What was Lao-tzu’s conception of the Cosmos? To this question we are unfortunately unable to give a clear and satisfactory answer. It is only occasionally, and then usually by way of illustration, that he alludes to the material world or to the physical and mental constitution of man. All that we can do, accordingly, is to examine the miscellaneous passages in which he refers to these subjects, and collect from them what information we can as to the notions which Lao-tzu entertained about the origin and nature of the universe; and we must be prepared to find under the head of speculative physics many more matters than ought properly, according to our ideas, to be so included.

The first point to be noticed is that, as has been already seen, Lao-tzu refers all existing creatures to an eternal, all-producing, all-sustaining unity, which he calls Nature (Tao). He does not distinguish between mind and matter, nor would he, in my opinion, have recognised any fundamental or generic difference between them. Whether, however, spirit and matter were identical or diametrically opposite, they had a common origin in Tao. But though usually he thus refers all things to nature (Tao) as their first cause, yet he sometimes seems to speak of the universe as coming from nothing.1 Nor is there any contradiction here, since Lao-tzu regarded non-existence (Wu ?) as in circumstances identical with existence (Yu ?); the latter being merely the former contemplated from a different point of view. This opinion, if not explicitly stated by himself, is at least implied in his writings, and is explicitly stated by one of his disciples.2 It must be mentioned, however, that Chu-hsi (??) ascribes the very opposite doctrine to Lao-tzu, who, he says, regarded existence and non-existence as two, whereas Chou-tzu (??) regarded them as one.3 In the Tao-tÊ Ching the originator of the universe is referred to under the names Non-Existence, Existence, Nature (Tao) and various other designations—all which, however, represent one idea in various manifestations. It is in all cases Nature (Tao) which is meant, and we are now prepared to examine the part which Lao-tzu assigns to this Tao in the production and regulation of the physical world.

Tao, as spoken of by Lao-tzu, may be considered as a potential or as an actual existence, and under this latter head it may be contemplated in itself and as an operating agent in the universe. Regarded as a potential existence it may, when compared with actual existence, be pronounced non-existence. It is from this point of view imperceptible to man, and can be spoken of only negatively; and so such terms as non-existence (?), the unlimited or infinite (??), the non-exerting (??), the matterless (??), are the expressions used with reference to Tao thus considered.4 Accordingly Lao-tzu, when speaking of it as a potential existence, as the logical antecedent of all perceptible existence—seems to regard it as equivalent to the primeval Nothing or Chaos. So too the Yuan-miao-nei-p?ien (????) says that the great Tao which arose in non-exertion is the ancestor of all things.5 From this state, however, it passes into the condition of actual existence, a transition which is expressed under the metaphor of generation.6 To this doctrine, that existence is generated from non-existence, Chu-hsi objects; but his objection arises chiefly, I think, from supposing that Lao-tzu regarded them as two distinct things, whereas his doctrine on this subject is exactly like that of Chou-tzu, with which Chu-hsi seems to agree.7 We are not to suppose that Nature is ever simply and entirely potential to the utter exclusion of actuality, or vice versa: on the contrary, these two existences or conditions are represented as alternately generating each the other.8 Thus the potential (or nominal non-existence) may be supposed to be in time later than the actual, though the latter must always be logically regarded as consequent on the former. In itself, again, Tao, regarded as an actual existence is, as has been seen, calm, void, eternal, unchanging and bare of all qualities. Regarded as an agent operating throughout the universe, on the other hand, Tao may be spoken of as great, changing, far-extending, and finally returning (to the state of potentiality).9 A late author gives a curious illustration of the above notions of Lao-tzu, taken from the well-known habits of the Ateuchus with reference to the propagation of its species, but this author proceeds on the supposition that non-existence and existence are different. We have now to combine these two conceptions of Tao, as a potential and as an actual existence. Though void, shapeless, and immaterial, it yet contains the potentiality of all substance and shape, and from itself it produces the universe,10 diffusing itself over or permeating all space. It is said to have generated the world,11 and is frequently spoken of as the mother of this latter12—“the dark primeval mother, teeming with dreamy beings.” All things that exist submit to Tao as their chief, but it displays no lordship over them.13 In the spring time it quickens the dead world, clothes it as with a garment, and nourishes it, yet the world knows not its foster-mother. A distinction, however, is made—the nameless is said to be the origin of heaven and earth, while the named is the mother of the myriad objects which inhabit the earth. Though there is nothing done in the universe which is not done by Nature, though all things depend on it for their existence, yet in no case is Nature seen acting.14 It is in its own deep self a unit—the smallest possible quantity—yet it prevails over the wide expanse of the universe, operating unspent but unseen.15

We now come to the generations of the heavens and the earth, and their history is thus given by Lao-tzu.16 Tao generated One, One generated Two, Two generated Three, and Three generated the material world. That is, according to the explanation given by some, Nature (Tao) generated the Yin-ch?i (??), the passive and inferior element in the composition of things; this in its turn produced the Yang-ch?i (??), the active and superior element; which again produced Ho (?), that is, that harmonious agreement of the passive and active elements which brought about the production of all things.17 Another explanation is that Tao considered as Non-existence produced the Great Extreme (T?ai-chi ??), which produced the passive and active elements; then Harmony united these two and generated the universe.18 Of this section of the Tao-tÊ Ching RÉmusat observes—“En effet, Lao-tseu explique, d’une maniÈre qui est entiÈrement conforme À la doctrine Platonicienne, comment les deux principes, celui du ciel et celui de la terre, ou l’air grossier et l’ether, sont liÉs entre eux par un Souffle qui les unit et qui produit l’harmonie. Il est impossible d’exprimer plus clairemeut les idÉes de TimÉe de Locres, dont les termes semblent la traduction du passage Chinois.”19 The doctrines, however, on the formation of the world put into the mouth of TimÆus, and the ideas of Lao-tzu on this subject, seem to me to have very little in common. The Greek philosopher makes a personal deity the artificer of the universe, fashioning the world out of the bright and solid elements, fire and earth, which he unites by means of air and water, thus forming a friendship and harmony indissoluble by any except the author. The harmony of Lao-tzu, on the other hand is, if we understand him aright, only the unconflicting alternation of the two cosmical elements, and there is no divine Demiurg in his system. There is, however, a statement in the TimÆus which resembles Lao-tzu’s statement on this subject, and to which we will refer hereafter.

First in order after Tao is T?ien (?), or the material heaven above us. This is represented as pure and clear in consequence of having obtained the One—that is, in consequence of having participated in the great “over-soul” or Universal Nature.20 Were heaven to lose its purity and clearness it would be in danger of destruction. Of the heavenly bodies and their revolutions, Lao-tzu does not make mention, nor have we any means of ascertaining what were his ideas respecting them. Nearly all that he says about T?ien or heaven is metaphorical, with apparent reference to an agent endowed with consciousness (according to our ways of thinking). Thus he speaks of it as enduring for a long period because it does not exist for itself; as being free from partiality towards any of the creatures in the world; as being next in dignity above a king and below Tao, and as taking this last for its rule of conduct.21

The space between heaven and earth is represented as like a bottomless bag or tube,22 though this is perhaps merely a metaphorical expression. The earth itself is at rest,23 this being the specific nature which it has as the result of its participation in Tao. The heavens are always revolving over the earth, producing the varieties of the seasons, vivifying, nourishing, and killing all things; but it remains stationary in calm repose. Were it to lose the informing nature which makes it so, the earth would probably be set in motion. Its place is next in order after heaven which it takes as its model. It is impartial, spontaneous, unostentatious, and exists long because it does not exist for itself. Neither in heaven nor on earth can anything violent endure for a lengthened period. The whirlwind and heavy rains may come, but they do not last even for a day.24

Next to heaven and earth are the “myriad things” that is, the animate and inanimate objects which surround us; and here again it must be borne in mind that Lao-tzu’s allusions to these matters are only incidental and by way of illustration generally. As has been seen, all things spring from and participate in Nature, which is, as it were, their mother. This Nature (Tao) is, as we have seen, imperceptible in itself, and when considered merely as a potentiality; but it bodies itself forth and takes a local habitation and a name in all the objects which exist in the universe, and thus it becomes palpable to human observation—not in its essence but only in its workings. Now this manifestation of Nature constitutes for each object or class of objects in the world its TÊ (?)—that is, what it has received or obtained from Tao, according to some commentators. TÊ is usually translated by virtue, but this word very inadequately represents the meaning of the word in this connection. Sometimes it seems to be almost synonymous with Tao, and has functions assigned to it which at other times are represented as pertaining to this latter. If, however, we regard Tao as the great or universal Nature, we may consider TÊ as the particular Nature with which creatures are endowed out of the former. It is also the conscious excellence which man and all other creatures obtain when spontaneity is lost. Thus Lao-tzu regards all things as equally with man under the care of Nature, which produces and nourishes all alike. Heaven and earth, he says, have no partialities—they regard the “myriad things” as the straw-made dogs which were formed for the sacrifices and prayers for rain, and cast aside when the rites were finished.25 In another passage of the Tao-tÊ Ching it is said that Tao generates all things, TÊ nourishes all things, Matter (Wu ?) bodies them forth, and Order (?) gives them perfection.26

Lao-tzu, in accordance with popular Chinese ideas, speaks of five colours, five sounds, and five tastes;27 and he attributes to these a baneful influence on man, whom he teaches to overcome and nullify them as much as possible. All things in the world, moreover, are arranged in a system of dualism.28 Motion is always followed by rest, and this again by motion. Long and short, high and low, mutually succeed each other, and are merely relative terms. Solidity gives the object, and hollowness gives its utility, as in the case of wooden or earthen vessels. When a thing is to be weakened it must first have been strengthened; to that from which there is to be taken there must first have been given. This dualism will be seen to extend into other regions besides the physical world, and it is needless to refer to it at greater length at present.

Further, Lao-tzu seems to have regarded all existing things as having a set time during which to endure. Nature engenders them, nourishes them and finally receives them back into its bosom. They flourish until they attain to the state of completeness, which is soon lost, and then decay and final dissolution ensue.29 The tree grows from the tiny sapling to its full maturity, then decays and returns to dark Mother Nature. The process as conceived and sketched by the ancient sage is beautifully described in the words of Tennyson—

Lao-tzu’s mode of contemplating natural phenomena is, indeed, altogether much more like that of the poetical metaphysician than that of the physicist. He does not look upon a stream, for example, as composed of certain chemical elements in certain proportions, as running at a calculable rapid rate, carrying with it an alarming amount of mud, and having in each microscopic drop exactly so many thousands of animalculÆ. He thinks of it rather as at first a tiny stream up among the hills, scooping out the hard earth, and slowly wearing away impeding stones, in order to make a channel for its waters; as flowing thence down into the vale where it gives itself up to enrich the fields; then as passing on thence to join the brimming river, and finally submit itself to the great sea.31 He regards everything from an ethical point of view, and finds a lesson everywhere. He does not regard the study of nature as consisting in the investigation of colour, sound, heat, and such things—the less one has to do with these the better. The study should be carried on in one’s own room without any adventitious aids. The student must overcome his affections and passions before he can attain to a knowledge of the great mysteries of Nature, but having once attained the serene heights of desireless existence he can know all things.32 This is no doubt a bad way of studying nature, and one which would never conduct to the material benefit of humanity. Yet it also has its uses. It helps to make us “mingle with the universe,” have a lower appreciation of ourselves, and sympathise affectionately with all that surrounds us. We have abundance of room in the world for the two classes of philosophers—those who experiment on Nature with a view to the material progress of mankind, and those who regard her with the dutiful love of a son for a mother.

In the teachings of Lao-tzu in Speculative Physics, as sketched above, the student of philosophy will find many ideas resembling others with which he is already more familiar. To those of the sages of Ancient Greece it is perhaps unnecessary for me to do more than refer. With them as living also in the comparative childhood of the world Lao-tzu might naturally be supposed to have considerable affinity. In the TimÆus of Plato there is a passage which does not accord with the rest of that work, nor with the spirit of the other Platonic dialogues, and which bears considerable resemblance to the doctrine of Lao-tzu about the primordial all-producing Nature (Tao). The hero of the dialogue, if such an expression may be used, TimÆus himself, suddenly leaves the train of imaginative discourse which he had been for some time pursuing about the visible universe and the mode in which the divine artificer constructed it, and he introduces a new conception, that of the primeval mother, formless, immortal, and indestructible.33 Reference has already been made to the resemblance between Lao-tzu’s teachings and those of Anaximander, and Hegel says of the latter’s notion, that the ?pe???? is the principle from which endless worlds or gods originate and into which they vanish, that it sounds quite Oriental.34 But not only are Lao-tzu’s speculations on physics like those of other ancients, they resemble also those of many modern philosophers, and his theory about the study of Nature may well be compared with that of Schelling. The Tao itself, or the primordial existence, appears under various names in the history of Philosophy. It is the T?ai-chi (??) or Great Extreme—the T?ai-yi (??) or Great Unit—the Anima Mundi—the Absolute—the Vital Force—Gravity—Caloric—when considered as universally active and productive.

Further, Lao-tzu represents pure or abstract existence as identical with non-existence, and in our own century Hegel has said that Being and Non-being are the same.36 Again, Lao-tzu speaks of the ultimate existence as that out of which all other existences have proceeded, and he regards it as becoming active and producing from having been inactive and quiescent. So many modern philosophers have maintained that God made all things out of himself; and in the opinion of some the Deity became personal from being impersonal, and the Infinite manifested itself as finite in the created universe.37 But the great point on which Lao-tzu differs from the large majority of modern thinkers with regard to the First Cause is that he never introduces or supposes the element of personality; consequently will and design are excluded from his conception of the primordial existence.38 Here, I think, he is logically more correct than the modern philosopher referred to above, although his notions may be much farther from the actual truth than theirs. Again, when Lao-tzu speaks of Nature (Tao) as the source whence all things spring—as that which informs and cherishes all the world—and as that into which all living creatures, high and low, finally return—he says what many others have expressed in terms often very similar. I select only two or three instances by way of illustration. The Pythagorean doctrine is thus put by Virgil—

Strikingly similar to Lao-tzu’s words are those of the Preacher—“For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”40 In later times Coleridge has said—“Life is the one universal soul, which by virtue of the enlivening Breath, and the informing word, all organised bodies have in common, each after its kind. This, therefore, all animals possess, and man as an animal.”41 More closely resembling Lao-tzu’s statements on this subject, however, are the words of Dr. BÜchner—“D’un autre cÔtÉ n’oublions pas non plus, que nous ne sommes qu’une partie imperceptible, quoique nÉcessaire, du grand tout qui constitue le monde et que nous devons tÔt ou tard perdu notu personalitÉ pour rentrer dans la masse commune. La MatiÈre dans son ensemble est la mÈre d’ou tout provient et ou tout retourne.”42

As we proceed we will find other doctrines of our author resembling those of writers and thinkers far removed from him in time and space. The illustrations given and referred to above will suffice to show that, in speculations about Nature and the great mystery of existence, we are little, if anything, superior to “the ancients.” The course of speculative philosophy seems to be circular—the same truths and errors appearing again and again, so that as Coleridge has said, “For many, very many centuries it has been difficult to advance a new truth, or even a new error, in the philosophy of the intellect or morals,”43 or, he might have added, of theoretical physics. Is it true, after all, that the spirit of the long-deceased philosopher returns from the Elysian fields, forgetting by its Lethean draught all the truths and realities of the eternal, ever-the-same world, to inform again a human body? We know that Malebranche’s character was like that of Plato. Schelling, even in external appearance, resembled Socrates; Hegel is called the modern Proclus; and the soul of Lao-tzu may have transmigrated into Emerson. This last has been chained to “a weight of nerves,” and located in circumstances altogether unlike those of its former earthly existence, a fact which would account for many points of unlikeness. The informing spirit, however, has known no change in “its own deep self:”