Introduction

Here I will make an analysis on the philosophy of Mencius particularly focusing on his idea

on human nature. In general it is said, inadequately at least to me, that Mencius asserted

the view of human nature as intrinsically good. However, nowhere I could find he did so

forthrightly in the book of Mencius. Accordingly there should be a clarification on this point

from a philosophical point of view.

Conclusion or what I am aiming at in this paper first, what Mencius searched for is not the

decision on human nature good or bad but what human nature is like. Human nature is our

hidden spirit or the unconscious level of our psyche that is in one word our “true self” . It is

beyond our ordinary verbal expression.

So then in the philosophy of Mencius we can straightforwardly find some devastation of

verbal communications. That is because there is serious noesis-noematic extrication between

language and existence in his philosophy. I will clarify this philosophical modality from an

epistemological point of view in this paper.

In order to clarify this point I will take a look at the philosophy of Laotzu̶the Tao, since both

of these two philosophers shared the common profundity of their psyche and both struggled

hard to express what they attained in the verbal level, even though they are classified into two

different major philosophical schools in ancient China̶Taoism and Confucianism.

Mencius, and not to mention Laotzu, is not just a humanist nor is a “thinker” . We should

take special note that his apparently moderate assertion is based on his severe self cultivating

practice. So for now I will clarify his assertion as follows.

Mencius assertion on human nature

Mencius philosophical contemplation has its own profound background. But it is so

complicated and insightful that sometimes entails misapprehensions and misunderstandings

1

Human Nature [Hsing 性 ] and the Tao 道

―Philosophy of Mencius孟子 from the Viewpoint of Laotzu’s 老子 Tao―

TATENO Masami

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

since he was embodying his true self such as Laotzu’s 老子 Tao道 on one hand, and on the

other hand he had to describe it only in the domain of traditional Confucianism according to

the Confucius virtue such as Ren 仁 or Chongshu忠恕 .

It is the fact that he asserted so called “knowledge a-priori” [ Liangch’i 良 知 ] and “ability

in nature” [liangneng良能 ]in the Mencius Chinhsin shang尽心上 Chapter, and depicted that

human nature tends to take good direction like water tends to flow lower. However primarily

we should take special note on the fact that intrinsically he attained human nature by himself

and embodied his true self.

Mencius didn’t assert the view of human nature as intrinsically good expecting our good

sense. He just asserted what our human nature is like searching for our “nature” in the deep

blue realm of our psyche and embodying true self. That is to say, the most significant point

of his assertion was our “true self” . He just advocated the Confucius virtue such as Ren or

Chongshu based on our human nature vis. our true self.

To put it in another way, it is his most crucial point1 that we should plunge ourselves into the

deep blue realm of our psyche to embody our true self based on which he asserted “knowledge

a-priori” and “ability in nature” , and the theory of four buds (of virtue) 四端説 in the Kongsunch’

ou shang 公孫丑上 Chapter and the Kaotzu shang Chapter 告子上 in the Mencius.

I never declare that Mencius did not say our human nature is good. He merely admitted it

good as a theoretical formulation. We should clarify the most crucial point in his philosophy

is not “good or bad” of our human nature but is the “truth (true self)” since “good or bad” is

epistemologically only our daily phenomenal decision through our rational contemplation but

human “truth” is to be acquired by ourselves through our philosophical praxes ontologically

in the deepest level of our existence beyond the superficial domain of language. It is also the

fundamental gist to his “sage” 聖人 or “wise man” 君子 . Below is the typical description of his

philosophical modality about this in Kongsunch’ou shang Chapter in the Mencius:

Mencius said:

Each of us has a kind mind by nature which causes us to do good to the others. …

This is the reason why I asserted so:

Suppose that a baby is just about to fell in a well, and then everyone will save

him almost unconsciously or spontaneously. This is what I called “kind mind” or

“sympathy” . Accordingly there is no one without this mind. One without this mind is

not a human being. …2

Here in this quotation, Mencius asserts that everyone has this kind mind a-priori. The

2

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

philosophical point is that: Mencius derives the universal validity of our kind mind from our

almost unconscious behaver of saving a baby. In other words, he said that everyone will save

a baby, so everyone has the kind mind. And then he added to say “there is no one without this

mind. That is not a human being” . It seems theoretically valid, but precisely it is not a right

decision, since it is the fact that we do not save any baby without any education, so it is neither

a “spontaneous” behaver nor is that of “a-priori” . Primarily he does not have a will to adduce

proof to support his statement, but did he try to describe merely what he saw in his deep blue

realm of his psyche as his “true self” of Hsing性 .

He said right after the sentence above:

I have these four buds (of virtue) just like the beginning of burning fire or the first

flow of a well.

This explanation itself signifies that it is the metaphoric expression of the psychic procedure

in the deep blue realm of our unconsciousness. We can find the same ontological expressions

also in the Laotzu or Chuangtzu荘子 like as follows:

We see the dim light and hidden in the dust (of deep level of our unconscious psyche).

(Laotzu, Chapter4 and 56)

We cannot point the log by our fingers, but the fire continues the line forever.

(Chuangtzu, Yangshengchu 養生主 Chapter)

They are the typical expressions of some images in our psyche by the ascetics who are trying

to deepen their level of unconsciousness to attain the true self so called the Tao by Laotzu and

Chuangtzu.

As an antecedent study pointed out3, Mencius philosophy is based on a kind of selfcultivative

practice which deepen unconscious level of our psyche to acquire the true self though a physical

training of abdominal breathing such as Laotzu’s Wuwei 無為 as we would see later. Mencius

famous, but never understood appropriately, story of Haoran chih ch’i 浩然之気 is typically

expressing this psychological status of Mencius as follows:

(Mencius) said “I can grow Haoran chih ch’i.” One of his disciple asked “What is that?”

(Mencius) answered “I cannot say it. It’s out of our ordinary cognitive procedure, and

when we grow it correctly it fills all over the universe. (Mencius, Kongsunchou shang

3

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

Chapter)

Through praxis of breath of Haoran chih ch’i Mencius strained himself to attain his true self

as one of the most trustworthy phase of human nature. And he merely described it as it is what

he saw. However it was beyond his verbal expressions. As a result, so many misunderstandings

were coming out like floods. This is the reason why I assert that Mencius words should be

examined strictly from an ontological and further philosophical point of view4. So for now, we

should take a glance at Laotzu’s philosophy of the Tao, especially focusing at his Wuwei as a

selfcultivative practice as below.

Laotzu’s Tao and Wuwei as a selfcultivative practice

Laotzu’s Tao has traditionally been interpreted as transcendent in the sense of being beyond

our faculties of external sensory perception, and as a cosmogonic generative principle, and as

an essential moment of every possible phenomenon5. It is further commonly asserted that the

Tao is beyond our verbal description, and it is the reason why Laotzu himself writes: “The Tao

that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.” (Laotzu, Chapter1)

Laotzu’s Tao is beyond the reach of our sensory perception or cognition, and for this

reason it resists theoretical delineation. Being beyond knowledge acquired by cognition

based on sensory perception, the Tao is “something true” that we should attain through by

way of internal perception in the depth of our “psyche.” So we cannot make any sense of the

Tao through conceptual analysis, for such analysis is no more than a tautology or shuffling of

synonyms, making no sense.

Although epistemologically “transcendent,” beyond our cognition, Laotzu’s Tao is not

ontologically isolated from us. The Tao is some “thing” that involves us, and to be embodied

in ourselves in the depth of our psyche̶ our mind, consciousness, unconsciousness, and the

whole psychic entity--through the physical training of a selfcultivative regimen.

It is the reason why Laotzu, on one hand makes such provocative statements as:

One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know. (Laotzu, Chapter56)

And on the other hand, laments earnestly as follows:

My words are very easy to understand and easy to put into practice.

But there is no one to understand them, nor practice them. (Laotzu, Chapter70)

4

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

This suggests a view of “self-cultivation” [shu-gyo修行 ] as progressing further and further

into the depth of our “psyche” through a philosophical practice of a selfcultivative regimen

which is actually realized through the respiratory regulative method of abdominal respiration

(i.e. “stomach breathing” in Laotzu’s phraseology) and that this is the background of Laotzu’s

philosophy of the Tao.

When viewed epistemologically that is, in terms of his theory of knowledge, Laotzu’s

philosophical thought is amply based upon his view of the world, more precisely “a view of the

relativism.” Laotzu himself points out the relativity of this phenomenal world as follows:

All of us can acknowledge the beautiful things beautiful. But it is possible just because

there are the ugly things as a cognitive modality for the inference.

All of us can acknowledge the good things good. But it is possible just because of the

existence of the bad things.

These are the examples which are to hold with respect to the view of the relativism

viz. existence-nonexistence,easy-difficult,long-short,high-low,acoustic sounds-human

voices, before-after and so forth. (Laotzu, Chapter2)

Specifically, we recognize “beautiful things” as beautiful where we have “ugly things” to

compare them with to serve as the basis for the judgment of relative beauty. This modality of

relativism is also said to hold in these cases as to existence-non existence, easy-difficult, high-

low and so on. In other words, they can only be relatively “beautiful” , “good” , “existent,” and

so on.

Without “ugly” , “bad” or “non-existence” , there would be no possibility of “beautiful” , “good”

or “existence” . This implies that our cognitive function of our external sensory perception of

phenomena is carried out in a framework of the relativism such as “beautiful-ugly” , “good-bad” ,

“existence – non-existence” and so forth. Laotzu concludes that our ordinary subject-object

cognition, (Chih知 ) in ordinary epistemological subject-object cognition can never go beyond

the relative world of phenomena.

From here we can find Laotzu’s words of strict and self-restraint introspection about our

limited faculty of cognition as follows:

To know our not-knowing is the best (knowledge).

Not knowing the [limits of] our knowledge is a troublesome suffering.

If one makes clear sense of this suffering, he must be free from it.

A sage is free from this suffering for he knows what the suffering really is.

5

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

This is the reason why he is free from it. (Laotzu, Chapter71)

In this passage, Laotzu elucidates our limited cognition in the everyday phenomenal world.

We have to know that we can not know the eternal-universal, theoretically perfect-absolute

truth: Without this profound consideration, we will easily fall into the epistemological suffering.

So we should take this epistemological “suffering” or “suffering” of our cognitive function as

our own suffering plainly so that we may avoid it as sages do. This is Laotzu’s intention behind

his assertion.

In summery, so far as we remain in the daily phenomenal world, we are restricted by the

confines of relative frameworks of space and time, and object and subject, then we can never

reach the higher cognition of our true selves. Then, how can we do so? The Tao is Laotzu’s

answer.

Laotzu’s Tao from an epistemological view point

Laotzu asserts that we should rise far above this everyday phenomenal world and our

ordinary daily level of consciousness through our own practical self-cultivation in order to

embody the Tao in the depth of our psyche6. Laotzu suggests this in a terse and metaphorical

saying:

The five colors (of beautiful scenery) will blind eyes.

The five tones (of fine music) will deafen ears.

The five flavors (of delicious food) will spoil plates.

Racing and hunting will make men’s minds trigger madness.

Things rare and hard to get will injure men’s activities…

For this reason, the sage makes his stomach, but not his eyes; hence he discards the

other and secures this. (Laotzu, Chapter12)

Beautiful scenery, fine music, delicious food and joyful racing and hunting enchant us in

this phenomenal everyday world. But they are possible only instantaneously as outgrowths

of relativity. These fleeting pleasures manifest just at one place and at one moment. In other

words, they could be pleasures only relatively - not eternally nor universally. Furthermore,

trying to hold on to them will hurt our eyes, ears, mouths and minds.

This is why the sage is not concerned with his eyes, perceives not through his eyes but

through his stomach. Laotzu’s phraseology of “to make his stomach” is not a metaphorical

expression for something metaphysical or something immanent. Instead, the “stomach” refers

6

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

to stomach as it actually is. That is, the sage makes stomach breathing, namely abdominal

respiration, as his selfcultivative regimen.

More precisely, the sage actually makes his abdomen an area of concentration, that is, the

sage gathers the vital forces [Chuan ch’i 専気 ]at his abdomen, or the so-called “field of cinnabar”

in traditional Chinese medicine, as he delves deep into the innermost recesses of his

consciousness, or rather unconsciousness, to consummate the Tao qua himself. Accordingly,

Laotzu’s “make his stomach” expresses the sage’s practical attempt to grope after the Tao.

It is through this practice of progressive retrogression, or the active withdrawal of

consciousness, that the sage actually transcends the framework of relativism in his cognitive

faculty into the world of veracity̶the Tao. And as a parenthetical remark, this meditative

“stomach breathing” is a basic technique common with Zen, Yoga, fine arts, martial arts,

training of various medical healing arts and so forth.

To put it in other words, from another physiological point of view, Laotzu’s saga cultivates his

body and mind simultaneously through the practical regimen of abdominal respiration. That is

what I call psycho (mind)-soma (body) tic modality of self-cultivation based on the regulative

technique of abdominal respiration.

Thus respiration is the pivot or rather a “missing link” between mind and body, since it is

actually a mediation or a “link” between mind which belongs to the autonomic nervous system

(e.g. involuntary muscle, (e.g. cardiac muscle), secretion of gastric acid, insulin in pancreas

etc.) and body which is subject to the somatic nervous system (e.g. voluntary muscle that is

pectoralis major, triceps or biceps branchii etc.). So we can carry out a “mysterium conjunctum”

of body and mind not mystically but actually in this phenomenal world̶to be what I call “Tao

qua self.”

The point that we should take special note of here is that, according to Laotzu, the Tao is not

a Kantian Grenz Begrif f ( “limiting concept” ) or a transcendental conception in the status of

Cartesian Cogito ( “thinking I” ) but true knowledge attained by illumination of our true self by

the practice of self-cultivation. Thus we read:

Embracing the restless soul [P’o魄 ] to concentrate it upon one, can you keep it

without departing from you?

Consolidating the vital forces to attain that pliability (of the Tao), can you be like an

infant? (Laotzu, Chapter10)

Laotzu’s expressions of “to concentrate the restless soul upon one” or “to consolidate the

vital forces” are typical for the actual nature of practice of self-cultivation of the Tao which is

7

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

one’s true self, which I will discuss more later.

As in the foregoing, we consolidate and unify the vital forces at the ontological level of

existence, the one [I 一] in the abdomen or the “field of cinnabar” in order to become “a baby”. “A

baby” is a metaphorical expression for the sage, more specifically, for the sage’s psychosomatic

modality of existence in the depth of his consciousness. Put another way, both a baby and the

sage share the same axiological status in their psyche―the realm of the Tao where they are not

constrained by the conceptual categories of time-space̶Form der Anschauung, nor relativistic

framework of subjective-objective diametrical notions. This is described as a Wuwei tzuran 無為

自然 , i.e. natural and spontaneous, way of being which is to be embodied through a regimen of

physical discipline.

The following quotation is a metaphorical formulation of the same notion, and has

implications that are both epistemic (i.e. in regard to “knowledge” or “words” ) and ontic (as

being in the phenomenal level):

Consummate the height of the void and maintain the depth of tranquility.

Myriad things come into being and I can see thereby them returning to the root.

They arise all in profusion, each returns to its root. (Laotzu, Chapter16)

Through the practical self-cultivation, the sage embodying the Tao qua self which is

described as “the height of the void” [Hsü 虚 ] or “the depth of tranquility” [Ching 静 ]sees

the veracity of the phenomenal world not just as sense data but as his own practical truth

illuminating our psychosomatic modality.

“The root” [Kên根 ] in this passage metaphorically designates the true and veracious feature

of the apparent confusions of phenomena which are substantially shifting in variety. The sage

sees the truth clearly and calmly notwithstanding the confusions of phenomena through his

illumination of his true knowledge of the Tao attained by his selfcultivative discipline. His Tao

both as the veracity of the world and the truth of his self is really an outcome of his severe

practice of self cutivative regimen.

Still, the point of which we should take special note is that all this is not a negation of our

everyday phenomenal world that is the field of our everyday experiences. Instead, he actually

exists in this ordinary world as embodiments of the Tao (or more straightforwardly and

literally “as the Tao” ).

In order to elucidate the ontological significance of Laotzu’s Tao, which is embodied by the

sage practically as Te 徳 , our pursuit of Laotzu’s Tao has to proceed to take a step closer, in

way a “retrogression,” into Laotzu’s Te. (Te is usually and generally translated as “power” ,

8

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

“virtue” , or “nature”. Specifically in Laotzu, it is the “power” of the Tao, the “virtue” of the Tao,

and the “nature” of the Tao.) Tao is not an existence [Wu無 ] concretely, but when embodied

and illuminated, it manifests as Te.

Several phases of the Tao

In order to disclose the ontological significance of Laotzu’s Tao as an apparent being referred

to above, we have to proceed to articulate Laotzu’s Te as an ontic (that is, a really existing)

manifestation of the Tao in this actual world.

On this issue, Laotzu himself explains as follows:

The Tao qua being is eluding and vague.

Eluding and vague, it has a figure.

Eluding and vague, it has a body.

Dark and obscure, it has a spirit.

The spirit is really veracious; it has evidence (of its existence). (Laotzu, Chapter21)

In this quotation, Laotzu suggests that the Tao qua being in this empirical world actually has

its figure, body and spirit, although it is an intangible being “eluding” , “vague” , “dark” and

“obscure” , whose spirit is undeniably a fact, that is, the Tao is a real existence as the Te of the

sage who embodies the Tao in himself to live as the Tao.

Put it in another way, we can not just intellectually know the Tao in the Kantian paradigm of

cognitive function of intuition and reason. Instead we must embody it by practical procedure

of internal perceptions that illuminates the depth of our psyche. Only when we have come this

far, we could barely apprehend what the Tao really is, namely, it is only the time when we have

embodied the Tao that we can really know the Tao qua self as with an old saying “only a master

knows a master” . Viewed in such a philosophical manner, we can barely elucidate the Tao as

the truth of our self that we ourselves contain in the depth of our existence.

As we have come this far, it would not be too far from truth to say that we say that each one

of us is the Tao, or rather, each one of us is potentially the Tao, since only when we embody it

or we manifest it in ourselves could we truly be the Tao qua self. So it would be appropriate to

say that we are to be the Tao actually existing in the phenomenal scheme of this phenomenal

world. Embodied it, we are the Tao qua self.

But the Tao itself remains intangible [Wuhsing無形 ] or just non-being [wu] viewed from an

epistemic and ontic perspective. Then we have no alternative way but to assert that the Tao is

to be a being as our Te.

9

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

Now it would be useful for us to take another look at Laotzu’s metaphysical thoughts

theoretically. We can not attain the Tao itself through our ordinary sensory perception of our

scheme of noesis-noematic manner of cognition (i.e. sense data-subject scheme of ordinary

cognition), as Laotzu himself referring to it:

Looking for it, we can not see it; we call it invisible.

Listening to it, we can not hear it; we call it inaudible.

Grouping after it, we can not grasp hold of it, we call it subtle. (Laotzu, Chapter14)

We can not see, hear nor touch the Tao directly for it has no visual image, sound or physical

form―it is just “nothing” in an epistemic and ontic level of being i.e. in the level of our

understanding operating only within the realm of our ordinary cognitive scheme of intuition

and reason. Then we have no way except to embody the Tao through progressive retrogression

of our internal perceptions exploited by physical regimen of self-cultivation. This is the reason

why we must say that it is the Te qua the manifestation of the “intangible” [wu hsing] Tao that

we can see, hear or touch directly by our sensory perceptions in the actual world. Put another

way, the Te is the Tao as a corresponding phenomenal manifestation in the ontic modality.

That is further to say that we can see the Tao as the Te in the master pieces of fine art, that

we can hear it in the virtuosity of music or that we can touch it at the masterful performances

of the experts. Or again, we can not see or touch the essence of martial arts which is the Tao,

but when we see the master throwing a big opponent around without any apparent power or

agility, we can directly see or even touch the Te as the corresponding manifesting phenomenal

existence of the Tao. The Tao, even though it is intangible or non-being in the epistemological

sense of our cognitive modality, is to be truly existent as the Te.

In short, the Tao is epistemologically transcendent in the sense that it is beyond our

cognitive functions, and escapes from our sensory perceptions, but it exists as the Te exhibited

in the phenomenal world. But this is not all. Laotzu cautiously delineates the potentiality of

our true knowledge far beyond the cognitive framework of relativism. We can just see the

real nature of this phenomenal world by being what we really are through the selfcultivative

regimen to embody the Tao.

10

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

Laotzu’s Te as a manifestation of the Tao

Laotzu discloses our assured possibility of our true knowledge so straightforwardly that I

fear it may entail a little misunderstanding. But it is noteworthy that in Laotzu’s philosophical

discourse, he states that our true knowledge attained by the selfcultivation of our Te would

admit of no doubt:

When one cultivates it his Te in his person, it will be genuine.

When he cultivates it in his family, it will be overwhelming.

When he cultivates it in his village, it will be ever-lasting.

When he cultivates it in his country, it will be universal.

Therefore, he contemplates himself by means of being himself.

He contemplates his family by means of being his family.

He contemplates his village by means of being his village.

He contemplates his country by means of being his country.

He contemplates his world by means of being his world. … (Laotzu, Chapter 54)

We are to be actually the Tao, when embodied it, and then are to exist as the Te. That is to

say, we should cultivate our Te to become a true person, family, village, country and the whole

world, and then we can see the real figures of us as person in general, our family, our village,

our country and the whole world of our own as really as the things our own: we can see the

truth of this phenomenal world directly, rising far above the framework of relative concepts,

becoming the whole world qua self when as embody the Tao qua self and the whole world of

our own.

When we have amply cultivated our Te to become the Tao qua self, we are the true person

who sees the real figures of our “self ” and the phenomenal world beyond cognitive “shackles”

of relativism. When we have amply carried through our internal perception, we can directly

embody not only our true self but the true nature of the world. We should grasp the true nature

of the world by being what we really are. This is Laotzu’s last answer to our quest of true

cognitions of our “self ” and the world qua self.

As I see it, it matters little to make an epistemological explanation of Laotzu’s Tao just aiming

at some theoretical formulations of it. Rather, the point here is that we should cultivate our “self”

for true cognition of the Tao in the depth of our psyche; embodying the Tao in ourselves, we

should furthermore proceed the cultivation of our Te qua manifestation of the Tao to become a

true person and the whole world as what we are, then to see the true figure of people in general

11

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

and the world itself as the truth of our own. When embodying the Tao, we exist apparently as

the Te; we are the Tao qua self, and this Tao is the whole world as it is.

Laotzu is more than just a thinker, since he does have a practical regimen of physical training

to embody the Tao in the depth of his mind. But on the other hand, he does not recommend

an ascetic practice to attain the Tao qua self, for he has evidently an epistemological

and ontological series of contemplations. Then we conclude that Laotzu’s discourse is a

philosophical formulation of his epistemological and ontological series of reflections with

practical implications of a selfcultivative regimen of progressive retrogression into our deep self

with an abdominal respiratory technique.

It is on this account that we may say that Laotzu really is a philosopher.

Language and existence in the philosophy of Mencius

Mencius did share the same ontological status with Laotzu or further Chuangtzu, i.e.

an ontological dilemma in which admitting it not to describe in the perspective of verbal

expressions they have no other means but for “words” . In this status, Laotzu leaves it to

his readers saying: “The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.” (Laotzu, Chapter1).

Chuangtzu embodying the Tao of “everything equivalent” 万物斉同 through deepening the

level of his unconscious psyche tried to describe it in the verbal level by various metaphor or

mythological expressions, and finally faced to the limits of “words” distinctly to depict that

his words are “rubbish words” 妄言 (Chuangtzu, Ch’iwulun 斉物論 Chapter). Mencius psychic

status is just consistent with them. Mencius is merely different from them in the point that:

Laotzu and Chuangtzu are thoroughly free from any doctrine of Confucianism to describe their

philosophical status on one hand, on the other hand Mencius had to develop his assertions

within the stringent dogma of Confucianism.

As we have come this far, we can understand Mencius so called “knowledge a-priori” and

“ability in nature” in the Mencius Chinhsin shang Chapter adequately. He did know it by

himself, not as a piece of knowledge but as the fact he embodied. This is the same status in

which Laotzu said: it is just a piece of knowledge to the others, but it is true sagacity to know

oneself. (Laotzu, Chapter33), Buddha’s attadipa, dhammadipa自灯明・法灯明 7 and Plato’s

“anamnesis8” were asserted. Without his true self attained through selfcultivative practice, he

could not make this assertion.

Conclusion

Mencius was not merely a man of morality. Nor was he a political leader teaching Confucius

virtues. His philosophy was evidently backgrounded by philosophical practice which is more

12

Human Nature [Hsing 性] and the Tao 道

precisely an physical exercise of breath control. This is the reason why his doctrine cannot be

understood applicably without this philosophical background. Without that, his language and

existence will be distant from each other forever, and his words will be an enigma also forever

and a day.

Consequently his Haoran chih ch’i,or “knowledge a-priori” and “ability in nature” are to be

perpetual “the seal of classics” . His words are meaningful only to the persons with discerning

eyes doing self cultivative practice by themselves. He was solely searching for a person who

“knows his words” 知言（the Mencius, Kongsunch’ou shang Chapter）.

Endnotes

1　At this point, I would indicate the crucial difference of philosophy between Mencius and Hsuntzu

荀子 who asserted the view of human nature as intrinsically bad just watching human conducts

on the surface. Hsuntzu’s view is extremely superficial. And it is much more significant point

that this Hsuntzu did assert that Mencius averred the view of human nature as intrinsically good.

It is also a superficial understanding of intrinsically profound Mencius philosophy.

2　All translations are mine. Sometimes I add my own readings so far as it does not vitiate Mencius

original meanings.

3　See YUASA Yasuo 湯浅泰雄　『東洋文化の深層』(The deeper level of Oriental culture ), 1982,

Tokyo: Meichokankokai, p.209ff

4　Accordingly, Mencius so called “Yehch’i” 夜気 (Mencius, Kaotzushang Chapter)is also to be understood

only on this ontological, and further philosophical context.

5　The Tao has been variedly characterized. It is actually too numerous to mention all of the

examples. But it would be the most moderate that to delineate the Tao in its typical and of at

large character which has been most commonly spread like this paraphrase of mine.

　With respect to the precise and numerous characterizations with a lot of examples, see TATENO

Masami, “老子の思惟―哲学的観点からの一試論 ―” (Laotzu’s thought: from a philosophical

point of view) in 『漢学研究』26, 1989, pp.1-12, Schroeder, J.L., “On the Meaning of Tao” (a

paper presented at the Forth International Congress of the International Society for Chinese

Philosophy, 1991)

6　This is the “Shu-gyo” 修行 in the typical Japanese expression. More specifically, it is a self cultivation

of the progressive retrogression to the depth of our substance through mainly physical practice

of our breath [Ch’ih気 ] in our psycho-somatic modality of existence. With respect to this issue

principally from a philosophical point of view with some practical descriptions, see TATENO

Masami , “老子・道（わたし）・市中の隠者―道家思想の身心論的コンテキスト―” (Lao Tzu, Tao

qua self, and the recluse in the city: Taoism in psychosomatic perspective) in『思想』,864,Tokyo:

Iwanami shoten, June 1994, pp. 51-67

7　Mahaparinibbana-sutra, D.N. , Ⅱ , pp.100-101

8　Plato, Meno, 81c-d (O.C.T.)

13

　14