EDITOR’S NOTE: This is Mr. Sherwin Lu’s second essay trying to have his understanding of the Chinese concept of “Tao” and his view on social issues explain each other in the hope that traditional Chinese philosophy and social theory are presented as one whole system of thought with parts inherently and relevantly knitted together.
The “Tao” that can be verbalized is not the eternal Tao.
-- Lao Tsu: Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1
From the Tao emerges One. From One emerge Two. From Two emerge Three. From Three emerge all things. All carry the opposites Yin and Yang, approaching harmony through moderation.
-- Lao Tsu: Tao Te Ching, Chapter 42
I. THE ISSUE: RULE OF LAW VS. RULE OF VIRTUE
THE issue of the rule of law vs. the rule of virtue has been haunting the Chinese mind for thousands of years and is again becoming a focus of attention in the politics of China today. It also has topical significance to the present-day world with different cultures encountering each other at close quarters on a global scale and in historically unprecedented intensity. According to whatever records are available so far, the rule of law has an earlier and longer history in the West than in China, while China is globally known to have experienced the rule of virtue for long periods in history and this has been credited to Confucianism. Some critics of the current domination of monopolistic international financial interests over the world in the name of the rule of law might be attracted to the Confucianist preaching about managing the society with virtue. But actually the way virtue is applied to the governing of a society, large or small, as advocated and adopted by Confucianists has always proved to be a failure in the long tortuous history of China and, if applied to the world today, would only serve to cover up the evil doings of monopoly capital and their stake-sharers and accelerate the decline of moral virtue on an ever-widening scale. Actually, whether rule of law or rule of virtue, so long as neither is in agreement with the Tao, they can cooperate with each other in a way and jointly serve the interests of a few privileged people on earth.
Human Society is only a part of the whole existence. So, to have a truthful understanding of the relations between social law and virtue, we need to find out the ultimate overarching law governing all existence, which should include Nature (Nature in the usual sense we humans use the word) and the human society, with all the dynamic interactions within and between the two. All social laws and virtues and their relationships must be in agreement with this “ultimate law”. Otherwise, neither the rule of law (unjust law) nor the rule of virtue (sham “virtue”) will lead to universal harmony and happiness for mankind. This “ultimate law” is called the “Tao” in traditional Chinese Taoist philosophy. So, here it is necessary to first discuss the issue of “Tao” and the worldview it presents.
II. THE TAO & THE DYNAMIC WHOLE
1. The Tao
“Tao” （道） is a unique concept used only in traditional Chinese thought. It can be approximately understood as the eternal, or ultimate, generalization of the “way ” of the all-encompassing Existence. This “all-encompassing Existence” is not the same as the so-called “objective world” (or “matter”, “ultimate reality”, etc.) as opposed to and independent of the “subjective” human consciousness (mind), but includes “the subjective”. The Tao of the whole “Existence” (the “One”) manifests itself to human beings first and foremost as incessant interactions between “the subjective mind” and “the objective otherness” (which is limitless in all dimensions), just as Lao-Tsu says, “From the Tao emerges One. From One emerge Two….”
Then, from the interactions between the Two emerges the World, or the Universe, or the Cosmos, as human beings perceive (which is limited in all dimensions). This humanized world is not the same as the above-said “whole Existence”, nor as the “objective otherness”. It is only one manifestation of Existence, the manifestation as appears to the human “eye”, as the uniquely limited cognitive light of human consciousness is able to show. Thus, “… From Two emerge Three….” Human cognition can not only perceive the humanized world in its entirety (the third of the “Three”) but also in its parts, parts as humans can differentiate. Thus, “… From Three emerge all things. All carry the opposites Yin and Yang, approaching harmony through moderation.” Of all numberless pairs of Yin-Yang opposites, that between the mutually interacting “subjective mind” and “objective otherness” as said above should be the primal one, which defines all other Yin-Yang interactions between all the ever-shifting things and aspects of the human-perceived world.
If the above understanding of the issue of Tao is roughly acceptable, then the Tao as something eternally true for all Existence, something inclusive of and independent of human consciousness, is beyond human comprehension. This being the case, therefore, any verbalized description trying to spell out the working of Tao is not the eternal Tao itself, as Lao-Tsu pointed out over 2000 years ago (see the first quotation beneath the title). Of course, this judgment also applies to the whole verbalization in the above paragraphs. So, by the way, it is understandable that some Westerners regard traditional Chinese Taoist philosophy as “mysticism”. But, mysticism or not, human beings have to at least have some approximate but comprehensive understanding of the way of the world in order to survive, especially in today’s crises-ridden world, “comprehensive” in the sense that the “understanding” must comprehend the agent itself, i.e., the human mind that is trying to “understand”. Today’s dominating explanation of how things are, including the so-called “natural law” perspective, being based on a mind-matter split and, so, anthropocentric and atomistic-individualistic, is not comprehensive in this sense. This is philosophically the root cause of all the chaos confronting mankind in modern times, while the understanding of the issue of “Tao” as verbalized in the above paragraphs, which contains a worldview characterized by a “Dynamically-Balanced Multi-Dimensional Wholeness”, seems to the author to have the best explanatory power for all natural and social phenomena. This essay is an application of this worldview to the understanding of the relation between the Tao and social law and personal virtue.
2. The “Dynamically-Balanced Multi-Dimensional Wholeness” Worldview
In another essay by the author entitled “Eastern Wisdom Can Help Solve Today’s Global Problems”, this “Dynamic Whole” worldview is summarized in three aspects as follows:
(1) “Whole”, which means that everything -- from the total of all-encompassing Existence as we human beings perceive to the tiniest particle perceivable so far, from the entire human community to all kinds of human groupings to the individual human beings, from the tangible concrete objects to imaginative abstract things -- everything is a unity of component parts or aspects. The “unity” is not a mechanic, static piecing-together of component parts, but of parts which are --
(2) “Dynamically-Balanced”, which means that everything is eternally changing from internal imbalance to balance and again from new imbalance to new balance through the interaction of the component opposites Yin and Yang. The status of the interaction at a specific moment determines the nature of the “unity” at this moment, which in turn serves as an interacting component part of some still larger “unity” or “unities”. This duality of “being a relatively independent entity and a component part of some still larger unity at the same time” is the nature of everything in existence. And this nature determines the multi-level form of the structure of everything, which provides the basis for the third aspect of this worldview –
(3). Everything in existence is a Multi-Dimensional Whole, which encompasses a variety of interactions between parallel component entities on each level and those between such entities belonging to different levels as well.
III. THE TAO GENERATES THE LAW; THE LAW GENERATES VIRTUE
1. Heaven, Earth, Human: The Three Primary Levels of Existence
In the above perspective, the relation between the Tao, Law, and Virtue can be understood correctly only when they are viewed as corresponding to the three primary levels of existence in the human eye, or “Three Cai” (三才： 天、地、人) in traditional Chinese terms: Heaven (all Existence), Earth (human society), and Human (individuals). These three levels are repeatedly mentioned together, for instance, in The Yellow Emperor’s Four Canons, the No.1 classics of the Chinese Taoist-Legalist school of thought (“黄老学派” in Chinese).
2. Heavenly Tao, Earthly Law, Personal Virtue
The “Tao” is “the Heavenly Way” (天道), or the way of all Existence, which commands all laws governing Nature, human society, and all individuals’ existence.
“Law”, written or customary, is what governs the social relations between human beings and human groupings inhabiting the Earth. Where should the law come from? The first sentence of the first chapter of The Yellow Emperor’s Four Canons says: “From the Tao comes the law.” Only when the social law is in keeping with the Heavenly Tao, would the Earthly society be a harmonious and peaceful one like a “paradise” on Earth, in which all social relationships are constantly and conscientiously being adjusted from incessantly appearing imbalances towards a relative, general balance and human individuals can enjoy life naturally as nearly to the full as possible.
“Virtue” embodies human individuals’ consciousness of and commitment to follow the Heavenly Tao. Only those moral qualities in human individuals which do not harm but facilitate the harmonious balances in all human relations and human-Nature relations, such as kindness, sense of justice, compassion, tolerance, modesty, self-restraint, wisdom, courage, integrity, industriousness and frugality, which all are espoused by all civilized cultures – only such qualities can be regarded as true virtues. The highest virtue should be a balanced combination of those Yin and Yang qualities, i.e., combined in the Heavenly way, as is embodied by those time-tested sages in all civilizations. And only when people with such virtuous qualities get the upper hand and play a leading role in formulating and implementing the social law, would this law be in line with the Heavenly Tao and bring about a “paradise” or near paradise on Earth. If, however, people not so virtuous get the upper hand and impose their unjust laws on earth, as is often the case, including today, then they are going against the Heavenly Tao and upsetting balances on all levels, creating chaos in all human relations and in the ecosystem. Only when these people are removed from authority positions by the Heavenly Tao through the hands of those who have been or will be awakened to it and work to apply it in social relationships, can the general balance in all dimensions be nearly realized through a gradual step-by-step historical process.
3. Reality of Imbalance vs. Ideal of Balance
The above-said law, i.e., one totally in keeping with the Heavenly Tao, is only the ideal law. In reality this law has seldom been realized in any part of the world ever since human beings were divided into economically opposed interest groups. Actual laws were usually designed and enforced by an economically and politically privileged few who were morally opposed to the Heavenly Tao, because a) people with true virtue and wisdom, i.e., saintly people who have grasped the Tao, have always been rare and chances for them to be recognized and placed in authority positions are even rarer, and even when this did happen, it usually came accidentally, all depending on luck, and never lasting for long at that; b) in this phase of human history there is always a portion of the mankind who are driven by motives opposed to the Tao and resist adjustment in line with the Tao; and c) also there is always another big portion of the mankind who waver between the pro-Tao and anti-Tao currents under the influence of ideologies serving the biased interests of the privileged few. When the pro-Tao forces are too weak and anti-Tao forces too strong, the social law would deviate from the Heavenly Tao and from the underprivileged majority’s will and interests.
Under the best but rare circumstances, usually after a revolution, when the majority’s punishment of injustice and corruption was still fresh on the new authorities’ mind and a new rule of law was installed which did not only bind on the common people but on the persons with authority as well – under such circumstances, the call for “rule of virtue” may add to the strength of the rule of law. But under worse or the worst circumstances (the more usual cases), i.e., when abuse of power is common or rampant and there is no effective law checking it, the rhetoric about “rule of virtue” can only serve as a fig leaf to cover up the ruling regime’s shamelessness. Throughout the history of China, whenever the clamor about rule of virtue was loudest, it must be the worst time when political corruption and lawlessness reaches its height. The only way to avoid revolutionary or other kinds of violence is the installation of the rule of law, the kind of law as is more in line with the Tao than before, as practiced by ancient Chinese Taoist-Legalist reformers and early modern Western bourgeois revolutionaries. In extreme cases, violent revolutions by the underprivileged majority in the name of “restoring the Heavenly Tao on Earth” (替天行道) might be inevitable as the last resort. But even when such a revolution is necessary, the installation of the rule of law binding on the new governing few must be the first thing to do after the revolution, in order to prevent them from becoming a new privileged few and thus to avoid another revolution.
In a word, so long as a population is divided into unequal economic classes, the resistance put up by the privileged few against the Heavenly way (the way leading towards equality, fairness, justice and a really balanced power structure) is often so great, with their deceptive ideology infused into the minds of the underprivileged many, that the strength of the few true sages, even with support from the awakened portion of the population, cannot win over the majority and isolate the evil few solely by preaching in words and exemplary deeds. Under such circumstances, the only winning option is to get the underprivileged but awakened people organized to push (through reforms or revolutions) for a law that embodies the Heavenly Way, a Law that has teeth and will bite relentlessly into all corrupted abusers of power. The “teaching” by law is the most effective to those blinded by greed for power and wealth. Only when they are totally isolated from the public, might their souls be touched a little bit by verbal reasoning and virtuous examples. For those who consider themselves a world above others and indeed have the power for a time to have a decisive say on the fortunes of the majority, and for those who choose to risk the loss of a good moral reputation for more tangible gains, only the law with tangibly biting teeth might be able to open the way to their moral repentance and rebirth while at the same time helping raise the general moral consciousness of a population. Hence the proverbial saying from Taoist-Legalist classics: The Tao generates the law; the law generates virtue.
IV. THE RULE OF LAW FOR MULTI-DIMENSIONAL BALANCE
As any society is also a “Dynamically-Balanced Multi-Dimensional Whole”, the law governing it must be an internally balanced multi-dimensional system, too. As regards the Earthly law as a system, there are at least six primary dimensions of social relationships to be considered, as listed below, with illustrative examples showing positive regulation by the law or lack of it:
(1) The governing vs. the governed (vertical). – This is the most important one of the many key dimensions within the system.
There have been laws stipulating the rights of the governed (citizens) to elect, supervise, and recall public servants who exercise governing power in the name of all citizens (modern democratic states). These laws would have helped to bring about a general social balance if the below-listed dimensions, especially (2) and (3), are also more or less balanced, which, unfortunately, has seldom been the case in human history. That is because various forms of privileges, such as “noble” birth, or “noble” connections as in feudal times or in present-day feudal-like societies, or extra-ordinary money power (which is also largely hereditary) as in present-day capital-dominating countries have been seriously interfering with the nominally and formally “democratic” political processes. This has been the case anywhere in today’s world, including the United States and other “democratic republics” and in the management of world affairs. There exists no “rule of law” today that can be said to agree with the Heavenly Tao (nor with the moral teachings of Christianity either), and therefore no “republics” in today’s world can be regarded as ones with genuine “rule of law”.
However, the traditional Chinese Legalist theory and practice in trying to achieve a balance between government authority (for regulating the many other dimensions of social relationships) and civilian initiative (as promoted by the “merit system”, see below) is still relevant today when we need to resist both extremist tendencies: the fundamentalist liberalism pushing for extremely “small government” and traditional authoritarianism which fears and blocks civilian initiatives not in line with government authorities.
(2) The economically/politically privileged vs. the underprivileged, such as: slave-owners vs. slaves as in ancient Greece and Rome, feudal lords vs. serfs as in medieval Europe and pre-liberation Tibet, landlords vs. peasants as in pre-liberation China, the aristocracy vs. the bourgeoisie as in pre/early-modern Europe, capital-owners/managers vs. blue/white collar laborers (horizontal and vertical).
Laws stipulating the liberation of slaves/serfs in history (including that of the Legalist Chin state, which later unified China); laws for promotion or demotion in social status based on merits or demerits despite of birth (the “merit system” practiced in Chin-dynasty China under Legalist government), laws stipulating capital-labor co-determination in large business firms (Germany) and/or workers’ right to strike (many modern states), and many other laws to promote a capital-labor power balance are in agreement with the Tao. But on the whole, this dimension of relationship has never been well balanced in human history, whether in the East or in the West, except for those short periods immediately after violent revolutions or revolutionary reforms. That is why human history has been one of continuous violence, wars, and many other forms of disasters and destructions, while real “golden times” of peace and harmony were but exceptions.
(3) The socio-economic relationship pattern vs. a society’s political and cultural processes (horizontal and vertical).
Liberalist theory and practice ignores the fact that unbalanced class relationships in the economic realm inevitably extends themselves into the political and ideological realms, thus rendering ineffective, or canceling out the otherwise well-intended effect of, the formally balanced political power structure and procedure in the modern democratic states in realizing actually balanced power relationships. Whereas traditional interpretation of Marxism ignores the fact that the undemocratic (unbalanced) political power structure and procedure it advocates destroys the democratic (balanced) nature of the economic relations based on public/collective ownership of means of production. In Chinese history, the Legalists worked more effectively on the issue of how to combat the corruptive influence of the moneyed class on the effective functioning of law and prevent it from upsetting the balanced economic relations between the merchants and the peasants.
(4) Regional communities/commonwealths (states, or provinces, or ethnic communities, etc.) vs. the nation-state commonwealth, either as federal states or more closely unified (vertical).
This is an important dimension, especially in states with vast territories. There have existed federal systems (e.g. USA ), the “system of prefectures and counties” (e.g. ancient and present-day China ), etc. What system, with what kind of power division pattern, is more suitable to a country in a specific historical period is an issue to be studied with reference to its social-historical conditions and tested by historical experiences. But the aim for achieving a sort of balance should be universal.
(5) Developed nation-states vs. developing nation-states; and individual nation-states vs. the all-humanity commonwealth (horizontal and vertical).
Today’s world is very unbalanced in these two dimensions, seriously slanting against the will and interests of the latter in both pairs and it is in urgent need of international laws for regulating these relationships and of a more powerful legal authority at the topmost level of the global human society with multilateral support from all nation-states based on democratic principles of equality and balance.
(6) The human world vs. the ecosystem (though this dimension goes beyond the Earthly human society).
The nature-humanity harmony principle had been a whole-history tradition in China, shared by all major schools of thought including Taoists, Legalists, and Confucianists, before it was disrupted by the Western-style predatory economic practices in recent decades.
Besides the above listed dimensions of primary importance, there are many more other important dimensions of social relationships (horizontal and vertical) which should be covered by the law, but relatively speaking, they are secondary or tertiary.
Almost all the above-mentioned dimensions, primary or secondary etc., are relationships between social groups. But both Confucianist and modern Western liberalist social and legal theories and practices have chosen to neglect the group/class nature of many of them and tended to reduce them to the one atomistic relationship between individuals. As a result, almost all the law systems which have existed before or been existing in today’s world have failed to address most of the group relations in a dynamic-balance approach as required by the Heavenly Tao.
If we humans choose not to follow the Heavenly approach as before and refuse to regulate all relations, especially those between primary social groups as listed above, the Heavenly Tao will be working all the same, everywhere and all the time, towards a general balance, but more and more at heavy costs to us humans in the form of various kinds of disasters, and even annihilation of the whole human race is not impossible. Therefore, to follow the Tao or not to follow, this is a question. We have to choose.
|
