There is nothing that the dao does not include, but those proficient in a particular art consider only what each of them sees as the ultimate truth. Among the ancient masters, there were three who wrote treatises with the title of On the Dao.6 Liu An speculated about the mysteries of the universe, Liu Xie specialized in the principles of writing, and Han Yu sought to block the influence of Buddhism and Daoism. Each of these authors was able to create a basis for an original school of thought. But my teachings about the dao differ from all three of these. The General Principles of Literature and History is written in order to compare and assess achievements and shortcomings in writing. Learning is the root and origin of writing. However, what people today call “learning” is nothing more than studying how to name things according to the definitions found in Approaching What Is Correct or how to write commentaries based on the six types of characters.7 They think that such studies will prepare them for the great task of ordering their age. Although there are some outstanding works, such as the philosophical writings of Zhou Dunyi and the Cheng brothers or the literary works of Han Yu and Ouyang Xiu, it is not difficult to set most of these [kinds of works] aside as insignificant achievements.
Those who know even a little about mastering some art distinguish three different schools of learning—philological inquiry, speculative philosophy, and literary pursuits—and will say that each of these has its distinctive strengths. But they fail to realize that each of these [three schools] is only one aspect of the dao. This is because each school has proliferated the writings [concerned with its specialty] and fought with the others for supremacy. My essay On the Dao is a response to this division among the three schools. Though people have used the same title on a number of occasions in the past, my essay breaks new ground and explores issues that have not been analyzed since ancient times. It seems that my friends, seeing that the title is taken from earlier authors, assumed that the content [of my essay] is unoriginal.
Even a child knows enough to say that writing derives from the Six Classical disciplines and that Kongzi offers the most sophisticated and complete account of ethics.8 However, the reason learning has not advanced since ancient times is that scholars of later ages mistakenly have modeled themselves on the Six Classics and taken Kongzi as their teacher. Kongzi was unable to obtain an official position, but he still put the dao into practice. He [edited and] transmitted the Six Classics in order to hand down their teachings for a myriad of future generations, but this was something Kongzi could not but do. Even though scholars of later times no longer live [as Kongzi did]—in the period when the Zhou dynasty was declining and there was nothing to be done about it—they still insist that in order to model oneself after Kongzi and take him as one’s teacher, one must compose and transmit writings to pass on to future generations. But how can this be seen as something that they cannot but do? Why do they look down upon the people of their own time, while showing such concern for future generations? And so, those who study Kongzi should study what it was that Kongzi studied—not what Kongzi could not but do.9 However, ever since the time of Mengzi, those who are regarded as accomplished scholars all have sought to study what Kongzi could not but do. To take what Kongzi could not but do and mistakenly say that this was Kongzi’s original intention is nothing less than to show hollow respect for morality and literature, as if they were separate things, and—on the grand scale—to regard the methods for ordering the ages, and—on a small scale—the ethics of daily life, as crude matters.10
Once one understands the unity of dao and actual things and affairs, one can go on to say that to study the logic behind the unity of the dao and actual things and affairs one must explore the difference between Kongzi and the Duke of Zhou.11 This has been the most essential principle of learning since antiquity. And yet earlier scholars have not explored this issue thoroughly. And so, in On the Dao, I say that the dao comes from Heaven. This may seem to be an overly grand claim, but I adduce detailed evidence to support it. For example, if we start with three people living together in a single room and follow the course of development over time, we can infer that the dao is found in those things that are as they are without the masses understanding why they are as they are.12 It was really the Duke of Zhou and not Kongzi who “summed up the complete orchestra.”13 Though Kongzi was as great as Heaven, you still can describe him with a single maxim: There is nothing to say about Kongzi other than what he learned from the Duke of Zhou.14 The Six Classics never describe the dao apart from actual things and affairs. But in later times, when morality had declined, the dao began to be defined differently by individual thinkers, each of whom deluded himself into thinking that he possessed a unique and original understanding that far surpassed what earlier thinkers had said.
My essay On Learning was written in order to expand upon those points that I had not discussed fully in On the Dao.15 [In On Learning I say that] the defects of crude Confucians are the result of learning without thought; the defects of heterodox schools arise from thought without learning.16 I was quite pleased with the succinct and direct quality of these lines. But since I wrote them quickly, I did not hesitate to explore the originality of this way of putting things. Fearing that some earlier scholar had made the same point, I asked all my friends about it, but they assured me that they had not encountered this idea before. For just this reason, in my General Principles of Literature and History whenever I unintentionally express a view that is the same as some past writer, I always cite the earlier man’s words, to show that I am not plagiarizing his work. Would you and your friends please check through the writings of earlier scholars to see if anyone presents a view similar to mine? If you find anything that resembles my view, please write to me immediately. I will be extremely grateful if you can help me to avoid unintentionally plagiarizing another.
In the past, when a scholar in his later years broke new ground in his writings but his contemporaries were unable to appreciate this new work, they would say that his later writings were inferior to his earlier achievements. In such cases, a scholar’s reputation might extend throughout the world in his youth but later in life [he would] gradually become less well known, but this actually indicates the extent of his achievement. How could I dare to claim to be an example of this? However, those scholars whose talent is greater than their insight often make use of their expertise in order to establish themselves. Furthermore, they seek to win a good reputation, strive to be different from others, and brag about the originality of their insights. They no longer regard their own past achievements as worthy of even a snicker. Reflecting upon myself, I find that I have yet to reach such an extreme!
But the point of my writings is extremely subtle and difficult to express in words. As soon as the essays [in the General Principles of Literature and History] were released, everyone immediately started to praise them. This made me worry that their understanding [of my work] was not very deep. The fact that you did not join suit and follow such opinions shows that you are a true friend. [In this letter] I have attempted to explain my views more clearly, but this is not an attempt to insist that I am correct and reject your criticisms. What do you think?
APPENDICES
Three Works by Han Yu
APPENDIX I
On the Dao
“Benevolence” (ren is wide-ranging concern. “Righteousness” (yi ) is doing what is proper. To act out of these [two] is the “Way” (dao).1 What one has within oneself, without relying on anything outside oneself, is “Virtue” (de).2 Ren and yi are fixed terms, while dao and de are open concepts. And so, there is the Way of the cultivated person and the Way of the petty person; there is inauspicious as well as auspicious Virtue.
Laozi belittled benevolence and righteousness, denying and denigrating them. His perspective was narrow. Someone sitting in a well and gazing up at the Heavens will say that the Heavens are small, but this is not because the Heavens are small. Laozi performed only minor acts of benevolence and isolated acts of righteousness, and so i
t was only natural that he belittled them. What he called the Way was simply the way with which he was familiar. But this is not what I call the Way. What he called Virtue was simply the Virtue with which he was acquainted. But this is not what I call Virtue. Whenever I talk about the Way or Virtue, they always are united with benevolence and righteousness. This is what people throughout the world mean when they talk [of the Way or Virtue]. The dao and de that Laozi talked about are separated from benevolence and righteousness.3 This is just one person’s private way of talking.
The Zhou dynasty declined and Kongzi passed away. In the period that followed, there was the burning of the books in the Qin dynasty (221—206 B.C.E.), Daoism in the Han dynasty (206 B.C.E.–220 C.E.), and Buddhism in the Jin (265–420 C.E.), Wei (386–549), Liang (502–57), and Sui (589—617) dynasties; those who talked about the Way, Virtue, benevolence, and righteousness either followed the teachings of Yang Zhu or Mozi or accepted the doctrines of Laozi or the Buddha.4 Those who accepted these teachings had to reject Confucianism. They regarded the leaders of these schools as their lords and Kongzi as a slave; they adhered to the new and vilified the old. Is it not sad! Those living in later ages who want to learn about the Way, Virtue, benevolence, and righteousness—from whom can they hear such things?
Daoists say, “Kongzi was a disciple of our master.”5 Buddhists say, “Kongzi was a disciple of our master.”6 The followers of Kongzi have become so accustomed to hearing such things that they delight in such extravagant talk and belittle their own tradition. They, too, say, “Our teacher studied under [Laozi or the Buddha] ” and other such things. Not only do they say such things, they also record them in their writings.7 Is it not sad! People living in later ages who wish to be taught about the Way, Virtue, benevolence, and righteousness—from whom can they seek such things? People take such profound delight in what is unusual and strange. They do not seek out the sprouts [of the Way, Virtue, benevolence, and righteousness], nor do they explore the tips of their branches.8 Instead, all they want is to hear about the unusual and strange.
In ancient times, there were four classes of people; today there are six.9 In ancient times only one class in four were teachers; today three classes among six are teachers.10 [And so today], for every family farming the land, there are six consuming its grain. For every family engaged in craft, there are six using its products. For every family engaged in trade, six must live off its profits. Is it any wonder that the people are poor and turn to robbery?
In ancient times, people faced many perils. But sages came forth and taught them how to be fruitful and nurture their lives, serving as rulers and teachers.11 They drove off the insects, reptiles, birds, and beasts and settled the people in the central region.12 When the people were cold, they taught them how to make clothing. When the people were hungry, they taught them how to make food. Because living in trees was dangerous and living upon the ground unhealthy, they taught them how to build palaces and halls. They taught them crafts to provide implements and tools. They taught them to trade, so they could supply their various needs. They taught them the arts of healing and medicine, to fend off early death. They taught them how to perform funerals and burials, sacrifices and offerings, to enlarge their sense of kindness and care. They taught them rituals, to provide them with a sense of precedence and order. They taught them music, to relieve their anxieties and distress. They taught them government in order to lead the idle and remiss and punishments in order to restrain the violent and unruly. Because people tended to deceive one another, they taught them about tallies and seals, weights and measures, and balances and scales in order to instill trust. Because people tended to plunder [each other’s cities], they taught them how to build walls and fortifications and make armor and weapons in order to protect themselves. Whatever peril came their way, the sages provided a means for defense; whenever misfortune arose, the sages helped them fend it off.
Now [the Daoists] say, “Until the sages are dead, the great robbers will never cease their activity ... Destroy the measures and break the scales; then the people will not contend.”13 How can this be! They simply do not stop to reflect. Had there not been sages in the past, human beings would have gone extinct long ago. Why? Because they have no feathers or fur and no scales or shells to survive the cold and heat. They have no claws or teeth to contend for food. This is why there are rulers to issue orders and ministers to implement the ruler’s orders and disseminate them among the people. The people produce grain and rice, linen and silk, make implements and utensils, and exchange goods and supplies in order to serve their superiors. If rulers do not issue orders, they lose what makes them rulers. If ministers do not implement the ruler’s orders and disseminate them among the people, they lose what makes them ministers. If the people do not produce grain and rice, linen and silk, make implements and utensils, and exchange goods and supplies in order to serve their superiors, they should be punished.
Now the teachings of Buddhism say that you must cast aside ruler and minister, eliminate father and son, and prohibit the Way of creating and nourishing life together in order to seek for so-called purity and Nirvana. How can this be! It is fortunate for the followers of Buddhism that they appeared after the Three Dynasties and so did not suffer the criticisms of kings Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Kongzi.14 But how unfortunate for them that they did not appear prior to the Three Dynasties, so their teachings could have been corrected by kings Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Kongzi.
The titles “emperor” and “king” are quite different but indicate an equal level of sageliness. To wear garments of linen in the summer and fur in the winter, to drink when thirsty and eat when hungry—these are quite different affairs but are equally wise. Now the Daoists say, “Why not follow the life of great antiquity, when there was nothing to do?”15 But this is like criticizing those who wear furs in the winter by saying, “Why not follow the easier path of wearing linen garments?” or those who eat when they are hungry by saying, “Why not follow the easier path of finding something to drink?”
A traditional text16 says, “In ancient times, those who wished to make bright their bright Virtue throughout the world would first order their states. Those who wished to order their states would first regulate their families. Those who wished to regulate their families would first cultivate themselves. Those who wished to cultivate themselves would first rectify their heart-minds. Those who wished to rectify their heart-minds would first make their thoughts sincere.” This makes it clear that what the ancients called “rectifying one’s heart-mind and making one’s thoughts sincere” were tasks undertaken with an explicit aim and purpose.17 Now those who seek to order their heart-minds but ignore the world, the state, and the family destroy the norms of Nature.18 How can a son not treat his father as father? How can a minister not treat his ruler as ruler? How can the people not attend to their affairs?
When Kongzi composed the Spring and Autumn Annals, he treated those feudal lords who used the rituals of barbarian cultures as barbarians and those whose ritual practices were close to the Chinese tradition as Chinese.19 The Analects says, “The Yi or Di with rulers are not equal to Chinese without rulers.”20 The Book of Odes says, “[He] smote the Rong and the Di and punished the Jing and the Shu.”21 Now, however, we place the teachings of barbarians above those of the former kings.22 Are we not close to becoming barbarians ourselves?
What are the teachings of the former kings? They taught that benevolence is wide-ranging concern. Righteousness is doing what is proper. To act out of these [two virtues] is the Way. What one has within oneself, without relying on anything outside oneself, is Virtue. Their teachings are recorded in the Book of Odes, Book of History, Book of Changes, and the Spring and Autumn Annals. Their practices and institutions consisted of the rites, music, punishments, and government. They recognized four classes of people: scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants. They advocated the social roles of ruler and minister, father and son, teacher and pupil, gue
st and host, elder and younger brother, and husband and wife. They lived in palaces and halls. They ate grain, rice, fruit, vegetables, fish, and meat.23 Their Way is easy to grasp and easy to implement. And so,
Use it as your personal guide and find ease and happiness;
Use it in your dealings with others and be caring and fair;
Use it to cultivate your heart-mind and find harmony and peace;
Use it to order state and society and find it everywhere appropriate.
And so,
In life, they accorded with human nature;
In death, they fulfilled the constant norms;
The Heavenly spirits accepted their sacrifices;
The ancestral spirits enjoyed their offerings.
If someone asks, “What Way is this?” I will reply, “This is what I call the Way. This is not the Way of Daoism or Buddhism described earlier.” Emperor Yao transmitted this Way to Emperor Shun. Emperor Shun transmitted it to Emperor Yu. Emperor Yu transmitted it to Emperor Tang. Emperor Tang transmitted it to kings Wen and Wu and the Duke of Zhou. Kings Wen and Wu and the Duke of Zhou transmitted it to Kongzi. Kongzi transmitted it to Mengzi. When Mengzi died, it was not transmitted further. Xunzi (310–19 B.C.E.) and Yang Xiong (53 B.C.E.–18 C.E.),24
Selected parts but what they chose was not pure;
Spoke about it but not in fine detail;
On Ethics and History Page 16