Did Zhuangzi Criticize Mengzi?

Dao https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-024-09975-2 Did Zhuangzi Criticize Mengzi? Kim‑chong Chong1 Accepted: 25 November 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Mengzi 孟子 and Zhuangzi 莊子 lived around the same time in the mid–Warring States period of ancient China. The historical relation between them is unclear. There is no mention of each other in the texts named after them. But some authors have claimed that characterizations of deformed bodies, the heart-mind, and qi 氣 in the Inner Chapters of the Zhuangzi are directly critical of Mengzi. I argue that there is no good reason for this claim. Although their philosophies are conceptually opposed, this does not mean that there is a directly critical relation between them. Keywords Mengzi 孟子 · Zhuangzi 莊子 · Deformed bodies · Heart-mind as ruler · Heart-mind and qi 氣 · Heart-mind and zhi 志 (aims/aspirations) 1 Introduction Mengzi 孟子 (Mencius) and Zhuangzi 莊子 lived around the same time in the mid–Warring States period of ancient China.1 However, the historical relation between them is unclear. There is no mention of each other in the texts named after them. Nevertheless, some authors have suggested that characterizations of deformed bodies, the heart-mind (xin 心), and qi 氣 in the Inner Chapters of the Zhuangzi are directly critical of Mengzi despite his not being named. We pose the following questions. First, was Zhuangzi aware of Mengzi? Second, what enables us to say with good reason that a certain philosopher is being criticized without being named? Third, do the claims that Zhuangzi was directly critical of Mengzi stand up to scrutiny?2 1 Benjamin Schwartz (citing Qian 1935) gives the dates for Mengzi as 390–305 BCE and Zhuangzi as somewhere between 365 and 290 BCE (Schwartz 1985: 256, 440). Cui Dahua 崔大華 dates Zhuangzi as approximately 375–300 BCE (Cui 1992: 3). There is no complete agreement about dates. For instance, Yang Bojun’s 楊伯峻 dating for Mengzi is 385–304 BCE (B. Yang 1987: 1). 2 The same question applies if it is thought that other authors of the Zhuangzi were responsible for these criticisms. As such, I shall not delve into issues of authorship of this text. * Kim‑chong Chong 1 Division of Humanities, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China Vol.:(0123456789) Kim-chong Chong 2 Whether Zhuangzi was Aware of Mengzi The question whether Zhuangzi was aware of Mengzi also raises the question of the converse. Mengzi was highly critical of Yang Zhu 楊朱 for his egoistic philosophy of weiwo 為我. There is a self-nourishing and self-preservationist strand too in the Zhuangzi and it might seem surprising that Zhuangzi is not mentioned in the Mengzi. Some explanations have been offered for this. For instance, Feng Youlan 馮 友蘭 says that Mengzi saw Zhuangzi as a disciple of Yang Zhu and did not think it necessary to mention him. Similarly, Zhuangzi regarded Mengzi to be in Kongzi’s 孔子 (Confucius’s) lineage and focused on the latter’s philosophy instead (Cui 1992: 33–34). And Benjamin Schwartz suggests that to Mengzi, “people such as Chuangtzu [Zhuangzi] might have been viewed as representing the outlook of Yang Zhu…” (Schwartz 1985: 192). A more radical hypothesis is that Yang Zhu is Zhuangzi. According to Cui Dahua, Yan Fu 嚴復 and Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培 are two prominent instances of this view. They argued that phonologically the two pairs of names Zhuang/Yang, Zhou 周 (Zhuangzi’s personal name)/Zhu had similar or close archaic pronunciations. Thus, “Yang” and “Zhu” could have served as loan words for “Zhuang” and “Zhou” respectively. As further evidence, Cai Yuanpei notes that the Huainanzi 淮南子 describes Yang Zhu’s philosophy in terms of concepts such as guiji 貴己 (valuing self) and baozhen 保真 (protecting genuineness). These (allegedly) amount to weiwo and can be found throughout the Zhuangzi (Cui 1992: 34–35). The major problem for equating Zhuangzi with Yang Zhu is that it makes him older than Mengzi. Mengzi lamented that “the words of Yang Chu [Yang Zhu] and Mo Ti [墨翟; Mozi 墨子] fill the Empire. The teachings current in the Empire are those of the school of Yang or of the school of Mo” (Mengzi 3B9).3 Yang’s teachings must have prevailed for some time. He would have been much older than Mengzi and perhaps no longer alive at the time of this mention. The general scholarly consensus is that Mengzi was older than Zhuangzi. Zhu Xi’s 朱熹 remarks on their relation are noteworthy. Question: “Were Mengzi and Zhuangzi of the same time?” Reply: “Zhuangzi was behind [Mengzi] by a number of years, though not by much.” Someone said: “Zhuangzi did not mention Mengzi even once.” Reply: “Throughout his life Mengzi traveled only between [the states of] Qi 齊, Lu 魯, Teng 滕, Song 宋 and Da Liang 大梁 [capital of Wei 衛], never going beyond the south of Da Liang. Zhuangzi was a native of Chu 楚, and so they did not hear of one another.4 There were probably many such people in Chu with odd learning of 3 Unless specified, all references to the book of Mengzi in this article are to Lau 2003. Zhu Xi says that Zhuangzi was a native of the state of Chu. Han 漢 dynasty scholars (Liu Xiang 劉向, Ban Gu 班固) say instead that he was from Song and most scholars now agree with this. According to Cui Dahua, although the writing of the Zhuangzi shows the influence of Chu culture and Zhuangzi’s family were originally from there, they had moved to Song due to certain political circumstances (Cui 1992: 6–9). 4 Did Zhuangzi Criticize Mengzi? this sort, and that was why Mengzi mentions Chen Liang 陳良 and so on.”5 (J. Li 1986: [8] 2988–2989; my translation) Zhu Xi is somewhat vague about the age difference. Cui Dahua cites studies showing that the meeting described in Book 1 of the Mengzi between King Hui 惠 of Liang 梁 and Mengzi took place in either 335 BCE or 321 BCE. The king used the honorific for an elderly person, sou 叟, to address Mengzi. This means he was then probably between 60 and 70 years old. On the other hand, Zhuangzi died later than his friend Hui Shi 惠施. The last historical record of the latter is 314 BCE and he died around ten years after this when between 60–70 years old. Cui surmises that at the time of Mengzi’s meeting King Hui of Liang, Zhuangzi was probably between 40–50 (Cui 1992: 35–36). Just prior to the above conversation with Zhu Xi the following is recorded. Li Mengxian 李夢先 asked: “Zhuangzi and Mengzi were of the same time, how is it they never met? Also, there is no mutual mention (in the texts bearing their names). Why?” Reply: “Zhuangzi had no followers at that time, he only expressed himself in a remote place, and (his words) were after all no more than the learning of Yang Zhu. Mengzi strongly opposed Yang’s doctrine because it was too extreme.” (J. Li 1986: [8] 2988; my translation) We should note the following about Zhu Xi’s remarks here. First, Zhuangzi only “expressed himself” (literally, “spoke to himself” zi shuo 自說) and did not have a following. This captures the id (...truncated)