In ancient times, the dao resided in actual things and affairs and the roles of official and teacher were united. People either studied the laws and institutions of the state or the activities of the civil authorities. People personally practiced (the dao). They did not have to work at seeking it out, and so it was easy for them to grasp. Later scholars have to seek out the dao. They have teachers [to help them] but no officials; their subject matter is secondhand—not something they see for themselves. They must rely on commentaries instead of actual conversations, and so it is difficult for them to grasp the dao.
The Six Classical disciplines are equal in importance; one cannot hold on to just one of the classics. The guiding principles of the classics are vast and profound; one cannot be restricted to a limited aspect [of a single classic]. And yet scholars [today], in order to study just one limited aspect of a single classic, must exert twice as much effort as the ancients needed in order to have a thorough understanding of all the Six Classical disciplines. Because we are so far removed from the ancients, this should come as no surprise. However, [scholars today], having exerted every ounce of their intelligence and insight [in their effort to master just one limited aspect of a single classic], cannot help feeling that they alone have seen the greatest profundity in all the world. As a result, they proclaim themselves to be without equal on earth—such are human emotions! They do not realize that they can never glimpse the perfection of the ancients by paying attention to one limited aspect [of a single classic]. Textual commentaries, philosophical explanations, and philological research—none of these alone can tell one about the dao. If one takes all three of these together and applies their combined power to augment extensive efforts at searching out the dao, then perhaps one can come close. However, scholars of the classics heretofore have been unable to avoid contesting with one another; moreover, their followers have each gone on to establish separate schools of their own. Now, we not only have external disputes, like those between Confucians and Mohists; we also have internal conflicts within the Confucian tradition itself.87
2. “In highest antiquity good order was maintained with the use of knotted cords [to keep accounts]. In later ages, the sages replaced these with written records. These then were used to maintain good order among the various officials and to guide inquiries among the people.”88 Now in regard to the use of writing, it was confined to maintaining good order and carrying out inquiries. The ancients never used writing to compose private works [of their own]. The use of writing to compose private works arose when the roles of official and teacher first became separated and the paths of governing and teaching parted. The master said, “I would prefer not to speak.”89 [However], one who prefers not to speak undoubtedly has something to say! Mengzi said, “Do you think that I am fond of disputation? No! I am compelled to debate!”90 If authors in later generations would compose their essays with the intent of faithfully recording the present in order to transmit it to those who are to come, and if they would also reflect upon the guiding principle of “preferring not to speak” and the sentiment of “being compelled [to debate],” then they would come close! The words come forth from oneself, but the reasons one brings them forth should not come from oneself.
The dao is perfectly preserved within the Six Classics. While its profound meaning is hidden in what has gone before [them], textual commentaries are able to make this clear. However, the changing course of things and affairs emerges in what comes after [them], and the Six Classics cannot speak of this. Therefore, one must extract the essential guiding principle of the Six Classics and at all times use writing as a way to thoroughly investigate the great dao. “It is best to establish Virtue; next best is to establish achievements, and next is to establish words.”91 Establishing words and establishing achievements share a common standard, in that “there must first be some need and then the subsequent expression of it, some deficiency and then the subsequent remedying of it.”92 It is not that one merely makes some exaggerated sound and display in order to make a name for oneself. The Book of Changes says, “Through their spiritual sensibility the sages knew the future; through their wisdom they preserved the past.”93 To know the future corresponds to yang; to preserve the past corresponds to yin. The alternation of the yin and yang is the dao.94 The purpose of writing essays is on the one hand to provide a record of affairs and on the other to make principles clear. The origin of affairs refers back to the past—this corresponds to yin. Principles make clear what is to come—this corresponds to yang. Ideally, in one’s record of affairs, principles are made clear, and in one’s discussion of principles, affairs are given a proper model. Then one will maintain an appropriate view and one’s writing will be faithful to the dao. In the histories of Sima Qian95 and Bangu96 and in the essays of Dong Zhongshu97 and Han Yu,98 do we not find that in regard to words they display the spirit of “being compelled [to debate]”? Those who fail to understand the reasons behind what they write and simply indulge themselves in composition are not worth mentioning. What, though, is the point of picking out the emotional and evocative sections of works by the best essayists—who value “literature as a way to make the dao clear”—and insisting these simply express excessive emotions?99 Surely, these are not the words of one who knows the dao. [Emperor Shun] governed through non-action100 and performed the Xunfeng Symphony.101 [King Wen] built his spirit terrace and delighted everyone with the sounds of bells and drums.102 Kongzi played the zither and hit upon the spirit of King Wen.103 Zengzi expressed his desire to take the air at the rain dance altar and return home chanting.104 From these examples, we see that the rule of emperors and kings and the works of sages and worthies have never been without what delights the eye and pleases the heart. Can one say that in their use of writing, they have never allowed the expression of excessive emotion? However, to indulge oneself in writing as an end unto itself is to injure the dao.
3. Zigong said, “One can hear of our master’s cultural ornamentations, but one cannot hear our master talk about [human] nature and the Way of Heaven.”105 Now [of course] everything the master talked about concerned [human nature] and the Way of Heaven. And yet he never explicitly indicated what these were by saying, “This is [human] nature” or “This is the Way of Heaven.” That is why Zigong did not say, “One cannot hear about [human] nature and the Way of Heaven,” but instead said, “One cannot hear [our master] talk about (yan ) [human] nature and the Way of Heaven.” Everything that [Kongzi] talked about concerned [human] nature and the Way of Heaven, but [he] never explicitly said what [human] nature and the Way of Heaven were, because he feared that people would abandon actual things and affairs in their search for the dao. Kongzi could have talked about the rites of the Xia and the Yin dynasties but said that these were all unsubstantiated and would not be trusted.106 And so we see that in every case, the master [only] talked about those things which could be attested in [actual] things and affairs. He never vainly employed empty words in order to explain the Way.
Zengzi truly exerted effort for a long time,107 and then Kongzi said to him, “One thread runs through it all.”108 Zigong understood after engaging in extensive study,109 and then Kongzi said to him, “One thread runs through it all.”110 Had they not “truly exerted effort for a long time” and “understood after engaging in extensive study,” they would not have had any basis upon which to have “one thread run through it all.” Textual commentaries and philosophical research prepare one to seek the traces of the ancient sages, but excessive memorization and recitation of the classics is simply like piling up wares in the marketplace [without ever selling any of them]. When one engages in writing, it should be with a desire to make clear the heart-minds of the ancient sages. To indulge oneself in an embellished style of writing is simply to amuse oneself with a kind of game. Heterodox doctrines and improper schools of study [each] regard their dao as the [true] Way and their de as [true] Virtue, but they can never lead one to a correct understanding of the Way.111 Learning based upon memoriza
tion and recitation of the classics and an elegant style of writing cannot but take the dao as its guiding principle, and yet when taken to the deluded extremes of excessive recitation and self-indulgent amusement, its very source is forgotten.
Scholars of the Song dynasty rose up and attacked these tendencies, saying that such efforts represented an obsession with actual things and affairs in the absence of an understanding of the dao.112 Now as for those who become obsessed with actual things and affairs without having an understanding of the dao, it is proper to illustrate the dao to them in actual things and affairs. Where the Song scholars went wrong was in trying to get people to abandon actual things and affairs and [just] talk about the dao. Kongzi taught people to “make an extensive study of literature,”113 but scholars of the Song said, “Finding one’s amusement with (mere) things slackens one’s commitment.”114 Zengzi taught people, “In one’s words stay far from what is improper,”115 but the scholars of the Song said, “To work at literature injures the dao.”116 As for what the Song scholars said, it is an excellent prescription for a desperate situation. However, a prescription should attack only the disease that is infecting one’s vital organs. The ideas of the Song scholars seem to regard the organs themselves as a disease and want to get rid of them entirely! In their search for “[human] nature” and “Heaven” they de-emphasized recitation of the classics and suppressed writing. What is there to choose between two such extreme views? Nevertheless, their great finesse in the analysis of principle and the sincerity of their practice far exceeded anything found in the scholars of the Han and Tang dynasties. Mengzi said, “Good order and right please my heart-mind just as the meat of grass- and grain-fed animals pleases my palate.”117 Moral principles cannot be captured in empty words; they need extensive study to give them reality and literary embellishment to give them expression. When these three are combined together, then one is almost there!
Though the dao of the Duke of Zhou and Kongzi is far away, it is not conveyed merely by labored interpretations [of the classics]. In the present age, teachers of the classics hold deep animosity for one another, literary men have little regard for one another, and the various philosophers of “[human] nature” and “Heaven” are divided into the competing schools of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan.118 The followers of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan attack one another, while those who talk about “learning” and “literature” ape whatever fashion is in vogue without ever realizing their error. The [present] situation is just as Zhuangzi once said, “Each of the hundred schools goes off in its own direction without ever turning back. They can never be reconciled and brought together!”119 Is it not sad!
ESSAY 2
On Learning
Section One
The Book of Changes says, “The completed forms refers to Qian ; the realization of ideal models refers to Kun .”1 Learning refers to the realization of ideal models; the dao refers to the completed forms. The master said, “I study what is below and understand what lies above.”2 This means that by studying real things and actual affairs, which lie within the physical realm, one understands for oneself the dao, which lies above the physical realm.3
[Zhou Dunyi said,] “Scholars emulate worthies, worthies emulate sages, and sages emulate Heaven.”4 Emulating a worthy or a sage is something that can be done. [However,] “The workings of Heaven are without sound or scent.”5 How can sages emulate Heaven? I would say that Heaven, in producing human beings, endowed each of them with a nature of benevolence, righteousness, ritual, and wisdom; these are the Heavenly Virtues. Heaven also situated human beings within the cardinal relationships of ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger brother, and friend and friend; these are the Heavenly stations. If one uses the Heavenly Virtues to refine the Heavenly stations, then even before one interacts with things and affairs, on a hidden and subtle level, one already possesses the proper standard that “neither exceeds nor falls short.”6 This is what is known as “the completed forms.” If one realizes these forms in one’s everyday life and attends to all things and affairs according to this standard, this is what is known as “the realization of ideal models.” This is how sages “emulate Heaven.” This is how sages “study what is below and understand what lies above.”
Yi Yin said, “Heaven created people in such a way that those who are first to understand awaken those who are slow to understand, and those who are first to awaken, awaken those who are slow to awaken.”7 People are born with unequal innate endowments, and so inevitably there will be those who are unable to realize the proper standard for themselves.8 And so those who are first to understand and first to awaken point the standard out to them; this is called “teaching.” “Teaching” is to teach people to understand the proper standard for themselves; it is not to teach them to abandon themselves and follow one’s lead. And so, scholars who emulate worthies and worthies who emulate sages realize the ideal models based upon the completed forms, but in following [these models] they do not abandon what they have within themselves.
Given this, how can one be brought to understand the proper standard? How can one be brought to understand the completed forms and realize the ideal models [based upon them]? One must look to those who, in the course of human history, have completely perfected the Heavenly Virtues and developed to the utmost the Heavenly stations. [One must] seek to discover how their words and deeds fit into the process of historical adaptation and study them thoroughly. Then one will attain a personal understanding of the completed forms and become adept at realizing the ideal models.9 And so, the realization of ideal models must be manifested in the carrying out of affairs. Reading the Book of Odes or the Book of History is how one discovers the material for realizing the ideal models. However, this in itself cannot be taken as the realization of ideal models.
This being the case, why did the ancients not take learning [simply] to be the carrying out of affairs but instead took it to be reading and reciting the Book of Odes and the Book of History? I would say that if one does not extend one’s knowledge through the investigation of things, then one cannot possibly make one’s thoughts sincere.10 As for one’s actions, they proceed from what one already knows. And so, [the ancients] took reading and reciting [the Book of Odes and the Book of History] as learning so they could extend [their knowledge] further out, beyond the topics already touched upon by those who taught them. They did not say that aside from this there was nothing to learn! Zilu said, “There are the people and the altars to the spirits of soil and grain. Why must one read books in order to be considered learned?”11 The reason the master rejected this as mere “glibness” is that it was not a sufficient explanation for Zilu’s working to get Zigao appointed as governor.12 Kongzi was not saying that learning must consist only of reading and reciting. To say that learning consists only of reading and reciting is but the ignorance of contemporary scholars.
Section Two
In their learning, the ancients never abandoned [actual] things and affairs. Since governing and teaching had not yet separated and the roles of official and teacher still were united, this was easier [for them] to achieve than it is [for people] in later times. The Minister of Education’s exposition of the Five Teachings, the Music Master’s lessons to the heir apparent, and even the instruction in regular schools—during the time of the Three Dynasties, all these were manifested in the institutions of government.13 As for the way learning was pursued, inside the classroom students would recite their lessons; outside the classroom they would see the teachings on government and law applied in the carrying out of [day-to-day] affairs.14 Therefore, they had complete trust in and evidence for the things they learned and did not have to pass down “empty words.” Nevertheless,
Although they easily knew;
Actions still proved difficult to do.15
This has been true since ancient times. Yao dismissed his minister of works saying, “At ease he talks well, but when put to the test he falls short.”16 Since he was able to “talk well”
when at ease, he [clearly] was not an uneducated man. However, when put to the test in actual affairs, he fell short. In this respect, he differed from one who realizes the ideal models based upon the completed forms. Fu Yue explained to Gao Zong, “It is not knowing that is difficult; it is only acting that is difficult.17 [Now] Gao Zong had studied with Gan Ban and had worked for a long time outside [in the wilds].18 How could he be considered uneducated? However, since his knowledge had not been tested in actual affairs, [Fu Yue] was afraid that his actions would prove unreliable. [Fu Yue] also said, “People must seek broad knowledge with the purpose of carrying out actual affairs. Only by studying the lessons of the ancients can one hope to succeed.”19 Although this explanation comes from the ”“old text,” still it must be from some [legitimate] source.20 Since [in ancient times] broad knowledge was sought in order to be put into concrete practice, it is clear that what was referred to as “studying the lessons of the ancients” was not understood as mere recitation. When governing and teaching were united and the roles of official and teacher had not yet separated, knowledge was easy to acquire but concrete action still was difficult. How much more difficult is it to take concrete action now that the roles of official and teacher have separated and everything students work on is just the faded traces of earlier men!
On Ethics and History Page 6