Li Yousheng (Xue Deng, Issue 14)

Abstract: Zigong asked, “Is there one word that can guide one’s conduct throughout life?” Confucius replied, “Perhaps it is ‘forgiveness’? What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.” Confucius was kind to others without judging them by his own standards, interacting with different people, accommodating those completely opposite to himself, lacking a concept of friend or foe, and advocating for a neutral stance. This reflects the holistic nature of early society and the lack of political and ideological differentiation, the absence of the ability to impose on others, and the need for everyone to tolerate those opposite to themselves. This does not preclude Confucius from possessing lofty ideals and moral standards. Faced with the political and ideological differentiation of the Warring States period, the competition among various schools of thought, and the struggle between different classes, Mencius and Xunzi lost this inclusive and unifying thought of Confucius. They criticized other schools of thought for survival, making hatred of hostile forces a prerequisite for survival, forming a stark contrast to Confucius. If the image of the gentleman established by Confucius still had an aesthetic meaning of self-enjoyment, Mencius and Xunzi gradually introduced elements of self-anesthesia from a secondary social and religious perspective. Based on the frequency of word usage, from Confucius and Mencius to Xunzi, the distance between them and people gradually increased, while the distance between them and the religious concept of heaven gradually increased.

Keywords: primitive society, secondary society, overall inclusiveness, class and school of thought

Psychologists often categorize work colleagues as “forest warriors.” These warriors divide everyone else into two groups: friends and enemies. They must constantly unite with friends to fight enemies while working, believing this is a necessity for survival in office factional struggles. The author has compared China during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods with modern Europe, noting that rapid social changes led to escalating warfare, resulting in different states being either enemies or allies. Remarkably, Confucius, born at the end of the Spring and Autumn period, displayed a magnanimous and all-encompassing spirit, seeing neither enemies nor hostile states. Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Jesus represented religion in opposition to secular power, while Confucius was passionate about politics, holding the high position of Grand Minister of Justice and acting Prime Minister. Mencius, in “Wan Zhang II,” divided ancient sages into four types, considering Confucius the last type—a sage who synthesized all the wisdom of his time. In other words, Confucius was a thinker who both adapted to the changing times and encompassed the entire era. This article will explore Confucius’s rare spirit of inclusiveness and compare it with that of Mencius and Xunzi to demonstrate the role of escalating war in social change after Confucius’s death.

I. Confucius’s inclusive ideology of a unified empire

Zigong asked, “Is there one word that can guide one’s conduct throughout life?” Confucius replied, “Perhaps it is ‘forgiveness’? What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.” (15:23, *The Analects*, Chapter 15, Section 23, hereinafter the same). Applying this principle to people, one sees no enemies; applying it to different countries, one sees no hostile states. Therefore, these few words encompass all aspects of Confucius’s inclusive and holistic philosophy. This idea of ​​Confucius can also be expressed through the core concept of “benevolence” (仁), which means loving others, that is, loving all people. Confucius was unwilling to say that anyone around him could be called benevolent, even saying, “As for sagehood and benevolence, how dare I claim it!” This means that Confucius himself was far from meeting the requirements of benevolence. Confucius clearly idealized and sanctified the spirit of benevolence and forgiveness. Confucius regarded his spirit of benevolence and forgiveness as a form of self-cultivation, neither imposing it on others nor demanding others meet his own high standards.

(1) Confucius considered issues from the perspective of the entire society and all of humanity, embodying the so-called inclusive ideology of a unified whole. However, Confucius did not elevate his teachings to the level of a theory that governs everything. Lao Tzu, who came before him, proposed the concept of the Dao, a concept external to humanity yet governing everything; Judaism, Christianity, and other religions proposed the concept of a God who governs everything. Western scholars felt that Confucius’s teachings were merely aphoristic principles of life, not philosophy, and lacked a systematic theory. In reality, Confucius tried to address specific situations and was unwilling to use reasoning to enter the unknown. He said, “The superior man leaves blanks about what he does not know,” leaving the unknown areas unfilled and not filling them with reasoning and conjecture. As the founder of a school that valued morality and etiquette and later evolved into one of the three major schools of thought in Chinese history, Confucius refused to answer the fundamental question of whether God existed, using phrases like “respect the spirits but keep them at a distance” and “how can one know death if one does not know life?” This left his students with many ambiguous and unresolved areas. For example, “The Master rarely spoke of profit, destiny, or benevolence,” “The Master’s words on human nature and the Way of Heaven are not to be heard,” “The Master said: I wish to remain silent… What does Heaven say?” and “The Master avoided four things: preconceived notions, dogmatism, obstinacy, and ego.” (9:1, 5:13, 17:19, 9:4) This shows that Confucius adopted this attitude after profound consideration, the so-called “transmitting but not creating.” Confucius did have innovations, such as proposing the doctrine of benevolence, but he did not make any major theoretical contributions. Therefore, Mencius said that Confucius was the culmination of his era. Confucius had an all-encompassing mind, but at the same time avoided establishing a doctrine that encompassed everything, because he wanted to leave room for the existence and development of others.

(2) Confucius was content with poverty and found joy in the Way, without any utilitarian thoughts. “Eating coarse food, drinking water, and using my arm as a pillow—even in this there is joy!” (7:15) He found joy in simple food and water, using his arm as a pillow. Yu Dan discusses Confucius and Zhuangzi. Both Confucius and Zhuangzi tended to distance themselves from utilitarianism, cultivating their minds and finding joy in purity and simplicity. For example, Confucius had “three kinds of beneficial pleasures and three kinds of harmful pleasures,” and considered the rites advocated by Confucianism as a form of entertainment. (16:5) Confucius also viewed his promotion of the Way and his official career in this way, not for utilitarian purposes. Therefore, he repeatedly emphasized, “Those who follow different paths cannot make plans together” (15:39), and that he would not submit to the monarch while serving as an official, advocating “If serving the ruler according to the Way is not possible, then stop.” If he could not act according to his principles, he would immediately resign from office. (11:23) Mencius summarized three situations in which Confucius served as an official: “Confucius served in positions where his conduct was deemed acceptable, in positions where his opportunities were deemed acceptable, and in positions where he was supported by the public.” None of these were for money, nor were they due to pressure from the times or power. (Mencius, Wan Zhang II) Serving as an official to promote one’s own ideas is inherently utilitarian, but for Confucius himself, it had no utilitarian connotation, as stated in Lüshi Chunqiu, “The achievements of emperors and kings are the aftermath of sages.” Therefore, Confucius’s thought is very modern, and he undoubtedly embodies the free individualism advocated by the modern West. However, Confucius did not exhibit Zhuangzi’s cynicism or the unrestrained attacks on society and the times by modern Western free individuals. On the contrary, Confucius had the idea of ​​a wise man avoiding the world, saying, “The wise man avoids the world, the next best avoids the land, the next best avoids sensual pleasures, and the next best avoids words.” (14:39) That is, Confucius preferred to avoid rather than attack others.

(3) Whether in politics or in life, Confucius had a mature set of principles. He treated those who disagreed with him with tolerance. In Confucius’s inclusive and unified thought, there was no concept of opposition or enemy. Instead, he considered himself and his principles as a component of society, forming society together with other people and things. Modern society recognizes private ownership. Those who deny private ownership and regard other people’s things as their own, resorting to violence to rob when faced with resistance, are considered enemies of society and even executed. Confucius, two thousand years ago, did not think this way. He strongly opposed executions. He said, “If a virtuous person governs a state for a hundred years, he can overcome cruelty and eliminate killing. How true this is!” When the ruler of Lu, Ji Shi, wanted to use the virtuous to kill the wicked, Confucius said, “Why use killing in governance?” Ji Shi was worried about too many thieves. Confucius said, “If you do not desire it, even if you reward theft, people will not steal.” (13:13, 12:19, 18) If the ruler is not greedy, even if you reward theft, people will not steal.

Once, Zigong said, “I do not wish others to impose upon me, nor do I wish to impose upon others.” Zigong enjoyed business, and transactions are generally based on equality and free will, making it easy to avoid imposing one’s will on others. However, in complex social situations, it’s difficult to guarantee that such impositions will not occur. Therefore, Confucius replied, “This is beyond your control.” It’s not something an individual can achieve. Confucius also considered thieves and the immoral with the same mindset, believing that they also had social conditions beyond their control. Furthermore, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” also carries the meaning of opposing executions: if you do not wish to be killed, you should not kill others. Many countries that have abolished the death penalty today have similar considerations. Confucius said, “To kill without teaching is cruelty,” meaning Confucius urged people to avoid killing as much as possible, not that he endorsed executions. Similarly, a state’s condemnation of a particular death penalty does not equate to its endorsement of other death penalties.

(4) Confucius wanted to promote his ideas with the support of the feudal lords, but he did not expect them to agree with his philosophy of life. Yang Hu and Gongshan Furao, rebellious retainers of Lu, and a rebellious retainer of Jin all asked Confucius to help them, and Confucius considered going. His students objected, especially Zilu. Confucius replied, “Is it not said that what is firm cannot be ground down; is it not said that what is white cannot be stained by mud? Am I a gourd? How can I be tied up and not eaten?” Confucius said that even if he worked with these people, his purity would not be stained by their corruption. This indirectly suggests that the government at that time tolerated people with different ideas; the saying “a new emperor, a new court” was a result of later political development and differentiation, and did not apply to Confucius’s time.

(5) Under the guidance of Confucius’s inclusive philosophy of unification, one of the strategies for avoiding conflict in interpersonal relationships is non-partisanship and moderation. Confucius said, “The virtue of moderation is indeed supreme! Yet it has been rare among the people for a long time.” (6:29) Being impartial and unbiased in doing things and discussing matters is a requirement for leaders, but Confucius here believes that the people of ancient times also did this. In stark contrast to the partisan politics prevalent in the modern world, Confucius advocated non-partisanship and non-contention. Confucius said, “A gentleman does not contend. If he must contend, it is in archery. He bows and yields as he ascends, and drinks as he descends. Even in contention, he is a gentleman.” He also said, “A gentleman is dignified but does not contend, sociable but not partisan.” (3:7, 15:21)

(6) Confucius’s inclusive philosophy of non-partisanship and non-contention is also reflected in his teaching practice. Confucius was said to have three thousand disciples and seventy of them were sages, but he did not select students from applicants according to a fixed teaching philosophy and standard like modern schools do.

Confucius said, “From the time I received a bundle of dried meat as tuition, I have never refused to teach.” (7:7) In other words, the gates of Confucius’ school were open to all. Judging from Fan Chi’s visit to Confucius to learn farming and gardening, many of the three thousand students must have had the opposite expectations and mistakenly entered the wrong school. However, Confucius had high ideals and moral standards, advocating “serving one’s ruler with the Way, if it is not possible, then stop,” without any intention of accommodating others. Records in the *Analects*, *Mencius*, *Xunzi*, and *Records of the Grand Historian* show that Confucius did not expel any students, nor were there any records of conflicts or falling out between Confucius and his students. In modern schools, even with hundreds of carefully selected students, there are still constant expulsions and demerits, and many more students clash with their teachers. In comparison, we can better appreciate the invaluable nature of Confucius’s inclusive and holistic philosophy.

Confucius had a special approach to students from different backgrounds and with different expectations, known as individualized instruction, which meant providing different guidance according to the student’s actual situation. The Analects 11:22 records that when Zilu and Ran You asked the same question, “Should one act immediately upon hearing something?” Confucius gave different answers because of their different personalities: “Qiu is hesitant, so I encourage him; You is impetuous, so I restrain him.” Confucius’s criticism of his students naturally followed this principle; he gave different criticisms to different people, or at least in different ways. For example, when Fan Chi came to Confucius to learn farming and gardening, Confucius waited until Fan Chi left before calling him a petty person. Similarly, he criticized Zai Wu for being unrighteous only after he left. Confucius’s criticism of acquaintances to their faces was extremely harsh. On one occasion, Confucius even tapped an old friend’s leg with his cane and said, “He was not respectful to his elders when young, accomplished nothing when grown up, and still alive when old—he is a thief.” Similarly, Confucius was also very harsh in his criticism of some of his students, especially Zilu, which shows that Zilu’s magnanimous character could withstand it, and also demonstrates the harmony between them. For example, he said of Zilu: “How wild is You!”; “You are more courageous than me, but he has no talent for it!”; “He is like a tiger leaping across a river, and will die without regret,” and so on. (13:3, 5:7, 7:10) The Analects 11:24 records the following: “Zilu appointed Zigao as the magistrate of Fei. Confucius said: ‘You are a thief of the man’s son.’ Zilu said: ‘There are people and a state; why must one read books before learning?’ Confucius said: ‘That is why I despise Lu Ning.'” The mutual teasing between Confucius and his student Zilu is vividly portrayed. Confucius scolded Ran Qiu, saying, “He is not my disciple; you young ones may beat the drums and attack him.” Confucius scolded Zai Wo, saying, “Rotten wood cannot be carved, nor can a wall of dung be plastered” (11:16, 5:10). Confucius evaluated his students, saying, “Chai is foolish, Shen is dull, Shi is biased, and You is rude.” His evaluations of the four were: foolish, slow-witted, biased, and rude (11:17). These students who were insulted by Confucius are often listed as among the few outstanding disciples in the Analects 11:2, which shows that what seems like extreme criticism today only indicates the close relationship between them.

II. The concepts of primary society and secondary society and their application in Chinese history.

Today, some of Confucius’s ideas, such as non-partisanship and non-contention, seem difficult to understand. Other aspects of Confucius’s thought that are even harder to explain using modern thought include: 1) Confucius advocated moral education against the rule of law; 2) He advocated that feudal lords should lead by example, i.e., exemplary politics rather than managerial politics; 3) He advocated separating the upper-class elites from the common people, i.e., “the superiors know the inferiors, the inferiors are ignorant,” “let them follow the path but not understand it,” and “the common people should not discuss it,” etc. (17:3, 8:9, 16:2); 4) Abolishing litigation and execution. These ideas, along with the inclusive idea of ​​a unified empire listed in the previous section, can all be explained using the genetic code of primordial society.

The author previously divided human society into a genetically encoded primordial society and a man-made secondary society, arguing that the Chinese people, from the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties to the Spring and Autumn period, primarily lived in a primordial society or a quasi-primordial society similar to it. In this primordial society, human nature served as the mechanism for social stability and operation. Because it was genetically determined, there was only one type. This primordial society consisted of approximately 150 people, based on face-to-face interaction and the principles of equality and reciprocity. Because they lived together daily, there was psychological and emotional communication among them. At a deep level of psychological and emotional consciousness, the primordial society was a unified whole, with each member being a part of this whole. The primordial society was governed by a leader who lacked the ability to force others to accept his intentions; he could only rely on persuasion and compliance with the will of the people—a principle akin to the Daoist concept of non-action. He had no reliable means of punishment for those who disobeyed him.

Since a secondary society is a man-made society, it has goals and directions, which is the ideological system of the society. The society also has corresponding social structures that are compatible with these goals and directions. If we consider the current secondary society as a society with the goal of wealth accumulation, the degree of wealth becomes the measure of social rewards and punishments, thus forming numerous classes and strata marked by the amount of wealth. Since a secondary society is a human creation, it will naturally have countless possible forms. A society can only choose one form and block other possibilities. In order to prevent members of society from seeking other possibilities indiscriminately, legal violent organs such as the army, police, and courts are indispensable. In a secondary society, it is possible to impose predetermined intentions on people. In a secondary society, its members cannot communicate with society psychologically and emotionally. The unity of a secondary society depends on the recognition of the predetermined goals and directions of the society by all members. [1] The social model of China during the Three Dynasties and even the Spring and Autumn Period is as follows:

The Imperial Family: Quasi-Primitive Society + Scholars

┃

Feudal families, quasi-primitive society, and literati

┃

Village Family Primitive Society

Confucius’s inclusive and unified ideology, along with the various aspects of his thought mentioned above that are difficult for modern people to understand, can all be explained by this primordial social system. The integrity of primordial society lies first and foremost in its emotional integrity. The early stages of poetry, art, rituals, and religion, formed through emotional expression, did not exhibit artistic conflicts arising from different classes, nor did they distinguish between secular and religious aspects. This emotional integrity, encompassing art, rituals, and religion, was sufficient to maintain the stability of primordial society and ensure its proper functioning. In other words, primordial society was built upon human nature and did not require the establishment of an objective ideological system external to humanity. During Confucius’s time, Lao Tzu’s Daoist system of thought was still in its early stages of development. Because Daoism regarded prehistoric primordial society as an ideal society, Daoist thought was actually a generalization and elevation of the aforementioned ancient Chinese primordial social system, not a system of thought for a secondary society.

We can understand the doctrines of Taoism and Confucianism as a way of life, which is what the West calls the philosophy of life. Although the Confucian and Taoist philosophies were established during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the way of life they represented existed as early as the Three Dynasties period, but no one summarized and elevated them to the level of philosophy. For convenience, this way of life and its representatives are still referred to as Taoism and Confucianism. The author once pointed out: “Ancient Chinese society may have often deviated from the original and quasi-original social forms, which led to violent conflicts. The rulers had to propose a humanistic policy of rule by virtue to correct it. In the face of these violent conflicts, Confucianism and Taoism were different but complementary: Confucianism attempted to control social order and reduce turmoil by using the politics of virtuous people; Taoists advocated returning to simplicity and returning to the model of ancient original society from the perspective of original society. The result of the efforts of Confucianism and Taoism was the same, which was to keep China in the stage of original and quasi-original society and prevent the emergence of a secondary society in the turmoil. The first philosophical system to appear in the Spring and Autumn period was Laozi, and it is estimated that the popular philosophy of this period was Taoism rather than Confucianism.”[1]

I haven’t mentioned Legalism here, as its social role is quite complex. Xunzi said, “Those who kill should be put to death, and those who injure should be punished; this is the same for all kings, and no one knows its origin.” (Xunzi, Zheng Lun) Anthropological research shows that even among groups without statehood, killing is not tolerated; murderers are either expelled or executed. Such measures to prevent killing existed in primitive societies as well, which does not negate the possibility that Confucius’s saying, “Good people govern for a hundred years and overcome cruelty and killing,” holds true. The laws of a secondary society can simultaneously create a powerful social force with the ability to impose its will on others—the emergence of a powerful class.

III. Confucius’s inclusive idea of ​​a unified empire as seen from the perspective of the original social system of ancient China

Let’s return to explaining Confucius’s concept of a unified and inclusive society: In primitive society, everyone had a responsibility to consider issues from the perspective of the entire society. Therefore, Confucius always spoke as a member of society, representing the whole society. He strived to avoid representing only a group of people who shared his ideas, let alone a class or stratum. In a secondary society facing countless possible directions, people always represent only their own thoughts and directions while simultaneously vying for social space with others.

Here, we will explain each item in the order it appeared earlier:

(1) Confucius’s inclusive idea of ​​a unified society is consistent with the fact that early society was based on human nature. Early society, based on human nature, involved emotional exchange between people, forming a unified whole at the emotional or subconscious level. Therefore, early society did not require a unified ideology or corresponding social structure. This also determined that people in early society had to coexist with people of different ideas and accommodate diverse individuals. Just like people say today, “Even if he’s not good, we’re family, so what?”

Like Lao Tzu, Confucius seems to have recognized the essential difference between primordial society and secondary society. He may have understood that a unified ideology is a matter for secondary society and incompatible with his ideal primordial social system. On one occasion, Confucius asked Zigong if he considered Confucius to be learned and possess a strong memory. Zigong remained noncommittal. Confucius replied, “No! I have one principle that runs through all things.” Zengzi explained that this “one principle” is simply “loyalty and forbearance” (15:2, 4:15). This loyalty and forbearance is essentially Confucius’s doctrine of benevolence. Confucius did not provide clear definitions for benevolence and loyalty/forbearance, nor did he list any standards for guidance or examination; they were merely feelings deeply ingrained in human consciousness. In today’s terms, it’s about acting according to one’s conscience. Confucius clearly idealized this primordial social attitude, making it the sole guiding principle for all knowledge and behavior.

(2) Generally speaking, primitive social life was similar to that of animals. Animals, after satisfying their physiological needs, relax and entertain themselves in their leisure time. Leisure time was also the time primitive humans used for art and thought. Therefore, art was primarily self-expressive, and thought lacked utilitarian tendencies, also possessing an aesthetic quality of self-indulgence. Although Confucius was enthusiastic about politics and dedicated himself to the great cause of saving humanity and restoring social order, he did not abandon the unique perspective of the leisure time of primitive people, as stated in the *Lüshi Chunqiu*: “The achievements of emperors are the leisure activities of sages.” Confucius did not submit to any powerful figures and was always prepared to “avoid the world like a sage.” Confucius also had a system of self-cultivation and the arts of rites and music as sources of entertainment, which is what modern people call spiritual sustenance. This is completely different from modern people living in a secondary society. Of course, modern people can live like Confucius, but a considerable number do not, especially successful figures like Confucius. They pursue so-called self-actualization. Secondary societies themselves offer countless possible directions, and the life paths faced by individuals living on the grand stage of contemporary secondary societies are an even more diverse and multifaceted world. They regard self-realization as the sustenance of their lives and the source of their happiness. If Confucius were to live today, he would have already learned the skills to cope with life in primary and secondary education. He wouldn’t need the moral pursuit of self-cultivation, but could instead devote his entire being to his cause, establishing Confucianism with benevolence at its core. Surrounded by disciples and those who praise him, hearing of his disciples’ glorious achievements, and witnessing the enormous social changes brought about by the recognition of his doctrines, he would feel immense happiness and satisfaction, experiencing the beauty of ultimate self-realization. For him, work would no longer be viewed as a pastime, but rather as an integral part of his work and career. Furthermore, primitive societies were limited by heredity, and change was slow. Therefore, Confucius’s recollection of Yao, Shun, and Yu, and his use of the Western Zhou Dynasty as a model, did not imply any intention of initiating a new era. In contrast, modern figures who establish new doctrines all hope to become shining landmarks in the long river of secondary societal development and leave their mark on history.

(3) In primitive society, there was no class differentiation, no conflict of interest leading to class struggle, and society did not face choices in different directions. As a result, primitive society lacked the concept of opposites and enemies. It is worth noting that during the Three Dynasties period, China developed into a superpower comparable to the United Nations, playing an absolute role in maintaining peace. In other parts of the world, war is a catalyst for civilization, and the concept of friend or foe has been indispensable from the beginning. In Confucius’s time, there were many conflicts, but the cultural traditions formed under China’s long-term peaceful environment remained. Therefore, Confucius lacked the concept of opposites, enemies, and enemy states, and even when working with people who were the opposite of himself, he was not tainted by black and white.

(4) Individuals in both primitive and secondary societies sometimes need to obey society, but the former obeys the overall emotional society, while the latter obeys the existing social laws and established direction. Confucius advocated “those who follow different paths cannot make plans together,” but he was willing to work with those who had opposing views, saying that black and white would not be corrupted together. In secondary societies, those who have different paths are hostile forces because they are trying to lead the same society or country in different directions; there can only be one winner, and the other will lose. Black and white mean opposite directions and are hostile forces, which have historically been a source of violent conflict.

(5) Generally speaking, non-partisanship and moderation are concepts from primitive societies. In a face-to-face meeting of one or two hundred people, partisan struggles are always harmful and not beneficial. When differing opinions arise in primitive societies, the moderate attitude adopted by leaders and the majority is conducive to social stability and avoids unnecessary division. In today’s world, partisan politics has become the mainstream, and moderation is occasionally mentioned positively to oppose extremes, which is different from the primitive society’s approach of finding the middle ground among many possibilities and oppositions.

(6) Confucius had three thousand disciples, seventy of whom were considered virtuous. He accepted all who came to his school, and historical records show no instances of expulsion, severing of ties, or any falling out. This is truly a miracle in retrospect. This is also a concrete manifestation of Confucius’s inclusive and holistic philosophy. They dealt with matters objectively, unlike people today who make connections and inferences. There were no overarching laws or abstract principles governing everything. Confucius scolded Ran Qiu, saying, “He is not my disciple. You may beat the drums and attack him.” (11:16) But this was only regarding Ran Qiu’s assistance to the Ji family in accumulating wealth; it did not extend to other matters.

The close relationships Confucius had with his relatives, friends, and students, and the uninhibited nature of his conversations, as reflected in the *Analects*, leave a deep impression on readers. Imagine the scholarly Confucius tapping his old friend’s leg with his cane and scolding him: “You didn’t know how to respect others when you were young, you have no virtue or achievements as an adult, and now you’re ‘old and still alive, you’re a thief!'” This reminds me of a full-page article I read in the newspaper several years ago, in which a middle-aged woman recalled her family life with her parents, both famous writers. She mentioned that the couple would sit in opposite corners of the hall, playfully attacking each other with plates, but never hitting the target. On another occasion, one of them would carry potted plants from inside the house to the yard, while the other carried them back inside. They would pass each other at the doorway, turning their faces away without looking at each other, yet always yielding the way, never bumping into each other. Such amusing anecdotes are not common in every era. Even devout medieval Christians in Europe might not have acted this way, let alone the Chinese bound by the Three Cardinal Guides and Five Constant Virtues. Historical records state that Emperor Daoguang of the Qing Dynasty once encountered his newlywed sister in the palace courtyard and inquired about her husband. His sister replied that she hadn’t seen him for over a year. Such a couple, even if they met, would never throw plates at each other.

The following explanation uses the concept of the original social system to explain the four points mentioned at the beginning of Section 2, “The Concepts of Original Society and Secondary Society and Their Application in Chinese History”:

(1) Confucius’s advocacy of rule by virtue and opposition to rule by law was in line with the social requirements of primitive society. Although primitive society also had traditional methods to stop acts such as murder, it would not establish a legal system external to people, and such a legal system is a characteristic of secondary society. As mentioned above, “in the face of these violent conflicts, Confucianism and Taoism are different but complementary: Confucianism attempts to control social order and reduce turmoil through the politics of virtuous men,” that is, Confucianism uses rule by virtue to prevent turmoil and division. Moral teachings play an auxiliary role in today’s legal social order, and also play an auxiliary role in primitive society based on human nature. In a true sense, a legal system is conducive to the establishment of a powerful class, becoming a tool for one class to oppress another, and is based on military power or production control. In Confucius’s time, farmers still had the ability to migrate to the wilderness or neighboring countries, military power was in a state of gradual balance and control, the ruling class was unable to control production, only collected taxes, and then guaranteed a peaceful and stable environment for the people, which is the set of propriety, righteousness, and trustworthiness mentioned in Analects 13:4. Confucius took the traditional society since the Three Dynasties as his ideal, so he opposed the rule of law.

(2) In the face-to-face primitive society, leaders should serve as role models, supplemented by verbal instruction. Confucius strongly advocated the exemplary role of leaders. He said, “Government is about being upright. If you lead with uprightness, who would dare not be upright?” He also said, “If one’s conduct is upright, one’s orders will be followed even without being given; if one’s conduct is not upright, one’s orders will not be followed even if given.” (12:17, 13:6) This describes the situation in primitive society, where there is no absolute authority. If a leader issues orders but does not set an example, who will carry them out? If a leader sets an example, in the face-to-face small society, people will follow without orders. In the second level society, the leader’s orders are backed by laws and the military. Those who violate orders will be punished, even killed, regardless of the leader’s personal behavior. In 1976, American psychologist Julian Jaynes (1920-1997) proposed the bicameralism theory (the translation is tentatively proposed by the author). [2] Johnny believed that the operation of prehistoric society was based on face-to-face verbal instruction. Therefore, as society expanded, people could not directly see the leaders and listen to their orders, so they experienced auditory hallucinations, heard the voice of God, and thus achieved unified action in society.

(3) As Confucius said, the social operation of “when one’s conduct is upright, one’s orders are obeyed without being given” is limited to a simple and easily understood scope. That is to say, the operation of the quasi-secondary social level in the above-mentioned social model follows the Daoist doctrine of non-action, and administrative management and military action are ideally close to zero. Apart from taxation, administrative management is limited to providing relief to those whose survival is threatened, and military action is limited to maintaining peace. Excessive activity at the quasi-secondary social level will lead to the emergence of a typical secondary society, causing instability in the entire system. Lao Tzu advocated the separation of the upper and lower classes, with the government existing without being known by the people. Confucius had similar ideas. The above-mentioned “the superiors know the inferiors are ignorant,” “make them follow but not know them,” and “the common people do not discuss” (17:3, 8:9, 16:2) all reflect this idea. Confucius also said, “The superior man has three things to fear: the mandate of Heaven, great men, and the words of sages. The inferior man does not know the mandate of Heaven and therefore does not fear it; he is familiar with great men and insults the words of sages.” (16:8) The author believes that the superior man and the inferior man here represent the upper and lower levels of society. The separation results in the lower class being completely unaware of the management system of the second-level society, while only those in the upper class, like Confucius, who have a deep understanding of the social operating mechanism, have the three things to fear. The Ji family’s practice of holding a rebellion in the hall, and the rebellion of Yang Hu and Gongshan Furao, both illustrate that they also lacked the three things to fear. On the other hand, the lack of the three things to fear and the transgressions of these people did not lead to social unrest, indicating that the main force for social stability is still human nature and social balance.

(4) The monopoly of violence is one of the most fundamental principles of the modern state. Only the state has the power to carry out violence, including the military, police, and prison system. Confucius strongly opposed execution and cruelty, but the punishment of execution and cruelty is an indispensable means of maintaining secondary social order. The society that Confucius spoke of, which “overcomes cruelty and eliminates killing,” can only be a primitive society based on human nature.

Fourth, during the Warring States period, Mencius and Xunzi lost the inclusive and unified ideology of Confucius.

China entered a secondary society during the Warring States period. During the Spring and Autumn period, the Five Hegemons still had the intention of maintaining peace on behalf of the Zhou Dynasty, as evidenced by their two meetings of the Mi Bing Conference. Although the Seven Warring States coexisted for over two hundred years, and nearly twenty smaller states also existed for a long time, the frequency and scale of wars continuously increased. Relations between states rapidly degenerated into anarchy, and the restraint exhibited by the warring parties during the Spring and Autumn period vanished. War favored centralization, leading to the emergence of a centralized system of government, accompanied by the abandonment of various moral and ritual systems since the Western Zhou Dynasty, replaced by deceit and cruelty, exhibiting a serious anti-humanitarian tendency. Faced with this reality, Mencius and Xunzi criticized other schools of thought to survive, making hatred of hostile forces a prerequisite for survival, forming a stark contrast to Confucius. Confucius proposed the doctrine of benevolence, meaning love for others. Mencius, in the opening chapter of his book “King Hui of Liang,” stated, “The benevolent are invincible,” clearly using Confucius’s teachings as a weapon to defeat enemies. Xunzi wrote “Against the Twelve Masters,” attacking even Confucian successors like Zisi and Mencius. Due to space limitations, this article will not discuss in detail how Mencius and Xunzi dealt with the emergence of secondary societies, but will only provide a general explanation to illustrate the social trend of deviating from human nature and moving towards what Marx called opium religion.

Mencius and Xunzi, both followers of Confucianism, followed a different order of development. The gradual evolution of word frequency in the *Analects*, *Mencius*, and *Xunzi* reveals the multifaceted changes Confucianism underwent to adapt to the emergence of a secondary society, and these changes were gradual. The author used a computer to statistically analyze word frequencies, which may differ slightly from visual counts, such as the inclusion or exclusion of subheadings, but this does not affect the overall results. The following are the word frequencies in the three books: *Analects*, *Mencius*, and *Xunzi*: The frequency of the word “law” gradually increases, in the following order: 0.0125%, 0.031%, 0.24%; the frequency of the word “benevolence” gradually decreases, in the following order: 0.68%, 0.45%, 0.18%; the frequency of the word “righteousness” gradually increases, in the following order: 0.15%, 0.31%, 0.41%; the frequency of the word “nature” gradually increases, in the following order: 0.0125%, 0.10%, 0.16%.

The changes in the frequency of these words correspond to the changes in social thought between the late Spring and Autumn Period and the late Warring States Period. The frequency of the word “law” increased more than twentyfold, indicating the emergence of a secondary society based on the rule of law. Confucianism centers on benevolence (仁), which is characterized by love for others and is imbued with friendly emotions and subjectivity. This secondary society is built on rationality, hence the decrease in the frequency of “benevolence” and the increase in the frequency of “righteousness” (义), which contains more conceptual elements. The word “human nature” (性) treats human nature as an objective thing, observing people from an external perspective, thus its frequency increased more than tenfold. In the early stages of society, based on human nature, things happened naturally, and there was no need to discuss human nature as a separate topic. Discussing human nature separately reflects the existence of anti-humanistic tendencies in society.

The ratio of the frequency of the characters for “heaven” and “humanity” in the *Analects*, *Mencius*, and *Xunzi* is, in order: 0.2237, 0.4787, and 0.4799, respectively. This indicates that people talk more about heaven and less about humanity. Confucius spoke of the Mandate of Heaven, while Xunzi spoke of the distinction between heaven and humanity, arguing that heaven is merely the natural world and that humanity should control heaven. This seems to distance humanity from heaven, but such humanity becomes a slave to monarchical autocracy. The law at this time originates from monarchical despotism, representing the will of the ruler. From a humanitarian perspective, this represents a significant regression compared to Confucius’s time. This also aligns with the shift from the subjective “benevolence” to “human nature” as a tool of others, as mentioned above. Consistent with this change is the deterioration of the social environment, moving from friendship to hostility. The friend/enemy ratio gradually decreases in the three books, in order: infinity, 1.59, and 0.72. In primitive society, Confucius had no concept of enemies, so the Analects never used the word “enemy,” and the friend/enemy ratio was infinitely large. Secondary societies have countless possible directions, and the struggle in different directions makes the concept of friend versus foe indispensable. Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. In hospitals, the use of opioids is strictly limited, except for terminally ill patients suffering unbearable pain. Similarly, during the Warring States period, the people were in unbearable suffering and saw no way out, so they turned to religion as an anesthetic. Sima Qian, describing Qu Yuan’s plight, said, “When people are impoverished, they return to their roots; therefore, when exhausted and weary, they invariably cry out to Heaven.” Xunzi spent his life wandering and unsuccessful, his experiences similar to those around him. Xunzi went to the Qin state, met King Zhaoxiang of Qin and Fan Sui, but was not given a position. Fan Sui was planning an unprecedented large-scale killing campaign, the so-called “attack strategy,” which was to kill all the men of other states. Otherwise, the defeated state would still have a chance to become strong again. We can imagine that although Xunzi loudly advocated “controlling Heaven with man,” he was already exhausted from his writings. When writing about “man,” he might have displayed a stronger sense of self-reliance, while writing about “Heaven” offered a sense of solace—something he desperately needed. Unconsciously, he used “Heaven” more often and “man” less frequently. Xunzi also understood that in a highly autocratic era, controlling Heaven with man was the domain of the ruler, somewhat distant from his own experience. It must be emphasized here that Xunzi’s frequent use of “Heaven” and limited use of “man” reflects the psychology of the entire era, because Xunzi was not an isolated individual, but a member of society.

Mencius remained loyal to Confucius’s humanitarian spirit and was deeply averse to the centralized power structure and the rivalry among powerful states at the time. He envisioned a unified world through benevolent governance, which he defined as compassion. While this was still a variation of the aforementioned social model, it was, in the context of the secondary society of that era, a completely new political design that charted a benevolent and beautiful future for China. War meant life and death, and no one dared to adopt his ideas; Mencius was thus considered pedantic. Mencius then transformed Confucius’s concept of benevolence into what he called the philosophy of mind, turning the simple benevolence of early society into an objective philosophical system centered on righteousness in secondary society. This philosophy of mind was inherited by the Neo-Confucian movement of the Song Dynasty. Mencius also sometimes spoke of qi (vital energy), the so-called “vast and righteous qi” of a great man. Mencius famously stated regarding righteousness: “Fish is what I desire, and bear’s paw is also what I desire; if I cannot have both, I will give up fish and take bear’s paw. Life is what I desire, and righteousness is also what I desire; if I cannot have both, I will give up life and take righteousness.” Mencius’s concept of righteousness is external to humanity, therefore more important than human life, clearly differing from Confucius’s ideas of benevolence and righteousness. This is similar to the Christian conception of a God external to humanity, in which humans are insignificant compared to God. In short, Mencius, adapting to the needs of a secondary society, mystified and religiousized Confucius’s simple doctrine of benevolence, thus pushing it towards idealism.

If Xunzi used the word “Heaven” extensively without realizing it, then Mencius consciously practiced his own philosophy of mind to find solace—a kind of self-anesthesia, a secondary form of social religion—using transcendental spiritual pursuits to alleviate the pain brought on by harsh social realities. Mencius took self-importance as his spiritual pillar, saying, “If Heaven does not wish to bring peace and order to the world, then in this age, who but me can do it?” (Gongsun Chou II)

Here are a few words about contemporary times as examples. Some people have conducted a detailed comparative study of modern Western democratic developed countries and found that the United States has the highest per capita GDP, but at the same time, the gap between the rich and the poor is the largest, and Americans also show unusual religious enthusiasm. In recent years, a burgeoning movement in the United States has sought to teach the creation myth of God and Darwin’s theory of evolution to primary and secondary school students on an equal footing. The author concludes that the high efficiency of the United States comes from the pressure caused by the gap between the rich and the poor, and people are therefore suffering and in particular need of the anesthetic effect of religion. [3]

The late Qing dynasty thinker Tan Sitong said, “The politics of the past two thousand years, like those of Qin, are all those of great thieves; the learning of the past two thousand years, like that of Xunzi, is all that of hypocrites. Only great thieves exploit hypocrites, and only hypocrites skillfully flatter great thieves.” (Volume 1 of *Renxue*). Confucius’s inclusive idea of ​​a unified empire adapted to the realities of the original social system, but he always clearly stated his position, embracing people without blindly agreeing with them. The political situation during the Warring States period contradicted Confucius’s doctrine of benevolence, but the desire for survival in war was understandable. How the monarchical autocracy adapted to wartime became the norm for two thousand years, and who was right and who was wrong, is not the subject of this article. Mencius’s righteous indignation and cynicism showed no intention of bowing to reality, and he firmly believed that his benevolent governance was the future of the world, hence the saying, “If not me, then who?” Strictly speaking, this shows that Mencius recognized that secondary societies could have different directions, and that his own doctrine was too idealistic, merely one possible direction for China. Therefore, he speculated that even Heaven might not want to bring peace to the world. Xunzi’s doctrine of later kings, which favored the present over the past, did not point out a bright future for the Chinese people. Instead, it mistakenly regarded the cruel social reality of wartime as the only social reality, unifying Confucius’s beautiful doctrine of benevolence with the harsh social reality. Xunzi adopted a compromise approach with reality.

Xunzi said, “What is the Way? It is the Way of the Ruler.” “The ultimate Way has a grand form; when rites and laws are upheld, the state has its constant order; when the virtuous are valued and the capable employed, the people know the proper way; when opinions are compiled fairly and impartially, the people have no doubts; when rewards are given and punishments are imposed, the people are not lazy; when all opinions are heard and all are understood, the world submits to the Way.” (On the Way of the Ruler) Here, Xunzi transforms Mencius’s concept of benevolent governance to unify the world into a utilitarian approach of rewards, punishments, and rites, placing it under the guise of Confucianism. He says, “The great Confucian scholars are the three highest officials of the world. The lesser Confucian scholars are the feudal lords, high officials, and scholars. The common people are the artisans, farmers, merchants, and traders.” In other words, he cloaks the existing regime in Confucianism. (On the Effects of Confucianism)

In his essay “Dispelling Obscurity,” Xunzi criticizes Mencius, Mozi, Songzi, Shenzi, Shenzi, Huizi, Zhuangzi, and others of his time, saying they were all blinded by one point and ignorant of the rest. Xunzi’s teachings, which criticize so many, inevitably reveal a narrow and pragmatic perspective, failing to inherit Confucius’s inclusive and unifying philosophy. The essay begins, “The problem with people is that they are blinded by one aspect and ignorant of the greater principles. To govern, one must return to the classics; to be doubtful about two things leads to confusion. There are not two paths in the world, and the sage has not two minds. Now, the feudal lords have different policies, and the hundred schools of thought have different doctrines; therefore, there will inevitably be right and wrong, order and chaos.” This shows that Xunzi was unaware that there are countless different directions to choose from in a two-tiered society, and lacked the idea of ​​balanced coexistence among different doctrines and social directions. Therefore, Xunzi lacked a vision of a beautiful and ideal society. Xunzi said, “Those who live apart and do not rely on each other will be impoverished; those who live in groups without distinction will fight.” (“Enriching the State”) This shows that Xunzi organized society according to social hierarchy for the purpose of enriching the state and strengthening the military, without considering Confucius’s multifaceted perspectives such as cultural entertainment, spiritual peace, and a harmonious and equal social atmosphere. Xunzi’s limitations made it easier for Emperor Wu of Han and others to expand imperial power, and the Han Dynasty revered Xunzi as a great Confucian scholar.

References

[1] Li Yousheng, “The concept of a two-tiered society and the complementary Chinese mainstream culture of Confucianism and Taoism”, from “Looking at life and the world from a different perspective: Chinese Taoism in the 21st century”, Thread-bound Book Bureau, 2009.

[2] Julian Jaynes(1976): The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

[3] Gregory S. Paul (2009): The big religion questions finally solved. Free Inquiry, December/January 2009 Issue, p24-36.

Learning Lamp, Issue 14

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share