Following this, Laozi goes on to discourse upon the mutual complementariness between a series of antithetical concepts: pairs of things mutually opposed to and yet dependent on each other. Later on, Chinese thinkers extended this mutual complementariness to the relation between life and death. They looked upon death as natural as life, both together making up endless cycles of all things, as is the way of nature. Thus, the edifice of life was built up on the solid base of Dao, breathing an air of happy acceptance of whatever comes naturally, be it life or death. This tradition has lasted for the past thousands of years, with no pretension to the illusory blissfulness of a paradise, nor a terrifying prospect of God’s judgment. Life to them is as limitless in scope and duration as heaven-and-earth. This broad-minded attitude had been evident till Wei and Jing dynasties and has been surviving as an undercurrent for even longer.

Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu) was probably the first to have systematically extended Laozi’s dialectical philosophy to the area of human faith as related with the view on life and death. In the essay On Leveling All Things (《庄子· 内篇· 齐物论第二》), which is said to be authored by him, keen attention is paid to people’s ultimate faith related to the issue of life and death and philosophical discussions made on the antithetical relations between “this” and “that”, life and death, right and wrong, and on how to humble oneself, follow nature, and merge one’s life with heaven-and-earth. It says:

“There is nothing which is not this; there is nothing which is not that. What cannot be seen by that (the other person) can be known by myself. Hence I say, this emanates from that; that also derives from this. This is the theory of the interdependence of this and that (relativity of standards). Nevertheless, life arises from death, and vice versa. Possibility arises from impossibility, and vice versa. Affirmation is based upon denial, and vice versa. Which being the case, the true sage rejects all distinctions and takes his refuge in Heaven (Nature). For one may base it on this, yet this is also that and that is also this. This also has its ’right’ and ’wrong’, and that also has its ’right’ and ’wrong.’ Does then the distinction between this and that really exist or not? When this (subjective) and that (objective) are both without their correlates, that is the very ’Axis of Tao.’ And when that Axis passes through the center at which all Infinities converge, affirmations and denials alike blend into the infinite One. Hence it is said that there is nothing like using the Light.” (Translation by Yutang Lin, http://www.mindgazer.org/tao/chtzu_level.htm)

This view of life and death was carried on in Huainanzi· Essence of Life and Spirit (《淮南子·精神训》), which advises people not to burden themselves with material pursuits but to look at all under heaven with an easy mind, take worldly things lightly, regard life and death as equally natural, and see no differences in differences. The author even goes so far as not to encourage doing the traditional Chinese health-preserving breathing exercises, saying that whoever really understands the Dao would go along with the times, with nature, doing nothing beyond that.

The third chapter of Dao De Jing summarizes theoretically the principle of having people’s minds purged of anti-Dao desires while strengthening their physique so as to realize government without asserting against the natural way of things (wu wei, 无为). Laozi’s approach for achieving this is to advocate the rule of law instead of the rule of worthy persons and to do away with flashy but futile gimmicks. It says:

"A sovereign when governing the world should avoid selecting officials by his personal judgment of their worthiness so as to stop people from scrambling for fame and gain, and avoid showing off valuables to prevent craving among people. Therefore, when a sage governs, he works to clear people’s minds of excessive desires and cleverness but make sure they do not suffer starvation, and trim down their ambitions but strengthen their physique. Thus, those who think of themselves as smart would not dare to interfere with the natural course of things but handle them properly without over-asserting themselves (wu wei) and then everything will fall into its place."

If Laozi is more abstract when theorizing about the relation between inward tranquility and realization of the Dao as, for instance, he says in Dao De Jing • Chap. 16 (《老子·十六章》) “Void of all ego-centered desires and thoughts, I see all things taking their own course, ever returning. ”, Guanzi • Inner Endeavor, Chap. 49 (《管子·内业第四十九》) explains in more tangible terms: "The Dao, being within and between all things, is the root cause for all lives and deaths, and all successes and failures. The Dao does not confine itself within specific locations, but presents itself to and stays with kind hearts. If one’s mind is not troubled by covetous thoughts, the Dao will stay there. It is not beyond people’s reach: it makes them grow; it is not aloof from them: it gives them wisdom. So, the Dao is conspicuous so that we can perceive it but also subtle so that we cannot trace it. In nature, it does not like voices and utterances and you can perceive it only by cultivating your mind in quietness. The Dao is not to be talked about in words, nor to be looked at by human eyes, nor to be listened to by human ears, but to be followed to refine one’s mental state and physical form. Ignoring it would mean death to a person or failure to an undertaking while staying with it life or success. "

The same chapter also says: "If a person has an easy mind, he would have a proper physical form: his skin plump and smooth, his senses sharp, his bones and muscles strong and flexible, and his spirit indomitable."
The above can be achieved through the practice of inward tranquility and outward deference, i.e., through restraining oneself from excessive desires and complying to the rules of propriety, as is theorized in the same chapter of Guanzi mentioned above:

"Human life originates from the primordial energy of Heaven and takes its form from the Earth: a harmonious combination of the two produces the human being. Harmony begets life; without harmony, no life is possible. When one tries to study how harmony produces life, its underlying process is invisible and its indications bear no comparison. But a placid disposition and a moderate mentality is the source of longevity. When anger prevails, one should find ways to restrain it. When the desires of the five senses are restricted and the two dangers of ecstasy and fury avoided, peace of mind is achieved. It is an easy and peaceful mind that ensures an enjoyable life; it is indulgence in extreme ecstasy or fury or distress that brings devastation to one’s life. And nothing works better than poetry in melting down one’s fury; nothing better than music in cheering one up from a depressive mood; nothing better than the propriety rules in curbing excessive pleasure-seeking; nothing better than a deferential attitude in securing compliance to the propriety rules; nothing better than a tranquil state of mind in engendering a deferential attitude. Inward tranquility and outward deference will guarantee the return and stay of one’s true nature."

    Closely related to the idea of deference is Confucius’s doctrine of reciprocity, that is, "what you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others”. This is the Number One principle of proper deference. Besides Analects, a more concentrated discussion on this principle is found in Shizi (《尸 子》), a book by the teacher of the famous Qin state reformer Shang Yang, which says: “Reciprocity” means stepping into others’ shoes -- not to impose onto others what one does not want oneself; not to do what one does not like others to do; and to have oneself do what one hopes others will do.

Some people regard the so-called Golden Rule “Do to others what you would have them do to you” (The Bible · Matthew 7:12) as the same as the traditional Chinese doctrine of reciprocity. This is not right, because the Chinese idea “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” is far more than just a moral principle for interpersonal relations: it is a more general principle for handling, besides that, also relations between nations and countries and between communities with different belief systems. It is owing to such open-mindedness of the Chinese people that the world has never witnessed in the thousands of years of China’s history before the violent invasion of the West such cruel religious persecutions or barbarous religious wars as have happened in the West. This beyond-faith canon is even more important in this era when different peoples of the world are encountering each other at such close quarters due to highly developed transportation and communication.

“The Yang mentality is characterized by pride, pretentiousness, arrogance, and aggressiveness, while the Yin attitude by modesty, respectfulness, gentleness, and self-restraint. The Yang character is born of self-complacency whereas the Yin of open-mindedness. One might benefit from his Yang aggressiveness once a while, but the benefit is not necessarily a blessing to him. The Yin self-restraint may invite temporary losses, but it should be rewarding in the long run. If the Yang person keeps reaping benefits by being aggressive, he is actually sowing seeds for future disasters or self-destruction. A Yin person might suffer repeated losses for some time, but she is accumulating merits for the future. If she guards against herself and sticks to her Yin principle, she will surely be blessed with unexpected happiness…

Han Fei goes on to say: "Things that do not flourish at the same time are Yin and Yang. Principles that contradict and complement each other at the same time are those of the power of authority and benevolent favor. Profound attachment shows in simple form: such is the proper etiquette between father and son. From this point of view, we can say that, where rituals are elaborate, feelings are weak. Nonetheless, propriety rules are originally intended to help communicate between simple hearts and minds. Generally, people are happy if their observation of propriety rules gets a response, but resentful if not. Nowadays, in spite of the original purpose of implementing propriety, it provides a pretext for accusation and thus, not surprisingly, a source of disputes. And disputes inevitably lead to chaos. This is why Laozi says ’The institution of propriety signifies the fading away of the virtues of loyalty and sincerity and, so, marks the beginning of chaos.’"

As a matter of fact, Laozi does not object to proprieties, but advocates a “higher-level propriety”, i.e., one based on the principle of inward tranquility and outward deference, as evidenced in Han Fei’s explication of the following sentence from the same Chap.38 of Dao De Jing: “Those who practice higher-level propriety would earnestly persist in doing so even when nobody responds.” He says:

"When people act in response to external happenings, they may not be aware that they are acting out their own sense of propriety. The average people observe propriety to show respect to others and, so, they may not be persistent all the time. Whereas, a high-minded person observes propriety for his own sake; therefore he sanctifies it as something belonging to a higher level. The sacredness of this higher-level propriety is not matched by average folks’ half-hearted attitude towards it. Therefore, Laozi says, ’… The higher-level propriety is practiced, but not responded to’. In spite of this, sagely people never slack off but always devoutly perform the propriety acts hand and foot. So, Laozi says that they ’continue to observe it whole-heartedly as always.’" (Han Fei Zi • An Interpretation of Laozi, Chap. 20, 《韩非子•解老第二十》)

The proprieties based on inward tranquility and outward deference constituted the original life pattern of the Chinese civilization. But, with the ever-increasing influence of Confucianism, the propriety system was gradually divorced from that lofty base. Of this a sharp criticism was recorded in Huainanzi· Placing Customs on a Par (《淮南子·齐俗训》) , a book written during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han:

"Following nature’s way in one’s acts is called the Dao; having an insight into nature’s way is called De (德). When nature’s way is not followed, Ren (Benevolence, 仁) is advocated; When the Dao sinks into oblivion, YI (Righteousness,义) takes its place. Therefore, the institution of benevolence and righteousness marks the degeneration of Dao and De; the embellishment with ritual formalities and accompanying music signifies the corruption of simple folk ways of life; the imposition of a moral code portends a disorientation of the common people’s minds; making jewelry valuable forebodes strife among all people. All the four above are creations of the decadent times, only for use in the last phase of human degeneration."

Though Confucius replaced Dao with “Ren” at the core of propriety, he did not alter the principle at its base, i.e., to “follow natural human dispositions and restrain from excessive desires”. Therefore, his compilation of ancient literature on propriety is undoubtedly an important contribution to the development of the Chinese civilization. From Han through Tang dynasties, it was the constant goal of Confucian scholars to complete the institution of proprieties accompanied by ritual music so as to bring about universal peace and order. But the completion of the Kai Yuan Propriety Code (《开元礼》) during the reign of Emperor Xuan of Tang was not followed by a continued period of peace and prosperity but by the An Shi Rebellion. The failure of the rule of propriety forced the Confucian scholars to re-think about the nature of the inner mind; but unfortunately, they embarked on the wrong road of “upholding Heaven’s principle and extinguishing human desires”, never to return, thus bringing to bankruptcy the institution of propriety that had sustained their spiritual life for some thousand years.

“All folks are born with likes and dislikes. They will be happy if they get what they love and the more they get, the happier they will be; they will feel upset at loathsome things and the more they run into such things, the more upset they will become. And people’s inclinations are more or less the same: they love what enhances life and resent what does the opposite. When what they like is not granted or what they dislike not eliminated, they would inevitably rebel against the rules and disregard their duty to their superiors. Even if their inclinations were indulged, some of them would still remain unreasonably stubborn and unruly; not to mention when it is impossible to abandon all that they dislike and follow all that they like. This being the case, how can people settle down contented?

“If people cannot be contented, how can one win their heart? To win by conscientious effort would lead to institutional force, which means no reconciliation, which would in turn lead to the failure of the propriety code system. When propriety is missing, even if people have their way, will they be happy still? If people are unhappy, that is not what they like. When people cannot restrain their desires, they would not know their place; not knowing their place, they would contend; and contending leads to fight. When people are fighting with each other, how can they take care of the old and the young, help the sick and the weak, bury the dead, and assist each other?

“Therefore, a wise king would make distinctions among people by their status so as to block their improper desires, teach them to play their part properly, and commend those who make efforts to see that adults in their prime of life are guaranteed a job, the elderly being taken care of, and the young growing healthily, so that people of different ages, generations and statuses reciprocate with one another and people in general help each other.

“Such efforts would not succeed unless they are joined by all people; but all people would not join unless their relations are peaceful and harmonious; people would not be harmonious unless they are sincere at heart in treating each other; sincerity would not be echoed in all directions unless it is passed along through the observation of proprieties; proprieties would not be observed widely unless people are happy about their life. Therefore, a wise king would have no joys or sorrows unless shared with his people.” (Anecdotes of Zhou Dynasty·On Rules of Social Conduct, Chapter One ,《逸周书·度训解第一》)

The above quotation, though succinct in words, exhibits the two basic features of the propriety rules of later times: one is to follow natural human dispositions in instituting the rules, and the other to rein in people’s desires within proper limits as their purpose. These were the basic guiding principles of social conduct before Song and Ming dynasties. The major schools of thought almost shared the same views on this issue, as seen in such classical writings as Guanzi, Xunzi (《荀子》), Huainanzi, Records of the Grand Historian (《史记》), etc.

Sima Qian, when writing Records of the Grand Historian•Treatises on Propriety (《史记·礼书》), went to visit in person the official in charge of propriety administration and made a study of it. He noticed that following natural human disposition was the common feature of the propriety rules instituted during the three dynasties of Xia, Shang and Zhou. At the beginning of this part of his great work, he exclaims: “What a spectacular sight this grand system of proprieties! It guides everything and motivates everybody as no human individual can. I went to the propriety officer and studied the changes of rules through the three ancient dynasties; thereby I got to know that proprieties were formulated in line with natural human disposition and rites with human nature and that it has been so for a long, long time.”

As the assignment of fiefs was based on blood relations in West Zhou, the system of proprieties bore directly on the allotment of human and material resources. That is why Anecdotes of Zhou Dynasty·On Military Rules (《逸周书·武纪解第六十八》) places the propriety system side by side with criminal law system as the foundation for state management. It says:

“In laying foundation for a state and governing the people, internal affairs should be run in a civil and balanced manner while external affairs handled with military force justly used. The criminal law should be carefully worked out and rigorously implemented and the administration just and fair. All should be founded on propriety, operated at proper times, checked by rules of social conduct, guided by law, and perfected by benevolence – this is the right way.”

The purpose of instituting propriety rules is to regulate people’s pursuits, to distinguish between the superior and the inferior and, through a contrived social ranking system, to lay the foundation for a good social order. This idea from the Anecdotes of Zhou Dynasty was carried on by Confucian scholars of Qin and Han dynasties. Huainanzi· Placing Customs on a Par says: “Propriety is used to distinguish between the superior and the inferior, between the noble and the humble.” The Classic of Rites· Classic of Music (《礼记·乐记》) discusses the development of proprieties in almost the same wording as that of Sima Qian in the Records of the Grand Historian·Treatises on Music (《史记·乐书》) but with more of a Daoist character and more stress on its ethical function. The difference shows that, during Qin-Han years, the function of the propriety system in the allotment of resources was fading away while its ethical role expanding. This accounted for the distinction between the propriety system of West Zhou and that after the Qin-Han era.

It seems as if the earliest advocacy of “extinguishing human desires” went far back to no later than the time of Xunzi (《荀子》), as this book contains sharp criticisms of ideas calling for suppressing and extinguishing desires. The author says: "Those who talk about the way to govern a state as hinging on denial of people’s desires are ones who do not know how to guide people’s desires and are daunted by their existing ones; those who talk about the way to govern a state as hinging on reducing people’s desires are ones who do not know how to regulate people’s desires and are daunted by their excessive ones."

 Xunzi holds that human beings are born with natural dispositions that cannot be done away with but can be restrained with an effort. He argues:

"Human nature is Nature-made; human disposition is the working of that nature; and desires are responses from that disposition to the outside world. It is built in human disposition to go for whatever one believes he can possibly obtain; it is inherent in human intelligence to do whatever one believes is allowed. Therefore, desires cannot be eliminated even for a humble doorkeeper, because they are in the human nature; desires can neither be totally fulfilled even for the top-ranking Son of Heaven (the emperor). Though desires cannot be entirely fulfilled, they can be fulfilled nearly entirely; though desires cannot be eliminated, the pursuit for their satisfaction can be restrained. Though it is impossible for people to satisfy all their desires, those who make efforts can come closer to satisfaction; though it is impossible to eliminate desires, thoughtful persons would forbear from impossible pursuits. The right approach should be: to step forward when allowed to get closer to the fulfillment of one’s desires and back to refrain oneself from impossible pursuits. No other approaches under heaven can match up to it."

The Neo-Confucianism as represented by Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi of Song dynasty has been widely criticized both in and outside of China for its departure from basic human nature. For instance, a major Japanese Confucian philosopher Ogyū Sorai （荻生徂徠, or おぎゅう‐そらい,1666~1728）said: “Human desires are part and parcel of every human being, which cannot be eliminated. How absurd for Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi to say that, when human desires are extinguished, Heaven’s principle will have its way!”

Actually, by extinguishing human desires, the Neo-Confucianists were distorting, instead of “upholding”, Heaven’s principles, or Nature’s way, as human desires are part of Nature.

Bo Yang the Taiwanese writer in his well-known An Outline History of the Chinese People (《中国人史纲》) calls the era after Neo-Confucianism had penetrated all social life during the 12-13th centuries“the darkest ages”. Confucianism, which had committed itself to the restoration of a propriety-based culture, now actually stifled it. Now that all other schools of thought were disparaged as heresies while memorial arches commending widows’ chastity erected all over China（Before Song dynasty widows had not been strictly prohibited from getting re-married though discouraged by the Classic of Rites）, Confucianism destroyed its own credibility and positive role in history, though still lingering on for nearly one thousand more years and surviving two reigns by minority nationalities from the border area.

Unfortunately, the brilliant propriety-based Chinese civilization of the remote past is yet to be revived. People today are still ignorant of the propriety system guided by the principles of “inward tranquility and outward deference” and “following natural human disposition and refraining from excessive desires”. Not long ago, out of this ignorance, people criticized and denounced Confucius’s call to “restrain oneself and restore propriety”, comparing it to the later Neo-Confucianist commandment to “uphold Heaven’s principle and extinguish human desires”. As a matter of fact, Confucius was positive about the naturalness of human nature. His call to “restrain oneself and restore propriety” is similar in its social significance to the modern motto “restrain oneself for public interest”, in spite of the difference in their politico-economic background.

What a great epoch that was!

That was an epoch when the human world and human self were re-discovered in the West. Human beings started to look face to face up to God and have direct spiritual communication with Him. Organized religion was no more the only source of man’s spiritual life, and its monopoly of the latter was gone for ever. People came out of the shadow of the church into bright sunshine. One can imagine that, without the Reformation initiated by Luther, there would not have appeared non-religious spiritual movements as have been developing in the West in the recent years.

When Westerners started to look for new life in the wide open outside the walls of monastries, a broad way bridging over the West and East civilizations was paved. Today, so many people have embarked onto the long journey in exploration of the truth of life. For instance, a U.S. professor David Elkins published a book in 1998 entitled Beyond Religion: A Personal Program for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion, of which a Chinese translation has been published in China. Professor Elkins was once a pious Christian. Later he became disillusioned with Christianity and almost lost hope in life at one time. But finally he discovered a new life for himself.

What is especially commendable is that Professor Elkins does not play down the role of religion. He holds that religion has provided hundreds of millions of people in the past thousands of years with a way leading to the transcendental world, and will continue to play this role in the many more years to come. What should be opposed is the traditional monopoly of human spiritual life by religions as has been the case in the West. He also noticed that such negative elements as the ascetic tendency in Christianity and the allocutions on conquering and occupying other people’s lands have wrought lasting damages on the Western civilazation.
On summarizing his intent reflections on life for over two decades, the author puts forward the following “eight alternative paths to the sacred”:

The feminine: the path of the Anima;
The arts: the path of the Muses;
The body: the path of Eros, sex and sensuality;
Psychology: the path of counseling and psycotherapy;
Mythology: the path of story, ritual and symbol;
Nature: the path of the Earth and Heavens;
Relationships: the path of friendship, family and community;
Dark nights of the soul: the path of existential crises.

In Carl Jung’s psychological theory, the anima is the major feminine archtype of the male psyche. As a professional psychological counselor, Professor Elkins writes: “In this culture we tend to honor the masculine and neglect, or even betray, the feminine. At the societal level this betrayal enthrones masculine biases and maintains the patriarchal power structures of the society. At the personal level those who neglect the feminine side of their personalities cut themselves off from their souls and impede their spiritual growth.” (P. 103) The author even uses as the chapter head leader the following quote from Laozi: “Know the male, yet keep to the female.” This is not a total coincidence, though apparently Professor Elkins has not been able to obtain a deeper understanding of Laozi and is unaware of the Chinese belief in a way of life that follows the way of Nature, unaware that this Eastern nation has based its millenniums of happy life on the propriety principles of “inward tranquility and outward deference” and “following natural human disposition and refraining from excessive desires”, which has been achieved outside the walls of religion.

Let us expect the surging of a spiritual revolution in this 21st century centered on the idea of “propriety” as elaborated above, which hopefully will end confrontations between Christians and heathens and brutal wars between different faiths.

Let us expect …

Let us send cultural antagonisms, the modern version of religious fanaticism, off into history!

Let us expect the surging of a spiritual revolution in this 21st century centered on the idea of “propriety” as elaborated above, which hopefully will end confrontations between Christians and heathens and brutal wars between different faiths.

Let us expect …

Let us send cultural antagonisms, the modern version of religious fanaticism, off into history!

Let us expect the surging of a spiritual revolution in this 21st century centered on the idea of “propriety” as elaborated above, which hopefully will end confrontations between Christians and heathens and brutal wars between different faiths.

Let us expect …

Let us send cultural antagonisms, the modern version of religious fanaticism, off into history!

Let us expect the surging of a spiritual revolution in this 21st century centered on the idea of “propriety” as elaborated above, which hopefully will end confrontations between Christians and heathens and brutal wars between different faiths.

Let us expect …