According to Lao-zi, to govern a big state is like frying a small fish ( Dao Der Jing.

. Section 60) To fiddle around too much is definitely not in the interest of its people. It is better to let people be and not interfere too much with their lives. Such an easygoing style has also come to be known as government by non-action. As we shall see in this document, what that entails are actually three dos and two donts. ===============================================

Lao-zi on Government by Non-Action

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

In the view of Lao-zi, to emulate the Dao of Nature is the proper way to govern a state. That is to say, it is to be governed by way of non-action. As he put it:
Dao does not do anything, and nothing is left undone. If kings and feudal lords abide by it, All things will naturally transform in and of themselves.... When the world is tranquil and without desires, it will correct itself.
... (Ibid, Section 37)

Comment: Both Confucius and Moh-zi, I believe, would find the idea of being tranquil without desires to be desirable. But to think that people are able to transform in and of themselves for the better without proper guidance and control is something else altogether. It is by doing nothing that nothing is left undone. It is only with non-action could the world be governed. He who is proactive is not qualified to govern the world.

 (Ibid. Section 48)

Comment: Confucius in particular would have thought that governing with non-action, as practiced by the sage-kings, should actually be understood as governing by way of virtuous accomplishments. As such, it should not be characterized as not doing anything at all. And Moh-zi, I think, would have by now thought that in advocating government by nonaction, Lao-zi was really out of his mind. If feudal lords and kings could hold onto Dao, All things will be taken care of in and of themselves. This is true of Heaven and Earth, Without the order of anyone, They cooperate to drop sweet dew evenly upon the people,
(Ibid. Section 32)

Comment: Even though Confucius and Moh-zi would have agreed that Heaven is impartial in dispensing its blessings, what is not understood is how the affairs of state would actually take care of themselves without some kind of hand-on management.

As it turned out, for what the Dao Der Jing is able to tell, what Lao-zi meant by non-action actually entails three dos and two donts. (a) It is to discard all teachings about the Way of humanity. (b) It is to promote simplicity of mind and frugality of living by doing away with all forms of extravagances. (c) It is to let people be, and do away with unnecessary rules and regulations. As he put it: To govern a big state is like frying a small fish ( Ibid. Section 60) That is to say, to fiddle around too much is definitely not in the interest of the state and its people. Conversely, (d) it is not to provoke political ambitions and desires for material wealth; and (e) it is not to glorify war and weapon, much less domination by use of force. Listen again to what he says in the Dao Der Jing.
a.

Discard all teachings about the Way of humanity

When Dao is abrogated,

people practice humaneness and righteousness. When knowledge and wisdom appeared, there is much hypocrisy. It is only when family relations are not harmonious would people need to practice filial piety and parental love. Similarly, when a state is in disorder, loyal ministers are required.
(Ibid. Section 18)

Comment: What is being conveyed, I believe, is that the teachings of Confucius and Mot-zi about humaneness, righteousness, and elevating the worthy in particular, are poor substitutes for as well as contrary to the Dao of Nature (which does nothing and nothing is left undone). When teachings about sagehood and wisdom are discarded, Peoples benefits will enhance by a hundred fold. When the teachings of humaneness and righteousness are abandoned, People will return to filial piety and (parental) affection. When skills and desire for profit are also put aside, No one would need to become thieves and robbers. In addition to the above three (measures), People should be required to manifest plainness and simplicity. When people do not have much to think and desire, Learning can also be discarded without having to worry.
(Ibid. Section 19)

Comment: More bluntly put: Lao-zi was adamant that the teachings of Confucius and Moh-zi as well as commercial skills and administrative know-how should all be done away with. In this way, or so he believed, few would want to think about profit making and ways of circumventing laws and regulations. And if people were to become simple in attire and mentality, human relations would also become more pleasant as a result.

b. Promote simplicity of mind and frugality

The sage would rule by empty peoples minds and fill their bellies.

He would toughen their bones, and weaken their ambitions. He will keep them ignorant and without desires; He would also make those who are world-wise become timid. It is by doing nothing that everything will be brought to order.
(Ibid. Section 3)

Comment: The correct way to rule, says Lao-zi, is not just to ensure that people are bodily strong and well fed. It is also to rein in their desires and ambitious by keeping them ignorant about the worldly way of man. This, I believe, is what Lao-zi meant by empty their minds and keep them ignorant. And when those who are world-wise and street-smart are not able to find a market to make their play, human society could then be effortlessly brought to order. Needless to say, Confucius and Moh-zi would think that short of conscientious effort on the part of those who govern, to think that all will be well just by doing nothing in this way is perhaps both nave and unrealistic. People are difficult to govern when they know too much. To govern a state with know-how is to ruin it. Blessed is a state that is not governed by way of know-how. The sage of old did not enlighten people; Instead, he kept them ignorant.
(Ibid, Section 65)

Comment: Paradoxical as the idea may seem, it is to be observed that a world-wise and street-smart population with various conflicting interests is indeed not easy to govern. Under this situation, those who govern would also be tempted to blow intellectual, moral, and political smoke into peoples eyes. What Lao-zi was saying, I believe, is therefore this. Such a vicious circle has got to be circumvented. It is to return people to their natural state, such that they would only be concerned about their basic needs, rather than burdening themselves with ambitions and fanciful desires. To govern people and serve Heaven,

There is nothing more vital than being frugal.

(Ibid. Section 59)

Comment: Moh-zi in particular would find this to be agreeable. If those in power wished to serve Heaven, it is important to curtail consumption and keep government expenditure low, so as not to take too much from the people.

c. Do away with complicated rules and regulations

It is not possible to take control over the world. The world is an conceptual entity ( or spiritual instrument). It is not something that can be acted upon or hold onto. To do something with it will harm it. To (try and) hold onto it will lose it. This is why the sage had to do nothing, so as not to harm anything. For not holding onto anything, he loses nothing.
(Ibid. Section 29)

Comment: What is being conveyed is that the world as we know is not something that one can physically work on or take hold of as one would a material thing. Treating it as such, says Lao-zi, is not only foolish, but counter productive as well. It is therefore better to just let people be, rather than trying to rein them in by way of complicated rules and regulations. Moh-zi in particular, I think, would find that to be disturbing. With more taboos and prohibitions in the world, More impoverished will the people be. When more people possess sharp instruments, The state will become unsteady. With more skills and crafts that people acquire, Strange products will appear everywhere. When laws and orders are made prominent, More thieves and robbers will also be found.

 (Ibid. Section 57)

Comment: Lao-zi was not in favor of government by rules and regulations. He was also against proliferation of weapon and sharp instruments amongst the people. He was more in favor of letting people enjoy what Nature is able to offer than artificial products that technology is able to provide. Governing in this way, or so he believed, will render the affairs of state manageable. When government is dull and quiet, People will become simple and unsophisticated. When government is alert and observant, People would feel deprived and discontented.

(Ibid. Section 58)

Comment: That is to say, when government no longer interferes with how people conduct their lives, everyone will become simple and contented with what they have or have not got. This is the core idea of what Lao-zi meant by governing without action. Needless to say, this is something that Confucius and Moh-zi would beg to differ. How could the egoistic nature of man be prevented from taking advantage of such a permissive environment?

d. Not to provoke ambitions and desires for material wealth

Do not exalt the worthy, and the people will become non-contentious. Do not value rare treasures, and the people will not steal. When there is nothing desirable to see, Peoples mind will not be confused.
(Ibid. Section 3)

Comment: From a statement such as this, it is quite clear that Lao-zi was against the idea held respectively by Confucius and Moh-zi that honoring and elevating the worthy is the corner stone of virtuous government. But this is not to say that Confucius and Moh-zi would take too differently to the view that in a less wealth oriented society, peoples mind would become more peaceful and less contentious.

When the courts are exceedingly splendid, Fields are bound to become weedy, and granaries empty. When elegant clothes are worn and sharp weapons carried, When officials are tired of eating and drinking, and have more wealth and treasures than they need, That is robbery totally out of line with the Dao of Nature.
(Ibid. Section 53)

Comment: For what we have already come to see, Moh-zi would have totally agreed with Lao-zi on this point. Confucius, of course, was also quite noisy about taking too much from the people, resulting in high disparity of income and expenditure between ordinary folks and government officials..

e. Not to glorify war and weapon,

He who assists the ruler with Dao would not dominate the world by force. . Where armies gather, briers and thorns will grow, And famines will surely follow in the wake of war.
. (Ibid. Section 30)

Comment: For reason that war is destructive to peoples livelihood, Laozi was against domination by use of force. Confucius and Moh-zi would definitely say amen to that. Weapons are instruments of evil -not the implements of kingly persons. Calm restraint is always to be preferred; Weapons are to be deployed only as last resort. Military victories are not to be lauded; Those who do so enjoy killing men. He who enjoys killing will not succeed in the world Let there be sorrow and grief for those who were killed. Let funeral ceremonies be conducted for every victory.

 31)

.... (Ibid. Section

Comment: As readers can see, Lao-zi was not so much against fighting to defend ones country, as much as against killing men and the glorification of weapons and war. This anti-war stance is also something that Confucius and Moh-zi would have heartedly agreed. It is the soft and weak that overcomes the hard and strong. As fish should not be taken from the deep, Sharp weapons are not to be shown to the people.
(Ibid. Section 36)

Comment: What Lao-zi meant is that no state should be proud of its arsenal. He was also known to have said that although nothing is softer than water in the world, it is yet able to overrun the hard as well as the strong due to nothing other than its persistence. ( Ibid. Section 78) Both Confucius and Moh-zi, I believe, would say that this metaphor of water is nice, but unrealistic in the world of real-politics.

Lao-zis message to those who govern is therefore this: Just let people be and not interfere too much with their lives. The state is to be governed by way of non-action and in accordance with the Dao of Nature. But this is not to say that Lao-zi was unaware of the fact that his program of non-action was not about to be accepted by the authorities of his day. As he had already said right from the start: even though my teaching is easy to understand and practice, few have yet come to understand and practice it. ( Ibid. Section 70) Thus, it is not surprising to find that toward the end of the Dao Der Jing, all he could say was that there is perhaps another kind of place somewhere for him to spend the rest of his days.
In a small country with few people,

No one would resort to the use of tools, People would rather die at home than travel far. Even if there were boats and carriages, no one would ride on them. Even if there were armors and weapons, no one would display them. People will again count with knotted cords, Enjoy food, and decorate their clothes. They will find comfort in their homes, and relish their customs. Even when the sound of cocks and dogs are heard across neighboring communities, People would still grow old and die Without visiting those who live on the other side.

(Ibid. Section 80)

So, thats the kind of place that Lao-zi would like to call his Shangri-la. For ordinary folks such as ourselves, it is difficult to say if such a primitive way of life within such a small and secluded community is really the best kind of place to find tranquility of mind and contentment of life. It may have different effects on different types of people in different circumstances and stages of their lives. What has come through rather loud and clear though is that Lao-zi was indeed very tied of the poltical and materialistic culture of his day. For him, or so he seemed to be saying, to be close to Nature and live naturally is a more reliable way for someone like himself to regain the spontaneity and joy of his childhood days.
Comment: Before we move onto the next Section, allow me to remind that the idea of government by non-action is not the intellectual property of Lao-zi alone. For what the Analects had also seen fit to record, it was the view of Confucius that those who govern with non-action are in the company of Shun. (Analects, 15:5) It was also his view that the sincerity of Heaven and Earth is conspicuous and yet not seen, changing and yet unmoved, accomplishing and yet without action. ( Doctrine of the Mean,

Section 26) But this is not to say that it could not be argued that it was

Lao-zi who had brought the idea more prominently to the forefront of ancient Chinese thought. =================================================== Peter M.K. Chan is the author of The Mystery of Mind published 2003, and Soul, God, and Morality published 2004. Recently, he has also competed another work titled The Six Patriarchs of Chinese Humanism (available in ebooks, but not yet in print). For more information 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