$.%ill each flower pot with "&gcm' of soil. (lace a corn seed in each flower pot. '. )Abel one of the flower pots ( and the other *. +. (lace the flower pot labeled * under a lit lamp. ,. (lace the flower pot labeled ( in a dark area.". using a measuring cylinder! pour $, cm' of water into each ...
Test Bank For Biology: A Global Approach, 12th Edition by Neil A. Campbell
Campbell Biology - Chapter 2 Summary
All for this textbook (2)
Written for
GCSE
GCSE
Philosophy
107
All documents for this subject (2)
Seller
Follow
Smith1970
Content preview
Lao Tzu’s Conception of Ultimate Reality:
A Comparative Study
By Sung-peng Hsu
Originally published in International Philosophical Quarterly,
June, 1976
Collected in Classical and Medieval Literature Criticism (Gale Research Inc., 1991),
Volume 7, pp.182-190
The question of ultimate reality is a perennial problem of religion and philosophy. Lao Tzu
has offered a special way of looking at the problem that has set an important tone in Chinese
cultural history, and has attracted many people in the West as a challenging possible
alternative to the traditional way of looking at the problem.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the basic philosophical assumptions and problems in
Lao Tzu’s conception of Tao as the ultimate reality and to compare it with some important
conceptions of ultimate reality in other religions or philosophies, especially Hinduism, Bud-
dhism, and Christianity. We shall start with a general “definition” of ultimate reality, then
discuss his view on the basis of relevant passages in the Tao Te Ching, also known as Lao Tzu.
It will be argued that there are two basic aspects of Tao as the ultimate reality. In its
essence, it is empty of qualities, but in its function, it is the source of the myriad things.
Other aspects of his conception of Tao will be treated only to a limited extent. It is hoped that the
comparative method will clearly bring out the uniqueness of his position in some
systematic form.
Every discussion of Lao Tzu’s thought confronts the perplexing problems about the person of
Lao Tzu and the composition and formation of the Tao Te Ching.1 For this paper we shall
assume that there was a certain Lao Tzu who lived some time in the Late Chou dynasty
(between the sixth and third centuries B.C.), and that he wrote the major portion of the
Tao Te Ching, which was later supplemented, revised, and edited by his followers.
I. THE NOTION OF ULTIMATE REALITY
Partly for the purpose of understanding the unique position of Lao Tzu's thought and
partly for the purpose of comparing it with some other systems of philosophy, we shall
define the term "ultimate reality" to mean either or both of two things: (1) that which is
held to be "real" in the "ultimate" sense, and (2) that which is held to be the "ultimate
source" of all things. We shall also use the term "universe" to mean the totality of the
myriad things that are either ultimately real in themselves or created, produced, or
evolved from some ultimate source.
The two meanings of ultimate reality, the ultimately real and the ultimate source, are often
identified or associated. It is usually assumed that what is ultimately real must be the
ultimate source of all things, and vice versa. But this is true only in some but not in all
philosophies. In any case, the two meanings are logically distinct. As a matter of fact,
1
,there are many different conceptions of the ultimately real and the ultimate source
respectively.
It is significant to note that the major religions and philosophies East and West generally
affirm the "existence" of only "one" ultimate reality (in either or both senses). This is
probably very much due to man's strong desire to see and interpret all things from a
unitary point of view. But they have developed very different conceptions about the nature
of the "existence" or "oneness" of the ultimate reality. Thus, there are the notions of
"Yahweh" in Judaism, "God" in Christianity, "Allah" in Islam, "Heaven" or “T’ai-chi”
(Great Ultimate) in Confucianism, "Brahman" in Hinduism, "Buddha-nature" in Mahayana
Buddhism, Plotinus' "the One," Eckhart's "Godhead," Aquinas' "God," Spinoza's
"Substance," Lao Tzu's "Tao," etc. In these systems of thought the ultimately real is in
some way identified or associated with the ultimate source of all things. But how they
are identified or associated differs significantly among them.
To set the stage for our discussion of Lao Tzu's thought, I shall briefly outline three
different views about the relationship between the ultimately real and the ultimate source.
According to traditional Christianity, the ultimately real is a "personal" God. He is the
source of all things not in the sense that all things evolve from His "substance," but in the
sense that the universe was "created" according to His "will" for some historical or
eschatological "purpose." The universe has a different ontological nature from God.
According to Shankara's (8th century) Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, the ultimately real, is
without any personal or impersonal attribute. "It" is the source of the universe in the
sense that the ontological nature of the latter is identical with the former. But the myriad
things in time and space are regarded as the results of our "ignorance" (avidya) and some
kind of magical trick (maya) rather than a "real" production or creation from or by the
Brahman without qualities.
We find something very peculiar in Buddhism. It is not clear whether or in what sense "an"
ultimate reality is held. In a certain sense, nirvana can be regarded as the ultimately real,
because it transcends the supposedly illusory realm (maya) of samsara (the Buddhist
universe of rebirths). But it is ultimately real mainly (if not only) in the soteriological
sense rather than in the ontological sense. Moreover, nirvana has not been expounded by
the Buddha as the source of the myriad things. On the contrary, "ignorance" is said to be
the ultimate source of the illusory universe, and it is not the ultimately real. Here we
have a position that does not associate the ultimately real with the source of all things.
This peculiar position in the Buddha's teachings set an important tone and limit to the later
philosophical speculations in Mahayana Buddhism.
The most important Mahayanist concept is probably the Madhyamika doctrine of sunyata
(emptiness). It is generally agreed that the concept is basically epistemological and
soteriological in meaning. There are disputes among Buddhist scholars as to its precise
ontological status.2 Other schools in Mahayana have developed the concepts of dharmakaya,
Buddha-nature, Self, Mind, etc., in which the ontological nature is more clearly affirmed.
As the result, the ultimately real becomes the source of all things in the sense that it is the
static or unchanging reality underlying the illusory world of time and space fabricated by
our lack of true wisdom (prajna). At this point, it is not too far different from Shankara's
Brahman. More positive concepts of ultimate reality have been developed in Chinese
2
, Buddhism, notably in the Hua-yen philosophy and Ch'an or Zen Buddhism.3 This was
undoubtedly due to a strong influence by the general philosophical orientation of Chinese
philosophy, especially Taoism. But the basic assumptions in early Buddhism have
continued to shape the ways in which the ultimate reality is to be described or explained
in words.
It must be noted that there are different theories about the nature of ultimate reality in
Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism respectively. The above discussion is not meant to
describe the "essence" of each religion. Those conceptions are chosen because they
represent very different views about the two aspects of ultimate reality defined here. We
shall discuss Lao Tzu's conception of Tao in comparison with them, so that its uniqueness can
be shown.
II. TAO AS THE ULTIMATE REALITY
Like most major religions and philosophies, Lao Tzu assumes and affirms the "existence" of
"one" ultimate reality. It is commonly called “tao.” For convenience, we shall use "Tao"
with a capital T to refer exclusively to Lao Tzu's conception of the ultimate reality. It is our
purpose to analyze the nature of its "existence" as "one." According to him, Tao is both
the ultimately real and the ultimate source of all things. These two aspects may be
distinguished as the "essence" (t’i)" and the "function" (yung) of Tao respectively.
The distinction between t'i and yung, which is very important in Chinese philosophy, is not
explicitly made in the Tao Te Ching. But, properly interpreted, the two ideas can be found
in Lao Tzu's thought.4 The term yung is in fact frequently used in the Tao Te Ching (chapters
4, 6, 11, 40, 45, etc.). Though the word t’i is not actually found in it, the idea is evidently
assumed. It must be pointed out that the two terms have been used differently in Taoism,
Confucianism, and Chinese Buddhism. It is therefore important for us to determine the exact
meanings applicable to Lao Tzu's thought. The term t'i is generally used to denote the
ontological nature of the myriad things, and usually translated as "substance," which
tends to imply that it is "substantial." Since, as we shall see, Tao as the ultimately real is
"empty," we shall translate it as "essence." Tao as the source of the universe may be
regarded as the dynamic "function" of the "essence" of Tao.
Before we discuss the two aspects of Tao, it is important to say a few words about the
different names (or descriptions) given by Lao Tzu to the ultimate reality. According to
him, the ultimate reality does not have any "real" name intrinsic to it. He seems to
assume that names, at least in the descriptive sense, can only be given to things with defi-
nite qualities. Since the essence of Tao is "empty" of any quality, no proper name can be
given. For this reason, Tao is often called "nameless" (wu-ming). But this does not prevent
him from giving many different names and descriptions to the ultimate reality. He says in
chapter 25, for example, that if forced to give a name to it, he will call it "Tao" or "Great."
What is the basis for giving it different names? It is often thought that the names given
to it are completely arbitrary. But it must be noted that even though the essence of Tao
is beyond naming or description, its function is in principle namable or describable. In
other words, we can name or describe Tao insofar as it functions in the universe as its
source. This does not mean that our words or descriptions are completely adequate for
3
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Smith1970. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
