A Dialectical Analysis of the Tripartite Qualities of 'Dao' in the Guanzi: Intricacy, Expansion, and Solidity

Chapter 16: Comparative Study: Dialogue Between This Passage in Neiye and Pre-Qin Thinkers

I. Dialogue with Laozi

This passage in Neiye shares profound connections with Laozi in terms of thought, but also exhibits significant differences.

Common Points:

• Both use "Dao" as the highest category.
• Both emphasize the importance of internal cultivation.
• Both advocate "teaching without words" and "governing through non-action."
• Both warn against excessive desires and actions.
• Both pursue the state of "naturalness."

Differences:

• Laozi focuses more on concepts like "non-being" (無), "emptiness" (虛), and "softness" (柔); Neiye focuses more on "Qi" (氣), "essence" (精), and "grasping" (抟).
• Laozi's cultivation tends towards "reduction" (striving for less each day in practicing the Dao); Neiye's cultivation tends towards "gathering" (Grasping Qi as if it were Shen).
• Laozi rarely discusses bodily cultivation practices; Neiye details the sequence of bodily cultivation (four limbs proper, blood-Qi tranquil).
• Laozi rarely touches upon the issue of "spirits and ghosts"; Neiye explicitly states, "not through the power of spirits and ghosts, but through the acme of vital energy."

What do these differences reflect$47 They suggest that Neiye might be more concrete and systematic in terms of cultivation practice than Laozi. If Laozi provides the philosophical framework for Dao cultivation, then Neiye provides the practical guide.

II. Dialogue with Zhuangzi

The relationship between Neiye and Zhuangzi is more complex.

Common Points:

• Both focus on the cultivation of the mind.
• Both discuss states of "fasting the mind" (心齋) and "sitting and forgetting" (坐忘).
• Both pursue the ultimate goal of unity with the Dao.

Differences:

• Zhuangzi emphasizes "forgetting"—forgetting the body, forgetting form, forgetting knowledge, forgetting the self; Neiye emphasizes "grasping"—gathering, condensing, and unifying.
• Zhuangzi tends towards dissolving all distinctions ("The Equality of Things"); Neiye retains distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong ("good Qi," "bad Qi").
• Zhuangzi is less concerned with politics ("Those who steal a hook are executed; those who steal a state become a feudal lord"); Neiye explicitly discusses governing the world ("When Qi and intention are achieved, the world submits; when mind and intention are settled, the world listens").

These differences reflect the Jixia Daoist attribute of Neiye—it has a Daoist philosophical foundation but also incorporates the practical concerns of Qi's political culture. It does not completely transcend politics like Zhuangzi but attempts to establish a bridge between Daoist cultivation and political governance.

III. Dialogue with Confucianism

There is also a deep dialogue between Neiye and Confucian thought.

Points of Intersection:

• "Guard what is good and do not abandon it" and The Analects' "Choose the good and hold fast to it"—both emphasize the persistence of goodness.
• "Keep the whole mind within" and "Sincerely hold to the center"—both emphasize the importance of the "center."
• "Once the four limbs are proper" and Confucian emphasis on ritual self-cultivation—both begin with straightening the body.
• "Ponder it, ponder it again, and ponder it anew" and "To learn without thinking is labor lost; to think without learning is perilous"—both value deep contemplation.

Points of Divergence:

• Confucianism emphasizes "Li" (禮, ritual); Neiye emphasizes "Qi." Confucianism cultivates the self through ritual and music; Neiye cultivates the self through the practice of Qi.
• Confucianism emphasizes "learning"; Neiye emphasizes "pondering." Confucianism stresses learning from sages; Neiye stresses "obtaining it from oneself without seeking it from others."
• Confucianism emphasizes rewards and punishments for education; Neiye explicitly states, "Rewards are insufficient to encourage good; punishments are insufficient to chastise transgressions."

These divergences reflect two different paths of self-cultivation: Confucianism tends to proceed from the external to the internal (using ritual and music to regulate external behavior, gradually internalizing it into virtue); Daoism/Neiye tends to proceed from the internal to the external (cultivating inner mind-Qi, which naturally manifests externally).

However, this difference is not absolute—Confucianism also values bodily cultivation (rituals), and Daoism values cognitive cultivation ("pondering"). The difference lies primarily in emphasis.

IV. Dialogue with Legalism

The dialogue between Neiye and Legalism is the most sharp, particularly centered on the statement, "Rewards are insufficient to encourage good; punishments are insufficient to chastise transgressions."

Legalists like Shang Yang and Han Feizi advocated using rewards and punishments as the foundation of governing a state. Book of Lord Shang, "Rewards and Punishments" (賞刑), states: "When a sage governs a state, they have one reward, one punishment, one education. With one reward, the army is invincible; with one punishment, orders are obeyed; with one education, subordinates listen to superiors."

Neiye, however, directly denies the fundamental efficacy of rewards and punishments—rewards cannot truly encourage goodness, nor can punishments truly chastise transgressions. Only "Qi and intention achieved" and "mind and intention settled" can make the world truly submit and listen.

The root of this divergence lies in different understandings of human nature:

• Legalism tends to believe that human nature seeks profit and avoids harm, thus using rewards and punishments to drive human behavior is effective.
• Neiye tends to believe that human nature can be fundamentally changed through the cultivation of vital energy, thus external rewards and punishments are merely expedient measures and cannot solve the problem fundamentally.

Han Feizi, "The Five Vermin," states: "In high antiquity, they competed in virtue; in the middle period, they competed in wisdom and schemes; in the present age, they compete in strength." Han Fei believed that governing the world by virtue was only applicable to high antiquity, and the current age must be governed by strength (legal systems). Neiye, however, implies that as long as cultivators reach a sufficiently high level ("Qi and intention achieved," "mind and intention settled"), governing the world by virtue is not only possible in antiquity but also in any era.

V. Dialogue with Huangdi Sijing

Huangdi Sijing (The Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor), excavated from Mawangdui in Changsha (though excavated from a tomb in the early Han dynasty, its composition dates to the Warring States period and is considered pre-Qin literature), shares a close connection with Neiye in terms of thought.

Huangdi Sijing, "The Law of the Dao" (道法) in "The Method of the Dao" (經法): "The Dao gives birth to Law. Law is that which draws distinctions between gains and losses, and clarifies right and wrong. Therefore, those who hold the Dao create Law but dare not transgress it; when Law is established, they dare not abolish it."

Huangdi Sijing attempts to unify the "Dao" of Daoism with the "Fa" (Law) of Legalism—Dao gives birth to Law, and Law originates from Dao. This attempt is similar in orientation to Neiye—Neiye also attempts to unify Daoist internal cultivation with external governance ("When Qi and intention are achieved, the world submits; when mind and intention are settled, the world listens").

However, their paths differ: Huangdi Sijing follows the path of Dao → Law → Governance (establishing laws based on the Dao, governing the world through laws); Neiye follows the path of Dao → Qi → Mind → Governance (cultivating Dao to regulate Qi, regulating Qi to settle the mind, settling the mind to govern the world—without the need for law as an intermediate step).