In the history of ancient Chinese thought, the naturalism of Lao-zi was further developed by Zhuan-zi (ca.369-286 BC).

In this document, readers will see what the Book of Zhuan-zi says about Zhuan-zi the man, as well as how he dealt with questions regarding the wherewithal of Dao and how it really works in Nature.

Zhuan-zi and His Views about Dao

An excerpt from The Six Patriarchs of Chinese Humanism
Author: Peter M.K. Chan All rights reserved
=======================================================================

The Book of Zhuan-zi is a collection of thirty-three essays by Zhuan-zi (ca.369-286 BC) and his associates. Apart from many tall tales and allegories, it also contains gossips about certain famous ancient personalities, real or legendary, including Zhuanzi himself. Therein, it is said that the world is too turbid to appreciate Zhuan-zi. This is why he had to repeat his words and propagate them by way of allegories. (
Ibid. Chapter 33)

Even

though his words are not always consistent, his rhetoric is yet rich with wit and humor. (Ibid.) Further, as Zhuan-zi was also reported to have said: Ninety percent of what I have said are allegories to be discussed by others, and seventy percent of what I said are repetitions (of what I have heard). (
Chapter 27) Ibid.

As to Zhuan-zi the man, it is said that he turned down an invitation from the State of Chor to become its prime minister. I had rather drag my tail (like a turtle) in the mud, ( Ibid. Chapter 17) he said. For this reason, Zhuan-zis family

was poor and had to borrow grain from the superintendent of waterways. (
Ibid. Chapter 26)

Upon another occasion, it is also said that when asked by the king of Wei as to why he dressed so miserably, Zhuan-zis answer was that he is only poor, but not miserable. An intellectual is miserable only when he is unable to practice Dao and Virtue. Wearing wretched garments and shoes is indicative of poverty, not misery. (
Ibid. Chapter 20)

Such

was the way of a Daoist sage. In a world where Dao did not prevail, he would rather be poor than be burdened with the responsibilities of state. Besides, it was also his view that to govern and control people is not at all compatible with Lao-zis principle of non-action. Now, given the fact that one of the things that the Dao Der Jing had kindled in the ancient Chinese mind was wonderment about the workings of Nature, it is not surprising to find in the Book of Zhuan-zi the following barrage of questions. Is the color of the sky really blue? Does it reaches out infinitely and without limits? ( Ibid. Chapter 1) Does Heaven move around? Is the Earth stationary? Are the sun and the moon chasing each other? Who directs and sustains all these? Who has the leisure to push them along? Are they made to move by way of mechanical arrangements? Or, do they just keep revolving and cannot stop in and of themselves? (
Ibid. Chapter 14)

Further, are clouds the same as rain, or rain the same as clouds? Who makes them rise and sends them down? Who has the leisure to enjoy doing such things? ( Ibid.) And that is not all. As the wind rises from the north, it blows not just east and west, but whirls upward as well. Who is doing all this sucking and

blowing? Who has the leisure to shake things about in this way? May I ask what is causing all these? (
Ibid.)

With respect to all these queries, Zhuan-zis answer is that even though Dao does not do anything and has no features, it has potential as well as effects. It can transmit without being felt, and attain without being seen. It comes of itself and is rooted in itself. It has existed since time immemorial, even before Heaven and Earth. (
Ibid. Chapter 6) It created deities and spiritual beings as well as Heaven and

Earth. It is above the supreme ultimate and yet not high. It is beneath the six deeps and yet not low. It existed from antiquity before Heaven and Earth, but is not old. (
Ibid.) The Great Dipper has it and never veered

from its course. The sun and moon possess it, and have never cease to be. ( Ibid.) As Lao-zi was also reported to have told Confucius: If Dao is with you, you can achieve anything; if you lose it, nothing can be done. ( Ibid. Chapter 14) It comes without a trace and moves with neither bounds nor obstruction. Those who have it are strong in limbs, broad in mind, sharp in hearing, and clear in sight. Because of Dao, Heaven is high and the Earth vast; the sun and moon cannot but move, and everything cannot but prosper. (
...... Ibid. Chapter 22)

Comment: Readers are to keep in mind that in the Book of Zhuan-zi, Confucius was reported to have sought the advice of Lao-zi on a number of occasions, during which he was lectured on the Dao of Nature, and was told not to disturb the mind with his doctrine of humaneness and righteousness. It was also reported that when Confucius was traveling from place to place, a number of other hermitic and sage-like

personalities had also advised him to submit to the Daoist point of view. Whether or not this was in fact the case is something that ancient historians had not taken the trouble to ascertain.

But the question is this: Where is Dao? It is everywhere, said Zhuan-zi. It is in the ant, in the weed, in the brick, in the excrement and urine. ... Nothing can escape from Its influence. You do not have to look for it. (
... ... ... ... Ibid.) By moving and resting, it produced all things. When

things were produced and gave rise to principle (natural law), features came into being. When features and shapes are preserved, their pattern of activities is called their nature. (
Ibid. Chapter 12)

Further, it is to be observed that where water is available, certain things will continue to grow. When water and soil is available, some of these things will become flogs, whereas others on land will become moss, and those on fertile soil will become weeds. ( Ibid. Chapter 18) The roots of these weeds will become worms, which will in turn become butterflies. Butterflies will transform into insects, which are born under the stove. When the skin of these are shed, they are called chu-tuo ( Ibid.) After a thousand days, the chu-tuo becomes a bird by the name of gan-yu-gu, the saliva of which will turn into an insect by the name of ser-ni, which in turn will become another insect by the name of shi-zi. It is from this that another insect by the name of yi-lu was born. (
Ibid.) It is also to be observed that when the plant yung-

hsi is paired with bamboo for a long time, there will be bamboo shoots, which will produce the insect called chingning. The ching-ning produces another insect called zheng. Zheng produces the horse, and the horse produces man. Man again re-enters the process (of Nature). (

In short, all things come from the process of Nature and re-enter the process of Nature. ( Ibid.)
Ibid.)

Comment: Far-fetched as these observations may sound, it is not to be overlooked that what was being entertained is not only about the formation and transformation of things, but their possible evolutionary relationships as well. This is also a good place to note that one of the ancient Greek naturalists by the name of Empedocles had also harbored similar kinds of views, more than two thousand years before Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin.

But is that good enough to be called Dao? Asked Knowlittle ( or Shao-zer). No, answered the Great Arbitrator ( or Tai Kon Tio), presumably on behalf of Zhuan-zi. As things in the world are innumerable, to speak about the myriad things is but our way of saying that there are a great number of things. Similarly, to speak about Heaven and Earth is but our way of connoting dimensions that are very large; and to speak about yin and yang is but our way of talking about the strength of vital energy (chi). Thus, to speak about Dao is to speak non-specifically. It is sufficient to understand that Dao is called Dao because of its incomparable immensity (omnipresence). The difference between what we mean by Dao and Dao itself is far greater than the difference between dogs and horses. (
Ibid. Chapter 25) As a matter of fact, what language can possibly

express and knowledge can possibly reach is confined to what is in the world. The observers of Dao do not pry into the origin and end of things. This is also where discussions must come to an end. (
Ibid.)

Comment: That is not too bad an answer. Two points are to be noted. One is that whether to call the ultimate wherewithal of all things Dao is a

matter of convention. Some may want to call it God, or the Great and Mother of all things, as Lao-zi suggested. Another is that Dao is not something to which one could point at and described as we could with things. It is but Lao-zis notion of that ultimate wherewithal that is selfgenerated, self-sufficient, unceasing, and worthy to be called the Mother of all things. As such, whether the word Dao is really appropriate to stand for such a presumed referent is not a question that could really be debated.

But how did everything come into existence? Asked Know-little ( Ibid.) The Great Arbitrators reply is that as the vital energies of yin and yang attract and repulse as well as interact with each other, the four seasons will produce and terminate each other. It is also in this way that likes and dislikes would come and go as well as rise and fall. The same goes for the matching of male and female, the interfacing of risk and security, the mutual generation of blessings and calamities, the countering influence of patience and impatience, and the generative effects of congregation and dispersion. (
Ibid..) Such realities can

be documented and their details ascertained. It is the nature of things to interact and influence one another procedurally, as exemplified by the reversal of extremes, where every ending is but a new beginning. This is how things came into being. (
Ibid.)

But our Know-Little was not through with all his questions yet. According to him, some say that the world was not created, i.e., that it came in and of itself. Others say that it was created by something. Which one of these two views is correct, and which of the two has actually deviated from the truth? ( Ibid.) To this, the Great Arbitrator replied: Whether the world was created by nothing or that it was created by something is not really decidable on the basis of what we know about things. The world of things has names

and actualities. That which is without name and actuality is vacuous (without shape or form). We may think and talk about it, but the more words we use, the farther we will be from the truth. (
Ibid.)

Further, the view that

something created the world or that nothing created the world are both conjectures. For what I can see, the quest for the worlds beginning and end is both infinite and without end. Unlike the way we speak about things, speech is not able to express that which is infinite and without end. The view that something created the world and the view that nothing created the world are based on speech, which can only begin and end with things. (
Ibid.)

Now, according to the Great Arbitrator, Dao is not Being (the totality of things), and Being is not Nothing. Dao is a term that we adopt for practical purposes. The two views mentioned above are both formulated on the basis of things. ( Ibid. ) If we speak adequately, we can speak about things all day long. But Dao, the ultimate (wherewithal) of all things, cannot be conveyed with either speech or silence. The highest form of discussion is neither speech nor silence. (
Ibid.)

As Lao-zi was also reported to have said: Those who have attained do not discuss. Those who discuss have not attained. Dao is not something that can be seen. To argue about it is not as good as maintaining silence. It is not something that can be heard either. To hear what people say about it is not as good as not hearing about it at all. This is what is meant by great attainment. (
Ibid. Chapter 22)

Comment: What Zhuan-zi is saying (by way of the Great Arbitrator)

appears to be this. Firstly, debate about the ultimate wherewithal of the world is really pointless. As human language is limited to what is known of this world, no one is really in the position to judge as to whether the world has come in and of itself, or that it was created by something that is out of this world. Secondly, since the limit of human experience is also the limit of language, it should follow that whereof one does not experience, thereof one must be silent. This same point was also stressed by the early Ludwig Witgenstein, the precursor of what has come to be known in 20th century Western philosophy as logical positivism.

A similar case in point, said Zhuan-zi, is to quarrel over the existence of ghosts and fate (prefixed destiny). If we do not know how life will end, how can it be said that there is no fate? If we do not know how life began, how can it be said that there is fate? Likewise, if everything has its corresponding opposite, how can it be said that there are no ghosts? If everything does not have its corresponding opposite, how can it be said that there are ghosts? (
Ibid. Chapter 27)

Another thing to keep in mind is that speech is but a tool, which should be discarded when meaning is obtained. The fish trap is used to catch fish, but when the fish is caught, we ignore the fish trap. The rabbit snare is used to catch rabbit, but when the rabbit is caught, we ignore the rabbit snare. Language is used to capture meaning, but when the meaning is captured, we ignore our words. (
Ibid. Chapter 26) In other words, one should let go of speech when one gets

the thought. What is being implied is that the bewitchment of metaphysical language can become the bewitchment of thought. This is another point made popular within contemporary Western philosophical circles by the later Wittgenstein.
========================================================================

Peter M.K. Chan is the author of The Mystery of Mind published 2003, and Soul, God, and Morality published 2004. Recently, he has competed another work titled The Six Patriarchs of Chinese Humanism (copyrighted and available in ebooks, but not yet in print). For details regarding the above, please visit http://sites.google.com/site/pmkchan/home http://sites.google.com/site/patriarchsofchinesephilosophy/home http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/petermkchan