Confucian Thought was not popular at Confucius own time.
As Wáng Yángmíng said in “Instructions for Practical Living”, “When Confucius was alive, some criticized him as a flatterer, some ridiculed him as an insinuating talker, some slandered him as unworthy, some denounced him as ignorant of the rules of propriety, some insulted him by calling him merely ‘someone’ from the east village, some were jealous of him and stopped him from carrying out political reforms, and some hated him and wanted to kill him.”
A Portrait of Wáng Yángmíng
His disciples believed deeply in him.
Zǐ Gòng said that Confucius “cannot be defamed. In other cases, men of excellence are like hills which one can climb over. Zhòng Ní (Confucius) is like the sun and the moon which one has no way of climbing over.” Zǐ Gòng also said, “The Master cannot be equalled just as the sky cannot be scaled.”
Mencius said, “ the people looked to him (Confucius), as we look in a time of great drought to the clouds and rainbows.” “Being benevolent and wise, our Master is really a Sage.” “ When it was proper to go into office, then to go into it; when it was proper to keep retired from office, then to keep retired from it; when it was proper to continue in it long, then to continue in it long - when it was proper to withdraw from it quickly, then to withdraw quickly - that was the way of Confucius. ” “Since there were living men until now, there never was another Confucius.” “Since man came into being, there has been no one greater than Confucius.” “Confucius completed the "Spring and Autumn," and rebellious ministers and villainous sons were struck with terror.”
“Confucius was the sage whose actions were timely. ” “Confucius was the one who gathered together all that was good. ”
A Portrait of Zǐ Sī.
His disciples noted down his sayings and compiled them into The Analects of Confucius. Mencius and Zǐ Sī (the grandson of Confucius) successfully defended his thought and established firmly his position as the great thinker.
Respecting Confucian Thought only and Rejecting all other schools of thought was the policy adopted by Emperor Wǔ of Hàn.
When it got to the Sòng Dynasty, Zhū Xī singled out the Four Books from all Confucian classics, namely The Analects of Confucius, the Book of Mencius, the Great Learning and the Doctrines of the Mean. As a matter of fact themes of all national examination for enrolling officials were based upon the Four Books.
Wáng Yángmíng of the Míng Dynasty was an outstanding master in inheriting and further developing Confucian Thought.
We must mention Hé Yàn of the Three Kingdoms period, who wrote “Collected Annotation of the Analects of Confucius”. After him, Huáng Kǎn of the Southern Dynasty and Xíng Bǐng of Northern Sòng all gave influential connotations.
In modern times, the following scholars played important roles in promoting Confucian Thought: Liú Bǎonán, Yáo Yǒngpǔ, Kāng Yǒuwēi, Chéng Shùdé, Yáng Shùdá, Yáng Bójùn and Qián Mù.
An Image of Hé Yàn
During the New Cultural Movement (1915-1923) Confucian Thought was severely castigated. Ever since then people have been attributing everything feudal to Confucian Thought. Since then wrong understanding of Confucian Thought has been spreading in a rampant manner.
The objections to the theories of Confucius and Mencius in our society are caused by the following thoughts: “Those who labour with their minds govern others; those who labour with their strength are governed by others.”
This is a saying from “The Book of Mencius”, which refers to the division of labour. Mencius was the first to distinguish those who labour with minds and those who labour with strength. Such a saying has been regarded as a basis of maintaining the interests of the ruling classes. It is true even today that those who labour with strength are being managed, if not exploited entirely. But the crucial thing is that the positions of these two types of person are interchangeable. Mencius’ intention was not to maintain the interests of those who labour with their minds. With the lapsing of time, those who labour with strength are becoming fewer, and their remuneration is becoming higher. The value of some who labour with strength is even higher than that of most mind-labourers, some famous athletes for instance.
Some more objections were caused by this assertion of Confucian scholars: “The rules of ceremony do not go down to the common people.
The penal statutes do not go up to great officers.”
The point to note here is that “penal statutes do not go up to high ranking officials” does not mean they are not punished for their crimes. Confucius himself once gave a classical explanation when he was asked if high ranking officials were not punished for their crimes, and his answer was recorded in “The Family Sayings of Confucius” as the following: When it came to governing gentlemen and scholars, the normal practice was that they should drive their own behaviour from within via propriety and ethics, so that they could keep their moral integrity based upon their sense of shame and honour. In ancient times, when high ranking officials committed crimes, they were normally not convicted; they were not arrested or imprisoned if their crimes were not too serious. In such cases, they were supposed to ask for punishment themselves. If the cases were really serious, they would kneel down and commit suicide and such a death sentence was not executed by judicial authorities. So, the saying “penal statutes do not go up to high ranking officials” was not to say that criminal officials should go unpunished. Instead, these cases were covered by the ethical code.
A copy of Family Sayings of Confucius.
Of the entire “Analects of Confucius”, the 25th paragraph in section No. 17 has been a popular target of attack by contemporaries:
“Confucius remarked, ‘Some women and servants are the most difficult to keep in the house. If you are familiar with them, they have forgotten their position. But if you keep them at a distance, they are discontented.”
This paragraph has been used to suggest that Confucius looked down upon women.
How do we interpret this paragraph? We have to look at the context of such a statement. Confucius made this remark after paying a visit to the State of Wèi, where he was not only fooled by the monarch of Wèi, but also by the servants and ladies around the monarch. He was accusing the monarch, who was controlled by the vile figures that surrounded him.
And Confucius remarked: “I have never seen a man like this, who loves the beauty of women more than virtue!”
After he left the State of Wèi, he made the famous exclamation shown above. Then, how do we interpret the latter half of the paragraph? It says that if the monarch had stayed too close to figures who merely flattered him, these figures would forget their place and would then abuse the power of the monarch for selfish ends. However, if the monarch were to keep them at a distance, they would then complain. The relationship between a powerful individual and their entourage is not a straightforward matter.Wáng Chuānshān (1619–1692) pointed out that these vile figures were mostly concubines and their female servants who had moved into the palace following the marriage. Some scholars affirmed that such an explanation was made originally by Zhū Xī, and it has been widely accepted.
Ever since the May Fourth Movement, the anti-tradition Elite disregarded the explanation and exegesis made by Xíng Bǐng and Zhū Xī and instead insisted that the “women” here stood for all women in the world. This acted as ammunition in their “down with the Confucius Shop.” campaign.
Chén Dàqí, a contemporary logician, reminded us that before the words “women and servants” comes the word “some”, so apparently, the word “women” didn’t refer to all women. Chén’s interpretation comes from the Chinese character “唯”, which means: only or something special. So, such an interpretation can wash away the crime of Confucius “looking down upon women”.
A portrait of Káng Yǒuwēi.
Káng Yǒuwéi (1858–1927) gave a different definition to “women”, he said that the word meant “kids”, which had been used to refer to slaves. The word “servant” referred to a capable man, but without refined culture or a close friend.
These people could be affectionate, but difficult to get along with. Jīn Chí gave a different explanation by saying that “女子” in Chinese means “you, students” because “女” in ancient Chinese is the same as “you” and “子” as “students”. Therefore, we should not take “女子”, a term in the Spring and Autumn period as meaning “women” in the modern sense.
Another different explanation was given by Zhōu Yuǎnchéng. He said the character “与” should not be understood as “and”, but rather as “working together” or “being together”. Liú Zhàowěi voiced a similar opinion and he cited several examples in some classical works to support his view.
One earlier explanation was given by Fáng Yīngxiáng, who passed the final interview in the imperial examinations in 1616, the 44th year of the Reign of Emperor Wàn Lì. He said the “women” and “servants” referred in particular to those who had copulated with dukes, ministers or high-ranking officials. Many used to blame “The Three Cardinal Principles and the Five Consistencies” for having prolonged the length of China’s feudalist society. They thought that Confucius owned the ‘patent’ for “The Three Cardinal Principles and the Five Consistencies”. We have to point out that “The Three Cardinal Principles and the Five Consistencies” were inferred by Dǒng Zhòngshū from the theories of Yin and Yang and the Five Elements. It was during the New Cultural Movement that Chén Dúxiù ascribed authorship of these ideas onto Confucius. Throughout the entirety of Confucious’ work, you cannot find any trace of the so-called “Three Cardinal Principles”. In other classics of the Confucian School, there is no such wording. When speaking about the relationships, and in his own words, Confucius put it this way: “君君、臣臣、父父、子子”, which means:
“Let a sovereign be a sovereign, a minister be a minister, a father be a father and a son be a son.” Please take note of the following words by Mencius: “When the prince regards his ministers as his hands and feet, his ministers regard their prince as their belly and heart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him as another man; when he regards them as the ground or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy.”
These two quotations are so incongruous with Chén’s argument, I believe they simply overturn it. The following dialogues recorded by Xún Zǐ will prove that what Confucius had been advocating was not a philosophy of slavery at all. The first dialogue was between Duke ?i of Lǔ and Confucius. The Duke asked: “Is it a filial duty for a son to be obedient to his father? Is it allegiance for an official to be obedient to his prince?”
Confucius didn’t reply even after the Duke repeated his question three times. When Confucius left the Duke, he told Zǐ Gòng, one of his disciples: “Just now the Duke of Lǔ asked whether it is the filial duty for a son to be obedient to his father and whether it is allegiance for an official to be obedient to his prince.
He asked three times these questions and I didn’t reply. What do you think?” Zǐ Gòng said: “There is nothing doubtful that it is the filial duty for a son to be obedient to his father and it is allegiance for an official to be obedient to his prince.”
Hearing this, Confucius remarked: “You’re a bit shallow, I’m afraid. You don’t really understand the issue. If there were four officials who dared to adhere to truth and had the guts to argue with the sovereign of a state that possesses ten thousand chariots, the territory of the state will not be reduced. If there were three officials who dared to adhere to truth and had the guts to argue with the sovereign of a state that possesses a thousand chariots, the state would be able to avoid dangers.
If there were two officials who dared to adhere to truth and had the guts to argue with the sovereign of a state that possesses a hundred chariots, the sovereign would secure his ancestral temple. If there was a father, whose son dared to adhere to truth and had the guts to argue with him, he would not do anything that is disgraceful.
If there was a gentleman, whose friend dared to adhere to truth and had the guts to argue with him, he would avoid behavior that are not righteous.
So, in this sense, how could a son show filial duty if he is obedient to his father and how could an official be allegiant if he is obedient to the sovereign? Therefore, filial duty and allegiance are based on obedience to things that are right when a clear distinction is made between what is right and wrong.
A portrait of Xióng Shīlì.
Xióng Shīlì took careful note of what Sīmǎ Qiān, the author of “Records of the Great Historian” said about why Confucius wrote “The Spring and Autumn Annals”: to devalue (“贬”) emperors, to castigate (“退”) dukes and to condemn (“讨”) high ranking officials. According to Xióng’s understanding of the historian’s remarks, we could render these words as: to degrade emperors, to remove dukes and to denounce high ranking officials. He actually tells us how he took the three verbs in his “The Origin of Confucianism” that the character “贬” means to remove the title and send the ruler into exile; “退” means to depose and downgrade the duke to the status/position of a commoner, and “讨” means to wipe out the high ranking officials with troops. So, Xióng Shīlì regarded Confucius as quite revolutionary. Liáng Shùmíng was in agreement with Xióng’s view and wrote an article to support this position.
Riding the tide of the New Cultural Revolution, Cài Yuánpéi, the first Minister of Education of the Republican Government issued order in 1912 to ban the teachings of Confucius at all levels of schools. There were efforts during the Republican period to elevate Confucian Thought to a state religion, but failed. Reginald Fleming Johnston, the English Teacher of Pǔ Yí, the last Emperor of China said in his book “Confucianism in Modern China” recorded that when the bill giving a formal recognition to Confucianism was brought before the parliament in 1913, “on the first division there were 255 votes in favor of the proposal, 264 against. But that did not settle the matter, for the question was reopened on several occasions and was still a living one as late as 1923.
During the Great Cultural Revolution, it was a target of criticism, in particular during the drive of “Criticism against Lín Biāo and Confucius”.
It is meaningful to remember what Liáng Shùmíng said about Confucian Thought during the Cultural Revolution: Confucius is the centre of Chinese culture. Without Confucius, there is no Chinese culture. We relied on Confucius as a way of inheriting the culture of thousands of years before him and we shall rely on him to develop our culture for thousands of years after him.”
We are much gratified to see the President of the People’s Republic Xí Jìnpíng visited the hometown of Confucius in November 2013 and in 2014 he spoke at the Fifth Congress of the International Confucian Association. He said in his speech that Confucian Thought is an important part of the Chinese traditional culture, and Confucian Thought has been an important nourishment to the Chinese nation. In nature, what can provide nourishment is the sun, the air and water. So, such a statement is very encouraging to scholars in Confucian Thought. It is now the best time for Confucian Thought.
It is necessary to quote what what Mōu Zhōngjiàn (牟钟鉴), a contemporary scholar, said about Confucian Thought: “Confucius set the spiritual orientation for the Chinese nation. He epitomized the achievements of the Five-Emperor period and those of the Xià, Shāng and Zhōu dynasties. He created the theories of benevolence and propriety on the basis of expounding the Six Classics. He set benevolence and harmony as the humanistic orientation for the development of the Chinese nation. He proposed universal ethical values for society and human life. All of his theories constitute our nation’s cultural vein, gene, basic character, leading thoughts in the Chinese culture and core values of the Chinese nation.”
A portrait of Móu Zhōngjiàn.
It us useful now to quote Mr Liáng Qǐchāo’s words on “The Analects of Confucius” and “The Book of Mencius” because they are crucial in forming a correct attitude towards The Analects and to Confucius himself. These words are: “The Analects of Confucius has been the fountainhead of Chinese thought for two thousand years. From the time of the Sòng Dynasty, The Book of Mencius has become as important as The Analects of Confucius. These two books have been the dominant factor throughout the entire life the Chinese people. I, therefore, hope that you can get acquainted with them and are able to memorize these texts. Even if you cannot memorize, you should thumb through them very often, and quote important contents when necessary, and for the purpose of cultivation, you may wish to keep in mind the parts that you want to put into practice.” It is also meaningful to quote the following words of Qián Mù, master of China Studies: “All scholars in today’s China have two responsibilities. The first is to read ‘The Analects of Confucius’; the second is to persuade others to read ‘The Analects of Confucius’” .
