Although Nicholas of Cusa and Zhuangzi belong, respectively, to the traditions of Christian theology and Chinese Daoist thought, systematic comparisons of their philosophies within a shared framework of human finitude and the pursuit of transcendence remain relatively scarce. Both take reflection on the limits of human cognition and on “ignorance” as the point of departure for their thought, and both situate the oppositions of finite experience within broader accounts of order. Zhuangzi, however, presents the Dao (道, “the Way”) as immanent in the generation and transformation of the myriad things, with infinity understood here in terms of their inexhaustible transformations. Cusa, by contrast, understands God as the absolute infinite and the transcendent source of creation. Their differing conceptions of infinity in turn give rise to two distinct paths of spiritual practice. Zhuangzi emphasizes loosening attachment to the fixed preconceptions of the mind through such practices of self-cultivation as “fasting of the mind” (xīnzhāi, 心齋) and “sitting in forgetfulness” (zuòwàng, 坐忘), thereby bringing the individual into accord with the Dao immanent in all things. Cusa, by contrast, emphasizes an unceasing approximation to truth through comparison, mathematics, and intellect, while maintaining humility by acknowledging the ontological distinction between creature and Creator. This article argues that the two thinkers converge in their critique of human epistemic arrogance but differ fundamentally over the ontological status of the infinite: Zhuangzi’s Dao is interpreted here as the immanent ground of the transformations of all things, whereas Cusa’s God is the absolute source transcending creation. This distinction ultimately gives rise to two different models of spiritual transformation: the former achieves integration with the natural order by loosening attachment to fixed distinctions, whereas the latter approaches the divine infinite through the continual pursuit of truth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.