The Death Of A Master

Confucius died without the knowledge of what his words and teachings would mean for not only China, but also for the whole of Far Eastern Asia. His quiet and unassuming funeral was conducted by his closest disciples, and he was laid to rest in the beautiful and secluded Qufu. His own family, principally his grandson Tzu Ssu, would continue his teachings to those who would listen, but without Confucius, the movement was looking set to decline and die with its Master. As the states armed themselves and prepared for war, the Confucian message of government by virtue and peace seemed wholly inadequate to those in authority. Confucianism, as the doctrines would someday be called, seemed unable to extend beyond the small circle of loyal followers who had known Confucius or his descendants.

Idealism

As the period of the Warring States threatened to tear China irreconcilably apart, a scholar was born in the state of Zou, close to Lu, in 372 BCE. He recognised the glory to be found in the teachings of China's greatest sage, and saw it as his mission to uphold and extend the original philosophy of Confucius. Meng Tzu, or Mencius as he is more commonly known, rejected the selfish nature of Yang Zhu and the self-referential altruism of Mo Tzu, whilst at the same time seeing flaws in the repressive School of Legalism and somewhat anarchic Taoists of Lao Tzu's discipleship. Confucianism was for him the most important of the teachings available to the people of China, and he saw it as his duty, as Confucius had done before him, to bring these doctrines to others. He emphasised the religious, ethical and indeed political nature of the Confucian classics, seeking to enlighten rulers of the time and bring them the message of orthodox Confucianism. His extension of the principle of jen, or humaneness, was what later Confucian Idealists would base their philosophies upon. Mencius also observed the innate beginnings (duan) of Confucian virtues in human beings - humaneness (jen), righteousness (yi), propriety (li) and wisdom (chi). The human being was governed by a heart-mind which could not bear to endure or witness suffering, and it was this concept that made Man's nature a naturally benevolent one. It was possible, in Mencius' eyes, for anyone to become a chun-tzu or even a sage, and that the only way to live one's life was by following the nature and will of Heaven (tian).

Rationalism

Confucius' philosophy was not to only affect the idealists of China. Rationalist Hsun Tzu born in circa 313 BCE disliked the idealist interpretation presented by scholars like Mencius. Whereas Mencius had adopted a similar outlook to the Schools of Taoism and Yin & Yang, namely that unseen forces guide existence and that only by understanding and cultivating them could life have meaning, Hsun Tzu preferred the more rationalistic Schools of Logicians and Legalists. Life was more about law and ritual than spirituality for Hsun Tzu, and so it was that li (propriety) was to grow in meaning and importance under his teaching. Metaphysics was less of an issue for Hsun Tzu. Yet, what is interesting to note is that both Hsun Tzu and Meng Tzu regarded themselves as true followers of Confucius, both taking Master K'ung as their ideal. However, the differences that divided them so early on in Confucian history would be the general divides that would separate the School of Confucianism for the rest of its life as a state ideology.

Three Ways?

Confucianism in generalised views of Chinese schools of thought tends to be regarded as one of '3 Ways' - the other two being Taoism and Buddhism. However, to speak of Confucianism in such a way implies that it was a uniform teaching, a very invalid assumption. As has already been seen, Confucians who would claim to base all their beliefs on the original words of Confucius, still differed drastically in their outlooks, even in its early days of foundation. One can understand this more clearly when taken in the context of the various dynasties who ruled China. The Han recognised the more legalistic rationalism embodied by Hsun Tzu's Confucianism, whilst the Sung saw more merit in the intellectualism of Mencius and his subsequent followers. Confucianism proved a valuable asset to Emperors, who took its tenet of the Emperor as a 'Son of Heaven' to its inevitable conclusion. The tianming (mandate of Heaven), however, often worked against them, and when corrupt dynasties fell, Confucians saw this as punishment for their leaders' extremism. Another area in which the more enlightened of Emperors, especially under the Qing, derived value from Confucianism was its basic emphasis it placed upon education and learning. Confucius was an advocate of education for all, and is credited as setting up what was the first private school. He believed education to be less about dogma, and more about thought, creativity, learning and morals. Confucianism, of course, was perverted at times by the officials who sought to abuse it for their own purposes.

The Historic Problem

Ming China is cited as the ultimate extreme in Chinese despotism and, unfortunately for Confucians, one of the most prominent eras for Confucianism as a State orthodoxy. The Imperial despots like T'ai-tsu and Ch'eng-tsu claimed to enshrine the Confucian ideal, but all the while they were the ones persecuting the real Confucian scholars. The so-called chun-tzu who masqueraded in the Chinese Court was nothing of the sort - he was a front man for the Emperor in order that he could present an image of Confucian superiority. Anyone who truly adhered to Confucius' ethical philosophy was pilloried for it. However, because of the Ming image of Confucianism, people have accused the Confucians of being either naïve or authoritarian. This is not so. Those chun-tzu who were able to survive constantly blamed the Emperor, and from this psychological attack, they themselves put their own beliefs into a risk of being outlawed. The obvious question is, if Confucians were true to their Master, they would have stood up to the Emperor and invoked Mencius' 'right to revolution'. In determining the problem of Confucianism, namely how it could be both so powerful and yet simultaneously so powerless, one must address a number key issues.

Firstly, there is a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to the openness to new ideas. The only real conservatives in China's history have been the Emperors themselves. In terms of receptiveness to ideas, Confucians were among the most open - the Confucian Learning expects it of people. Confucius himself taught that "learning without thought is labour lost" (The Analects 2:15) and believed that "when a man is not in the habit of saying 'what shall I think of this? what shall I think of this?' I can indeed do nothing with him." (The Analects, 15:15). There can be little doubt that, from the style of teaching to the words of Confucius, new ideas are the life and soul of Confucianism. The reason they have been tied to a lack of receptiveness is because of their position within the Imperial Court, nothing more.

Secondly, the society of China had no middle class - one was either a peasant or a member of the bureaucracy - there were few positions besides this. The pursuit of learning that Confucians taught was very difficult to enter into - because there were not people in a position to follow it. As a result, Confucians became China's scapegoat. Their label of 'elitist' came only because it was the upper classes alone who had the time to devote themselves to learning. Their fragmentation in neo-Confucianism between Rationalists and Idealists also hindered their progress with China.

Every political message has two pre-requisites. The first is a charismatic, persuasive leader. The second is a motivated and rallied crowd. The message itself is unimportant - history of the twentieth century that gave us Bolshevism and Nazism has taught us that much. Unfortunately for Confucians, their message was enlightened, but the two pre-requisites were lacking. A Confucian is, by very definition, of meek and humble character - as Julia Ching stated, their magnetism did not lie is charismatic speeches, but in merit and respect. A vicious circle results:

The Confucian has his message, and he in turn gives this message to the Imperial family. They, for the most part, reject it, and the Confucian is left with his message. He cannot get it across to the people as a whole, because he lacks the power to rally them, and they the time to listen. Thus, they in turn are unable to challenge the Imperial family for not accepting the Confucian's message. He is left with his message, which he continually tries in vain to put across to the Emperor, and the process starts over again. He is forever unable to have it accepted by the Emperor on the one hand, and heard by the people on the other. Caught in this clef-stick, China continues to be ruled by a self-indulgent Monarch, and the people continue to labour under him. Confucians meanwhile struggle to give their message to a world that seemingly doesn't want to listen.

From this, we see that Confucianism has proved useful in the hands of those who wished to abuse it. It has, because of this position, endured harsh criticism for problems which for the most part it had nothing to do with. Confucius' ideal of the Commonwealth State simply does not ever reach realization, because the Emperor is too steadfast in his position, and the Confucians too virtuous and mild for their own good. One cannot help but sympathize with a tradition whose followers have always remained true to their Master, following the virtuous path, but have always along the way been persecuted, not only for doing it, but for being around at the same time as other Chinese problems. Interpretation has, however, evolved Confucianism into a living philosophy for today's world, and the efforts of Confucians in the past have not gone to waste - their labours will forever be remembered, and with the passage of time, the wounds they were ungraciously afflicted with will be healed.