Ziran and Continuous Orderly Transformation: New Interpretation of Ziran in Daodejing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As it is a very well-designed, written, and intriguing research, I would only suggest some very minor, or even technical adjustments that could bring the paper near perfection. 

First of all, Chinese terms, if represented with pinyin, are supposed to be written in cursive. As is the case in most instances, there are some instances where it is not. Indeed, a little issue, but it affects the readability of the text.  

Another one, if 'researchers,' or 'some researchers' are evoked, it would be advisable to add which researchers. Otherwise, we end up with an impression of proof surrogate being applied, and that is not what we would like to see in academic writing. 

Last but not least, instead of 'according to researchers,' I would suggest a statement like 'as (recent) scholarship demonstrates,' or 'according to (name).' 

Author Response

First, the reviewer noted that Chinese terms in the article, if transliterated into pinyin, should be presented in italics rather than cursive. This issue primarily appears in the abstract and the first section (LINE 10-95). In the revised draft, I have corrected the relevant Chinese terms to be written in italics as per academic conventions.

 

Secondly, the reviewer recommended explicitly citing the scholars whose viewpoints are referenced. I am deeply appreciative of this suggestion. In the revised draft, I have addressed this by clearly indicating which scholar's viewpoint is being discussed. Please refer to lines 267, 406, 453, and footnote 2 for these modifications.

 

Finally, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their affirmation of this article, which has greatly inspired me. The technical insights provided by the reviewer have been highly valuable and have significantly contributed to my writing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Laozi and Ziran

Around line 350 the author points to the Confucian ideal of 禮治, governing by ritual. This is the only hint in this article of a polemical as well as a philosophical aspect to the DDJ, that is to say an anti-Confucian aspect; this calls for consideration. The independent life of all creation (wan wu = myriad beings 物=ox and striped hide) is part of the DDJ critique of Confucian ideas. For example, the patriarchal / ancestral authority of Confucianism is rejected when the wan wu are described as the offspring of the Dao, which the DDJ tells us is not some transcendental mysterious (unnamable) principle but simply a single mom. Where’s dad? Does she have a name of her own? Even a child or two is hard enough to raise, so parenting 10K children is a hopeless task for a single mother; the kids can only be left to themselves, to enjoy a life of anarchic freedom as each sees fit.

The author is right to connect wan wu and ziran, the independent momentum of all beings. However, the relation of Dao to ziran could be one of inversion of authority. Fa (law, rule) is a strong word. DDJ25 ends: “Man (or the king) is ruled by earth, earth by heaven, heaven by Dao, Dao by ziran.” The final line inverts the chain of authority. Dao (mom) is ruled by its / her own offspring, inverting filial piety. Just as the DDJ negates male ancestral authority (all properly named and enjoying heaven’s authority) as well as the continuity of generations by the separation / individualization of the generations.

I don’t think coercive is a good translation for wei. Wu wei is simply a minimum of action / action upon others. Different from Confucius’ concept of the junzi as a role model, exercising positive moral influence on others (人). Also Confucians distinguish humans from other living beings unlike the Daoists and Buddhists who merge them to one degree or another.

So in the end Dao is both a law above heaven and subject to all things. Possibly analogous to Spinoza’s rejection of God for Nature, if we allow that Dao is visible as Nature, invisible as Time. Note that Dao and Heaven (Tian) are similar graphically: a head walking (as the planets walk around heaven). As for 道radical 162 stands for motion, shou for head < eyebrow is short for head. The top line of tian used to be a circle.

Ultimately ziran, which individualizes, stands in contrast to Confucian xing 性, "nature" too, which unifies.

There are other translations, not in the bibliography, that raise some of the points the author of this article might want to consider.

Author Response

The reviewer offers a subtle and thought-provoking philosophical interpretation of the Confucian conception of Heaven (tian) and the ancestors as authoritative and exemplary models for the way all things (wanwu) live and flourish. Moreover, the reviewer insightfully explores how Laozi’ s proposition—Dao follows ziran (of things)—undermines and transcends this Confucian authority.

 

I find the reviewer’ s interpretation to be particularly compelling. Inspired by this perspective, I have incorporated clarifications in the revised manuscript in the footnotes of both 5 and 7.

 

In my view, governing by ritual is essentially the political expression of the authority and exemplary role played by Heaven and sages in shaping the proper way of life for all things. The sanctity and authority of ritual are precisely safeguarded by Heaven and the Confucian sage, the Duke of Zhou. In this sense, Laozi’ s critique of governing by ritual already implies a rejection of the patriarchal or ancestral authority central to Confucianism. This rejection simultaneously affirms the intrinsic value of the myriad things . The ontological claim that Dao follows ziran is thus proposed by Laozi to affirm the worth of all things and to challenge the authority system established by Confucian thought.

 

As the reviewer insightfully notes, this proposition theoretically theoretically breaks the hierarchical chain of emulation expressed in Chapter 25, wherein lower-order beings emulate higher-order ones, this is, “the man (or the king) follows earth, earth follow heaven, and heaven follows Dao”. By breaking this chain, Laozi asserts that although the Dao may be ontologically foundational for all things, it does not serve as an universal principle or criterion to be followed in the same way as Heaven and sages in Confucianism. Rather, precisely because the Dao affirms the value of all things, it resists becoming a paradigmatic authority demonstrated by Heaven and sages in Confucianism.

 

Moreover, I suggest that Laozi’s valorization of the feminine may be best understood through its association, in early Chinese thought, with qualities such as receptivity and responsiveness. These qualities serve to concretely express his philosophical affirmation of the value of all things. Similarly, Laozi’ s critique of the masculine may stem from its conventional association with initiative and assertiveness—qualities that closely align with the authoritative nature of Confucianism. Thus, Laozi’ s gendered metaphors also reflect his broader philosophical stance against coercive authority and in favor of diverse orders presented by the ziran of all things.

 

Second, with regard to the reviewer’ s suggestion that coercive action may not be the best translation for wei, and the alternative proposal that wuwei be understood as “a minimum of action upon others”, I respectfully maintain the use of Roger T. Ames’ s translation. This is because wei in the Daodejing carries a distinct political connotation, often entailing the imposition of the agent’ s will upon the recipient through the exercise of political power—hence emphasizing its coercive character. The coercive nature of youwei/weizhi is supported by the statement in Chapter 38 that“The (ruler of) highest Ritual acts coercively, and if people do not respond to the ruler’s will, a ruler will yank their arms to follow it”.

 

Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude once again to the reviewers for the detailed and profound evaluations. I have learned a lot from them。