaphysics as it is traditionally conceived in the West. Most prominent is the notion of Dao as Nothing, the significance of which I have been grappling with for more than twenty years (the research goes back almost half a century). The insights come slowly. Still, the theme of this volume is fresh and unexplored: a comparative study of Greek and Daoist metaphysics to unveil the root differences between the Western and Chinese views of the divine.

Introduction

1. What is Daoism?

     a. From Laozi to Confucius:

         i. The Declension from Dao and De to Ren, Yi, and Li

         ii. From Great Harmony to Small Prosperity

     b. Political Theories Developed from the Laozi (Huang-Lao)

     c. Mystical Thought Inspired by the Laozi (Lao-Zhuang)

     d. Answering the Question, What is Daoism?

2. Whether There Is a Daoist Metaphysics

The Daodejing (the classic of Dao and De), known in China before the Han dynasty as the Laozi (the old master), was the most influential and most quoted work in ancient China. In the modern time, the existence of Laozi the man and the authorship and date of Laozi the book have been under heated debate, with no definitive conclusion. We shall not deal with these issues in this volume, having already touched on them previously.²

The character Dao ( 68958.png ) stands for the Ultimate or root of all in Chinese thought. Any serious Chinese in pursuit of the Ultimate may call himself a Daoist. Confucius said, If only I can hear Dao in the morning, I shall die content in the evening (Analects, 4:8). After the importation of Buddhism to China, Buddhist monks and nuns often call themselves Dao persons (Dao ren) and include the character Dao in their religious names. Neo-Confucianism, noted for its metaphysical speculations, named itself the school of Dao Learning (Dao Xue).

In this volume we explore the meaning of Dao, the ancestor of all in the Daodejing, as Nothing. In its typically cryptic style, the Daodejing says the following in chapter 40:

Returning is the way Dao moves,

Gentle is the way Dao dispenses (yong).

Ten thousand things under heaven are born of being (you),

Being is born of Nothing (wu).

In the recently (1993) unearthed Guodian bamboo slips Daodejing A text, now the earliest extant Daodejing text, copied no later than 300 BC,³ it is also clearly stated that Being is born of Nothing.⁴

What exactly the Daodejing means by Nothing (wu) has so far not been fully explored. This is what we aim to bring out in this volume: the Daodejing’s message of the creativity and benevolence of Dao the Ultimate as Nothing (wu).

Before we launch into our project of exploring the notion of Nothing in the Daodejing, we need to answer a more basic question: What is Daoism?⁵

a. From Laozi to Confucius:

i. The Declension from Dao and De to Ren, Yi, and Li

One way to answer the question What is Daoism? is to explain the Daodejing’s view of the declension of the state of affairs in the world through the stages outlined in chapter 38 of the received text:

When Dao is lost, then there is de (nature);

When de is lost, then there is ren (humanity);

When ren is lost, then there is yi (righteousness);

When yi is lost, then there is li (rites or propriety).

According to the Daodejing, the best and aboriginal states are Dao and de, hence its very own title, Daodejing (the classic on Dao and De). While Dao stands for the ultimate creative principle, de stands for Dao’s coming forth to become the world of nature. Generally rendered as virtue in Confucian texts, de in the Daodejing points to the premoral state of the natural world as the manifestation of Dao’s benevolence in the world; as such, it represents also the benevolent policy of the Daoist ruler inspired by his vision of Dao. The Daodejing is a book on Dao and its creativity in the natural world (de); it is also a manual on the Daoist way of rulership. As Dao is the creativity resonating to the spontaneity of all things in nature, the ruler, by his policies of not-knowing, not-desiring, and not-acting, sets free the self-creativity of his people to flourish on their own. As such, de is the pristine state of nature and society. The Daodejing is a manual on Dao and its ways in nature (de) and the art of the Daoist ruler in imitation of Dao’s benevolence in political matters.

The next three levels, ren, yi, and li, treated in the Daodejing as declining steps from Dao and de, are cardinal virtues in Confucianism. Confucius’s central teaching is ren, human heartedness or compassion, rooted in one’s love of kin. According to the Daodejing, ren as human love is a narrowing of Dao, the universal creative power, and de, the universal ways of nature. Daoism regards all creatures equally; heaven and earth as universal powers transcend human kindness (Daodejing, ch. 5: "Heaven and earth are not ren.") This statement has invited much condemnation from Confucians who regard heaven and earth to be humanly benevolent.

The next level, yi ( 68949.png ), meaning justice or what is right to do, is an important topic for Mencius (371-289 BC), the second most revered Confucian thinker. When Mencius (371-289 BC), who studied under students of Zi Si (grandson of Confucius), spoke of rival schools to Confucianism in his own time, he mentioned Yang Zhu (440-360 BC[?]) and Modi (fl. 479-438 BC). These two thinkers stand for opposite choices by the individual concerning one’s obligations to family and society. Yang Zhu, who refused to serve the interest of the state, was labeled a hedonist and a proto-Daoist. Mencius said of him, Yang Tzu chooses egoism. Even if he could benefit the Empire by pulling out one hair he would not do it (Mencius, 7A:26; Lau, 187).⁶ Modi was originally schooled in Confucianism but left because he regards the elaborate funerals and long mourning periods taught in the Confucian school wasteful of nature’s resources and impoverishing the mass.⁷ Confucius cultivated the finer aspects of life: music, poetry, rituals, etc. Mozi dispensed with music and fine arts as having no practical use, satisfying the emotions only (Fung, I:90ff.). A great believer in the equality of all men, Mozi taught universal love, which shocked the conservative Confucians for whom love must be graded with the family as the center.⁸ Mencius considered Yang Zhu and Modi grave threats to the Confucian value of yi, righteousness as loyalty to one’s family and state.

The teachings current in the Empire are those of either the school of Yang or the school of Mo. Yang advocates everyone for himself, which amounts to a denial of one’s prince; Mo advocates love without discrimination, which amounts to a denial of one’s father. (Mencius, 3B:9; cf. Lau, 114)

Since yi means one’s duty to one’s own family and prince, it is a narrowing of jen as universal human love. The Daodejing considers the elevation of ren and yi in Confucianism to be a declension from Dao and de, saying, "When the great Dao declines, there is human kindness [ren] and righteousness [yi]." (Daodejing, ch. 18.)

Still next is li, ritual, the subject Xunzi (fl. 298-238 BC), the most learned Confucian master of his time, harped on. According to Xunzi, the essence of ritual is the disciplining of desire. A human being is an infinite desire, the satisfaction of which entails conflicts that threaten the return to chaos. There are two kinds of conflicts: man against nature and man against man. In the conflict between man and nature, the satisfaction of human desires comes from consumption of the goods of the natural world. Satisfaction of unlimited desires on the part of humans would soon exhaust the world of goods, which would then result in the frustration of future human desires. Limit is the way to maintain a balance, allowing both the satisfaction of human desires and the continued flourishing of the natural world with desirable objects.

There are also conflicts among men. The world of goods being limited, there is not enough to satisfy the insatiable desires of all men. For the sake of order in society, limits are imposed on the allowable desires of different individuals. Limit is the necessary condition of group (social) living, allowing some members of society to enjoy more of the goods and others less. These limits, justified by ritual (li) and justice (yi), are reason’s organization and limitation of otherwise limitless human desires to ensure peace and harmony in society. People are to be educated to accept their portion according to their station in life. Some are allotted a greater portion of nature’s goods; others, less. If each member accepts his allotment, there will be harmony (ho) in society. He who legislates rituals is the sage ruler who must rely not merely on persuasion and education, but also on the power of law and force. The Xunzi says, The ruler of men, he is the sharp force in the world (ch. 11).

What is the origin of rites? I reply: Men are born with desires which he cannot but seek to satisfy. If there are no limits and degrees to his seeking, then he will inevitably fall to wrangling with other men. From wrangling comes disorder and from disorder comes exhaustion. The ancient kings hated such disorder, and therefore they established rites to curb it, to train men’s desires and to provide for their satisfaction. They saw to it that desires did not overextend the means for their satisfaction, and material goods did not fall short of what was desired. Thus both desires and goods were looked after. This is the origin of rites.⁹

Xunzi identifies the highest principle Dao not with heaven (tian) or nature (xing), but with mind (xin), the seat of intelligence and will. Mind commands all but is not commanded by any. When calm and collected, free from the obsessions of passions and desires, mind is able to comprehend the intelligible principles of things. With Xunzi, heaven or nature as the merely given awaits reshaping by the human mind. As the original condition from which humans are destined to depart, it is not holy. What is holy is his reasoning power (xin), his power of distinction. While for the Daoists, heaven (tian) is a holy order embracing both humans and the natural world, for Xunzi, heaven, earth, and humans each has its own separate domain. Humans who possess mind must improve upon nature. Xunzi calls nature (xing) evil; as the merely given, it is not yet perfect. It awaits perfection by human intelligence. Thus, if heaven’s way is non-action (wu-wei), the human way is through action. Artificiality or human ingenuity, resulting in culture and civilization, not naturalness, has a higher value.

Xunzi’s answer to what is Dao is radically different from that of Laozi. For Laozi, Dao is the way, path, or rhythm of nature, with which man must be in harmony. For Xunzi, The Way [Dao], it is not the way of heaven, nor the way of earth. It is the way [Dao] of man.¹⁰ Xunzi’s man stands apart from the natural world, proudly declaring: Only the Sage does not seek to know heaven [nature].¹¹ Daoism expounds a nature mysticism, holding nature up as the standard of man. Xunzi waged his polemics against not only Daoist thinkers but also those Confucians, like Mencius and Tzu Ssu, who endorse the unity of humans and nature. He called them rotten thinkers.¹²

For Xunzi, the natural realm without the organization of man is equivalent to chaos. He does not consider nature to be teleological; the beauty and order of nature does not appeal to him. Man is the organization of the chaos of nature.

Therefore heaven and earth produce the ruler and the ruler brings order to heaven and earth. The ruler forms a triad with heaven and earth; he is the controller of all things, the father and mother of the people. Without the ruler heaven and earth will lack order and ritual will lack unity… . This is called the extreme of chaos. The correct relationship between ruler and subject, father and son, elder and younger brother, and husband and wife begin and are carried through to the end, and then begin again. They share the order of heaven and earth, and last for ten thousand generations. They are what is called the great foundation. (ch. 9, The Institutions of the Ruler; cf. Watson: 44-45)

The Daodejing is for the return to a primitive egalitarian society. Hierarchical division leads to contention (zheng 68940.png ). True unity and peace are attained not by class division but by returning to an earlier unity in the ontological ground. For Xunzi, inequality is the only way humans can advance beyond the crude state of nature; he who possesses more mind has the right to rule, indeed, to exploit, those with less mind.

In Confucianism, ren (humanity), yi (righteousness), and li (ritual or prescribed behavior) are cardinal virtues as achievements of human culture, necessary for the maintenance of a well-ordered society. For the Daodejing, they are steps departing from Dao and de; ren as compassion for humans separates humans from non-human creatures, yi as loyalty to father and prince separates human groups, and li ranking individuals into different classes separates individuals in the same society. For Daoists, the imposition of human order on nature’s spontaneity is exactly what invites disorder, both in nature and in human society, hence the statement that "li is the beginning of disorder" (Daodejing, ch. 38). When Xunzi says that li is the greatest of all principles, he is declaring the triumph of the Confucian world order over the natural order.

ii. From Great Harmony to Small Prosperity

To illustrate the difference between the old Daoist way and the new Confucian way, we shall quote a passage by Confucius in the Li Yun chapter (ch. 9) of the Liji (Book of Rites, sppy 7/1A-2A). It is a discourse on the evolution of government from the time of da tong (the Great Harmony) to xiao kang (Lesser Prosperity).

When the Great Way prevailed there was impartiality throughout the world. They chose the worthy and capable, who were trustworthy and cultivated harmony. They did not treat only their own parents as parents, their own sons as sons. They enabled the old to live out their lives, the able-bodied to have employment, the young to be reared; they pitied the widow, orphan, childless and sick, and provided nurture for all. Men had their occupations, women had their homes. They hated wealth going to waste, not hoarding it for themselves; they hated man-power not being fully employed, not using it for themselves. Therefore, evil plots having no outlets did not start up, and theft and banditry did not arise, so outer doors were left unlocked. This condition is called the Greater Harmony.

Now, the Great Way having been obscured, one identifies the world with one’s own family. Each treats only his own parents as parents, his own son as son. Wealth and effort are for oneself, with the rites recognizing only hereditary succession for rulers. It is by walls and moats that we secure ourselves, by ritual (li) and group loyalty (yi) that we are regulated. This is how we keep ruler and subject correct, father and son sincere, elder and younger brother in harmony, husband and wife in accord; in this way we institute restrictions and measures, lay out fields and villages, praise courage and knowledge, claim merits for ourselves. As a result plots spring up, wars arise. Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, King Cheng and the Duke of Chou were the most eminent during this time. Not one of these six gentlemen was not assiduous in ritual, in making manifest the importance of righteousness (yi) and trustworthines, calling attention to the erring, instructing them in benevolence (ren) and training them in the practice of deference and existing norms. Wherever there is failure to follow this, those in power are expelled, and the multitude recognizes them as evildoers. This is called the Lesser Prosperity.¹³

The period of great harmony was the predynastic time of the legendary rulers Yao (r. 2356-2256 BC[?]) and Shun (r. 2255-2205 BC[?]), when the transmission of political power was not hereditary. In the Canon of Yao (Yao dien) in the Shujing (Book of Documents, chs. 1 and 2),¹⁴ it is said that Yao handed to Shun his throne, and in the last chapter of the Analects (xx:1), we learn that Shun likewise passed the throne to Yu. They abdicated the throne to a sage, did not keep it for the family, commented Zheng Xuan. This period of Great Harmony was the remote past that inspired the political philosophy in the Daodejing.

The period of lesser prosperity arrived when there began hereditary transmission of the throne, with each treating only his own parents as parents. Yu was the first ruler to hand the throne to his own son instead of the best available man. To the Daoist, this was a calamity marking the decline of Dao and de. When man became conscious of morality, he stands apart from nature, hence the beginning of the period of Lesser Prosperity. In the Zhuangzi, chapter 12, we have this story:

When Yao ruled the empire, Po-ch’eng Tzu-kao was set up as lord of a fief. After Yao passed the throne to Shun, and Shun to Yu, Po-ch’eng Tzu-kao resigned his fief and took up the plough.

Yu went to visit him and found him in the fields ploughing. Yu… asked: Sir, formerly when Yao ruled the empire, you were set up as lord of a fief. After Yao passed the throne to Shun, and Shun to myself, you resigned your fief to take up the plough. May I ask why?

"Formerly when Yao ruled the empire, the people were willing without being rewarded, were in awe without being punished. Nowadays you do reward and punish, yet the people have become bad. From now on de will deteriorate and punishment will prevail; the misrule of coming ages has its beginning now… . Don’t interrupt my work." (cf. Graham, Zhuangzi, 174-5)

The Daodejing, harking back to the time of Great Harmony, is for the withering away of the state. Confucius still admired the period of Great Harmony, a time when the ruler, like the pole star, by doing nothing, keeps the firmament in order. The Analects (ii:1) says, "One who rules by de is like the pole-star, which remains in its place while all the lesser stars do homage to it." But the period of Great Harmony was now in the remote past. Lao Dan looked back to the time when man was at one with nature. Confucian emphasis on human kindness (ren), group solidarity (yi), and ritual (li) is a recognition that we have entered the historical period of small prosperity.¹⁵

b. Political Theories Developed from the Laozi (Huang-Lao)

Creel labels the Daodejing purposive Daoism on account of its many

Reviews for In Praise of Nothing

[le.vert.galant · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A tremendous work of comparative metaphysics that looks at what was lost in western philosophy when Anaximander replaced Hesiod's Chaos with the ideal of the Unlimited. Chen sees this as a shift from the feminine to masculine principle. She shows that it was only with Heidegger and his later metaphysics that the west returned to this founding principle.

All of this is examined from the point of view of Daoism. In the western tradition, being arises from pre-existing being (everything comes from something). In Daoism, being passes in and out of nonbeing (everything arises from nothing). The Daoist vision uses motion in the same way that Platonists use ideals.

For a text dealing with such arcane abstractions, the prose is clear and concise. We are lucky to be living in a time when these various strands of ancient thought can at last be compared in such an enlightening way.