The Paradox of Mysticism in the Zhuangzi: Oneness, Multiplicity, and the Transformation of Self and Reality

Abstract

This paper examines the four-stage process of mystical experience in the Huzi and Lady Yu allegories of the Zhuangzi. It begins with a lifeless stage enabled by the mystic’s purgation of the world and the self. It is followed by a revitalization stage in which Oneness is experienced not only as the introvertive experience of the self but also as the extrovertive truth of reality. It is then followed by the mystic’s experience of emptiness that transfigures reality through the reconciliation of things and the cessation of time and motion. Eventually it leads to the deconstruction of the transcendental Dao and the following of the spontaneity of things. The allegories provide a rich variety of mystical experiences, such as the exuberance of vitality, tranquil emptiness, and bliss in reconciliation. As the core theme of mysticism, Oneness is not regarded as the superior and final stage, but rather paves the way for the reconciliation of things in the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity, and eventually leads to the deconstruction of Oneness and the return to the multiplicity of things. The pursuit of Oneness and the very deconstruction of it constitute the characteristic paradox of the Zhuangzi’s mysticism.

1. Introduction

Recent scholarship on the Zhuangzi has been exploring philosophical issues such as skepticism, relativism, and transformation.1 Yet the text’s philosophical positions are often grounded in practices of personal cultivation that carry profound mystical undertones. Key passages, such as “fasting of the heart-mind” (Chapter 4), “sitting and forgetting” (Chapter 6), and “Dao connects things into Oneness” (Chapter 2), exemplify this mystical dimension. Moreover, metaphysical and epistemological issues, such as whether reality is experienced as undifferentiated unity or through plural perspectives, are also deeply related to the mystical experience. An examination of mysticism in the Zhuangzi would not only elucidate the nature of mysticism itself but also contribute to a deeper understanding of its philosophical positions.

This paper attempts to examine the mysticism in the Zhuangzi. Our research questions are as follows: What are the key characteristics of the Zhuangzi’s mysticism? Does it align with its Western counterpart, or does it display specific features of its own? Before we delve deeper into the questions, a brief overview of the mysticism literature is necessary. Mysticism generally refers to how a person overcomes the limitedness of his own life and becomes one with a transcendental power, such as the true source of his life or the ultimate truth of reality. It is often categorized into different types and presented in multiple stages. Stace distinguishes between “introvertive mysticism”, the pure and unitary inward experience of the self, and “extrovertive mysticism”, the illumination of the world in the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity (Stace 1960, pp. 132–33). Underhill proposes a five-stage process that involves “movement of consciousness from lower to higher levels of reality” (Underhill 1912, pp. 205–7). Ellwood and Kohn simplify the process into three major stages: the “purgative” stage: the purification of oneself from the phenomenal world and one’s own consciousness; the “illuminative” stage: the revelation of the ultimate reality of the world; and the “unitive” stage: the union of one’s individual self with the cosmic self (Ellwood 1980; Kohn 2014, p. 179).

Mysticism also manifests in a wide variety of experiences. James identifies four cardinal features: “ineffability”: the inadequacy of being conveyed by words; “noetic quality”: pertaining to states of knowledge or truth about the world; “transiency”: the short duration of the experience; and “passivity”: the abeyance of one’s own will, being taken by a superior power (James [1902] 1936, pp. 370–71). Stace adds to the list by emphasizing union with the One, the spiritual exaltation of blessedness, happiness or satisfaction, and logical paradoxicality (Stace 1960, p. 79). Kohn further expands the list as follows: being grasped by something greater and vaster, going beyond time and space, being in touch with the innermost secrets of the universe, and illumination to the ordinary world (Kohn 2014, p. 178).

The extent to which mystical traditions share common features remains a contested issue in the existing scholarship. Classical scholars, such as James, Otto, and Stace, tend to suggest that mystical experiences exhibit universal characteristics across cultures (James [1902] 1936; Otto 1924; Stace 1960). In contrast, constructionist scholars, such as Katz, stress that mysticism is not a universal category but is fundamentally shaped by its socio-cultural context (Katz 1978). This divergence is also present in the scholarship on the Zhuangzi. Schwartz argues that the mystical experience in the Zhuangzi aligns with the Western conception of union with a transcendental power (Schwartz 1985, p. 217). Conversely, Yearley and Roth point out that Daoist mysticism does not seek the same experience of unity with a static metaphysical absolute as found in the Indo-European tradition (Yearley 1983, pp. 130–31; Roth 2015, p. 113). Kohn also contrasts the “immanent Dao” of the Chinese tradition with the “transcendent divine” of the Christian tradition (Kohn 1992, p. 11).

Building upon the scholarship outlined above, we may now formulate our specific research questions as follows: How does the Zhuangzi depict mystical experience? Does it come in multiple types or stages, each with distinct cognitive and experiential characteristics? What is the relationship between inward self-consciousness and outward reality in the mystical experience? Does the ultimate truth revealed by the mystical experience lie in pure Oneness or the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity?

To address these questions, this study attempts to perform a close textual interpretation of two underexplored allegories in the Inner Chapters of the Zhuangzi. The first is the Huzi (壺子) allegory in Chapter 7. It is about how master Huzi displayed mystical appearances of himself to his disciple Liezi (列子) and a shaman named Jixian (季咸). The allegory is contextualized in the repudiation of shamanism’s exertion on human activities, which is then extended to the sage king’s practice of “non-action” to rule the human realm. The second is the Lady Yu (女偊) allegory in Chapter 6. It is about Lady Yu, who possessed the Dao of the sage, taught the sacred Dao to Pu-liang Yi (卜梁倚), who possessed the talent of the sage. The sacred Dao or the Great Source is then considered to be the ultimate master for human beings to face all states in life-death transformations.

One reason that these two allegories are less studied is that they are presented with rich literary expressions of images, metaphors, and associations that resist regular philosophical analysis. In this regard, this paper will make intensive use of the Chinese commentary tradition of the Zhuangzi to facilitate interpretation.2 It is hoped that the richness and profundity of the allegories will open new hermeneutic possibilities to understand the mysticism in the Zhuangzi.

Specifically, this study will take a “process” view to interpret the mystical experience in the two allegories. In the Huzi allegory, Huzi displays four different appearances of himself, which constitute an explicit four-stage process of the mystical experience. The Lady Yu allegory is presented in a less structured manner but could also be approximately classified into four stages that parallel those of the Huzi allegory.3 This study will examine the corresponding stages of the two allegories together to facilitate complementary interpretations.

2. The “Lifeless-Purgative” Stage: Pattern of Earth and the Procedure of Externalization

The first stage of the Huzi allegory is as follows:

The next day, Liezi brought the shaman to see Huzi. He came out and said to Liezi, “Alas! Your master is dead! Not living! His days are not to be counted in tens. I saw something strange in him, something resembling wet ash”. Liezi went in, his collar drenched with tears, and reported these words to Huzi. Huzi said, “Just now I showed him the pattern of earth, its sprouts were without vibration or pause. He must have seen in me the impulsion to block virtue. Try bringing him again”.

(Z 70; G 97; HY 20/7/19–22)4

The allegory begins with a “lifeless” state of the mystic. He looks like “wet ash” (濕灰 shi hui). Lin Xiyi (林希逸) (1193–1271) takes “ash” as the active ash from burning fire; when ash is wet with water, its vitality is gone (Lin 1997, p. 131). It echoes the “heart-mind like lifeless ash” (心如死灰 xin ru si hui) image in the “I lose me” (吾喪我 wu sang wo) allegory of Chapter 2. Both artistically draw the image of “ash” as the lifeless state of the mystic. The second phrase is “pattern of earth” (地文 di wen). Xiang Xiu (向秀) (c. 227–272) explains that “earth” is like a block of soil; its rigidness and stiffness do not display any sign of vitality (Wang and Liu 2018, pp. 72–73). Cheng Xuanying (成玄英) (fl. seventh century) highlights the mystic’s resemblance to “earth”, remaining silent and tranquil without any use of the heart-mind (Guo 2006, p. 300). The third phrase that illustrates the “lifeless” state is “impulsion to block virtue” (杜德機 du de ji). Here “virtue” does not refer to any ethical virtue or metaphysical virtue but to the virtue of life (Lin 1997, p. 131). Xuan Ying (宣穎) (c. 1655–1730) interprets the “impulsion to block virtue” as the “closure” of any sign of vitality (Xuan 2008, p. 63). Liu Wu (劉武) (1883–1957) interprets it as “the heart-mind not run or troubled by anything”, echoing the “fasting of the heart-mind” (心齋 xin zhai) allegory in Chapter 4 (Wang and Liu 2018, p. 187). All these phrases describe Huzi’s lifeless state, in which he ceases all physical and mental activities and does not display any sign of vitality. This aligns with Stace’s introvertive mysticism, in which all empirical content, including sense perceptions, reasoning processes, and volitions, is excluded (Stace 1960, pp. 85–86). It also parallels what Otto describes as the “self-depreciation” or the “annihilation of the self” (Otto 1924, p. 21), as well as what Kohn identifies as the “purgative” stage of mysticism (Kohn 2014, p. 179).

One further agreement among scholars is that despite mystical experiences arriving in unpredictable epiphanic moments, there are methods and techniques to prepare the mystic for them. James considers that there could be “preliminary voluntary operations”, both physically and mentally, to facilitate mystical experiences (James [1902] 1936, pp. 370–71). Stace also acknowledges that there are methods and techniques that involve the “deliberate suppression of sensations, images, and thought” (Stace 1960, pp. 121–22). In the case of the Zhuangzi, in addition to the direct description of the lifeless state in the Huzi allegory, the Lady Yu allegory provides a detailed “purgative” procedure to attain this state, as follows:

After I kept at him for three days, he was able to externalize the realm under heaven. After externalizing the realm under heaven, I kept at him for another seven days, and he was able to externalize things. After externalizing things, I kept at him for another nine days, and he was able to externalize life.

(Z 57–58; G 87; HY 17/6/39–40)

This involves a series of “externalization” (外 wai) practices.5 The first is “externalizing the realm under heaven” (外天下 wai tian xia). Here “the realm under heaven” refers to all things and affairs in the world. They are relatively remote from one’s everyday life and thus are the first to be relinquished in the procedure. The second is “externalizing things” (外物 wai wu). The immediate things and affairs in the mystic’s everyday life are more difficult to relinquish. The third is “externalizing life” (外生 wai sheng). This refers to the deepest externalization of all life activities, including not only one’s physical body but also all contents of the heart-mind.6 These practices of “externalization” precisely align with Roth’s “apophatic practice” of emptying out one’s mind and life in the Zhuangzi (Roth 1999, p. 154). The sequence of externalizing “the realm under heaven”, “things”, and “life” also aligns with the two purgation stages in Underhill’s process: first, the purgation and disinvolvement of external affairs and second, “dark soul in the night” as the purgation of one’s self-consciousness (Underhill 1912, pp. 205–6). The final result of the externalization and purgation, then, is the complete annihilation of all physical and mental contents of one’s life, the complete blockage of any sign of vitality.

3. The “Revitalizing-Unitive” Stage: Soil of Heaven, Impulsion of the Good, and Seeing the Solitude

In the mysticism literature, what follows the purgative stage is not total nihilism but an affirmative state of deeper self-consciousness. This is conceptualized as the “undifferentiated union” of “introvertive mysticism” by Stace, the “union” stage by Underhill, and the “pure consciousness event” by Forman (Stace 1960; Underhill 1912; Forman 1990). Roth also points out that the apophatic practice in the Zhuangzi leads to the union with the Dao, as explained in phrases such as “attaining the One”, “attaining the empty Way”, and “merging with the Great Pervasion” (Roth 2015, pp. 112–13). How do the two allegories depict the subsequent stage? Is there a similar transition to the affirmative and unitive experience of introvertive mysticism, or does it exhibit further richness and intricacy?

3.1. “Soil of Heaven” as Revitalization from the Lifeless: The Central Paradox of Introvertive Mysticism

In the Huzi allegory, after the lifeless state, there comes the stage of revitalization, as follows:

The next day, Liezi brought the shaman to see Huzi again. He came out and said, “A lucky thing your master happened to meet me! He’s recovering, there are healthy signs of life! I could see his adaptation from blockage”. Liezi went in and reported this to Huzi, who said, “Just now I showed him the soil of heaven. Names and substances had not found a way in, and the impulsion was arising from the heels. He must have seen in me the impulsion of the good. Try bringing him again”.

(Z 70–71; G 97; HY 20/7/22–24)

This is first explained by the phrase “adaptation from blockage” (杜權 du quan). Using the same verb, “block” (杜 du), this phrase is closely related to the “impulsion to block virtue” of the first stage. Lin Xiyi interprets it as the “impulsion of movement”, a sign of the re-emergence of vitality from the lifeless state (Lin 1997, p. 132). The second phrase is “soil of heaven” (天壤 tian rang). According to Guo Xiang郭象 (c. 252–312), unlike the purely static and unmoving “pattern of earth” in the first stage, there is emergence of movement to respond to the world in the “soil of heaven” (Guo 2006, p. 301). The third phrase is “the impulsion arises from the heels” (機發於踵 ji fa yu zhong). Liu Wu interprets this phrase as the initial emergence of vital energy in the bodily cultivation of the mystic (Wang and Liu 2018, p. 190). Cheng Xuanying interprets it as the silent root of the body that eventually leads to the impulsion toward movement, the energy-flowing state of the “soil of heaven” (Guo 2006, p. 301).

All these phrases seem to convey a two-sided argument: on the one hand, the lifeless state of “earth” is not the ending stage, and it would revitalize as the state of “heaven”; on the other hand, it is only through the lifeless state of “earth” that the great vitality of “heaven” could be restored. This precisely echoes the central paradox in Stace’s introvertive mysticism: the obliteration of all empirical contents of one’s life does not lead to total nihilism but to the affirmative state of the pure self or the universal self, filled with vitality (Stace 1960, pp. 85–86, 110). It also aligns with Underhill’s argument that the purgation of the self does not lead to its annihilation but to the “transformation of the self” infused with “super-sensible vitality” (Underhill 1912, p. 208).

3.2. “Impulsion of the Good”: Connecting the Inward Self to the Outward Reality

The revitalization state of the mystic seems to refer to an inward experience of the self. Indeed, according to Stace’s classification, “introvertive mysticism” is about the state of one’s self-consciousness, while “extrovertive mysticism” is about the truth of the external world (Stace 1960, p. 132). The former focuses on the subjective experience of the self, while the latter provides the objective assurance of the world. Forman also defines a “Pure Consciousness Event” (PCE) as “a wakeful though contentless (nonintentional) consciousness, and “there is no awareness of the external world per se” (Forman 1990, p. 8). Here the introvertive experience of the self and extrovertive truth of the world are considered to be separate rather than connected.

Yet, the division between the inward self and the outward reality is not well warranted. In fact, when James attributes “noetic quality” to the state of consciousness in mystical experience (James [1902] 1936, pp. 370–71), he already provides a bridge between the state of consciousness and the truth of reality. In perennial philosophy, the universal self is simultaneously the ultimate reality of the world (Kohn 2014, p. 179; Huxley 1946, p. 68). Even Stace himself also considers the “universal self” in introvertive mysticism identical to the “universal life” of all things in extrovertive mysticism (Stace 1960, pp. 90, 133). In this sense, the inward experience of the self is deeply connected to the outward truth of the world. What the mystic attains is not only the inward experience of his true self but also the revelation of the ultimate truth of the world.

The question for us now is as follows: Is the revitalization state in the Zhuangzi only about the inward experience of the self, or does it also reveal the truth of the external world? According to Underhill, the purgation of external affairs leads to the illumination of the external world, and the purgation of the inward consciousness leads to the unitary self-consciousness (Underhill 1912, pp. 205–7). Since stage one of the allegories already purifies both external things and self-consciousness, it should already prepare the mystic to reveal both truth of the world and truth of the self in this stage.

Indeed, in the second stage of the Huzi allegory, the mystic experiences not only the vitality of his own self but also the vitality of the world. This is presented by the phrase “impulsion of the good” (善者機 shan zhe ji). Most commentators interpret this phrase as not only the mystic’s own source of life but also the source of life for all things in the world. For example, Chen Xiangdao 陳祥道 (1042–1093) regards it as the mystic’s embodiment of the Dao as the ceaseless source that generates all life of the world (Chu 2014, p. 255). Cheng Xuanying and Xuan Ying further take “the good” to be traced back to the Book of the Change, which claims that “One Yin and one Yang is called ‘Dao’. That which continues it is ‘good,’ that which completes it is ‘nature’”.7 Here “the good” refers to the continuation from the Dao, the source of all things through the alternating movement of Yin and Yang.

The commentators’ interpretations are also supported by Chapter 6, in which the Zhuangzi claims that the “Great Clump” (大塊 da kuai, another expression of the Dao) treats all states of life as “good”. This includes “that which treats my life good is that which treats my death good”, and “good to die young and good to grow old, good to begin and good to end”. Here the Dao’s “good” treatment of life refers not only to all of “my” life activities but also to “the great realness of the eternity of things” (恆物之大情 heng wu zhi da qing). It is where “the ten thousand transformations” (萬化 wan hua) “never begin to have a limit” and where “all things are present” and “nothing can escape” (Z 56; G 86; HY 16/6/24-29). “The good” thus refers to the Dao’s good treatment of all states in the life-death transformations of all things, including, but not limited to, the mystic’s own life.8 In this sense, the “impulsion of the good” refers not only to the mystic’s own source of life but also to the ultimate source of all life in the world. The revitalization state thus reveals not only the truth of the self but also the truth of the world.

3.3. “Dawn Breakthrough”: Illuminating the Self and the World

The Lady Yu allegory presents a similar transition to revitalization, as follows:

After externalizing life, he was able to attain dawn breakthrough. After dawn breakthrough, he was able to see the solitude.

(Z 58; G 87; HY 17/6/40–41)

The first phrase in this stage is “dawn breakthrough” (朝徹 zhao che), which is an experientially vivid metaphor for the turning from annihilation to revitalization. Lü Huiqing 呂惠卿 (1032–1111) points out that it is through the previous procedure of “externalization” that the mystic reaches the breakthrough of dawn light (Chu 2014, p. 203). The message of “dawn breakthrough” is thus two-fold: first, it is only after a whole night of lifeless darkness that dawn light could eventually break through; second, what awaits darkness is not complete nihilism but the light of dawn shining through. The image of dawn light thus echoes the phrase “dazzling obscurity” as the paradoxical co-existence of darkness and illumination in the mystical experience (Stace 1960, p. 97).

“Dawn breakthrough” is not only the revitalization of the mystic’s own self but also the illumination of all things in the world. According to Xuan Ying, rather than outshining the vividness of things, the clarifying light of dawn acts to illuminate all things as they are (Xuan 2008, p. 53). In this sense, the illumination of dawn light is a metaphoric image for the illumination of the Dao, clarifying all things without outshining them. Zhao Yifu 趙以夫 (1189–1256) further points out that dawn light is “complete” as it embraces all the brightness of sunlight to shine through all things for the entire day (Chu 2014, p. 205). In this sense, not only does dawn light cover the breadth of all things in the entire realm but it also penetrates deeply to reveal all their truths. Therefore, when the mystic visualizes dawn light, he does not only experience the revitalization of his own life but also embodies the Dao as the all-illuminating source of all things.

3.4. “See the Solitude”: Absolute Oneness of the Self and the Dao

While the previous metaphors stress the “revitalization” aspect of mysticism, the next phrase in the Lady Yu allegory, “see the solitude” (見獨 jian du, see the Oneness), depicts the “unitive” or “Oneness” aspect of mysticism. According to Stace, there is a crucial difference between the two types of mysticism. In introvertive mysticism, the mystic experiences pure Oneness as his own self-consciousness, while in extrovertive mysticism, he experiences the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity as the truth of reality (Stace 1960, p. 132). In other words, pure Oneness is only experienced as the inward truth of the self but not as the outward truth of reality. In the Zhuangzi case, however, the phrase “see the solitude” presents a different picture: pure Oneness is simultaneously presented as the inward experience of the self and as the outward truth of the world.

The word “solitude” (獨 du, one) first refers to the “independence” of the self, the pure version of the self that is independent of any condition. According to Guo Xiang, when the mystic stops to use his heart-mind in any situation or with anything he encounters, he sees the solitude (Guo 2006, p. 254). It is by freeing himself from dependence on all his living conditions that the mystic grasps the true “solitude” of his pure self. Furthermore, “solitude” or “independence” is not only the mystic’s attainment of his pure self, but also the characteristic of the absolute Dao. According to Cheng Xuanying, the ultimate Dao manifests in the form of solitude, in which there is cessation of all dependencies of the world (Guo 2006, p. 254). In this sense, when the mystic “sees the solitude”, he not only becomes independent of his own living conditions but also embodies the absolute truth of reality, independent of the empirical world.9

The experience of “independence” further extends to the experience of “Oneness”. When the mystic purifies his self-consciousness from all dependencies of the world, his self-consciousness is no longer divided by the multiplicity of things and conditions, and thus he attains “Oneness” as the pure and unitary consciousness of himself. Moreover, “Oneness” is not only the unitary consciousness of himself but also the unitary truth of the world. According to Xuan Ying, when the mystic sees the “solitude”, he also sees the “Oneness” of the Dao (Xuan 2008, p. 53). Chen Xiangdao explains that the absolute Oneness of the Dao transcends any dualistic oppositions of the world (Chu 2014, p. 204). As duality is the deepest construct that human beings rely on to distinguish the world, the elimination of duality would also lead to the elimination of any multiplicity of things in the world. In this sense, “solitude” refers to the mystic’s embodiment of the Dao, the absolute Oneness that transcends any dualistic or pluralistic distinctions of things. This is precisely what Stace considers “the absolute unity from which all multiplicity has been excluded” (Stace, p. 106). Therefore, unlike Stace, who holds that Oneness is only manifested as the inward consciousness of the self, in the state of “solitude”, “Oneness” is manifested simultaneously as the inward consciousness of the self and the outward truth of reality.

3.5. Characteristics of the Revitalizing-Unitive Stage

In summary, the second stage of the two allegories presents a transition from the lifeless state to the revitalizing state. In the Huzi allegory, it is first presented as the revitalization of one’s own self, and then as the “impulsion of the good”, the source of all life in the world, including but not limited to one’s own. In the Lady Yu allegory, it is first presented as the illuminating “dawn breakthrough” that clarifies and embraces all things in the world, and then as “seeing the solitude”, in which Oneness is experienced both as the unitary self-consciousness and the unitary truth of reality. In both allegories, revitalization and Oneness are presented simultaneously as the truth of the self and the truth of reality, challenging the boundary between introvertive mysticism and extrovertive mysticism established by Stace.

Our next question is as follows: How is this revitalizing-unitive stage experienced by the mystic? Is it experienced in bliss, beatitude, ecstasy, awe, sublimity, or tranquility? Scholars have conducted a wide variety of discussions on this topic. Otto explains that mystical experiences may arrive “like a gentle tide”, “with a tranquil mood of deepest worship”, as a “lasting attitude of the soul” that is “vibrant and resonant”, or as something that may “burst” in “excitements”, “frenzy”, or “ecstasy” (Otto 1924, pp. 12–13). Underhill regards the “union” state of consciousness as a “state of equilibrium”, characterized by “enhanced powers”, “intense certitude”, and “peaceful joy” rather than an increasing degree of ecstasy (Underhill 1912, p. 207). Kohn points out that there are “deep trance states of self-loss in ecstasy as well as free soring to new heights in ecstasy” in the Zhuangzi (Kohn 2014, p. 184).

Although the allegories do not provide explicit depictions of this issue, we could make a few inferences here. First, compared to the lifeless stage, the revitalization stage in the Huzi allegory probably entails a certain level of energy and vitality. When the mystic experiences the “impulsion of the good”, the intensity of vitality is probably enhanced, as it is not only the mystic’s own vitality but also the vitality of all things in the world. Moreover, since it is the impulsion of “the good”, it is more likely to be a warm and amicable form of power rather than a dreadful, awe-inspiring form of power. It aligns more with what Otto calls the “fascinans” aspect rather than the “tremendum” aspect of the mystical experience (mysterium tremendum et fascinans) (Otto 1924, pp. 12, 35). Complementarily, the second stage of the Lady Yu allegory probably provides an experience of clarity and calmness. With dawn light illuminating all things in the world, the mystic probably experiences a level of illumination and clarity. When the mystic experiences the “solitude” as the Oneness of the self and the Oneness of the Dao, he is more likely to be in tranquility and calmness rather than ecstatic rupture of emotion or inspiration. The two allegories, with the warm and amicable experience of vitality and “the good” and the calm and tranquil experience of clarity and Oneness, provide two complementary types of experience for the unitive stage.

4. The “Reconciliation” Stage: Oneness and Multiplicity, Timelessness and Motionlessness

The unitive stage is usually considered the superior form or the final stage of mysticism (Stace 1960, p. 132; Underhill 1912, p. 206). However, according to Roth’s “bimodal” argument, the Zhuangzi does not stop at the unitive experience of the self, the introvertive type of mysticism, but goes further to respond to the things and situations in the world, the extrovertive type of mysticism (Roth 2010). The two allegories roughly follow the same pattern. Subsequent to the second “revitalizing-unitive” stage, there comes the third “reconciliation” stage, with the former placing greater emphasis on the inward aspect of the self and the latter placing greater emphasis on the outward aspect of reality. Nevertheless, in both stages, the inward and outward elements are deeply connected rather than separable. What we will see in this stage is a deeper relation between the introvertive and extrovertive elements of mysticism, as well as more illuminating insights into the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity as the truth of reality.

4.1. Emptiness and Sublimity: The Inward Experience of Taichong and the Abyss

Stage three of the Huzi allegory is as follows:

The next day, Liezi brought the shaman to see Huzi again. He came out and told Liezi, “Your master is an incoherent mess, I have no way to read his face. Have him get himself together, then I’ll come back to do a reading”. Liezi went in and reported this to Huzi, who said, “Just now I showed him the ultimate emptiness un-triumphed by anything. He must have seen in me the impulsion to balance vital energies. That which big fish concentrate is abyss. That which still water concentrates is abyss. That which flowing water concentrates is abyss. Abyss has nine names, and here are three of them. Try bringing him again”.

(Z 71; G 97; HY 20/7/24–27)

This stage starts with the depiction of the mystic’s experience of Taichong (太沖) (ultimate emptiness). According to Guo Xiang, when the mystic dwells in the grand and ultimate emptiness, he becomes the embodiment of the empty and silent Dao, displaying no explicit activities of his heart-mind (Guo 2006, p. 302). Taichong is thus not only the emptiness of the mystic’s own self but also his embodiment of the emptiness of the Dao. The experience of Taichong is a state of tranquility and peace rather than an intense feeling of ecstasy. This aligns with Roth’s argument that tranquility and emptiness are the defining characteristics of Daoist mysticism (Roth 2015, p. 99). It also fits well with Fischer’s “hypoarousal state” of the mystical experience, in which cognitive and physiological activities are at low levels, as contrasted with their high levels in the “hyperarousal” state (Fischer 1980, pp. 270–85).

Another depiction at this stage is the “abyss” (淵 yuan) metaphor. The first meaning of abyss is silence and emptiness, echoing the phrase Taichong (Guo 2006, p. 303). The second meaning that the abyss entails is deepness and sublimity. According to Otto, there are three essential characteristics of “the sublime”: first, it is unfathomable and beyond explication; second, its greatness is more than its sheer magnitude; and third, it is simultaneously both daunting and attracting, inducing both fear and rejoicing (Otto 1924, pp. 42–43). This echoes Cheng Xiangdao’s commentary to the abyss metaphor: with the concentration of water, the abyss produces tremendous thickness and deepness beyond the finitude of the mystic (Chu 2014, p. 256). It could then evoke a certain sense of sublimity, with enormous awe and enormous blessings simultaneously.

4.2. From Emptiness to Reconciliation: The “Transfiguration” of Reality

The inward experience of the mystic is not only about emptiness, tranquility, or sublimity, but also about reconciliation, harmony, and bliss. Xuan Ying takes Taichong not only as emptiness but also as the flow of vital energy that reconciles and harmonizes all things (Xuan 2008, p. 64). This echoes the Zhuangzi’s depiction of the sage “interacting with things like spring” (與物為春 yu wu wei chun) in Chapter 5: when the sage reconciles the things he encounters, both he and the things will be in ultimate harmony and bliss, like springtime.

Note that what is achieved here is not only a blissful experience of the mystic himself but also the reconciliation of things in the world. In this sense, the Zhuangzi provides a deeper connection between the inward and outward aspects of mysticism. Not only are the inward consciousness of the self and the outward truth of the world related, but the inward consciousness actually shapes or “transfigures” the reality of things by reconciling them. According to Stace, “transfiguration” is the defining characteristic of extrovertive mysticism. It is through the mystic’s experience of the self that the things in the world are “transfigured” to reveal their truth (Stace 1960, p. 69). Similar arguments to “transfiguration” could also be found in the scholarship on the Zhuangzi. For example, Yearley regards the mysticism in the Zhuangzi as “intraworldly”: it seeks “to see the world in a new way, to reorient its perception of the world” (Yearley 1983, p. 131). Allinson also points out that self-transformation in the Zhuangzi is not only for the transcendental experience itself but also for the “transevaluation” of the world (Allinson 1986, p. 435). Mou Zongsan (牟宗三) even considers “realm metaphysics” (境界形而上学 jing jie xing er shang xue) to be the defining characteristic of Daoist metaphysics: as the embodiment of the Dao, the sage’s spiritual realm manifests as both “emptiness” (無 wu) and “infinite marvelous uses” (無限妙用 wu xian miao yong), with the latter giving rise to the ten thousand things by fully actualizing them in their proper unfolding (Mou 2005, pp. 81–84; 2006, pp. 152–54). In the Huzi allegory, as we shall see below, the experiences of emptiness and reconciliation do not stay within the mystic’s own self but reach out to “transfigure reality” by reconciling the things in the world.

4.3. Reconciliation of Duality and Multiplicity

The allegory then goes on to elaborate on how the transfiguration and reconciliation of things are possible. This is mainly presented by two metaphors. First is the “impulsion to balance vital energies” (衡氣機 heng qi ji) as the balancing and reconciliation of any duality constituted by the Yin energy and the Yang energy.10 Here, Yin and Yang are the symbolic representations of any duality, with the former referring to the lower, dark, soft, feminine, lifeless side and the latter referring to the upper, bright, strong, masculine, vital side. With neither Yin nor Yang triumphing (莫勝 mo sheng) over the other, the mystic achieves the reconciliation of any duality arising from the world (Wang and Liu 2018, p. 192).

The reconciliation of duality is also expressed in the “three abysses” metaphor. In addition to the meaning of deepness and sublimity, the “abyss” metaphor actually exists in three different forms: the first abyss is where “big fish concentrate” (鯢桓之審ni huan zhi shen), the second abyss is where “still water concentrates” (止水之審 zhi shui zhi shen), and the third abyss is where “flowing water concentrates” (流水之審 liu shui zhi shen). According to Cheng Xuanying, the abyss of still water refers to the first lifeless stage, the abyss of flowing water refers to the second revitalization stage, and the abyss of big fish refers to the current stage as the reconciliation of the previous two (Guo 2006, p. 303). The “three abysses” metaphor thus brings the lifeless stage and the revitalization stage into harmonious reconciliation with each other.

Building upon the reconciliation of duality, the metaphors of vital energy (氣 qi) and the abyss could be further extended to the reconciliation of the multiplicity of things. As the universal constituent of all things, qi has the power to open things up, make their boundaries fluid, reconcile their conflicts, and eventually connect them together. In this way, qi not only balances and reconciles things, but also unifies all things into Oneness. Yet, as the constitutive element of all things, qi also fully respects the specific and unique characteristics of each thing, as manifested in the different compositions and concentrations of qi. It thus leads to the recognition of each thing, with its unique identity and boundary. In this sense, what the “impulsion to balance qi” achieves is not the grand equalization of things in an undifferentiated totality but the recognition of the pluralistic manifestations of things and their transformations. Lin Yidu (林疑獨) (fl. 1085) points out that the ultimate “Oneness” and “equalization” of the ten thousand things lie precisely in the “un-equalization” or “un-levelness” of them (Chu 2014, p. 255). Therefore, in the “impulsion to balance qi”, both multiplicity and Oneness are present. On the one hand, qi fully respects the different manifestations and transformations of things; on the other hand, qi also balances, equalizes, and reconciles their differences into Oneness. Thanks to the differentiating and unifying capacity of qi, the unique features of each thing and the universalizing Oneness among them are simultaneously present.

The “three abysses” metaphor also provides the reconciliation of the multiplicity of things. According to Wang Fuzhi (王夫之) (1619–1692), the abyss is a metaphor for the mystic’s embodiment of the Dao as the great container of all things (Wang 2009, p. 105). In this sense, the “abyss” metaphor also has the meaning of a container or “reservoir” (Ziporyn 2020, p. 71). Things contained in the abyss are in their un-emergent potentialities and are thus equalized and unified in Oneness. Yet, when things develop into their actualities, they would then display their distinct identities and boundaries. This is expressed by the first abyss, where “big fish concentrate”. Lin Yidu interprets this metaphor as the equalization of all things while recognizing their uniqueness and un-equalness (Chu 2014, p. 255). When fish (things) are contained in the abyss, they are equalized and unified in their un-emergent potentialities. When they emerge from the abyss, they could appear in any position of the water, with all positions (all actualities of things) equally granted and reconciled with each other. In this sense, the abyss argument also provides the “reconciliation” argument in which Oneness and the multiplicity of things are simultaneously present.

Indeed, the reconciliation of things into Oneness while also preserving their multiplicity is agreed upon in the scholarship on the Zhuangzi. Allinson argues that in the Zhuangzi, there is both the immediate grasp of the Whole and the understanding of things in their distinctions (Allinson 1989, pp. 44–45). Ziporyn points out that the Zhuangzi both seeks Oneness and preserves distinctions and multiplicity (Ziporyn 2003, pp. 53–55). This also echoes the defining characteristic of extrovertive mysticism by Stace: “all the objects manifested, or possessed, one life while at the same time they did not cease to be individuals” (Stace 1960, pp. 65–68).

Yet, one crucial argument that Stace makes is that Oneness or pure unity in introvertive mysticism is superior to the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity in extrovertive mysticism (Stace 1960, p. 132). Similarly, in the process view of mysticism, the illuminative extrovertive stage comes before the unitive introvertive stage, with the latter to be the superior and last stop of mysticism (Underhill 1912, pp. 205–6). In the two allegories of the Zhuangzi, however, the reconciliation stage comes after the unitive stage. The co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity is a further development after the pure unitary experience of Oneness. Here is the remarkable feature that differentiates the Zhuangzi’s mysticism from Stace’s and Underhill’s: while all things could be unified into Oneness, it is the reconciliation of them upon their distinctiveness and multiplicity that serves as the next stage in the mysticism process. The co-presence of multiplicity and Oneness, rather than the pure and undifferentiated Oneness, is the next step and the superior form in this journey.

4.4. Timelessness and Motionlessness

While stage three of the Huzi allegory provides the reconciliation of things, stage three of the Lady Yu allegory provides the reconciliation of time and motion, as follows:

After seeing the solitude, he was able to enter into the state of no past and present. After the state of no past and present, he was able to enter into the state of no destruction and generation. That which kills life is not destructed, that which generates life is not generated.

(Z 58; G 87; HY 17/6/41–42)

In the Lady Yu allegory, the reconciliation of time and motion follows from the state of “the solitude”. When the mystic embodies the Oneness of the Dao, there is “no past and present” (无古今 wu gu jin), i.e., the complete elimination of any distinction between past and present. Time ceases to be the innumerable discrete pairs of past and present and becomes the undifferentiated and ceaseless flow of continuity. The discrete temporal units are all merged into the indivisible unity or Oneness. Lü Huiqing points out that the phrase “no past and present” echoes the phrase “participate in the ten thousand years and merge them into pure Oneness” (參萬歲而一成純 can wan sui er yi cheng chun) in Chapter 2 of the Zhuangzi (Chu 2014, p. 203). Note here that the experience of timelessness is not only presented in the mystic’s consciousness but also “transfigures” the truth of reality. With the cessation of the distinction between past and present, the innumerable discrete temporal units return to the ceaseless eternal flow of time.

The elimination of the distinction of time further leads to the elimination of the distinction of “destruction and generation” (不死不生 bu si bu sheng). The generation and destruction of things necessarily operate upon the division of time. When temporal distinction ceases to work, there will no longer be any remaining distinction between generation and destruction arising along the timeline. In this sense, Oneness of time not only erases the distinction of time, but also the distinction between the generation and destruction of all things that is deeply built upon temporal distinction. As Chen Xiangdao interprets it, when all distinctions of time are merged into the indivisible Oneness, all generation and destruction of things are also merged into Oneness (Chu 2014, p. 204). By joining the undifferentiated, ceaseless, and continuous flow of time, all generation and destruction of things, as well as their motion and transformation, become undifferentiated and unified into Oneness.

The Lady Yu allegory and the Huzi allegory thus provide complementary perspectives on how the mystic’s “transfiguration of reality” is possible through two types of “reconciliation”. In the Huzi allegory, the distinction of multiplicity is the fundamental “spatial” distinction of things. It is reconciled “positively” in the sense that Oneness is achieved by affirming the distinction of things rather than eliminating it. This echoes what Stace describes as the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity in extrovertive mysticism. Complementarily, in the Lady Yu allegory, “past and present” are the fundamental “temporal” distinctions, and “generation and destruction” are the fundamental distinctions of motion built upon temporal distinctions. Time and motion are reconciled “negatively” in the sense that Oneness is achieved through the “elimination” of the distinctions of time and motion.11 This echoes what Stace describes as “timelessness” and “motionlessness” in the pure Oneness state of introvertive mysticism (Stace 1960, pp. 99, 109). In this sense, with the mystic’s “transfiguration of reality”, the reconciliation of the world is presented both as the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity (of things’ spatial distinction) and as pure Oneness (of time and of motion). The boundary between pure Oneness in introvertive mysticism and the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity in extrovertive mysticism no longer holds.

4.5. Characteristics of the Reconciliation Stage

Stage three of the two allegories deepen our understanding of mysticism in the Zhuangzi. Not only are the inward experience of the self and the outward truth of reality closely related, the emptiness of the mystic could even “transfigure” the truth of reality. This includes the reconciliation of the duality and multiplicity of things into Oneness while recognizing their distinctiveness, as well as the reconciliation of time and motion into Oneness. Therefore, Oneness is presented not only as the inward experience of the self, but also as the outward truth of reality, encompassing its manifestations in space, time, and motion. Yet, Oneness is not the last stop of mysticism but goes further to the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity of things. The reconciliation stage is superior to the unitive stage.

Speaking from the “experiential” perspective, although the Zhuangzi does not explicitly present it, both the unitive stage and the reconciliation stage are likely to manifest as intuitive and spontaneous experiences rather than conceptual or logical analysis. What the mystic experiences is his spontaneous union with the Dao and the intuitive revelation of the truth of himself and reality. Yet, they might come with different levels of intensity and duration. According to Forman, the state of consciousness in introvertive mysticism is more likely to be experienced in a transient moment, while the truth of reality in extrovertive mysticism is more likely to be experienced in a prolonged period of time (Forman 1990, p. 8). This could be the experiential difference between pure Oneness and the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity. The “solitude” of Oneness and the “impulsion of the good” in stage two, as well as the Oneness of timelessness and motionlessness in stage three, are more likely to manifest as intense but transient experiences. In contrast, the tranquil emptiness of the self and the reconciliation of things as the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity are more likely to manifest as less intense but more lasting experiences.

5. The “Returning” Stage: Deconstruction of the Unitary Dao and Following the Multiplicity of Things

We have argued that the Zhuangzi does not stop at the stage of Oneness but goes further to the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity. Yet, the Zhuangzi does not stop there either but goes further to totally deconstruct the unitary Dao and return to the multiplicity of things in the world. This is expressed in the last stage of the Huzi allegory, as follows:

The next day Liezi brought the shaman to see Huzi again. But before the shaman had even come to a halt before him, he lost control of himself and ran away. Huzi said, “Go after him!” But Liezi could not catch up with him. He returned and reported to Huzi, “He’s vanished. He’s lost. I couldn’t catch up”. Huzi said, “Just now I showed him the unbegun-to-emerge-from-my-source. I and he both are a vacuity that is nonetheless serpentine in its twistings, unknowing who or what we were, following the multiple manifestations of things, following the endless relations and fluid transformations of things like waves. This is why he fled”.

(Z 71; G 97; HY 20/7/27–21/7/29)

This stage is characterized by the phrase “unbegun to emerge from my source” (未始出吾宗 wei shi chu wu zong). Here, “my source” is not only the source of “my” life but also the source of all things in the world. It refers to the Dao, i.e., the absolute source of both my life and all things in the world. By “unbegun to emerge from”, it means that nothing ever emerges outside the Dao, and nothing is not the manifestation of the Dao. In other words, all things, no matter good or bad, right or wrong, high or low, are embraced by the Dao. This is why Kohn stresses that the Dao in the Zhuangzi is “so immanent that is even in the soil and tiles” (Kohn 1992, p. 11). However, our phrase goes further: since nothing ever emerges outside the Dao, there would no longer be any need to retain the Dao as the externally standing transcendental source outside the things. This would lead to a paradoxical conclusion about the Dao: on the one hand, the Dao is immanent, ubiquitous, and omni-present in all things; on the other hand, its omni-presence ironically leads to the very deconstruction of its own existence.

The deconstruction of the transcendental Dao then returns the power to the things in the world. It grants the deepest ontological affirmation and legitimacy to the spontaneity (自然 zi ran) of things themselves. All things, with their conditions, constraints, and limitations, are granted with the deepest and fullest ontological affirmation by their inclusiveness within the Dao. This echoes Hansen’s rejection of the transcendental and Monistic Dao and acceptance of the pluralistic “daos”: it is in the distinctive and pluralistic “daos” of all things and all perspectives that the Dao in the Zhuangzi is manifested and actualized (Hansen 1992, pp. 268–69, 286–88).

With the deconstruction of the transcendental Dao and the ontological affirmation of all things in the world, the mystic follows the same principle. With his own life emptied out like the deconstructed Dao, the mystic “follows” (因 yin) the spontaneity of things without imposing his heart-mind on them. The “spontaneity” of things includes the pluralistic and multiple manifestations of things (地靡 di mi), as well as the endless relations and fluid transformations of things (波流 bo liu). This aligns with Roth’s “flowing cognition”, in which the mystic responds spontaneously and fluidly to all things and situations in the world (Roth 2015, p. 112). The mystic simply follows all things in their various manifestations and transformations, and in their proper timings and conditions.

By deconstructing the Dao and providing ontological affirmation to all things, there is no longer any transcendental Dao as the ultimate source with which the mystic seeks to unify. This is definitely a rebellion against what most scholars characterize as the very goal of mysticism itself: the pursuit of union with a transcendental power beyond the empirical world. In the Zhuangzi, while the previous three stages seek to transcend the empirical world and the empirical self to reach for the transcendental and absolute Dao, in the last stage, we see the total deconstruction of the Dao and the return to the things in the world. This could be considered the greatest paradox of the Zhuangzi’s mysticism: the journey of mysticism eventually leads to the very deconstruction of mysticism itself.

Specifically, on the issue of Oneness and multiplicity: the deconstruction of the transcendental Dao is the deconstruction of Oneness, and the return to the empirical world is the return to the multiplicity of things. Unlike Stace’s view that Oneness is superior to multiplicity, in the mysticism of the Zhuangzi, we see a bi-directional path: first, the “ascending” path from the multiplicity of the empirical things and the empirical self (stage one) to Oneness (stage two); and then, the “descending” path from Oneness (stage two) to the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity (stage three), and eventually to the total deconstruction of Oneness and the complete return to the multiplicity of things themselves (stage four). In this bi-directional path, Oneness is no longer the superior and final stop of the journey but eventually returns its power to the multiplicity of things.

Nevertheless, the previous stages still provide illuminating insights for the last stage. Roth argues that when the mystic returns from the unitary experience to the ordinary world, he brings a transformed consciousness with cognitive improvement (Roth 2015, p. 100). In the two allegories, it is after the mystic seizes the unitary truth of himself and of the world (stage two) and recognizes the distinctiveness of things while simultaneously reconciling them into Oneness (stage three), he is able not only to see things in their specific conditions but also to open them up for communication and reconciliation (stage four). Similarly, it is after the mystic seizes the true nature of the generation and destruction of life in the continuity of time (stage three), he is able to see the various transformations of things all participating in the same flow of time rather than isolated from each other (stage four). Therefore, with the mystical experience gained in the previous stages, the mystic is now able to go beyond the limited conditions of things, open them up for communication and exchange, find ways to resolve their conflicts, and possibly achieve balance and harmony among them.

Eventually, the mystic practices “non-action” (無為 wu wei) on the things. He does not exert his power on the things but simply allows them to manifest, connect, and transform themselves in their own way. “Non-action” not only allows the things to be unharmed by the mystic but also allows the mystic’s own life to be unharmed by the things. This is explained in the last stage of the Lady Yu allegory, as follows:

It is something that sends all things off and welcomes all things in, destroys all and completes all. Its name is Tumultuous Tranquility. What is “Tumultuous Tranquility” is that which gets involved in the tumultuous things and completes them all.

(Z 58; G 87; HY 17/6/42–43)

In this stage of “Tumultuous Tranquility” (攖寧 ying ning), the mystic returns to ordinary life and becomes involved in the tumultuous manifestations and transformations of things in the world. Yet, he remains tranquil and calm without being disturbed by the things. Moreover, the final outcome of this stage is not only the inward tranquility of the mystic but also the outward result of a flourishing world. When the mystic practices non-action, non-impediment, and non-imposition on things, all things are allowed to develop their spontaneity and potentiality to the fullest extent. Thus, what “Tumultuous Tranquility” achieves is to get involved in tumultuous things and complete all of them (攖而後成 ying er hou cheng). Eventually, by practicing “non-action” as the embodiment of the emptiness of the Dao, the mystic also achieves the magnificent result of the Dao: the flourishing of a spontaneous world of all things. Mysticism in the Zhuangzi does not seek a transcendental experience outside the world but offers a flourishing solution for it.12

6. Concluding Remarks

In this study, we have explored the mysticism in the Zhuangzi through the allegories of Huzi and Lady Yu. Together they provide a rich depiction of a four-stage process of the mystical experience. In the first “lifeless-purgative” stage, the mystic presents a lifeless state of himself, as well as a procedure of purgation to externalize the world and the self. In the second “revitalizing-unitive” stage, the mystic revitalizes from the lifeless state, and seizes the source of all life in the world, including but not limited to his own. He also sees the clarifying illumination of all things, as well as the true solitude of himself as the embodiment of the absolute Oneness of the Dao. In the third “reconciliation” stage, the inward emptiness of the mystic “transfigures” outward reality by reconciling the duality and multiplicity of things in the world. He also experiences timelessness and motionlessness as the inward experience of himself and as the ultimate truth of reality. Eventually, in the fourth “returning” stage, the transcendental Dao and absolute Oneness is deconstructed. With his inner tranquility undisturbed, the mystic follows the multiplicity of the spontaneity of things and accomplishes a flourishing world of all things.

The Zhuangzi also presents a wide variety of mystical experiences throughout the process. This includes the tenacious effort to purify oneself from the empirical world and the empirical self, the filling of energy and vibrancy in revitalization, the warm and amicable experience of the good source of all life, the clarifying illumination of dawn light, the independence and calmness in the solitude of Oneness, the tranquil and awe-inspiring emptiness of the true self, the ultimate bliss in the reconciliation and harmony of all things, the assuring certitude of timelessness and motionlessness that overcomes the deepest existential constraints of life, the undisturbed tranquility in returning to the multiplicity of things, and the magnificent accomplishment of a flourishing world. These diverse options greatly enhance our understanding of the rich possibilities of mysticism.

The Zhuangzi also provides a remarkable dialogue with the mysticism literature. First, Oneness is not necessarily the defining characteristic of introvertive mysticism but can also be experienced as the extrovertive truth of reality. Second, there is a deep connection between the introvertive experience of the self and the extrovertive truth of the world. Not only is the source of the self identical to the source of all things in the world, the mystic’s emptiness could even “transfigure” reality by reconciling the multiplicity of things into Oneness and harmony. Third, the Zhuangzi does not take the unitive stage as the final step in mysticism, but goes further to the reconciliation stage that features the co-presence of Oneness and multiplicity, and then further “degrades” to the total deconstruction of Oneness and the return to the multiplicity of things. In this way, it starts with the goal of transcending multiplicity and seeking Oneness, but eventually deconstructs Oneness, the very core of mysticism itself. The paradoxical process of the pursuit of Oneness and the return to multiplicity stands as the defining characteristic of the Zhuangzi’s mysticism.