<p>Let's look at some references to the two to see the difference. Here's an early reference from Zhuangzi, Chapter 1, 内篇：</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>至人无己，神人无功，圣人无名。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Or in translation:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The perfect man is without self, the holy man is without achievement, the sage is without name.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To quote from Baidu:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>早期道教经典《太平经》就将神仙分为六等：一为神人...五为圣人，。并称：“神人主天...圣人主治百姓。”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To paraphrase:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The early Daoist text Taiping Jing classifies various beings into 6 classes: First is the holy man...5th the sage. The holy man holds up the heavens...the sage holds up the common people.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's a difference in scope and the initial state of being. The 神人 is a being who is born perfect. They don't need to achieve anything to reach the Dao. The 圣人 is someone who worked to achieve the Dao. They are a person who can help others.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-29T14:51:36.157Z
Thanks for the answer, Ringil. But don't you think that later daoist texts create a mysticism (immortality, etc) that was not present in the first ones (Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi)?
Rodrigo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-30T00:30:35.333Z
Sure somewhat, but it's generally kinda pointless to just look at old texts without any annotations, whether they be from later in Chinese history or more modern. That said, you might find this more interesting: http://www.ruiwen.com/news/47521.htm
Ringil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-27T02:47:05.753Z
2015-06-27T02:47:05.753Z
Ringil
<p>In my opinion, Daoist texts tend to use 圣人, 神人, and sometimes also 至人 interchangeably to refer to a person who has understood Dao. Example: 至人无己，神人无功，圣人无名。（《庄子》）</p>

<p>If you have to differentiate them, 圣人 is a person of perfect moral character and learning, and 神人, literally an immortal, is a person who has become free from worldly cares through understanding Dao. However I don't think such differentiation is generally necessary when studying Daoist philosophy, and possibly not intended by the philosophers when writing.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-27T00:17:50.150Z
Thanks for your observations. I'm thinking of how to translate them.
Rodrigo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-29T00:21:03.307Z
@Rodrigo I think the exact translation (I think you mean to English?) depends on the context. I think "sage" is a suitable translation for 圣人 in most cases. Could you please post the excerpt in Zhuangzi 4.6 you mentioned? I'm not quite familiar with the standard numbering of passages in Zhuangzi, and I think 神人 appears quite often in Zhuangzi as well. Is it "子綦曰：「此果不材之木也，以至於此其大也！嗟乎神人，以此不材！」"?
tvk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-29T14:35:58.283Z
Yes, it's exactly this part you quoted. And also in the end of that passage: 此乃神人之所以為大祥也。I'm translating to portuguese, but english will do as well. I prefer to translate 圣人 as "sensible (or reasonable) person", "pessoa sensata" in portuguese, to avoid conflicts with the critique of knowledge so fundamental on daoism.
Rodrigo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-30T00:59:27.333Z
@Rodrigo I think "spiritual person" is fine. But I think "神人" in these places conveys a kind of clairvoyance or exceptional wisdom. Maybe "sage" or "saint" work as well?
tvk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-30T01:24:04.073Z
I don't like "sage" because it gives the idea of accumulation of knowledge, what is not the point here. And I don't like "saint" either, because it's been overused by monotheistic religions, and I prefer avoid contamination. Now if 神人 should be different from 圣人, I don't know. I'm going to do my translation using different words, but I'll explain in the notes that they all probably refer to the same thing.
Rodrigo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-01T02:22:18.677Z
@Rodrigo I fully understand your reservations. I think translation of abstract concepts in general involves finding words that are _close_ in meaning, but hardly ever exactly the same in meaning (except possibly when the two languages involved are particularly closely related etymologically). Even when translating, say Daoist classics, to modern Chinese, people usually keep such concepts like 神人 or 圣人 verbatim, despite that their meanings could be ambiguous. Therefore, I guess the safest way is to, say, translate 神人 to just _shenren_, just like you would translate 道 to just _Dao_. (TBC)
tvk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-01T02:28:27.673Z
@Rodrigo However, there are of course limits on how far one can take such use of verbatim translations; otherwise reading the "translated" text would be just the same as reading the original text and there wouldn't be any translation at all. Exactly where this line should be drawn depends on the aesthetic and practical judgements of the translator.
tvk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-01T10:53:27.653Z
Yes, I prefer to translate everything. I'm translating Dao as Nature, and De as Spontaneity. I think those are better choices than "Way" and "Virtue", that doesn't mean a lot, after all.
Rodrigo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-03T01:16:32.673Z
@Rodrigo But remember, 道可道，非恒道；名可名，非恒名 :)
tvk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-03T03:06:36.663Z
That's it. You can talk about Nature. But nothing that you say about it, is Nature itself.
Rodrigo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-26T23:55:25.380Z
2015-06-26T23:55:25.380Z
tvk
<p>In ancient daoism, we see both 圣人 and 神人.</p>

<p>The first appears frequently in Dao De Jing, being translated as sage, saint, wise or sensible person.</p>

<p>The second appears in Zhuangzi (4.6), being translated as "spiritual person".</p>

<p>Maybe both have the same meaning?</p>

<old-chinese>
What's the difference between 圣人 and 神人 in ancient daoism?
# What's the difference between 圣人 and 神人 in ancient daoism?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-06-26)

In ancient daoism, we see both 圣人 and 神人.

The first appears frequently in Dao De Jing, being translated as sage, saint, wise or sensible person.

The second appears in Zhuangzi (4.6), being translated as "spiritual person".

Maybe both have the same meaning?

**Tags:** old-chinese


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-06-27. Score: 2

Let's look at some references to the two to see the difference. Here's an early reference from Zhuangzi, Chapter 1, 内篇：

> 至人无己，神人无功，圣人无名。

Or in translation:

> The perfect man is without self, the holy man is without achievement, the sage is without name.

To quote from Baidu:

> 早期道教经典《太平经》就将神仙分为六等：一为神人...五为圣人，。并称：“神人主天...圣人主治百姓。”

To paraphrase:

> The early Daoist text Taiping Jing classifies various beings into 6 classes: First is the holy man...5th the sage. The holy man holds up the heavens...the sage holds up the common people.

It's a difference in scope and the initial state of being. The 神人 is a being who is born perfect. They don't need to achieve anything to reach the Dao. The 圣人 is someone who worked to achieve the Dao. They are a person who can help others.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the answer, username_1. But don't you think that later daoist texts create a mysticism (immortality, etc) that was not present in the first ones (Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi)?  
> **username_1**: Sure somewhat, but it's generally kinda pointless to just look at old texts without any annotations, whether they be from later in Chinese history or more modern. That said, you might find this more interesting: http://www.ruiwen.com/news/47521.htm  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-06-26. Score: 1

In my opinion, Daoist texts tend to use 圣人, 神人, and sometimes also 至人 interchangeably to refer to a person who has understood Dao. Example: 至人无己，神人无功，圣人无名。（《庄子》）

If you have to differentiate them, 圣人 is a person of perfect moral character and learning, and 神人, literally an immortal, is a person who has become free from worldly cares through understanding Dao. However I don't think such differentiation is generally necessary when studying Daoist philosophy, and possibly not intended by the philosophers when writing.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for your observations. I'm thinking of how to translate them.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I think the exact translation (I think you mean to English?) depends on the context. I think "sage" is a suitable translation for 圣人 in most cases. Could you please post the excerpt in Zhuangzi 4.6 you mentioned? I'm not quite familiar with the standard numbering of passages in Zhuangzi, and I think 神人 appears quite often in Zhuangzi as well. Is it "子綦曰：「此果不材之木也，以至於此其大也！嗟乎神人，以此不材！」"?  
> **username_0**: Yes, it's exactly this part you quoted. And also in the end of that passage: 此乃神人之所以為大祥也。I'm translating to portuguese, but english will do as well. I prefer to translate 圣人 as "sensible (or reasonable) person", "pessoa sensata" in portuguese, to avoid conflicts with the critique of knowledge so fundamental on daoism.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I think "spiritual person" is fine. But I think "神人" in these places conveys a kind of clairvoyance or exceptional wisdom. Maybe "sage" or "saint" work as well?  
> **username_0**: I don't like "sage" because it gives the idea of accumulation of knowledge, what is not the point here. And I don't like "saint" either, because it's been overused by monotheistic religions, and I prefer avoid contamination. Now if 神人 should be different from 圣人, I don't know. I'm going to do my translation using different words, but I'll explain in the notes that they all probably refer to the same thing.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I fully understand your reservations. I think translation of abstract concepts in general involves finding words that are _close_ in meaning, but hardly ever exactly the same in meaning (except possibly when the two languages involved are particularly closely related etymologically). Even when translating, say Daoist classics, to modern Chinese, people usually keep such concepts like 神人 or 圣人 verbatim, despite that their meanings could be ambiguous. Therefore, I guess the safest way is to, say, translate 神人 to just _shenren_, just like you would translate 道 to just _Dao_. (TBC)  
> **username_2**: @username_0 However, there are of course limits on how far one can take such use of verbatim translations; otherwise reading the "translated" text would be just the same as reading the original text and there wouldn't be any translation at all. Exactly where this line should be drawn depends on the aesthetic and practical judgements of the translator.  
> **username_0**: Yes, I prefer to translate everything. I'm translating Dao as Nature, and De as Spontaneity. I think those are better choices than "Way" and "Virtue", that doesn't mean a lot, after all.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 But remember, 道可道，非恒道；名可名，非恒名 :)  
> **username_0**: That's it. You can talk about Nature. But nothing that you say about it, is Nature itself.  

---

