penfold

There are two parts to chapter two of the Lao-tzu the first deals with ‘mutual arising’ the second deals with the use of the tao as a model for the sage. I want to focus on the first part. We are presented with a series of ‘mutual arising’ claims – the beautiful and the ugly, good and bad, ease and difficulty, long and short, note and sound (as Lau points out the translation of this pair is tentative at best), and before and after. The third pair we are presented with, however, seems to be the general case. In the Chinese it reads: 故有無相生; this is usually translated as Something and Nothing produce each other. What I want to look at is the translation of 有 & 無 – ‘something’ and ‘nothing’. It seems to me that there are two different translations and the way we choose to do so has profound influence on our understanding of the text as a whole. Option (1) we take 有 & 無 to mean ‘Something’ and ‘Nothing’; that is we take these terms to refer to ontological entities. In more modern language we might use the philosophical terms ‘Being’ and ‘Nothingness’. Option (2) we take 有 & 無 to mean ‘to have’ and ‘not to have’; that is we take these terms as merely functional and not ontological at all. If we go with option (1) then the ‘mutual arising’ of Chapter two has great metaphysical importance. It would fit with the idea that tao can be described as 無 ‘nothingness’; and from this ‘nothingness’ all ‘being’ 有 emerges. This would seem to fit well with Ch 1 and Ch 42 where the metaphysical role of the tao as involved in the cosmology of existence. It would also fit with the metaphysics of Buddhism and the ideas which became central to religious Taoism. However it does not really explain the other ‘mutual arising’ examples given in chapter; the fact that 有 & 無 arise mutually does not give us any interpretative help with the notion of ‘good and bad’ arising mutually. After all both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are states of ‘being’ and so both 有. The same is true of all the other examples; beauty and ugliness, short and long etc… are all ‘things’; none of them are on the side of ‘nothingness’. This makes the translation of 有 & 無 as ‘Something’ and ‘Nothing’ (or ‘Being’ and ‘Nothingness’) unattractive. Option (2) resolves this problem, if we translate 有 & 無 as, ‘to have’ and ‘not to have’ then the other examples make perfect sense. If ‘having’ produces ‘not having’ then obviously ‘having beauty’ produces ‘not having beauty’, ‘having goodness’ obviously produces ‘not having goodness’. Thus this functional translation makes very good sense of the other examples. However it does imply that the association of the tao with some ‘metaphysical’ notion of ‘nothingness’ is incorrect. Interestingly, while in the Lao-tzu we are told that the tao lacks many thing (no name wu-ming, no form wu-xing etc…), we are never explicitly told that the tao is ‘nothing’. The closest we get is in Ch42 with ‘the tao begets the one’ though even here that is far from explicit (moreover this chapters absence from the Guodian texts implies it is a late addition). This may have some far-reaching implications. If we do translate 有 & 無 as merely ‘functional’ and not ‘metaphysical’ then, it seems to me we end up with a very different view of the Lao-tzu as a whole. To put is crudely it makes the text ‘referential’ to the world of ‘things’ very much in line with Confucian ideas; and undermines the ‘mystical’ reading which is central to religious Taoism and Chan Buddhism.

I’ve recently be re-reading A.C. Graham’s wonderful translation of the Chuang-tzu. Unlike any other English translation I have come across he orders the text thematically, only preserving the original order of the inner chapters and those chapters which were clearly written as complete works. While some purists might object, the text is one that has clearly be re-ordered many times in its history (often to the point of incomprehensibility), so I, for one, find Graham’s work both proper and very helpful. In his translation he groups together seven extracts dealing with the meeting of Confucius and Old Tan (identified as Lao-tzu). These are expansions on a Taoist tradition that Confucius took instruction from the author of the Lao-tzu and even converted to Taoism himself. The story seems based on an earlier Confucian story found in “The Questions of Tseng-tzu” in the Book of Rites where Confucius consults Old Tan on points of ritual. While Old Tan is mentioned in the inner chapters of Chuang-tzu he is not identified as the author of the Lao-tzu (a book the author of the inner chapters was probably unaware of and never references) and is a relatively minor character. The cycle of stories detailing the meeting of Confucius and Old Tan are found in Chapters 12, 13, 14 and 21 of the Chaung-tzu. There is good evidence that they should be dated as a very late addition to the Chuang-tzu – probably Han dynasty (later than 200BC) as they reference the ‘six classics’ which were not canonised till the Han and to the ‘twelve classics’ which are the six plus Han era apocrypha. So it is a reasonable assumption that the author(s) of these passages are Han dynasty Taoists whose aim is to establish intellectual priority for Taoism. However what is important is that these are the earliest detailed accounts of their meeting; earlier accounts do little more than mention Confucius took instruction from Old Tan. What struck me reading them again was this. In the passages Old Tan seems far closer to the philosophy found in the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu than that found in the Lao-tzu. So much so that rather than seeing these stories as fictional conversations between the author of the Lao-tzu and Confucius it is far more profitable to see them as fictional conversations between the author of the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu and Confucius. 1) The Lao-tzu is never quoted or referenced. The closest it comes is one passage from Ch 14 where an analysis of wu-wei is given – though it is analysed in terms of Chuang-tzu’s vocabulary of Hsiao you yu (“rambling without a destination” – the title of the first of the inner chapters). 2) In the stories Old Tan constantly refers to specific examples from nature: “the birds and the beasts flocking together”, “the snow-goose wants no daily bath to stay white, the rook no daily inking”, “In fruits and berries there is a pattern”. Etc… This use of detailed observations of natural processes is a recurrent theme in the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu but barely features as a motif in the Lao-tzu. 3) There is a strong focus on “rambling” (yu) – a word that occurs more frequently that tao in the inner chapters; but is rarely mentioned (if at all) in the Lao-tzu. 4) Some images are taken directly from the inner chapters: “fish … forgetting each other in the … Lakes” is taken from Ch 7; “motionless as withered wood” which is taken from the opening of Ch 2. Manipulation of the heart (hsin) and association with stillness which is taken from Ch2 as well.; reference to the sophist Kung-Sun Lung (the “hard and white”) also from Ch 2. 5) Discussion comparing the rigidness of Confucianism to the spontaneity of Taoism; which, while present in the Lao-tzu, fits far better with language and themes of inner chapter 3. A detailed example may help. In one of the stories of their meeting (ch 14) Confucius bemoans that he cannot get a prince to follow his expositions on the rule of the Chou and Shou. Old Tan responds: What you speak of now is still the footprints, and the footprints are where the shoes passed, they are no shoes. The white fish-hawk impregnates when the couple stare at each other with unwavering pupils, insects when the male calls from the wind above … The natures of things cannot be exchanged … the Way cannot be blocked up. If it coincides with the Way no course is unallowable None of this really matches the themes found in the Lao-tzu, however it is pregnant with images and themes from the inner chapters, from the use of examples from nature, to the dismissal of using historical examples to help discern the way (see, for example, the speech of the Madman of Ch’u – inner ch 4), to the use of the sophist term ‘unallowable’ (see, for example, Ch2 where mohist and sophist ‘disputation’ of the ‘allowable’ and ‘unallowable’ is severely critiqued). The story concludes with Confucius returning to Old Tan and stating: I have grasped it! Crows and magpies hatch, the fish blow out foam, the tiny waisted metamorphose… Too long I have failed to be a man fellow to things in their transformations, and if one fails to be that how can one transform men? Again we have the converted Confucius talking in images and terms which are reminiscent of (and in one case – fish blowing foam – taken directly from) the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu. Why should any of this matter? I think we can draw a number of conclusions: i) As late as the Han dynasty there was a tradition of Old Tan as the Taoist who talked down to Confucius (and converted him to Taoism) which was separate from the tradition of Old Tan as the author of the Lao-tzu. The author(s) of these passages does not reference the Lao-tzu at all. ii) That for some Han dynasty Taoists the philosophy of the inner chapters of the Chaung-tzu with its focus on natural models and the concept of ‘wandering’ was seen as the apex of Taoist thinking rather than the Lao-tzu. iii) It adds weight to the hypothesis that the Lao-tzu’s author(s) was unknown and the text was only attributed to Old Tan (Lao-tzu) in the Han Dynasty. iv) That Old Tan starts out as a Confucian character (from the Book of Rites) he is then morphed into a subversive Taoist character by Chuang-tzu in the inner chapters (a trick he plays a lot, see also Chieh Yu the Madman of Ch’u and Ch’u Po-yu the wise man of Wey – both originally Confucian characters). Only several hundred years later, in the Han dynasty when Taoists and Confucians were battling for intellectual supremacy was Old Tan finally turned into the mythical author of Lao-tzu – a canny move as Old Tan had already been established as the Taoist hero whom Confucius had taken instruction from.

This is an interesting thought. Please forgive me if the following is too narrowly analytic, but like Confucius I am a 'man mutilated by heaven' and this kind of discussion interests me more than it should. The mutual arising paradigm ('MAP') is one that has deep roots in Chinese thought; even the earliest formulations of the yin and yang cosmology take MAP as central. It seems, in fact to be a shared paradigm of both the 'Taoists' and 'Confucians', with the former attributing the mutual arising of things as from tao and the latter's notion of the harmony of earth/man/heaven. The obvious contrast is the Newtonian cause and effect paradigm ('CEP'). MAP implies no priority to linked events, whereas CEP directly disagrees by making the central claim that 'cause' is always prior to 'effect' - it is by this they are distinguished. Your claim seems to be saying is that evolution can only be modelled with CEP and not with MAP. Certainly this would be the standard view of most evolutionary biologists. Evolution it would be argued is about change through time and this change can only be understood by reference to preceding conditions – in other words to understand evolutionary change is to understand an effect, which requires understanding of a cause – ie CEP is required to model evolution. One point to note here is that there is an implicit division between species and environment; it is the shape of the environment which ‘selects’ (in a blind sense) what species (mutations) will die out and what will flourish. I would contend that we can also model evolution with MAP. I think the key move is to break down the division between species and environment. Just as the environment mediates which species are successful so the species mediate the environment. We can say that species which are most efficient at using oxygen will flourish and this is caused by the oxygen rich nature of our atmosphere. However we must also acknowledge that the oxygen rich nature of our atmosphere was caused by the species that flourished early in earth’s history (oxygenating bacteria). So just as we can say the environment ‘selects’ species so too can we say that species ‘select’ environments. Taking this insight further we can actually do away with the division between species and their environments all together (A related thought - Where should we set the edges of an organism? - does the 'human being' include the bacteria in its gut required for survival, or the oxygen dissolved in its blood etc...?). A MAP view of evolution would not see a causative relationship between environment and species but the fluid unfolding of a single system - a system whose parts arise mutually. This is not to say that evolution is better understood using MAP, or that CEP is faulty; merely that both options are open to us. As David Hume argues in Enquiry Concerning Understanding the principle of causation (CEP) is not one we can demonstrate with any a priori certainty. Rather it is simply a ‘way of seeing’ the world (what Kant in Critique of Pure Reason later called a synthetic a priori); I would say the same is true of MAP. It seems to me both CEP and MAP are valid approaches to interpreting change (including, but not limited to, evolutionary change). I agree with you that evolution is ‘fact’ in so far as we can talk of facts. However, as the story of the quail and the great P’eng in Chaung-tzu Ch1 teaches us, the way we choose to interpret ‘facts’ is far more fluid…

Again interesting will spend some time with it.

I suppose the question then is does tao have nature at all? we are told that tao is without form and without name (wu hisng wu ming che) and surely the nature of something is its form and name. Of course there is a paradox here, how can a thing have activity (ie operate as a principle) and yet have no nature? I like to think that this paradox is what is pointed to in Ch 1 with the claim that the division and sameness of the 'named' and 'unamed' is the 'mystery upon mystery' (玄 之 又 玄) of tao. In other words the mystery (玄) of tao is not its nature (as is assumed in 'religious' Taoism), but the notion that something without nature none the less has activity.

ps. I love noir, let me know if anything you've written is published or posted online

Keep writing. The nineteenth century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard was in love with a young woman called Regina Olsen. Better yet, she was in love with him. They were engaged and they were happy. However Kierkegaard was also on a spiritual quest, to live by the highest standards of faith and dedicate himself to expression of the sublime. He saw that he could not both be a husband of Regina and continue this quest. So he left her. Friends were baffled, Regina's father would stand outside Kierkegaard's door demanding audience with him, but nothing would change his mind. In the end Regina moved on and married a nasty bully. And Kierkegaard lived the rest of his life alone; he had been banned by Regina's new husband from contacting her but knew she read his books; they became filled with covert love letters, apologies and attempted explanations of his behaviour; but to no avail. Kierkegaard abandoned his love and only when it was too late saw that in doing so he had failed by his own standards, he had failed in terms of the faith he was trying to attain. To abandon your love in order to attain enlightenment is to fail by your own terms. Keep writing.

Sorry have been busy haven't checked this thread in a while; I make a poor host. While I find this elegant I am not sure how far I agree. It seems to me the themes of mutual arising, origin, and turning back as descriptive of tao relate to behaviour, or as the Han commentators put it principle (li), rather than any metaphysics. My feeling is that the 'dualist/monist' discussion is one not found in the text at all. When ideas of 'number' to come up it is always couched in terms of 'origin' (eg Ch's 1, 25, 40 & 42) and so are about the activity of tao rather than its nature. In terms of the nature of reality the author of the Lao-tzu seems to hold the standard yin yang cosmology - though it is not discussed in any detail, implying that the author is largely disinterested in such matters. The discussion of the tao on the other hand seems far more focused on using it as a principle (exemplified by images of water) to guide the actions (or, better, non-actions) of the sage-ruler. In this sense I think discussion about the nature or character of tao (as dualist, monist, ineffable, metaphysical, Nothingness, existing, non-exiting, mystery etc...) are not found in the Lao-tzu (or, at minimum, a minor concern of the author). It is only later with later works like Wang Pi's commentary or the Lieh-tzu that such discussions are read into the text.

Interesting... I suppose hidden has resonance with 玄 and would imply a more metaphysical approach.

This reminded me of the Ch'ung Hsüan ('double mystery') school of Taoism; the idea that not only should we reject the distinction between 'something' and 'nothing' (有 & 無) but we should also reject the distinction between 'not-something' and 'not-nothing' (無有 & 無無). On this understanding the Tao is neither reality nor illusion, not moving nor still; neither having a nature nor not having a nature. All these assertions are equally absurd!

I think this is a valuable insight - and seems to be very much in line with much of what I find in the Lao-tzu. Where we part ways a bit is I don't agree that the Chuang-tzu has a notion of 'the One'; in fact I think in places it expressly speaks against such an idea: "Now that we are one can I still say something? Already having called us one, did I not succeed in saying something? One and the saying makes two, two and one make three. Proceeding from here even an expert calculator cannot get to the end of it, much less a plain man! Therefore if we take the step from nothing to something we arrive at three, how much worse if we take the step from something to something! Take no step at all, and the 'That's it' which goes by circumstances [yin shih] will come to an end - Ch 2 trans. Graham. It seems to me that the Chuang-tzu is more radical than the Lao-tzu it is not that there is the One but more so there is Nothing. So death and life are nothing, in naming them we bring them forth; it is this realization which frees us from death, but it does not make us 'immortal' (a claim is one Chuang-tzu explicitly rejects in Ch 4). A view, which if I understand your post, you seem to share. As for the use of the concept 'enlightenment'; my only concern (and it arguably is a trivial one), is that it is really a Buddhist concept (none the worse for that!) but in labeling the classics with such terminology we will, to some extent twist them just as glass bends the light. Better, if we can, to read the texts without trying to classify... Anyhow thank you for your thoughtful post

Possibly; I am always willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong. My question is, are you? Tell you one lesson I have learnt from the reading the classics; those who profess certainty tend to end up looking silly...

Have you actually read the classics? While the Lao-tzu is silent on the issue of immortality both the Chuang-tzu (esp Ch 6 though also Ch's 3, 4 & 5) and the Lieh-tzu (Ch's 1 & 6) expressly advocate against the notion of immortality; rather they see reconciliation with death as merely part of inevitable change (hua). To take only one of myriad examples: the opening of Ch 3 Chuang-tzu expressly makes the following argument; life is confined, if we use it (life) to pursue the unconfined that is purest danger (tai). Throughout both the Chaung-tzu and the Lieh-tzu people are criticised for their inability to accept the inevitability of death. The cult of immortality seems to enter into 'taoism' during the period of Han Synthesis in about 200AD about half a millennia after the writings of Lao-tzu and Chaung-tzu. It seems to have its roots in Shamanism; which itself is mocked in the Chuang-tzu; Lieh-tzu (see for example the story of the meeting of Lieh-tzu the shaman and Hu-tzu) and is not discussed in the Lao-tzu. As for enlightenment; it is certainly true that the classics talk of 'sages', 'men of old', or 'utmost men'. However it is interesting that these figures are usually murky often absurdly mythical; in the Chuang-tzu they are often given 'silly' names 'Nobody's-there'; 'No-name'. In other passages talking about 'sages' the stories are introduced as 'reckless speech' or 'wild words like the milky way'. In the Lieh-tzu we find similar motifs and, moreover the 'sage' is at a couple of points compared to an automaton - that is explicitly non-human. I think it is entirely plausible to read taoist texts on the basis that sage-hood; while an ideal to aim it; is not, in fact, attainable (moreover there is good contextual evidence for this reading as we know that the use of 'sages' is common to almost all philosophical schools of the warring states - Confucianism, Mohism, Yangism etc... and no-one would accuse these schools of advocating anything as 'spiritual' as 'enlightenment'). The notion of 'enlightenment' as you seem to be describing sounds far closer to the later religious taoism (道敎) which developed after 200AD not the philosophical taoism (道家) of the classics written c.600BC-200AD.

Nice observation . Well I suppose it depends on your reading; to paraphrase in English: Either: Old Tan was unwilling to help. He asked Confucius to explain them. (ie Old Tan refuses then he asks about them.) Or: Old Tan was unwilling to help: he asked Confucius to explain them. (ie Old Tan refuses because he asks about them.) Obviously I would prefer the latter reading - though, in all honesty, I think the former is more plausible. However even if we accept the former; that Old Tan refused the books before seeing them; it is far from inconsistent with the model of Taoist sages who often refuse help when asked. See, for example, Leih-tzu's master in Ch 7, Tzu-k'uei and Chu Ch 6, or the opening two dialogues of Ch 7. It seems to me that the point of the Ch 5 Chuang-tzu passage part of the theme that death and life are only 'deemed' (是 / 非) good and bad by virtue of words; in reality they are part of the unbroken process of change (化); see, for example, the middle three dialogues of Ch 6. As for Ch 2 Lao-tzu it seems to be saying that values are synchronous; ie that the short requires the long in order to be short. I don't think the Ch 5 Chuang-tzu passage is saying this about life and death at all; it is not about their synchronous nature, but that an attack on ethical nominalism - ie deeming 'life' and 'death' as 'good' and 'bad'. I agree that there is a thematic link between Ch 5 Chuang-tz & Ch 50 Lao-tzu extracts in that both see an overvaluing of life in negative terms. However in the Chuang-tzu extract the problem is that Confucius is in error because he is mutilated by heaven in his need to deem (是 / 非). In the Lao-tzu extract on the other hand makes the claim that overvaluing life leads to death. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they all that similar.

Sorry to repeat myself; as you may have gathered I'm a talkative bugger, so repetition is a constant hazard. In terms of why Confucius was forbidden from depositing his books, my reading of the story is that it is primarily about establishing the priority of Taoism over Confucianism (there I go again, repeating my first post again ). So we can find an easy motive for this refusal: it makes Confucius all the more subservient to Taoism that his 'twelve classics' are of insufficient quality for Old Tan's library.

The problem with this analysis is how the passage continues: Then he (Confucius) went through the twelve classics explaining them. Old Tan interrupted his explanation 'Too long winded I would rather heat the gist of it.' 'The gist is goodwill and duty.' The reference to the twelve classics gives this story a late date. The attribution of 'classic' 經 to the Confucian texts (as these clearly are - hence goodwill and duty) only happened in the Han Dynasty. The fact there are twelve means that not only do we have the six Confucian classics of canon (六經), but also the wei-shu texts which are also Han. This means that the story is only being written in the Han at at least 250 years after the events it is meant to record. Even assuming that these texts are meant to be historical (and I am really skeptical of that - see my OP) they cannot be relied upon for historical accuracy; any more than someone writing today could be relied upon to accurate record a conversation had in 1750. (That is not to say it is impossible they are accurate, merely that without any earlier corroboration it would be bad historical method to argue so).

Thank you dawei . Looking at the chapters listed what I find most interesting is how many of the classic 'tao' passages (esp ch 42) are missing. Perhaps, rather like the Gospel of John in Christianity, the Lao-tzu went through a period of 'orthodox-ization' later in its history. With John's gospel we find later additions (eg John 1:1-14) which seem to have been added to counter supposed 'Gnostic' elements within the text; so perhaps in the Lao-tzu we have later additions which emphasize the 'unified tao' as a way of countering any lingering Confucian elements. Really fascinating...

Interesting. Could you elaborate?

Couldn't agree more. When I read the Chuang-tzu it is like engaging in the most wonderful puzzle-box; every passage adding inflection to every other. My views on it are always changing (my copy of Graham's translation travels with me everywhere and is now so heavily annotated that reading it covers my fingers in graphite). It is an intellectual exercise which opens up my way of thinking and reading it gives me huge joy. The Lao-tzu on the other hand beings me peace. Reading it often leads to times of quiet meditation. I find myself repeating phrases from it as I fall asleep, and when confronted by the numinous beauty of life. It is a spiritual exercise and a way of being. It makes me a better person. Both add so much richness to my life, and I am profoundly grateful to all those faceless people in history whose work and dedication has meant that a C21st South London boy has access to them.

Made me laugh. I will however try briefly to justify my original claim that the Chuang-tzu represents a more complex philosophy than the Lao-tzu: In the Lao-tzu we are given two main terms the tao and te. Tao is usually (though not entirely consistently - hence my suspicious of multiple authors) analysed in terms of wu; most famously in terms of wu-wei but also in terms of wu-ming (no-name) and wu-xing (no-form). Thus the Tao is essentially understood in terms of absence/nothing. This matches with many of the images of emptiness given; from spoke'd wheels to the valley. A second theme which is drawn uses the analogy of water; of flow and settling low. A third theme is found in the idea of simplicity - un-carved wood, un-bleached silk etc... We also have the idea (which is very close to Shen Tao) of the Tao as unified; there is one 'great' Tao and because of this the Lao-tzu is rightly recognized as deeply anti-Confucian (who proposed many 'taos' - the tao of a ruler, the tao of a fisherman, the tao of a builder etc...). Te, as best as I can understand it; is the in-working of the Tao in the myriad things (people, and the ruler, in particular). Unlike Shen Tao, who proposes that that understanding the Tao is non-ethical, and that everything inevitably follows the Tao (ming - destiny); the Lao-tzu proposes that our te is fully expressed when we are at our most 'natural' (tzu-jan) and practice wu-wei (action-less action/ non-action / ego-less action / natural-action). The Lao-tzu is also explicitly written from the perspective of ruler of a state; and while it reaches the proto-anarchic conclusion that if a ruler cultivates his te then the empire will be ordered along primitivist lines; it is none the less a political, as well as a spiritual, text. While there is great wisdom in the Lao-tzu it is not a developed philosophy; it sets out its own position(s) but does not engage in debate or refutations of others; and its concerns are fairly narrow, really focused on a few key ideas - which it addresses poetically and without any full analysis. Someone, I can't remember who, described it rather beautifully as "mountian-peaks emerging from the mist". We are not presented with arguments; only conclusions (or, if you prefer anti-conclusions!) On the other hand the Chuang-tzu has far more directed philosophical concerns. It spends much more time time analyzing the notion of tao through arugment. It seems on balance (and I am aware there are many who would disagree) to hold the view that there are multiple taos which are 'ways of being in the world' and are mostly defined by reference to each other (suprisingly akin to Hiedegger's notion of dasein). The 'sage' is the one who can 'illuminate' (ming) them by letting his mind (hsin) roam (yu) between them - standing on the 'axis of the taos'/'potter's wheel of heaven'. However the Chaung-tzu also deals with the following other philosophical concerns (this list is not complete): i) The relativism of perspective (Ch1) ii) An analysis of nature in terms of change (hua) and what is inherently so (gua-jan) (Ch1, 4, &6) iii) An analysis of death in terms of change (hua) (Ch 4) iv) A radical notion of linguistic pragmatism (yin shih) (Ch 2) v) Skeptism (Ch 1 & 2) vi) Use of the Useless (Ch 1 & 4) vii) Spontinetiy and skillful activity (Ch 3 & 4) viii) The relationship between heaven and man (Ch 2, 4, 5, 6) Moreover in the Chuang-tzu the following assumptions are directly attacked through detailed argument: "Usefulness is good" (Mohist) "Death is bad" (Yanist) "Duty and Goodwill are important" (Confucian) "The mind (hsin) should be cultivated" (Mencius) "Disputation (pien) leads to knowledge" (Mohist and Sophist) "Deeming (wei shih) has a realtionship to reality (ie nominalism)" (Mohist and Confucian) "Skill is good" (Mohist and Shen Tao) "The existence of a 'Great Tao' (monism)" (Shen Tao) "There is a distinction between the activity of heaven and the activity of man" (Confucian) "Bodily mutilation shows a lack of te" (Confucian, Yangist) "We can develop a successful criterion for knowledge." (Confucian, Mohist, Sophist). ........................ I am not saying one should prefer the philosophy of the Chuang-tzu to the Lao-tzu - that is not a decision anyone can make for someone else. However I think it is undeniable that the Chuang-tzu has significantly more philosophical development and maturity.

I agree that 500BC is far too early. Interestingly there is nothing in the Chuang-tzu inner chapters which shows any awareness of the Lao-tzu; whereas the later layers of the Chuang-tzu make extensive use of it (see, for example, Chs 8-12). I think the most likely solution is that the Lao-tz emerged a little after the Chuang-tzu inner chapters - so between 300 and 200BC. However unlike both you and marblehead I don't think the Lao-tzu is the work of a single author but a fairly ragtag compilation of mystical sayings on the subject of government. This thread is not the place for it, but I agree with Lau's analysis that not only do different chapters contain different philosophies, but sometimes even within the same chapters we can find different points of view. In philosophical terms I don't think the Lao-tzu is particularly developed having a primitive notion of Tao which is closer to Shen Tao than Chuang-tzu; and it lacks the philosophical maturity of the latter. Though as a book of mystical poetry the Lao-tzu stands as a monumentally beautiful text. What I still cannot find any evidence for though is your assertion that the author of the Chaung-tzu was even aware of the Lao-tzu - still less that he was in contact with its author.

I think your hypotheses are profoundly wrong, while at the same time I'm entranced by the idea. I really love the notion of these three great thinkers engaging directly with each other. One could write a wonderful dialogue between the three; an aged poet, a grumpy legalist and a madman sitting together hammering out the Tao! With regard your first hypothesis I do not think that we have any good reason to assume that Yen Hui is meant to be Shen Tao. The Chuang-tzu frequently uses Confucian characters in stories to undermine Confucius, and the three uses of Confucius' favorite disciple Yen Hui seem to fit this scheme: In the Ch 4 we have a skill story with Confucius as an ironic spokesperson for Chuang-tzu's philosophy; many of the central themes of the Chuang-tzu are present; the use of yu 遊"roaming free inside his cage"; the use of hsu 虛 "it is the tenuous ... Only the way accumulates the tenuous."; and of course the famous image of 心齋 "fasting of the heart". All of this is typical of Chaung-tzu's philosophy and I can find nothing that would make me think of Shen Tao. In the first Ch 6 story, again I can find nothing which makes me think of Shen Tao at all, on the other hand we have a prolonged discussion of 化 hua - transformation. In fact the character is used a total of six times in this short passage: "If in transforming he has become one thing instead of another, is it required that what he does not know terminated in being transformed? Besides the stage of being transformed how would he know about the untransformed? At the stage of being untransformed, how would he know about the transformed." The discussion of 化 is a common theme in the Chuang-tzu, it is central to the 'perspectivism' of Chs 1 & 2. It is of course the key term in the famous butterfly passage. It is also central to all of the accounts of death in Ch6; see for example the two passages immediately preceding the Yen Hui one, where the notion of death as nothing more than 'transformation' is the central idea. So as with the Yen Hui passage in Ch 4; all I can find here is a typical Chuang-tzu passage, with nothing of Shen Tao's philosophy. As for this passage being a comment on Chs 16, 46, 66 of the Lao-tzu I cannot see the link; but I am really interested in the idea; could you elaborate? With the final Yen Hui passage, on the other hand, I think you really do have a point: Not only do we have the use of this term by we have the following speech by Yen Hui: "I expel knowledge and go along with the universal thoroughfare." This is a bizarre statement in the context of the Chuang-tzu which tends to reject the notion of a 'Great Tao' and is never explicitly advocating for the 'expulsion of knowledge'. It is certainly plausible that this passage is an exposition of a philosophy close to that of Shen Tao. However I would add the following caveats. This is the only passage where we find any philosophical link between Yen Hui and Shen Tao, and so I do not think it justifies the claim that in the Chuang-tzu the two are tidentical; the other two passages involving Yen Hui, as I have argued, contain nothing of Shen Tao's philosophy. While this passage is unusual in its philosophy it is not completely aberrant there are two stylistic points which are very typical of the Chuang-tzu. Firstly, as already alluded to, the use of Confucian characters as taoist spokespeople (something absent from Shen Tao's fragments). Secondly and, to my mind very importantly, we have the motif of the student/master relationship being inverted. In the passage Yen Hui starts as the student but at the end we have Confucius asking Yen Hui to be the master. This reversal of student/master relationship is used throughout the Chaung-tzu (think of the Lieh-Tzu shaman story, or Confucius and Choptoes, or even Old Tan's funeral; to name only three examples of this). As far as I am aware this literary technique is unique to the Chuang-tzu (though I may be wrong, if anyone knows of another author who does it please let me know). Thus, on balance, while I think there is a very 'Shen Tao' flavour to the language of this passage I would still contend that we can fit it into the Chuang-tzu without needing to reference him. ----------- Final thought; given your hypotheses how do you explain the fact that neither the figure, nor the writings of Shen Tao is mentioned? In a similar vein how do you explain why the Lao-tzu is never referenced?

My own sympathy is with you on this, but I am aware that many people now place it later...

Well the relationship between Shen Tao and the Chuang-tzu is really hard to know with any certainty, primarily because while we know that Shen Tao was righting roughly 300ADBC we don't know if this was before or after the Chaung-tzu was written. In particular there are some really tantalizing links between Shen Tao and Ch 2. There is at least one sinologist (embarrassingly I can't remember who, nor can I find the reference) who even goes so far as to name Shen Tao as the author of Ch 2. There is one real problem here which is that we have two 'versions' of Shen Tao. The first is from his fragments (I am using an online translation of the collection made by Thompson in The fragments of Shen-tzu); this Shen Tao is pretty legalistic, there is a strong emphasis on 'standards' (法), 'weights and measures' and 'reality'. On the other hand we have the account of Shen Tao in the final chapter (33) of the Chuang Tzu - Below in the Empire (a very late addition to the book) where the emphasis is on 'tao', 'destiny', rejection of 'that's it'/'that's not' (是 / 非) and 'forgetting the self'. There is some crossover but there is far more of a mismatch. So I will look at the links between the Chuang-tzu and the 'fragments' Shen Tao and the 'Below in the Empire' Shen Tao separately and only at the end try and bring them together. 'Fragments' Shen Tao: In the Chuang-tzu chapter 2 we have: Mao-Ch'ing and Lady Li were beautiful in the eyes of men; but when fish saw them they plunged deep, when the birds saw them they flew high, when the deer saw them they broke into a run. In the fragments (1-B.7 Thompson's ordering): Mao-Ch'ing and Lady Li were the loveliest women in the world. If they had dressed in demon garb, passers-by would have fled from them; if they had changed into black linen, passers-by would have gathered to look at them. This level of textual matching seems suggestive; however it is noteworthy that the conclusions drawn could not be more different. The Chaung-tzu goes on to ask: Which of these four (men, fish, birds, deer) knows what is truly beautiful in the world? Where as the fragments continue: From this we see that fine black linen is a helper of beauty... So even if there is a textual link (and this is only clear example I am aware of between the fragments and the Chuang-tzu) there does not seem much of a philosophical link. Moreover when we look at the philosophy found in the fragments it is at times directly opposed to the philosophy of the Chuang-tzu. For example: In the fragments Shen Tao says the following about 'skilled craftsmanship': (I-C.18) The sons of craftsmen do not become competent without schooling because they are born skillful; it is because their crafts have become standardized. This theme is repeated in many fragments; and a 'standardization' of a ruler's Tao is advocated for (see I-C.19 & 20). In the Chuang-tzu on the other hand, we have the skill story of 'Butcher Ting' in Ch 3: here the butcher is skillful because he has a/the tao 道, he has a 'spirit-like encounter' 神遇; works through his 'spiritual impulses' 神欲; follows 'heaven's structuring' 天理 and goes by what is 'inherently so' 固然. You could not hope to find two more disparate accounts of skillful activity. Thus I think you can safely say that; whether or not the author of the Chuang-tzu was aware of the 'fragments' Shen Tao (or vice versa); they have profoundly different philosophies. Below in the Empire Shen Tao: This Shen Tao has much more in common with the Chuang-tzu. So much so that when first reading the description given in Below in the Empire you can't help but wander if the author is in fact describing the author of the Chuang-tzu himself! This Shen Tao shares the following concerns/ideas with the Chuang-tzu: (the following quotes are taken from the below in the empire description of Shen Tao) i) "The greatest Way can be embraced but does not judge between alternatives" - central theme of Ch's 1 & 2. ii) "discard wisdom and forget the self" (in particular note Tzu-Ch'i 's speech in Ch 2 of Chuang tzu where he says "I forgot myself" - 吾喪我 - which matches the quote you gave from the Old Tan dialogue.) iii) "cast off 'that's it' (是), cast off 'that's not' (非)" - this theme of rejecting the designations and disputations of the Mohists, Sophists, and Confucians is a central theme of the Chuang-tzu and in particular is the dominant theme of Ch 2. iv) "troubles ... come from establishing selfhood" - again linking to Ch 2. v) "clumps of soil" - a phrase used a few times in the Chuang-tzu as a description of the earth. This level of matching would strongly suggest some link between Shen Tao and the Chuang-tzu - especially Chapter 2. Synthesis: Despite the apparent differences I think we can unify the 'fragments' Shen Tao and the Below in the Empire Shen Tao. I would contend that we can roughly sketch the following as Shen Tao's philosophy: Shen Tao has a strongly legalist philosophy which emphasizes the importance of structure in society and is disinterested in accounts of 'virtue' as the basis of government (see fragments - esp I-C.23 "Even bad laws are better than no laws."). He rejects the 'philosophical taos' (with their 'that's it' / 'that's not' 是 / 非) - hence 'discard knowledge'. In their place he proposes a single, unified, Great Tao (an idea found in both the fragments and the Below in the Empire account). He thinks that the 'great Tao' is not a moral thing but is bound up in destiny; and that we should 'flow' along with this without any moral judgement by 'forgetting the self' - hence the Below in the Empire's criticism that his Tao is a Tao for the dead not the living. So how far is this philosopher present in the Chaung-tzu and how far does the Chaung-tzu agree/disagree? I think the Chuang-tzu matches Shen Tao in one respect, and one respect only, that is the rejection of the 'that's it' / 'that's not' (是 / 非) of Mohism, Confucianism and Sophism. In every other respect I think they differ. The idea of a unified great Tao is rejected in Ch 2 (interestingly in exactly the same way Plato in Greece rejected monism): "Now that we are one (an assumption made for rhetorical effect), can I still say something? One and the saying makes two, two and one makes three. Proceeding from here even an expert calculator cannot get to the end of it, much less a plain man." Instead it seems to me that Chuang-tzu is advocating the view that there are many 'taos' and we swim (roam) among them, like "fish setting direction for each other in the lakes". There is simply nothing in the Chuang-tzu which could be called legalist (and as the above extract of Butcher Ting shows the philosophy is very different); but notably there is no effort to reject legalism, which may imply that the author of the Chuang-tzu was not aware of it as a thought system. While 'forgetting self' and 'destiny' are important for the Chuang-tzu the ideas are used very differently; there is none of Shen Tao's amoral fatalism, but rather a creative response involving 'wandering' (遊) and 'flexible deeming' (因是) is advocated. Conclusion: In my opinion there is far greater overlap between Shen Tao and the Lao-tzu than there is between Shen Tao and the Chuang-tzu. However there is enough of a crossover to make the idea that there is no link implausible. It is suggestive that in the Chuang-tzu, which spends much of its time critiquing other points of view, legalism is never taken on. So my suspicion, though it is no more than that, is that it is more likely Shen Tao was aware of the Chuang-tzu than the author of the Chuang-tzu was aware of Shen Tao. However if we accept this claim we are then left with a very early date of authorship for the Chuang-tzu - before 300ADBC. More likely perhaps is that both the author of the Chaung-tzu and Shen Tao were roughly contemporary so share many themes even though their philosophies are very different. ------ edited because I can't tell the difference between AD and BC - thanks to Marblehead

Thank you for your detailed reply. (I will retain the use of the italicized Chuang-tzu to refer specifically to the inner chapters). I will keep to your ordering of the themes, but leave theme 3 and address it along with theme 1 as there is a large crossover. I will also add two further considerations which I mentioned in the OP but are worth re-iterating. On theme 2: While Ch 66 of Lao-tzu does argue by analogy the analogy it uses is that of water. This often repeated in the Lao-tzu (see also Ch8, 23 etc…). More importantly is used very much in the context of 'flow' or 'yielding' as an ethical response. The Chuang-tzu, on the other hand uses mainly ‘animal’ examples; wild cats, weasels, yaks, loaches, deer, snakes, centipedes, snakes, owls and fish are all used in the first two chapters alone! Unlike the water analogy linking to flow in Lao-tzu the animal analogies in the Chuang-tzu are not used in terms of ethical response instead they are used to demonstrate the what is ‘inherently so’ or 'nature' of things. In the dialogues of Confucius and Old Tan we don’t find any water analogies pointing to ethical response, but instead animal analogies used in exactly the same way as in the Chuang-tzu: “…the birds and beasts flock together” – Ch13 “The snow-goose wants no daily bath to make it white, the rook no daily inking…” – Ch14 “Beasts which eat grass are not irked by change of pastures…” – Ch 21 “…like a white colt passing a chink in the wall…” –Ch 22 “…the white fish-hawk impregnate when the couple stare at each other … The nature of things cannot be exchanged” – Ch 14 “Crows and magpies hatch… be a man fellow to things in their transformation” - Ch14 (Note how these last two examples not only match the Chuang-tzu analogies in style but make an identical point about the ‘nature of things’.) Most compelling is the following from Old Tan’s dialogue in Ch 14: “the fish … forget each other in the Yagtse and the lakes” an analogy Chuang-tzu uses himself: “fish setting directions for each other in the water” from inner Ch 6 see also Ch1 discussion with Hui-tzu and the record of Chuang-tzu’s discussion with Hui-tzu from outer Ch 17. It is clear that the type of natural analogy made by Old Tan in the dialogues is not only the same stylistically (animals), but the same in operation (what is ‘inherently so’), and at one point the exact same analogy (fish losing each other) as those found in the Chuang-tzu. On the other hand there is no fit with the analogies found in the Lao-tzu. On theme 4: I do not deny that the Lao-tzu is a profoundly anti-Confucian text. However what is characteristic of both the Chuang-tzu and the dialogues and the Old Tan dialogues is the particular criticism of Confucius’ historical method; which is absent from the Lao-tzu. Again we can match the language of Old Tan’s speech (quoted in the OP) to that of Chieh Yu in Ch 4. On theme 5: This point was about taking into account the style of the dialogues. If one of these dialogues were displaced and found in the inner chapters it would basically be impossible to tell it had happened; the narrative form is exactly that of the Chuang-tzu; where as if it were displaced into the Lao-tzu it would stick out like a sore thumb. This adds weight to my claim that the author(s) of these dialogues were basing them on the Chuang-tzu not the Lao-tzu. On themes 1 & 3: I think you’ve misinterpreted the Chuang-tzu’s use of both yu and uselessness. I will leave uselessness for now, as it is only a minor theme in the dialogues of Old Tan; what I will say now is the Laoist interpretation you give of the Chuang-tzu is not what he is driving at in his writings on the useless – this may form the basis of a profitable discussion and I would be happy to start another thread on it if you wish. In terms of yu – there is significantly more going on here than Chuang-tzu being a wandering scholar. It is clear when reading the Chuang-tzu that yu is a character with serious importance to the Chuang-tzu’s philosophy – in fact I would argue it has more importance to the Chuang-tzu than the character tao – and certainly more importance than the little used character te. The character yu peppers the Chuang-tzu and is almost never used (only two, arguably three, times) in the standard sense of wandering around. Instead it is used by Chuang-tzu as the ideal state of mind, and associated explicitly with the mind of the sage. It is also explicitly linked with the idea of ‘what is inherently so’, ‘illumination’, ‘uselessness’ and significantly ‘the Tao’; also it is regularly contrasted with the rigidity of Confucian, Mohist and Sophist philosophy. This central and philosophically rich concept of “roaming the free and easy take-any-turn-you-please path” (Ch 6) as the chief aim of life is completely absent from the Lao-tzu. Given its importance it is very telling that in the dialogues between Old Tan and Confucius the character yu in its ‘philosophical’ form (ie not as literal physical roaming) appears at least five times. In two cases whole phrases involving yu are lifted word for word from the inner chapters egs: “ramble without a destination” & “letting the heart roam at the beginning of things”. It would be beyond credibility to argue that this level of textual and philosophical matching between the Chuang-tzu and the dialogues of Old Tan are merely co-incidental. Two further considerations: 1) There are many phrases and ideas which I have not discussed in the five themes which appear in both the Chuang-tzu and these dialogues; the phrase “motionless as withered wood” and a reference to the “hard and white” (a sophist puzzle) and “disputation” all taken from Ch 2. Again it seems beyond co-incidence that there should be such a wealth of commonality between the philosophy and wording of the Chuang-tzu and these dialogues. 2) While, as detailed above, there are many images and phrases taken directly from the Chuang-tzu in these dialogues there is not, to my knowledge, a single reference to or quote from the Lao-tzu. Other than the traditional story of Old Tan being the author of the Lao-tzu there is nothing in these dialogues that would justify the claim that their author(s) was even aware of the Lao-tzu! In conclusion the weight of similarlity between the texts and themes of the Chuang-tzu and the dialogues is really significant; whereas there is no apparent link to either the text or themes of the Lao-tzu.