THE LIFE AND TIMES OF LAO TAN

His definition is vague and shadowy, but it is clear, that he thought of it as independent and unvariable, somewhat p. xiii similar to the Christian term 'sole and primary nature',—'the Absolute, without beginning and ending', "with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning." He thus viewed Naturalism as the absolute. No name was big enough to cover it; so he gave it the conventional name of Tao. He added the word "Great", lest Tao, alone, might be confused with the ordinary tao in current use. This word great may be compared with Lord. In a way it may be synonymous with Jehovah. Yet it would not be right for us to give the same significance to Tao. Tao begat one, and one begat two: two begat three, and three begat all things, i.e., Creation. The existent came from the non-existent. Now Lao Tzû had said that Heaven followed Tao, Tao followed Naturalness. So when he said, "Tao begat one and one begat two," it may be concluded that he implied that there was something above Tao which begat it. This something was Naturalness. This is like 'self-existing'. And it may be legitimately argued that he was an advocate of monotheism, and, indirectly his teaching may imply a Trinity. 2. His view of Life. His view of the cosmos being vague, consequently his view of life, likewise, could not be clear. His view partakes somewhat of negativity. All things are examined and judged from the standard supplied by the Annals or the Spring and Autumn Classic. This classic is a description of the anarchy of the period,—about 242 years. During this period, there were 36 cases of regicide, of which more than half were parricides. It was this tragic state that led Confucius to compose the Annals. Though Mencius said this work aroused fear in the hearts of regicides, yet it is to be questioned whether the statement is correct. Confucius did his best; but reform, to be effectual, must be radical in dealing with such conditions. The reforms of Confucius were not radical enough. In his social system, he placed the relation of prince and minister at the head of the five relationships. But in this he erred. The head relationship should be husband and