A Study Of The Hermeneutic History Of Zhuangzi’s Mysticism

Mysticism,a Western theory and practice with the focus on achieving “oneness”between human beings and the ultimate reality,and “Zhuangzi,” a crystallization of classical Chinese cultural wisdom,combine as a cross-cultural “interpretation of China by the West” that has been ongoing in both China and the west for over a century.Unfortunately,it has not yet attracted sufficient attention from Chinese mainland academia.In fact,only a few Chinese academics familiar with Zhuangzi consciously link mysticism with Zhuangzi’s philosophy;most scholars argue the rational character of Zhuangzi’s philosophy,while consciously or unconsciously neglecting its “mystical”dimensions.To fill this puzzle,my dissertation takes the perspective of “interpretive history”and examines the main themes,characteristics,and evolutionary patterns of Zhuangzi’s mysticism interpretation history over the past century.It focuses on various interpretative trends concerning Zhuangzi’s mysticism within the academic circles of Europe,America,and China’s Taiwan.The aim is to evaluate Zhuangzi’s philosophy through the lens of “mysticism” and reveal the importance and value of the encounter and integration between the two sides.This dissertation consists of four parts: the introduction(Chapter 1),the main body(Chapters 2 to 6),the conclusion(Chapter 7),and the appendix.In chapter 1,“From Mysticism to Zhuangzi”,firstly introduces the origin of mysticism theory,reviewing the development of two centuries studies of Western“religious mysticism”(mainly about Christianity).Secondly,the literature review combs out the main trend of negative opinions about Zhuangzi’s mysticism among Chinese-speaking academia.I particularly criticize their six misunderstandings regarding the meaning of mysticism.Thirdly,I summarize those minority views affirming the mystical nature of Zhuangzi philosophy and clarify the real core of mysticism as the meaning of “union(or unity)with the Ultimate”.I further focus on the issue of “Dao” in the Zhuangzi and re-generalize its four interpretative dimensions according to the current mainstream views in China.At last,I account for that in what sense this dissertation talking about a kind of “interpretation history of mysticism”which has true originality.This self-criticism also indicates the basic train of thought and the goal behind my overall arguments.Chapter 2 overviews the 20th-century interpretations of Zhuangzi’s mysticism presented by the European and North American sinological circle,demonstrating their characteristics,the common ground,and respective strengths and limitations.I select four scholars,i.e.,Henri Maspero,Angus C.Graham,Benjamin Schwartz,and Martin Buber,as the representatives at the early age of mystical interpretations of Zhuangzi.They all have keen grasps of essence of mysticism with the idea of“union with the Ultimate”,manifesting different features of Zhuangzi’s mystical thought from each one of their perspectives.To be specific,Maspero centers on the idea of“mystical life practices”in the era of Lao-Zhuang Daoism,and on which he first explicitly makes the point that the meditative element constitutes an essential mystical part of Zhuangzi’s thought.Graham’s interpretations on Zhuangzi’s mystical dimensions mainly lying in“anti-rationalism”,particularly in epistemological thoughts of the seven Inner Chapters.His research works out the early interpretive pattern of Daoist mystical philosophy,showing the mystical characteristics of Zhuangzi’s epistemology,practice thoughts,and ontology,respectively.Schwartz also follows the mysticism paradigm of early Daoism,arguing that the true meaning of Zhuangzi’s mysticism is“mystical gnosis”,i.e.,“the vision of reality”achieved at the high cognitive level,rather than relying solely on the mystical techniques of meditation as shown in the text.Buber shows his ingenuity with his theory of“relationship”,illuminating the philosophical nature of the Daoist mystical core of“unity with the Dao”,in pursuit of“the truthful life”(or“the unified life”)based on the idea of“the Tao teaching”.His philosophical interpretations are greatly enhanced than others in terms of depth and complexity.To recover the unity of all things and to reveal the self-unity of everything,which is also Buber’s creation for Zhuangzi’s mystical thought in the essence.The summary at the end of the first chapter evaluates these early achievements,arguing that they,with the lens of Western mysticism,have touched on many fundamental issues worth discussing in the future,like the characters of Zhuangzi’s self-cultivation(gongfu工夫).While overall,some of their levels of explanation do not seem deep enough.For instance,their demonstrations of the philosophical nature and meaning of“the oneness with the Dao”seems too sweeping.Chapter 3 sketches the research status in North American academia,interpreting the connection between Zhuangzi philosophy and mysticism,and it clarifies their main features,important contributions,and obvious shortcomings.It makes brief outlooks of a dozen scholars,including Chad Hansen,Aubrey Moore,Robert E.Allinson,Steve Coutinho,Louis Komjathy,Julia Ching,Van Norden,Brook Ziporyn,Isabelle Robinet,Lee H.Yearley,Michael R.Saso,Livia Kohn,Harold D.Roth,etc.I position their viewpoints in this interpretation history,arguing that this research stage serves as an important juncture of the following studies in terms of research paradigm.Their positions show the diverse standpoints of “affirmation ”,“exclusion"and“integration”.In terms of contents,they elucidate and deepen various dimensions of ontology,epistemology,and practice thoughts.From their problem awareness,it has shifted from the orientation of “Zhuangzi under the horizon of Western-style mysticism” to the new paradigm of “the typology of Zhuangzi-style mysticism”,presenting as “intraworldly mysticism”,“contemplative mysticism”,and “dual mysticism”.My examination about the recent three decades of research shows that although there are numerous and diverse opinions,only a few truly original thoughts in a systematic way,even no lack of vulgar arguments which blindly reject any expressions related to mysticism.Furthermore,substantial numbers of scholars have not yet realized the true value of the view of mysticism when it integrates with Zhuangzi’s philosophy in revealing Zhuangzi’s core idea.Nevertheless,there is a remarkable breakthrough in terms of interpretive paradigm,i.e.,the start of the typology of Zhuangzi-style mysticism.It increasingly demonstrates that more Western scholars are holding a compassionate understanding to go deep into Zhuangzi’s thought itself without West-centered notions.Chapter 4 focuses on the two Taiwan scholars Kwan Wing-chung关永中and Lai His-san赖锡三with their systematic interpretations.They first interpret deeply the interconnection between Zhuangzi and Mysticism in Chinese-speaking academia.These two cases have significant implications for the paradigm shift,i.e.,their interpretations of the typology of Zhuangzi-style mysticism.Also,their two approaches,orientations,and conclusions all have exemplary characteristics.In the view of interculture mysticism,this chapter takes an in-depth look at their theoretical nature,the significance,and possible problems.They concenter on the mode of“Zhuangzi’s mystical experience”,developing each one independent explorations,and their conclusions represent the two bimodal types of mysticism,i.e.,theism and monism,respectively.By clarifying the four dimensions of Zhuangzi-style mysticism from the perspective of Guan’s theism and analyzing the naturalistic form of Daoist mystical experience in the view of Lai’s monism,we can find that the reason for their juxtaposition lies in the different ways of thinking underlying these two types of mysticism.That is,the difference between Neo-Kantian perspective of dichotomy and traditional Chinese thoughts with the integrated thinking.Reflecting on the differences between Chinese and Western ways of thinking,we can see deeply the limitations of their studies.Their explanations about the characters of the Dao in the Zhuangzi are not consummate enough;my view of the Dao is its characteristic of interconnecting between the inner and the outer worlds.The conclusion of my studies about them shows clearly that the two types of theism and monism can run parallel and are self-contained.Furthermore,it should be confirmed that the mystical type of Daoism,just as Zhuangzi’s thought shows,is attributing to monistic mysticism.Traditional Chinese civilization could not be generalized in terms of Western theistic or ontological mysticism,and vice versa.Furthermore,although there is quite a difference between Western and Chinese mysticism which exemplified in Zhuangzi’s philosophy,these two cases are not in antagonistic relations,and should not be attached to the superiority of value judgements.Chapter 5 identifies an American scholar of Roth’s“Taoist Mysticism”system with his foundation of“contemplative practice”.Compared with other scholars’interpretations,Roth has made innovative achievements in many aspects,including research theme,methodology,standpoints,and philosophical contributions.I conclude that Roth in his view of“mysticism”(or“contemplation theory”),initially filled with the academic puzzle of the origin and development of early Daoist tradition with his systematical interpretations.He inspects the whole genealogy of Daoist literatures,and confirmed that contemplative practices run through it all,particularly the Zhuangzi he viewed as a mature theoretical form of early Daoist contemplation.His highlights of mystical practice,namely breath-control meditation techniques,made the creative value for us to reconsider early Daoism in many aspects.For instance,the practical X nature of the“school”of Daoism,the historical sources of Daoist texts,the embodied character of Daoist cultivation,the characteristic of Daoism“technique”,the research method of Daoist philosophy,and the issue of universality and particularity in terms of Daoist mysticism along with other mystical traditions.Horizontally from the perspective of inter-culture mysticism,and longitudinally in the view of Daoist tradition,Roth argues that the unique nature of“Lao-Zhuang Philosophy”is basically a kind of practical theory of contemplation.Roth’s view of Zhuangzi philosophy contains profound philosophical thoughts.He deeply sees that Zhuangzi’s thought is essentially the study of life,which cares about human life potentials.So far,Roth for the first time,in this interpretation history,reveals the philosophical meaning of mysticism perspective for our reconsiderations about Zhuangzi’s thought,lying that it catches and lights up the real spiritual appeals contained in the Zhuangzi.Moreover,in response to the issue of typology of Zhuangzi-style mysticism,Roth first explicitly elaborates it as the bimodal mystical experiences in the Qiwulun齐物论,which are based on“the introvertive experience”and complementary to the“extrovertive experience”.Therefore,Roth develops a new subtype of Stace-ian extrovertive mysticism,representing Zhuangzi’s mystical philosophy distinctive from the traditional Western mysticism.In addition,one special subject has been illuminated,i.e.,the philosophical meaning of physiology and perception-based body,particularly the breathing-control body in meditation practices.His arguments break through the prevailing view that regards“mystical experience”axiomatically as a pure kind of“state of mind”without embodied experience.It is based on this idea of the“human body”that I see the key pivot connection with current Chinese mainstream of Zhuangzi’s studies.Then Roth’s research shows his great impacts on the following interpretations.Chapter 6 tracks the latest interpretation trend around the topic of“the returning of body”in the Chinese Zhuangzi’s studies circle,to catch its theoretical basis,distinguish viewpoints,major contributions,and the problems need to be clarified.The beginning of this chapter combs the ins and outs about the ontology of“qi-transformed body”,synthesizing with the opinions from scholars of Zhang Zailin张再林,Wu Guangming吴光明,Zhou Yuchen周与沉,Zhong Zhenyu钟振宇,Gong Zhuojun龚卓军,particularly Yang Rur-bin杨儒宾and Lai His-san.Compared with the previous interpretations among sinological circle,this trend of“return to body”seems provides a more reasonable answer,i.e.,the Zhuangzian“knack-mysticism”(jiyimingqizhuyi技艺冥契主义)based on the idea of“qi-transformed body”(qishen气身).It represents as two basic forms of“extrovertive-knack”(such as“Cook Ding carving an ox”)and“introvertive-knack”(exemplifies as zuowang of meditation practice).Extracting their interpretations about the nature of the mystical relationship between the Dao and humans,which shows as the inter-structural supplement to each other,and embodies in the formation mechanism of“transforming”(hua化).In the view of typology of mysticism,the Zhuangzian“knack-mysticism”with two forms is quite different from the Stace-ian mysticism of“introvertive and extrovertive”.These two have their own characteristics in the aspects of the contents and intrinsic logic.In addition,compared with Zaenher-ian monism,Zhuangzi’s idea of“qi”adds creative connotations to Western-style monistic mysticism.The distinguished feature of Chinese indigenous interpretations mainly lies in their unique perspective of“qi”on which develops into an explanatory principle about the ontological thoughts of“qi-transformed body”.Based on this,their firmly grasp the key for understanding the mystical relation in Zhuangzi philosophy and show that Zhuangzi-style meditation should be considered to have ontological objectivity and cosmological legitimacy.Nevertheless,there are certain limitations about their explanations on some issues.For example,I further clarify that the explanatory principles of Zhuangzi-style“introvertive”and“extrovertive”mystical thoughts are basically achieved at the same confirmation of“qitransformation”,though via different ways.They should not be separated into two different modes of knacks in the Zhuangzi,as Zhong Zhenyu indicates.Moreover,I put across that Zhuangzi-style meditation knack is actually a kind of“cultivating techniques without the techniques”(bushuzhishu不术之术),which distinguishes it from the conventional meaning of Western meditation.It also implies that there are certain misunderstandings about meditation practice in the Zhuangzi among Chinese indigenous academia.In final part of chapter 7 I draw four conclusions.Firstly,I summarize the basic rule and features of“the interpretation history of mysticism in the Zhuangzi”,assuming that it shows as the two paradigms and three ideas.There is a shift from“Zhuangzi under the horizon of Western-style mysticism”into the new paradigm of“the typology of Zhuangzi-style mysticism”.This diachronic transformation primarily represents with three focuses:from“spiritualized knowing”(xinzhi心知)to“embodied knowing”(tizhi体知)and the transition between them.Secondly,I sum up the important values of Zhuangzi-style mysticism which can be listed as a unique kind of mysticism along with Western mysticism.Its significance basically reflects in three aspects:cultivating the self-consciousness of“Chinese Philosophy”,and improving our self-awareness of human’s virtuous nature,and inheriting the ethnic traditional culture.To advance the results of predecessors,I try to extract the intellectual nature and spiritual character of Zhuangzi-style mysticism,and show it with the new concept of“life hierophany”,which means every being has its sacred source,that is,the Dao or Heaven(tian天)as the Zhuangzi sees it.In other words,the Dao(or Heaven)is inherent in humans and all things and it as their intrinsic nature and spiritual drive.The Dao then can be viewed as the natural law or rhythmical pattern of every life.Moreover,the final chapter concludes three innovation points and three points of research significance of this dissertation.At the end,I reflect on the possible improvements to this dissertation,and point out that“the relation between Zhuangzi’s cultivation thoughts and Chinese primitive religions(i.e.,shamanism)”can be a potential issue that needs to be further explored.