Upload
others
View
6
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introduction
Here I will make an analysis on the philosophy of Mencius particularly focusing on his idea
on human nature. In general it is said, inadequately at least to me, that Mencius asserted
the view of human nature as intrinsically good. However, nowhere I could find he did so
forthrightly in the book of Mencius. Accordingly there should be a clarification on this point
from a philosophical point of view.
Conclusion or what I am aiming at in this paper first, what Mencius searched for is not the
decision on human nature good or bad but what human nature is like. Human nature is our
hidden spirit or the unconscious level of our psyche that is in one word our “true self” . It is
beyond our ordinary verbal expression.
So then in the philosophy of Mencius we can straightforwardly find some devastation of
verbal communications. That is because there is serious noesis-noematic extrication between
language and existence in his philosophy. I will clarify this philosophical modality from an
epistemological point of view in this paper.
In order to clarify this point I will take a look at the philosophy of Laotzu̶the Tao, since both
of these two philosophers shared the common profundity of their psyche and both struggled
hard to express what they attained in the verbal level, even though they are classified into two
different major philosophical schools in ancient China̶Taoism and Confucianism.
Mencius, and not to mention Laotzu, is not just a humanist nor is a “thinker” . We should
take special note that his apparently moderate assertion is based on his severe self cultivating
practice. So for now I will clarify his assertion as follows.
Mencius assertion on human nature
Mencius philosophical contemplation has its own profound background. But it is so
complicated and insightful that sometimes entails misapprehensions and misunderstandings
1
Human Nature [Hsing 性 ] and the Tao 道
―Philosophy of Mencius孟子 from the Viewpoint of Laotzu’s 老子 Tao―
TATENO Masami
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
since he was embodying his true self such as Laotzu’s 老子 Tao道 on one hand, and on the
other hand he had to describe it only in the domain of traditional Confucianism according to
the Confucius virtue such as Ren 仁 or Chongshu忠恕 .
It is the fact that he asserted so called “knowledge a-priori” [ Liangch’i 良 知 ] and “ability
in nature” [liangneng良能 ]in the Mencius Chinhsin shang尽心上 Chapter, and depicted that
human nature tends to take good direction like water tends to flow lower. However primarily
we should take special note on the fact that intrinsically he attained human nature by himself
and embodied his true self.
Mencius didn’t assert the view of human nature as intrinsically good expecting our good
sense. He just asserted what our human nature is like searching for our “nature” in the deep
blue realm of our psyche and embodying true self. That is to say, the most significant point
of his assertion was our “true self” . He just advocated the Confucius virtue such as Ren or
Chongshu based on our human nature vis. our true self.
To put it in another way, it is his most crucial point1 that we should plunge ourselves into the
deep blue realm of our psyche to embody our true self based on which he asserted “knowledge
a-priori” and “ability in nature” , and the theory of four buds (of virtue) 四端説 in the Kongsunch’
ou shang 公孫丑上 Chapter and the Kaotzu shang Chapter 告子上 in the Mencius.
I never declare that Mencius did not say our human nature is good. He merely admitted it
good as a theoretical formulation. We should clarify the most crucial point in his philosophy
is not “good or bad” of our human nature but is the “truth (true self)” since “good or bad” is
epistemologically only our daily phenomenal decision through our rational contemplation but
human “truth” is to be acquired by ourselves through our philosophical praxes ontologically
in the deepest level of our existence beyond the superficial domain of language. It is also the
fundamental gist to his “sage” 聖人 or “wise man” 君子 . Below is the typical description of his
philosophical modality about this in Kongsunch’ou shang Chapter in the Mencius:
Mencius said:
Each of us has a kind mind by nature which causes us to do good to the others. …
This is the reason why I asserted so:
Suppose that a baby is just about to fell in a well, and then everyone will save
him almost unconsciously or spontaneously. This is what I called “kind mind” or
“sympathy” . Accordingly there is no one without this mind. One without this mind is
not a human being. …2
Here in this quotation, Mencius asserts that everyone has this kind mind a-priori. The
2
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
philosophical point is that: Mencius derives the universal validity of our kind mind from our
almost unconscious behaver of saving a baby. In other words, he said that everyone will save
a baby, so everyone has the kind mind. And then he added to say “there is no one without this
mind. That is not a human being” . It seems theoretically valid, but precisely it is not a right
decision, since it is the fact that we do not save any baby without any education, so it is neither
a “spontaneous” behaver nor is that of “a-priori” . Primarily he does not have a will to adduce
proof to support his statement, but did he try to describe merely what he saw in his deep blue
realm of his psyche as his “true self” of Hsing性 .
He said right after the sentence above:
I have these four buds (of virtue) just like the beginning of burning fire or the first
flow of a well.
This explanation itself signifies that it is the metaphoric expression of the psychic procedure
in the deep blue realm of our unconsciousness. We can find the same ontological expressions
also in the Laotzu or Chuangtzu荘子 like as follows:
We see the dim light and hidden in the dust (of deep level of our unconscious psyche).
(Laotzu, Chapter4 and 56)
We cannot point the log by our fingers, but the fire continues the line forever.
(Chuangtzu, Yangshengchu 養生主 Chapter)
They are the typical expressions of some images in our psyche by the ascetics who are trying
to deepen their level of unconsciousness to attain the true self so called the Tao by Laotzu and
Chuangtzu.
As an antecedent study pointed out3, Mencius philosophy is based on a kind of selfcultivative
practice which deepen unconscious level of our psyche to acquire the true self though a physical
training of abdominal breathing such as Laotzu’s Wuwei 無為 as we would see later. Mencius
famous, but never understood appropriately, story of Haoran chih ch’i 浩然之気 is typically
expressing this psychological status of Mencius as follows:
(Mencius) said “I can grow Haoran chih ch’i.” One of his disciple asked “What is that?”
(Mencius) answered “I cannot say it. It’s out of our ordinary cognitive procedure, and
when we grow it correctly it fills all over the universe. (Mencius, Kongsunchou shang
3
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
Chapter)
Through praxis of breath of Haoran chih ch’i Mencius strained himself to attain his true self
as one of the most trustworthy phase of human nature. And he merely described it as it is what
he saw. However it was beyond his verbal expressions. As a result, so many misunderstandings
were coming out like floods. This is the reason why I assert that Mencius words should be
examined strictly from an ontological and further philosophical point of view4. So for now, we
should take a glance at Laotzu’s philosophy of the Tao, especially focusing at his Wuwei as a
selfcultivative practice as below.
Laotzu’s Tao and Wuwei as a selfcultivative practice
Laotzu’s Tao has traditionally been interpreted as transcendent in the sense of being beyond
our faculties of external sensory perception, and as a cosmogonic generative principle, and as
an essential moment of every possible phenomenon5. It is further commonly asserted that the
Tao is beyond our verbal description, and it is the reason why Laotzu himself writes: “The Tao
that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.” (Laotzu, Chapter1)
Laotzu’s Tao is beyond the reach of our sensory perception or cognition, and for this
reason it resists theoretical delineation. Being beyond knowledge acquired by cognition
based on sensory perception, the Tao is “something true” that we should attain through by
way of internal perception in the depth of our “psyche.” So we cannot make any sense of the
Tao through conceptual analysis, for such analysis is no more than a tautology or shuffling of
synonyms, making no sense.
Although epistemologically “transcendent,” beyond our cognition, Laotzu’s Tao is not
ontologically isolated from us. The Tao is some “thing” that involves us, and to be embodied
in ourselves in the depth of our psyche̶ our mind, consciousness, unconsciousness, and the
whole psychic entity--through the physical training of a selfcultivative regimen.
It is the reason why Laotzu, on one hand makes such provocative statements as:
One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know. (Laotzu, Chapter56)
And on the other hand, laments earnestly as follows:
My words are very easy to understand and easy to put into practice.
But there is no one to understand them, nor practice them. (Laotzu, Chapter70)
4
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
This suggests a view of “self-cultivation” [shu-gyo修行 ] as progressing further and further
into the depth of our “psyche” through a philosophical practice of a selfcultivative regimen
which is actually realized through the respiratory regulative method of abdominal respiration
(i.e. “stomach breathing” in Laotzu’s phraseology) and that this is the background of Laotzu’s
philosophy of the Tao.
When viewed epistemologically that is, in terms of his theory of knowledge, Laotzu’s
philosophical thought is amply based upon his view of the world, more precisely “a view of the
relativism.” Laotzu himself points out the relativity of this phenomenal world as follows:
All of us can acknowledge the beautiful things beautiful. But it is possible just because
there are the ugly things as a cognitive modality for the inference.
All of us can acknowledge the good things good. But it is possible just because of the
existence of the bad things.
These are the examples which are to hold with respect to the view of the relativism
viz. existence-nonexistence,easy-difficult,long-short,high-low,acoustic sounds-human
voices, before-after and so forth. (Laotzu, Chapter2)
Specifically, we recognize “beautiful things” as beautiful where we have “ugly things” to
compare them with to serve as the basis for the judgment of relative beauty. This modality of
relativism is also said to hold in these cases as to existence-non existence, easy-difficult, high-
low and so on. In other words, they can only be relatively “beautiful” , “good” , “existent,” and
so on.
Without “ugly” , “bad” or “non-existence” , there would be no possibility of “beautiful” , “good”
or “existence” . This implies that our cognitive function of our external sensory perception of
phenomena is carried out in a framework of the relativism such as “beautiful-ugly” , “good-bad” ,
“existence – non-existence” and so forth. Laotzu concludes that our ordinary subject-object
cognition, (Chih知 ) in ordinary epistemological subject-object cognition can never go beyond
the relative world of phenomena.
From here we can find Laotzu’s words of strict and self-restraint introspection about our
limited faculty of cognition as follows:
To know our not-knowing is the best (knowledge).
Not knowing the [limits of] our knowledge is a troublesome suffering.
If one makes clear sense of this suffering, he must be free from it.
A sage is free from this suffering for he knows what the suffering really is.
5
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
This is the reason why he is free from it. (Laotzu, Chapter71)
In this passage, Laotzu elucidates our limited cognition in the everyday phenomenal world.
We have to know that we can not know the eternal-universal, theoretically perfect-absolute
truth: Without this profound consideration, we will easily fall into the epistemological suffering.
So we should take this epistemological “suffering” or “suffering” of our cognitive function as
our own suffering plainly so that we may avoid it as sages do. This is Laotzu’s intention behind
his assertion.
In summery, so far as we remain in the daily phenomenal world, we are restricted by the
confines of relative frameworks of space and time, and object and subject, then we can never
reach the higher cognition of our true selves. Then, how can we do so? The Tao is Laotzu’s
answer.
Laotzu’s Tao from an epistemological view point
Laotzu asserts that we should rise far above this everyday phenomenal world and our
ordinary daily level of consciousness through our own practical self-cultivation in order to
embody the Tao in the depth of our psyche6. Laotzu suggests this in a terse and metaphorical
saying:
The five colors (of beautiful scenery) will blind eyes.
The five tones (of fine music) will deafen ears.
The five flavors (of delicious food) will spoil plates.
Racing and hunting will make men’s minds trigger madness.
Things rare and hard to get will injure men’s activities…
For this reason, the sage makes his stomach, but not his eyes; hence he discards the
other and secures this. (Laotzu, Chapter12)
Beautiful scenery, fine music, delicious food and joyful racing and hunting enchant us in
this phenomenal everyday world. But they are possible only instantaneously as outgrowths
of relativity. These fleeting pleasures manifest just at one place and at one moment. In other
words, they could be pleasures only relatively - not eternally nor universally. Furthermore,
trying to hold on to them will hurt our eyes, ears, mouths and minds.
This is why the sage is not concerned with his eyes, perceives not through his eyes but
through his stomach. Laotzu’s phraseology of “to make his stomach” is not a metaphorical
expression for something metaphysical or something immanent. Instead, the “stomach” refers
6
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
to stomach as it actually is. That is, the sage makes stomach breathing, namely abdominal
respiration, as his selfcultivative regimen.
More precisely, the sage actually makes his abdomen an area of concentration, that is, the
sage gathers the vital forces [Chuan ch’i 専気 ]at his abdomen, or the so-called “field of cinnabar”
in traditional Chinese medicine, as he delves deep into the innermost recesses of his
consciousness, or rather unconsciousness, to consummate the Tao qua himself. Accordingly,
Laotzu’s “make his stomach” expresses the sage’s practical attempt to grope after the Tao.
It is through this practice of progressive retrogression, or the active withdrawal of
consciousness, that the sage actually transcends the framework of relativism in his cognitive
faculty into the world of veracity̶the Tao. And as a parenthetical remark, this meditative
“stomach breathing” is a basic technique common with Zen, Yoga, fine arts, martial arts,
training of various medical healing arts and so forth.
To put it in other words, from another physiological point of view, Laotzu’s saga cultivates his
body and mind simultaneously through the practical regimen of abdominal respiration. That is
what I call psycho (mind)-soma (body) tic modality of self-cultivation based on the regulative
technique of abdominal respiration.
Thus respiration is the pivot or rather a “missing link” between mind and body, since it is
actually a mediation or a “link” between mind which belongs to the autonomic nervous system
(e.g. involuntary muscle, (e.g. cardiac muscle), secretion of gastric acid, insulin in pancreas
etc.) and body which is subject to the somatic nervous system (e.g. voluntary muscle that is
pectoralis major, triceps or biceps branchii etc.). So we can carry out a “mysterium conjunctum”
of body and mind not mystically but actually in this phenomenal world̶to be what I call “Tao
qua self.”
The point that we should take special note of here is that, according to Laotzu, the Tao is not
a Kantian Grenz Begrif f ( “limiting concept” ) or a transcendental conception in the status of
Cartesian Cogito ( “thinking I” ) but true knowledge attained by illumination of our true self by
the practice of self-cultivation. Thus we read:
Embracing the restless soul [P’o魄 ] to concentrate it upon one, can you keep it
without departing from you?
Consolidating the vital forces to attain that pliability (of the Tao), can you be like an
infant? (Laotzu, Chapter10)
Laotzu’s expressions of “to concentrate the restless soul upon one” or “to consolidate the
vital forces” are typical for the actual nature of practice of self-cultivation of the Tao which is
7
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
one’s true self, which I will discuss more later.
As in the foregoing, we consolidate and unify the vital forces at the ontological level of
existence, the one [I 一] in the abdomen or the “field of cinnabar” in order to become “a baby”. “A
baby” is a metaphorical expression for the sage, more specifically, for the sage’s psychosomatic
modality of existence in the depth of his consciousness. Put another way, both a baby and the
sage share the same axiological status in their psyche―the realm of the Tao where they are not
constrained by the conceptual categories of time-space̶Form der Anschauung, nor relativistic
framework of subjective-objective diametrical notions. This is described as a Wuwei tzuran 無為
自然 , i.e. natural and spontaneous, way of being which is to be embodied through a regimen of
physical discipline.
The following quotation is a metaphorical formulation of the same notion, and has
implications that are both epistemic (i.e. in regard to “knowledge” or “words” ) and ontic (as
being in the phenomenal level):
Consummate the height of the void and maintain the depth of tranquility.
Myriad things come into being and I can see thereby them returning to the root.
They arise all in profusion, each returns to its root. (Laotzu, Chapter16)
Through the practical self-cultivation, the sage embodying the Tao qua self which is
described as “the height of the void” [Hsü 虚 ] or “the depth of tranquility” [Ching 静 ]sees
the veracity of the phenomenal world not just as sense data but as his own practical truth
illuminating our psychosomatic modality.
“The root” [Kên根 ] in this passage metaphorically designates the true and veracious feature
of the apparent confusions of phenomena which are substantially shifting in variety. The sage
sees the truth clearly and calmly notwithstanding the confusions of phenomena through his
illumination of his true knowledge of the Tao attained by his selfcultivative discipline. His Tao
both as the veracity of the world and the truth of his self is really an outcome of his severe
practice of self cutivative regimen.
Still, the point of which we should take special note is that all this is not a negation of our
everyday phenomenal world that is the field of our everyday experiences. Instead, he actually
exists in this ordinary world as embodiments of the Tao (or more straightforwardly and
literally “as the Tao” ).
In order to elucidate the ontological significance of Laotzu’s Tao, which is embodied by the
sage practically as Te 徳 , our pursuit of Laotzu’s Tao has to proceed to take a step closer, in
way a “retrogression,” into Laotzu’s Te. (Te is usually and generally translated as “power” ,
8
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
“virtue” , or “nature”. Specifically in Laotzu, it is the “power” of the Tao, the “virtue” of the Tao,
and the “nature” of the Tao.) Tao is not an existence [Wu無 ] concretely, but when embodied
and illuminated, it manifests as Te.
Several phases of the Tao
In order to disclose the ontological significance of Laotzu’s Tao as an apparent being referred
to above, we have to proceed to articulate Laotzu’s Te as an ontic (that is, a really existing)
manifestation of the Tao in this actual world.
On this issue, Laotzu himself explains as follows:
The Tao qua being is eluding and vague.
Eluding and vague, it has a figure.
Eluding and vague, it has a body.
Dark and obscure, it has a spirit.
The spirit is really veracious; it has evidence (of its existence). (Laotzu, Chapter21)
In this quotation, Laotzu suggests that the Tao qua being in this empirical world actually has
its figure, body and spirit, although it is an intangible being “eluding” , “vague” , “dark” and
“obscure” , whose spirit is undeniably a fact, that is, the Tao is a real existence as the Te of the
sage who embodies the Tao in himself to live as the Tao.
Put it in another way, we can not just intellectually know the Tao in the Kantian paradigm of
cognitive function of intuition and reason. Instead we must embody it by practical procedure
of internal perceptions that illuminates the depth of our psyche. Only when we have come this
far, we could barely apprehend what the Tao really is, namely, it is only the time when we have
embodied the Tao that we can really know the Tao qua self as with an old saying “only a master
knows a master” . Viewed in such a philosophical manner, we can barely elucidate the Tao as
the truth of our self that we ourselves contain in the depth of our existence.
As we have come this far, it would not be too far from truth to say that we say that each one
of us is the Tao, or rather, each one of us is potentially the Tao, since only when we embody it
or we manifest it in ourselves could we truly be the Tao qua self. So it would be appropriate to
say that we are to be the Tao actually existing in the phenomenal scheme of this phenomenal
world. Embodied it, we are the Tao qua self.
But the Tao itself remains intangible [Wuhsing無形 ] or just non-being [wu] viewed from an
epistemic and ontic perspective. Then we have no alternative way but to assert that the Tao is
to be a being as our Te.
9
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
Now it would be useful for us to take another look at Laotzu’s metaphysical thoughts
theoretically. We can not attain the Tao itself through our ordinary sensory perception of our
scheme of noesis-noematic manner of cognition (i.e. sense data-subject scheme of ordinary
cognition), as Laotzu himself referring to it:
Looking for it, we can not see it; we call it invisible.
Listening to it, we can not hear it; we call it inaudible.
Grouping after it, we can not grasp hold of it, we call it subtle. (Laotzu, Chapter14)
We can not see, hear nor touch the Tao directly for it has no visual image, sound or physical
form―it is just “nothing” in an epistemic and ontic level of being i.e. in the level of our
understanding operating only within the realm of our ordinary cognitive scheme of intuition
and reason. Then we have no way except to embody the Tao through progressive retrogression
of our internal perceptions exploited by physical regimen of self-cultivation. This is the reason
why we must say that it is the Te qua the manifestation of the “intangible” [wu hsing] Tao that
we can see, hear or touch directly by our sensory perceptions in the actual world. Put another
way, the Te is the Tao as a corresponding phenomenal manifestation in the ontic modality.
That is further to say that we can see the Tao as the Te in the master pieces of fine art, that
we can hear it in the virtuosity of music or that we can touch it at the masterful performances
of the experts. Or again, we can not see or touch the essence of martial arts which is the Tao,
but when we see the master throwing a big opponent around without any apparent power or
agility, we can directly see or even touch the Te as the corresponding manifesting phenomenal
existence of the Tao. The Tao, even though it is intangible or non-being in the epistemological
sense of our cognitive modality, is to be truly existent as the Te.
In short, the Tao is epistemologically transcendent in the sense that it is beyond our
cognitive functions, and escapes from our sensory perceptions, but it exists as the Te exhibited
in the phenomenal world. But this is not all. Laotzu cautiously delineates the potentiality of
our true knowledge far beyond the cognitive framework of relativism. We can just see the
real nature of this phenomenal world by being what we really are through the selfcultivative
regimen to embody the Tao.
10
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
Laotzu’s Te as a manifestation of the Tao
Laotzu discloses our assured possibility of our true knowledge so straightforwardly that I
fear it may entail a little misunderstanding. But it is noteworthy that in Laotzu’s philosophical
discourse, he states that our true knowledge attained by the selfcultivation of our Te would
admit of no doubt:
When one cultivates it his Te in his person, it will be genuine.
When he cultivates it in his family, it will be overwhelming.
When he cultivates it in his village, it will be ever-lasting.
When he cultivates it in his country, it will be universal.
Therefore, he contemplates himself by means of being himself.
He contemplates his family by means of being his family.
He contemplates his village by means of being his village.
He contemplates his country by means of being his country.
He contemplates his world by means of being his world. … (Laotzu, Chapter 54)
We are to be actually the Tao, when embodied it, and then are to exist as the Te. That is to
say, we should cultivate our Te to become a true person, family, village, country and the whole
world, and then we can see the real figures of us as person in general, our family, our village,
our country and the whole world of our own as really as the things our own: we can see the
truth of this phenomenal world directly, rising far above the framework of relative concepts,
becoming the whole world qua self when as embody the Tao qua self and the whole world of
our own.
When we have amply cultivated our Te to become the Tao qua self, we are the true person
who sees the real figures of our “self ” and the phenomenal world beyond cognitive “shackles”
of relativism. When we have amply carried through our internal perception, we can directly
embody not only our true self but the true nature of the world. We should grasp the true nature
of the world by being what we really are. This is Laotzu’s last answer to our quest of true
cognitions of our “self ” and the world qua self.
As I see it, it matters little to make an epistemological explanation of Laotzu’s Tao just aiming
at some theoretical formulations of it. Rather, the point here is that we should cultivate our “self”
for true cognition of the Tao in the depth of our psyche; embodying the Tao in ourselves, we
should furthermore proceed the cultivation of our Te qua manifestation of the Tao to become a
true person and the whole world as what we are, then to see the true figure of people in general
11
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
and the world itself as the truth of our own. When embodying the Tao, we exist apparently as
the Te; we are the Tao qua self, and this Tao is the whole world as it is.
Laotzu is more than just a thinker, since he does have a practical regimen of physical training
to embody the Tao in the depth of his mind. But on the other hand, he does not recommend
an ascetic practice to attain the Tao qua self, for he has evidently an epistemological
and ontological series of contemplations. Then we conclude that Laotzu’s discourse is a
philosophical formulation of his epistemological and ontological series of reflections with
practical implications of a selfcultivative regimen of progressive retrogression into our deep self
with an abdominal respiratory technique.
It is on this account that we may say that Laotzu really is a philosopher.
Language and existence in the philosophy of Mencius
Mencius did share the same ontological status with Laotzu or further Chuangtzu, i.e.
an ontological dilemma in which admitting it not to describe in the perspective of verbal
expressions they have no other means but for “words” . In this status, Laotzu leaves it to
his readers saying: “The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.” (Laotzu, Chapter1).
Chuangtzu embodying the Tao of “everything equivalent” 万物斉同 through deepening the
level of his unconscious psyche tried to describe it in the verbal level by various metaphor or
mythological expressions, and finally faced to the limits of “words” distinctly to depict that
his words are “rubbish words” 妄言 (Chuangtzu, Ch’iwulun 斉物論 Chapter). Mencius psychic
status is just consistent with them. Mencius is merely different from them in the point that:
Laotzu and Chuangtzu are thoroughly free from any doctrine of Confucianism to describe their
philosophical status on one hand, on the other hand Mencius had to develop his assertions
within the stringent dogma of Confucianism.
As we have come this far, we can understand Mencius so called “knowledge a-priori” and
“ability in nature” in the Mencius Chinhsin shang Chapter adequately. He did know it by
himself, not as a piece of knowledge but as the fact he embodied. This is the same status in
which Laotzu said: it is just a piece of knowledge to the others, but it is true sagacity to know
oneself. (Laotzu, Chapter33), Buddha’s attadipa, dhammadipa自灯明・法灯明 7 and Plato’s
“anamnesis8” were asserted. Without his true self attained through selfcultivative practice, he
could not make this assertion.
Conclusion
Mencius was not merely a man of morality. Nor was he a political leader teaching Confucius
virtues. His philosophy was evidently backgrounded by philosophical practice which is more
12
Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道
precisely an physical exercise of breath control. This is the reason why his doctrine cannot be
understood applicably without this philosophical background. Without that, his language and
existence will be distant from each other forever, and his words will be an enigma also forever
and a day.
Consequently his Haoran chih ch’i,or “knowledge a-priori” and “ability in nature” are to be
perpetual “the seal of classics” . His words are meaningful only to the persons with discerning
eyes doing self cultivative practice by themselves. He was solely searching for a person who
“knows his words” 知言(the Mencius, Kongsunch’ou shang Chapter).
Endnotes
1 At this point, I would indicate the crucial difference of philosophy between Mencius and Hsuntzu
荀子 who asserted the view of human nature as intrinsically bad just watching human conducts
on the surface. Hsuntzu’s view is extremely superficial. And it is much more significant point
that this Hsuntzu did assert that Mencius averred the view of human nature as intrinsically good.
It is also a superficial understanding of intrinsically profound Mencius philosophy.
2 All translations are mine. Sometimes I add my own readings so far as it does not vitiate Mencius
original meanings.
3 See YUASA Yasuo 湯浅泰雄 『東洋文化の深層』(The deeper level of Oriental culture ), 1982,
Tokyo: Meichokankokai, p.209ff
4 Accordingly, Mencius so called “Yehch’i” 夜気 (Mencius, Kaotzushang Chapter)is also to be understood
only on this ontological, and further philosophical context.
5 The Tao has been variedly characterized. It is actually too numerous to mention all of the
examples. But it would be the most moderate that to delineate the Tao in its typical and of at
large character which has been most commonly spread like this paraphrase of mine.
With respect to the precise and numerous characterizations with a lot of examples, see TATENO
Masami, “老子の思惟―哲学的観点からの一試論 ―” (Laotzu’s thought: from a philosophical
point of view) in 『漢学研究』26, 1989, pp.1-12, Schroeder, J.L., “On the Meaning of Tao” (a
paper presented at the Forth International Congress of the International Society for Chinese
Philosophy, 1991)
6 This is the “Shu-gyo” 修行 in the typical Japanese expression. More specifically, it is a self cultivation
of the progressive retrogression to the depth of our substance through mainly physical practice
of our breath [Ch’ih気 ] in our psycho-somatic modality of existence. With respect to this issue
principally from a philosophical point of view with some practical descriptions, see TATENO
Masami , “老子・道(わたし)・市中の隠者―道家思想の身心論的コンテキスト―” (Lao Tzu, Tao
qua self, and the recluse in the city: Taoism in psychosomatic perspective) in『思想』,864,Tokyo:
Iwanami shoten, June 1994, pp. 51-67
7 Mahaparinibbana-sutra, D.N. , Ⅱ , pp.100-101
8 Plato, Meno, 81c-d (O.C.T.)
13
14