An Inquiry into the Core of Xunzi's 'On Rites': The Origin of Rites, Textual-Structural Logic, and the Way of Elevation and Reduction

Chapter 8 A Counter-Reflection and Supplement from the Perspective of Pre-Qin Daoism

Section 1 Master Laozi on Rites: When the Great Dao is Lost, Virtue Follows

After deeply interpreting Master Xunzi’s Discourse on Rites, let us shift perspective and examine these arguments from a Daoist standpoint.

Laozi’s attitude toward Rites is concentrated in Chapter 38 of the Laozi:

"The highest virtue does not abide in virtue, and thus it possesses virtue. The lowest virtue does not let go of virtue, and thus it is without virtue. The highest benevolence acts, yet acts without pretense. The highest righteousness acts, yet acts with pretense. The highest Rites act, and when no one responds, they roll up their sleeves and impose them by force. Therefore, when the Dao is lost, virtue follows. When virtue is lost, benevolence follows. When benevolence is lost, righteousness follows. When righteousness is lost, Rites follow. Rites are the thin veneer of loyalty and trust, and the beginning of chaos."

Laozi arranges Dao, Virtue (De), Benevolence (Ren), Righteousness (Yi), and Rites (Li) in a descending sequence: the highest is the Dao, followed by Virtue, then Benevolence, then Righteousness, and the lowest is Rites. Each step down represents a loss—when the Dao is lost, Virtue is needed; when Virtue is lost, Benevolence is needed; when Benevolence is lost, Righteousness is needed; when Righteousness is lost, Rites are needed.

"Rites are the thin veneer of loyalty and trust, and the beginning of chaos" (Fu li zhe, zhong xin zhi bo er luan zhi shou)—Rites are the result of loyalty and trust growing thin, and the start of disorder. This judgment stands in sharp contrast to Master Xunzi’s high affirmation of Rites.

However, if we carefully analyze Laozi’s statement, we find that what he criticizes is not Rites themselves, but the alienation of Rites—when Rites detach from the inner spirit of Dao, Virtue, Benevolence, and Righteousness, becoming purely external forms, they cease to be a means of maintaining order and become the source of chaos. "The highest Rites act, and when no one responds, they roll up their sleeves and impose them by force" (Shang li wei zhi er mo zhi ying, ze rang bei er reng zhi)—The highest Rites (which have degenerated) are practiced, but when no one responds, force must be used. Rites that require enforcement have clearly lost their inner spiritual power.

From this perspective, Laozi’s critique is not contradictory to Xunzi’s assertion that "Honoring the root is called culture"—Xunzi also emphasizes that Rites must be based on the "root" (inner spirit) and cannot become empty forms. Laozi criticizes Rites that lack the "root," while Xunzi seeks Rites that preserve the "root"—their direction is actually consistent.

The deeper divergence is this: Laozi believes that when society needs Rites to maintain order, it signifies moral decline—the best state is to return to the realm of the Dao, where Rites are fundamentally unnecessary. Xunzi, conversely, believes human nature dictates that society always needs Rites—not because morality has declined, but because humans naturally have desires and naturally need "measure and boundary."

Section 2 Master Zhuangzi on Rites: The True Emotion of Life and Nature

Master Zhuangzi’s attitude toward Rites is more complex than Laozi’s. He features both sharp satire against worldly Rites and a certain affirmation of their deeper spiritual essence.

In the Zhuangzi, Ma Ti (Horse Hoof) chapter, Zhuangzi uses a vivid analogy to critique how artificial norms harm natural essence:

"The horse’s hooves can tread on frost and snow, its coat can withstand wind and cold. Grazing on grass and drinking water, standing on its hooves to walk—this is the true nature of the horse. Even if one built imperial terraces and sleeping halls for it, they would be useless. Then came Bo Le, saying, 'I am good at training horses.' He burned them, plucked their hair, carved them, branded them, tied them with reins, and confined them in stables. Twelve or thirteen out of every ten died. He starved them, thirsted them, made them race, made them trot, disciplined them, and kept them in formation. Before them were the threats of the harness, and behind them the terror of the whip. By then, more than half the horses were dead."

The true nature of the horse is to run freely on the plains, drink water, and graze—this is the horse's "true nature" (zhen xing). But Bo Le (the alleged expert) brands, clips, carves, and restrains it—and ends up harming the horse. Zhuangzi uses this to illustrate: Human true nature is free and unrestrained, but Rites and Righteousness (systems assumed to manage people well) seek to regulate and constrain humans—resulting in the injury of human nature.

This critique is sharp and powerful. If we concede that humans possess a "natural disposition" (like the horse’s "true nature"), then any external norm—including Rites—risks harming that disposition. Master Xunzi might retort: Man’s "natural disposition" is to love profit and hate harm, seeking sensory gratification; without regulation, this leads to "contention leading to chaos, and chaos leading to destitution." But Master Zhuangzi might further argue: What you see as "loving profit and hating harm" is not true human nature but a "false nature" (wei xing) distorted by society. True human nature is unified with Heaven and Earth, free and unrestrained.

This debate hinges on the fundamental question of human nature—what is man’s "true nature"$5 Is it Master Xunzi’s "loving profit and hating harm," or Master Zhuangzi’s state of freedom$6 Pre-Qin times had no final answer, and neither does the present age.

However, it is worth noting that Master Zhuangzi does not completely negate all order. In the Zhuangzi, Tian Di chapter:

"In the Great Beginning there was nothingness, and nothingness had no name. When the One arose, there was the One but it was not yet formed. That which allows things to be born is called virtue (De); that which is unformed but has boundaries yet no division is called destiny (Ming); when movement stops and things are born, the resulting physiological structure is called form (Xing); when the form preserves the spirit, each has its own inherent order; this is called nature (Xing)."

"Each has its own inherent order (ge you yi ze), this is called nature (xing)"—Every thing possesses its own "inherent order" or principle, which is its "nature." This indicates that Zhuangzi admits that things possess an inherent order—only this order is natural and internal, not artificial and external.

If we contrast this thought of Zhuangzi with Xunzi’s theory of Rites, we find a possible reconciliation: The best Rites should be those that conform to the "inherent order" of things—Rites are not forceful external constraints but the institutionalization of man’s "inherent order." Master Xunzi’s concept of "returning to the Great Unity" perhaps implicitly suggests this—when Rites reach the state of "Great Unity," the artificial institution merges with the natural order; the institution ceases to be a force against nature and becomes its manifestation.

Section 3 Two Orders: Natural Order vs. Institutional Order

From a broader perspective, the divergence between Daoism and Confucianism can be summarized as a tension between two types of ordering principles:

Daoist Ordering Principle: Natural Order. Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things possess a natural order—the orbit of the sun and moon, the cycle of the four seasons, the laws of growth for all things—none of which require artificial intervention. Human society should also follow this natural order, rather than attempting to replace it with artificial systems. "The Dao follows what is natural" (Dao fa Ziran) (Laozi, Chapter 25)—The Dao takes Nature as its model.

Confucian Ordering Principle: Institutional Order. Human society is different from the natural world; it does not automatically generate order. Human desires, contention, and chaos require artificial institutions (Rites) to resolve them. "The Former Kings detested this chaos, so they established Rites and Righteousness to differentiate among them"—The Former Kings created Rites and Righteousness to establish order.

This tension between two ordering principles has permeated the entire history of pre-Qin thought and, indeed, the entire history of Chinese thought.

However, upon closer analysis, these two principles are not entirely opposite.

First, the "Natural Order" sought by Daoism is not chaos. On the contrary, it is an order of a higher level—an order more subtle and harmonious than any artificial system. Laozi states:

"Man models himself on Earth; Earth models itself on Heaven; Heaven models itself on the Dao; the Dao models itself on what is natural." (Laozi, Chapter 25)

"The Dao models itself on what is natural" (Dao fa Ziran)—the Dao takes Nature as its law. Here, "Natural" (Ziran) does not mean "random" or "chaotic" but "naturally so"—an order that presents itself without artificial intervention.

Second, the "Institutional Order" constructed by Confucianism is not detached from Nature. Master Xunzi clearly states: "This ensures that desires do not exhaust material things, and material things are not subjugated by desires." This "mutual support and growth" is in fact a "Nature-like" order—it simulates the natural law of ebb and flow, balance between Yin and Yang in Heaven and Earth.

Therefore, the "Natural Order" of Daoism and the "Institutional Order" of Confucianism may not be two entirely different orders but two different facets of the same order—the "Natural Order" is its substance, and the "Institutional Order" is its realization. The best institution (Rites) should be the one closest to the Natural Order—one that maintains social order without harming human nature or violating the Way of Heaven and Earth.

Master Xunzi’s "return to the Great Unity" perhaps implicitly contains this ultimate unification—when Rites reach the state of "Great Unity," the artificial institution merges with the natural order, and the institution ceases to be a constraint upon Nature and becomes its manifestation.