Three Perspectives on Naming the Way
關於道的名、字、號
Kuan-yun HUANG 黃冠雲
(Tsing Hua University, Taiwan)
Abstract:
This paper considers a specific question raised in the Laozi 老子, particularly Chapter 25: what is
the name of the way? An analysis of Chapter 25 as well as the closely related Warring States
manuscript “Taiyi sheng shui” 太一生水 (The Grand One generates water) reveals two distinct
positions. Such understanding provides a background for reading several ancient texts and helps
to reconstruct the debate about the way and that other elusive notion in Early Chinese thought,
“one.”
摘要：
「道」應該如何以語言描述？這是《老子》以及先秦秦漢的道家論述最關注的議題之一。
在《老子》二十五章、郭店《太一生水》、馬王堆《道原》等一系列文獻中，這個主題表
現在道應該如何命名的問題上，具體而言是道的名、字、號究竟為何？本文根據上述文獻
的分析和比較，嘗試在《太一生水》與《老子》、《道原》等道家文獻之間做出區分，指
出《太一生水》自有其獨特的思想內涵，更準確的認識有助於學者重構郭店竹簡與其他文
獻在思想史的相關脈絡。
The following paper, part of a work in progress on the Laozi 老子, considers a specific
question raised in that text, particularly Chapter 25: what is the name of the way? An analysis of
Chapter 25 as well as the closely related Warring States manuscript “Taiyi sheng shui” 太一生水
(The Grand One generates water) reveals two distinct positions.1 Such understanding provides a
background for reading several other ancient texts and helps to reconstruct the debate about the
way and that other elusive notion in Early Chinese thought, “one.”
I begin with Chapter 25 of the Laozi:
又（有）（狀）蟲（混）城（成），先天（地）生。敓（悅）（穆），蜀
（獨）立而不亥（改），可（以）為天下母。未（知）（其）名，
（字）之曰道，（吾）（強）為之名曰大。大曰（逝），逝曰遠，遠曰
1
For the “Tayi sheng shui,” an excellent overall synthesis is Sarah Allan, “The Great One, Water, and the Laozi:
New Light from Guodian.” Two recent articles provide useful summaries of later developments: Chen Ligui 陳麗
桂, “‘Taiyi sheng shui’ yanjiu zongshu ji qi yu Laozi bing de xiangguan wenti”《太一生水》研究綜述及其與《老
子》丙的相關問題, and Zheng Jixiong 鄭吉雄, “‘Taiyi sheng shui’ shidu yanjiu”《太一生水》釋讀研究. See
also the introductory comments by Scott Cook in The Bamboo Texts of Guodian: A Study and Complete Translation,
323-41.
1
反。天大，（地）大，道大，王亦大。（域）中又（有）四大（焉），而
王凥（處）一（焉）。人灋（法）（地），地灋（法）天，天灋（法）道，
道灋（法）自肰（然）。2
There is a state of things, confusedly formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
Reverent and solemn
It stands alone and does not change.
It is capable of being the mother of the world.
I know not its name
So I style it “the way.”
I give it the makeshift name of “the great.”
Being great, it is further described as receding,
Receding, it is described as far away.
Being far away, it is described as turning back.
Hence heaven is great; earth is great; the way is great; and the king is also great. Within
the realm there are four things that are great, and the king counts as one.
Man models himself on earth,
Earth on heaven,
Heaven on the way,
And the way on that which is naturally so.
Chapter 25 of the Laozi begins with the suggestion about an entity that precedes the
creation of all things, even heaven and earth. Not knowing what this entity is, the text identifies
dao 道 “the way” as its zi 字 “cognomen,” and only after acknowledging the difficulty in doing
so, gives its ming 名 “proper name” as da 大 “greatness.” Here the fine distinction between
ming and zi reveals a concern with naming. What is commonly used, the “way,” is simply an
informal name. As the text goes on to indicate the proper name, this must be understood in view
of a statement later in the text: 天大，地大，道大，王亦大 “Heaven is great, the earth is great,
the way is great, and the king is also great.”3 To know what this means, consider another
passage from Laozi, Chapter 67, where one finds an occurrence of the same da “great” as in
Chapter 25: 天下［皆］胃（謂）我大，大而不宵（肖）；夫唯不宵（肖），故能大；若宵
（肖）久矣，（其）細也 “The whole world says that I am vast, vast and resemble nothing.
It is because I resemble nothing that I am able to be great. If I resembled anything, I would, long
before now, have become small.”4 According to this text, the “way” or the principle underlying
the world is da “great” precisely because it bu xiao 不肖 “resembles nothing”; that is, one cannot
point to any single entity and call it the “way.” It seems to me that this is the exact opposite of
Chapter 25, even though they both point to same understanding: Chapter 25 suggests that the
2
For this discussion, I cite the text from the “Laozi jia” 老子甲 manuscript of Guodian (slips 21-23), as found in
Guodian Chumu zhujian. The translation has consulted Lau, Tao Te Ching and Cook, The Bamboo Texts of
Guodian: A Study and Complete Translation, 256-61.
3
References to the Laozi are to Shima Kunio 島邦男, Rōshi kōsei 老子校正. Translations are based on D.C. Lau,
Tao Te Ching.
4
Here the text I cite is a combination of the two fragmentary texts from Mawangdui 馬王堆, which is line 67-8 in
the “A” version, and line 206 top-bottom in the “B” version; see Mawangdu Hanmu boshu 馬王堆漢墓帛書, vol. 1.
2
way is everywhere, Chapter 67 that it is nowhere. This gets one no closer to knowing what the
way really is.5
From this I turn to the “Taiyi sheng shui” (slips 10-13):
下，土也，而胃（謂）之（地）。上，（氣）也，而胃（謂）之天。道亦
（其）（字）也，青（請）昏（問）（其）名。（以）道從事者，必
（托）（其）名，古（故）事城（成）而身長。聖人之從事也，亦（托）
（其）名，古（故）（功）城（成）而身不（傷）。天地名（字）竝立，
古（故）（過）其方，不囟（使）相尚（當）。［天不足］於西北，（其）
下高（以）（強）。（地）不足於東南，其上□□□。
Below, it is soil, and this is called earth; above, it is fluid energy, and this is called heaven.
“The way” is merely its cognomen—what, may I ask, is its name? Those who use the
way to carry things out must borrow this name, and thus their tasks are successful and
their persons long-lived. When sages carry things out, they also borrow this name, and
thus their achievements are successful and their persons not injured. Heaven and earth
stand with both their names and cognomens. Thus they surpass one another and are not
permitted to match. [Heaven is deficient] in the northwest, but that below it is high and
strong. Earth is deficient in the southeast…
Comparing Chapter 25 of the Laozi with the “Taiyi sheng shui,” the first thing to note is
how similar they are. When the “Taiyi sheng shui” suggests the following: 道亦其字也，請問
其名 “The way is merely its cognomen; what, may I ask, is its name?” this resembles Chapter 25
not only in making the same distinction between ming and zi, but also in making the same point:
dao “the way” is merely an informal name. But the two texts also differ in important ways.
While identifying da “the Great” as the name of this unnamable entity, Chapter 25 shows a
certain reservation and indicates that it does this only out of necessity: 強為之名曰大 “Forced to
give its name, I call it ‘the Way.’” By contrast, the “Taiyi sheng shui” makes a request. I
believe this is significant and must be considered against the rest of the “Taiyi sheng shui.”
Besides the passage on slips 10-13, the “Taiyi sheng shui” is best known for slips 1-8, the
opening passage that modern editors have used to name the text: 大一生水，水反（輔）大
一，是（以）城（成）天，天反（輔）大一，是（以）城（成）（地）“The
Grand One generates water, and water returns to join the Grand One, thereby forming heaven;
and heaven returns to join the Grand One, thereby forming earth.” There is some controversy
about the relation between this passage and the passage from slips 10-13, but for my purpose, I
think the matter is quite clear. One part of the “Taiyi sheng shui” wants to know the real name
5
Cf. Laozi Chapter 14: 視之不見名曰幾，聽之不聞名曰希，搏之不得名曰微；此三者不可致詰，故混而為一
“What cannot be seen is called evanescent; what cannot be heard is called rarefied; what cannot be touched is called
minute. These three cannot be fathomed and so they are confused and looked upon as one.” Here the way is given
several names: ji 幾 “evanescent,” xi 希 “rarefied” and wei 微 “minute,” but like da “great” or “vast,” such names
define the way without getting any closer to what it really is. As for reference to yi 一 “one” at the very end of the
passage, this anticipates the discussion immediately below on taiyi 太一 “grand one,” but I believe yi here is simply
chaos or an indistinguishable mass which one must leave undefined, and this is fundamentally different from the
actual entity that is taiyi. Neither Chapter 67 nor Chapter 14 is reflected among the Guodian texts.
3
of the way, the other identifies the Taiyi 太一 “the Grand One” as the entity standing at the
beginning of all things, even heaven and earth. Put the two together, and it is evident that unlike
Chapter 25 of the Laozi, the “Taiyi sheng shui” is unapologetic or unhesitant when it comes to
naming the way; it is Taiyi.6
It is in several other texts that we find a direct indication of Taiyi “Grand One” or yi 一
“One” as the name of the way. In Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋 (The annals of Lü) “Dayue” 大樂
(Great music), this is stated as the following: 道也者，至精也，不可為形，不可為名，彊為
之名謂之太一 “The way is the supreme instance of the seminal essence, for it cannot be given
shape or name. Forced to give it a name, I would call it the Grand One.”7 In Wenzi 文子
“Jingcheng” 精誠 (Quintessential sincerity), there is the statement: 道无形无聲，故聖人強為
之形，以一字為名 “The way has no form and no sound, so the sage, forced to give it form, uses
the cognomen of ‘One’ as its name.”8 And, from a manuscript called the “Daoyuan” 道原 (The
origin of the way) from Mawangdui, the relevant discussion can be cited at length:
一者（其）號也，虛（其）舍也，无為（其）素也，和（其）用也。
是故上道高而不可察也，深而不可則（測）也。顯（明）弗能為名，廣大弗能
為刑（形）。獨立不偶，萬物莫之能令。天地陰陽，［四］時日月，星辰雲氣，規
（蚑）行僥（蟯）重（動），戴根之徒，皆取生，道弗為益少；皆反焉，道弗為益
多。堅強而不撌，柔弱而不可化。精（微）之所不能至，稽極之所不能過。9
“One” is its style, the void its dwelling, nonaction its original constitution, and harmony
its use. For this reason, the superior way is so high it cannot be scrutinized, so deep it
cannot be fathomed. It is clear and bright, but no one can name it; it is broad and large,
but no one can give it a form. It stands alone and is not paired with anything else, and
none of the myriad phenomena is able to issue it orders. Heaven and earth, yin and yang,
the four seasons, the sun and moon, the planets and constellations and cloudy vapors, the
wrigglers that walk and the crawlers that move, and the plants that grow roots—they all
take their life from the way, but they do not decrease it; they all return to the way, but
they do not increase it. It is hard and strong, yet it is not broken; it is soft and weak, yet
6
On the relation between the two passages, note that even though the original editors regard them as two parts of the
same text, a decision accepted by many, others express a more cautious view. For a detailed discussion of this, see
Qiu Xigui 裘錫圭, “‘Taiyi sheng shui’ ‘Mingzi’ zhang jieshi—jianlun ‘Taiyi sheng shui’ de fenzhang wenti”《太一
生水》「名字」章解釋──兼論《太一生水》的分章問題. In my opinion, such caution is not unwarranted, and
it will ultimately lead to greater precision in the discussion of this group of texts. But even if one assumed that the
two passages were as distinct as two completely different texts (an assumption unsupported by their physical
attributes, which are similar), their juxtaposition in the same corpus would have made it quite easy for any reader to
connect the dots.
7
Chen Qiyou 陳奇猷, Lüshi chunqiu xin jiaoshi 呂氏春秋新校釋, 259-90. The translation is based on John
Knoblock and Jeffrey Riegel, The Annals of Lü Buwei: A Complete Translation and Study, 138.
8
Wang Liqi 王利器, Wenzi shuyi 文子疏義, 60-2.
9
Mawangdui Hanmu boshu 馬王堆漢墓帛書, vol. 1. Two commentaries that I have found useful are Wei Qipeng
魏啟鵬, Mawangdui Hanmu boshu Huangdi shu jianzheng 馬王堆漢墓帛書《黃帝書》箋證, 237-48; and Chen
Guying 陳鼓應, Huangdi sijing jinzhu jinyi: Mawangdui Hanmu chutu boshu 黃帝四經今注今譯：馬王堆漢墓出
土帛書, 398-413. There are also several English translations. The one I use as the basis of my own is Robin D.S.
Yates, Five Lost Classics: Tao, Huanglao, and Yin-yang in Han China, 171-77.
4
cannot be changed. The subtlest of the fine cannot reach it; the furthest of the distant
cannot pass it.
In these three texts, the way is referred to as taiyi “Grand One” or yi “One.” Regardless whether
this is the ming “name,” zi “cognomen,” or hao “style,” all three texts show a certain reservation
making this identification. In the case of the discussions from the Lüshi chunqiu and Wenzi, the
language is almost identical with Chapter 25 of the Laozi. As for the “Daoyuan,” the concern
with the ineffability of the way is found throughout the passage, as in the statement: 顯明弗能為
名，廣大弗能為形 “It is clear and bright, but no one can name it; it is broad and large, but no
one can give it a form.” In short, the Lüshi chunqiu, Wenzi, and “Daoyuan” are all reluctant to
name the way, and in this they are more aligned with Chapter 25 than the “Taiyi sheng shui.”
For one more discussion of the name of the way, one can turn to a fragment of the Laozi
zhigui 老子指歸 (Essential meanings of the Laozi), attributed to the Han figure Yan Zun 嚴遵.
This text is somewhat special because it spells out the relation between the way and “One,” and
it is possible to look at it in some detail. In the first part of the passage, there is the following:
一，其名也；德，其號也；無有，其舍也；無為，其事也；無形，其度也；反，其
大數也；和，其歸也；弱，其用也。10
“One” is its name, “Virtue” its style, nothingness its dwelling, nonaction its activity, nonform its measure, turning back its fate, harmony its return, and weakness its use.
Here the discussion resembles the “Daoyuan” in form, and there is a similar discussion of the
name of the way. Even though the text goes ahead and identifies yi “One” as the ming “name,”
this must be read together with what the fragment goes on to say about the relation between the
way and “One.” According to this second passage: 一者，道之子，神明之母，太和之宗，天
地之祖 “‘One’ is the son of dao ‘the way,’ the mother of Divine Brilliance, the ancestor of
Grand Harmony, and the progenitor of Heaven and Earth.” As the son of the way, “One” takes
second place to the “Way.” Though identified as the ming “name” of the way, “One” is
something that merely points to it, an entity of lesser importance than the way. This is the same
kind of reservation or reluctance that I observe in the Lüshi chunqiu, Wenzi, and “Daoyuan”: one
does not define the way itself, only give it a name that even they acknowledge cannot be equated
with it. The entire sequence can be schematized as the following:
道＞一＞神明＞太和＞天地
The Way > One > Divine Brilliance > Grand Harmony > Heaven and Earth
It is in this connection that I would evoke Laozi Chapter 42, a text often cited by scholars
in discussion with the “Taiyi sheng shui.” According to this text: 道生一，一生二，二生三，
三生萬物 “The way begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the myriad
creatures.” As with the “Daoyuan,” Wenzi “Jingcheng,” and the fragment of the Laozi zhigui,
this text places “one” after the “way,” and I believe it shows a similar attempt to reconcile the
10
Wang Deyou 王德有, Laozi zhigui 老子指歸, 9-10.
5
notion of oneness with the Laozi. If this understanding is correct, then it is no longer possible to
equate Chapter 42 with the “Taiyi sheng shui.” Instead, the “Taiyi sheng shui,” with its effort to
posit “One” or “Grand One” as the entity standing at the beginning of all things, should be seen
as distinct from all the other texts considered in this study: Chapter 25, “Daoyuan,” Wenzi
“Jingcheng,” Laozi zhigui, and Chapter 42.11 Although some of these texts make a move to
incorporate the notion of oneness, they differ fundamentally from the “Taiyi sheng shui” by
reserving the ultimate place for dao “the way.”12 For the “Taiyi sheng shui,” while denying that
dao “the Way” is the proper name of the ultimate entity (it is merely the zi “cognomen), this text
is unique in its effort to posit “Grand One” as the entity standing at the beginning of all things.
11
I do not mention in this Lüshi chunqiu “Dayue,” also discussed above, because it seems to reflect a neutral
position.
12
Related to this, one should point out that the Laozi discusses “oneness” as an abstract notion in several places.
This includes the expression de yi 得一 “obtaining oneness” (Chapter 39) and bao yi 抱一 “embracing oneness”
(Chapters 10 and 22), perhaps also the imagery about thirty spokes sharing one hub (Chapter 11). Like Chapter 42,
none of these appears in the Guodian manuscripts.
6