"It-self-so-ing" and "Other-ing" in Lao Zi's Concept ofZi RanProf. Qingjie James WangZi ran[1]ais one of the oldest philosophical concepts in China.Lao Zi, the founder of Daoism[2], was the one who introduced the concept into the Chinese philosophy.[3]In the history of Chinese philosophy,zi ranwas often used to designate something which exists above and in most cases, in opposition toren weib, i.e., something made by human being. Therefore,zi ranis also interpreted astian ranc, i.e., something which is made by heaven and has nothing to do with human being. Clearly enough, this interpretation ofzi ranastian ranis based upon an absolute separation and an antagonism between heaven (nature) and human being. It then implies thatzi rancannot be achieved without totally rejecting human activities and the human desires behind those activities. Because of this, Daoism was criticized as a doctrine "blindly following heaven but ignoring human being" in the history of Chinese philosophy.[4]In what follows I shall discuss two interrelated senses of Lao Zi's concept ofzi ran. In light of a non-traditonal reading of the chapters where the termzi ranoccurs in theDao De Jing, I shall argue, first of all, thatzi ranas Dao is not something above or against human being. It is rather within the human world as it is within heaven, earth and everything else in the universe. It is the natural way of everything's becoming his/her/itself, i.e., a natural process of "it-self-be-coming," "it-self-growing," and "it-self-so-ing." I call it the positive sense ofzi ran. In contrast with the positive sense ofzi ranas "it-self-so-ing," the negative sense ofzi ranmay be called as "other-ing," which is also expressed in Lao Zi's concept ofwu wei. Whether the negative sense ofzi ranorwu weiis understood as "having-no-activity," as "acting without desires/intentions," or "acting with a yielding attitude," all of these, I shall claim, are only different ways or means for letting others, helping others, and encouraging others on the ways to their own "it-self-so-ing," i.e., "other-ing." Following this interpretation, I hope that most of the traditional "inconsistent" understandings ofzi ranas well as those ofwu weicould have a better and more coherent comprehension.I. Etymological meaning ofzi ranand its philosophical implicationsIn the English translations of the Chinese philosophical literature, the termzi ranis often understood as "nature," "spontaneity," and currently as "self-so-ing" or "self-becoming."[5]In order to understand the meaning of the term more properly, a brief etymological discussion is necessary.[6]As we know, the termzi ranis composed of two Chinese characters, i.e.,ziandran.According to theShuo Wenlexicon, one of the oldest Chinese dictionaries written 2000 years ago, the characterziwas a pictograph representing a nose (bid) in ancient Chinese.[7]However, in ancient classical Chinese textsziwas rarely used in its literal meaning as "nose." Its two extended uses and metaphorical meanings, i.e., its use as a preposition meaning "from ..." and its use as a reflexive adverb meaning "self-..." are the two most common cases we can find in the pre-Qin classical Chinese texts. W. A. Callahan suggests that the connection between the literal meaning ofzias "nose" and its extended meanings as "from ..." and as "self-..." may be seen from the facts in popular Chinese culture. For example, a Chinese often points to her nose, rather than to her heart, in referring to her perspective.[8]Compared withzi,which is used in ancient Chinese as a preposition or as an adverb, the other characterranis used in the most cases as a "pronoun" which means "like this" (ru cie) and has a function of affirmation, meaning "yes, it is like this!" In order to clarify this affirmative function ofranin ancient Chinese language further, we need to emphasize two more points. First, the wordran, being affirmative, presupposes a process of identification as well as distinction. That is to say, when we say that "it is like this," we presuppose at the same time that "it is not like that." Second, as a "pronoun"ranand its negativebu ranfoften had a different use fromshig("yes") and its negativefeih("no") in the ancient Chinese language. According to A.C. Graham, the difference betweenshiandranwas sometimes expressed by Later Moist philosophers. Whereasshi/feiwere used to distinguish between names, i.e., to identify or to deny existence of a thing or of a quality of the thing , e.g. "a horse" / "not a horse",ran/bu ranwere often used to distinguish between propositions, i.e., to affirm or to negate an action, e.g. "to ride a horse"/ "not to ride the horse."[9]Having clarified the ordinary meaning of the charactersziandran, we come to that of the combination of them, i.e., the meaning of the termzi ran. According to the grammar of ancient Chinese, ifzihas a noun following as inzi dongi(from the east),zi xij(from the west), it should be taken as prepositional "from ...." Ifziis followed by a verb as inzi lek(self-enjoying),zi weil(self-defense),zi fam(self-flourishing), etc., it should be understood as a reflexive adverbial "self-...." In the termzi ran,ranfollowszi. Althoughranis not a verb, it is a verbal pronoun which pronounces a process rather than a thing. It affirms an action rather than a substance or a quality. Therefore, the wordziinzi ranshould be understood as the reflexive adverbial "self...." Moreover, because the English word "self" has a stronger egoistic tone than the Chinese wordziwhich refers to the human self but is not restricted to that, I would like to put the neutral pronoun "it" before "self" in order to weaken the egoistic tone of "self." In view of all these considerations, I propose that the appropriate understanding and translation of the Chinese termzi ranis "it-self-so-ing" or "it-self-becoming." I will use this translation throughout my discussion.The philosophical importance of our understanding ofzi ranas "it-self-becoming" or "it-self-so-ing" consists in a two-fold implication of the term. On the one hand, the Chinese characterranindicates that it is "it-self-be-coming" or "it-self-so-ing." This "be-coming" or "so-ing" emphasizes that all things in the universe, including human beings, by their different, unique but correlated ways of being, i.e., coming, growing, flourishing, ripening, declining and dying, provide a picture of organic differentiating within the larger process of the universe as a whole. Thus understood,zi ranas "it-self-be-coming" may be more properly seen as "be-coming-it-self." That is to say, those ways of "becoming" or "so-ing" should also be ways of everyone's identification, realization, completion, and individualization. On the other hand, the characterziinzi ranreveals that it is "it-self-becoming" and "it-self-so-ing." It emphasizes not only the identification but also the distinction between "it-self" and others. It is thus against any kind of external interference, oppression and coercion. According to this interpretation ofzi ran, everything in the universe is both its way of self-be-coming and asks to be left alone in the process of such be-coming or it-self-so-ing. In my view, this twofold implication, or the two aspects of the original meaning of the Chinese termzi ran,which I call the positive and the negative sense of the term respectively,were what Lao Tzu tried to reveal through his use of the term in hisDao De Jing.[10]II. "It-self-so-ing" and the positive sense ofzi ranin theDao De JingIn order to make Lao Zi's philosophical understanding of the term "zi ran" clearer, let us examine in some detail how he used the term in theDao De Jing. There are five occurrences of the termzi ranin theDao De Jing. They are chapters 17, 23, 25, 51, 64 of the popular Wang Pi version of the book. I would like to divide these five chapters into two groups in light of the two senses ofzi randiscussed above. Chapter 25 and chapter 51 could be seen to focus on the positive sense ofzi ran, while chapter 17, chapter 23 and chapter 64 on the negative sense of the term.In the past 2000 years of the Chinese philosophy these two senses, especially the positive sense ofzi ran, seemed not very clear in our understanding of Lao Zi. One reason for this, I think, is that chapter 25 and chapter 51 of theDao De Jinghave been continuously misread in the past.The traditional reading of chapter 25, for example, suggests a hierarchical ranking of the universe with human being on the lowest level. Therefore, in order to reach the highest rank which isdaoandzi ran, a human being should diminish or restrict herself by modeling herself after earth, and then through earth after heaven, and then through earth and heaven afterdaoandzi ran. Following this reading we Chinese were taught for a long time that Lao Zi and Daoism gave us a pessimistic philosophy of life which leads to a rejection of the self and human value.[11]Also based on this understanding ofzi ranand its domination over human being,wu weinas a negative expression ofzi ranordaois often interpreted as to teach human being "doing nothing."[12]The problem can be seen clearer in the traditional reading and translation of chapter 25, which says,......Daois great.Heaven is great.Earth is great.And human being[13]is also great.There are four great things in the universe,And human being is one of them.Human being models himself after Earth.Earth models itself after heaven.Heaven models itself afterdao.Anddaomodels itself afterzi ran(it-self-so-ing).[14]There are two common points shared by almost all important interpretations and commentaries on this chapter of theDao De Jingin the history of Chinese philosophy. First, almost all commentators of theDao De Jingagree that the last sentence of the chapter cannot be understood in an ordinary sense of "modeling." As a matter of fact, there is nothing to be modeled after except after the process of being thedaoitself.[15]Second, we are told that Lao Zi gave us a hierarchical order of the universe with thedaoat the top, human beings at the bottom, and with heaven and earth inbetween, though all of them are called the "great." Because of this interpretation, we human being became the "smallest" of the four "great."The interesting thing is that these two points have been repeated for thousand of years, but few pointed out that they are actually inconsistent with each other. This inconsistency, in my point of view, can be seen at least from the following three considerations. First, there is a grammatical inconsistency. If "zi ran" cannot be used as something referring to an entity or to an object of the modeling here, how can the other terms such as "dao," "heaven," "earth" be used in that way, especially when we consider all those four sentences having the exactly same grammatical structure? Second, there is a semantical inconsistency in using the word "great." If the universe follows the hierarchical order as those traditional Lao Zi commentators suggested, how can we legitimately call human being "great?" If human being must "model" herself after, and thus is inevitably restrained by earth, heaven, anddao, is she still "great?" If so, what is the difference between the "greatness" of heaven, earth,daoand that of human being? Third, there is a logical inconsistency in using the term ofzi ran. As we have discussed above, the termzi ranimplies a strong sense of "it-self-so-ing." How is it logically possible to say, as most of the traditional commentaries have suggested, that not onlydaobut also heaven, earth and human being shouldfa zi rano(to be "it-self-so-ing"), on the one hand, and that human being's "itself-so-ing" must also be mediated through "modeling" after earth and heaven, on the other hand? Does that make human being not "it-self-so-ing" or at least being less "it-self-so-ing?"In order to avoid all these problems or inconsistencies, I would like to introduce a non-traditional reading and give a different interpretation of chapter 25 of theDao De Jing. This non-traditional reading was made first time by a Daoist scholar Li Yuepin the Tang Dynasty (618-907).[16]The reading changes the traditional punctuation of the last four sentences and reads some words, e.g.,daq(great),tianr(heaven),dis(earth) etc., as verbs instead of as adjectives or nouns. I believe that this reading will not only be well justified by textual evidence from theDao De Jingitself, but will also provide a much clearer picture of the positive sense of Lao Zi's concept ofzi ran.In comparison with the traditional reading above, this reading could lead to a new translation of chapter 25 as:.....Dao is great-ing (dao da).Heaven is great-ing (tian da).Earth is great-ing (di da).And human being is also great-ing (ren ye das).There are four great-ing in the universe (guo zhong you si dat),And human being is one of them (er ren ju qi yi yanu).Human being models himself after earth's being earth (ren fa di div),after heaven's being heaven (fa tian tianw),afterdao's beingdao(fa dao daox);[that is,] afterzi-ran/ it-self-so-ing (fa zi ran).Along with a change of the reading, our old understanding of chapter 25 of theDao De Jingwould also be changed. First, this reading does not hold a hierarchical order in the universe. The relation amongdao, heaven, earth and human being is parallel rather than hierarchical. It is in this sense that Lao Zi called human being "one of the four great-ing." Thus understood, human being's modeling after earth's being earth, heaven's being heaven anddao's beingdaois not being restrained by any of the external entities. Just like earth's being earth, heaven's being heaven, anddao's beingdao, human being has its own way of being. Therefore, to model after earth's being's earth, heaven's being heaven,dao's beingdaois to ask a human being to be itself and that is "it-self-so-ing" (zi ran). Second, the reading ofdain "di da,""tian da,""dao da,""ren ye da" as a verb rather than an adjective leads us to the interpretation that earth, heaven,daoand human being are always in the process of changing, becoming, growing, living and being. That is "so-ing" /ran. It corresponds also to the above reading of the seconddiin "fa di di," the secondtianin "fa tian tian," the seconddaoin "fa dao dao" as verbs rather than as nouns. Clearly enough, heredi di(earth's being earth),tian tian(heaven's being heaven), anddao dao(dao's beingdao) are Lao Zi's illustrations ofdi da(earth is great-ing),tian da(heaven is great-ing), anddao da(daois great-ing).[17]If all shi, yuan, fan, which accompany with da, are read as verbs, there is no reason then not to read and to interpret da also as a verb, meaning a processing of being great, i.e., being oneself. In some other chapters of the Dao De Jing such as chapters 34, 41, 45, 29, we can find similar use.There might be two possible objections against this non-traditional reading and interpretation of chapter 25 of theDao De Jing. First, someone may claim that the new punctuation of the last four sentences of the chapter and the use of the seconddi,tiananddaoas verbs rather than nouns is incompatible with the custom of the traditional punctuation and with the traditional use of those words in the ancient Chinese language. Second, someone may argue further that the interpretation of the relation among human being, earth, heaven anddaonot as hierarchical but parallel is not consistent with Lao Zi's thought of the hierarchical order of the creation of the universe expressed in some other places in theDao De Jing, e.g., in the famous chapter 42, where the order of the creation of the universe is given.It seems easier to answer the first objection which is more technical. In the pre-Qin classical literature it is not very hard to find similar ways of punctuation and of using two exactly same words together with one of them as a verb. As Li Yue pointed out,[18]the most famous example can be seen in 12:11 of theAnalects:Duke Jing of Qi asked Confucius about government. Confucius replied," Let the prince be a prince (jun juny), the minister a minister (chen chenz), the father a father (fu fuaa) and the son a son (zi ziab)."[19]BesidesAnalects, we can also find similar cases in the Daoist classics such as inZhuang Zi, even in theDao De Jingitself.[20]As for the answer to the second objection, I would like to change the punctuation of the first four sentences of chapter 42 too and to introduce a new reading of it in light of my interpretation of chapter 25. As we know, the traditional reading of chapter 42 of theDao De Jingsays,Dao produced the one.The one produced the two.The two produced the three.And the three produced the ten thousand things.......This traditional reading and interpretation has been used for thousand of years for the explanation of Lao Zi's as well as the dominant Chinese view of the creation process of the universe and served as the philosophical grounding of the Chinese cosmology. However, it seems to me that there is no reason why we cannot read, if it could not be called a better reading, chapter 42 of theDao De Jingin the same way as we read chapter 25. Hence, according to my new reading and interpretation, chapter 42 could be translated asThroughdaoemerges one's being one,two's being two,three's being three,and emerge [in the same way] the ten thousand things.This new reading and interpretation of chapter 42, like that I did for chapter 25, does not acceptdaoas an absolute entity which is the substantified creator of the universe. Rather, it suggests a naturalistic process of becoming, growing and being, and therefore has legitimized each individual's unique being in the universe.[21]That is, in my point of view, the true spirit of Lao Zi'szi rananddao.[22]Thus understood, there is no inconsistency between chapter 25 and chapter 42 of theDao De Jing. In other words, chapter 42 should not be seen as a refutation of the above interpretation of chapter 25. It is rather a strong support for it.In light of the above reading and interpretation of chapter 25 and chapter 42 of theDao De Jing, it should be easier to see chapter 51 as another place where Lao Zi discusses his positivezi ran. Compared with chapter 25 where Lao Zi talked aboutzi ranof human being, earth, and heaven, chapter 51 seems to focus on thezi ranof the ten thousand things in the universe. Here is my translation of the chapter 51 of theDao De Jing:Throughdaoten thousand things have emerged and are alive.[23]Throughde(virtue) they get fostered,Throughwu(thing-ing) they get configured,Throughqi(instrumental doing) they get completed and finished.[24]Therefore the ten thousand things esteemdaoand honorde(virtue).Daois esteemed anddeis honored without having merit.They appropriate themselves aszi ran(it-self-so-ing).Therefore, because ofdaothe ten thousand things have emerged and are alive,They are fostered,They are growing, nurturing, maturing, ripening, reserving and declining.To keep alive without possession,To act without holding on,To grow without lording over,This is called the profoundde(virtue).Very clearly, this chapter discusses the relation betweendaoand the growing, living and existing of the ten thousand things. To me, at least two implications can be derived from my reading of the chapter. First, just as in chapter 25 and in chapter 42,daois not understood as a substantified and transcendent entity which exists beyond or outside the existence of the ten thousand things. That is to say, there is no "causal creator" of the universe and of the ten thousand things.Daois rather a process and a force going on within and with every one of the ten thousand things. It may not be the case, as the traditional interpretation holds, thatdaoas the "creator" shows mercy by "giving birth without possession," "acting without holding on to" and "growing without lording over." Instead, if there is no "creator" at all, such things as "possession," "holding on to" and "lording over" cannot obtain even in the first place.[25]Second, everything has its unique way of existence as "growing, nurturing, maturing, ripening, reserving and declining." That is a natural and spontaneous way which makes one thing to be itself, and therefore, to be distinguished from being anything else. From both of these, we can once again see the positive dimension of Lao Zi'szi ran.III.Wu wei, "other-ing" and the negative sense ofzi ranin theDao De JingChapters 17, 23 and 64 are three other places where the termzi ranoccurs in theDao De Jing. Unlike chapter 25 and chapter 51, these three chapters seem to give more emphasis onwu wei, which can be seen as the negative dimension ofzi ran,i.e., non-interference by others. Although a comprehensive discussion ofwu weiis not the main task of this essay, I do think that my interpretation and discussion of the positive sense of Lao Zi'szi ranwill help us to understand better Lao Zi's concept ofwu wei. That is to say,wu weias a Daoist philosophical guiding principle for human behaviors might not be fully understood without a positive understanding ofzi ran.There are at least three major interpretations of Lao Zi's and the Daoist concept ofwu weiin the history of Chinese philosophy.[26]Among them the simplest one is the literal interpretation of the term as "doing nothing," which can be seen from the concept ofwu shiac("having-no-activity") in theDao De Jing(e.g. in ch.2, 48, 57, 63). Although this interpretation reflects some earliest Daoist hermits' genuine attitude of life[27]and was popular among critics of Daoism, it was not accepted by the main stream of philosophical Daoism in the history.[28]Compared with the first interpretation which focuses on "doing something" or "doing nothing," the second one focuses on "having intentions/desires" or "not-having intentions/desires" of an agent in her doing things. The interpretation ofwu weias non-intentional spontaneity is also described by Lao Zi aswu yuad("no-desire," e.g., in ch.1, 3, 34, 57, 64, etc..),wu xinae("no-mind," e.g., in p.49), orwu yi weiaf("purposeless," e.g., in ch.38).[29]In the third interpretation of the term,wu weiis seen as action which does not force, but yields. It recommends strongly a passive or a soft attitude rather than an aggressive or a strong attitude of action. In theDao De Jing, we are given not only a family of terms but also several famous metaphors to illustrate this soft and yielding attitude: the terms such as that ofseag("withholding," ch. 59),jianah("being frugal," ch.67),rou ruoai("softness and weakness," ch.79),wei xiaaj("to place oneself below others," ch.61),wu ziak("to grasp nothing," ch.64),fual("to help," ch.64),shunam("to follow," ch.23),cian("deep love," ch.67),bu zhengao("not competing," ch.3, 8, 22) andbu gan wei tian xia xianap("not daring to be ahead of the world,"ch.67), etc., the metaphors such as those of water (ch.78), female (ch.10), infant (ch.10), etc. .In the scholarship of theDao De Jingand Daoism these three interpretations ofwu weico-exist. Obviously, they are not always compatible with each other.[30]For example, the first interpretation advocates an absolute non-action while the second and the third interpretations do not. In order to explain or to avoid the problem of the incompatibility, scholars either prefer a political rather than a purely philosophical interpretation ofwu wei, or else they trace the different origins of the ideas ofwu weiback to the early Daoists. According to the latter approach, these different ideas ofwu weihave been by their nature inconsistent with each other from the very beginning.[31]The incompatibility was also explained by a historical development of the concept ofwu weiin the Chinese political and philosophical tradition from Confucius, early Daoists, Zhuang Zi to the Legalist and the Huang-Lao Daoists intheHuai-Nan Zi.aq[32]Although all of these explanations make sense to some extent and from some perspectives, they do not seem to have paid enough attention to the ontological difference between "I" and the "other" which, in my point of view, is assumed by and thus is crucial to all the three major interpretations of Lao Zi'swu wei.That is to say, the true philosophical spirit of Lao Zi'swu weishould not only be read as refraining from or even as eliminating the action or the desire of the action from the agent, but also, or more importantly, as requiring the agent to recognize and to have respect the existence and the distinctness of the recipients of that action, i.e., the existence and the distinctness ofthe other. In light of my previous discussion of the positive sense ofzi ranas "it-self-be-coming," or "it-self-so-ing," I would like to call this negative dimension ofzi ran"other-ing," and to claim that only on the basis of the principle of "other-ing," according to which every unique and distinct way of existenceshould not bearbitrarily interfered with, coerced or oppressed from outside[33], Lao Zi's concept ofwu weicould be clarified and interpreted in a better way.Let us now see how this principle of other-ing expresses itself aswu wei, i.e., the negative sense ofzi ran, in chapters of 17, 23, 64 of theDao De Jingwhere Lao Zi's termzi ranoccurs. For example, in the beginning of chapter 23 Lao Zi says:"xi yan zi ran."arTraditionally the sentence is translated as "Nature says few words."[34]Herezi ranis understood as an entity and as the subject of the sentence. I doubt about this reading and understanding. There are at least two problems in this understanding. First, this popular and traditional translation and interpretation ofzi ranas an entity seem to be inconsistent with all other places where the term is used in theDao De Jing.[35]Second, in ancient Chinese,yanas(saying) likemingat(naming) indicated an active saying as well as a command and thus is againstdao.[36]That is why Lao Zi repeated in saying thatdaoof rulership by its nature iswu yanau(non-aggressive saying),wu mingav(non-positive naming). Also because of that,zi ranwas later understood as being againstming jiaoaw(naming-morals/institution) in the neo-Daoism of Wei and Jin period (220-420). Accordingly, notzi ranbut a ruler, as in most of Lao Zi's sayings, should be understood as the real subject of the sentence.[37]Thus , a better translation and interpretation of the first sentence of chapter 23 of theDao De Jingwould be: "Seldom issuing commands is in accordance withzi ran."[38]This interpretation ofzi ranas "seldom issuing commands (from the ruler)" can be seen more clearly in chapter 17 of theDao De Jingwhere the concept ofzi ranis also used. The chapter may be translated as follows:The best (rulers) are those whose existence is (merely) known by the people.The next best are those who are loved and praised.The next are those who are feared.And the next are those who are despised.It is only when one does not have enough trust/faith (xinax) in others that others will have no trust/faith in him.[The great rulers] value their "yan" highly.Tasks have been accomplished successfully and works completed.Nevertheless people say: I am simply being natural/my-self-so-ing (wo zi ranay).Having combined chapter 17 and chapter 23, we may see that for Lao Zizi ran(being natural or it-self-so-ing) is different for a ruler and for common people. They have different ways of "it-self-so-ing." On the one hand, from the side of a ruler,zi ranmeans not or seldom issuing commands orwu wei.On the other hand, from the side of the people, thanks to non-commanding or non-interfering by the ruler, people can complete their own works of living in the way ofzi ranas "self-be-coming" or "self-so-ing." Putting these two sides together, Lao Zi led us to his famous conclusion of the appropriation ofdaoorofzi ranas "non-action but nothing is left undone."[39]Here "non-action" refers to the side of ruler or superiors, to the negative sense ofzi ran, while "nothing is left undone" refers to common people or inferiors, to the positive sense ofzi ran. Just like all other pairs such asyouazandwuba,yinbbandyangbc, etc., in theDao De Jing, these two sides are differentiated from each other, but are always complementary to each other as indispensable partners. For a ruler, "the people" is a different "other" and thus has its own way of "self-so-ing." Recognition of suchother-ingis the basis for a ruler to adoptwu wei,that is, to leave alone people's "self-so-ing." Without thewu weiof the ruler, there would be no "self-so-ing" of the people, i.e., the other relevant to the ruler. Of course, thezi ranof other as the other-ing in Lao Zi, as I have discussed about the positive sense ofzi ranabove, should not be understood as something entified or substantified, e.g., essence. It is rather something unnamed, ungrasped and uncomprehended. That are "ways (dao)" of others.[40]Sometimes Lao Zi called this other-ing sacred, and something with which one must not interfere.[41]Also becausewu weias "seldom issuing commands" (ch.23) or "being frugal in giving commands" (ch.17) is based on a recognition of the "other-ing," Lao Zi emphasized the word "faith/trust" (xin) in chapter 17. According to Lao Tzu, a ruler should first of all "trust or have a faith in others/people" in order to be the true and the best ruler, otherwise he would not be really trusted (bu xinbd) by others/people. That is, he would be merely "loved and praised, (qin yu zhibe)," "feared (wei zhibf)," or even "despised (wu zhibg)."This recognition of and respect for "self-so-ing" and "other-ing" does not necessarily lead to "doing nothing" or "letting being alone." In many cases "I" could do something to the "other" without interfering or blocking its way toward "it-self-so-ing." It would rather help or support this "it-self-so-ing." This helpful support without interfering is called by Lao Zifubhin chapter 64, i.e., the fifth and the last place wherezi ranoccurs in theDao De Jing. In that chapter Lao Zi said,.......[Thus the sage] is able to help/support (fu) the ten thousand things in their ways toward "self-so-ing" (zi ran) but dares not to act/interfere.Herewu weiis interpreted as "helping or supporting things in their 'self-so-ings.'" But this interpretation is still pretty vague and thus needs further discussion.First, Lao Zi's concept offuindicates that the key to understandingwu weiconsists neither in "doing something" nor "doing nothing," neither in "doing with intention/desire" nor "doing without intention/desire." Rather, the point ishowto do things so as to fit or support the "it-self-so-ing" of the thing.[42]In some situations I ought not to do anything because that is the best way to support (fu) "it-self-so-ing" of things. But in some other situations I may need to do something because that is the best way.[43]Therefore,wu weias either one of above mentioned senses is only a means towardzi ran(it-self-so-ing) whilezi ranshould be the end ofwu wei. That is to say,zi ranmight call for "having-no-activity," but "having-no-activity" is neither necessary nor sufficient for leading tozi ran(it-self-so-ing). The basis for us to judge an action aswu weior not is to see whether it is to support/help (fu) a thing'szi ran(it-self-so-ing).Second, if we should understand Lao Zi'swu weiin light ofzi ran, the next question would be how to judge whether what I do really supports/helps rather than interferes with or blocks a thing'szi ran(it-self-so-ing). Feng You-lanbisuggests thatwu weiasfu zi ranmeans that... a man should restrict his activities to what is necessary and what is natural. "Necessary" means necessary to the achievement of a certain purpose, and never overdoing. "Natural" means following one's[d]ewith no arbitrary effort.[44]To me, Feng's suggestion does not take us a step forward, since we may still ask how one judges whether one's action is overdoing or arbitrary. What is thecriterionfor judging "necessary" or "natural" action? How can I know the "it-self-so-ing" of the other in order to behave "necessarily" and "naturally?" If I take the other as the criterion of the judgement, how do I know what is the real criterion of the other? If I take myself to be the criterion, how can I really avoid overdoing or arbitrariness?[45]In order to find a way to solve such problem, I suggest to change our traditional way of asking the question. Ifwu wei, as discussed above, should be understood fromzi ran,and ifzi ranmust be understood as non-entified or non-substantial "it-self-so-ing," then simply to ask about doing "what," as Feng did, may be misleading. Any affirmative answer to the "what" question or to the question of the criterion for what is necessary and natural for the "other's"zi ran(it-self-so-ing) would treatzi ranas an entity and would thus eliminate the other-ing of the other. Because of this, Lao Zi said in the famous first chapter of theDao De Jing,Thedaothat can be told of is not the authenticdao.The name that can be named is not the authentic name.Thus understood, when Lao Zi definedwu weiasfu zi ranin the chapter 64, what he was really interested in, from my point of view, is not a question such as how "I" can "know" or "name" the other's "it-self-so-ing" or "identify" myself with the other's known "it-self-so-ing." It is rather a question how "I" can behave in such a way that the other's "it-self-so-ing" will have a maximum room of growing and realization. I think that those are two different questions. One is a theoretical question of "what to know," while the other is a practical question of "how to do." The answer to the first question assumes or requires my knowledge of the other'szi ran(it-self-so-ing). But the answer to the second question may not necessarily involve such an assumption or requirement. It requires rather an attitude, e.g., showing respect for the other'szi ran. This attitude "recognizes" the other-ing of the other but does not need to specify what the other-ing of the other is. When Lao Zi put together "helping and supporting the ten thousand things in their ways toward "it-self-so-ing" (fu zi ran) together with "not dare to interfere with" (fu gan weibj) in chapter 64, he did not provide any substantified criterion. Rather, he advocated a soft or yielding attitude such asse(withholding),wei xiabk(to place oneself below others), etc., so that the other things are not only allowed but also encouraged to be in their ways of "it-self-so-ing." This soft and yielding attitude should not be interpreted simply as something passive or as a rejection of participation of any kind. It is rather an attitude that calls for or inviting a better kind of participation.Therefore, all the three traditional interpretations ofwu weican be consistently and coherently explained on the basis of the principle of "the other-ing," which is the key to understanding the negative sense of Lao Zi's concept ofzi ran, i.e., "non-interference by the other." Here, whetherwu weiexpresses itself as "having-no-activity," as "acting without desire/intention" or "acting with a yielding attitude," all of these are only different ways or means for lettingothers, helpingothers, or encouragingotherson the way (dao) to their own "self-so-ings." Which way will best serve this purpose will depend on specific situations. Therefore, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to argue which one is the only or true interpretation ofwu wei.IV. ConclusionAbove, I have examined all five occurrences of Lao Zi's concept ofzi ranin theDao De Jingand discussed both the positive and the negative senses of it. In this way, I attempt to provide a relatively coherent and comprehensive picture of Lao Zi'szi ranin theDao De Jing. In sum, the positive sense of Lao Zi'szi raninsists that everything in the universe has its own unique and indispensable "it-self-so-ing." All things are emerging, growing, flourishing, ripening, declining, demising and there need be no creator before or beyond these natural ways of "it-self-so-ing." In light of the positive sense ofzi ran,we can see that the negative sense of the term is only the other side of the samezi ran. That is to say, the positive sense of zi ranas everything's "it-self-so-ing" implies that any kind of coercion, interference or oppression of the "it-self-so-ing" should be reduced, eliminated and morally blamed, and that the sphere of "other-ing" and the other must be established and respected.I must caution, however, that the terms such as "self" or "other" in my discussion should not be understood in an absolute or a strong substantial and dualistic sense, which, as we are told, dominate the modern understanding of nature in the West.[46]My discussion of Lao Zi's concept offuin our understanding of the negative sense ofzi ranhas already indicated that there is not and should not be an absolute separating line between "self" and the "other."Fucannot be possible without an ontologically assumed common ground between my "it-self-so-ing" and that of the "other." That was expressed in a famous Chinese philosophical slogan -- "Everything between heaven and earth belongs to the same body "[47]However, that all things belong to the same body does not mean that there is no differentiation among them. Therefore, in understanding Lao Zi's concept ofzi ran, we should avoid two extremes. One extreme is to substantialize both "self" and the "other," so that the "it-self-so-ing" orzi ranbecomes "essence" of existence and the "object" of knowledge. The other extreme is to eliminate completely both "self" and the "other," so that the "it-self-so-ing" orzi ranis reduced to some kind of pure emptiness or totally indeterminable random spontaneity. In both cases, we would lose the "it-self-so-ing." The advantage of Lao Zi's interpretation ofzi ran,an attempt to take a "middle way" between the two extremes, consists, as I have discussed above, in his treatingzi ranprimarily as a practical issue rather than as a theoretical one. Following this way, theoretical paradoxes such as "no-action but nothing is left undone" (wu wei er wu bu weibl) and "being able to help and support the ten thousand things in their ways toward 'it-self-so-ing' but daring not to act and interfere" (neng fu wan wu zhi zi ran er fu gan weibm) turn out to be practically efficient guidelines, just as Si-MaTanbn, a sympathizer of Daoism in the early Han period, correctly commented,The Daoists advocate not acting, but they also say that, by virtue of this non-action, nothing is left undone. The content of these words is easy to put into practice, but the words themselves are difficult to understand.[48]Qingjie James WangThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongNOTES:[1]Writing of this article was supported by a research grant from Oklahoma Foundation for the Humanities. An early version of the first two sections of this article was presented at The American Philosophical Association 70th Annual Meeting, Pacific Division, Seattle, April 3-6, 1996. I would also like to thank James Allard, Chung-ying Chen, Wes DeMarco, Xin-yan Jiang, Graham Parkes, Lynda Sexson, Michael Zimmerman for their critical comments on the whole article and their valuable suggestions for the revision.[2]There is a controversy about the authorship of theDao De Jingin the history of Chinese philosophy. My discussion here simply follows the traditional saying that Lao Zi was the founder of Daoism and the author of theDao De Jing.[3]Zhang Dai-Lian,Zhong Guo Zhe Xue Da Gangbo(The History of the Philosophical Problems in China), (Beijing: The Chinese Social Science Press, 1982), p.421.[4]SeeXun Zi:Jie Bibp,in Vol.2 ofZhu Zi Ji Chengbq[Collection of Classics], 8 vols., (Beijing: Zhong Hua Books, 1954).[5]There are several problems of these existing English translations. For examples, first, the translation ofzi ranas "nature" may misread it as a noun which refers to an entity rather than to a process of growing and becoming. Second, the translation of "spontaneity" may miss the "active" sense of the termzi ran. Third, "self-so-ing" or "self-becoming" may mislead our understanding of the term to fall into an egoistic trick, i.e., to make the naturalistic process "personalized."[6]The etymological interpretation and discussion ofzi ranin this section follows greatly from W. A. Callahan's linguistic discussion of Lao Zi'szi ran.However, I do not agree with his philosophical interpretation of Lao Zi'szi ran. It seems to me that his interpretation gives a too strong impression that Lao Zi is a perspctivist philosopher. Moreover, his translation ofzi ranas "perspectival action-discrimination" sounds awkward to a Chinese ear. It may serve only as one of the possible interpretations rather than, as he did, a translation.As for Callahan's translation and discussion, see W. A. Callahan, "Discourse and Perspective in Daoism: A Linguistic Interpretation ofzi ran." inPhilosophy East and West, vol.39, no.2 (April 1989), pp. 171-189.[7]Xu Shen ,Shuo Wen Jie Zibr, (Beijing: Zhong Hua Books, 1963), p.74.[8]See Callahan, p.173.[9]See A. C. Graham, " 'Being' in Western Philosophy Compared withshi/feiandyou/wuin Chinese Philosophy," inStudies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature, (Albany: SUNY Press, 1990), pp.322-359.[10]It seems to me that the two senses of the Chinese termzi ranare very similar to the two senses of the conception of freedom or liberty discussed by Isaiah Berlin, i.e., the positive sense and the negative sense of the concept as "being free to ..." and as "being free from. See Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," inFour Essays On Liberty,(London: Oxford University Press), pp. 118-172.[11]See no.3.[12]I will discuss the different interpretations ofwu weiin the next section of the paper.[13]Both Wang Pi'sbsand He Shang Gong'sbteditions of the text have the character "wangbu/king" instead of "renbv/human being" here. The twoSilk Manuscripts of the Lao Zihadwangtoo. However, Fu Yi'sbwand Fan Ying Yuan'sbxtexts haveren. Many modern scholars followed Fu and Fan and believed that the replacement ofrenbywangis for political reasons. Also considering thatwangis here understood as the representative of human being, I follow Fu and Fan's reading.[14]In most cases of the translation of theDao De Jing,I follow Wing-Tsit Chan's translation inA Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, pp.139-176, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), with a reference to D.C. Lau's translation --Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching(London: Penguin Classics, 1963), and with my modification in some cases.[15]See Wang Pi and Ho Shangong's commentaries. Wang Pi comments in Chan, p.321. "To followzi ranas its standard is to model after the square while within the square and the circle while within the circle, and not opposezi ranin any way."[16]Li Yue,Lao Zi Dao De Zhen Jing Xin Zhuby.See Gao Heng,Lao Zi Zhen Gubz, (Beijing, Classics, 1956), p.61-62.[17]Generally speaking, there are two basic ways of the use of the worddain theDao De Jing. One is used as adjective while the other as verb. Lao Zi clearly downplayed the former use and favored the latter. For example, in the same chapter 25, just before Lao Zi calls human being, earth, heaven,dao"great-ing" (da), he gave a verbal interpretation ofda.There is something undifferentiated and yet complete,Which existed before heaven and earth.Soundless and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change.It operates everywhere and is free from danger.It may be considered the mother of the universe.I do not know its name. I call itdao.If forced to give it a name, I shall call it great-ing (da).Now great-ing means functioning everywhere (shica).Functioning everywhere means far-reaching (yuancb).Being far-reaching means returning to the origin (fancc).......[18]See Gao Heng, p.62.[19]SeeThe Analects of Confucius, trans. by Arthur Waley, (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), p.166.[20]For example, in theZhuang Zi, ch. 12, "tai chu you wu wu"cd(In the beginning nothing is noth-ing. ); in theDao De Jing, ch. 71 "......yi qi bing bing ye, shi yi bu bing......"ce(because the sage recognizes this disease to be disease, he is free from it.); etc.[21]This reading may also have a strong support from chapter 54 of theDao De Jing. It reads,"..... (The dao of a) person should be viewed from the person,(The dao of a) family should be viewed from the family,(Thedaoof a) community should be viewed from the community,(Thedaoof a) country should be viewed from the country,(Thedaoof the) world should be viewed from the world.How do I know this to be the case (ran)in the world?Through this (from the cultivation of virtue in the person to that in the world)."[22]It is not my intention to claim that my reading of Chapters 25, 42, etc. of theDao De Jingis the only way to read and to understand them. What I would like to claim is rather that my reading and interpretation may open another alternative to understand Lao Zi. I hope that this way of interpretation of Lao Zi would finally make our understanding of Lao Zi's philosophical spirit richer and more coherent.[23]The Chinese wordshengcfhas both meanings as "giving birth" and "keeping alive." My interpretation emphasizes on the second meaning.[24]I interpret "sheng zhicg," "xu zhich," "ting zhici," "du zhicj" etc. as saying that it is through or because ofdaothat ten thousand things have "sheng," "xu," "du," "ting" etc.. Here I would like to make a distinction between "being caused by" and "being so because of ..." "Being caused by" is a strict causal relation. But "being so because of" is not necessarily a causal relation. Because I don't think Lao Zi'sdao, deck,wucl,qicmshould be understood here as substantifying entities, I interpret the relations between them and ten thousand of things as the latter rather than as the former. That is to say, they are not creators of but different ways of ten thousand things' "it-self-so-ing."[25]This Daoist spirit can be seen later in Hui Neng'scninterpretation of Chan Buddhism in his famous verse, "Fundamentally perfect wisdom has no tree/ Nor has the bright mirror any stand/ Buddha nature is forever clear and pure/ Where is there any dust." See Wing-Tsit Chan,A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p.432.[26]Also see David Loy's discussion of it in "Wei-Wu-Wei: Nondual Action,"Philosophy East and West, 35, no.1 (January 1985), pp.73-76.[27]Herrlee G. Greel described it as "...... the idea of complete nonparticipation in worldly affairs." See Herrlee G. Greel, "On the Origin ofWu Wei," inWhat is Taoism? (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), p.76.[28]For example, Guo Xiangco(died in 312), a major commentator of Zhuang Zi, criticized this interpretation ofwu weiby saying:"Hearing the theory ofwu wei, some people think that lying down is better than walking. These people are far wrong in understanding the idea of Zhuang Zi."inGuo Qingfan,Zhuang Zi Ji Shicp, in Vol.3 ofZhu Zi Ji Cheng[Collection of Classics], 8 vols., (Beijing: Zhong-hua Books, 1954).[29]A development of this interpretation leads to a Buddhist rejection of both the agent and the recipient of an action, e.g., no-self and no-objects. A contemporary view of this interpretation can be seen in David Loy, "Wei-Wu-Wei: Nondual Action."[30]Creel made a distinction between "contemplative" Daoism and "purposive" Daoism and pointed out that "logically and essentially they are incompatible." See "On Two Aspects in Early Daoism," inWhat is Taoism? p.45.[31]See Creel's discussion on it inWhat is Taoism?[32]An extensive and historical study on the concept ofwu weiin the ancient history of Chinese philosophy can be found in Roger Ames,The Art of Rulership -- A Study in Ancient Chinese Political Thought, (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983)[33]Because of this, we can see why the concept ofzi youcq(freedom) comes out ofzi ranlater in Chinese philosophy.[34]For examples, see Wing-Tsit Chan,A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, p.151; Ellen M. Chen,The Dao Te Ching, (New York: Pragon House, 1989), p.113, etc..[35]See ch. 25, ch.51, ch.17 and ch.61.[36]For example, in theZhou Licr, "yan" was defined as a saying which is initiative and active while "yucs" as a saying which is corresponding and passive.SeeKang Xi Zi Dianct(Beijing: Zhong Hua Books, 1958), p.1146.[37]Here I follow H.G. Creel and A. C. Graham and interpret the sentence from a perspective of political philosophy. As Graham emphasized in his comparison between Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi, "Lao-tzu, which is written from the view of point of the prince, is pervaded by an awareness of the uselessness of trying to control political forces, which however the ruler can guide by locating the crucial points and moments and exerting the minimum pressure to the maximum effect." See A. C. Graham,Chuang-Tzu -- The Inner Chapters, (London: Mandala, 1986), p.170.[38]I follow Chen Gu-ying's interpretation and Ames and Young's translation. See Chen Gu-ying,Lao Zi Zhu Shi Yu Ping Jiacu, (Beijing: Zhong Hua Books, 1984), pp.157-160.[39]Dao De Jing, ch.37, ch.48.[40]It should be noticed that the idea of 'other' which is contained in Lao Zi's negative sense of "zi ran" as "wu wei" is not that of the absolute other, e.g., the "other" who has nothing to do with the "I" or who is against the "I." Everyone is the "I" and the "other" at the same time. It is the "I" in the sense that it has its unique and distinct way of "it-self-so-ing." It is also the "other" in the sense that it is an "other" of another "I." Therefore, on the one hand, as an "I" it should be against any kind of outside interference or coercion which could block or interfere with its "self-so-ing." On the other hand, as an "other" it should also recognize and respect the other "I"s' unique ways of their "self-so-ings." Therefore, according to Lao Zi, a respect for other-ing of the other is not mercy, or using a more popular contemporary philosophical term, not "charity" from "I," from the ruler or the "advantaged." It is rather required by the unnameable and non-substantifiedzi ranof the other itself.[41]For example, in chapter 29 of theDao De Jing, the empire or "all under the sky" is seen as a "sacred vessel. It should not be acted on. He who acts on it harm it. He who holds on to it loses it."[42]Roger Ames made a similar point ofwu wei, but from a different direction, in his "Putting the [D]eBack into Taoism" when he said:"Wu-wei,then, is a negation of that kind of 'making' or 'doing' which requires that a particular sacrifice its own integrity in acting on behalf of something 'other,' a negation of one particular serving as a 'means' for something else's 'end.'" SeeNature in Asian Traditions of Thought,ed. by J.Baird Callicott and Roger T. Ames, (Albany: SUNY, 1989), p.137.[43]In theHuai Nan Zi, a Daoist classic after theDao De Jingand theChuang Zi, a later Daoist saw this point very clear when he said:...... suppose one were to use fire to dry out a well, or to use the water of theHuaicvRiver for irrigating the mountains, that would be to exert the ego-self and thus to behave againstzi ran(it-self-so-ing). Hence, that can be called taking action (you weicw). Suppose instead one were to use boats on water, wagon on sand, sledges on the mud, and baskets [for transporting earth] in the mountains, making ditches in the summer [when the rainfall occurs] and making retaining ponds in the winter, where the land is high, taking it for agriculture, and where it lies low, using it as ponds. Such would not constitute what I have called "you wei."SeeHuai Nan Zi, ch.19, "xiu wu xuncx," in Vol.7 ofZhu Zi Ji Cheng, [Collection of Classics], 8 vols., (Beijing: Zhong-hua Books, 1954).[44]Feng You-lan,A Short History of Chinese Philosophy, (New York: Macmillan, 1948), p.101.[45]This is the question asked by Zhuang Zi in his "Qi Wu Luncx." See A. C. Graham,Chuang-Tzu -- The Inner Chapters, pp.48-61.[46]See Martin Heidegger,Introduction to Metaphysics, (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1959), pp.10-14.[47]See Zhuang Zi, "Tian Xiacy" in vol.3 ofZhu Zi Ji Cheng[Collection of Classics], 8 vols., (Beijing: Zhong-hua Books, 1954).[48]Si-Ma Qian,Shi Jicz. I use H.G. Creel's translation in hisWhat is Taoism?pp.51-52.

2003125