the ying and the yang of it all: (individual rights vs the rights of society)
(Sorry for the lack of response - time is short today. I am glad you understand the issues, and are not just blindly striking out at religion. I apologize for my comments the other day.)
The second great philosophy of the classical age was Daoism (Taoism). The philosopher Laozi (Lao-tzu), who probably lived during the 6th century BC, is usually regarded as the founder of this school. Whereas Confucianism sought the full development of human beings through moral education and the establishment of an orderly hierarchical society, Daoism sought to preserve human life by following the Way of Nature (Dao, or Tao) and by reverting to primitive agrarian communities and a government that did not control or interfere with life. Daoism attempted to bring the individual into perfect harmony with nature through a mystical union with the Dao. This mysticism was carried still further by Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu), a Daoist philosopher of the late 4th century BC, who taught that through mystical union with the Dao the individual could transcend nature and even life and death.
"Chinese Philosophy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
And excerpted from ccbs.ntu.edu.tw
The `Three Doctrines Discussions' of Tang China: Religious debate as a rhetorical strategy
by Mary M. Garrett
Argumentation & Advocacy
As often as not, though, the debates revolved around doctrinal claims. For
instance, the emperor Tang Wu Zong (reigned 841-846) proposed the question
of whether one could learn to become an immortal, as well as the
proposition that "a large country should be governed as though frying a
small fish," that is, with minimal interference (Zan, 988/1924, p. 743c).
Both these notions were associated with Daoism, an amalgamation which
espoused linguistic scepticism, non-action, detachment, and, somewhat
inconsistently, the search for immortality. Given such abstract topics, the
debate was very similar to the more philosophical disputation of Pure Talk
and the Buddhist monasteries; the reasoning generally proceeded at a very
abstract level, the argumentation was heavily text-based, and such
standards as consistency with canonical texts and non-contradiction were
more central.
Perhaps the best way to appreciate this similarity to the philosophical
disputations is to look at a representative excerpt from a "Three Doctrines
Discussion." In a debate held in 625 at the Imperial Academy, the Buddhist
Hui Cheng was the opening speaker. After an effusion of praise for the
Emperor and a synopsis of Buddhism, Hui Cheng turned to his first target,
the Daoist Li Chungqing. Hui Cheng pointed out that the first half of the
Daoist text The Classic of The Way and the Power [Daode jing] illuminated
the Way (Dao) and he asked whether there was anything greater than the Way.
Li answered negatively. Hui Cheng then attempted to trap Li into a
contradiction.
Objection: "If the Way is the most extensive and greatest of all, and
there is nothing greater than the Way, then is it also admissible that
the Way is the most extensive normative pattern, and that there is no
normative pattern beyond the Way?"
Answer: "The Way is the most extensive normative pattern, and there is
no normative pattern beyond the Way."
Objection: "The Daode jing itself says that people pattern themselves
after the earth, the earth patterns itself after Heaven, Heaven
patterns itself after the Way, and the Way patterns itself after
nature (ziran). What is your intent in deviating from your original
doctrine? If you say that there is no normative pattern beyond the
Way, and the Way is the most extensive normative pattern, but there
exists a normative pattern beyond the Way, what is the meaning of
saying that the Way is the greatest and there can't be anything
greater than the Way?"
Answer: "The Way is merely nature; nature is the Way. This is the
reason there is no other normative pattern which can function as a
normative pattern beyond the Way."
Objection: "If the Way patterns itself on nature, and nature is
precisely the Way, then is it also the case that nature in turn
patterns itself on the Way or not?"
Answer: "The Way patterns itself on nature; nature does not pattern
itself on the Way."
Objection: "If the Way patterns itself on nature and nature does not
pattern itself on the Way, then is it also admissible that if the Way
patterns itself on nature then nature is not the Way?"
Answer: "The Way patterns itself on nature; nature is the Way. This is
the reason they do not pattern themselves on each other."
Objection: "If the Way patterns itself on nature, and nature is the
Way, then is it also admissible that the earth patterns itself on
Heaven, and Heaven is earth? But in fact earth patterns itself on
Heaven, and Heaven is not earth; thus we know that the Way patterns
itself on nature and nature is not the Way. If nature truly were the
Way, then Heaven ought to be earth." (Dao 664/1924, p. 381a-b; my
trans.)[7]
The text notes that Li fell silent, and Hui triumphantly sang out, "The
Daoist has run into problems and can't get out!" He then capped his triumph
with a witty couplet which left the Emperor beaming with approval.
As well as illustrating the affinity to the Buddhist and Pure Talk
disputations, this example also hints at some of the significant
differences between them. First, as in this example, these debates tended
to be destructive rather than constructive. Although the opening speaker
often sketched out the general principles of his doctrines, he did not then
defend them against challengers, as in Pure Talk and Buddhist disputation.
Rather, he demanded that his opponent resolve some apparent contradiction
in his (the opponent's) belief system or explicate a complex concept or
puzzling passage in his canonical texts. The exchange ended when the
challenger exhausted his questions or the challenged was reduced to
self-contradiction or silence.[8]
The parallel between these imperially-sponsored debates and the Pure Talk
and Buddhist disputation breaks down in some other ways as well. For these
debates the Emperor decided points of precedence such as who walked in
ahead of whom, who sat in the most honored seat, who spoke first, and when
the debate had ended. For instance, in the debate above Emperor Gao Zu
opened by proclaiming that the Daoists and the Confucians would be seated
ahead of the Buddhists, since their doctrines were indigenous to China.
Observing that the Buddhist monk Hui Cheng was unhappy about this turn of
events, he then announced that the Buddhist side would speak first. More
importantly, the Emperor was the sole judge of the match, rewarding the
victor with gifts and honorific titles, and there was no appeal of his
decision. |
