| Abstract |
Variorum Lao Tse, a commentary authored by Hsuei Hei (a scholar of the Ming Dynasty), had extensive criticism of former scholars’ notions of Lao Tse School. The most impressive argument was his refutation of the Cheng brothers and Chu Hsi. Cheng & Chu held negative views on Lao Tse, and took him to be tricky and selfish. They considered Lao Tse the same as Shen & Han (the legalists), and attributed the ruthlessness of the latter to the selfishness of the former. Further, Chu Hsi drew a parallel between the “self-preservation” of Yang Chu (the egoist) and the “selfhood” of Lao Tse. The “inaction” asserted by Lao Tse was misinterpreted as “idleness” and “retireness”, which was an artifice to make concessions in order to gain advantages. The Cheng brothers had noticed the close relationship between “inaction” and “action”, though they had failed to have an insight into its true meaning. In Cheng’s point of view, “inaction” was a pretense with an intention of “action”. Obviously, Cheng & Chu took Lao Tse theory as political trickery. Hsuei Hei brought forth the following arguments against Cheng & Chu’s criticism of Lao Tse: 1. Lao Tse did not juggle with political tactics; 2. Yang Chu’s egoism did not accord with Lao Tse theory; 3. Lao Tse theory was not exclusively attributed to nihilism; 4. The ruthlessness that was the feature of Shen & Han was not originated from morals.
|
