The Concept of Gongsheng in Daoist Philosophy: Examples from Laozi and Zhuangzi

Abstract

Using examples from the works of Laozi and Zhuangzi, this chapter discusses the connotations and characteristics of gongsheng 共生 in Daoist philosophy. It examines in detail Laozi’s notion of wanwu bingzuo 万物并作 (all things begin together) and zisheng 自生 (self-creation), Zhuangzi’s idea of the simultaneous creation of all things in his “age of perfect Virtuosity” (zhide zhishi 至德之世), as well as the relationship between gongsheng and the doctrine of jigan 寂感 (ontological feeling) in Daoist philosophy. Finally, the chapter also compares the similarities and differences in the concepts of gongsheng between Daoism and Heidegger’s philosophy.

The concept of gongsheng 共生 has been present since the earliest beginnings of Chinese philosophy and thought. However, this rich and multi-layered idea requires some explanation. Among China’s three main schools of thought, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, the concept of gongsheng in Buddhism is often thought to be particularly rich and worthy of study. However, there is much still waiting to be unearthed from within Confucianism and Daoism, the two homegrown Chinese philosophical traditions. For example, there are quotes from the Confucian canon, which read, “How great is Dao of the Sage… it brings forth and nurtures the myriad things, and rises up to the height of tian,” and “myriad things are nourished and cultivated together without harming each other. Dao [and myriad things] walk side by side without contradicting one another.”¹

A profound understanding of the concept of gongsheng can also be found in early Daoist schools of thought. This article seeks to expound on this through using examples from the works of Laozi and Zhuangzi.

Laozi: “All Things Begin Together” and “Self-Creation”

Chapter 16 of the Daodejing² by Laozi contains quite a profound passage, which refers to the concept of gongsheng:

Verse

Verse Extend your utmost emptiness as far as you can And do your best to preserve your equilibrium (jing). In the process of all things emerging together (wanwu), We can witness their reversion. Things proliferate, And each again returns to its root. Returning to the root is called equilibrium. Now as for equilibrium—this is called returning to the propensity of things, And returning to the propensity of things is common sense. Using common sense is acuity, While failing to use it is to lose control. And to try to do anything while out of control is to court disaster. Using common sense is to be accommodating, Being accommodating is tolerance, Being tolerant is kingliness, Being kingly is tian-like, Being tian-like is to be way-making.Footnote

致虚极, 守静笃; 万物并作, 吾以观复。夫物芸芸, 各复归其根。归根曰静, 静曰复命。复命曰常, 知常曰明。不知常, 妄作凶。知常容, 容乃公, 公乃王, 王乃天, 天乃道, 道乃久, 没身不殆。See Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall, trans., Daodejing: Making This Life Significant; A Philosophical Translation (New York: Ballantine Books, 2004). For Chinese version, refer to Lou Yulie (annotation) and Wang Bi (commentary), Laozi Daodejing zhujiaoshi [Commentary and Collated Annotation on Laozi’s Daodejing] (Zhonghua Book Company, 2008), 35–36.

Cheng Xuanying 成玄英 (631–655) interprets the phrase wanwu bingzuo 万物并作 (all things begin together) from this passage as wanwu bingsheng 万物并生 (simultaneous creation, or to be born or brought forth together), which is a clear reference to the meaning of gongsheng. This passage implies that the fundamental principles of existence are related to the process of gongsheng and bingzuo (mutual origination) among the myriad things. Only when the state of gongsheng is present can all things return to Dao (return to the root), thus enabling “inclusivity and acceptance of the myriad things”⁴ and creating an environment of common prosperity. Laozi states that the concept of gongsheng was not restricted to the origins of the world or the natural environment, but was “all-pervasive” (无所不周普), even penetrating how the social order is established and the fundamental operation of politics. Gongsheng and xiangrong 相容 (mutual inclusivity) between all things is both the law of nature and, at the same time, it is one of the basic principles of “unconstrained equity” (荡然公平) in human society and politics.⁵ The concept of gongsheng is one of the foundations of Daoist political philosophy, and understanding it is essential for those wanting to study the topic.

When analyzing the Daodejing, one can find a similar idea to gongsheng in the term xuantong 玄同 (metaphysical unity). In Chapter 56, it says, “soften your glare, unravel your tangled threads, be in harmony with the splendid, be in unity with the mundane. This is called the metaphysical unity.”⁶ Laozi was an advocate of eliminating disparity, being one with both the glorious and the mundane, and accepting differences. He believed that only then could we eliminate the distances between each other, the disparity between the advantaged and the disadvantaged, the rich and the poor, and bring forth a state of xuantong. This metaphysical unity is often interpreted as “the most precious thing in the world” (wei tianxia gui 为天下贵), as it advocates a state of consciousness that values coexistence and non-discrimination.⁷ This state of consciousness would engender a situation in which “there is no contention between things,” and “no aversion between things,” and thus could become a philosophical foundation for conflict resolution.⁸

Relative to the idea of bingsheng 并生 (simultaneous creation) is zisheng 自生 (self-creation). Zisheng was seen as the opposing force to gongsheng, and Laozi believed that the consequences of self-creation were, indeed, conflict and disharmony. Chapter 7 of Laozi states,

Verse

Verse The reason the [tian and earth] is able to be lasting and enduring, Is because it does not live for itself. Thus it is able to be long-lived.Footnote

天地所以能长久者, 以其不自生, 故能长久. See Ames & Hall, trans., Daodejing, 86.

The phrase buzisheng 不自生 (did not create themselves) in this sentence implies that a process of gongsheng took place. Within self-creation is the idea of domination over others and, in the context of Laozi’s writings, it also has the sense of exclusivity. It was, therefore, often seen as the root cause of conflict and destruction. As Wang Bi explains, “self-creation leads to conflict in the world, while not creating oneself allows all beings to be in their proper place.”¹⁰

It is worth pointing out that understanding the concept of gongsheng is not a simple epistemological issue or question of intellect. In Laozi’s system of thought, gongsheng was related to wudao 悟道 (the comprehension of Dao). Laozi asserts that one’s understanding of gongsheng was rooted in the operation of Dao in and of itself, and that knowledge analysis from a purely phenomenological standpoint would not get one far. He says that one must enter the highest realms of wudao in order to fully grasp gongsheng. Here, gongsheng and the word tidao 体道 (realization of Dao) are in essence, one concept. The conditions for gongsheng are just as Wang Bi describes: “with tian one can connect to the Power of Dao, and realize Dao, connecting to Great Dao.”¹¹ According to Laozi, reason and intellect would actually negatively impact our ability to look at the very nature of a thing with a holistic and systematic understanding. Therefore, he stresses the need to seek a transcendent cognitive method.

When Laozi speaks of wanwu bingzuo (all things begin together), he emphasizes that only through successfully “extending utmost emptiness, and preserving equilibrium (jing)” (致虚极, 守静笃) can one completely understand the concept of gongsheng.¹² What he calls “extending utmost emptiness, and preserving equilibrium” refers to the process of attaining inner quietness through certain practices, and what he calls zhichang 知常 (understanding the way of nature) refers to wudao or comprehending the truth. Laozi says that only after achieving wudao can one be in a state of consciousness that allows for tolerance of all things and mutual creation and actualization. It is clear that to Laozi, understanding the doctrine of Dao is deeply related to the principles of bingzuo (mutual origination) and gongsheng. In fact, Laozi emphasizes the practice of neiguan 內观 (inner seeing or mindfulness) as a way to connect to the myriad things. Chapter 49 of the Daodejing states, “The common people all fixate on their eyes and ears; the sages close off their senses.”¹³ According to Heshang Gong 河上公 (c. 200CE), the word 注 zhu or “to focus” here means “to use,” while the character 孩 hai (children) was taken from the character阂 he, which according to the Shuowen Jiezi 说文解字 means “to be closed to the outside.”¹⁴ Therefore, Laozi suggests that for a sage to achieve wudao, they must, to a certain degree, close off their sense organs to the outside world. They must prevent themselves from hearing or seeing and instead focus on the clarity of the internal, attaining sight through emptiness.

In Chapter 52, Laozi explains that in “practicing Dao,” one must “block up the openings (se qi dui 塞其兑), shut the gateways, and to the end of [the] days [one’s] energies will not be used up.”¹⁵ Yu Yue 俞樾 (1821–1907) explains that here dui 兑 or “openings” represents xue 穴, which means the point at which one’s sensory organs connect to the outside.¹⁶ Ultimately, he is talking about one’s ears, eyes, nose, and mouth. Laozi also points out that if you spend all your time seeking knowledge in the external world, which is akin to “venting the openings and multiplying your responsibilities, [then] to the end of your days you will be incurable.”¹⁷ In short, one must first stop the external from interfering with one’s senses and enter an internal state of emptiness and stillness, and only then, can one come to understand the workings of Dao. The doctrine of jigan 寂感 (ontological feeling) has become an important source of epistemological discussion throughout ancient Chinese philosophy, which needs renewed attention and research. From the perspective of analyzing the history of thought and the history of philosophy, the difficulty here lies in how one can grasp Dao through jigan. This is not a purely theoretical issue; rather, it is more of a question of practice. In the context of Chinese philosophy, it is often referred to as the “theory of gongfu” (功夫论) which roughly carries this meaning.

Zhuangzi on “Gongsheng” and its Philosophy

Zhuangzi, also known as “Master Zhuang,” is also a pivotal figure in philosophical Daoism, traditionally believed to have lived in the fourth century B.C.E. according to Chinese accounts. His historical existence, much like Laozi’s, is a topic of debate among scholars, with some proposing that he may be more of a legendary figure than a historical individual. The text attributed to him, the Zhuangzi, is thought by some scholars to be a compilation of writings, suggesting that it might have been contributed to by multiple authors and edited over time, rather than solely penned by Zhuangzi himself. For the purpose of simplification, we will use Zhuangzi interchangeably to refer to the “author(s)” of the Zhuangzi, as well as the text itself.

In principle, Zhuangzi’s discussion of gongsheng follows that of Laozi; however, there are some differences. To Zhuangzi, gongsheng is an ideal state of being, and only his so-called age of perfect Virtuosity (zhide zhishi 至德之世) can create the conditions suitable for its existence. In the chapter of Zhuangzi titled “Horse Hooves,” he describes the “age of perfect Virtuosity” as a time when humans and beasts are natural friends and peacefully coexist. The passage states:

Thus, in the age of perfect Virtuosity…all creatures lived together, merging their territories into one another. The birds and beasts clustered with each other, the grasses and trees grew unhampered, so one could tie a cord to a bird or beast and take a stroll with it or bend down a branch to peep into a bird’s nest. Indeed, in those days of perfect Virtuosity, the people lived together with the birds and beasts, bunched together with all things. What did they know about “exemplary men” and “petty men”?¹⁸

The “age of perfect Virtuosity” is a representation of his ideal state, where there are no disparities, and where humans live in peaceful coexistence with animals and nature. In Zhuangzi’s discussions of gongsheng, he starts from the basis that the fates of the natural environment, animals, and humans are intertwined. This Daoist take on gongsheng is similar to that of modern environmentalism. It is a holistic ideal that has at its heart principles of compassion and non-harmfulness. As Cheng Xuanying explains, “if man does not have the intention to harm living things, then living things will not be afraid of man. Therefore, birds and animals can be harnessed and travel together with humans. One can climb to gaze into a bird’s nest.”¹⁹ Moreover, this perspective on gongsheng requires that we break the dominance of anthropocentric theories. In traditional Chinese thought, Confucianism also promotes peaceful coexistence between all living things; however, it was developed with humanity’s dominance at its core. The situation is more complicated in Buddhism. Lambert Schmithausen, a modern German scholar famous for his study of Buddhism, explains that in the early forms of Buddhism that started in India, plants and animals were regarded as sentient beings.²⁰ But that idea never gained traction in Chinese Buddhism. Although the Tiantai Sect had once put forward the idea that “all things have the nature of the Buddha,” the Buddhism that was adopted by the Chinese mainstream focused on anthropocentric discussions of disposition and character, and dropped the idea of gongsheng with a sentient natural world. In contrast, Zhuangzi has profound insights on this matter. While his “age of perfect Virtuosity” has some anthropocentric tendencies, he nevertheless advocates for equality and peaceful coexistence in a multi-species world.

This differs from gongsheng in Buddhism on a philosophical level. In Buddhism, gongsheng is either rooted in discussions of interdependence between all dharmas, or it is explained through the relationship between mind and matter. For example, in Mahayana Buddhism everything is mind-only or awareness-only. In other words, it is analyzed from the perspective of the relationship between the structure of consciousness and the myriad things. Classical Daoist philosophy in China tends towards a more phenomenological approach to the concept of gongsheng and equality between all things. Zhuangzi’s view on the philosophical foundations of gongsheng is found in the chapter titled “Equalizing Assessments of Things.” The “age of perfect Virtuosity,” where all creatures live together, is mainly to be found in “Horse Hooves,” one of the Outer Chapters. Cheng Xuanying explains that the Outer Chapters focus on achievements, leaving the Inner Chapters to stand as the works of reason. In “Equalizing Assessments of Things,” Zhuangzi explicitly refers to the concept of gongsheng in the statement, “[Tian] and earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one.”²¹According to Zhuangzi, one aspect of the word bingsheng 并生 (simultaneous creation, to be born or brought forth together) is that all the myriad things are brought forth as a result of mutual causation. This establishes a conditional relationship. It continues,

There is no [thing] that is not ‘that.’ There is no [thing] that is not ‘this.’ But one cannot be seeing these from the perspective of ‘that’: one knows them only from ‘this’ [i.e., from one’s own perspective].Thus, we can say: ‘That’ emerges from ‘this,’ and ‘this’ follows from ‘that.’²²

This concept is closely related to early Buddhist ideas that talk about gongsheng from the perspective of dependent origination or conditioned co-arising. Zhuangzi also applies a cyclical approach to the idea of coexistence between all things, pointing out that the principle within gongsheng that “all things are so, all things are allowable” is a natural phenomenon or “the Potter’s Wheel of the tian” (tianjun 天均).²³ This refers to the fact that even between different things there still exists the properties of mutual causation and conditioned co-arising. He believes that all things move in cycles, stating that “different forms yield to each other, beginning and ending like a circle.”²⁴ By this he suggests that there is a reason and necessity for every species to exist; moreover, there is a chain of dependent origination, joint transformation, and creation between the existence of different species. This is the natural law that governs the operation of all things. Zhuangzi did not give many theoretical explanations on the meaning of “the Potter’s Wheel of the tian”; he believed that as gongsheng was Dao of tian, it could not be explained using knowledge in the general sense. Joseph Needham, a sinologist and historian of science, also found that in Daoist natural philosophy, “the concept of mutual causation and contrastive correlation” (相因对待的观念) was obvious, but he did not find that Daoists discussed a set of laws of causality in the way that Western philosophers like Aristotle did.²⁵

From the perspective of the metaphysical Daoist philosophy (xuanli zhexue 玄理哲学), the concept that “myriad things are co-created” (万物并生) is like the principle of “walking two roads” (liangxing 两行). In the end, it is only through connecting with Dao of tian that one gains understanding. In other words, “Dao connects all as one” (道通为一). This is in the same vein as Laozi’s conception of understanding gongsheng through wudao (comprehension of the truth). Zhuangzi also puts forwards the idea that, if one wants to observe gongsheng and the logic pervading all things, one cannot start from narrow and parochial anthropocentric views. Instead, one must “bask in the broad daylight of tian” (zhaozhi yutian 照之于天) and observe it through the “axis of Dao” (dao shu 道枢). This meant that one should carefully observe and reflect on the relationships between humans, different species, and nature in the holistic manner set forth by Dao of tian. Only then can “all things be of themselves” and coexist equally in the “metaphysical unity.”²⁶

Zhuangzi points out that “it is only someone who really gets all the way through them that can see how the two sides open into each other to form a oneness.”²⁷ Those who are not constrained by anthropocentrism and their own personal views—“such a person would not define rightness in any one particular way but would instead entrust it to the everyday function [of each being],”²⁸ enabling them to see how everything is connected. That is to say, one must understand the fullness of Dao of tian to be able to observe and reflect on myriad things, and only then can one understand that different species and life forms all “have some place from which it can be affirmed” (guyou suoran 固有所然) and “have some place from which it can be affirmed as acceptable” (guyou suoke 固有所可). This in turn allows one to understand that “no thing is not right, [and] no thing is not acceptable.”²⁹ For example, in the chapter titled “Correcting the Nature,” Zhuangzi talks about a state of “perfect unity” (zhiyi 至一), which again contains a reference to gongsheng in the statement: “The myriad things would receive no injury, or meet with a premature death.”³⁰ In the chapter titled “Autumn Floods,” Zhuangzi also talks about looking “from the point of view of Dao” (yidao guanzhi 以道观之) and “describing the method by which the way all things fit together” (lun wanwu zhili 论万物之理). Thus, he aimed to promote equality through gongsheng, ensuring that “myriad things are equally regarded” (wanwu yiqi 万物一齐) and that people “hold myriad things in their love” (jianhuai wanwu 兼怀万物).³¹

In Zhuangzi’s well-known discussion on xinzhai 心斋 (fasting of the mind) and zuowang 坐忘 (sitting and forgetting), he expands on the concept of jigan, which Laozi believes would enable one to achieve wudao. Zhuangzi suggests that the gongsheng principle of “walking two roads,” another way of signifying Dao of tian, absolutely could not be achieved successfully through knowledge in the general sense. He called this “[laboring one’s] spirit trying to make all things one, without realizing that it is all the same.”³² To fully comprehend gongsheng one must “immerse in stillness and emptiness, basking in the wisdom of nature.”³³ Cheng Xuanying renders this concept very precisely: “The wondrousness that is the unified Dao, is enduring and fathomless, one cannot understand its non-duality through intellectual pursuits.”³⁴ He also states that “only those who achieve Dao, and have a pure state of mind and metaphysical insight, can eliminate their bias for dualism and understand the unity of Dao.”³⁵ In his chapter titled “Letting Be, and Exercising Forbearance,” Zhuangzi goes so far as to advocate abandoning intellectual investigation altogether, stating, “if they knew it, they would be separated from it.”³⁶ He believed that if one used knowledge to explain the workings of Great Dao it would not be representative of the truth. In the chapter titled “The Great Source as Teacher,” Zhuangzi also puts forward his idea of zuowang 坐忘 (sitting and forgetting), which is based on “dismissing the clarity of the senses, leaving physical form and getting rid of acquired learning, until one is in union as the connected way.”³⁷ In classical Chinese philosophy, this discourse and the doctrine of jigan are seen as one and the same thing.

Zhuangzi also wants to widely apply the concept of gongsheng, in the sense of an ideal state of Dao to “the human world” (renjianshi人间世). In Zhuangzi’s philosophy, “the human world” is an important concept, which is also used to refer to a state of suffering. In his chapter titled “The Human World,” Zhuangzi provides profound insights into and warnings about the deception and danger that exists in the human world. This is why he hoped to link the concept of qiwu 齐物 (equalizing assessments of things) from gongsheng to the treatment of social politics and ethics. He hoped to move from gongsheng as an ideal to the real application of it in broader society. It can be said that the idea of tianxia 天下(all under tian) can also be more or less interpreted in connection to the discourse on gongsheng. In the chapter titled “Tianxia” or “All Under Heaven,” Zhuangzi promulgates that if one can realize Great Dao, then one can “nourish the myriad things and bring the world into harmony.” This points to the concept of gongyu 共育 (joint nourishing) within gongsheng as the key to achieving peace in the world. To Zhuangzi, Dao of tian, which incorporates the meaning of gongsheng, is the only thing which can enable mankind to “carry and nourish all things, with its overflowing greatness!” and thus be able to “love the rest of mankind and bring benefit to other things,” “see commonalities where there are differences,” “conduct oneself without seeking to be distinguished above others,” “incorporate all the ten thousand differences,” and “show greatness of mind.”³⁸ His political philosophy favors coexistence between diverse groups, respecting differences, and the forming of a “metaphysical unity” between all parties. He hopes to achieve a state of global co-governance (tianxia gongzhi 天下共治) through the concept of gongsheng. Cheng Xuanying explains this idea as follows: “through not leading others to be the same as me, then vastness can be achieved.” He also elaborates, “by allowing numerous differences between things and accepting the differences of the common people, the true nature of the group will be achieved, and therefore the world will be rich.”³⁹

Zhuangzi believes that gongsheng is all about respecting the very nature of a thing, its diversity, its otherness. He warns against excessive interference from humans and advocated allowing all things to engage in the process of self-transformation. In that sense, to Zhuangzi, gongsheng 共生 and zisheng 自生 (self-creation) are one and the same, which is a massive departure from Laozi’s concept of self-creation. In the chapter “Letting Be, and Exercising Forbearance,” Zhuangzi talks about “[taking] the position of doing nothing, and things will of themselves become transformed.”⁴⁰ Cheng Xuanying’s subcommentary explains these statements by saying “when allowed to transform on their own, all things are able to bring forth the natural order of things.”⁴¹ Here “self-creation” is absolutely not meant to supersede the process of gongsheng, which could result in all things encroaching on each other or losing their true nature. In fact, Zhuangzi believes that it was only under conditions of mutual respect for individuality that all things would be able to flourish. In Zhuangzi’s version of gongsheng, the myriad things begin together in a state of abundance yet at the same time, each entity is free to be itself and have its own character. In “Horse Hooves,” Zhuangzi directly criticizes humanity, despite its culture and civilization, for the destruction of species’ innate nature. He points to the practices of “[mutilating] unhewn raw material to make valued vessels” and the “the destruction of the [Dao] and its Virtuosity to make Humanity and Responsibility”⁴² and explains that these are examples of anthropocentrism driving excessive human activity, and destroying Dao of nature, or not allowing “nature to take its course.”⁴³ It is clear that the concept of gongsheng in Zhuangzi’s analysis developed out of the “self-transformation through non-doing” (wuwei zisheng 无为自生) Daoist system of thought. As he states in “Letting Be, and Exercising Forbearance,” “stay in a state of non-doing and all things will transform themselves.”⁴⁴

A Comparative Study on Heidegger’s “Being-with” and Daoism’s Gongsheng

According to scholarly research, from the 1920s onwards, Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) became intensely interested in Chinese Daoist thought. We do not have the capacity here to look into the specific question of whether or not Daoist concepts of gongsheng actually influenced Heidegger, but we can make a comparison between the relevant ideas in Heidegger’s philosophical works such as “being-with” (Mitsein) with the Daoist concept of gongsheng. Heidegger’s works discuss the concepts of “Dasein” and “being-in-the-world,” (In-der-Welt-sein) part of which centers around how a “Dasein” (or “being”) in the world “deals” with other entities. This is what is known as “being-with.” Heidegger believed that beings are helplessly “thrown into the world.” Because of this, their “being-with” other things becomes a fundamental characteristic of Dasein. In his work Being and Time, he explains, “Being-in-the-world is a state of Dasein, being-in is being-with-others.”⁴⁵

Heidegger tries to elucidate his whole philosophy of being from the point of view of the existence of the self and “being-with.” “Being-with” primarily refers to the space within which the existence of the self, “others” and “things” relate to each other. The scope of this is certainly not as large as the scope referred to by the Daoist concept of gongsheng. However, Heidegger points out that to understand being, one must begin from the space within which being-with takes place. He assigns all “things” in the external world the term “equipment” (Zeug) and rejects the structure seen in traditional subject–object epistemological theories and metaphysics, which endeavor to explain the “I–thing” relationship. Instead, he points out that, in the traditional philosophical sense, things are not “present-at-hand” (vorhanden), put there to allow us to quietly watch them. In fact, things are “utensils,” which are there “ready-to-hand” (zuhanden) for the self to interact with and to work with. Therefore, the relationship between human beings and things is more primordial. It is a relationship between beings and equipment that is ready-to-hand, referred to as a relationship of “concern” (Besorge).

However, when he discusses the relationship between the self and others, others are seen as different from things. Unlike things, which are “equipment” for one’s self-realization, the being-with between the self and others constitutes a relationship of “solicitude” (Fürsorge). To Heidegger, the existence of the self is always a part of being-with things and others in the world. He believed in an ideal state of being-with, similar to Zhuangzi’s “age of perfect Virtuosity,” where different personalities would be tolerated, nurtured, and developed.⁴⁶

Heidegger, however, knew the reality of being-with was not like this, and in fact, he described being-with as a sign of “fallenness.” Heidegger said that in the real world the dealings between the self and equipment is directed by “concern,” while interactions with others are directed by “solicitude” (or “care”). Solicitude takes two forms: a dominating type of care that steps in to take over for others, and a giving type of care that helps others to take responsibility and respond to situations. Heidegger believed that in being-with others one often loses one’s authentic self. He believed that the existence of “I” would be subsumed into the world and would fall away “from the authentic potentiality for being its own self. It has fallen into the world. ‘Fallenness’ into the world means an absorption in being-with-one-another, in so far as the latter is guided by idle talk, curiosity, and ambiguity.” In other words, because the existence of “I” must always have dealings with the being of the world, “we have already been thrown into inauthenticity.”⁴⁷ That is to say, the state of being-with—where “I” coexist with the world, other things, and other people—leads us to entrench ourselves in the commonplace and fall into inessential everydayness. In this sense, the self is completely controlled by the “publicness” of the “world” and the values found in everydayness. The control held by the “they” determines our understanding of the world and the self. All personality is noiselessly suppressed, and the self joins the “they” in their average everydayness. The true self has thus fallen into the rootless nothingness of inauthenticity.⁴⁸ His arguments are similar to Zhuangzi’s criticisms of “the human world,” in which people, for the most part, have no way to “self-create” (zisheng自生) and therefore lose their true selves. Coexistence in the world as described by Heidegger is fraught with phenomena such as anxiety, fear, and death.

Heidegger’s description of being-with is very similar to Zhuangzi’s thoughts on gongsheng. Although Zhuangzi only goes into detail about the purpose of gongsheng in his ideal “age of perfect Virtuosity,” however, when referring to being-within the context of relationships in the human world, Zhuangzi similarly provides a critical explanation, emphasizing the fallenness of human nature. In “Equalizing Assessments of Things,” Zhuangzi gives particular instruction on humans having a lack of awareness in their dealings with other things and other people. He believes it would result in a miserable existence of unending fallenness, where people toiled for little benefit and “things lost their truth and people forgot their roots.”⁴⁹ Here is a brief quote from one of his most descriptive passages:

When we have received the bodily form complete, we keep it alive only by constantly anticipating its end. In conflict with things and in harmony with things, it pursues its course to the end, with the speed of a galloping horse which cannot be stopped, is that not sad? To be constantly toiling all one’s lifetime, without seeing the fruit of one’s labour, and to be weary and worn out with this labour, without knowing where one is going to, is that not sorrowful? Men may say, ‘But it is not death', yet of what advantage is this? When the body is decomposed, the mind will go with it, can this be called anything but an enormous sorrow?⁵⁰

As explained in ancient commentaries, Zhuangzi has some profound insights into humanity’s blindness in being led on by changes in their external environments (ruiqing zhujing 锐情逐境), as well as the fact that humanity encounters deep sorrow and exhaustion in trying to make sense of—and labor too much over—external things (格量物理, 深可悲伤). In a person’s dealings with things, this “sorrow” creates what Heidegger calls fundamental moods, i.e., anxiety, fear, and death. At the same time, in Zhuangzi’s “Equalizing Assessments of Things,” he posits that because in humanity, “our intercourse with others then leads to various activity, and daily there is the striving of mind with mind,”⁵¹ this creates “small fears [that] leave us nervous and depleted; [and] large fears [that] leave us stunned and blank,” where “the mind is left on the verge of death, and nothing can restore its vitality.”⁵² Or, as described in the commentaries, “one’s mind turns according to the conditions of one’s environment, meaning that the innate nature of reality has many peculiarities,” where ultimately, we fall into things and cannot return.⁵³

When looking at dealings with others, Zhuangzi delves even deeper into the unpredictability of the human mind. In his explanation of “The Human World,” Zhuangzi goes into a lot of detail about the fact that “conducting oneself in society and getting along with other people is very difficult.” In this chapter, he states that “it is easy to wipe away your footprints, but difficult to walk without touching the ground,”⁵⁴ which is to say, that it is easy for someone to withdraw from society and live in seclusion; however, interacting with others is much harder and fraught with difficulties. As he says, “in acting at the behest of others, it is easy to fall into deception or hypocrisy”⁵⁵ meaning that in one’s dealings with society often one needs to follow custom and convention, ultimately losing authenticity. The chapter is full of similar narratives, with statements such as “dealings between people are hard to manage due to their variety and chaotic nature. However, getting along with others brings benefits, even though managing it is not easy.”⁵⁶

At the same time, “fallenness” also has a positive connotation. Only in “falling” and losing one’s authenticity can the “I” seek to break through the fallenness of “being-with” in the world and return to the true and authentic self. Heidegger believed, however, that this so-called breaking through cannot be sought through traditional philosophical or metaphysical methods. Dealings between people and things is not a simple epistemological issue or question of intellect. It is also not something one can achieve through gaining experience of being-in-the-world or through having a good understanding of social etiquette. On the contrary, sometimes it is exactly our intellect or life experience that makes it easy for us to be dominated by others and to lose our self and individuality. Similarly, dealings in-the-world require that one has experience of thoroughly internalizing Dao. Merely encountering the world is not enough. Heidegger believed that the systematic, argument-proof methodologies found in particular, traditional philosophies were exactly what prevented us from pondering the question of being. Traditional Western philosophy emphasizes humans’ role as knower and user, which has caused humans also to take on the role of plunderer of the natural world. Conversely, Heidegger puts forward that humans and their self-consciousness should not become the assessor or center of being. Humans should only be a privileged “listener and respondent” to existence. The being-with relationship of humans to other things and other people cannot be as Descartes’ and other positivist rationalist philosophers have defined, which is one of “grasping” and pragmatic use, but should become a “relation of audition,” where we return to the internal being and try to “listen to the voice of being.”⁵⁷ Heidegger points out that Descartes’ use of the cogito principle, namely that our existence is driven by our understanding of the external, is erroneous. He believed that we should instead replace this with internal listening and “care” for individual existence.

In fact, in the chapter “The Human World,” Zhuangzi discusses how to maintain one’s true self in “the human world, where there are many things to be concerned with” (renjian shewu 人间涉物) by “acting in accordance with one’s nature and relying on the truth” (shuaixing renzhen 率性任真). Among other similar issues, Zhuangzi clearly opposes the general epistemological route that proposed that knowledge of the external would ensure a return to self. Instead, he advocated for “[allowing] your ears and eyes to open inward and thereby [placing] yourself beyond your mind’s understanding consciousness.”⁵⁸ This cognitive method, which emphasizes “internal comprehension” (neitong 内通) or cutting oneself off from the outside, is the same as “being empty and waiting for things to come” (xuer daiwu 虚而待物) or perceiving through the fasting of the mind. Zhuangzi believes that only through achieving a state of non-doing and being still, but connected, can one coexist with all of the myriad things in mystical agreement. This is because “only Dao can gather this emptiness” (weidao jixu 唯道集虚), or in other words, Dao can only be freely accessed when in a state of “clarity through emptiness, reflection through silence” (xuming jizha 虚明寂照). If one’s ears and eyes are exhausted by the external world, then one “cannot perceive all things,” (yuwu buming 与物不冥) and one has no way to “be in harmony with the changes in the human world and respond to the turning of the ages.”⁵⁹ Ultimately, there is no way to find wisdom in coexistence. One could say that both Daoists and Heidegger were all striving to find a way to break through the worldly entanglement that is gongsheng and understand the true self.

In his later works, Heidegger shifted his focus towards a “fourfold” theory of things, in which he discussed the “dwelling” of mortals before the earth, sky, and divinities. Heidegger became more concerned with the coexistence of humans and the rest of the myriad things, emphasizing that mortals should not be so arrogant as to believe themselves without limits or without physicality. On the contrary, he believed humans should become the “preservers” of all things, meant to “save the earth” rather than “master the earth” or “subjugate the earth.” His argument goes that “in saving the earth, in receiving the sky, in awaiting the divinities, in initiating mortals, dwelling occurs as the fourfold preservation of the fourfold.”⁶⁰ As some scholars have pointed out, this can also be true of Laozi’s theory of natural things. Zhuangzi also clearly states in his works that the intention and attitude of domination behind anthropocentrism will lead humanity down the wrong path, ultimately threatening the survival of humans and other species. Humanity’s existence must move in tandem with the mysterious rhythms of the natural world. Humans must live on an equal footing with all things. From the above analysis, it is not difficult to realize that, in his later years, Heidegger sought to describe an ideal state of being based on the concept of gongsheng, in many ways similar to Zhuangzi's naturalistic “age of perfect Virtuosity.”

This article is translated by Megan Copeland.