On Ethics and History

by Zhang Xuecheng

What Heaven has established [can overcome] human beings, but what human beings have established can overcome Heaven.22 The twenty-eight lunar lodges and the twelve divisions employ a method of measurement that encompasses all of Heaven and yet perfectly corresponds to the seasons and individual locations of Chinese cities and towns.23 Now China is located in the southeast corner of the world. And yet by basing one’s prognostications on a method of measurement that encompasses all of Heaven, one can achieve perfect results. This is something that one cannot [adequately] account for through human reason [alone]. It would appear that this is a case of “what human beings have established being overcome by Heaven.” Consider Zi Ping’s ability to make predictions based upon the date and time of a person’s birth by coordinating the sixty stem and branch combinations with the ascendancy and decline of the five phases.24 Since [in early times] neither dates nor times were recorded according to the system of stem and branch combinations, the ancients were not able to do this [i.e., make perfect predictions]. After people in later ages worked out this [system of recording date and time], they could predict good and bad fortune with perfect accuracy. Isn’t this an example of “what human beings have established overcoming Heaven”? The Book of Changes says, “[The sage] precedes Heaven, and Heaven does not oppose him.”25 This seems to be what is meant.

  Study and inquiry also follow the principle of “what human beings have established overcoming Heaven.” Principle is divided into the “limitless” and the “supreme ultimate.”26 Numerology is divided into “what precedes Heaven” and “what follows Heaven.”27 Among diagrams there are the “River Chart” and the “Lo Diagram.”28 [Human] nature is divided into “moral [nature]” and “material [nature].”29 Later worthies can, with their own thoughts, measure the thoughts of a sage. If they follow along with the sage, they can even come to understand him. Led by his teachings, one can emulate the sage, and one can emulate Heaven. Is this not an example of “what human beings have established overcoming Heaven?” If one’s esteem and trust are excessive and one says that one has actually grasped the thoughts of the sage, then surely one has not. But if one’s argumentation and skepticism are excessive and one slanders all scholars—can this be proper?

  ESSAY 7

  Breadth and Economy1

  Section One

  Shen Zaiting wrote me a letter asking about learning.2 He was ashamed that in the company of learned and eminent men, he was unable to keep up with their conversation. I replied that learning consists in establishing oneself, one need not be ashamed of one’s shortcomings.3 I illustrated this point with an analogy from business. One who deals in cotton and silk need not understand millet and pulse, and one who deals in medicinal cakes need not be familiar with gold and pearls. One should worry only about being unable to perfect one’s own vocation. For example, if one deals in cotton and silk, it would not do if the quality of one’s product were lacking, and if one deals in medicinal cakes, it would not do if one’s prescriptions were deficient.

  Someone said that this was simply the method for studying the History of the Han Dynasty that Su Shi had taught, and that many students today already are familiar with it.4 I replied that what I said is similar [to Su Shi’s method of study] but it is not the same, and noted that a minor difference can lead to a monumental error. Someone once asked Su Shi, “Your [remarkable] breadth of knowledge—is this something that can be learned?” Su Shi replied, “Yes. Whenever I used to read the History of the Han Dynasty, I would go through it several times, exhausting each subject thoroughly: for example, military art, agriculture, ritual practice, or music. Each time I read through [the text] I would search for only one of these. After pursuing this method for a long time, I experienced a comprehensive insight.” Using a business analogy, this would be like having an infinite number of wares available but dealing in only a few; one would at least have to know which to choose!

  Many students regard Su Shi’s teachings as a good method [of study]; they do not realize that it is mere pedantry, like the efforts of those today who study only in order to pass the official examinations. The person who questioned Su Shi merely sought breadth of knowledge and was surely bereft of any profound thoughts. And Su Shi’s answer does not go beyond the work of mastering the classics in order to pass the official examinations. Many of those who today work at being able to answer questions on the official examinations are successful in this effort but still are unable to take part in an intellectual discussion. The fact that so many students take [Su Shi’s teaching] as a good method [of study] tells me that [real] students are rare indeed!

  In regard to [my] idea that one must pursue specialization in learning, would not Su Shi’s intention perhaps have been to take Ban Gu’s work [i.e., the History of the Han Dynasty] as his specialized field of study? [But] if this were his intention, he could have worked his entire lifetime without ever finishing his study, for how could one hope to thoroughly understand the History of the Han Dynasty [even] after numerous readings? Perhaps, though, he took the [individual] topics he searched for—e.g., ritual practice, music, military affairs, or agriculture—as his [specialized field of] study. But each of these topics is lofty and profound in itself; how could he hope to master any one of them in a single reading [of the text]? If we draw an analogy between Su Shi’s ideas and going shopping for various wares, then his “each time [I] read through the text I would search for only one topic” would be like going to the market first for gold and pearls and again for cotton and silk. As for rice, millet, and medicinal cakes, those would be sought in subsequent trips. [But] could one hope to buy up all of these various items? Even the wealth ofTaozhu or Yidu could not suffice to pay for [all of] this!5 And yet, if one economized and took only a little of each item, then one would not get an adequate supply of any of them.

  Su Shi’s teachings lack any kind of basis. Yet there is no end to the [number of] students today who are rushing to Su Shi. His teachings are inadequate if one is seeking [to become adept at] intellectual discussion, and they are excessive if one is seeking [to prepare for] the official examinations. In every school [that prepares students for] the official examinations, they know that one must recite and master [the classics], but none is able to accomplish as much as Su Shi managed to do. If by chance they come across his method [of study], they inevitably use it to lord over common scholars, with the result that others look up to them in awe. Such people, in an effort at selfaggrandizement, say that they practice intellectual discussions—not preparation for the examinations—without ever realizing that this is not true!

  Su Shi’s [method of] learning derives from the art of strategy; its strength lies in its ability to gauge the affairs of the world and in its practical applicability. But the basis upon which it was developed turns out to be preparing for the composition of examination essays.6 In preparing an examination essay, one must refer to specific events, and in arguing the finer points one must adduce hard facts [to support one’s case]. If one does not specialize in some ancient discipline of learning, one must rely on written material to pursue one’s research. And so one who truly applies oneself in the way Su Shi read the History of the Han Dynasty will not find it difficult to answer examination questions. Han Yu said, “In recording events, select what is essential. In compiling sayings, search out what is profound.”7 [The idea is that] by searching out what is profound and selecting what is essential one can produce anecdotes that will be appreciated throughout the ages. And yet, the events and sayings that Han Yu regarded as profound and essential not only cannot be seen today; even during his own time, they were lost and not handed down. They required someone to collect, annotate, copy, and compile them. Nevertheless, people try to imitate [Han Yu’s] idea of selecting the essential and searching out the profound and recording these. An example of this is Su Shi’s method of selective reading’s mistakenly being regarded as a proper method of study.

  Someone asked, “From what you say, is neither Han Yu nor Su Shi an adequate model?�
�

  I replied, “Han Yu and Su Shi applied their efforts to enhance their literary skill, and this cannot be regarded as true learning.”

  Section Two

  Someone asked, “The official examinations serve to gauge people’s learning, but when the examinations merely lead people to prepare answers on various topics, they become a decadent perversion. And yet, if one has prepared in anticipation for the examinations, isn’t this what the Book of Rites describes as ‘extensive study and earnest memorization in preparation for questions?’8 Shouldn’t this be regarded as learning?”

  I replied, “Extensive study and earnest memorization is something a scholar does, but the foundation for establishing oneself is not to be found in this. What is valued in learning is breadth and economy. One cannot be economical without also working to be broad. There are low and rustic scholars who study the teachings of one individual and use this to establish their own area of expertise, but they can hardly be called specialists. And yet, it is also the case that one cannot be broad without working to be economical. There are vulgar and pedantic scholars whose studies are unfocused and without end, who wantonly investigate everything without understanding that this kind of study is something beyond even the abilities of Yao and Shun.9 Extensive study and earnest memorization will enable one to field questions, but if one does not understand the need to be economical and secure and prepares only to field questions, should [one suddenly find oneself] bereft of questions would one then be without learning? Moreover, one who asks me a question must have heard of my reputation and on this basis sought my actual [knowledge]. But reputation comes from being established and cannot be attained except through perfecting one’s learning in some specialized discipline. And so, without specialization, one cannot perfect one’s learning.”

  Someone asked, “Su Shi’s searching for specific topics and Han Yu’s grasping the subtle and seizing the essential are both examples of learning to field questions, and you believe neither is adequate for perfecting one’s learning. Wang Yinglin sought out and collected the most marvelous and subtle writings.10 He was able to collate and pull together various names, things, institutions, and arts mentioned in the classics, their commentaries, and [various] philosophical and historical works. Surely he discussed things that former scholars had yet to master, and the various books that he composed are a most helpful resource for students today. How can you demean his work as simply ‘learning to field questions’?”

  I replied, “It would appear that Wang Yinglin was one who sought reality through the study of names.11 People in the past have said Han Yu was someone who ‘saw the dao through the literature.12 Having seen the dao, he excelled in literary pursuits. Wang Yinglin was one who pursued learning by preparing to field questions. Having become learned, he excelled in fielding questions. And so, it is correct to refer to Wang’s works as ‘anthologies’ but not correct to refer to them as ‘narratives.’ One can refer to them as the effort of a student seeking knowledge but not the work of someone who has perfected a discipline. The reason the widely read gentlemen of today wear out their spirits studying the classics, their commentaries, and various philosophical and historical works and yet to the end of their days never grasp [the meaning of] true learning is simply because they reverently worship Wang Yinglin and mistakenly maintain that the effort of seeking knowledge is true learning. True learning and putting forth an effort surely are similar, but they are not identical. Learning is not something one can expect to achieve quickly; one must simply exert oneself in the effort [of learning]. To claim that the effort itself is learning is like pointing to millet and saying that it is wine!

  “In learning there is Heavenly nature: in the course of reading books and studying the ancients there are moments when one experiences the dawning of insights that to the end of one’s days will never change. In learning there are also the most sublime feelings: in the course of reading books and studying the ancients there are moments of joy or sadness when suddenly one finds oneself singing or weeping for reasons that one cannot understand.13 When there is an excess of effort and inadequate nature and feelings, then it cannot be called true learning. Nature and feelings occur spontaneously, but if one does not deepen them with effort, then this is what is known as ‘having ability,’ but it is not true learning. Kongzi said, ‘In my effort I forget to eat; in my joy I forget my sorrows. I am unaware that old age is approaching.’ 14 Not to be aware of what is effort and what is nature and feelings—certainly this is the epitome of true learning! How did Kongzi attain this? He said, ‘I am one who loves the ancients and is quick to seek after them.’15 The vulgar Confucians of today regret that they cannot inspect the text of the Spring and Autumn Annals before Kongzi edited it.16 They bemoan the loss of the seven ‘Sacrificial Odes of Shang’ from Duke Dai’s text.17 These scholars think of themselves as people of elevated feelings and superior insight and sigh in mutual praise of one another. But if one follows the implications of their vulgar views, it would appear that Kongzi’s editorial work [on the classics] is inferior to Wang Yinglin’s skillful collection of lost passages. It seems that these people all follow the tendencies of the times and mistakenly believe that the work of repairing and correcting [the classics] is the only work that needs to be done in the world. It is most fortunate that they were born in a later age, for had they lived prior to the burning of the books during the Qin dynasty, back in the time when the sacred texts were all intact and there was no need to augment and correct them, they would have been unable to apply their ‘learning.’”

  Section Three

  Someone asked, “You say that true learning must give equal emphasis to making an effort and to nature and feelings. And yet you do not set up any [single] standard [for everyone to follow], saying only that students must recognize their personal propensities and apply themselves to what they are capable of doing. I fear that this is no different from Wang Yangming’s notion of ‘pure knowing.’18 Now when the ancients taught about learning, from learning numbers and the names of the cardinal directions to the recitation of the odes and the dancing of the Wushao, there was a fixed standard for everyone.19 They did not ask whether one did or did not have the propensity or whether or not one was capable. But now you say that each person is capable of some things but not others, and they are not equally strong [in ability]. How can the learning of people today differ from the learning of the ancients?”

  I replied, “People today do not study those things [that you mentioned]; they cannot equal the ancients. But this is not because they are unequal in ability; it is a result of their different circumstances. Ever since the functions of official and teacher separated and teaching and law were no longer united, each student privately handed down whatever he was capable of doing. This is the first difference between people today and the ancients. Moreover, once the functions of official and teacher had separated, people had to rely on written records as the source for their practice: the dao was no longer manifest in actual things and affairs, and its operation was no longer embodied in official duties. This is the second difference [between people today and] the ancients. [As a result of these changes] some lineages of ancient learning have been lost. The six types of characters and nine methods of calculation all were understood and mastered by the ancients in the course of their elementary education.20 But even the most venerable teacher or most renowned scholar of later ages could devote his entire life and energy to these subjects and still not understand them as well as the ancients did. This is the third difference [between people today and the ancients].

  “The Heavenly seasons and human affairs of the past and those of the present cannot be forced into agreement.21 This is something beyond the ken of human beings. Nevertheless, the great principles of the Six Classics shine forth like the sun and the stars and ‘what has been deleted from or added [to them] since the time of the Three Dynasties can be inferred for a hundred generations thereafter.’22 The evident points can quickly be discovered in th
eir general scope, and the more obscure aspects can gradually be understood by studying the course of their history. The resource [for understanding] them is close at hand; the ability is something that everyone possesses. And so, every person can personally grasp their [true meaning]. How can one cling to a single, fixed model and try to force agreement?

  “Wang Yangming’s teaching regarding the ‘extension of pure knowing’ is simply a doctrine that we see in the Mengzi.23 Since Wang talks about extending one’s pure knowing, he certainly did not neglect the need to put forth a concerted effort.24 Zhu Xi’s belief that one should pursue understanding on the basis of what one already grasps and Mengzi’s belief that one should recognize one’s innate sprouts and then enlarge and fill them out both agree with this teaching [of Wang Yangming‘s]. And yet, contemporary scholars hastily regard the notion of ‘pure knowing’ as taboo and all of them warn that it is the erroneous teaching of a debauched school. But is the main idea [of pure knowing] really different from what the ancients talked about?”

  Someone asked, “When Mengzi talked about ‘enlarging and filling out’ [the four sprouts], he certainly intended this as the way to grasp the full reality of benevolence, righteousness, ritual, and wisdom.25 [Now] you want people to recognize their personal talents and develop these as their individual specialties, and you warn them about spreading themselves too broadly. How could this lead to an all-inclusive dao?”

  I replied, “Such an effort cannot be expected by following a single doctrine. In pursuing the dao, all-inclusiveness is desired, and yet in one’s own work there must be specialization. These [two] teachings are complimentary and not at all contradictory. In Kongzi’s school, those who had personally mastered all of the six disciplines numbered seventy-two in all.26 And yet, from the time of Yan Hui, Zengzi, Zigong, and Zixia, the lineages of these disciplines cannot be fully traced.27 Later, as they were passed on, Xunzi [specialized in] teaching about ritual, while Mengzi had particular expertise in the Book of Odes and the Book of History. [They each] treated some ideas in general terms and others in detail. Their paths were different, but they all led to the dao. Later scholars now rely on specialties derived from these different paths: some pursue philosophy, some philology, and some literature. These three are equal in importance. But a person who specializes in any one of these cannot but be deficient in the other two; this is simply due to the nature of the situation. If one understands that one’s own specialty is but one ‘sprout’ of the dao and that one cannot disregard the [other] two in which one is deficient, then one is not far from the Way. But if one obstinately sticks to one’s own specialty and claims nothing in the world can surpass it, then one will demean what one rejects and adore what one accepts and become what is known as ‘a stubborn thing.’