An Introduction to Daoist Philosophies

Steve Coutinho

• Publisher: Columbia University Press
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9780231512886
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Chinese History

Steve Coutinho explores in detail the fundamental concepts of Daoist thought as represented in three early texts: the Laozi, the Zhuangzi, and the Liezi. Readers interested in philosophy yet unfamiliar with Daoism will gain a comprehensive understanding of these works from this analysis, and readers fascinated by ancient China who also wish to grasp its philosophical foundations will appreciate the clarity and depth of Coutinho's explanations.

Coutinho writes a volume for all readers, whether or not they have a background in philosophy or Chinese studies. A work of comparative philosophy, this volume also integrates the concepts and methods of contemporary philosophical discourse into a discussion of early Chinese thought. The resulting dialogue relates ancient Chinese thought to contemporary philosophical issues and uses modern Western ideas and approaches to throw new interpretive light on classical texts. Rather than function as historical curiosities, these works act as living philosophies in conversation with contemporary thought and experience. Coutinho respects the multiplicity of Daoist philosophies while also revealing a distinctive philosophical sensibility, and he provides clear explanations of these complex texts without resorting to oversimplification.

CHAPTER ONE

Daoist Philosophies

Daoism is often explained as the philosophy of The Dao—an absolute and transcendent substance, the utterly unspeakable ground of all existence that lies beyond the world of experience. Those who believe in a perennial philosophy—a single ultimate truth manifested to different cultures in different ways—take it to be the Chinese equivalent of Brahman in Vedanta philosophy, or of the Godhead in Christian mysticism. The Laozi says that there is something primordial and imperceptible; Vedanta says that Brahman is a ground of existence that transcends conceptual distinctions. Are these the same concept presented in superficially different ways, or are the similarities superficial and the differences so deep that the philosophies are actually in disagreement? From a philosophical point of view, the presupposition of identity is a little too hasty. Similarities can certainly be discerned, but there are also important differences. If we focus on the similarities we simply repeat the perennial doctrines of the perennial philosophy and deprive ourselves of the opportunity to learn what is distinctive about each. If, on the other hand, we pay closer attention to the differences, strive to interpret each tradition on its own terms, we open ourselves to the possibility of unanticipated insights. In fact, when the Laozi says that dao is primordial, this turns out to mean something radically different from the Vedanta proposition that Brahman is the ground of existence. The distinctive characteristics of this sort of worldview will emerge as the various Daoist philosophies are explored and developed throughout the course of this book.

While it is true that Daoist philosophies emphasize the fundamental importance of a subtle and expansive source of the world, there is a sense in which obsession with a transcendent and unspeakable dao is misguided. If we focus on dao only to say that it is ineffable, then we have understood nothing of Daoism, or dao, except perhaps that there is nothing to say about it. In fact, while it is true that Daoist texts emphasize the limitations of language, they notoriously do have a lot to say, not all of it empty and unintelligible, and not all of it saying, paradoxically if not incoherently, that nothing can be said. On the contrary, we are told that dao is vast, expansive, and cosmic. And to say this is, as we shall see, to say something profoundly significant.

Moreover, the single-minded concentration on dao draws attention away from several other concepts that are central to understanding Daoist thought, apart from which the significance of Daoist philosophy and indeed of dao itself cannot be understood. These include tian 天 “nature/cosmos,” wu 無 “nothing,” de 德 “potency,” fan 反 “returning,” and zong 宗 “the ancestral,” among others.¹ What makes the Daoist dao distinctive is that it is the dao of nature, of absence, of potency, returning, and the ancestral. To locate the “essence” of Daoism in the concept of an unspeakable dao is, to borrow a popular slogan from Zen Buddhism, to mistake the finger for the moon.

Three names associated with the origins of this school of thought are Master Lao, Master Zhuang, and Master Lie: Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi.² The term “zi” is difficult to render accurately in English: literally, it means “child,” but is used as an honorific title for the teacher or proponent of a school of thought. The term “Master” is about the closest available term in English. Of these three, only Master Zhuang is taken to have been an actual person. The other two seem to be legendary characters who may or may not have been based on historical figures. Nevertheless, for ease of discussion, I shall follow the tradition in using the names as though referring to actual people. It should not be inferred that I believe that any of them actually existed. While the question of their existence might matter from a historical or religious perspective, nothing of consequence hinges on it from a philosophical point of view. Even if Masters Lao, Zhuang, and Lie did not exist, even if all three texts had multiple authors who did not intend to expound a unified philosophy, the texts still contain related philosophical material.³ And it is the ideas, theories, and worldviews they present that are of primary interest to a philosopher. Furthermore, the Laozi and the Liezi certainly have sufficiently distinctive characters and styles of thought to warrant attribution of each text to a particular perspective, even if not to a single author. Variations and even inconsistencies can be found within each text, but these are not so widespread as to undermine their overall internal coherence. Moreover, even if the consistency within each text, or between them, was not explicitly intended as such by the various authors, this does not diminish its philosophical interest one iota.

Of the three, the Zhuangzi is most obviously an anthology of collected materials. A minimum of three related strands of thought can be discerned, each of which could be subdivided further. The first is composed of the first seven chapters, known as the Inner Chapters, generally attributed to Zhuangzi himself, together with an extensive collection of passages attributed to thinkers whose ideas resonate closely with those of the Inner Chapters. I call this strand “Zhuangzian” philosophy and discuss it in Chapter Four below. The second strand is a somewhat utopian set of chapters inspired largely by the more anarchistically inclined passages of the Laozi. The third strand lies at the other end of the political spectrum, advocating sagely rulership of a state, combining Mohist and Legalist political structures with the cultivation of Confucian virtues and Daoist meditative practices. This exemplifies the more eclectic spirit of the philosophy of the Han dynasty. The Utopian and Syncretist strands at first glance present wildly opposing social views, but on closer inspection they can be seen to share a philosophical heritage in the Laozi and the Inner Chapters. They are discussed in Chapter Five below.

The name “Daoism”—school of dao, or school of the way—is in one respect quite apt, yet in others somewhat misleading. It is apt insofar as it implies that one of the important features of this group of thinkers is their very distinctive conception of dao. However, if this is taken to mean that what distinguishes Daoism from other philosophies is that it alone is concerned with the dao, it is misleading. Most, if not all, early Chinese philosophies are concerned fundamentally with finding, explaining, teaching, and following the dao. That is, they are concerned with the way: the way to live a flourishing, harmonious life. Most of these schools share the sense that with the development of human society over the course of history, we have slowly lost our way, become increasingly out of attunement with what once must have been a naturally harmonious way of life.⁴ The goal of the philosophers of each school is to understand the ways, dao, in which things function—whether human life, human values, social structures, or natural processes—and with this knowledge propose a way to bring us back to a state of harmonious flourishing.

But if all Chinese philosophical schools are concerned with the dao, why should this one in particular be singled out as the “school of dao”? There is no definitive answer to this question, but two possible reasons have to do with the breadth and inclusivity of the dao conceived by its proponents and a radical shift in perspective from that of other schools. Most of the pre-Qin thinkers were concerned with how to cultivate human order and flourishing in a social context. This was to be achieved by refining and developing the accoutrements of civilization: language, technology, regulations and measures, social hierarchies, laws and punishments, cultured behavior, cultivation of humanity, and ethical sophistication. Different schools emphasized different aspects in articulating their own preferred dao. For example, the Confucians emphasized social hierarchies and ethical cultivation; the Mohists and Legalists advocated clear laws, regulations, and standards; the Linguistic School engaged in the analysis and refinement of language and linguistic distinctions, whether for its own sake or for the purpose of achieving social order. According to the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, these philosophies had too narrow and shortsighted a focus. The Daoist texts demand instead that we broaden our perspective, expand our understanding of who and what we are as humans, our awareness of our existence in relation to all that surrounds us. We extend the boundaries of our self-identification until we encompass “heaven and earth” and “the ten thousand things.” That is, our awareness must shift from the restricted perspective of the human point of view to the all-encompassing “nonperspective” of the whole cosmos.⁵ Now the search for the way becomes a search for a cosmic way, whose significance extends far beyond the familiar boundaries of human life and human society.

While Confucius acknowledges that there is a cosmic aspect to the way, he warns us not to waste our time speculating about matters that lie outside ordinary human understanding. In Analects 11:12, when Jilu asked about serving the spirits, Confucius replied, “If you cannot yet serve people, how are you going to be able to serve the spirits?” When Jilu asked about death, Confucius replied: “You do not yet understand life; how will you understand death?” It is more important to attend to matters of social, ethical, and political concern, and more important still to tend constantly to the conditions that will promote a flourishing life.⁶ The Laozi and the Zhuangzi, on the contrary, insist that it is possible to promote a flourishing life only by shifting our attention away from the focus to the periphery, from human concerns to tiandao, the way of the cosmos. Thus, although the Daoists were not the only thinkers to be concerned with following a dao, their conception of the dao to be practiced aimed to be the most cosmic and expansive.⁷

The second possible reason has to do with the apparent origins of the term “daojia.” The first place we find the name “Daojia” is in the classification of the Grand Historian of the Han dynasty, Sima Tan. He grouped thinkers of the Warring States into six broadly conceived houses, families, or schools, jia:⁸ Yinyangjia (the Yinyang school), Rujia (the Ruists, or Confucians), Mojia (the Mohists), Fajia (the Legalists), Mingjia (the Linguistic school),⁹ and Daojia (the Daoists). His first reference to the school is in fact to Daodejia, the school of dao and de (the way and potency). Sima Tan’s account of these schools is in terms of the kinds of political policies they promote, rather than religious doctrines. The goal of all these, he explains, is zhi 治, government, orderly administration or rule. He praises the Ruists for their emphasis on the relationships of propriety between ruler and minister, father and son, husband and wife, and elder and younger. The Yinyang thinkers, he tells us, correctly understand the importance of following the seasons, while the Mohists propose the strengthening of agriculture and economizing of expenditures. The Legalists promote the division of labor for distinct official duties and a hierarchical ordering that honors the ruler, while the Linguistic thinkers emphasize the importance of the correct adjustment of names and objects, and the tests of merit and blame. In the spirit of Xunzi’s eclecticism,¹⁰ Sima Tan acknowledges that while the ways proposed by the schools have undeniable virtues, they each have significant faults. The Confucians, for example, are “learned but lacking in what is essential, work laboriously and achieve little,” while the Legalists are “strict, with scarcely any kindness.”¹¹

Of the six schools he names, only the last, Daojia, receives no criticism. This is the school to which Sima Tan himself subscribes. In fact, his purpose in listing and comparing the schools is to demonstrate its superiority over the others. It is superior because it adopts the excellences of the other schools, corrects their faults, and integrates them into a single practice. It thus displays the eclectic and syncretistic tendencies typical of Han dynasty thinking. Sima Tan lists among the virtues of Daojia that its policies are few, easy to adopt, and adaptable to changing circumstances. They go to the heart of the matter in the essentials of good government and waste no time with excessive detail and micromanagement. Sima Tan does not name the texts, but lists a few doctrines and concepts: “The Daoists do nothing, yet they also say that nothing is not done. Their substance is easy to practice, but their words are difficult to understand.” They emphasize emptiness, xu 虛, and nothing, wu 無, as the root, and adaptation, yin 因, and following, xun 循, as the practice. The quotations and the concepts of emptiness and nothing appear to be references to the Laozi. The Daojia that Sima Tan describes is an eclectic theory of government quite different in spirit from most of the apolitical or antipolitical passages of the early Daoist texts. It does, however, resonate with a later stratum of the Zhuangzi, which Graham refers to as the Syncretist writings.¹²

Thus, the earliest recorded usage of the term “Daojia” that we have, from a self-professed adherent, refers primarily to this Han dynasty syncretistic school of sagely government. It would seem that the name “School of Dao” was appropriated to indicate its ideal of comprehensiveness: it is not just a partial way—Ruist, Mohist, or Legalist—but an all-inclusive way that incorporates the virtues of the others while avoiding their faults. As we shall see, the core metapolitical¹³ principles of this school can be found in the Laozi and the Zhuangzi. The name eventually extended to these early texts themselves, the various philosophical ideas they express, and other philosophical offshoots that developed, such as the Liezi and the Utopian chapters in the Zhuangzi.

VARIETIES OF DAOISM AND THE PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF EARLY DAOIST TEXTS

The term “Daoism” is highly problematic, for at least the reason that its current meaning is not well defined. It seems to refer to a wide variety of cultural phenomena that developed over millennia and that are interconnected in complex ways: the ideas of the early texts, Han dynasty syncretism, systems of mind-body cultivation, and religious institutions, for example. Furthermore, the English term “Daoism” is ambiguous: it does double duty as a translation for two different Chinese words, “daojia” 道家 and “daojiao” 道教. The term “daojiao” (the doctrines of the way) refers to a group of institutional religious traditions that trace their lineages back to a distant past and include in their canon the Laozi and Zhuangzi, among many other texts. When the term began to be used in this way is unclear, but it is clear that the syncretist metapolitical movement to which Sima Tan belonged, daojia, and the religious institutions known as daojiao are significantly different.

“Daojiao” refers to a complex set of phenomena incorporating institutional structures, folk beliefs, rituals, spiritual practices, and sacred texts. It is a pluralistic amalgamation of rival sects and teachings that have developed in lineages over the centu...

Table of contents

• Cover 
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents 
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Daoist Philosophies
• 2. Fundamental Concepts of Chinese Philosophy
• 3. The Laozi
• 4. The Zhuangzi: Inner Chapters and Zhuangzian Philosophy
• 5. The Outer and Miscellaneous Chapters of the Zhuangzi: From Anarchist Utopianism to Mystical Imperialism
• 6. The Liezi
• 7. Philosophy of Skill in the Zhuangzi and Liezi
• Afterword: A Family of Dao
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index