The Origin of Taoism (July 1, 1917)

7/30/2019 The Origin of Taoism (July 1, 1917)

1/15

EarlyJournalContentonJSTOR,FreetoAnyoneintheWorld

Thisarticleisoneofnearly500,000scholarlyworksdigitizedandmadefreelyavailabletoeveryonein

theworldbyJSTOR.

KnownastheEarlyJournalContent,thissetofworksincluderesearcharticles,news,letters,andother

writingspublishedinmorethan200oftheoldestleadingacademicjournals.Theworksdatefromthe

mid-seventeenthtotheearlytwentiethcenturies.

WeencouragepeopletoreadandsharetheEarlyJournalContentopenlyandtotellothersthatthis

resourceexists.Peoplemaypostthiscontentonlineorredistributeinanywayfornon-commercial

purposes.

ReadmoreaboutEarlyJournalContentat http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-

journal-content.

JSTORisadigitallibraryofacademicjournals,books,andprimarysourceobjects.JSTORhelpspeople

discover,use,andbuilduponawiderangeofcontentthroughapowerfulresearchandteaching

platform,andpreservesthiscontentforfuturegenerations.JSTORispartofITHAKA,anot-for-profitorganizationthatalsoincludesIthakaS+RandPortico.FormoreinformationaboutJSTOR,please

[email protected].


2/15

THE ORIGIN OF TAOISM.*HE western world is apt to regard Chinese reflectionX as predominantly ethical. This is due largely to thefact that the system of Confucius is taken as typical.1 Butthis view ismisleading and requires to be supplemented.In reality theChinese mind is fundamentally concerned forthe health of the innerman, and accordingly it ismore

properly described as ethico-spiritual. This appears to thecareful reader in the teachings of Confucius himself, andit is notably true of themystical doctrine of Lao-tze andhis more immediate followers.Taoism iswell named after the central principle (Tao)which pervades this systemof thought.The original meaning of the termwas "way" (path), which in the realm ofPartial publication (Part I, revised and abridged) of thesis entitled:"The Thought of Lao-tze; its origin, content and development," presented toNorthwestern University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for theattainment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The whole will appear inbook form in the publications of theOpen Court Publishing Company.

1The common view is well seen in Grube when he says ("Die chinesischePhilosophie," inKultur der Gegenwart, l, ,p. 66, 2d ed.,Berlin 1913) that"?berhaupt das Chinesentum in Konfuzius seine vollendetste und ausgepr?gteste Verk?rperung gefunden hat.. . .Will man die chinesische Kultur miteinem kurzen Schlagwort charakterisieren, so wird man sie als konfuzianischbezeichnen." This is very misleading. Confucianism came to be dominantover Taoism in China partly because of the royal edict ofWu-Ti (139-85B.C.), which exalted this thought at the expense of all other, and partlybecause of the universal difficultyf popularizingmysticism or adapting it toinstitutional ife. But while Confucius has had more visible effect inChinathe effect of Lao-tze has been more profound. "It is not Confucianism somuch as Taoism which has most profoundly influenced the Chinese mind."This statement by Chang-Tai-Yen, a noted scholar and my former reveredteacher, I believe gives the real truth of the matter, and it should be carriedin mind always in studying Chinese thought.


3/15

THE ORIGIN OF TAOISM. 377moral inquiry came tomean "norm of conduct" ; in time itwas narrowed tomean "the rational principle inman," andthen later itwas extended to signify "reason inman andreality." This transformationwas brought to definite accomplishment by the real founder of the system, as I believe, Lao-tze (sixth century B. C), who was concernedto finda metaphysical basis forhis ethico-spiritual convictions and to that end hypostatized the principle of Tao.Thus a convenient analogue inwestern thought isReasonor Logos mystically conceived.2Concerning the life of the founderwe know very littleindetail, and of his work we have only theTao-Teh-kingwhich tradition attributed to him.3 Both the historicityofLao-tze and theauthenticity of hiswork have been questioned. But it ismy belief that, in the existing state ofour data, these doubts have been disposed of definitivelybyCarus.4 Certainly the proper procedure here is first to at

2The term "Tao" of course long antedates the time of Lao-tze. As earlyas the Shu-King its ambiguity is already evident, where itmeans "way" (wantao, or "royal way," as the norm to which all should conform) and also"rational part of man" (tao-sin, or rational heart, as distinguished from jhrensin, or human heart). Herein lay the germ for the development from themoral to the definitely metaphysical. The transition was therefore from "way"to "right way of life," to "life according to reason," to life in accordance withthe rational principle of all reality, including man." It was this last idea whichwas elaborated by Lao-tze in a world-view.3The Tao-Teh-King is accessible to the English reader in the excellenttranslationby Carus (Chicago, 1898; [rev.ed. 1913] where (pp. 95,96) thebrief account of Lao-tze's life, by Sze-Ma-Chien, may also be found in Englishtranslation. This account gives his place of birth, family, official connection(custodian of the royal archives and state historian) and relates an encounterwith Confucius. "He practised reason and virtue" we are told, and that histeaching was directed to "self-concealment and namelessness." When he foresaw the decline of his state he left for the frontier, where the custom-houseofficer urged him to write a book before leaving his country. "Thereupon,"concludes the account, "he wrote a book of two parts consisting of five thousand and odd words, in which he discussed the concepts of reason and virtue.Then he departed. No one knows where he died." The term Tao-Teh-Kingwas not employed before the second century A. D., but the sayings which constitute this work were uniformly referred to Lao-tze as their author. It hadbeen customary to name books after the writer.4See his admirably judicious article, "The Authenticityof theTao-TehKing," inThe Monist, Vol. XI, 1901, pp. 574-601. It ismy belief that thewestern reader of Chinese literature is in danger of hasty conclusions from thedifficultyf understandingtheChinese way of thinking. The Chinese mind


4/15

378 THE MONIST.tempt to justify the tradition before rejecting it because ofdifficulties in theTao-Teh-King. The determining factorin this connection must be a real understanding of thatwork. If itcan be viewed as a unitary whole produced bya single mind, the tradition may be taken as confirmedbeyond question. In considering its content systematicallyI will hope to show that this can be done. For thepresent

my concern is to indicate how the thought ofLao-tze can beconsidered in thehistorical continuityofChinese reflection,after themanner of thewestern treatment of the historyof philosophy. To that end we must deal with it as aproduct of preceding thought and immediate environmentand the genius of our author.The rise of a new viewpoint in the development ofthought cannot be an entirely isolated afifair, owever novelthe addition may be. This may be safely assumed for theprogress of Chinese thought as it is for that of thewest.Hence one may properly expect that a system such as thatof Lao-tze's in the Tao-Teh-King could not have appearedwithout a preceding development and that accordingly itshould be studied in its historical setting.The earliest Chinese reflection centered in the conductofman and is embodied in theHong-Fan, which dates backto 2205-2198 B. C. and formsa part of the Shu-King (theoldest book ofChina). Therein we findrules laid down fordoes not move normally in the channels of discursive reasoning because it isessentially intuitionistic. Insight rather than dialectic engages their attention.Hence the westerner may too readily suspect forgery in what appears to benonsense (cf. La Couperie,Western Origin ofChinese Thought, p. 124,wherehe shrewdlyobserves this). The cautious readerwill bear inmind the conciseness of diction in theTao-Teh-King as standing for thought far deeperthan appears, and also that the circumstances of writing precluded fullerelaboration, as well as the inevitable errors of copyists where the thought ofthe text is obscure in itself. In particular it is importantto pay due regardto the purityof styleand soberness of thoughtwhich signalize theTao-TehKing in contrast with the later works of the school. A stream cannot risehigher than its source, and a forgery would necessarily have revealed thosefantasies and vagaries which are so conspicuous in the writings of the laterTaoists. The unsympatheticreader is apt to be robbed of insightboth forseeing this obvious fact and also forgetting the realmeaning at theheart ofthe perversions and aberrations.


5/15

THE ORIGIN OF TAOISM. 379theordering of one's inner life, the securing of proper balance between conflicting tendencies in one's nature, therelation that subsists between man and the natural worldorder as well as that between man and his fellows. In itwe find too the conception of theking as the embodiment ofthe eternal moral principles, the "royal way" (wan-tao)which was conceived of as the objective criterion towhich

men should conform their personal preferences. And initwe find the notion of Tao also as "rational part ofman,"as above indicated. The idea of Tao thereforegoes veryfar back inChinese thought.In addition to theShu-King there is also theYih-King,or "Book of Changes."5 Therein is outlined the firstChinese cosmological scheme, as well as an ethical doctrinebased on this cosmology. It posits an original principlecalled Tai-Chi, the "GreatOrigin," and two primary forcescalled Yin and Yang. It was thought that theworld wasformed through the action and reaction between these twoprinciples. A cosmos was regarded as possible onlywhentherewas a perfect balance between these two basic elements, otherwise chaos would ensue. The attendant ethical doctrine centered in the notion of moderation. As inthe objective order so inman an equilibrium of oppositeforces was the aim. Going to extremes was regarded asdisastrous, because contrary to the course of nature. Thecosmology and the ethics of theYih-King were thereforeconstituent elements inChinese reflection long before theyappeared in theTao-Teh-King.In addition to these two sources therewere probablyother documents which were later lost, as the quotationsin theTao-Teh-King would indicate. Moreover, the accounts of the lives of ascetics make plain that from earlytimes therehad been men who lived in seclusion, insulated

5The rudimentsof thiswork were in existence prior to the date of theShu-King, but were not elaborated until about 1200 B. C.


6/15

38 THE MONIST.from the currents of social and political life. With theadvent of the period of storm and stress, at Lao-tze's time,this ascetic spirit became much intensified. It took deephold on the thoughtful and serious-minded men of thatage, some of whom betook themselves to rural pursuitswhile others moved about apparently without profession,eccentric and mysterious in behavior.

In theTao-Teh-King the connection with the past isevidenced by certain expressions6 which indicate clearlya consciousness of debt to preceding thought. This haslong been recognized by Chinese scholars and has beenlargely responsible for the impulse to find the origin ofTaoism in reflection antecedent to Lao-tze. Thus Hwangti,the legendary emperor of theChinese, has been regardedas the founder of Taoism, though on very meagre evidence.7 Again it has been suggested that Lao-tze wassimply the transmitter of wise sayings and proverbs outof the past.8 Another account makes Lao-tze to have satunder a master, Shan Yung, who was already advanced inyears.9 Still another view finds theorigin ofTaoism in theYih-King, whose cosmology and ethics bear so strikinga resemblance to those of the Tao-Teh-King.10 In short,Chinese scholars have been amply aware of a continuitybetween preceding reflection and that of Lao-tze, and theconnection is so obvious that there is danger of therebyoverlooking his originality.11?Such, for example, as "The Ancients say," "The Poet says," "The Sagesays" and the like.7Based on the fact that a passage of the Tao-Teh-King is quoted from abook attributed to Hwang-ti no longer extant. The same passage is foundat the beginning of the work of Lieh-tze. The existence of such a book wasdenied by Hwai-Nan-tze.sBy Chu-Hsi (1130-1200A.D.)9 See Hwai-Nan-tze (ch. 10) Lao-tze "learned the lesson of tenderness by

watching the tongue." The allusion is to old age when the teeth have fallenout. 10See Yih-King, especiallyBooks III, VI andXI, Engl, transi,byLegge(Sacred Books of the ast, Vol. XVI).11Cf. Carus, op. cit., p. 31, and Strauss, Lao-tze's Tao-Teh-King, pp. lxiii ff.


7/15

THE ORIGIN OF TAOISM. 381That Lao-tze had free and full access to the literatureof his day is sufficiently ttested by the tradition whichmade him custodian of the royal archives and state historian. This included the classical literature which hassurvived and probably much that has since been lost.12 Itis inconceivable that a contact of this kind should havefailed to influence the development of his thought. In

addition therewere certain records of the hermits or recluses who preceded him and towhose general circle he issupposed to have belonged. The contempt for temporalgoods, the effort to create a world of their own beyondthat of ordinary values, the spirit of thoroughgoing renunciation which characterized this group are essentiallythe marks of the thought of Lao-tze. Such influence ofhis predecessors and contemporaries in thoughtmust thereforebe assumed ifwe are to avoid the impossible idea thatthe construction of Lao-tze was wholly de novo.13Thus it is clear that Lao-tze enjoyed the intellectualheritage of his age. But we must recall that thisheritagereveals no such systematic character as may be found intheTao-Teh-King. This work is so characterized by simplicity and unity, it so bears the impress of a single individual, that it suggests inevitably to the reader who hasentered into its spirit a seamless fabric woven from thedeeply experienced convictions of a distinctpersonality. Onemust therefore assume some genius operative in revitalizing and bringing en rapport with his age the inherited12The Shi-King, Yih-King and Lih-King would have been accessible toLao-tze in their ancient form and not as revised by Confucius.13The possibility of foreign influence in the shaping of Lao-tze's thought,either direct or indirect, I do not consider here. Where the effort is made(e. g., by Harlez, Douglas, La Couperie, Strauss, R?musat, in varying degrees)the proof rests upon mere resemblance in mystical or mythological or religious conceptions. Such procedure is too open to the charge of precipitategeneralization on the basis of fancied resemblance and too hazardous in theabsence of supporting external evidence to win more than doubtful assent.It may be true that such foreign influence did exist in fact. But the state ofhistorical knowledge is at present entirely inadequate to furnish satisfactoryconclusions. It seems therefore to me more desirable to seek to account forLao-tze by reference to indigenous conditions.


8/15

382 THE MONIST.thoughtof thepast. As Eucken well says,with thewesternphilosophy inmind, "It is not so much the past whichdecides as to the present as the present which decides asto the past, and that in accordance with this, our pictureof thepast continually changes, depending upon the spiritual nature of thepresent.14 So in theChinese constructiveactivity of the sixth centuryB. C, forwhich the historicalevidence is ample, the living present served to stimulateand illuminate the obscure potentialities of the past. Certainly thewriter of theTao-Teh-King was possessed of agenius for illuminating even the homeliest wisdom in theliterature and tradition at hand, and by new insight intothe significance ofTao he was enabled tounfold the possibilities lying inherent in this supreme principle.15But with all his genius Lao-tze was a part of his age,and hence he must be considered in relation to the conditions then prevailing. What has been so distinctly truein theprogress ofwestern philosophic thought again mustbe taken to maintain in its degree for the development ofChinese thought. "Philosophy," saysWindelband, "receivesboth itsproblems and thematerials for their solutions fromthe ideas of thegeneral consciousness of the time and fromtheneeds of society. The general conquests and thenewlyemerging questions of the special sciences, themovementsof the religious consciousness, the intuitions of art, therevolutions in social and political life?all these give philosophy new impulses at irregular intervals, and conditionthe directions of the interestwhich forces,now these, nowthose, problems into the foreground, and crowds othersaside for the timebeing."16 Here we have the course indi14Mam Problems ofModern Philosophy, 1912,p. 319.15The unfoldingof thepast by synthesisof the various elements thereinis perfectly familiar to the student of western philosophy in its development.It is somuch a condition of progress in that thoughtthat itshistory is repletewith illustrations. I believe the same may be safely assumed for the development of Chinese thought, however more measured its progress is.1?History ofPhilosophy, 1893,p. 13.


9/15

THE ORIGIN OF TAOISM. 383cated which must be followed in our inquiry concerningtheorigin ofTaoism. The rise of this system of thoughtmust remain an obscure mystery unless we regard the environment of Lao-tze, in connection with his heritage andhis genius, and seek to understand theTao-Teh-King attributed tohim in relation to the culturalmilieu inwhich itarose. To this we turn now.

The first form of government thatChinese history discloses to us may be designated an elective monarchy, inthe sense that the successor to the thronewas chosen bythe nobles and ministers. In thisway Yao (2357-2255B. C.) and Shun (2255-2205 B. C.) came to hold the imperial scepter. A change camewith Y? (2205-2197 B. C.)who chose his own son to succeed him and so departedfrom the established mode of procedure, and who laid thebasis for the feudal system by assigning portions of theempire to members of the imperial family. The exactcourse of the ensuing development it is impossible to follow. But with theCheo dynasty (1122-249 B. C.) feudalism had become established as a well-defined political institution. As elsewhere in political history it consisted individing the empire into fiefs or estates to be distributedamong the various nobles for thepurpose of consolidatingthe empire.This feudal systemworked well at first, largely becausestrong emperors held the scepter of state and the fiefholders served as a bulwark to the throne. But as timewent on the emperors forgot the labors of their forefathersand turnedmore and more away from the responsibilitiesof government to thegratification of personal desires. Asa result of this there came about gradually a decline of thecentral power. The various nobles and princes, who hadtheretoforebeen kept within control, began to show signsof recalcitrancy and to assert their own powers. Thisprocess of encroaching upon the royal prerogatives in


10/15

3?4 THE MONIST.creased more and more until the emperor became a merefigurehead, a negligible factor, and the real power passedinto the hands of the vassals. With this came a contestamong the various states for supremacy, and so the nationwas precipitated into a tumultuous maelstrom of strife.The balance between the forceswhich make law and orderpossible had become violently disturbed. Factional strifeand internecine feuds became theorder of theday. Thereensued a reckless rush for self-aggrandizement and anunscrupulous disregard of rights, and brute power replacedreason. To supplement themilitary force the resourcesof craft and cunning were pressed into service and theMachiavellian attitude became dominant.

Along with the political decline went hand in hand acultural deterioration. In place of the earlier devotion topeaceful pursuits,with itscultivation of arts and literature,there arose an exaggerated emphasis upon material values,and the earlier simplicitywas supplanted by sophisticationboth in thought and in action. In this rule of unreason thecomplex social organization, which thefirst few rulers hadsucceeded inbuilding up, had completely collapsed. At thebeginning of the dynasty, especially in the reign of ChenWang (II15-1079 B. C), there had been worked out anelaborate system of etiquette,which inpoint of complexityhas no parallel inhistory.17 But in these troublous timesthis fell to pieces. Neither theweaklings on the thronenor the contending vassals were inclined tomaintain thiselaborate system. And where all forceswere working fordisintegration naturally all phases of the social lifewereafifected. The established ethical standards also brokedown tobe superseded by personal whim and caprice. No

17 In its ramifications it extended to every phase of social and politicallife. Regulations were prescribed even for such details as mode of dress,eating, toilet, form of address, etc., etc. Its apparently immutable and fixedcharacter testifies to the genius for organization of its author, Cheo-King, andalso accounts for the fascination which it exercised over the mind of Confucius later who felt impelled to refer to that period as the great age of culture.


11/15

THE ORIGIN OF TAOISM. 385where could universal rules of conduct be found, as in theancient days. Unjust laws were enacted in place of theold regulations, which had been so nicely calculated topromote orderly life. The life of the people was made miserable by all sorts of oppressive measures, and their verylife-bloodwas drained that the craving of the rulers formilitary glory and the excitement of the chase might besatisfied. In short, a condition of affairs existed whichwas strikingly similar to that which prevailed in Franceprior to theRevolution. Wherever one looks he is confronted with unreason and disorder resulting from thechase afterworldly gain and the abuse of power.Such were the conditions prevailing in theworld intowhich both Lao-tze and Confucius were born. The intensity of the crisis may be measured by the fact thatChina's two greatest creative thinkers arose at this time,afterwhom really significant thought in that country continued to develop. The system of each was adapted tosolve from its angle the problem set by the aggravatedsituation. Confucius was conservative and sought to reconstruct in harmony with the past, while Lao-tze wasradical and could be satisfiedwith nothing short of complete breach. Each may be conceived as crystallizing thespirit and thought of the typewhich he represented. Thetemperament of the one was essentially institutional andaccordingly gave itself to reconstructing the social fabricas existing, as is abundantly clear out of all his writings.The temperament of the other was wholly impatientwithall temporal expedients and would not stop short of permanent peace in some eternal principle; this he found byreconstructing theancient Tao as supreme principle ofmenand reality, as also amply appears in his work, theTaoTeh-King.The contrast between the twomen was really antip


12/15

386 THE MONIST.odal18 and by reference to it the signficance of the geniusof our author stands out at its highest. Confucius wascharacterized by moderation and sanity as theworld ofcommon sense measures these qualities. In his efforts atreform he confined himself wholly to the attainable, inconformitywith the sagacity of the plain man. His keensense for concrete reality forbade him to step forthwithanything like ? Utopian program. He clung to the solidground, with never a desire to soar in the empyrean realms.He was no doctrinaire, no mere theorist in any sense, buta practical reformer. To mend the situation as he saw ithe set about to abolish the feudal system, as the source ofdisintegration, and to reestablish themonarchy with itsstabilizing force of imperial power. To counteract theforces thatwere making against law and order he set outto revive the doctrines of the ancient sages, the system ofCheo-li, whose exact and rigid orderliness very naturallyfascinated his typeof mind. Hence his supreme emphasison ritual and his belief that thegolden age lay in the past.But the spirit of Lao-tze was radically different andpermittedno such direction as thatofConfucius inhis solution of the problem. His genius impelled him tomake aclean sweep and led him to a very different reconstruction.He felt that theworld had gone so far astray that itcouldnot be reformed by mere revival of ancient traditions orby any other patching-up process. He demanded someradical procedure, a complete reversal of the existing order.He felt deeply the insecurity, nay, the utter collapse ofthe foundations of life inhis age, and he sought a basis so

18This contrast is revealed in beautiful simplicity in the report by SzeMa-Chien concerning the interview between the two men (Carus, Tao-TehKing, pp. 95, 96). The differencebetween thesemen is vividly portrayedbyGrube, who writes: "Auf der einen Seite ein Mann, der mit beiden F?ssenauf dem Boden der Wirklichkeit steht und-nur nach dem Erreichbarenstrebt. Auf der anderen Seite das Wolkenkuckucksheim eines einsamen, weltfremden Denkers. Dort zielbewusstes Streben nach staatli?her Reform aufsittlicher Grundlage, hier asketische Weltflucht und mystisches Versenken insewige Tao."


13/15

THE ORIGIN OF TAOISM. 387secure that itmight not be shaken. Like Plato, somuch inthis his fellow-spirit of the Occident a century and a halflater, he regarded the present order as wholly bad andnot to be compromised with. And like Plato he turnedaway from the immediate world of strife to the life ofreflectionand contemplation, tofinda world thatwas characterized by the eternal as opposed to the temporal. Butmore mystical than Plato he found his solution byway ofthe inner life and communing with nature. In revoltingagainst the existing order he was driven towithdraw fromexternals like the truemystic that he was. And in sowithdrawing he found within his inner self the supremeprinciple of his own and of all being. Thus hewas enabledtogive new life and meaning to thedoctrine of Tao, as asimple and unitary principle of all reality.

To this abiding principle he called his wayward peopleto return. In opposition to the spirit of self-assertion thatpervaded the age, he called for complete renunciation, forthe surrender of thepetty ambitions of the ego which onlyin thisway could realize Tao. Instead of the feverish andscattered haste so common in his day, he enjoined quietconfidence in the fundamental reason of the universal order.Against over-regulation and themultiplication of laws andstatutes he thereforewent the full length of a doctrine oflaissez-faire. He would have none of the ceremonies andrules of etiquette on which the conciliating Confucius laterlaid such stress ; theywere forhim themost prolific sourceof thegreat evil of hypocrisy, being merely external show.All parading of virtue or even conscious well-doing wasfor him an evil. He would eliminate all virtue exceptthat of acting according toTao and all knowledge save thatof Tao. This was the sum and substance of his thought.And the solutionwhich he disclosed to his age as thewayof salvation was an unfolding of this.But Lao-tze did not stand alone in this negative atti


14/15

388 THE MONIST.hide toward the existing order of things. He was a truespokesman for those fellow spirits of his race and day whohad also turned unreservedly to the inner life for refugefrom the stormof the external world. Like all great leaders of thought, our philosopher gave form and body tothe longings and aspirations in theminds of themany lessgifted. He is clearly the concentrated embodiment of thequietistic and mystical spirit of the recluses already referred to. They were in need of a spokesman tomakeclearly articulate what they feltand experienced, and thiswas supplied by Lao-tze. As the genius of Confuciusenabled him to serve as a constructive guide for the typehe represented, so the genius of Lao-tze enabled him tocreate forand direct the less numerous but relativelywidespread number of the opposite type.19

Such thenwas the place of Lao-tze in the origin ofTaoism. He was its real founder because itwas his geniusthat established it.What had grown up during long centuries and undergone gradual transformation was broughtby him to articulate formulation under the impulse of anenvironment which pressed to a mystical solution. Hisfundamental doctrine was the long familiar Tao, but itscentral position and multiple unfolding inman and inreality required the labor of genius forestablishment. Laotzewas that genius, and so Chinese history has recorded19 In the Confucian Analects alone reference is made to fourteen suchrecluses who ridiculed the effort to reform a decadent society. The fortuitouscharacter of these meetings and the fact that they are recorded by Confuciusand his disciples attest how widespread the movement was. Strauss (op. cit.,pp. xliii ff) has suggested the ingenious theory that there was already in existence a Taoist sect (Tao-Gemeinde), whose teachings were reduced to writing by Lao-tze. There is no basis in fact for this conjecture, and it overlooksthe real ability of Lao-tze. But this is undoubtedly a more correct directionfor interpretation than that which disregards the widespread nature of themovement.In this connection it is of great importance to bear in mind, contrary to

a too prevalent misconception, that even Confucius had to give up his effortsat reform in despair in his later years, and that he was forced to content himself with the more quiet work of teaching and of editing books. The real significance of his work lay in this preparation forposterityrather than in hisactual effect on his own age.


15/15

the origin of taoism. 389him as one of its twogreat creative thinkers. Accordinglyhis doctrine, as set down in theTao-Teh-King, is foundto exhibit the unity and simplicitywhich signalize thatwork. It is essentially the reaction to amost difficult ituationof a bornmystic who was able togive full expressionto themysticism of his people. And what has been saidof themystic ingeneral maintains forLao-tze in an eminent degree. "What theworld, which trulyknows nothing,calls 'mysticism/ is the science of ultimates,.... the scienceof self-evident reality,which cannot be 'reasoned about/because it is the object of pure reason or perception."20Herein is contained the key to the true understanding ofLao-tze's work. King Shu Liu.

Nanking University.20Quoted from Patmore by Underhill (Mysticism, 4th ed., 1912, p. 29V

Documents

The Origin of Taoism (July 1, 1917)