An Inquiry into the Core of Xunzi's 'On Rites': The Origin of Rites, Textual-Structural Logic, and the Way of Elevation and Reduction
This article provides an in-depth exegesis of the foundational text in the opening of Xunzi's 'On Rites,' systematically analyzing the logical chain linking the origin of rites to human desire and societal conflict, elucidating the structural concept of 'Honoring the fundamental is called text (wen), utilizing it closely is called principle (li),' and investigating the hierarchical dimensions of elevation (long), reduction (sha), and the middle way within rites pertaining to the gentleman's path.
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."