For information of what this thread is about, see the parent thread
I think that a more clear understanding of the Chinese folk religion is required before this passage really will make sense. In this religion, humans had two souls, an earthbound soul that is associated with the yin whereas the ethereal soul is associated with the yang. For those of you with a passing familiarity with yinyang cosmology, this may seem somewhat strange since yang is the active member of the pair whereas yin the the more passive – from a modern perspective it makes sense to think of our material bodies as being the “active” part in the pair, whereas our mental/spiritual component would be the “passive”.
However, if you think about it from an ancient perspective, it makes perfect sense to realize that our “stuffness” is incidental to our life, since rocks also possess “stuffness” and dead bodies also possess “stuffness” so it makes sense to think that the element that actually controls us and makes us “alive” in any meaningful sense is the human mind. I say “ancient” as opposed to “Chinese” because similar conclusions were reached by the Greeks (the psyche), the Christians (the soul), and many others.
Stay where your earthbound soul is protected, and embracing integrity: can you do this with never a deviation?
Zai [usually “uphold”] means something like “stay in” [chu]. “Where your earthbound spirit is protected” [yingpo] is where one permanently dwells. “Integrity” [yi] is a person’s authenticity [zhen]. In others words, the text says: “Can you stay in the dwelling in which you permanently live, embrace integrity with a pure spirit, and do this with never a deviation? If so, the myriad folk will subject themselves to you spontaneously.”
The human mind is what separates man from animal and by extension, man from nature. By focusing on the human mind at the expense of the animal mind within us, we alienate ourselves from nature. Therefore, we have to strive to eliminate human thoughts that obscure ourselves from what we were born to be. From a Daoist perspective, this isn’t merely undesirable from a personal perspective, but also from a political one. Rather than deal with matters of ideology, the ruler should strictly stick to seeing that people can provide for themselves. If the ruler does this, Wang Bi asserts that people will naturally flock to such a ruler.
I think that such a notion is rather naive. People tend to require grand narratives to provide their lives with meaning and merely tending to their physical needs while neglecting their intellectual needs is dangerous. It leads to a sort of anarcho-primitivism and I think that similar criticisms can be applied to it: 1) it is susceptible to violence from outside forces, 2) most people would not accept the equanimity between life and death, and health and sickness that such a system would require, and 3) people seem naturally drawn to civilization as evidenced by its emergence across the globe, meaning that even if such a system were established it would abandon its foundational ideology quite quickly.
Now, Daoists had and have answers to each of those critiques. Just the aforementioned list should by no means be considered exhaustive, so to should these responses to those critiques be. A response to the first critique is the notion of “de” translated her as “virtue”. Now, in Chinese, de (virtue) is the same as de (the verb, “to get”). While I am no philologist, I would venture a guess that originally the words were related because the powerful could acquire whatever they wanted. As the notion of virtue became separated from class and instead became associated with a person’s character, the original relationship was reversed and so the notion became that those who are virtuous will be rewarded for their virtue. In Chinese thought, the mechanism whereby the reward is acquired is through influencing others. So, a virtuous person allows their virtue to resonate in others in the same way that when a cellist strikes a particularly strident note, other instruments will also begin to resonate with that note despite the absence of a player. It follows then, that a truly virtuous ruler won’t be attacked because their virtue will protect them. This, of course, assumes that the Daoist notion of virtue is indeed correct – an area in which I remain unconvinced. The second criticism can be dismissed as a problem of implementation rather than a problem of veracity. If one could find the right people (or, through one’s virtue, make the right people), this objection would disappear. The third objection is irreconcilable for a Daoist, because they would simply hold that man’s nature is not as described. Since no complete description of human nature exists that has shown itself to be perfectly true, disagreement can remain without capitulation.
Rely exclusively on your vital force, and become perfectly soft: can you play the infant?
Zhuan [rely exclusively on] is the same as ren [trust entirely to], and zhi [become perfectly] is the same as ji [extend/attain to the utmost]. In other words, the text says: “Can you trust entirely to the vital force endowed by nature [ziran zhi qi], attain the harmony characteristic of perfect softness [zhirou zhi he], and, like the infant, be utterly without conscious desire [yu]?” If so, people will achieve their proper span of life and fully realize their natures [wu quan er xing de].
The “vital force” [qi] is best understood as being a sort of “psycho-physical stuff”. Since the Chinese draw a different line between the mental and physical realms than the modern western tradition does, it is not fully correct to say that this passage suggests that the ruler should focus entirely on physical existence, however it is very close to just that. The Universe exists in a state of constant flux, it is ever-changing and ever-renewing, it is only human thought that allows for the appearance of concreteness. So, if one were to focus on their physical nature they are, by necessity, focusing on the ever-changing aspects of themselves. Rather than letting their thoughts create a false sense of concreteness, they become soft and pliable. If one can achieve such a state of perfect pliability, the distinction between them and the world collapses, so they can extend themselves to the utmost. Having achieved this state of unity with the totality of existence, they can bring out the true nature of others as easily as they manifest their own true nature.
Cleanse your vision into the mystery of things: can you make it spotless?
Xuan [mystery] mean the ultimate extent and subtlety of things [ji]. In other words, the text says: “Can you cleanse away the misleading and specious and so attain vision capable of grasping the ultimate and the subtle, not allowing things to get in the way of its brightness or flaw its numinous power [shen]?” If so, it will be one with mystery from beginning to end.
This is a clarification of the above. The human mind is what creates confusion by seeking understanding. I think that sections four and six of the Zhuangzi help clarify this position*.
Cherish the people and govern the state: can you do this without intelligence?
Intelligence is concerned with seeking success by using arts and techniques or uncovering what is hidden by plumbing the workings of fate. When vision into the mystery of things is without flaw, it is as if one had repudiated sagehood [sheng]. When one governs the state without intelligence, it is as if he had discarded wisdom. “Can you do this without intelligence?” If so, the people will not hide and the state will be governed.
Human notions like nationalism, desire for fame, desire for wealth, and so on are the ends to which intelligence is directed. If people merely sought to harmonize themselves with the world as it is rather than how they perceive it to be, people can simply be as they are and attain fulfillment in that fashion.
The gateway of Heaven, whether it is to be opened or shut: can you play the female?
“The gateway of Heaven” is a term for that through which all under Heaven passes, and “open or shut” refers to moments that decide good order or chaos. Whether open or shut, the effect prevails equally throughout all under Heaven. Thus the text says, “The gateway of Heaven, whether it is to be open or shut: can you play the female?” If so, things will subject themselves to you spontaneously, and your position will be secure as a matter of course.
I think that Xiong Shili’s idea of “opening and closing” will help shed light on this passage:
Since every creation brings with it destruction, it is better to become passive (female – sexist I know, but we are dealing with an ancient Chinese text here). Rather than seeking to solve problems and thereby create more, new problems, it is far better for the Daoist to abstain from such myths of progress. In doing so, the individual removes themselves from the process of creation and destruction. If one removes one’s self from the process, one’s position becomes immovable and thus “secure”.
This notion of immovability also ties into the earlier portion about yinyang, the text is once again affirming the emphasis on the yin aspect: the passive, the female, the physical.
Your bright understanding casts its light over the four quarters: can you stay free of conscious effort?
This is to say, one’s perfect brightness might cast its light over the four quarters without delusion or doubt, yet can such a one refrain from making conscious effort? If so, nurture of the people [wuhua] will indeed take place! This is what is meant when we say the Dao never engages in conscious effort. If any lord or prince were able to hold to this, the myriad fold would be nurtured spontaneously [zihua].
If one has fully extended themselves to their utmost, their influence will be felt everywhere, even though they won’t actually be consciously trying to achieve such a result.
He gives them life
He does not block the source of their existence.
And nurtures them.
He places no stricture on their natures.
He gives them life, yet he possesses them not. He acts, yet does not make them dependent. He matures them, yet he is not their steward. This we call mysterious virtue.
Do not block the source of their existence, and people will manage life on their own, so what merit is there to tat? Place no stricture on their natures, and people will find their own relief [ji], so on whose actions do they depend? People march along with broad steps all by themselves, and this is not the result of one’s stewardship. To have virtue but not exercise is mastery, if this is not mysterious, what is? Whenever we speak of mysterious virtue, it always pertains to one who has virtue, but they [his people] are unaware of his being master, for it emerges from the secret and the dark.
The end of this passage reiterates the anarcho-primitivist strain of thought discussed earlier. The lord seeks to create this world first by purifying himself of human thoughts and constructs. Having cleared himself of these conditions, he can extend himself and allow his subjects to be free of these malignant influences and tend to their own needs without appealing to grand narratives that divert our attention from merely living life.
- Again, I apologize for the use of the more archaic Wade-Giles; however, we have to work with the supplies we are given. I do not think that these passages contain any words that would be particularly confusing despite this. However, I do want to point out that Zhuang Zi was something of a comedian and he would put words into the mouths of his opponents to make a point. Both sections four and six deal with Confucius and two of his disciples and uses them in an ironic fashion. Yen Hui is Confucius’s favorite disciple who died at a very young age, while Tzu-kung (Zigong) is a rather uncouth warrior with a tendency to act impulsively. I think that this information, which would have been common knowledge to the original audience, is important to understand the irony of these passages.
For your ease of access, here are the Burton Watson translations: