何谓儒道:一套商业的哲学与伦理

Ru vs Dao, Ru + Dao

Any "way" (dao) must first answer two questions: what it believes - its philosophy - and what it demands - its ethics. This chapter clarifies the difference between the two, then sets out the philosophical foundations and the ethical code of RuDao. But before we can distinguish philosophy from ethics in the context of ancient China, we must first understand what these two words originally meant - in both the Greek tradition that gave us the terms, and the Chinese tradition that gave us the ideas.

儒与道,儒加道

任何一条"道",都必须先回答两个问题:它相信什么-即它的哲学;它要求什么-即它的伦理。本章先厘清二者的区别,再阐明儒道的哲学基础,最后给出儒道的伦理准则。但在我们区分中国古代语境下的哲学与伦理之前,必须先理解这两个词的原义-既包括赋予我们这些术语的希腊传统,也包括赋予我们这些思想的中华传统。

What Is Philosophy? - 第一部分 - 何谓哲学

The Greek Origin: Philosophia

The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek philosophia - a compound of philos (love) and sophia (wisdom). Literally, it means "the love of wisdom." The term was first used, according to ancient testimony, by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BCE), who modestly declined to call himself sophos (wise) and preferred philosophos - a lover of wisdom, not its possessor.

The Greeks themselves offered six classical definitions of philosophy. It was defined as "the knowledge of things existent as existent"; as "the knowledge of things divine and human"; as "a meditation of death"; as "the art of arts and science of sciences"; and finally, from its etymology, as "the love of wisdom." These definitions reveal that philosophy, from its inception, was understood as the whole inquiry into reality, knowledge, and value - not one specialized field, but the comprehensive pursuit of understanding.

It was only with Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) that philosophy became circumscribed as a definite discipline - one contiguous with what we now recognize as its modern academic form. Before that, philosophia was a way of life: a continuous, dialogical investigation into the principles that constitute a well-guided city and a well-lived life.

The Chinese Counterpart

哲

In China, the word zhexue (哲学) did not exist until the late nineteenth century. The Japanese scholar Nishi Amane (1829-1897) coined it, borrowing the characters zhe (哲) ("wise") and xue (学)("learning") to translate "philosophy." The diplomat Huang Zunxian 黄遵宪 (1848-1905) then carried the compound into Chinese academia, where it was accepted.

Yet the idea of philosophy was ancient in China. The character 哲 (zhe) appears in Zhou dynasty (c. 1046-256 BCE) bronze inscriptions and in the Book of Documents, where it means "wisdom" or "sagacity." The Erya ("尔雅", c. 3rd century BCE) defines it simply: "哲,智也" - zhe is wisdom. The Shuowen Jiezi ("说文解字", 100 CE) glosses it as "知也" - knowledge. In the Book of Documents, we find the phrase "知人则哲" - "to know others is wisdom." Confucius (孔子, 551-479 BCE) himself was called a zheren (哲人) - a wise one.

What does this tell us? The Chinese 哲 and the Greek sophia converge on the same insight: philosophy is not merely the accumulation of facts, but the pursuit of wisdom about how to live and how to understand the world. As one scholar puts it, "Philosophy" is a "共名" - a shared name, a family resemblance concept - under which Western, Chinese, and Indian traditions all find their place.

Philosophia

希腊之源

"哲学"一词源自希腊语 philosophia-由 philos(爱)与 sophia(智慧)合成,字面意为"爱智慧"。据古代记载,此词最早由毕达哥拉斯(约公元前570-前495年)使用,他谦逊地拒绝自称 sophos(智者),而宁愿被称为 philosophos-爱智慧者,而非智慧的拥有者。

希腊人自己提出了六种关于哲学的经典定义:哲学是"关于存在物之为存在物的知识";是"神事与人事的知识";是"死亡的练习";是"艺术的艺术,科学之科学";最后,从词源上说,是"对智慧的爱"。这些定义揭示:哲学从一开始就被理解为对实在,知识与价值的整体探究-不是某个专门领域,而是对理解的全面追求。

直到亚里士多德(公元前384-前322年),哲学才被限定为一门确定的学科-一门与我们今日所认知的学术形态相连续的学科。在此之前,philosophia 是一种生活方式:一种持续的,对话式的探究,追问构成良序城邦与良善生活的原则。

中国之对应:哲

在中国,"哲学"作为一个单一术语,直到十九世纪末才出现。日本学者西周(1829-1897)借用汉字"哲"(明智)与"学"(学问)来翻译西方的"philosophy",中国外交家黄遵宪(1848-1905)随后将此名称引入中国学界,为中国学术界所接受-尽管并非没有争议。黑格尔(1770-1831)等人曾认为中国所有的只是"意见",尚找不到"哲学知识"。

然而,哲学的观念在中国古已有之。"哲"字见于周代(约公元前1046-前256年)钟鼎铭文与"尚书",意为"智慧"或"明智"。"尔雅"(约公元前3世纪)释曰:"哲,智也。""说文解字"(公元100年)释为"知也。""尚书-皋陶谟"有"知人则哲"之语。孔子(公元前551-前479年)本人亦被称为"哲人"。

这说明什么?中国的"哲"与希腊的 sophia 指向同一洞见:哲学不是事实的堆积,而是对如何生活,如何理解世界的智慧追求。正如一位学者所言,"哲学"是一个"共名"-一个家族相似的概念,西方哲学,中国哲学与印度哲学都在其中找到自己的位置。

What Is Ethics? - 何谓伦理

The Greek Origin: Ethos

The word "ethics" comes from the Greek ethos - a term whose earliest meaning was "custom" or "habit." In Homer (c. 8th century BCE), ethos was used to describe the customary behavior of horses; later, the Greeks applied it to the customary behavior - whether good or bad - of human societies and individuals. From the same root comes ethnos (a body or band of men, a nation): what holds a people together is the customs and habits they share.

Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) gave the term its enduring philosophical shape. In the Nicomachean Ethics (c. 340 BCE), he observed that ethical virtue (ēthikē) "comes about from out of habit" and "has received its name, with a small variation, from ethos." For Aristotle, ethics is fundamentally a question of habituation - of what we become through the repetition of certain actions. A stone, thrown into the air ten thousand times, will not change its disposition; but a human being, through repeated action, can acquire a new ethos, a new character. "The dispositions come to be from out of activities that are like them."

This is why Aristotle defines the moral virtues as hexeis - stable dispositions, not mere feelings or capacities. Ethics, in its original Greek sense, is the study of how character is formed - and therefore, of how we ought to act, so that we become the kind of people we ought to be.

The Chinese Counterpart

伦理与道德

Chinese has two related terms: LunLi (伦理) and DaoDe (道德).

LunLi (伦理) combines Lun (伦) and Li (理). Lun was originally a variant of lun (仑), meaning "同类" - "of the same kind" or "category." From this it extended to mean "条理,次序" - order, sequence, proper arrangement. Li (理) was originally a verb meaning "to arrange, to govern," and later became a noun meaning "pattern, principle, order." Together, LunLi signifies the ordered patterns of human relationships - the moral principles governing how people should treat one another in their various social roles. The Book of Rites ("礼记", compiled c. 1st century BCE) speaks of music as "通伦理者也" - that which penetrates the ethical order.

DaoDe (道德) combines Dao (道) and De (德). Dao originally meant "a road" - a straight, level path. The Shuowen Jiezi (100 CE) says: "道,所行道也" - the way that is walked. From this concrete meaning, dao was extended to mean the correct rule or principle to be followed. By the late Warring States period (c. 3rd century BCE), through the ontological discourse of LaoZi (老子, c. 6th-4th century BCE) and ZhuangZi (庄子, c. 369-286 BCE), dao rose to a philosophical category: the origin of heaven and earth and the rule of all things' movement and transformation.

De (德) originally depicted upright behavior (the oracle bone form shows a foot beside a straight line) and upright heart-mind (the bronze form shows "straight" above "heart"). When the two forms merged, de came to signify both virtuous conduct and virtuous character. Because de was interchangeable with de (得, "to obtain"), it acquired the sense of "obtaining the Dao" - as Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130-1200) put it: "德者,得也,得其道于心而不失之谓也" - Virtue is obtaining; it means obtaining the Dao in one's heart and not losing it.

When Dao and De are joined as DaoDe, the compound carries both senses: the norms of virtuous conduct and character, and conduct and character that accord with those norms.

Ethos

希腊之源

"伦理"一词源自希腊语 ethos-其最早的含义是"习俗"或"习惯"。在荷马(约公元前8世纪)笔下,ethos 被用来描述马匹的惯常行为;后来,希腊人将其应用于人类社会与个体的惯常行为-无论善恶。同根词 ethnos(族群体,民族)意指:将一个群体联结在一起的,正是他们共享的习俗与习惯。

亚里士多德(公元前384-前322年)赋予这一术语持久的哲学形态。在"尼各马可伦理学"(约公元前340年)中,他指出伦理德性(ēthikē)"由习惯产生",并且"因与 ethos 一词仅有微小的变化而得名"。对亚里士多德而言,伦理从根本上是一个习惯化的问题-我们通过重复某些行为而成为什么样的人。一块石头被抛向空中一万次,也不会改变其习性;但一个人通过重复的行动,可以习得新的 ethos,新的品格。"诸习性由与它们相似的活动产生。"

这正是为什么亚里士多德将道德德性定义为 hexeis-稳定的品质,而非单纯的情感或能力。伦理在其原初的希腊含义中,是研究品格如何形成-因此也是研究我们应当如何行动,以成为我们应当成为的那种人。

中国之对应:伦理与道德

中文有两个相关的术语:伦理与道德。

伦理由"伦"与"理"合成。"伦"原是"仑"的后起字,承载了"仑"的名词义项"同类"义,继而引申出"条理,次序"义。"理"本是一个动词,意为"整理,治理",后引申出名词义项"条理,次序"。二者固化为双音词后,表示人与人之间约定俗成的条理次序,即人与人之间相处的各种道德准则。"礼记"(约编成于公元前1世纪)云:"凡音者,生于人心者也;乐者,通伦理者也。"

道德由"道"与"德"合成。"道"原指由此达彼的路。"说文解字"(公元100年)说:"道,所行道也。"道有方向和两侧,行走时循道而行,不逾两侧才不会迷失方向。于是"道"逐渐被引申出正确规则之义。至先秦末期(约公元前3世纪),经老子(约公元前6-前4世纪)与庄子(约公元前369-前286年)等哲人的本体论论述,"道"上升为哲学范畴,意指天地之本元与万物运动演化之规则。

"德"的甲骨文是左"彳"右"直"结构,金文是上"直"下"心"结构,前者是正直行为之意,后者是正直心性之意。后两种写法合并统一,使"德"同时含有正直行为与正直心性之意。因"德"与"得"通,渐有"得道"之意。朱熹(1130-1200)明确说:"德者,得也,得其道于心而不失之谓也。"

"道""德"联用后形成的"道德",既有"德行与德性的规范"之意,又有"符合规范的德行和德性"之意。

Philosophy vs. Ethics: The Distinction - 哲学与伦理之辨

The Difference in One Sentence

Philosophy asks what is real; ethics asks what is right. Philosophy is descriptive and foundational - it tells you what the world is like, and what you are. Ethics is normative and practical - it tells you how to act, how to restrain yourself, and how to treat others.

Ethics is one branch of philosophy - not its rival. All ethics is philosophy; not all philosophy is ethics.

一句话的区分

哲学问什么是真实;伦理问什么是正当。哲学是描述性的,基础性的-它告诉你世界是什么样,以及你是什么。伦理是规范性的,实践性的-它告诉你如何行动,如何克制,如何待人。

伦理是哲学的一个分枝,而非其对手。所有伦理都是哲学;但并非所有哲学都是伦理。

Why This Distinction Matters in Business - 为何这一区分在商业中至关重要

Philosophy Without Ethics: The Cunning Operator

A business can be philosophically clear but ethically corrupt. This means it understands the market perfectly - it sees how incentives work, how information flows, how competitors behave, how customers decide - yet it uses that understanding to cheat.

What it looks like in practice:

• A fintech company that understands its users' psychology and regulatory blind spots so well that it designs products to trap them in debt. It knows exactly how the market works - but it uses that knowledge to harm, not to serve.
• A trading firm that reads market momentum brilliantly, anticipates reversals, and positions itself perfectly - then manipulates prices to trigger those reversals for its own gain.
• A platform that understands network effects and lock-in so thoroughly that it deliberately makes switching impossible, not because it serves users better, but because it has trapped them.

In each case, the philosophy is clear. The vision is sharp. The understanding of how the world works is deep. But the ethics - the restraint, the boundaries, the "what should we do" - is absent. Philosophy without ethics is cunning.

Ethics Without Philosophy: The Well-Meaning Failure

A business can be ethically sincere but philosophically blind. This means it genuinely wants to do good - it has good intentions, honest people, and a strong moral code - yet it misreads the world and fails.

What it looks like in practice:

• A startup founded by idealists who want to "change the world" with a product nobody needs. They are honest, generous, and sincere - but they never asked what is real about the market. They built for a world that does not exist.
• A company that treats its employees beautifully but ignores structural momentum - failing to see that its entire industry is being disrupted. It does everything right inside the company, but the world outside has moved on.
• A leader who refuses to play political games, trusts everyone, and is shocked when a partner betrays him. He is morally upright - but philosophically blind to human nature and the dynamics of power.

In each case, the ethics is sincere. The intentions are good. The moral code is real. But the philosophy - the clear-eyed understanding of reality, momentum, and human nature - is absent. Ethics without philosophy is naive.

The RuDao Position

RuDao insists that both are necessary. A lasting business needs both: the vision to see, and the restraint to act.

Confucian ethics supplies the restraint - Li (礼) as compliance, Xin (信) as trust, Yi (义) as righteousness. Without it, strategy becomes predation.

Daoist philosophy supplies the vision - Shi (势) as structural force, Fan (反) as reversal, WuWei (无为) as non-coercive action. Without it, ethics becomes rigidity.

The cunning operator fails because he destroys trust. The well-meaning failure fails because he misreads the world. RuDao is the discipline of avoiding both.

有哲学而无伦理:狡诈的操盘手

一家企业可以哲学上清醒,却伦理上腐败。这意味着它完全理解市场-它看清了激励如何运作,信息如何流动,竞争者如何行动,顾客如何决策-却利用这种理解去作弊。

这在实践中是什么样子:

• 一家金融科技公司,深刻理解用户心理与监管盲区,于是设计产品,将用户困于债务之中。它完全懂得市场如何运作-却用这种知识去伤害,而非服务。
• 一家交易公司,精于读懂市场势能,预见反转,精准布局-然后操纵价格,为自己触发这些反转。
• 一个平台,透彻理解网络效应与锁定效应,于是刻意让用户无法转换-不是因为它更好地服务了用户,而是因为它已把用户困住。

在每一个案例中,哲学是清醒的。视野是锐利的。对世界如何运作的理解是深刻的。但伦理-克制,边界,"我们应当做什么"-缺席了。有哲学而无伦理,是狡诈。

有伦理而无哲学:善意的失败者

一家企业可以伦理上真诚,却哲学上盲目。这意味着它真心想做好-它有好意,有诚实的人,有坚定的道德准则-却误读世界,最终失败。

这在实践中是什么样子:

• 一家由理想主义者创办的初创公司,想用一款没人需要的产品"改变世界"。他们诚实,慷慨,真诚-却从未追问关于市场的什么是真实。他们为一个并不存在的世界而建造。
• 一家公司善待员工,却忽视结构性势能-没有看到整个行业正在被颠覆。它在公司内部做对了一切,但外面的世界已经前行。
• 一位领导者拒绝玩政治游戏,信任每一个人,当合伙人背叛他时感到震惊。他道德正直-却对人性和权力动态哲学上盲目。

在每一个案例中,伦理是真诚的。意图是好的。道德准则是真实的。但哲学-对实在,势能与人性清醒的理解-缺席了。有伦理而无哲学,是天真的。

儒道的立场

儒道坚持二者缺一不可。长久的事业,二者皆需:看得见的眼光,与守得住的克制。

儒家伦理提供克制-礼为合规,信为信任,义为正当。无此,战略沦为掠夺。

道家哲学提供眼光-势为结构之力,反为反转,无为为不强迫之行。无此,伦理沦为僵化。

狡诈的操盘手失败,因为他摧毁了信任。善意的失败者失败,因为他误读了世界。儒道,就是避免这两者的功夫。

Ru vs Dao: Two Complete Philosophies - 儒与道:两套完整的哲学

The Common Mistake

A common mistake is to say that Confucianism is ethics and Daoism is philosophy. This is too simple - and it is wrong. Both are complete philosophies of ancient China, each with its own ethics, metaphysics, and strategy.

Ru: The Philosophy of Order

儒家

Confucianism centers on human relationships, ritual, and trust. Its metaphysics speaks of Heaven (天), the mandate of Heaven (天命), and human nature (性). Its ethics codifies benevolence (仁), righteousness (义), ritual propriety (礼), and trust (信). Its political philosophy envisions governance by virtue (为政以德) and the Great Harmony (大同). Its epistemology pursues the investigation of things to extend knowledge (格物致知) and the unity of knowledge and action (知行合一). Its self-cultivation practices include watchfulness alone (慎独) and nurturing moral courage (养浩然之气).

Core insight: The world is held together by relationships, ritual, and trust. Order is built, not found.

Dao: The Philosophy of Momentum

道家

Daoism centers on the Way, natural spontaneity, and the dynamics of reversal. Its metaphysics speaks of Dao (道), being and non-being (有无), yin and yang (阴阳), and spontaneity (自然). Its ethics advocates non-coercive action (无为), non-contention (不争), compassion (慈), and frugality (俭). Its political philosophy envisions governance by non-interference (无为而治). Its epistemology clears the mirror of the mind (涤除玄览). Its strategy engages by the orthodox and wins by the unexpected (以正合,以奇胜), reading momentum (势) and reversal (反).

Core insight: The world moves by momentum, reversal, and hidden structure. Order emerges; it is not forced.

The Contrast

Where Ru builds order through Li 礼 (li, ritual and propriety) and De 德 (de, virtue), Dao follows momentum through WuWei 无为 (wuwei, non-coercive action) and Shi 势 (shi, situational momentum). Where Ru trusts in cultivated virtue and institution, Dao trusts in spontaneous alignment and timing. Ru's strength is structure, compliance, and continuity; its weakness is rigidity - ritual without life. Dao's strength is adaptability, foresight, and reversal; its weakness is drift - insight without structure.

In business, Ru governs culture, contracts, and trust. Dao governs strategy, timing, and reading the market. Ru says: 人无信不立 - without trust, one cannot stand. Dao says: 柔弱胜刚强 - the soft overcomes the hard.

常见的误解

一个常见的误解是:儒家是伦理,道家是哲学。这过于简单,而且是错误的。二者都是中国古代完整的哲学体系,各有其伦理,形而上学与战略。

儒家:秩序之学

儒家以人伦,礼与信任为中心。其形而上学讲天,天命,性;其伦理讲仁,义,礼,信;其政治哲学讲为政以德,大同;其认识论讲格物致知,知行合一;其修身之学讲慎独,养浩然之气。

核心洞见: 世界靠关系,礼与信任维系。秩序是建起来的,不是现成的。

道家:势能之学

道家以道,自然与反覆之势为中心。其形而上学讲道,有无,阴阳,自然;其伦理讲无为,不争,慈,俭;其政治哲学讲无为而治;其认识论讲涤除玄览;其战略讲以正合,以奇胜,讲势与反。

核心洞见: 世界靠势能,反覆与隐微结构运行。秩序是生出来的,不是强推的。

对照

儒以礼与德建构秩序,道以无为与势顺应动能。儒所信的是修养之德与制度,道所信的是自然契合与时机。儒之长在结构,合规与延续,其短在僵化-有礼而无生命。道之长在适应,预见与反转,其短在漂移-有洞见而无结构。

在商业中,儒治理文化,契约与信任;道治理战略,时机与读懂市场。儒说:人无信不立。道说:柔弱胜刚强。

Ru + Dao: The Fusion - 儒加道:合一

The Division of Labor

Ru and Dao are not rivals to be chosen between. They are two lenses on one reality - and in business, both are required.

Confucian ethics supplies the boundaries: 礼 as compliance, 信 as trust, 义 as righteousness. Without Ru, strategy becomes predation.

Daoist philosophy supplies the momentum: 势 as structural force, 反 as reversal, 无为 as non-coercive action. Without Dao, ethics becomes rigidity.

The Fusion in One Sentence

Confucian ethics supplies the boundaries; Daoist philosophy supplies the momentum. RuDao is the discipline of acting with both - restraint and foresight, character and timing.

The Tree Analogy

Philosophy is the whole tree. Ru is one great branch - ethics at its trunk, but politics, metaphysics, and epistemology as limbs. Dao is another great branch - metaphysics at its trunk, but ethics, politics, and strategy as limbs. Ethics is a section within each branch, not the name of the branch itself. RuDao is the tree itself, drawing from both branches.

分工

儒与道不是二选一的对手,而是同一实在的两副镜片-在商业中,两者皆不可缺。

儒家伦理提供边界:礼为合规,信为信任,义为正当。无儒,战略沦为掠夺。

道家哲学提供势能:势为结构之力,反为反转,无为为不强迫之行。无道,伦理沦为僵化。

一句话的融合

儒家伦理提供边界,道家哲学提供势能。儒道,就是同时以二者行事的功夫-克制与远见,品格与时机。

树的比喻

哲学是整棵树。儒是一大分枝-伦理是其主干,政治,形而上学,认识论是其枝叶。道是另一大分枝-形而上学是其主干,伦理,政治,战略是其枝叶。伦理是每个分枝内部的一个部分,而不是分枝本身的名字。儒道是这棵树本身,同时汲取两大分枝。

Summary

Philosophy asks what is real; ethics asks what is right. Ethics is one branch of philosophy, not its rival.

Both Ru and Dao are complete philosophies of ancient China, each with its own ethics, metaphysics, and strategy. Ru builds order through relationships, ritual, and trust. Dao reads momentum through the Way, reversal, and timing.

RuDao fuses them: Confucian ethics supplies the boundaries; Daoist philosophy supplies the momentum. In business, both are necessary. Philosophy without ethics is cunning; ethics without philosophy is naive. RuDao is the discipline of acting with both.

小结

哲学问什么是真实;伦理问什么是正当。伦理是哲学的一个分枝,而非其对手。

儒与道都是中国古代完整的哲学,各有其伦理,形而上学与战略。儒以关系,礼与信建构秩序;道以道,反与时机读懂势能。

儒道合一:儒家伦理提供边界,道家哲学提供势能。在商业中,二者皆不可缺。有哲学而无伦理,是狡诈;有伦理而无哲学,是天真。儒道,就是同时以二者行事的功夫。

RuDao × Adam Smith: The Invisible Hand - 儒道 × 亚当-斯密 × 看不见的手

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. So wrote Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations in 1776, and the sentence has been read ever since as the charter of self-interest.

Adam Smith is often taken for the patron saint of self-interest, but he was first a moral philosopher. Long before the Wealth of Nations, he wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments, which argued that human beings are bound together by sympathy, the capacity to feel one another's condition. Smith the economist and Smith the moralist are two halves of one man, and it is the union of the two that speaks most directly to RuDao.

The invisible hand is Smith's most famous idea: individuals who pursue their own interest unintentionally promote the good of society, as if guided by an unseen hand. Critics reduce this to the claim that greed is good, but Smith never meant that. He meant that when self-interest is properly channeled through honest markets and constrained by moral sentiments, private gain can serve the public good.

Here RuDao meets Smith in a remarkable way. RuDao's unity of righteousness and profit says that legitimate profit, pursued within ethical boundaries, itself carries social value. Smith's invisible hand says the same thing from the other direction: profit pursued within the bounds of law and conscience can benefit everyone. Neither man believed that self-interest alone is enough; both insisted that profit must be disciplined by virtue, Smith by sympathy and moral sentiment, RuDao by benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trust.

The connection deepens around trust. Smith observed that commerce cannot function without reliability, that people must keep their word and honor their bargains. This is precisely RuDao's trust, its most scarce asset in the digital age. Markets are built on contracts, but contracts are only as strong as the trust beneath them.

Finally, there is a striking echo with the Daoist strand of this book. Smith's laissez-faire, his letting the market govern itself without forcing it, resembles the Daoist ideal of non-interference. Smith's invisible hand and the Daoist Way both trust that an unforced system, left to its own natural order, tends toward balance. In one line, Adam Smith supplies the West's deepest case that self-interest, disciplined by morality, can serve the common good, and RuDao supplies the East's ancient version of the same truth.