CLASSICAL AND MODERN READINGS OF LAOZI’S ZIRAN Liu Xiaogan Translated by Chloe Garcia-Roberts and Adrian Thieret Ziran (自然) is the core concept of Daoist thought. However, this con- cept can easily give rise to a variety of understandings and ambiguities. This essay focuses on reading texts related to Laozi, and expounds on the classical meaning of Laozi’s ziran on three different levels. Further- more, it explores the signifi cance that these three levels of meaning should or could produce in modern society. This essay also asserts that the essential or core signifi cance of Laozi’s ziran is the concept of humanist nature (人文自然). This approach is not adopted for its novelty, but rather to fundamentally reveal and emphasize the basic ideological spirit of Laozi’s ziran and thus avoid various misunderstandings. Also, it is intended to open a possible channel for the application and development of Laozi’s philosophy in modern society. To mention humanist nature in this way almost seems strange, as it is often believed that human culture (人文) and nature are generally at odds, and are sometimes even contradictory.1 The natural world and the world of human culture are completely different, and the domains and methods of the natural sciences and the humanities are likewise different. How is the synthesis of human culture and nature into the single concept of humanist nature possible, and furthermore why is it necessary? Although I only now propose this concept of humanist nature, it has already undergone more than ten years of tortuous exploration and 1 Actually this is not the fi rst proposal of ziran as “humanist nature.” Tan Yuquan once wrote that the ziran of Laozi referred to the ziran of the “man-made world” (人为世界). See Tan Yuquan 谭宇权, Laozi zhexue pinglun 老子哲学评论 [Commen- tary on Laozi’s Philosophy] (Taibei: Wenjin Chubanshe 文津出版社, 1992), 185. Chen Rongzhuo also stated that “ziran in Daoism is defi nitely not the wild natural world opposite to the ‘humanist world.’ ” See “Wangbi xing Guo Xiang xuanxue sixiang zhi gongtong 王弼兴郭象玄学思想之共同 [Commonalities between the metaphysical ideas of Wang Bi and Guo Xiang]” Donghai xuebao 东海学报 33 (1992): 131. 76 liu xiaogan contemplation. Just the word nature, or ziran, alone has complex con- notations and signifi cances. In antiquity, what Laozi called ziran, what Zhuangzi called ziran, and what Huainanzi called ziran were all differ- ent. And what Song dynasty Confucians called “nature of heavenly principle” (天理自然), was also different. In modern Chinese there are also differences between the signifi cance of ziran in the terms “natu- ral disaster” (自然灾害), “protect nature” (保护自然), “natural state” (自然状态), “spontaneous” (自然而然), and “fresh and natural” (清新自然). If we do not clarify the signifi cance of Laozi’s ziran, how can we further research his philosophy? The academic world seemingly knows that Laozi’s ziran does not refer to the natural world, yet in the past few years some publications on Laozi have nevertheless assumed ziran to mean the natural world. This shows that discussing merely the word ziran itself leaves too much room for misunderstanding, thus rendering rigorous academic discussion essentially impossible, not to mention the accurate understanding of Laozi’s thought or the modern application and adaptation of Daoist ideas. I once considered creating a new vocabulary to describe and defi ne Laozi’s ziran, for example, to use shunran (顺然) to describe Laozi’s ziran and thereby sidestep future misreading of this term as the natural world. However, the term shun- ran can only explain one aspect of ziran; it does not demonstrate the richness or profundity of Laozi’s ziran. Indeed it is extremely diffi cult for us to create a new term that would accurately express the ideas of Laozi without creating new misunderstandings. Currently, using the concept of humanist nature is the best plan I have managed to con- ceive. I propose this concept of humanist nature foremost in order to prevent and eradicate the following misunderstandings: 1) The misunderstanding of Laozi’s ziran as the natural world or as a synonym of Nature. 2) The misunderstanding of Laozi’s ziran as isolated from human civilization or as a state entirely devoid of human effort. 3) The misunderstanding of Laozi’s ziran as the state of primal soci- ety in human history. 4) The misunderstanding of Laozi’s ziran as the “state of nature” comprising a war of everyman against everyman as hypothesized by Hobbes. The eradication of misunderstanding sounds negative, yet once misun- derstanding has been prevented, we can more distinctively reveal the .