Dao in DDJ (1)

Bryan wondered...

>Here's a new thread for discussion: Does DAO4 ever refer to a "metaphysical entity" in pre-Qin texts?

Paul replied...

>Who exactly denies that dao can have a "metaphysical" dimension in pre-Qin texts? How do they justify such a claim--and what do they mean by "metaphysical"?

I'm pretty sure that Bryan has Chad Hansen's work in mind. Hansen (in _A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought_) argues roughly as follows. (1) Early uses of "dao," e.g., in _Analects_ and _Mozi_, are unambiguously not "metaphysical": the term means "a way of doing something" or "a linguistic account of a way of doing something." It is also clear from some of these uses that it makes sense to talk about alternative "daos": some daos are better than others, etc. (2) Hansen notes that standard readings of the _Dao De Jing_ interpret "dao" (in at least some of its appearances therein) in a very different way: they take the word to mean something quite different, namely the single, mysterious *thing* that created the cosmos (or whatever; see below). For this interpretation to be correct, Hansen uncontroversially adds, we would have to hold what he calls a "meaning change hypothesis": the meaning of the word "dao" changed from the early texts to the _Dao De Jing_. (3) Hansen does not (or should not) deny that sometimes meaning change hypotheses are sound: linguists can give us many instances of terms in different languages whose meanings have changed over time. (4) He believes, however, that considerable evidence is necessary to establish such an hypothesis, and that in the case of "dao" in the _Dao De Jing_, this evidence is lacking. Part of this argument is that better interpretations of controversial passages (such as the one Bryan cites) are available if we don't jump so quickly at the prospect of a term's (mysteriously, without any acknowledgement) taking on a new meaning. (Indeed, given that language is a public practice, Hansen would add that it is *impossible* for a term to take on a new meaning without some kind of evidence accessible to hearers/readers.)

What should we make of Hansen's argument? I think there's a great deal to it. Before I consider the passage Bryan cited from the _DDJ_, let me take a brief sidetrack. I've been working on Dai Zhen's _Mengzi Ziyi Shuzheng_ (18th c.; _Evidential Commentary on the Meanings of Terms in Mencius_) recently, and a criticism that Dai makes of Song Neo-Confucians is closely analogous to the issue of "dao" in the _DDJ_. Zhu Xi and others believed that the "great ultimate" originally mentioned in the _Xici Commentary_ to the _Book of Changes_ was the source of all things. They cite the passage "The _Yi_ has a Great Ultimate, and this produces the Two Aspects..." as evidence. Dai Zhen compellingly argues that terms in the _Book of Changes_ like "great ultimate" and "two aspects" refer to aspects of the book's symbolic system itself (the broken and unbroken lines, trigrams, hexagrams, etc.), rather than to any actual entities. The symbolic system, in turn, represents the ways in which nature is continuously in a process of transformation.

With this in mind (I admit that the analogy may be clearer in *my* mind than in yours right now, but bear with me--or ask me to clarify!), let's look at the passage Bryan cites.

>"There was something featureless yet complete,
>born before heaven and earth;
>Silent -- amorphous --
>it stood alone and unchanging.
>We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name,
>I style it the 'Way.'"

>(trans. Victor Mair, ch. 69)

We're essentially told here that there is some *thing*--the Song Neo-Confucians would have called it the Great Ultimate--that pre-exists any particular things (like Heaven or Earth). This thing is rather obviously some kind of metaphysical entity. From other passages in the text, it is plausible to conclude that this thing (the "mother of heaven and earth") is closely connected with the cosmic process of continual transformation: perhaps it represents the very beginning, or pre-beginning, of this process.

Now, is this thing a/the "dao"? Well, that's not what the text says. The text says that its author will refer to the thing with the word "dao," which if we're following Hansen's argument means that the author has decided to think of the thing (=cosmic processes/nature?) as a (or the) way of living/doing/being in its own right.

Finally, for what it's worth, the analogy to Dai Zhen's argument is even closer if we consider the "Dao sheng yi ["Dao gives birth to one"]..." passage (#42): perhaps this isn't talking about things giving birth to other things, but rather about the relations between symbols. Or so Hansen, or Dai Zhen, might argue.

Enough for now.

Date created: 10/28/96
Last modified: 10/28/96
Questions? Contact: Stephen C. Angle