In our discussion of Confucius, Master Kung, we attempted to differentiate between the beliefs of Confucius and the ju class, commonly called Confucianism. We will now explore what events transpired after his death that have transformed his ideas into one of the most powerful forces in world history.
“After his death two divergent tendencies developed in his school, one social and political, represented by the Great Learning, and the other religious and metaphysical, represented by the Doctrine of the Mean.”[1]
The first became the dominant and emphasized “‘manifesting one’s clear character, renovating the people and arriving at the highest good,’ through the eight steps of investigation of things, extension of knowledge, sincerity of the will, setting the heart right, cultivation of the self, family harmony, national order and world peace.” In simpler words one was to work towards world peace by focusing first on the more immediate areas of self, the family and then the nation. In striving towards self-perfection one was to manifest on the social level.
Confucius’ grandson developed the Doctrine of the Mean. The Mean is ‘central harmony’, i.e., inside the self. One’s object in this scheme is to become real by cultivating this internal harmony. “Only those whose selves are real can fulfill their own nature, the nature of others, the nature of things and finally partake of the creative work of Heaven and Earth.”
These two doctrines are incredibly powerful in Chinese thought and both manifest in the Journey. As the pilgrims pursue their goal they work towards world peace by rectifying weak and evil governments. Further Tripitaka is continually trying to maintain his central harmony, attempting to avoid being trapped by his physical desires. The world is rectified only if he maintains his quietude and balance. There are many instances when he is tempted but remains incredibly still, not even saying anything, for fear of imbalance.
Further these two doctrines of the followers of Confucius (to be differentiated from the Confucians, who, as members of the ju class, had their own separate agenda, are so intimately related to Taoist principles that we can begin to understand how the followers of Confucius and the Taoists are intertwined during this time period. Indeed it might be harder to separate Taoist and Confucius than it would be to separate Confucius from the Confucians.
We see this especially in the Ta Chuan, The Great Treatise, and writings concerning the philosophy of the I Ching, attributed to the followers of Confucius. Book 1, Chapter IV is titled “The Deeper Implications of the Book of Changes” Paragraph 1 of this chapter states: “The Book of Changes contains the measure of heaven and earth; therefore it enables us to comprehend the tao of heaven and earth and its order.” Chapter V is titled “Tao in Its relation to the Yang and Yin.” Chapter VI is titled “Tao as Applied to the Book of Changes”. Thus the tao is used by followers of Confucius as a central concept for understanding the I Ching. They spend these chapters speaking about the Tao in relation to the I Ching and life in general. The Confucians, i.e. the ju class, could easily call these early followers of Confucius ‘those Taoists’.
Later on the followers of Confucius split again into two schools based upon the innate nature of human. Mencius and his followers considered humans to be inherently good, while Hsün Tzu and his followers considered humans to be inherently evil. Hsün Tzu had two students, Han Fei Tzu and Li Ssu, who originated and practiced the philosophy of legalism in the state of Ch’in.
“The legalists … wished autocratic rule through the enforcement of law rather than the Confucian influence of moral example.”[2]
Elevating the state above the individual Han Fei Tzu rightly perceived that the family clan was a threat to the state. He pointed out that man’s first loyalty was to his family, while his second was to the state. Because of this the Confucian virtue of filial piety was more of a threat to the state and less of a blessing. He correctly pointed out that each family had their own agenda which was at odds with the state’s well being. Furthermore the state needed to be powerful to stem the rise of lawlessness. Because the family acting in its own self-interest would never support the state anyway, the ruler need not try and make them happy. Furthermore because humans are basically evil, it was necessary to create a multitude of strict laws to control the individual’s evil ways.
Confucianism had been turned inside out. Instead of the ruler governing by moral example, he governed by strict laws. But, as in Nazi Germany, the turn to law and order worked for the Ch’in, allowing them to become more and more powerful.
To establish the context for legalism let it be pointed out that China of the late Eastern Chou Dynasty was disintegrating, continuously. Confucius and the other philosophers were attempting to stop the disintegration with their theories. At the end of the Chou, with lawlessness on the rise, extreme measures were needed to restore the disintegrating social order. It was under this context that legalism developed.
Legalism, an extreme example of a hierarchical political philosophy, was a successful temporary solution to China’s chaos during the end of the Chou dynasty. It strengthened the Ch’in to the extent that they were able to supplant the Chou dynasty, as well as unite and transform China.
Remember that the legalists were an offshoot of Confucianism. They, like Confucius, were trying to solve the problem of social chaos. They could see that the solution of moral example proposed by Confucius was not working. They could see that the rulers sought power first and foremost. Their conclusion was that man was basically evil and needed to be reigned in by strict laws. Despite the fact that legalism was based upon the assumption that humans are inherently evil the legalists were still socially responsible. They did not believe in family privilege or self-indulgence. They just felt that humans learned social responsibly as they grew up and that laws were the way to control the tendency of humans to try to get away with things. [3]
While the legalists looked to social reform to solve the social ills, the ju class, the Confucians, attempted to maintain hereditary privilege at all costs. Rising above his class, Confucius' solution to the crumbling Chinese social structure of the later Chou dynasty was to choose leaders based upon ability rather than bloodline. While Confucius stressed filial responsibility to the parents as a symbol of social responsibility, the ju class linked filial responsibility to ancestor worship, and hereditary succession. The ruling princes of the Chou, members of the ju class, tended to forget about the merit and social responsibility that Confucius advocated and instead attempted to hold onto aristocratic privilege and hereditary succession. Their solution to the rising chaos was to hold onto the old ways, which had worked in the past. Under the influence of the self-absorbed ju class, China continued splintering into petty princedoms, each aggressively pursuing their own self-interests. In opposition to the privileged aristocratic families the legalists focused upon reason and progress to solve the social ills. Hence the legalists were more followers of Confucius and less the followers of the cultured aristocracy, the ju class, with their hereditary privileges.
[1]EB, Confucianism 6-237d
[2]EB 5, 520
[3]In the Western democracies we have harmonized the two philosophies. While we expect that our leaders will provide a relatively good moral example, we rely on laws to regulate society. The primary moral example that we expect from our leaders is that of following and enforcign the laws of society. While the public will tolerate almost any scandal, they don’t seem to tolerate law breaking. The public doesn’t like corrupt laws, but they tolerate them until they are changed. However public officials who break the law intentionally are usually punished quickly.