Daoist Figures: Xie Lingyun 谢灵运

Xie Lingyun
(385–433) A poet of the Southern Song Dynasty (Liu Song). He was the grandson of Xie Xuan, and a native of Yangxia in Chenjun (present-day Taikang, Henan).

He inherited the title of Duke of Kangle, which was later demoted to Marquis. He held official positions including Regular Attendant of the Extraordinary Cavalry and Prefect of Yongjia. He was executed in Guangzhou on charges of treason. By nature, he was extravagant and arrogant, seizing land and disturbing the people; he had mountains excavated and caves dredged for his own pleasure, with endless labor conscriptions. He believed in Buddhism and advocated taking Buddhism as the foundation while incorporating Confucianism and Daoism, arguing that only by using Buddhist scriptures as a guide could one attain the true essence of the spirit. He stated: "The classic texts of the Six Arts (Confucian classics) are fundamentally for governing the world and regulating customs. If one truly seeks the profound essence of the spirit, how can they not take Buddhist scriptures as their guide!" (See He Shangzhi’s Reply to Emperor Wen of Song on Praising Buddhism).

He strongly argued for the consistency between Confucianism and Buddhism, maintaining that they were interconnected—essentially the same but differing in application. He attributed the divergence in understanding principles and receiving teachings to geographical differences between China and foreign lands. He said: "The difference between the two teachings (Confucianism and Buddhism) lies in their adaptation to local conditions and response to things, as they educate people in different regions. Broadly speaking, the Chinese people easily grasp principles but struggle to accept teachings, so we block the path of gradual learning and open the way to ultimate enlightenment. Foreign people easily accept teachings but struggle to grasp principles, so we block the path of sudden realization and open the way to gradual awakening. Although gradual awakening can lead to enlightenment, it obscures the truth of sudden realization; while ultimate enlightenment is understood as a goal, it cuts off the hope of gradual learning. This is because the Chinese grasp principles without gradual steps and falsely claim the Dao requires no learning, while foreign people grasp principles through learning and attain the Dao through gradual progress. Thus, although their essence and expedience are the same, their applications differ. In the past, Xiang Ziqī regarded Confucianism and Daoism as one, and Ying Jifu claimed Confucius and Laozi could be equated—both sought to fathom the origin, let alone the truth itself!" (On Distinguishing the Origin).

While adhering to Confucianism and Buddhism, he also revered Daoism and immortal techniques ("the methods of Anqi Sheng"), hoping for longevity. He wrote: "Who can pass on the essence of truth? I imagine the posture of Kunlun’s immortals. Distant from worldly ties, I now believe in Anqi’s techniques, seeking to fulfill the years of life cultivation" (Climbing the Islet in the River). He upheld the Daoist view of "cultivating nature" (shàn xìng), i.e., nurturing the mind and tempering the character, with emptiness, stillness, and embracing the Dao as the core content and goal of such cultivation. He stated: "The recluse walks calmly; his nobility is unmatched in loftiness. What is the end of complacency? In silence, he abides in embracing unity. Once tranquility is attained, the cultivation of nature emerges therefrom" (Poem on Climbing Green Barrier Mountain in Yongjia).

Biographies of him can be found in Book of Song (Volume 67) and History of the Southern Dynasties (Volume 19). During the Ming Dynasty, a collection of his works, Collected Works of Xie Kangle, was compiled.