Bryan Van Norden writes:
>Here's a new thread for discussion: Does DAO4 ever refer to a "metaphysical entity" in pre-Qin texts? . . . Some recent scholars have denied that DAO4 has this sense in pre-Qin philosophers.
This is an interesting discussion topic, for the development of convincing arguments either way would be an important contribution to our understanding of the philosophical discourse of the classical period, and in particular to our interpretation of Laozi and Zhuangzi.
I was in the middle of typing up some of the reasons for a "non-metaphysical" reading when I received Dan Robins's and Steve Angle's messages; since they've already stated the main arguments clearly, I've placed what I had begun to write in an appendix. I now have the following comments.
1. First (Paul Goldin mentioned a related point), anyone who is going to defend the "metaphysical" reading of DAO4 will need to provide a clear explanation of just what the "metaphysical" interpretation of DAO4 is. Is it just the idea that a certain "natural order" obtains in the cosmos? I'm not at all sure that idea is "metaphysical" or "mystical"; it might simply be the belief that the universe operates according to certain physical laws. Is it the idea that DAO4 is some sort of transcendental reality?
I tend to think of the "metaphysical" interpretation as the Star Wars theory of Daoism: there is a mysterious, mystical "Force" that permeates the cosmos and . . . (and I'm not sure what). Specially trained people (Jedi knights) can somehow tap into it or flow along with its current, and this enables them to perform feats of skill that are beyond the resources of ordinary humans.
(By bringing up the Star Wars story I do not mean to make fun of those who hold the "metaphysical" interpretation. Rather, I assume that the people who wrote the Star Wars scripts were basing part of their story on what they had read about Daoism.)
I've seen the "metaphysical" DAO4 glossed by Chinese scholars as "zhungji shizai" (ultimate reality) and as "cunzai huodong benshen" (existence-activity in-itself? the activity of existence in-itself?). Neither of these glosses seems very helpful.
2. In discussing this issue, we should treat the Laozi and Zhuangzi as two separate texts, not necessarily representative of a unified school of thought. (Paul Goldin alluded to this point in a later posting.) The interpretation of DAO4 in Laozi is tricky, so I want to consider Zhuangzi first.
3. In my opinion, only a single instance of DAO4 in the Zhuangzi offers even a prima facie case for a "metaphysical" reading. Bryan Van Norden has cited the passage in which it occurs:
>Zhuangzi 6:
>"The Way has its reality and its signs but is without action or form. You can hand it down but you cannot receive it; you can get it but you cannot see it. It is its own source, its own root. Before Heaven and earth existed it was there, firm from ancient times. It gave spirituality to the spirits and to God; it gave birth to Heaven and to earth. It exists beyond the highest point and yet you cannot call it lofty; it exists beneath the limit of the six directions, and yet you cannot call it deep. It was born before Heaven and earth, and yet you cannot say it has been there for long; it is earlier than the earliest times, and yet you cannot call it old." (trans. Watson, _Basic Writings_, p. 77)
First let me point out that there is a possibility that this passage is a Han dynasty insertion into the text of Dazongshi. Contextually, it does not appear to be closely related to the passage preceding it or that following it (but this can probably be said of other passages in Zhuangzi as well). A number of scholars (Yen Fu, Chien Mu, Chen Guying, and perhaps Yu Ying-shih and Harold Roth) have suggested that several lines of the text (comprising more than 100 characters) that follow immediately after the lines quoted above are probably a later interpolation. According to Chen Guying, Yen Fu dismissed the passage quoted as being inconsistent with the main themes of the Zhuangzi. The content of the passage resonates more with the themes of the Laozi than those of the Zhuangzi (several lines are paradoxical statements involving the reversal of opposites) , and this suggests that it may be an interpolation.
I don't know if there are any better arguments that this passage may not be of pre-Qin origin, but we should at least acknowledge the possibility that it is of later provenance. (Note that this is simply an observation about the status of the passage; unless better evidence that it is an interpolation is available, we cannot dismiss it as a potential counterexample against the "non-metaphysical" interpretation.)
Now is the passage in fact telling evidence against the "non-metaphysical" interpretation? I don't think so. Here's a tentative translation and interpretation of the first few lines:
"A way [of life] has reality and has reliability, but it doesn't act [of itself] nor has it any physical shape. It can be passed on [by one who has mastered it], but it can't be [directly] received [like a gift; rather a person must practice and study in order to master it]. A person can achieve it [by practicing it], but you can't see it [after all, it is a way of doing things; it has no tangible physical form]. [Having mastered this way, you will find that] it is its own basis and root . . ."
At the moment, I'm not at all confident as to how to deal with the remainder of the passage. Interpretation along the lines of Dan Robins's proposal in his posting yesterday is certainly plausible, but a bit strained, as I'm sure he'd admit. Perhaps the point of these lines is that concepts such as "heaven", "earth", "high", "low", and so forth apply only after a "way" of drawing these distinctions has already been adopted.
I suggest, however, that it's not at all obvious that a "metaphysical" reading of these lines makes any more sense of them than a non-metaphysical reading does. This brings me to the last point I want to make in this message.
4. Given the prima facie compelling arguments against the "metaphysical" interpretation that Chad Hansen has published, I think defenders of the "metaphysical" reading need to offer some stronger *positive* arguments for their interpretation, arguments that relate to an overall view of the philosophical discourse of the classical period, as Hansen's negative arguments do. Convincing negative arguments are often difficult to construct. Pared down to the bones, the positive argument for the non-metaphysical interpretation is that we obtain more coherent, philosophically interesting interpretations of the classical texts if we take all the thinkers of the period to be using the word DAO4 with a roughly consistent meaning. What is the positive argument for the "metaphysical" interpretation?
Christopher Fraser
Date created: 10/28/96 Last modified: 10/28/96 Questions? Contact: Stephen C. Angle