Selections from Xunzi VI

Scott Bradley

All quotes are from Xunzi: Basic Writings; Burton Watson (Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).

RECTIFYING NAMES (Section 22)

"It is easy to unify the people by means of the Way, though one cannot expect them to share in the process of direction."

"Beings that possess desires and those that do not belong to two different categories — the categories of the living and the dead."

"When men acquire something, they never get only what they desire and nothing more; when men reject something, they never only rid themselves of what they hate and nothing more."

MAN'S NATURE IS EVIL (Section 23)

"Man's nature is evil; goodness is the result of conscious activity." (This introduces one of his more cogent arguments. He is replying to Mencius who thought the contrary. 'Original nature' (instinctual behavior) is contrasted with 'conscious activity' (cultivation), the eternal nature vs. nurture debate. Though he addresses the question of why conscious activity is not also man's nature (a more holistic approach), I find his arguments less than convincing. The idea that man's nature, like that of other animals, might be neither good nor evil, does not seem to have occurred to him.)

"A warped piece of wood must wait until it has been laid against the straightening board, steamed, and forced into shape, before it can be made straight; . . . Similarly, since man's nature is evil, it must wait for the instructions of a teacher before it can become upright . . ." (The Church of Pernicious Oneness has a new motto: "Warped by nature." Compare Laozi's "If you would be straight, be crooked.")

"Every man who desires to do good does so precisely because his nature is evil. . . . Whatever a man lacks in himself he will seek outside."

Quoting 'an old text': "'If you do not know a man, look at his friends.' Environment is the important thing! Environment is the important thing!" (So ends the Xunzi. If Zhuangzi is a 'naturalist', Xunzi is a 'nurturist'. Somewhere in all this there must be some balance; but isn't this what life does — balance things out without our needing to “add” anything to it?)

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Selections from Xunzi V

Scott Bradley

All quotes are from Xunzi: Basic Writings; Burton Watson (Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).

A DISCUSSION OF RITES (Section 19)

"He who eats by the labor of his hands is not permitted to set up an ancestral temple."

"If the plumb line is properly stretched, then there can be no doubt about crooked and straight."

"[T]he scholar studies how to become a sage."

DISPELLING OBSESSION (Section 21)

"The thing that all men should fear is that they will become obsessed by one corner of the truth and fail to comprehend its overall principles." (To believe one can comprehend the truth — how is this not a recipe for becoming obsessed with one corner?)

"There are not two Ways in the world; the sage is never of two minds." (A possible swipe at Zhuangzi's "walk two roads".)

"The mind must first understand the Way before it can approve it. . . . How does a man understand the Way? Through the mind. And how does the mind understand it? Because it is empty, unified, and still."

"[T]he mind is said to be empty because what has already been stored up in it does not hinder the reception of new impressions. Therefore it is said to be empty." (A novel understanding of emptiness.)

"If you guide it [the mind] with reason, nourish it with clarity, and do not allow external objects to unbalance it, then it will be capable of determining right from wrong and resolving doubts."

"On the whole, by understanding the nature of man, you can understand the principles that govern all other beings."

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Selections from Xunzi IV

Scott Bradley

All quotes are from Xunzi: Basic Writings; Burton Watson (Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).

DEBATING MILITARY AFFAIRS (Section 15)

"[B]e as careful about the end as you are about the beginning and the end and the beginning will be alike." (Exit strategy? Who needs it?)

"These four emperors and two kings marched through the world with their soldiers of benevolence and righteousness." (Onward Christian soldiers . . .)

A DISCUSSION OF HEAVEN (Section 17)

"[He] who can distinguish between the activities of Heaven and those of mankind is worthy to be called the highest type of man." (Curiously, this exact sentiment is offered by Zhuangzi as a proposition to deconstruct. He concludes he can't figure out where Heaven begins and humanity leaves off. Xunzi seems to be fearful that the spirit expressed in wu wei, natural, non-imposed activity, will lead to inaction, which is not the case. The only resolution that I can see to the 'problem' is to understand both how that everything human is heavenly (natural) and how that some human activities are more natural than others. Self-destructive activities are natural in that they happen, but they are not the activities which nature 'intends'. "Not-one is also One.")

"Only the sage does not seek to understand Heaven." (In this, I think Zhuangzi would agree. Xunzi mistakenly believes that 'Daoism' does not.)

"[O]rder and disorder are not due to the heavens." (Xunzi recognizes the responsibility of humanity for its own predicaments.)

Quoting the Odes: "If you have no faults of conduct, why be distressed at what others say?" (Why be distressed even if you do? The first is easy; the second hard. The first is delusional; the second honest.)

"Is it better to exalt Heaven and think of it / Or to nourish its creatures and regulate them? . . . Is it better to long for the source from which things are born / Or to possess the means to bring them to completion? Hence, if you set aside what belongs to man and long for what belongs to Heaven, you mistake the nature of things." (Xunzi makes a good case against 'pie in the sky when you die', but from a Zhuangzian perspective, the dichotomy is a false one. Heaven is man. Xunzi erects a straw man because he has failed to understand Daoism.)

"The ten thousand beings are only one corner of the Way. One species of being is only one corner of the ten thousand beings. The stupid man is only one corner of one species. He himself believes that he understands the Way, though of course he does not." (Well said, but poorly applied!)

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Selections from Xunzi III

Scott Bradley

All quotes are from Xunzi: Basic Writings; Burton Watson (Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).

THE REGULATIONS OF A KING (Section 9)

"If anyone is found acting or using his talents against the good of the time, condemn him to death without mercy."

"In this way the two categories will be clearly distinguished, worthy and unworthy men will not be thrown together, and right and wrong will not be confused," (When certainty about such things attains power, tyranny has its day.)

"Where ranks are all equal, there will not be enough goods to go around; where power is equally distributed, there will be lack of unity; where there is equality among the masses, it will be impossible to employ them. The very principle of Heaven and Earth exemplifies the principle of higher and lower . . ." (Feudalism is the way.)

(Mis-)quoting the Documents: "'Equality is based on inequality.'"

Quoting an 'old text': "'The ruler is the boat and the common people are the water. It is the water that bears the boat up, and the water that capsizes it.'" (So the masses have recourse; but since this can only be seen in hindsight, any current rebellion should be suppressed. Revolution is rebellion in hindsight.)

"[T]he ruler who relies upon strength will on the contrary be reduced to weakness." (Most Daoist!)

The Confucian way: "This is what is called reviving the old."

"The tiger and leopard are fierce beasts, but the gentleman strips off their hides for his personal use. Thus, wherever the sky stretches and the earth extends, there is nothing beautiful left unfound, nothing useful left unused." (Drill, baby, drill.)

Employ "the five punishments". (Burton's note: "Tattooing of criminals, cutting off the nose, cutting off the feet, castration, and death.")

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Selections from Xunzi II

Scott Bradley

All quotes are from Xunzi: Basic Writings; Burton Watson (Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).

IMPROVING YOURSELF (Section 2)

"When you find good in yourself, steadfastly approve it; when you find evil in yourself, hate it as something loathsome." (Excuse me while I abuse myself.)

"He who comes to you with censure is your teacher; he who comes with approbation is your friend; but he who flatters you is your enemy." (Even if the censure were wide of the mark, it would be an occasion to learn, but then so would flattery. A "gentleman" responds well to these, but does he do them?)

"To be without a fixed standard in your actions is called inconsistency." (This, of course, is the antithesis of Zhuangzi's approach which is to flexibly respond to the ever-changing, trusting in the ever-changing life within.)

Quoting an 'old text': "'The gentleman uses things; the petty man is used by things.'"

"[W]ill you try to exhaust the inexhaustible, to pursue to the end that which has no end? If you do, then you may wear out your bones and flesh but you will never reach your goal. If, however, you set a limit to your journey, then you will arrive there sooner or later . . ." (The question is what it is that one pursues. Zhuangzi says the same concerning the pursuit of knowledge. He might also reply that the "inexhaustible" has neither beginning nor end and that to open oneself to it is to end pursuit. Xunzi sees Zhuangzi's mysticism as an endless pursuit because he does not understand how it is the end of pursuit. But isn't much spiritual aspiration just as he describes it?)

"If he keeps putting one foot in front of the other without stopping, even a lame turtle can go a thousand li."

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

Selections from Xunzi I

Scott Bradley

Here are some selections from Xunzi (c. 312-? BCE), sometimes with comment, chosen to show both what I see as insightful and not quite so. All quotes are from Xunzi: Basic Writings; Burton Watson (Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).

ENCOURAGING LEARNING (Section 1)

"Learning should never cease."

"[I]f the gentleman studies widely and each day examines himself, his wisdom will become clear and his conduct be without fault."

"If you do not climb a high mountain, you will not comprehend the highness of the heavens; . . ." (This comprehension, Zhuangzi might suggest, would require a very high mountain indeed.)

"The finest thoroughbred cannot travel ten paces in one leap, but the sorriest nag can go a ten days' journey. Achievement consists in never giving up."

"He who tries to travel two roads at once will arrive nowhere." (This may be a dig at Zhuangzi's "walking two roads")

"Learning continues until death and only then does it stop. . . To pursue it is to be a man, to give it up is to become a beast."

"The learning of a gentleman enters his ear, clings to his mind, and manifests itself in his actions. The learning of a petty man enters his ear and comes out his mouth." (Why you dirty . . .)

"To volunteer information when you have not been asked is called officiousness; to answer two questions when you have been asked only one is garrulity. . . The gentleman should be like an echo."

"Do not answer a man whose questions are gross. . . Do not argue with a contentious man."

"[W]hat lacks completeness and purity does not deserve to be called beautiful." (Zhuangzi tells us that 'completion' is the beginning of destruction and these judgments are relative in any case.)

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

"By Nature Warped"

Scott Bradley

The Church of Pernicious Oneness, of which I am a proud (and the sole) member, has adopted a new motto: "By Nature Warped". The royal we would like to thank Xunzi (c. 312-? BCE) for his inspiration by means of the negative norm in bringing us to a further realization of the joys of embracing our 'true nature':

[A] warped piece of wood must wait until it has been laid against the straightening board, steamed, and forced into shape before it can become straight, because by nature it is warped. Similarly, since man's nature is evil, he must wait for the ordering power...
(Xunzi 23; Watson)

Alas, we were in line with so many others waiting to be forced into the shape designated by the ordering power as acceptable, but now we are free.

Well, let us rather say that we have a renewed vision of what it means to be free from the tyranny of being 'unacceptable'.

The real ordering power, of course, is the grand inquisitor who dwells within. It is that power, instilled through the impress of society's conventions, that tells us that our acceptability is conditional; there are conditions which have to be met before we can rejoice in being who we are.

Xunzi's contributions to our understanding and appreciation of what Zhuangzi and Laozi were about are immeasurable. Both tell us that "the uncarved block" is truer to who we are than the steamed, forced and shaped. If "warped" is what we are, then let us rejoice in being warped. Here our perniciousness is at its most wanton joyfulness. Here we discover an open-heartedness that not only overflows in kindness toward ourselves, but also to all others. Let the ordering powers worry that we might thereby run amok; we know that hereby we grow in our own affirming wholeness and that that ameliorating affirmation spreads out around us.

Zhuangzi's "usefulness of the useless" is an acknowledgment of the benefits of being warped — if only we can avoid the straightening board. If we are sufficiently warped we are left alone to be who we are — if only we can embrace our uselessness.

Woodworker Qing prepared his heart and let it settle into its natural receptivity before entering the forest to discover if there was a tree that by nature contained a bell stand. "Matching the heavenly with the heavenly" he found that tree and created a thing of great beauty. Might we speculate that the tree was far from straight, but rather gnarled, warped and twisted?

We at the Church of Pernicious Oneness have hardly yet begun to understand the ramifications of embracing the joys of being by nature warped; only we know that they are many.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

The Flight of Existence I: World Myth

Scott Bradley

When first I read the Zhuangzi I was put off by the mythical story that is its opening trope. I say this by way of confessing my close-mindedness. A vast fish transforms into a huge bird and flies from one oblivion to another. Did he actually believe this ridiculous story? Is this book just one more fanciful explanation of the world?

Of course he did not believe it. But unlike me, he felt no aversion to myth; perhaps he realized that everything we say about the world is, in the end, myth.

If we want to know why he began with this fantastic story we would do well to begin by considering his audience. Though his way is clearly available to everyone, we must remember that only a tiny elite were capable of even reading his work, not to mention understanding it. Those who did read it were also reading Mohist and Confucian tracts.

According to Robert Eno ("Cook Ding's Dao and the Limits of Philosophy" in Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi), though Confucianism seems to be Zhuangzi's principle target, Mohism takes some of his greatest hits, though perhaps only a Mohist would know it. Eno suggests that Zhuangzi shared one very important point of view with Confucius, namely that a dao, to effectively bring one to a transformative experience of Dao, requires a "dao-learning" practice; both are ways of "knowing how", not "knowing what". For Confucius this was to be realized through the performance of rigid and static ritual; for Zhuangzi, it was through every skill that living might require or offer, and thus something more spontaneously and flexibly realized.

Mohism, on the other hand, was rationalistic; it was about explaining the world and living according to the rules that 'logic' revealed. In fact, the Neo-Mohism of Zhuangzi's time spent a great deal of effort formulating rules of logic and argumentation to 'prove' the validity of its way. Confucianism responded to this development by trying to rationalize itself (Xunzi?).

And thus Zhuangzi, iconoclastic joker that he was, began his philosophical statement with crazy stories about a giant fish becoming a giant bird, talking quail, Liezi riding the wind, a spirit-man living on wind and dew, and giant gourds. Wake up to the Mystery of it all! he seems to be shouting. Go beyond the 'understanding consciousness'! Break free of the boundaries and wander in the boundless!

Zhuangzi's audience were not a bunch of dumb rustics who would have believed such myths, and might very well have been scandalized at encountering these, as was I. The mind that, in the name of 'not-knowing' and non-assertion, has closed itself to myth, is a mind still ruled as much by reason as one that thinks that reason has the ‘answer’.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

More on Xunzi IV: Benevolent Soldiers

Scott Bradley

Xunzi instructs a king and a famous general on the conduct of war. They beg to know more. If a Way is only true when it seeks to sit in the seat of power and its sages must therefore govern, then they had best know how to wage war. No state ever has existed without the threat of violence and very few indeed without exercising it.

But a disciple, Chen Xiao, scratches his head and asks how it is that his master can speak of exercising benevolence and righteousness in the waging of war, and how a sage could allow the failure of diplomacy that would necessitate such an extreme act. Xunzi, among other things, answers that the soldiers of the sage-king are "soldiers of benevolence and righteousness".

Just like American soldiers presumably.

My present interest here isn't in the question of whether it is ever right to wage war, or if a sage should have anything to do with war or the governing that it would seem to require. I'm just using it to segue into this: Xunzi was a bullshit artist. (It takes one to know one you say. Exactly.)

What did Xunzi know about waging war? How many battles did he oversee? How many men did he disembowel? What did he know about governing? How a king should reign? What will most definitely happen if the rites are performed? Well, he might answer, he knows the 'principles'. And from these principles he spins an exhaustive account of how things ought to be and how they most surely will be, if only his principles are allowed to find expression. Thus I say: Xunzi was a bullshit artist. He didn't have a clue; it's all cotton candy.

I have already praised Xunzi for his many wise aphorisms; he has lots of interest to say. Only it is also best to remember that pontificators (including the one now writing) are not to be trusted to say only what they 'know'.

Since I am roasting Xunzi, I will close with a comment on his "rationalism' which is neither rational nor logical. Thinking we can explain the world (rationalism) does not mean that our explanations do, and it is irrational to believe they do when they don't. Xunzi 'proves' the efficacy of the "mastery of all moral principles" by declaring 'successful' rulers as those who possessed it and ‘unsuccessful’ rulers as those who did not. This serves only to prove his ability to sort the sheep from the goats, not why they are so.

You can check out Scott's other miscellaneous writings here.

More on Xunzi III

Scott Bradley

I have no way of knowing why (not to mention if) you are reading this, but if it is because you have an active interest in Zhuangzi, things Daoist, or Chinese thought in general, I would certainly recommend the Xunzi, if for no other reason than it is filled with wise counsels regarding one's conduct in the world. If we can forget his Confucian obsession with the past and the extremes of his rationalism, he has much to teach us.

It is this extreme rationalism that I hope to consider in this post and will begin once again with his criticism of Zhuangzi: "Zhuangzi was obsessed with thoughts of Heaven [i.e., Nature] and did no understand the importance of man." (21; Watson) It is Watson's interpolation that what Xunzi meant by "Heaven" (tian) in this context is "Nature". I am not so sure. Certainly that is what it meant for him, but I suspect he thought it meant something else to Zhuangzi, namely the quasi-supernatural. I think he was mistaken.

Xunzi's rationalism is so thorough in its dismissal of the supernatural as mere superstition that he could have been writing in the last century. "You pray for rain, and it rains. Why? For no particular reason, I say. It is just as though you had not prayed for rain and it rained anyway." (17) In this I personally find resonating agreement. Yet here, too, we find a certain close-minded rigidity that I also have experienced and from which I have found some release in Zhuangzi.

Sorting out the nuanced meanings of the Heaven, Earth, Man triad in any of these early philosophies is no easy matter, and especially so in Zhuangzi (who also declares himself unable to do so), but I think we can say that for him, ultimately and practically, there is only Heaven. Humanity is the Heavenly.

What this means in terms of Zhuangzi's spirituality and mysticism is that it is decidedly not an appeal to the supernatural, the otherworldly, but to an exploration of the human itself. And this exploration leads him to understand that the human experience is a great deal more than the "understanding consciousness" which parses reality into graspable packets of knowledge and moral discrimination. Our roots are deep in ineffable Mystery and it is in our openness to and experience of this that most profoundly determines how we go about doing our humanity in the world. Might not Zhuangzi then reply to Xunzi that he has become obsessed with one corner of his humanity, reason, and has not understood our profound rootedness in what reason cannot know? In this context, all of Xunzi's practical wisdom which reason has divulged remains as valid as ever, for it, too, is an affirmable expression of our humanity.

What is different is the spirit of our perceptions. The Zen (and Zhuangzian) metaphor of mountains coming to be seen as not-mountains only to be seen as mountains again speaks directly of this spirit. The full gamut of our humanity is most wonderfully experienced when informed by an open and contentless release into the mystery of our apparent existence.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

More on Xunzi II

Scott Bradley

To anyone seeking to make a case against Zhuangzi's mysticism I would certainly recommend Xunzi as a source of contemporary ammunition. His point of view is in many respects diametrically opposed to that of Zhuangzi. Indeed, as mentioned previously, some have thought his teaching to be a direct answer to Zhuangzi. This may be going too far, for his was a response to numerous philosophies emerging from the Warring States Period of which Zhuangzi was but one. Nevertheless, there are at least two occasions when he seems to be parodying Zhuangzi's story of the mighty bird Peng's flight and the silly dove's response. And then there are many pithy statements which seem to address Zhuangzi directly. Here's a sampling:

"If you guide it [the mind] with reason, nourish it with clarity, and do not allow external objects to unbalance it, then it will be capable of determining right and wrong and of resolving doubts." (Xunzi, 21; Watson) Xunzi was a rationalist and it would be hard to find a more definitive rebuttal of Zhuangzi’s dismissal of reason as a means to resolving life's fundamental issues.

"He who tries to travel two roads at once will arrive nowhere." (Xunzi, 1; Watson) Zhuangzi was an advocate of "Walking Two Roads", a metaphor with broad implications but which primarily speaks to the sage's ability to adapt to the opinions of others while understanding the relative character of every point of view. If Xunzi was in fact addressing this, he missed the point, however. His concern is that the would-be sage be doggedly single-minded in her self-cultivation: "Achievement consists in never giving up. . . they keep their minds on one thing." Elsewhere (21) he says: "There are not two Ways in the world; the sage is never of two minds."

"Learning should never cease. . . A piece of wood as straight as a plumb line may be bent in a circle as true as any drawn with a compass . . . The bending process has made it this way." (1) As a rationalist with a melancholy view of human nature, Xunzi takes the exact opposite view of Zhuangzi and Daoism generally, namely that returning to "the uncarved block", that is, the most natural, is the way to grow.

"[W]hat lacks completeness and purity does not deserve to be called beautiful." (1) Zhuangzi tells us that completeness, were it possible, would simply be the beginning of dissolution. A woman of great beauty, moreover, would still set deer to flight, for ultimately beauty resides in the eye of the beholder. Zhuangzi uses the grotesque as exemplars of sagacity to make this point.

There are many more such examples and, of course, statements of the more general Confucian emphasis on benevolence, righteousness and the necessity of ritual to which Zhuangzi was opposed. In being so radically different than Zhuangzi, Xunzi offers us a great way to take another look at Zhuangzi's thought and to ask if, and if so how, it might benefit from his critique.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

More on Xunzi I

Scott Bradley

Xunzi (312-? B.C.E.), it might be remembered, has come to our attention because of his criticism of his older contemporary Zhuangzi (ca. 369-286 B.C.E.), namely that he was "obsessed with Nature, but did not know the human." As one similarly obsessed, it seems like it might be worth exploring why he came to this conclusion.

This criticism comes as a mere dismissive swipe at just another philosopher who has "become obsessed by a small corner of truth and fail[ed] to comprehend its overall principles." (Xunzi, 21; Watson) I have previously mentioned the irony that Zhuangzi would have most certainly agreed with the dangers of adhering to what one thinks is the truth, but would have added that this is precisely what believing that one can "comprehend the overall principles" entails. This counter-criticism is apparently a consequence of being "obsessed with Nature" and why I, for one, gladly confess to this vice. I am reminded of religionists who decry religion and thus decree the religion that ends all religion.

Though obscure in his time, Xunzi's philosophy became the philosophy of the notoriously brutal Han Dynasty (though in his defense Watson tells us that much of his moral teaching was disregarded). This leads one to ask what difference it would have made if Zhuangzi's way had 'triumphed' instead. The answer, I think, is that the question is moot; his way could not have become the state philosophy. I am reminded of the Sermon on the Mount; were Christians to have really taken these teachings to heart, there actually never would have been any such thing as Christianity as we know it today. The actual ways of Jesus and of Zhuangzi don't 'work' in the environment of dynastic empire building, which is to say they most certainly would not work today. Nothing much has changed in this regard. For Confucianism, this is a fatal flaw. When it comes to feeding lions, it is considered preferable to be the person feeding than the person fed.

What then does Jesus or Zhuangzi have to offer? Personal liberation. And it was this that made Zhuangzi so revolutionary as to be called an anarchist. Confucius wanted to transform society; Zhuangzi suggested we begin with ourselves. This is not to say that Confucius did not advocate self-cultivation — he did — but that his ultimate goal was, in the end, political power ('but only to do good', of course). Does personal liberation lead to societal liberation? Perhaps; but I think we can be fairly sure that the latter cannot happen without the former in any case.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Nature Vs Nurture III

Scott Bradley

Xunzi's criticism of Zhuangzi ("Zhuangzi was obsessed by nature (tian=heaven), but did not know the human.") is found in his chapter "Dispelling Obsessions" which begins: "The thing all men should fear is that they become obsessed by a small corner and lose sight of the larger pattern." (Xunzi 21/1) This sentiment is so reminiscent of the opening theme of the 33rd chapter of the Zhuangzi where all the philosophies discussed, with the notable exception of Confucianism which by default is assumed to see the “larger pattern”, are declared to be the work of “nook and cranny scholars”, that it’s hard not to imagine some very real connection between them. In any case, this seems to have been a major thrust of the Confucian polemic.

What is ironic about this statement is that it is one that Zhuangzi would have whole-heartedly endorsed. Only he would have added that anyone who thought he clearly saw the “larger pattern” would also be someone “obsessed by a small corner”. Xunzi falls into exactly the folly of thinking his perspective takes in the whole picture. The Confucians and Mohists, Zhuangzi tells us, each deny what the other affirms, believing they see the “larger pattern”, and in this they are obsessed with their “small corner”. In view of this, wouldn’t it be better, he asks, to understand that we do not understand and begin from there?

Zhuangzi actually makes a similar statement when he says: “A large consciousness is idle and spacey; a small consciousness is cramped and circumspect.” (Chapter 2; Ziporyn) The difference between his statement and Xunzi’s is that for Zhuangzi the only way to avoid dwelling in a “small corner” is to be free of dogmatism altogether.

To truly be free of dogmatism one must allow dogmatism to flourish. Thus, Zhuangzi goes on to say that the sage just follows along with whatever dogmatism she encounters. Like the monkey trainer, who understood that it really made no difference whether his monkeys got two or three nuts in the morning or two or three in the afternoon, the sage lets human culture unfold.

Xunzi’s real complaint with Zhuangzi is precisely this — his failure to be dogmatic. He who clings to a “right view” is more comfortable with someone who clings to his own “right view”, even though “wrong”, than with someone who subscribes to no “right view” at all. “Heaven” (Nature) for Zhuangzi is a great unfolding, and whatever unfolds is ultimately acceptable. If what happens is Dao, then all that happens is ultimately affirmable.

But the monkey trainer had responsibilities; he had monkeys to take care of; and thus, though he himself saw no difference between two now and three later and three now and two later, he went along with the monkeys in their preferences and thereby brought them some degree of peace. This is “walking two roads”. Xunzi would have insisted on one formula, his own.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Nature Vs Nurture II

Scott Bradley

Kjellberg tells us (in Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi) that Xunzi seems to have deliberately used the term wei (action, artifice) to describe the means to achieving his moral sagacity. "Rather than running away from the label 'artificial'", he writes, "Xunzi embraces it as the hallmark of his system." It doesn't surprise us that he would want to take the opposite of Zhuangzi's wu-wei (non-intentional action) as his method given his belief that human nature is "bad", but he also flies in the face of Mengzi's negative use of the term as "hypocritical" or "deceptive". Once again, Xunzi seems to have misinterpreted the spirit of what both these philosophers, proto-Daoist and Confucian, meant by the term.

There are certainly strains of anti-culturalism in the form of human creativity in the Zhuangzi, but these are not representative of the teaching of Zhuangzi himself, or at least of the Inner Chapters. Xunzi seems to have believed that for Zhuangzi wei meant doing something for the sake of self- or societal betterment. This is wide of the mark. It is never about the what of what one does, but the how, that concerns Zhuangzi. Carving a bell stand is a perfectly human endeavor — even if it is poorly executed. The outcome of wu-wei, however, is to make a truly wonderful bell stand. The bell stand maker in the Zhuangzi "matches the heavenly with the heavenly", which is to say the bell stand naturally happens through him. It would not have happened without him, but neither would it have happened without his having in some sense stepped out of the way to let it happen. The opposite of art is artifice.

The Daoist, in this sense, does as much as a Confucian does; only she does it in a different way. The Daoist is ever much as involved in self-cultivation as a Confucian, only his investment in outcomes is altogether different.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Nature Vs Nurture I

Scott Bradley

I return to Xunzi's (312-? B.C.E.) objection to Zhuangzi's (369-286 B.C.E.) philosophy: "Zhuangzi was obsessed with nature (tian=Heaven) but did not know the human." (Xunzi 21/22) As mentioned previously, Kjellberg offers several interpretations of what this might mean and settles on one as the most likely (in Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi), namely that Xunzi believes Zhuangzi is suggesting that nature is 'good' and thus that spontaneous (natural) living will lead to a 'good' life. We need only remember that it is Xunzi who famously said "human nature is bad" to understand why he found this disturbing. For my part, I suggested that Xunzi was essentially oblivious to what Zhuangzi was actually saying.

Before discussing how this was so, however, I would like to mention the hypothesis that Xunzi's Confucianism may have been a direct response to the philosophy of Zhuangzi. (Kjellberg references David Nivison in this regard). This should not surprise us since the 'Daoist' sensibility was already gaining ground as an alternative to Confucianism at the time of his writing. Thus, his negative assessment of human nature would have been a direct answer to Zhuangzi's 'naturalism'.

What then of Xunzi's misunderstanding of Zhuangzi? Might we begin with the simple fact that he was a moralist concerned with right and wrong, whereas Zhuangzi, though certainly acknowledging the validity of a relative morality in human culture, understood nature (reality) as amoral? It's hard to over-estimate the consequence of this difference when considering one's orientation in the world. I have several times quoted the Zen statement to the effect that he who is concerned with right and wrong is bound by right and wrong. That the question of moral outcomes so often immediately arises in these discussions is evidence of this bondage; and it tends to abort any possibility of understanding the transcendent sensibility of a perspective such as Zhuangzi's. (A parallel is seen in the rationalist's inability to grasp the possibility of another way of knowing.)

Did Zhuangzi then believe, like Mengzi (Mencius) (372-289 B.C.E.), that human nature is good? Not at all; he believed that it is what it is. Within the context of human society, we sometimes behave badly and sometimes well, but humanity, like everything else in the universe, is essentially amoral. We do not declare a mountain lion 'bad' because she takes domestic goats as well as deer, though for reasons of human concern we might deem her relatively so. Similarly, we can deem some behaviors as harmful to human society generally, without declaring individuals 'evil'.

What tends to be overlooked in objections such as Xunzi's is the transformational character of an approach like that of Zhuangzi who does not proclaim to the world at large the virtues of running wild in spontaneity, but rather suggests a way of spiritual integration from which spontaneity arises. You don't have the one without the other. Spontaneity is descriptive of a way of being, not a prescription for achieving it.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Why Be a Skeptic?

Scott Bradley

The Radiance of Drift and Doubt is the sage's only map.
(Zhuangzi, 2; Ziporyn)

I have previously mentioned Paul Kjellbrg's contribution in Essays on Skepticism, Relativism and Ethics in Zhuangzi ("Sextus Empiricus, Zhuangzi, and Xunzi on 'Why Be Skeptical"). I have found this essay downright inspiring.

Sextus (160-210) was a skeptic of the pyrrhonian school. Pyrrho (360-275 B.C.E) is said to have "traveled to India with Alexander where he encountered gymnosophs, or 'naked philosophers', after which he is said to have exhibited a state of remarkable peace of mind through his refusal to pronounce anything good or bad." This is an intriguing factoid in itself.

Kjellberg contrasts Sextus' with Zhuangzi's skepticism and asks how they differ. But first, he indicates how they are both "soft skeptics" in that they do not deny the possibility of knowledge but simply the possibility that one can conclusively know the certainty of what one knows.

Thus, both make uncertainty a fundamental point of departure for their philosophical journey. And both decide to make of uncertainty a positive phenomenon. The decision is thus not so much to be a skeptic, for that seems to them a necessity of intellectual honesty, but rather to make of this unavoidable reality a means to peace, rather than despair.

Sextus suggests that in the suspension of judgment as to whether something is good or bad, death for instance, enables one to achieve a certain degree of peace (ataraxia). Zhuangzi makes a very similar argument in his suggestion that the fear of death may be entirely misguided; perhaps we are lost children who don't know the way home, or like the woman who wept inconsolably upon being taken captive in war only to have a complete change of heart upon becoming the Emperor's concubine. This relatively intellectual use of skepticism to achieve a degree of peace can no doubt be nourished and intensified, but Zhuangzi goes further; for him it is an invitation to mysticism.

The choice to affirm rather than deny the reality of our uncertainty suggests for Zhuangzi an opportunity to release ourselves completely into that very same affirmation. "Handing it all over to the unavoidable" is not simply an intellectual exercise, but a mystical one. And the consequences likewise go beyond a moderate degree of peace and into joy and thankfulness.

In this, we can also see how his way is a way of according with nature; it is an agreement with the way things seem to be. As such, it remains true to the uncertainty inherent in the human condition, for nothing needs to be true for it to 'work'. In the next post we'll look at how the working of Zhuangzi's skepticism differs from that of Sextus.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Answering Xunzi

Scott Bradley

Paul Kjellberg, in his contribution ("Sextus Empiricus, Zhuangzi, and Xunzi on 'Why Be Skeptical?'") to Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi, quotes Xunzi's (c. 312-? B.C.E.) negative assessment of Zhuangzi's philosophy: "Zhuangzi was obsessed by nature and did not know the human", and attempts to determine what it is exactly that forms the basis of this criticism. He offers three possible interpretations of Zhuangzi which might have led to this assessment and settles on his ostensible belief that one who spontaneously follows his own natural inclinations will 'do the right thing'. Xunzi, we must remember, is famous for having said, "human nature is bad", in contrast to his fellow interpreter of Confucius, Mencius, who declared human nature essentially good, though deeply injured. Thus, Xunzi fears that if the world was to follow Zhuangzi's exhortations to live 'naturally', as opposed to following a strict regime of self-cultivation of culturally realized ethics, it would quickly go amuck.

I would like to offer a few ideas in response. The first is that Kjellberg, though he admits the possibility that he did not, largely assumes that Xunzi understood the philosophy of Zz. It seems much more likely to me that he probably did not. I would suggest that very few ever have, quite possibly because it is not coherent enough to understand. (Not because it is 'too deep' to understand.) And this is somewhat by design. Zz was more interested in providing an occasion for his audience to discover their own experience of reality rather than his.

But quite apart from this general philosophical ambiguity, Xunzi came to Zz with an agenda which in effect disallowed understanding him. Quite simply, he was biased and found (created) the negatives he wanted in the thought of an opposing school. Moreover, I believe that the only way to have any understanding of Zz at all it is necessary to experience that of which he spoke. His philosophy is not a series of propositions which we can assess on the basis of logic, but something whose only proof is in the living. Never did Zz endeavor to tell us how reality ' is'.

And this segues into what I think is a generally mistaken approach to understanding Zhuangzi's advocacy of spontaneous, 'natural', living, namely the assumption that it is somehow universally applicable. People protest, like Xunzi, that if everyone 'goes with the flow' evil will run rampant; pedophiles will have their ethical justification. Yet never did Zhuangzi proclaim 'going with the flow' as a path for everyone to follow; indeed, to do so would be to simply add one more prescribing voice to the cacophony of ethical imperatives.

What Zhuangzi actually advocates is experiencing one's being-in-the-world in such a transformative way that 'going with the flow' happens. In other words, this can only happen in the sage. We might say, it is the privilege of the sage, for only in the sage does it happen. Zhuangzi does not present a philosophy applicable to the world at large, but rather suggests a path which those inclined might consider should they wish. Though he may question the efficacy in terms of allowing freedom and ease of Xunzi's approach, he does not see any approach as contending for a universally applicable understanding of Reality.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

More On Parody III

Scott Bradley

We were looking at the "sitting and forgetting" passage (Chapter 6) in the Zhuangzi to see how its aspect of parody (using Confucius to expound Daoist points of view) extends to the possible suggestion that meditation is a practice advocated by Zhuangzi.

That the passage is ironic is clear. What is not at all clear is that meditation is indicated by "sitting and forgetting". Looked at anachronistically, it might be thought to be, but taken in its time, neither "sitting" nor "forgetting" has any reference to meditation. The argument that its supposed reference to meditation is negated by an appeal to its being parody (as made by Ivanhoe in The Sense of Antirationalism) is thus unnecessary.

What Yan Hui forgets are the Confucian virtues. Though laudable values in themselves, when the inclinations which give them rise are allowed to "rule" us we are rendered unable to realize the fullest expression of our humanity. Being "good" is not the Daoist goal, but being identified with that which is "good" by virtue of its being what it is, that is, "good" without reference to any other possibility.

Confucius did not clearly address the origin of the human inclination toward goodness; he just took it as a given. Mencius declared it innate to human nature; only the ravages of social evils have rendered it so poorly expressed. Self-cultivation is a matter of drawing out the inner reality. Xunzi thought humanity inherently evil and thus requiring more intrusive efforts at reform. Zhuangzi, though probably closest to Confucius, thought the point moot. When released from the egoic-project (realizing "no fixed-self"), one becomes what one most naturally is, and that, like Nature itself, is thusness, the ultimate beyond all comparison.

After "humanity and righteousness", the next thing Yan "forgets" are "rites and music". If you have difficulty understanding what these have to do with so-called spirituality, you might want to go to church. These are the fixed and formulaic expressions of religious belief. The Daodejing tells us that when Dao is at its nadir in human expression we have ritual. Form replaces the formlessness that is true spirituality. Yet ritual can be most helpful; when one has forgotten it (understood it as form pointing at the formless) one can re-occupy it.

Finally, on his third visit to Confucius, Yan declares that he has "forgotten everything". Confucius understands this for the radical declaration that it is and asks for an explanation. Yan replies: "I smash up my limbs and torso, drive out perception and intellect, cast off form, and make myself identical with the Great Thoroughfare." (Ivanhoe) This “smashing up” of one’s body is the real reason I decided to write about this passage! It has always bothered me, and Ivanhoe, with reference to the character of this passage as parody, points out how this is a rejection of “the Confucian ideal of maintaining bodily integrity as a sign of respect to one’s parents and ancestors.” For this same reason Zhuangzi chooses those who have patently failed to do so, especially those maimed by judicial edict, as exemplars of spirituality.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Is There a Problem?

Scott Bradley

Xunzi, a third century (BCE) Confucian philosopher, spent considerable effort denouncing the philosophies of others, including Zhuangzi. "Zhuang Zhou", he wrote, "was blinded by nature and was insensible to people." (Xunzi 79/21/22; Knoblock)

His point, I believe, was that Zhuangzi took nature as the whole and humanity as a part of that whole; he read humanity through the eye of nature rather than nature through the eye of humanity. For Xunzi, nature, read through the apparently inherent moral sense of humanity (though he thought humanity immoral), was essentially moral. For Zhuangzi, humanity, read through the apparent amorality of nature, was essentially amoral.

Xunzi was worried about morality, but from the Daoist perspective, his morality was the cause of immorality, while Zhuangzi's amorality resulted in true morality. The imposition of law from without, whether it be celestial or the whim of a dictator, only serves to bring about lawlessness. (This is also the foundation for the Pauline doctrine of grace: The law causes one to transgress; grace allows one to be forgiven; living in grace, law is no longer required, its end having been achieved in the negative by having demonstrated the need for grace, and in the positive by having allowed grace to write the law on the heart — “Love God, and do as you please.")

This brings us back to that persistent problem of the relationship between "Heaven" and humanity. Both Zhuangzi and Xunzi agree that there is a possible disjunction between the two — humanity is capable of acting outside of nature. For Xunzi, humanity acts outside of nature when it fails to act morally. For Zhuangzi, humanity acts outside of nature when, in the application of morality, it fails to act spontaneously. But is there really a disjunction, a problem?

I think there is. Though it is impossible that anything could be outside nature (Dao), and thus all that humanity does cannot be other than what nature does, still humanity is capable of self- and nature-destruction. (Though nature, as emergent Dao, remains ever-emerging.) Call it free-will or call it a quantum of Chaos, or just accept it as unfathomable paradox. Not-One is also One.

What all this resolves to is an affirmation of a belief in the normative; there is a place for us to speak of a "better" way to live. Zhuangzi, for all his aversion to value judgments, points to what he believes to be alternative ways to live, and suggests some are "better" than others. But that which makes them "better" is not based on any moral judgment or a closer approximation to "truth", but simply that they make for a happier life. And this, I think, is the most powerful apologetic possible. Make your choices, remembering that they have no bearing on anything beyond that.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

Rooted in Mystery

Scott Bradley

The sixth chapter of the Zhuangzi begins with a discussion of the relationship between the Heavenly and the Human. Zhuangzi quotes and deconstructs a maxim, very likely espoused by his Confucian contemporary Xunzi (fl. 298-236 BCE), to the effect that there is a distinct difference between them. The Human is seen as exceptional in that it is capable of acting outside of Dao. Zhuangzi suggests that no such distinction can be made given the limits of our ability to understand. It may be that all that Humanity does and knows is Dao. The roots of our knowing and doing disappear in mystery; we know neither how we know nor why we act as we do. This may be tantamount to equating Heaven and Humanity, but Zhuangzi is careful not to say so definitively; he prefers ambiguity.

Typically, Guo Xiang, in his development of Zhuangzi's philosophy, is not so tentative; all doing and all knowing he tells us, is "self-so", that is, spontaneously arising, and this is Dao. "'Heaven' is just another way of saying 'what is so of itself, the self-so'. For doing cannot be done by someone 'doing' doing. Doing is spontaneously doing; it is self-so. Knowing does not know by someone 'doing' knowing. Knowing is spontaneously knowing, it is self-so. As self-so knowing, knowing is not a result of knowing, is unknown, is itself a kind of nonknowing. Being always in this sense a nonknowing, what we call knowing emerges from nonknowing." (Zhuangzi; Ziporyn) How do we know? We don't know how we know; our knowing is rooted in what we cannot know; it is rooted in mystery.

What Zhuangzi implies, Guo articulates. Whereas Zhuangzi is content to let not-knowing extend into the apparent exceptionalism of the Human (as in some sense transcendent of Nature in the exercise of its doing and knowing), Guo knowingly insists that Human doing and knowing is not other than the Heavenly, that is, Dao manifest.

Personally, I tend toward Guo's position, but in either case the implication is the same: all that we are and do is rooted in mystery, and our 'completion' is to be had in surrendering into that mystery. When Yan Hui found that which "moves" him, that is the unknowable within him, he realized that not only was he not in charge, but that he had no 'me' at all. He lost his 'me' in his identification with mystery. To lose oneself in this way is to become all things; it is to lose one’s cage and thereby to freely roam in the Totality.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.