Laozis and Zhuangzi's Views about Daoism - Essay Example

A Critical Comparison between Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s Views about Daoism Introduction Lao Tzu (often known as Laozi) and Chuang Tzu (often called as Zhuanzi) are two important figures in the Chinese philosophy of Daoism. Both of these philosophers Tao or Dao is the Way how the universe works. In another words, they believed that “Tao is the universal law of nature” (Ivanhoe & Norden 165). Scholars claim that these philosophers shared many similar concepts regarding the philosophy of Tao. But though these philosophers commonly believed so, they differ from each other to a great extent. Being a successor of Laozi, Zhuangzi have made a significant effort to provide explanations of Laozi’s thoughts and beliefs. He explained Laozi’s thoughts through concrete instances from history, people’s life, and also from his surroundings. But most often, Zhuangzi’s elucidations appear most complex and complicated. Sometimes, they become diverted the mainstream of Daoism and tend to appear as an individual philosophic strand. The most remarkable difference between the two is how they view ‘Tao’ or the Way. Both of them believe that the Way is beyond human perception and conception. In this regard, both of them are realists. But Zhuangzi’s approach to Tao or the Way is more applicable to human life than Laozi’s. That is, Laozi is more metaphysical than Zhuangzi. Since Laozi’s philosophy fails to dispel the transcendence of the Way or Tao, his teachings do not care much about human life as Zhuangzi’s teachings do. In this regard, it can be said that Zhuangzi’s ‘Daoism’ is superior to Laozi’s. Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s Concepts of ‘Dao’ or the Way Both Laozi and Zhuangzi acknowledge the ‘Dao’ as a transcendental existence which contains the whole universe. In Laozi’s word, “The Great Tao flows everywhere../All things depend on it for life,/and it does not turn away from them./ One may think of it as the mother of all beneath Heaven./ We do not know its name, but we call it Tao ...” (Ivanhoe & Norden 165). It is nameless and formless and it exists everywhere. Yet nothing in this universe can be construed as the ‘Dao’. It is eternal and it is not knowledgeable. Rather it is beyond human perception as well as human language. The problem of human language is that it is not sufficient enough to describe it. It exists, but it cannot be described, as Laozi says, “The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao;/ the name that can be named is not the eternal name” (Ivanhoe & Norden 165). Laozi further describes it, “There is a thing, formless yet complete./ Before heaven and earth it existed. /Without sound, without substance, /it stands alone and unchanging./It is all-pervading and unfailing./ It is the Mystery of Mysteries” (Lao Tzu in Ivanhoe & Norden 165). Like Laozi, Zhuangzi also describes the same qualities of the ‘Dao’. According to him, the ‘Dao’ “encompasses both the Way the world is and the way for people to live in it.” (Ivanhoe & Norden 203) He believes that there is an eternal way according to which people live in. But he is quite skeptical of man’s ability to know it. In Ivanhoe and Norden’s language, Zhuangzi is skeptical of man’s “ability to learn it through words and thinking” (Ivanhoe & Norden 202). Difference between Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s Philosophies Both Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s realisms acknowledge that the ‘Dao’ is eternal, transcendental, all-encompassing and, therefore, properly not knowledgeable. The cardinal difference between Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s descriptions of the ‘Dao’ lies the difference between their styles of description. Laozi says that the “Dao is the source, sustenance and the ideal state of all things in the world” (Ivanhoe & Norden 162). The way he describes the ‘Dao’ is more philosophical than theoretical, as Ivanhoe and Norden comments that Laozi’s thought is “more a form of philosophical therapy than the presentation of a theory” (Ivanhoe & Norden 162). Indeed, Laozi’s style of describing the ‘Dao’ greatly contributes to the philosophic dimension of his view. Using crude philosophic as well as poetic language, metaphors and similes, he describes ‘Dao’. On the contrary, Zhuangzi describes the “Dao” in reference to the events and affairs of human. Such descriptive approach rather endows the Zhuangzi’s thoughts with a voice of religiosity. Because of his contribution, Daoism descends from its crude philosophic level to a humanly affair. Indeed, Zhuangzi puts emphasizes on the role subjectivism in the ‘Dao’. He seems to argue: it is true that the Dao is inexpressible in language; yet it has to play an important role in human life and man must not quit his attempts to know it. He further argues that if man quits, the ‘Dao’ or the Way of life will be meaningless. Man’s Role Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s Views about the Dao Laozi’s thought has failed to break up the crust of nonchalant philosophy and, therefore, to define the role of Daoism in human life. In this regard, Ivanhoe and Norden comments, “Human beings have a place in the ‘Dao’, but are not particularly exalted. They are simply things among them.” (162) On the contrary, human life lies at the center of Zhuangzi’s philosophy. It does not necessarily mean that the ‘Dao’ is to be perceived as the entirety of human life. The ‘Dao’ is endowed with a meaning in term of human life. As a result, he most preaches his thoughts in reference to the examples and events from human life. For him, if the Dao is the objective reality, man must play the role of a subject. Since man provides subjectivity to the “Dao”, he should to experience it through intuition instead of thinking about it. At this point, Zhuangzi completely opposes Laozi’s tendency to provoke thinking through philosophical reasoning, as Ivanhoe and Norden comment, “In fact, he attacks thinking in order to make room, instead, for experience and intuition” (202). Yet “thinking and talking have a place” in his teachings about the existence of the ‘Dao’. (Ivanhoe & Norden 202) Referring to man’s role in the “Dao”, Laozi seems to advocate that man should detach himself from society and come close to nature, as he says, “Being one with Nature, he is in accord with the Tao./Being in accord with the Tao, he is everlasting./ The sage manages affairs without action…By acting without action, all things will be in order.” (Norden 147) But opposing this view, Zhuangzi comments, “Nothing is as good as fulfilling your destiny” (Ivanhoe & Norden 212) Indeed, for Zhuangzi, destiny is emotional affinity to near relatives in family and society, as he says, “Children’s love for their family is destiny” (Ivanhoe & Norden 230). Conclusion Indeed, while Laozi’s view about the Dao is more beneficial to nature and environment, Zhuangzi’s view appears to be useful for human life and society. Zhuangzi wants that the ‘Dao’ should play an active role in human life. Harmony or sacredness of the universe’ is one of the central ideas of Daoism. It is directly related to ‘Tao’ or ‘Dao’, the embryo of Daoist views. Textually, ‘Dao’ represents a transcendental being which contains both the good and the evil harmoniously. Daoism is “letting things to be their natural way”. Hence, a Daoist must follow the divine Way of Non-interference. In ‘Dao’, there exists a balanced co-existence among the opposites. In some ways, the ‘Dao’ is how the universe operates. Daoist scholars interpret the world as the manifestation of the ‘Dao’. Like Dao, the ways or orders of the universe ensure a balanced co-existence among the opposite forces. Therefore, man must be respectful to these harmonious and unperturbed ways of the world. Works Cited Ivanhoe, Philip J. and Norden, Bryan W. Van. Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, 2nd ed. Hackett, 2006 Norden, Bryan W. Van. Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. Google Books. 2012 Read More