A History of China (11 page)

To be sure, the philosophers and religious thinkers of this era shared some of the same concerns. Both Socrates and Confucius sought to identify the nature of a just society in which each individual recognized his or her position in the social hierarchy and performed the tasks required of that status. The two thinkers also offered visions of the ideal man – an individual of high moral probity for Confucius and a philosopher of superior intellectual abilities and ethical astuteness for Socrates; each emphasized education. They resembled each other even in the style they used to present their views, as each shunned a direct, explicit account of his beliefs. Instead they tantalized their listeners with dialogues or anecdotes from which their philosophies could be gleaned. Similarly, Lao Zi and Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, both described roads to spiritual enlightenment, an objective they shared, though they differed on the paths they advocated. Each disparaged the rewards of this world as ephemeral, and Buddhism, in particular, perceived human life as engulfed in suffering.

The convergence of some themes in the philosophies and religions of that time does not imply a direct relationship between them. It would have been highly unlikely for Chinese philosophers of this era, for example, to have had knowledge of Buddhism. Comforting and satisfying as it may be to conceive of and actually attest to a link and to mutual influences between these philosophies and religions from different Asian civilizations, there is absolutely no evidence for such inferences.

In addition, the Chinese philosophers of this era were responding to the specific social circumstances of Eastern Zhou China. The turmoil of the Warring States period had overturned not only the social system but also societal values. Turbulence had also caused destruction and death. Under these circumstances, the populace needed solace as well as a new moral code and social system. Thus, philosophies that provided comfort or that offered the prospect of social stability and harmony were likely to find a receptive audience. Two philosophical strains emerged to fill China’s needs. One (i.e. Daoism) sought to comfort a population beset by warfare, roving bands of brigands, and generally chaotic conditions while the other (i.e. Confucianism) presented plans for an orderly society.

The economic and political changes of the Warring States period reverberated in the new philosophies of the time. The seemingly greater opportunities for social mobility were mirrored in opposition to the use of social position as the means of selecting officials. Most of the philosophies emphasized merit rather than birth as the main criterion for recruitment as well as for social advancement. Confucianism, Mohism, and Legalism, three of the principal philosophies that developed in the Warring States period, paid the greatest attention to the individual’s qualifications in assessing his suitability for office. They also judged his moral worth on the basis of his own actions and values, not the circumstances of his birth. According to their thinking, because family status and personal relations would be insufficient to guarantee a prominent position at court, the ruler and his ministers would have a more contractual compact rather than a hereditary, personalized arrangement. Similarly, a number of the leading philosophers, perhaps reacting to some of the inhumane, even malevolent heads of state in the Warring States period, wrote that the ruler himself ought to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny.

The Warring States period thus witnessed the development of the conditions necessary for a unified China and the rise of a new governing class based, in theory, on merit. The hereditary principle for ministers and officials was overturned, and new men rose to positions of authority because of their capabilities. Opportunities increased for them because of the warfare that punctuated the era and that resulted in the deaths of many in the nobility. Since the new men had military, diplomatic, and administrative skills essential for the states seeking to survive these tumultuous times, the various rulers courted them. Simultaneously, ambitious men, who were not part of the nobility, began to supersede the “feudal” lords as landowners, and merchants capitalized on the demand for products that was precipitated by increased contact between the states; these merchants reaped sizable fortunes, creating still another wealthy, non-noble class. The philosophies espoused during this time undermined the rigid hierarchical structure that favored the old elite and instead supported the aspirations of the newly risen commoners and prized competence above birth in the recruitment of officials and rulers.

Daoism, the first of the major Eastern Zhou schools of thought to develop, poses a paradox to potential interpreters. Like other mystical philosophies, it disdains easy transmission of its principles. For Daoists, the spoken or written word often distorts the fundamental message. Even the most sympathetic of interpreters who seek to describe or define the
dao
inevitably alter it. Explaining its basic features is thus no easy task. A straightforward starting point is the
dao
, which simply meant the “road” or the “path.” Yet
dao
eventually assumed the connotation of a manner of conduct entailing an affinity for nature. Chaotic conditions may have prompted Daoists to turn away from society. They took refuge in nature and perceived society, government, and civilization as artificial and hazardous. Advocating withdrawal from active involvement with society, they proposed detachment as an important value. Unlike Confucianism, with its emphasis on the family, the group, and society at large, Daoists appealed to Chinese individualism. If the individual followed a course that blended with the natural order, he or she would be at peace and would move in the direction of the
dao
. Yet, for the Daoists, the
dao
could not be truly defined because such attempts entailed the delineation of distinctions, which would distort the
dao
, symbolized by wholeness rather than artificial separation.

The
Daodejing
offered the first statement of Daoist beliefs. Lao Zi, its reputed author, remains a shadowy figure. Although some scholars have credited him with writing the text, others over the centuries have questioned his very existence. Some have asserted that the text is a compilation of the works of several authors that was finally completed in the fourth or third centuries
BCE
. Some have accepted the traditional sixth–fifth centuries
BCE
dating of the work but have denied the ascription of authorship to the mysterious Lao Zi. The numerous myths that have gathered around the life and career of Lao Zi have compounded these difficulties. One that was the focus of later disputes between Buddhists and Daoists concerned his alleged departure to the so-called Western Regions. Having transmitted the Daoist message as clearly as he could to his own people, he is said to have traveled to India, where he expounded the doctrine to the historical Buddha, whose ideas were simply an adaptation and ultimately a degradation of Daoism.

The
Daodejing
itself is an elliptical, cryptic text composed of eighty-one short poetical passages. As befits a system of thought that questions the ability of words to convey Daoist reality, these terse observations are often murky and difficult to translate and interpret. Having proposed that the
dao
(Way) is the vast primary force in the universe, the text then defines the
de
in a variety of ways, including as the power derived from the
dao
. It identifies the
dao
with nature and relates it to the development and deterioration of material phenomena. The constant changes in the world simply reflect the manifestations of the
dao
. Study of texts or use of the senses will not necessarily lead to greater understanding of the
dao
. Only by looking inward will an individual be in touch with and understand the
dao
. Neither science nor reason will result in true knowledge. Like other mystical texts, the
Daodejing
envisioned a sudden illumination as a means of gaining insight into one’s kinship with the universe.

The
dao
did not necessarily translate into tangible benefits, nor could morality or good behavior guarantee rewards. The later Confucian emphasis on virtue and on proper, occasionally deferential conduct toward others struck Daoists as irrelevant. The
dao
would not intervene in human affairs on behalf of those who had received illumination. It bore no relation to human standards of morality. Daoism offered solace to the individual in an era of chaos and social fragmentation. Liberated from obligations to society and from expectations of specific ethical behavior, the individual was free to cultivate himself and to achieve a union with the
dao
. When he became enlightened, he would rise above the tribulations of his times and would experience inner peace and harmony.

Daoism, as described in the
Daodejing
, also proffered what it believed to be beneficial advice to rulers, which included a response to the turbulence of the Warring States period. It asserted that the best rulers practiced a policy of nonaction (
wu-wei
). If they wanted to cope with banditry, plundering, and rebellion, the terrible plagues of this unsettled time, they would simply avoid doing anything. The more laws or restrictions that the ruler imposed, the greater the deterioration he would face. Inaction and initially yielding to others would eventually lead to success. Through inaction, compassion, and avoidance of distinctions between good and evil, the ruler often reflected the ­people’s views and at other times persuaded others by his example. Compulsion and harsh laws would not be effective in achieving order and stability.

Though Lao Zi perceived nonaction as a sound political philosophy for the rulers and for the entire population, his impact on politics was negligible. Centralization and unification were essential during the Warring States period, and the rulers of the various “feudal” states were not persuaded that Daoism provided a proper vehicle for their political needs. Instead Daoism, with its affinity for nature and its espousal of a harmonious and contemplative life, appealed principally to those artists and intellectuals who sought refuge from difficult and dangerous times.

Zhuang Zi (or Zhuang Zhou), a Daoist who lived in the fourth and third centuries
BCE
, amplified the ideas found in the
Daodejing
. Instead of cryptic verses, Zhuang Zi used anecdotes and paradoxes to illustrate the principles of Daoism. His amusing yet pointed stories provided revealing introductions to the basic Daoist precepts and also poked fun at and satirized contemporary and earlier thinkers.

Like the
Daodejing
, Zhuang Zi sought unison with the Way (
dao
), identified with nature or Heaven. Such an effort required liberation from social standards. Conventional morality and behavior would lead the individual astray, and only actions divorced from a desire for material gain or any other kinds of advantage deserved praise. Spontaneous and intuitive actions reflected the Way. Zhuang Zi repeatedly praised artisans who produced beautiful and useful artifacts instinctively without the burden of ponderous intellectualizing about their craft. He valued imagination and freedom from convention more than incessant intellectual discourse. His views on morality and on overreliance on intellect and reason thus clashed with the philosophy of Confucius, who appears in several of Zhuang Zi’s anecdotes. In Zhuang Zi’s accounts, he deflated Confucius with ridicule rather than with scathing denunciations of the earlier philosopher’s ideas. He valued those who forgot about morality, about the untenable distinctions between good and evil, and about constant use of reason.

As a mystic, Zhuang Zi tended to distrust knowledge derived from the senses or so-called experience. He wrote that the true sage looked inward rather than to external reality in order to become enlightened. Dependence on the senses would mislead and would be deadening. One of Zhuang Zi’s ­anecdotes, in the translation by Burton Watson, aptly demonstrates his views of the senses. Two emperors frequently met “in the territory of [emperor] Hundun, and Hundun treated them very generously.” They “discussed how they could repay his kindness. ‘All men,’ they said, ‘have seven openings so they can see, hear, eat, and breathe. But Hundun alone doesn’t have any. Let’s try boring him some.’ Every day they bored another hole, and on the seventh day Hundun died.”
¹

Zhuang Zi’s connections with Lao Zi, the reputed founder of Daoism, are uncertain. Since Lao Zi is not an attested figure and the exact dating of the
Daodejing
is contested, the possible links between the philosophers will ­probably remain unknown. Zhuang Zi mentions Lao Zi in several of his anecdotes but does not cite the
Daodejing
. Yet this does not prove that Lao Zi was a real figure because Zhuang Zi mentions numerous legendary and mythical personages. In any event, both the
Daodejing
and Zhuang Zi have attracted the attention of numerous translators in the West. Their mysticism, their occasional playfulness, and their elusiveness have appealed to Western interpreters of east Asian thought, making them among the most translated texts in world literature.

In their own times, neither Lao Zi nor Zhuang Zi appealed to the political elite. Their ideas did not appear to provide useful guides to decision making or to bolstering the power of individual rulers. Unlike the other pragmatic moral and political philosophies of the era, Daoism offered scant practical aid to ­rulers seeking to expand their territories and to promote unity within their domains. Its murkiness and its espousal of nonaction were deemed too unrealistic by political leaders. By emphasizing social order and by prescribing proper conduct between the governors and the governed, Confucianism, Legalism, and the other philosophies of the time seemed more attuned to the rulers’ needs; Daoism did not appear as useful politically. Yet the eventual ­success of Confucianism did not lead to the extirpation of Daoism. Indeed, Confucianism and Daoism were not mutually exclusive. Because each dealt with different needs and facets of mankind – Confucianism with the political and the social and Daoism with the individual, the aesthetic, and emotions – they could and did coexist.