03.14.07
Posted in 人文 at 8:53 pm by 若水
Autonomy or Unity—
An Analysis of the Relationships of Li, Creativity, and Heaven in Xunzi with a Brief Comparison to Those in Zhongyong
The School of Xunzi has long been considered heterodox in Chinese Confucian tradition, leaving both the text and its doctrines largely ignored for centuries. This paper shall examine the concepts of li, creativity, and Heaven in the text of Xunzi 荀子to demonstrate the separate and autonomous relationship among the three to illustrate a humanistic school of thought with a sociopolitical realistic aspiration for stability. It shall further compare these relationships to those of Zhongyong 中庸, a text to central the school of Zisi and Mencius, to illustrate a different approach taken by a philosophy that metaphysically unites all three through its defining concept of anthropocosmic unity, 天人合一.
The text of Xunzi closely ties the concept of li禮, translated into “propriety” and sometimes “ritual”, with the notion of learning. In the first chapter of the text, “Encouraging Learning”, Xunzi states that “learning begins with the recitation of the Classics and ends with the reading of the ritual [li 禮] texts; and as to objective, it beings with learning to be a man of breeding, and ends with learning to be a sage”. This statement suggests that as far as the physical act of learning is concerned, the importance of a certain collection of texts that describe li is paramount, even more so than the recitation of Classics. Only after one fluently recites the Classics can he then understands li through reading these texts. In addition, the reading of these texts, i.e. the performance and understanding of li, in terms of its objective, is aligned with “learning to be a sage”. Xunzi, indeed, believes li to be “the great basis of law and the foundation of precedents”. The purpose of li, then, sets a sociopolitical aspiration for learning; “basis of law” and “foundation of precedents” corresponds to legitimacy of politics and social norms, respectively. But at the same time, li fulfills an order that is manifest, but nonetheless beyond mere sociopolitical structures, as evident in the immediately following line from the previous statement: “therefore learning reaches its completion with the rituals, for they may be said to represent the highest point of the Way and its power”. Li completes learning to represent Dao 道, the Confucian way, which encompasses the sociopolitical “basis of law” and “foundation of precedents”, but broadens to include human, natural, and cosmic order all together. As A.S. Cua notes, the concept of li formulates in three stages, first as an idea of rule in the sense of archaic religious rites, then as “a comprehensive notion embracing all social habits and customs acknowledged and accepted as a set of action-guiding rules”, with the third “connected with the notions of right (yi) and reason (li)” to accept as an exemplary rule of conduct for “any rule that is right and reasonable”. Hence, li as sociopolitical ordering affixes to the second stage, while it as a symbol of Dao concerns with the third stage.
Xunzi further discusses li as a force that counters and contains man’s natural, base desires. These desires create tensions between men and generates disorder; to counter these disorder the ancient sage kings created li in order to curb these desires, viz. to allow the appropriate satisfaction to the desires in which neither desire exceeds the necessary condition for satisfaction nor the material good lacking to satisfy the said desire— this process explains the logical sequence from “man is born with desires” to “rites [li] are a means of satisfaction”. Xunzi explains that the concept of li contains a conduct of life with the rightful desires appropriate to sociopolitical order, “therefore, if a man concentrates upon fulfilling ritual principles, then he may satisfy both his human desires and the demands of ritual; but if he concentrates only upon fulfilling his desires, then he will end by satisfying neither”. From here it is evident that Xunzi’s concept of li contains an inner transformative force; the practice of li not only ensures that man fulfills the demand of li, that is, sociopolitical norms necessarily for stability, but also the satisfaction of human desires, as the practice of li standardizes the desire into a normative, balanced set of accepted needs. The transformative li, Xunzi states, has the following three foundations: “Heaven and earth are the basis of life, the ancestors are the basis of the family, and rulers and teachers are the basis of order”. Li, then, roots itself deeply with the birth of humanity, the formulation of family, and sociopolitical order; it is a crucial force that harmonizes the natural institutions of heaven-and-earth, family, and society, through which “Heaven and earth join in in harmony, the sun and moon shine, the four season proceed in order, the stars and constellations march, the rivers flow, and all things flourish”. Hence, not only is this li internally transformative, it also affirms a greater order of natural to be one that both imitates and take part in the maintenance of nature. As a result of this belief to li’s importance in both inner transformation and maintenance of nature, Xunzi’s li, to fulfill its two-fold function, is very minute and detailed to incorporate different aspects of social practices, from the proper dealing with auspicious and inauspicious events to the proper containment and display of one’s emotions. Especially detailed is the li of death: as a connecting force that joins man’s life with nature, death needs the most attention paid by li to maintain this natural order.
Why, then, exists li, this completion of learning, inner-transformative force that corresponds to nature? To Xunzi, this question is closely related to his understanding of human nature, and ultimately will be answered by human creativity. Xunzi shows a rather dim view on such a subject:
Man’s nature is evil; goodness is the result of conscious activity [偽]. The nature of man is such that he is born with a fondness for profit. If he indulges this fondness, it will lead him into wrangling and strife, and all sense of courtesy and humility will disappear. He is born with feelings of envy and hate, and if he indulges these, they will lead him into violence and crime, and all sense f loyalty and good faith will disappear. Man is born with the desires of the eyes and ears, with a fondness for beautiful sights and sounds. If he indulges these, they will lead him into license and wantonness, and all ritual principle and correct forms will be lost. Hence, any man who follows his nature and indulges his emotions will inevitably become involved in wrangling and strive, will violate the forms and rules of society, and will end as a criminal.
Xunzi’s Hobbesian approach to man’s nature requires a solution to inevitable disorder that natural tendencies will cause. Unlike Hobbes who proposes a contractual relationship between man and a powerful sovereign who safeguards his life from others and maintain an external social order, Xunzi promotes the learning of li to internally transform man to become good—“man must first be transformed by the instructions of a teacher and guided by ritual principles, and only then will he be able to observe the dictates of courtesy and humility, obey the forms and rules of society, and achieve order”, with the end product of this learning and adjustment process the flourishing of goodness, “result of conscious activity”.
From this notion of “conscious activity” 偽, then, a further question should be raised on the original origin of li, and of this “conscious activity”—what force contains this notion of creativity to generate these set of principles? Xunzi makes it clear that “all ritual principles are produced by the conscious activity of the sages; essentially they are not products of man’s nature”. The sages, serving as the human par excellence both for their moral authority and their creativity ability, consciously creates li with a clear intension to maintain a form of sociopolitical and natural order. Taking the roles of ideal types of human achievement, these sages represent the collective effort of man to ordain proper order in maintaining the stability of society both internally in terms of interpersonal relationships, and externally in the relationship between man and nature. The creation process of li is completely conscious and artificial; it involves the sages, or humanity’s intelligence and wisdom as generative forces as a reaction to nature rather than a decreed patterning of heaven in the tradition of Zisi and Mencius: “the sage gathers together his thoughts and ideas, experiments with various forms of conscious activity, and so produces ritual principles and set forth laws and regulations”. The gathering of “thoughts and ideas” and “experiments with various forms of conscious activity” marks Xunzi’s notion of human creativity a truly humanistic one; he does not doctrines that govern human behavior as laws or covenants with a personal God, or deliberate patterning to an external force, but instead places human creativity to the center stage to establish his proper place within to maintain society, and without to face nature.
Absent in Xunzi’s philosophy of li, then, is an active role for Heaven 天, the predominant concept of Confucianism in the tradition of Zisi and Mencius. In his “Discussion of Heaven”, Xunzi clearly states that “Heaven’s ways are constant… it does not prevail because of a sage like Yao; it does not cease to prevail because of a tyrant like Chieh”. Xunzi separates man’s action with heaven’s will completely, and hence, removes from his moral philosophy a clear metaphysical connection to Heaven. To Xunzi man’s fortune is up to his own, and a sage is he who can realize this simple fact. However, the passive role of Heaven in human creativity does not eliminate its significance; it is a complete and natural process on its own. Xunzi states, “to bring to completion without acting, to obtain without seeking—this is the work of Heaven”, which a sage does not attempt to imitate. The natural cycle of heaven, with its change of four seasons, transformation of yin and yang, is a complete, godlike process that marks itself an accomplishment. T, Xunzi’s notion of heaven is similar to a modern understanding of nature, beyond man’s control, operating on its own, yet influencing man in its phenomena. Man is bound by heaven only insofar as his action does not oppose the natural order of things, or expect from heaven what is beyond man’s power.
The relationship between li, creativity, and Heaven in Xunzi, then, can be characterized by that of distinction and independently separate, autonomous existence. Li is a product of man, resulted from sages’ conscious activity to function in accordance to Heaven only insofar as its actions do not oppose Heaven’s natural order. Heaven, though its already complete pattern, though influencing li and man’s creativity by the boundary of its natural orders, cannot change or be changed beyond its completion. Human conscious action, or creativity, product of human intellect and wisdom, though the generator of li and an observer of Heaven, does not serve as a unifying force that unites man with Heaven.
Radically opposing Xunzi’s view on li, creativity, and Heaven is that of the school of Zisi and Mencius, as evident in Zhongyong. Instead of perceiving these three as separate, autonomous subjects, Zhongyong offers a holistic anthropocosmic unity that allows close interaction, patterning, and co-creation of the three. First, the concept of li is connected to ren 仁, or humanity:
Benevolence is the characteristic element of humanity [仁], and the great exercise of it is in loving relatives. Righteousness is the accordance of actions with what is right, and the great exercise of it is in honouring the worthy. The decreasing measures of the love due to relatives, and the steps in the honour due to the worthy, are produced by the principle of propriety [禮] [Zhongyong XX.5].
Humanity, in turn, is further associated with the Zhongyong concept of creativity, known as co-creativity, cheng 誠, sometimes translated into sincerity:
The possessor of sincerity [誠] does not merely accomplish the self-completion of himself. With this quality he completes other men and things also. The completing himself shows his perfect virtue [仁]. The completing other men and things show his knowledge. Both these are virtues belonging to the nature, and this is the way by which a union is effected of the external and internal. Theserefore, whever he—the entirely sincere man—employs them, –that is, these virtues, –their action will be right [Zhongyong XXV.3].
Cheng is best represented by the term co-creativity because it is the force that creates a metaphysics of morals for Zhongyong, that which connects man with heaven as co-creators in a cosmology characterized by anthropocosmic unity, 天人合一:
It is only the individual possessed of the most entire sincerity [誠] that can exist under heaven [天], who can adjust the great invariable relations of mankind, establish the great fundamental virtues of humanity, and know the transforming and nurturning operations of Heaven and Earth; –shall this individual have any being or anything beyond himself on which he depends? Call him man in his ideal [仁], how earnest he is! Call him an abyss, how deep is he! Call him Heaven [天], how vast is he! [XXXII.1-2].
In the cosmology of Zhongyong, then, the concepts of li, creativity, and Heaven are connected by an individual, a possessor of co-creativity cheng 誠, that Tu Weiming describes as a “profound person” whom, “through a long and unceasing process of delving into his own ground of existence, discovers his true subjectivity not as an isolated selfhood but as a great source of creative transformation”. This profound person, through his realization of heaven’s pattern and his role as a co-creator, does not create through his intelligence, but transmits through the pattern of heaven, the proper governance of action, li, as a spontaneous act from his inner humanity, ren 仁. Hence, through this active process of co-creativity, anthropocosmic unity 天人合一 is achieved.
An analogy of the cosmology of Xunzi and that of Zhongyong, then, presents two radically different approaches to the relationships between li, creativity, and Heaven. But perhaps these differences can be explained in terms of basic approaches by these two distinct schools of Confucianism. The school of Xunzi starts from a sociopolitical realistic perspective that, through realization of the baseness of human nature and man’s instinctual desires, seeks to create sociopolitical order through deliberate human creativity, conscious action 偽, to generate a set of conduct known as li from human intelligence and wisdom. The li is to be the completion of learning, which the man, with his base nature, ought to ceaselessly pursue to attain the good. Heaven plays no active role to the sociopolitical realist, who only wishes man not to disrupt its natural orders to create further chaos. Man’s role in Xunzi’s system serves as an intelligent and autonomous creator, who at the same time attempts to tame his nature through following the li of sages. Ultimately, each of the three concepts is distinct and autonomous, with no single unifying factor. Zhongyong, on the other hand, starts from a philosophical and optimistic approach to human nature, assuming its natural capacity for humanity, ren 仁, and allows a profound person to unify all three through his realization of cheng 誠, his capacity and duty of co-creativity. The process of this unification is man’s internal growth to the realization of 仁 through self-cultivation. Li is the natural external manifestation of this realization, rather than a process of normative learning of the good; it is patterned after man’s understanding of Heaven, as man acts in accordance to Heaven’s will. Although man in both of these texts assume this role of the creator, they are nonetheless different: while he who follows the school of Xunzi realizes and creates artifice through conscious action, 偽, the profound man interacts with Heaven to pattern with sincerity, 誠.
Permalink
