Yu Sheng (from the ninth issue of “Learning Lamp”)

The Analects, Taibo, mentions that Shun had five ministers, and the world was well-governed. The Analects, Weilinggong, records Confucius saying, “He who governs by doing nothing, is it not Shun? What did he do? He simply sat respectfully facing south.” A country governed by a monarch sitting facing south and five ministers can only be a genetically encoded society. Human nature is still the main force for the stability and operation of this society, so so few managers can be used. Many domestic scholars believe that China had already entered the stage of national civilization before the Xia Dynasty. Shun managed at least a tribal alliance at the chieftain level, with at least hundreds of thousands of people. In my previous article (see Xue Deng, Issue 7: http://confucius2000.com/admin/list.asp?id=3672), I divided human society into genetically encoded primitive society and artificial secondary society. I found that unlike Western civilization, which started with city-state secondary society, Chinese civilization started with the construction of primitive society and still relied on human nature as its social operating mechanism. [1]

To elucidate the impact of this primordial social system on Chinese history, it is essential to first recognize that pre-Warring States social power existed within a hierarchical balance and checks and balances, and was not absolute; therefore, the existence of primordial social institutions was permissible. The establishment of the centralized system after the Warring States period disrupted this balance, depriving peasants of their freedom of migration and feudal lords of their autonomy. Therefore, this paper first discusses this pre-Warring States power balance system, and then elaborates on its historical impact.

(I) In the pre-Warring States period, social power existed in a gradual balance of power.

One condition for the continuation of primitive societies in China after the emergence of civilization and states was that social power existed through a gradual balance of power, rather than being absolute. The social model of pre-Warring States China was as follows:

The Imperial Family: Quasi-Primitive Society + Scholars

┃

Feudal families, quasi-primitive society, and literati

┃

Village Family Primitive Society

The Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties did not have standing armies, only a small number of palace guards. In times of war, peasants were temporarily conscripted to form armies, which were disbanded afterward. The dynasty was the largest among the numerous vassal states, and the army formed by conscripting peasants within its directly controlled royal domain was also the largest compared to the vassal states. However, an army formed by a coalition of several vassal states could easily defeat the dynasty, so the dynasty’s power was constrained by the vassal states. Similarly, the power of the vassal states was constrained by villages and tribes. Even so, like the United Nations today, the dynasty, as a superpower, had the function of maintaining peace among the vassal states. Furthermore, the army formed by conscripting peasants was fundamentally different from the standing army after the Warring States period; the former was more influenced by the will of the peasants themselves—the power of human nature—while the latter was more easily subject to the will of social power. During the reign of King You of Zhou, a large area of ​​the royal domain was lost, and the military balance between the dynasty and the vassal states shifted in favor of the vassal states. Therefore, the Five Hegemons emerged during the Spring and Autumn period, with at least the first hegemon, Duke Huan of Qi, playing a role in maintaining national unity and social stability. Mencius recorded the five covenant agreements made by Duke Huan of Qi at a meeting of the feudal lords, including the following clauses: “No dikes should be built to block the river; no grain should be bought without notification.” This means that all those who are allied with us should, after the alliance is formed, return to good relations. (“No dikes should be built to block the river; no grain should be bought without notification” – Mencius, “Gaozi Chapter 2”) This sufficiently demonstrates that the military strength of the ruling classes of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties was based on maintaining peace and a balance of social power, not on the pursuit of hegemony itself. Duke Huan of Qi merely inherited this tradition.

The *Book of Rites* records Confucius saying, “Therefore, plans are made and armies arise from this; Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, Cheng, and the Duke of Zhou were chosen from this. They established their principles to demonstrate righteousness, examine their trustworthiness, record their faults, punish wrongdoing, promote benevolence and humility, and show the people constancy; those who do not follow these principles will be removed from power, and the people will consider them a calamity. This is called a state of moderate prosperity.” This means that from the Xia Dynasty to the Zhou Dynasty, the world was in a state of moderate prosperity, adhering to the ritual system. The ritual system was used to examine the rulers in power, to distinguish their right and wrong, trustworthiness, faults, benevolence and righteousness, and consistency. Rulers who did not follow these principles were seen as a calamity by the people and would lose their positions. This also illustrates that in the social models listed above, there is no absolute authority, but rather a system of checks and balances. Within this balance of power, people can continue to live in the original society encoded in their genetic code; human nature remains the main social mechanism for stability and operation, and the people’s displeasure is enough to remove those in power.

In Chapter 29 of the *Tao Te Ching*, Lao Tzu says, “The world is a sacred vessel; it cannot be manipulated, nor can it be seized. Those who try to manipulate it will fail, and those who seize it will lose it.” Lao Tzu means that the human world is sacred; it cannot be altered or possessed. Those who attempt to manipulate it will fail, and those who seize it will lose it. These words show that Lao Tzu had a clear understanding of the fundamental differences between primitive society and modern secondary societies, demonstrating his profound and keen observation of society and history. Lao Tzu himself did not personally experience a typical secondary society. When Lao Tzu says that the world is a sacred vessel, it cannot be manipulated or seized, he is referring to the unmanipulable nature of secondary societies. This is also a description of the power balance system in pre-Warring States society: the emperor and feudal lords could not manipulate or seize their subordinate societies; they could neither control them arbitrarily nor possess them, because in this social model, no one possessed such absolute authority. King Li of Zhou nationalized the mountains, forests, rivers, and lakes, and King You of Zhou replaced the crown prince. It cannot be said that they did not have the right to do so, but it clearly exceeded the tolerance of this power balance system, leading to the escape of King Li of Zhou and the killing of King You of Zhou.

During the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, people had the right to migrate freely and the freedom to choose among the many vassal states. According to Wang Yuzhe’s research, during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, and even into the Spring and Autumn period, there were still large areas of wasteland in China. The areas inhabited by the Huaxia people were scattered points and not connected into a whole. Other ethnic groups also lived there. At that time, agriculture was done by clearing land and planting for several years before abandoning it. Farmers were very mobile. [2] In the Western Zhou Dynasty, farmers changed their masters (land) and moved every three years. Farmers could not have much property. Under such circumstances, it was not only possible for people to move to another vassal state if they were unhappy living in one vassal state, but it was also one of the important considerations for those in power to manage the country. It was also the basis for Mencius’s advocacy of using benevolent governance to unify the world: farmers migrated to the vassal states that practiced benevolent governance, so that the vassal states would automatically become the kings of the world.

The author of the “Great Learning” chapter of the *Book of Rites* is said to be Zeng Shen, who lived in the early Warring States period. It records, “Therefore, the superior man first cultivates virtue. With virtue, there are people; with people, there is land; with land, there is wealth; with wealth, there is use.” This clearly states that the state’s financial resources primarily depend on the people who support the monarch’s virtuous rule. Land can only be considered state land if it is occupied and cultivated by the people; otherwise, wasteland that can be occupied by outsiders or other ethnic groups at any time cannot be considered state territory. This is similar to the tribal politics of early societies, where popular support was everything, and property and land were not of great importance. This is further proof that peasants in pre-Warring States China had the right to free movement. In early societies, people could leave one tribe and join another.

This social phenomenon, in which people choose their lords and kings, and who in turn are granted power through their choices, is a continuation of the original social phenomenon in ancient China that the stability and operation of society depended on human nature itself.

During the Warring States period, a two-tiered society emerged, each with its own construction direction and ideological system. The three major states of Qin, Chu, and Qi clearly represented different political orientations. Qin considered poetry and art useless and banned them, while simultaneously advocating that officials serve as teachers, thus suppressing different schools of thought. Chu, under the guidance of figures like Qu Yuan, actually achieved the pinnacle of poetry development, while Qi established the Jixia Academy, promoting a flourishing of diverse schools of thought. If the emergence of hegemony in the Spring and Autumn period served a stabilizing, police-like function, then wars in the Warring States period were essentially contests of different political orientations. In this context, war was no longer the violent conflict of a primitive society constrained by human nature, nor was it a way to resolve disputes under conditions of equality. When humanity learned how to wage war against its neighbors to gain additional benefits, the human world began a military competition. The victors in war were always the most militarized and well-equipped social groups, and those cultures that were no longer constrained by human nature. During the Warring States period, the people had already lost the right to move freely among the states, and a standing military force that yielded to individual will had been established. For the six states to try to defeat the ferocious Qin state with a more humane political system, such as Confucianism, which was supported by the people, was tantamount to trying to catch fish by climbing a tree.

It should be emphasized that the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi, as well as those of Confucius and Mencius, are based on the original social system of power balance at each level, and may not be entirely applicable to the social reality of later centralized rule. John King Fairbank believed that Emperor Wu of Han created imperial Confucianism based on the needs of imperial unification, so the official Confucianism of subsequent dynasties was fundamentally different from the teachings of Confucius and Mencius. [3]

(II) Profound historical impact

After the bloody baptism of the Warring States period, Chinese society evolved into the following model:

The Quasi-Primitive Society of the Imperial Family

┃

Bureaucrats and reserve intellectual groups are the second-level social group

┃

Village family quasi-primitive society

The main difference between this social model and the above social model is that the vassal states in the middle disappeared and were replaced by a group of bureaucrats and reserve literati. According to the data provided by John King Fairbank, the huge Qing Dynasty used less than 20,000 bureaucrats, but had a group of 1.25 million reserve literati who obtained the civil service examinations. [3] This group of bureaucrats and reserve literati was trained based on the Confucian doctrines of benevolence and righteousness and the system of rites and music. Although the doctrines of benevolence and righteousness and the system of rites and music belong to the ideological system of the secondary society, they are a direct derivative of the original social leader politics and can still appear as a unified culture of mankind, just like the guiding ideology of the United Nations in today’s world. Although this appearance of a human empire is deceptive, remote small countries that do not suffer losses in material exchanges have no need to object. Hundreds of millions of peasants pay taxes in exchange for the guarantee of peace and stability, just like before the Warring States period. This is also the source of the strong inclusiveness and integrativeness of this system. The change of dynasties is only a change of the emperor’s family and the selection of 10,000 to 20,000 bureaucrats from the same group of reserve literati, which allows Chinese civilization to develop continuously, unlike the rise and fall of other civilizations.

Confucianism is based on the primitive social system of China before the Warring States period. Although it underwent modifications by Emperor Wu of Han and Dong Zhongshu, it still retains its continuity. Since the Han Dynasty, China has used Confucianism as its official ideology, effectively governing a secondary society based on the primitive social system. Ancient intellectuals had the ideal of “cultivating oneself, regulating one’s family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world.” “Cultivating oneself and regulating one’s family” refers to matters of the primitive society, while “governing the state and bringing peace to the world” refers to the secondary society. For example, in the spring of 1566, Hai Rui, a minister known for his uprightness and outspokenness, wrote to Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty, criticizing the emperor for his inhumane character. Hai Rui said, “The two princes do not meet, which people think is unkind to father and son; he uses suspicion, slander, and humiliation to kill his ministers, which people think is unkind to ruler and subject; he enjoys the Western Garden but does not return to the palace, which people think is unkind to husband and wife.” This statement was a general evaluation of Emperor Jiajing, interfering in the emperor’s family affairs, and saying that he was unqualified as a father, a husband, and a monarch. Hai Rui clearly used methods from primitive society’s internal family affairs to try and force Emperor Jiajing, the father figure, to change his ways with extreme words. Emperor Jiajing was furious after reading the memorial and ordered Hai Rui’s arrest. The Ministry of Justice decided to execute Hai Rui by hanging according to the law against a son cursing his father, also a manifestation of primitive family ethics. Perhaps due to his poor health at the time, Emperor Jiajing did not respond to the Ministry of Justice’s request, and ten months later he died from poisoning by elixirs.

Primitive societies, based on human nature, possessed a powerful appeal and cohesive force influencing their people through the social principles derived from them. Primitive societies were always the domain of all humanity. By using primitive societies as a template and ensuring that secondary societies closely resembled them, ancient China was able to maintain long-term stability and prosperity for thousands of years. Similarly, Chinese civilization demonstrated a strong capacity to embrace and integrate surrounding cultures, resulting in a phenomenon rarely seen in world history: successful invaders ultimately dissolved into the ocean of Chinese culture, not through military victory, but through cultural assimilation. Aside from wars and a few other isolated incidents, ancient Chinese governments were small, with relatively few officials, leading to a relatively peaceful coexistence between superiors and subordinates. The reigns of Emperors Wen and Jing in the Han Dynasty are a prime example. The total number of officials in the Tang, Song, and Qing dynasties was around 20,000 each, while the populations of the Tang and Song dynasties ranged from 50 million to 100 million, and the Qing dynasty from 200 million to 400 million. Considering the Qing dynasty’s 400 million population, social administrators comprised only one in 20,000 of the population. This ratio is one percent, or even one in a thousand, of modern society; it is not an exaggeration to say that ancient China was close to anarchy. One direct reason is that in the above model, village families are still quasi-primitive societies, still partially operating based on human nature, which is why the ancient Chinese government only extended to the county level.

The fact that this system has remained unchanged for thousands of years implies a weak secondary social mechanism and a weak middle class. The ancient Greek city of Athens, with a population of only a few hundred thousand, possessed a well-developed secondary social mechanism that enabled it to mobilize the wisdom and strength of all classes, accumulate vast wealth in a short period, build a powerful navy, erect magnificent temples, and create a profound and sophisticated philosophy and culture. China, for thousands of years, has never built a similar large-scale secondary social mechanism as ancient Greece. Although the Chinese emperor held supreme power, he could only control the middle class of the upper class; the dismissal and promotion of 20,000 officials were entirely at his discretion. Chinese officials were also landowners, not solely reliant on salaries. Tao Yuanming of the Jin Dynasty, in a fit of anger over trivial matters like clothing, resigned his post and returned home to live a carefree life. One might ask, didn’t the emperor have the right to demand that his officials dress properly? The Chinese system lacked effective means to punish emperors who became arrogant and arbitrary; on the other hand, the emperor’s command of his officials was not always entirely effective. When promotions and rewards were insufficient to motivate officials, emperors often resorted to killing their ministers to drive their bureaucracy. Mencius, in the *Gaozi* (chapter 2), discussed three situations regarding taking office and resigning: if the ruler was disrespectful to his ministers, the minister could resign. Ironically, after the Warring States period, emperors could even arrest and kill their officials from their homes. In a vast country like China, there was nowhere to escape.

After the Warring States period, the feudal lords were replaced by civil officials, losing their power to check and balance centralized power. The increase in the emperor’s power was not accompanied by the development of corresponding operational mechanisms. Large-scale projects such as the construction of the Great Wall and the digging of the Grand Canal relied entirely on administrative orders, lacking an internal self-regulating mechanism. If modern commercial mechanisms were used, with the government funding and hiring workers, there would be self-limiting factors such as the government’s financial resources and the willingness of farmers to be employed, preventing the projects from exceeding the limits of societal capacity. The weakness of the secondary social operating mechanism led to the large-scale uprisings and sudden collapses of the Qin and Sui dynasties. Historical records show that during the reigns of Empress Wu Zetian and Emperor Wu of Han, more than half of the population fled. Regardless of whether this fleeing resulted from starvation or escape, a society that could withstand a population loss of more than half without collapsing cannot be considered a normal society. This was unheard of in primitive societies, clearly related to the increase in imperial power without a corresponding secondary social structure. During the reign of King Li of Zhou, angry residents stormed the palace in the capital, leading to King Li’s abdication and flight. King Li of Zhou did not mobilize an army to besiege the capital, clearly indicating that the army was still bound by human nature and unwilling to follow him in committing acts against human nature. In contrast, the Taiping Rebellion occupied nearly half of China, resulting in the deaths of twenty million people, and ultimately ended in failure. Modern scholars believe that the Taiping Rebellion’s policies were more humanitarian than those of the Qing government, and that it also shared the same ethnicity as the majority of the population. Even Zeng Guofan, who later held military power, was far superior to the Tongzhi Emperor and Empress Dowager Cixi of the Qing Dynasty in terms of both knowledge and moral character. Chinese society lacked a mechanism for effectively choosing from the numerous possibilities offered by chaos, let alone during periods of stability. This is the drawback of clinging to the pre-Warring States period ideology and failing to develop new secondary social systems.

The conclusion that the main social life level in pre-Warring States China was a primitive society encoded by genetics unexpectedly resolved, or at least clarified, some long-debated issues in academia, one of which was the existence of a slave society in ancient China.

China, India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia are the four ancient civilizations. Anderson believes that only Chinese civilization is unique, with small-scale cities, commerce, and warfare. He says that ancient China had few slaves, who were used in the home, so it is impossible to regard it as a slave society. [4] The author agrees with this statement. The Chinese system is based on primitive society and could not form a secondary social mechanism that drives the slave class. The free citizens of ancient Greece were also farmers and soldiers, and were also frugal and hardworking, but most of them owned slaves. The slaves were responsible for the main production and housework. They were similar to the social and economic operation mechanism of today. The rich, the common people, the poor, and the slaves all became a part of the social production mechanism, which was operated by the machine itself, with commerce as its lubricant, creating a hardworking atmosphere. Ancient China did not establish such a mechanism. Medieval Europe lost such a mechanism. Although it had the technology, materials, and slave sources, production still degenerated to the primitive stage. Archaeological data shows that between 650 and 950 AD, the main sources of livelihood in Europe were hunting, gathering and raising pigs without pens, rather than agriculture, because during this period, human settlements were mostly forests and wastelands with vast areas and sparse populations. [5] Similarly, during the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties in China, no matter how many foreign tribes lived there, it was impossible to prevent slaves from escaping, let alone the social mechanisms for supervising workers and preventing slave rebellions. At that time, the peasant masses had very little wealth and a low standard of living, so how could they allow a slave class with even less wealth and a lower standard of living? It was possible for the Shang army to capture a few hundred prisoners and force them to build cities and houses in a short period of time, but managing a slave class across the country was a completely different matter. In medieval Europe, hunting and picking wild fruits in the forest was a poetic life today. How to get these people onto the track of wealth accumulation and to supervise slave production with trepidation required a huge social mechanism and radical social reforms.

One of the differences between primitive society and secondary society is the difference in the function of language. In the face-to-face communication of primitive society, language is intertwined with emotion and psychological communication, which has an aesthetic meaning. In secondary society, language becomes a tool for social communication, a means of exchanging information and unifying will and pace. Mr. Liu Mengxi said, “The best book, I think, is the kind that you can read and savor no matter the time or place, just open any page of the book. Even if you are in a bad mood, you can forget yourself and regain tranquility while reading.” [6] Liu Mengxi judged the Confucian classics “The Analects” and “Mencius” by this standard. As a result, “The Analects” had this effect, but “Mencius” did not. “The Analects” and “Mencius” represent different stages of the development of Chinese. Confucius lived in the late stage of primitive society, which was a superpower, while Mencius lived in the early stage of secondary society. “The Analects” is a record of face-to-face language, intertwined with emotion and psychological communication, which has a strong aesthetic meaning and is more like a work of art. Although the *Mencius* is largely a record of conversations, it was adapted to the conversational habits of the secondary society at the time, conveying philosophical insights and wisdom, containing information and knowledge, and no longer resembling a pure work of art. Confucius said that if wealth and honor were attainable, he would be willing to whip someone and drive their carriage; Mencius spoke of the noble spirit of a man who cannot be swayed by poverty or corrupted by wealth. We, living under the suffocating influence of money, speak more like Mencius, which only shows that we, like Mencius, have painfully lost our original social order.

Most of the Hundred Schools of Thought in ancient China simultaneously discussed and coined new terms and concepts, indicating their necessity to create a language suitable for a secondary society during the emergence of secondary societies. For example, the 5,000-character *Tao Te Ching* introduced a multitude of new terms and concepts, such as *Tao*, *De*, *Xuanpin*, *Xuande*, and *Xuanlan*. Even though the *Tao Te Ching* became a widely disseminated classic, many of its new terms did not spread. Chapter 14 defines new terms as follows: “What cannot be seen is called *yi*; what cannot be heard is called *xi*; what cannot be grasped is called *wei*.” These meanings of *yi*, *xi*, and *wei* were rarely used.

Anthropologists believe that apes groom each other to strengthen social bonds, while naked humans use conversation instead of grooming. Language and ritual music in primitive societies also served to integrate society at the emotional and psychological levels. Ancient China’s primitive society emerged as a superpower representing all of humanity, allowing the emergence of a typical secondary society to proceed slowly over thousands of years, resulting in a unified language and culture. The vast region north of the Yangtze River, including Sichuan, used a unified language since ancient times. Even during the later Wu, Yue, and Chu states in the Jiangnan region, there were no language barriers in communication between the states during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. This is unique in the world; it is a result of the primitive social system representing all of humanity, and the establishment of secondary societies occurring simultaneously with the development of languages ​​within those secondary societies. The Warring States period was a crucial period for China’s transition from a primitive society to a secondary society, and also an important period for the establishment of languages ​​within secondary societies, thus creating a unified language in ancient China. Today, Australia, the United States, and Canada use English, as newly established immigrant nations chose a language. This is fundamentally different from the nature of language dissemination in ancient China.

The existence of the matriarchal society stage is a controversial topic. Western history textbooks generally do not discuss the alternation between matriarchal and patriarchal societies, while Chinese history textbooks all treat the matriarchal society as a historical stage. The author once pointed out that this may reflect the different ways in which patriarchal societies replaced matriarchal societies in the East and West. In the West, patriarchal societies conquered matriarchal societies, while in China, patriarchal and matriarchal societies developed in parallel and the latter was gradually assimilated. [7] It must be pointed out here that matriarchal societies do not necessarily have women as leaders, nor do men necessarily marry into women’s families. Rather, it is a term for a prehistoric peaceful culture of gender equality, or it should be called a maternal society. In ancient primitive societies, the leaders were probably mostly men. This did not prevent society from admiring women and worshipping goddesses, nor did it prevent the elderly women from being the center of social cohesion. According to the Records of the Grand Historian, the Yellow Emperor had twenty-five sons, only two of whom shared the same surname. The Yellow Emperor passed the throne to his grandson, not his son. Therefore, the Yellow Emperor’s family was a patriarchal matriarchal society. What force transformed the peaceful culture of a maternal society into the war civilization of the later patriarchal society? The author, De Meo, argues that around 4000 to 3000 BC, the climate in a vast region encompassing Central Asia, Arabia, and North Africa became arid, leading to desertification.

It can be seen that prolonged drought, accompanied by disasters, malnutrition, and hunger, provides an important stimulating effect, initiating a huge cultural transformation, especially when the drought area is vast and prolonged, from one generation to the next. During this period of climate change, similar harm to human society occurred, including the emergence of armed violence and male power in human culture, and archaeological evidence is distributed over a wide area. [8]

This emerging patriarchal and violent society was a secondary society, also known as the Aryan society or the steppe culture of Central Asia, including the ancient Xiongnu people of China. This newly emerging patriarchal society displayed enormous military superiority, becoming the master of wherever they went. They entered India, Persia, and even Europe, including ancient Greece, conquering the peaceful culture of the original matriarchal society. The Xiongnu, representing this patriarchal and violent culture, did not conquer China or enter the power center of ancient China. Demetrius argues that the Shang dynasty was a foreign culture from the northern steppes, while the Xia dynasty, like Shennong, was a native southern culture. This also supports the claim that Yu the Great’s hometown was Shiniu in Sichuan. However, Demetrius was unaware that the Zhou and Xia dynasties shared the same ethnicity and origin; the Zhou called themselves Xia, and both Xia and Zhou had a matriarchal tradition. This aligns with the original social superpower model discussed in this article, namely, that the transition from matriarchal to patriarchal society in ancient China did not follow a path of conquest but rather existed in parallel for a long period. In the aforementioned first social model diagram, the primitive society at the bottom represents the peaceful culture of a maternal society, while the feudal lords and kings represent the violent culture of a patriarchal society. Compared with the West, this violent culture is far inferior and only serves the function of a social policeman.

literature

[1] Yu Sheng (2008): A New Perspective on the Differences Between Eastern and Western Cultures. Xue Deng, Issue 7, on this website.

[2] Wang Yuzhe (2004): Ancient Chinese History. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.

[3] John King Fairbank (1994): John King Fairbank on China (translated by Xue Xuan). Taipei: Zhengzhong Book Company. 62 pages; 105 pages.

[4] Anderson/Sheng Qinwenzhong, trans., The Origin of the Ancient Chinese State, Twenty-First Century, No. 58, April 2000.

[5] F. Delouche (ed) (1993): Illustrated History of Europe., New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1993, p137.

[6] Liu Mengxi (2004): Zhuangzi and Modernity and Postmodernity, by Liu Mengxi, Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press. p. 24.

[7] Li Yousheng (2006): A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism. London, Canada: Taoist Rehabilitation Centre. pp. 88-89.

[8] J. DeMeo(2004): Saharasia, Orgone: Orgone Biophysical Research Lab, 2004¡ ¤

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share