Figures of Taoism: Lu Xisheng 陆希声

Lu Xisheng (?~c. 901) was a scholar of the Tang Dynasty. He was born in Wu County, Suzhou (present-day Wuxian County, Jiangsu Province).

In his early years, he held an official post in Shangzhou, and later lived in seclusion in Yixing.

After coming out of seclusion, he was summoned to serve as You Shiyi (a court position) and then as the governor of Shezhou.

Emperor Zhaozong, having heard of his reputation, appointed him as Hubu Shilang (Vice Minister of the Ministry of Revenue) and Tong Zhongshu Menxia Pingzhangshi (a high-ranking minister, equivalent to prime minister).

He was erudite and skilled in writing, and devoted great efforts to the study of I Ching, Spring and Autumn Annals, and Laozi. From the perspective of "clarifying nature" and "restoring nature", he summarized Laozi's thought, affirming the consistency between Laozi's thought and Confucius' thought. He believed that the relationship between the two was that of "zhi" (essence) and "wen" (form), i.e., essence and phenomenon, content and form. He said: "Confucius expounded the 'wen' of the Three Dynasties to support the declining [order]; Laozi based himself on the 'zhi' of the Three Sovereigns to rescue the chaotic [situation]. Their principles are one and the same" (Preface to the Commentary on the Dao De Jing).

He pointed out that Confucius and Laozi, one aimed to support the declining order, the other to rescue chaos; the former focused on regulating emotions, while the latter focused on restoring nature.

He said: "Confucius' doctrine flourished with 'wen', and 'wen' is used to regulate emotions; Laozi's doctrine is based on 'zhi', and 'zhi' is used to restore nature" (ibid.). He further explained the different fates of Confucius' and Laozi's doctrines in later generations from the distinction between "wen" and "zhi": Confucius taught with "wen", whose matters were open and clear, easily understood by people; Laozi taught with "zhi", whose principles were subtle and profound, hard to comprehend, and thus easily misinterpreted. He regarded Yang Zhu, Zhuang Zhou, Shen Buhai, Han Fei, Wang Bi, and He Yan as representatives who misinterpreted Laozi's thought, believing that these six people all deviated from the basic ideas of Laozi. He stated that the fundamental thought of Laozi was "taking Dao as the substance, names as the function, and practicing non-action and non-inaction while conforming to the highest imperial principles" (ibid.).

He concluded that Laozi's Dao, names, and non-action were the highest models of imperial art ("conforming to the highest imperial principles"). He criticized the above six people for failing to understand this and deviating from Laozi's thought. He said: "Yang Zhu followed the substance of Laozi but failed by falling short, to the extent of valuing the self and belittling things; Zhuang Zhou expounded the function of Laozi but failed by going too far, thus seeking to reject sages and abandon wisdom; Shen [Buhai] and Han [Fei] missed the names in Laozi, falling into harshness and urgency; Wang [Bi] and He [Yan] missed the Dao in Laozi, drifting into emptiness and indulgence. These six are all sinners against Laozi" (ibid.).

He also explained that Confucius and Laozi, though taking different paths, reached the same goal, from the connection and distinction between "having traces" and "having no traces". "Having traces" refers to the founder of a doctrine directly putting his theory into practice; "having no traces" refers to the founder of a doctrine hiding his actions due to certain reasons and not engaging in worldly affairs. Lu Xisheng believed that Laozi belonged to the latter case, but this did not diminish the value of Laozi's doctrine, for the reason that "having traces or no traces, different paths lead to the same destination" (ibid.).

He highly praised Laozi's doctrine, believing that Laozi "explored the extremes of nature and fate, traced the mysteries of Dao and virtue", "embodied softness and maintained tranquility while unifying them with greatness", "encompassed the world with the transformation of Dao and virtue", and "studied the mechanism of extreme changes, probed the depth of extreme essence, which can be called the most divine" (ibid.).

Although he placed Laozi and Confucius side by side, he actually considered Laozi's thought to be superior to Confucius' and regarded it as the highest ideological model. His biography is included in Volume 116 of New Book of Tang.

His works include Supplements to the Dao De Jing in 4 volumes (see Bibliographical Notes on Books Not Included in the Siku Quanshu). Some of his works are compiled in Volume 813 of Complete Prose of the Tang Dynasty.