Confucian Self-Realization

The following is from The Ways of Religion: An Introduction to the Major Traditions edited by Roger Eastman. The author of the essay is Tu Weiming, one of the most highly recognized Confucian scholars of our time.

Confucian Self-Realization
Tu Wei-Ming

Tu Wei-ming (1940 - ) was born in Kunming, China, and came to the United States in 1962. He received his doctorate from Harvard University and has taught at Tunghai University (Taiwan); Princeton; the University of California, Berkeley; and Harvard, where he became chair of the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. Among his books in English are Neo-Confucian Thought in Action: Wang Yang-ming’s Youth, Centrality and Commonality: And Essay on Confucian Religiousness, Humanity and Self-Cultivation: Essays in Confucian Thought, Confucian Ethics Today: The Singapore Challenge, and Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation.
Professor Tu has stated that his concentration on the Confucian tradition “is not only the academic commitment of a professional intellectual historian but also the personal quest of a reflective human being.” Widely acclaimed for his scholarly work on Confucianism, he lists that religion as his own.
This article appeared in the August 1989 issue of, and is reprinted with permission from, The World and I, a publication of The Washington Times Corporation, copyright 1989.

…

Personality, in the Confucian perception, is an achieved state of moral excellence rather than a given human condition. An implied distinction is made between what a person is by temperament and what a person has become by self-conscious effort. A person’s natural disposition – whether introverted or extroverted, passive or aggressive, cold or warm, contemplative or active, shy or assertive – is what the Confucian refer to as that aspect of human nature which is composed of ch’i-chih (vital energy and raw stuff). For the sake convenience, we may characterize the human nature of vital energy and raw stuff as our psychophysiological nature, our physical nature, or simply the body.
The Confucian tradition – in fact, the Chinese cultural heritage as a whole – takes our physical nature absolutely seriously. Self-cultivation, as a form of mental and physical rejuvenation involving such exercises as rhythmic bodily movements and breathing techniques, is an ancient Chinese art. The classical Chinese conception of medicine is healing in the sense not only of curing disease or preventing sickness but also of restoring the vital energy essential for the wholeness of the body. Since the level of vital energy required for health varies according to sex, age, weight, height, occupation, time, and circumstance, the wholeness of the body is situationally defined as a dynamic process rather than a static structure. The maintenance of health, accordingly, is a fine art encompassing a wide range of environmental, dietary, physiological, and psychological factors. The delicate balance attained and sustained is the result of communal as well as personal effort. To become well and sound is therefore an achievement.

However, the centrality of the physical nature (the body) in the Confucian conception of the person is predicated not only on the irreducibility of the vital energy and raw stuff for personal growth but also on the potentiality of the body to become an aesthetic expression of the self. The wholeness of the body, often understood as allowing the vital energy to flow smoothly, is not only a measuring standard but also a unique accomplishment. Indeed, the idea is laden with ethico-religious as well as psychophysiological implications. When Mencius defines the sage (who has attained the highest moral excellence in the human community) as the person who has brought the bodily form to fruition, he assumes that the body is where the deepest human spirituality dwells. Yet, it is important to note that the Mencian conception of sagehood involves much more than our physical nature.
It seems that the conscious refusal to accept, rather than the lack of conceptual apparatus to perceive, the exclusive dichotomy between body and mind prompts the Confucians to endow rich resources to the idea of the body as the proper home for human flourishing. The ascetic rigor deemed necessary for reaching a higher spiritual state in virtually all major religions is practiced in the Confucian tradition, but the attention is not focused on self-denial, let alone immolation of the body. The Confucians do not take the body as, by nature, an impediment to full self-realization. To them, the body provides the context and the resources for ultimate self-transformation.
Understandably, Confucian education takes the “ritualization of the body” as the point of departure in the development of the person.(1) Lest the purpose be misconstrued as the imposition of well-established societal norms of behavior upon the innocent youth, “ritualization” as a dynamic process of interpersonal encounter and personal growth is not passive socialization but active participation in recognizing, experiencing, interpreting, and representing the communicative rationality that defines society as a meaningful community. In other words, through ritualization we learn not only the form of the accepted behavior but the grammar of action underlying the form as well. Surely, on the surface at least, it seems that we are socialized unsuspectingly, if not totally against our will, to become members of a linguistic and cultural community. We really do not have much choice in adopting the linguistic specificities of our mother tongue and the cultural particularities of our fatherland. Nevertheless, the Confucians believe that if we make a conscientious effort to actively incorporate the societal norms and values in our own conduct, we will be able to transcend the linguistic and cultural constrained of our society by transforming them into instruments of self-realization. Like poets who have mastered the subtleties of the language, articulating their innermost thoughts through them, Confucians who have become thoroughly proficient in the nuances of the ritual are said to be able to establish and enlarge others as well as themselves by bringing this personal knowledge to bear on daily practical living. The seeming naïveté of the Confucians in accepting their own linguistic and cultural universe as intrinsically meaningful and valuable is based on the collective judgment that the survival and continuation of their civilization is not a given reality but a communal attainment. This judgment is itself premised on a fundamental faith in the transformability and perfectibility of the human condition through communal self-effort.
Actually, for the Confucians, the intellectual recognition and experiential acceptance of the body as the point of departure for personal growth are the result of a strong commitment to a holistic view of self-realization. The body, as our physical nature, must be transformed and perfected so that it can serve as a vehicle for realizing that aspect of our nature known as the nature of i-li (rightness and principle), the moral nature, or simply the heart-mind (hsin).(2) Even though the body is a constitutive part of our nature, it is the heart-mind that is truly human.
A person’s temperament may significantly determine his natural disposition in a social environment. Whether he is introverted, passive, cold, contemplative, and shy, or extroverted, aggressive, warm, active, and assertive may very well be a reflection of his native endowments. Quite a few Chinese thinkers, for pragmatic and bureaucratic considerations as well as for social and aesthetic ones, have been fascinated by the classification and evaluation of distinctive character traits. A third-century treatise on the categorization of human beings according to talent and disposition remains to this day a comprehensive treatment and sophisticated analysis of personality types.(3) However, despite the importance and irreducibility of the vital energy and raw stuff (the physical nature or the body) that we are endowed with, the main concern of Confucian education is the process through which we realize ourselves by transforming and perfecting what we are born with.

The Heart-Mind and Human Sensitivity

As Mencius notes, in regard to physical nature, the difference between humans and animals (birds or beasts) is quite small. What truly distinguishes human beings from animals is not the body but the heart-mind. Since the body is the proper home in which the heart-mind dwells, it is perhaps more appropriate to say that the heart-mind (in addition to the body or the body fully informed by the heart-mind) specifically defines the uniqueness of being human. Learning to be human means that the self-consciousness of the heart-mind initiates a process by which the body is transformed and perfected. The ritualization of the body can thus be understood as the active participation of the heart-mind to help the body to become a fitting expression of the self in a social context. TO be sure, an act of the will or an existential decision is required when the heart-mind becomes fully aware of its role and function in bringing this process to fruition. For Confucius, the critical juncture occurred when he “set his heart upon learning” at fifteen.(4) However, even the very young, when involved in simple rituals such as sprinkling water for the adults to sweep the floor or giving answers of yes or no to easy questions, exercise their hearts and minds in ritualizing their bodies. It is precisely because the heart-mind is housed in the body (although in practice it can be absent from it) that the human body takes on the profound spiritual significance that distinguishes it from the physical nature of birds and beasts. As a corollary, the body devoid of the heart-mind, is, strictly speaking, no longer human and can easily degenerate into a state of unreflexivity indistinguishable from the physical nature of birds and beasts.
The most prominent feature of the heart-mind is sympathy, the ability to share the suffering of others. This is why the Chinese character hsin – like the French word conscience, which involves both the cognitive and affective dimensions of consciousness – must be rendered as “heart-mind”: For hsin signifies both intellectual awareness and moral awakening. By privileging sympathy as the defining characteristic of true humanity, Confucians underscore feeling as the basis for knowing, willing, and judging. Human beings are therefore defined primarily by their sensitivity and only secondarily by their rationality, volition, or intelligence.

Expanding Sensitivity: The Perfection of the Self

Learning to be human, in this sense, is to learn to be sensitive to an ever-expanding network of relationships. It may appear to be a consciousness-raising proposition, but it entails the dynamic process of transforming the body as a private ego to the body as an all-encompassing self. To use the Confucian terminology of Master Ch’eng Hao (1032-85), the whole enterprise involves the realization of the authentic possibility of “forming one body with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things.”(5) Concretely, for Confucians, in learning to be human beings by cultivating the capacity to empathize with the negative feelings of one’s closest kin – namely, by directly referring to our own hearts and minds – we should understand the reasonableness of the following dictum: “Do not do unto others what I would not want others to do unto me” (6)
The ability to feel the suffering of others or the inability to endure their suffering empowers us to establish an experiential connection with another human being. This provides a great resource for realizing our moral nature (the nature of rightness and principle). The Confucians believe that our sympathetic bonding to our parents is not only biologically natural but morally imperative, for it is the first step in learning to appreciate ourselves not in isolation but in communication. Indeed, since the Confucians perceive the self as a center of relationships rather than as an isolable individuality, the ability to show intimacy to those who are intimate is vitally important for allowing the closed private ego to acquire a taste for the open communicating self so that the transformation of the body can start on a concrete experiential basis.
But if we extend sympathy only to our parents, we take no more than the initial step toward self-realization. By embodying our closest kin in our sensitivity, we may have gone beyond egoism, but without the learned ability to enter into fruitful communication outside the immediate family, we are still confined to nepotism. Like egoism, nepotism fails to extend our sensitivity to embody a larger network of human relationships and thus limits our capacity for self-realization. Similarly, parochialism, ethnocentrism, and chauvinistic nationalism are all varying degrees of human insensitivity. In the dynamic process of self-realization, they are inertia or limitation. In either case, they are detrimental to the human capacity for establishing a community encompassing humanity as a whole.
Confucian communitarianism, far from being a romantic utopian assertion about equality, unity, and universality, takes as its theoretical and practical basis the natural order of things in human society: the family, neighborhood, kinship, clan, state, and world. In fact, it recognizes the necessity and legitimacy of these structures, both as historically evolved institutions and socially differentiated organization. They are natural to the human community not only because they enable us to define ourselves in terms of the breadth and depth of human-relatedness but also because they provide both material and spiritual resources for us to realize ourselves. The Confucians do not accept the status quo as necessarily rational. Actually their main mission is to improve on the current situation by bridging the gap between what the status quo is and what it can and ought to be. Confucians are in the world but not of the world. They take an active role in changing the world by managing it from within; instead of adjusting themselves to the status quo, they try to transform it according to their moral idealism.
A salient feature of Confucians’ moral idealism is their commitment to the efficacy of education as character building. The Confucian faith in the transformability and perfectibility of the human condition through communal self-effort implies that personal growth has not only ethical value but political significance. The ritualization of the body is relevant to political leadership as well as to social harmony in the family, neighborhood, and clan. Since Confucians believe that exemplary teaching is an integral part of political leadership, the personal morality of those involved is a precondition for good politics. Politics and morality are inseparable. What political leaders do at home is closely linked not only to their styles of leadership but also the very nature of their politics. Self-realization, in this sense, is not a lonely quest for one’s inner spirituality but a communicative act empowering one to become a responsible householder, an effective community worker, and a conscientious public servant. Confucians may not be successful in their political careers or may choose not to seek office, but they can never abandon their vocation as concerned intellectuals.

A concerned intellectual, the modern counterpart of the Confucian chϋn-tzu (nobleman or profound person), does not seek a spiritual sanctuary outside the world. He is engaged in this wordl, for total withdrawal from society and politics is not an option. Yet, although to be part of the “secular” world is the Confucian vocation, the Confucian calling is not the serve the status quo but to transform the “secular” world of wealth and power into a “sacred” community in which, despite egoistic drives, the quest for human flourishing in a moral, scientific, and aesthetic excellence continuously nourishes our bodies and uplifts our hearts and minds.

The Ceaseless Process of Human Flourishing

Understandably, to become a mature person (an adult), in the Confucian sense, is not to attain a limited professional or personal goal but to open oneself up to the ceaseless process of human flourishing. The becoming process, rather than an attained state of being, defines the Confucian personality. One’s critical self-awareness in the later stages of one’s maturation (e.g., at the age of fifty, when Confucius confessed to have known the Mandate of Heaven)(7) ought to be directed to the authentic possibilities of further growth in moral development. Unlike scientific and aesthetic talents, sensitivity in ethics never declines and, properly cultivated, it becomes more subtle and refined.
Nevertheless, a person becomes a personality not by conscientiously obeying conventional rules of conduct but by exemplifying a form of life worth living; indeed by establishing a standard of self-transformation as a source of inspiration for the human community as a whole. The interchange between an exemplary teacher and the students aspiring to become householders, community workers, or public servants is never one-way. As fellow travelers on the Way, they form a community of the like-minded so that the project of human flourishing becomes a joint venture, mutually admonishing and mutually encouraging. The exemplary teacher as an achieved personality in the eyes of the students must continue to cultivate his inner resources for self-transformation. Confucians do not believe in fixed personalities. While they regard personalities as accomplishments, they insist that the strength of one’s personality lies not in its past glories but in its future promises. Real personalities are always evolving. This is why fundamental improvement in the quality of existence is possible for even a human being a breath away from death: “Thou shall not judge the person conclusively before the coffin is sealed!”(8)
This faith in and commitment to the transformability and perfectibility of the human condition through communal self-effort enables Confucians to perceive each person as a center of relationships who is in the process of ultimate transformation as a communal act. The “ultimacy” in this seemingly humanistic enterprise is premised on the ability of the human heart-mind, without departing from its proper home (the body), to have the sensitivity to establish an internal resonance with Heaven by fully comprehending its Mandate. Sensitivity so conceived is a “silent illumination.” It is neither a gift from an external source nor a knowledge acquired through empirical learning. Rather, it is an inner quality of the heart-mind, the shining wisdom that a ritualized body emits for its own aesthetic expression. Such an expression is neither private nor individualistic, but communal.
As mentioned, for the Confucian to bring self-transformation to fruition (to its ultimacy), he must transcend not merely egoism but nepotism, parochialism, ethnocentrism, and chauvinistic nationalism. These undesirable habits of thought, perceived as varying degrees of human insensitivity, limit the full potential of the silent illumination of the human heart-mind to manifest itself. The Confucian insistence that we must work through our families, communities, and nations to realize ourselves is not at all incompatible with the Confucian injunction that we must go beyond nepotism, parochialism, and chauvinistic nationalism to fully embody our humanity. Actually, the seemingly contradictory assertions signify a dynamic process that defines the richness of the Confucian way of learning to be human.
On the one hand, Confucians, in contrast to individuals, take the communal path by insisting that, as a center of relationships, a personality comes into being by fruitfully interacting with its natural human environment – the family, kind, community, and the state. This process of continuously communicating with an ever-expanding network of human relationships enables the self to embody an increasingly widening circle of inclusiveness in its own sensitivity. On the other hand, Confucians, as opposed to collectivists, firmly establish the “subjectivity” of the person as sui generis. No social program, no matter how lofty, can undermine the centrality of selfhood in Confucian learning. After all, Confucians see learning for the sake of the self as the authentic purpose of education. To be sure, the self as an open and communicating center of relationships is intimately connected with other selves; far from being egoistic, it is communal. However, by stressing the centrality of the self in learning to be human, the Confucians advocate ultimate self-transformation, not only as social ethics but also as the flourishing of human nature with profound religious significance.

Forming One Body with Earth and Myriad Things

For Confucians to fully realize themselves, it is not enough to become a responsible householder, effective social worker, or conscientious political servant. No matter how successful one is in the sociopolitical arena, the full measure of one’s humanity cannot be accommodated without a reference to Heaven. The highest Confucian ideal is the “unity of Man and Heaven,” which defines humanity not only in anthropological terms but also in cosmological terms. In the Doctrine of the Mean (Chung-yung), the most authentic manifestation of humanity is characterized as “forming a trinity with Heaven and Earth.”(9)
Yet, since Heaven does not speak and the Way in itself cannot make human beings great – which suggests that although Heaven is omnipresent and may be omniscient, it is certainly not omnipotent – our understanding of the Mandate of Heaven requires that we fully appreciate the rightness and principle inherent in our heart-minds. Our ability to transcend egoism, nepotism, parochialism, ethnocentrism, and chauvinistic nationalism must be extended to anthropocentrism as well. To make ourselves deserving partners of Heaven, we must constantly be in touch with that silent illumination that makes the rightness and principle in our heart-minds shine forth brilliantly. If we cannot go beyond the constraints of our own species, the most we can hope for is an exclusive, secular humanism advocating man as the measure of all things. By contrast, Confucian humanism is inclusive; it is predicated on an “anthropocosmic” vision. Humanity in its all-embracing fullness “forms one body with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things.” Self-realization, in the last analysis, is ultimate transformation, that process which enables us to embody the family, community, nation, world, and cosmos in our sensitivity.

Endnotes:

1. For a general discussion on ritualization as humanization, see Tu Wei-ming, “Li as Process of Humanization,” Philosophy East and West, 22, no. 2 (April 1972): 187 – 201.
2. Mencius 6A:7.
3. Unfortunately, Liu Shaoe’ Treatise on Personalities (Jen-u-u chih) is still not yet available in English translation.
4. Analects 2:4.
5. See his essay on “Understanding the Nature of Jen (Humanity).” in A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, trans. And comp. Wing-tsit Chan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963): 523.
6. Analects 15:23.
7. Analects 2:4.
8. This common expression is still widely used in China. Although it is a popular idiom rather than assertion in the Confucian classics, it vividly captures the Confucian spirit that self-realization never completes and that, as long as a person lives, he is still redeemable.
9. Chung-yung (Doctrine of the Mean) XXII. For a discussion of this idea in the perspective of Confucian “moral metaphysics,” see Tu Wei-ming, Centrality and Communality: An Essay on Chung-yung (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1076 pp. 100-111.

The answer to suffering cannot be simply to avoid suffering, any more than the answer to the meaning of life is to prolong life as much as possible.

Interesting article about contemporary America and Confucius:
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/16

Sexual Orientation is a Social Construct that should be Abandoned

There is no such as "sexual orientation" as having intrinsic character. Why? Because "sexual orientation" arises out of discriminatory attraction. Discriminatory attraction arises out of the confusion that equivocates lust and love. This confusion of lust and love is specific to a certain understanding of human relationships. Because this certain understanding of human relationships is specific to the individual and the culture in a specific historical context, "sexual orientation" cannot arise through an understanding that removes lust from love. In effect, our sexualization of everything, from our relationships to people and people themselves, leads to a social reality in which there is such a thing as "sexual orientation." Therefore, "sexual orientation" can only arise from a specific cultural context that arises from a certain understanding of human relationships, and is not part of fundamental human nature.

Because "sexual orientation" is not part of fundamental human nature as is socially-constructed, we have the potential to assess its merit and either continue using it or discard it. Because "sexual orientation" has no merit, and causes suffering, "sexual orientation" should be abandoned as a social reality and individuals should cultivate themselves away from manifesting "sexual orientation." Because lust is the intrinsic evil that leads to "sexual orientation," cultivators should rid themselves of lust as much as possible in order to abandon "sexual orientation."

"Sexual orientation" arises out of discriminatory attraction. Sexual orientation can only exist under the assumption that an individual can be sexually attracted to one form, but not another. We understand sexual orientation through affirmation and negation; homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex, but not the opposite sex. Heterosexuals cannot be sexually attracted to the same sex, but are attracted to the opposite sex. Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, and cannot be attracted to neither sex. Therefore, our concept of "sexual orientation" only arises out of a concept of discrminatory attraction.

However, the nature of attraction is that it is neither truly discrminatory nor truly non-discriminatory, but rather empty of inherent nature. Attraction cannot be truly discriminatory, because it has no bounds and changes over time. One can find one's spouse attractive, and then in a few years find them unattractive or even repulsive. In purely sexual terms, one can find human beings sexually attractive, and then later find animals sexually attractive. Sexual attraction in minimal before puberty, grows during puberty, and declines after a certain age. Attraction, and especially lust, constantly changes and has no bounds. People can literally be attracted to anything. However, attraction cannot be truly non-discriminatory, because no one is attracted to every thing simultaneously. In fact, attraction can only exist in the context that certain things are either attractive, unattractive (neutral), or repulsive (direct opposite of attractive). Foods taste good because other foods are tasteless or taste bad. Some people are beautiful because other people lack beauty or are ugly. (Though the perciever can possibly attain a state in which of all food tastes good or all people are beautiful, this transcendent perception cannot give rise to attraction. If every food is equally tasty and every person equally beautiful, what is there to be attracted to?)

Because discriminatory attraction has no inherent, unchanging, fixed basis, neither can sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot then be an inherent, unchanging, fixed characteristic of any individual. Furthermore, sexual orientation can only arise out of lust, which can be, to a fair extent, controlled and diminished through proper self-effort, and can be shaped in certain directions through the conditions and environment one finds oneself in.

Romantic discriminatory attraction arises out of the confusion that equivocates lust and love. Whereas true love can be extended to all beings, caring and cherishing them regardless of condition, circumstance, form, and history, lust does not work this way. The nature of lust roots itself in attraction, which as explained, must intrinsically find other things as unattractive or repulsive. This process of finding things attractive, non-attractive, or repulsive is discrimination. That is why attraction necessarily involves discrimination. Because this discrimination into attractive, non-attractive, and repulsive has no fixed characteristic and can be changed, shaped, and suppressed or developed, discriminatory attraction has no inherent nature nor intrinsic character. That is why one person can find his spouse attractive one year, less attractive the next, unattractive another, and eventually repulsive, without the spouse radically changing. Same with favorite foods, clothing styles, friends, dating partners, and so forth. Whereas love can be unconditional, attraction is everchanging. Therefore, romantic discriminatory attraction cannot be explained by love, but by the confusion of attraction as love.

Because sexual orientation discriminates based on gender or sex, this discrimination cannot be explained by attraction in general, but only specifically through lust, which is attraction in its sexual form. Without lust, there cannot be sexual orientation.

This confusion of lust and love is specific to a certain understanding of human relationships. What is this understanding? This understanding is that other human beings can be related to as objects of pleasure, objects of attraction, objects to be discriminated among for the sake of one's self. This is hedonism as applied to human relationships. Specifically with regard to "sexual orientation," people extend this hedonistic understanding to the conception of "romantic relationships" as being intrinsically lustful and sexually-based, with the understanding that this sexual attraction is unchanging, fixed, and inherent to one's personality.

However, this is not the case. Attraction is malleable, changing, unfixed, and not inherent to one's individual personality. Because this certain understanding of human relationships is specific to the individual and the culture in a specific historical context, "sexual orientation" cannot arise through an understanding that removes lust from love. When one understands love as separate from lust, in their purest forms, one understands that love necessarily involves unconditional care, boundless benevolence and compassion, and willingness to suffer for the other person. These elements are separate, and in practical expression often contradictory, to attraction (lust or otherwise). Because attraction is by nature fickle, changing and unfixed, attraction can only impurify true love. That is why many individuals in the Victorian era had and expressed deep love for those they had intimate relationships with, whether friends or family, whether male or female. To them, "sexual orientation" would be nothing more than the direction of one's lust, because one could love someone regardless of which gender or sex that person is.

Therefore, in effect, our sexualization of everything in our modern, Western culture, from our relationships to people and people themselves, leads to a social reality in which there is such a thing as "sexual orientation." Everything is sexualized these days. Commercials constantly appeal to sexual attraction. Our clothes emphasize bodily contours. Dating is not about finding the right marriage partner, but about a sexual relationship. Mainstream music is inundated with sexuality. Pornography is becoming more and more acceptable. People are taught to believe that they are little more than thinking animals, and so are encouraged engage in lust this way (even though animals simply do not experience lust the same way humans do), and social "scientists" take current historically-specific modern trends of our hypersexuality as "evidence" that we are, "in fact," little more than animals. Because sexuality is so inundated is everything we do and experience because of our hypersexualized culture, we have trouble understanding that lust and love are actually separate, and we have trouble perceiving this separation correctly. Because we cannot separate lust and love, we believe that romantic discrimination is love, and because lust is intrinsically sexual, this discrimination manifests itself as "sexual orientation," which we falsely understand as being part of love.

Therefore, "sexual orientation" can only arise from a specific cultural context that arises from a certain understanding of human relationships, and is not part of fundamental human nature. Because one can understand love and lust as separate and mutually exclusive, and change one's heart to expand one's love and diminish one's lust, romantic discrimination, sexual attraction, and therefore "sexual orientation" ceases to become neither meaningful concepts nor social realities. There is, in fundamentally human reality, no such thing as heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, or asexuals. These concepts only arise out of lust and sexual attraction, which is ever-changing, unfixed, malleable, changeable, given direction by self and society, encouragable, and supressable.

Because "sexual orientation" is not part of fundamental human nature as is socially-constructed, we have the potential to assess its merit and either continue using it or discard it. Because lust hinders true love, lust should be diminished as much as possible. And because "sexual orientation" can only arise out of sexual attraction, which is lust, "sexual orientation" must necessarily be abandoned when one abandons lust. "Sexual orientation" provides no good for individuals or society, self or others. When people define their marriages and love based on "sexual orientation," they define it on sexual attraction, which will hinder the cultivation of true love. "Sexual orientation" also divides people, not simply because of discrimination, but because attraction discriminates. When 1.5% of the population is "homosexual," "homosexuals" will have difficulty finding marriage partners simply because of reduced demographics. Finally, when people marry those who they cannot have children with, a greatly wonderful aspect of life is absent. Therefore, because "sexual orientation" has no merit, and causes suffering, "sexual orientation" should be abandoned as a social reality and individuals should cultivate themselves away from manifesting "sexual orientation."

Because lust is the intrinsic evil that leads to "sexual orientation," cultivators should rid themselves of lust as much as possible in order to abandon "sexual orientation." Why is lust evil? Because it reduces other people to being objects from which to extract pleasure from. When one person is lusting after another, he or she is not concerned with the well-being or benefit of the other person; rather, he or she simply wants something from the other person for his or her own pleasure. Therefore it is a great impediment to true love, which is based on unconditional care, boundless benevolence and compassion, and willingness to suffer for the other person. Thus, lust should be abandoned.

The sexualization of everything and the cultivation of lust brings upon a confusion between love and lust, which then defines "love" as "attraction." Further emphasis on lust results in "sexual attraction," which by its discriminating faculties creates socially-constructed divisions of "heterosexual," "homosexual," "bisexual," "asexual." This hypersexualization and lust at extremes results in pedophilia, sexual abuse, rape, and other sexual wronghoods and abnormalities.

Through Catholicism, I was introduced to the greater concepts of right and wrong.
Through Buddhism, I began to understand that following right and avoiding wrong protected and benefited myself.
Through Confucianism, I began to learn to take joy in right and become saddened at wrong for others' sake, and to fully understand why that is.


As I grew up, going through local public schools up until middle school, I was never exposed to an actual system of ethics. Sure, there was the usual authoritarianism that public schools invariably indoctrinate into its students, the superficially supervised playtime in which only physical violence is somewhat stopped (but certainly not verbal or emotional) but not reformed, and of course the 'government and citizenship in a nutshell' activities. But if you asked me anything about ethics, or what it meant to being a good person, I might reference something I learned in class about "random acts of kindness" or recycling to help the environment. I can't exactly recall how deeply I thought about right or wrong acts, though I did have a big problem with how friendship was conducted during my elementary school years, but I certainly couldn't have given you a straight answer back then.

And when they taught us sex "education," I didn't even think to bat an eye at the fact that they were showing everyone how to use condoms right in the middle of class, or the fact that people did not discuss why sex should be done only in certain social situations and what those situations were (in a steady dating relationship? or only after marriage? were one-night stands acceptable assuming mutual consent? how do you ensure mutual consent without losing the 'romantic' atmosphere, or at least the sexually-charged feelings of the moment?).

When one of my 6th grade friends talked about his drug experiences, and later on in 8th grade, his experiences in having sex, I both felt deeply uncomfortable, but a bit excited for him, and had no idea why I had these mix of feelings. Even if I could express them back then, I certainly couldn't justify or explain why.

I had been going to the St Andrew and Paul Korean Catholic Mission since I was in elementary school, but ethics were told, but not actually taught. I never encountered an actual explanation as to why pre-marital sex was wrong, maybe outside of something vague like "God wants you to..." And unsurprisingly, once most of the kids I knew from the church got out of their parent's control, they committed all the sins (or what I'll refer to as "near-sins") they were told not to, because they never developed a strong understanding of why they shouldn't do certain things.

So what do I mean by "sins" versus "near-sins"? If a sin is pre-marital sex, the near-sin would be dressing in lingerie to a Halloween party. The explicit sin is the extramarital sex (adultery or fornication), but the underlying vice is lust. So even though dressing in lingerie to a Halloween party, or dirty dancing for that matter, is not explicitly written out as a sin (as extramarital sex is), it's the same depravity at work. So the nature of all these activities should be considered to be sinful.

Bellarmine was different, but to varying degrees, depending on the teacher and the setting. Same basic conservative morality, but certainly different teaching approach. Some teachers were more rigorous than others, namely the great and universally honored Dr. Dalton, guiding us through moral thinking and development. Do we really want to live in certain ways? Do we really want to live in a society that purchases Disney merchandise made through exploitative child labor? Is there something greater to life than grades and the material wealth that supposedly comes from higher education? For the first time, I had teachers that explicitly told us that "freak dancing" (dirty dancing that simulates the act of sex) is wrong. This was the beginning of formally and consciously tackling these questions.

Still, while going through Swarthmore, and my atheistic/materialistic phase, I was hard pressed to explain to my fellow students, who were much more liberal than I ever was at my peak of liberal affiliation, my more conservative views. The best I could do to counter the idea that "having sex before marriage is like test-driving a car, you need to do it before you make the purchase" was to point out that people aren't cars. But I couldn't really articulate myself beyond that, even after putting further thought into it. I knew that there was definitely more to sex, but I couldn't give a logical explanation beyond something that might be considered 'merely' poetic or unrealistically romantic.

The closest justification I could come to expressing was through evolutionary psychology. Unbeknownst to me at the time, I was attempting an examination of fundamental human nature in order to establish a sense of what we should do and shouldn't do. I was tired of hearing that everything was a social construct, or that things are "not necessarily true" and have exceptions as a reason to disregard the entire principle (because it did not account for 100% of reality).

So in terms of the premarital sex question, I could point out that human beings have evolved to require heavily parental investment in their children (babies are born premature, and children really need parents to take care of them in a purely physiological/biological sense up until puberty, and even afterward, parents must teach them how to incorporate themselves into society for survival's sake), and their behavior (including emotional reactions to various social and biological stimuli) must have evolved to seek partnership relationships with the individual(s) they have sex with. So human beings are definitely not supposed to have one-night stands with strangers, with no sense of obligation, because the implications for the survival of our offspring are disastrous. Instead, we've evolved to psychologically demand stability from our sex partners, which, in social terms, culminates in the institution of marriage. A violation of this biologically innate demand for stability in our mates will cause us significant distress, physically and emotionally.

But explaining why people are predisposed to act and respond in certain ways because of its evolutionarily-mandated drive for survival is hardly a foundation for morality and spiritual development. Seeking only survival of oneself and one's offspring often, in fact, runs contrary to our understanding of true morality and ethics. After all, rape could theoretically be justified if evolutionary survival were to replace ethics, because this is a way of maximizing one's offspring potential. And surely, by virtue of having human hearts, we all find reasoning utterly deplorable.

After graduating from Swarthmore, I began to attend the Zen Center of Sunnyvale partly out of intellectual interest, but partly because I was interested in joining a religious community again. I had left the Catholic church because I couldn't reconcile various aspects of its theology with itself, so I thought I'd investigate a religion that was known for its logical rigor.

And logical it is! I could go on ad infinitum about Buddhism, but with respects to morality, there are two big principles at play here; karma and compassion, which in a sense reflect two sides of the morality coin.

Karma describes cause and effect. (The Sanskrit literal meaning is "action," but one cannot talk about action without its results in Buddhism.) Karma can be understood to have two components - 1. the physical, seeable results of the action and 2. the intention behind them. These two factors will combine to produce an effect that returns to the doer of the karma. So karma could be described as "volitional action" that creates a specific result to self and others.

For example, doing community service for Habitat for Humanity in order to improve one's college application would involve good physical, and seeable results. However, the volition is not so pure; the intention was not compassion, because the point of the service was not to help others, it was to help oneself. Because the compassionate intent was not there in doing the good, the 'merits' (or colloquially, the benefits for yourself) of the community service is muted to some considerable extent. On the other hand, if someone accidentally steps on a bunch of ants while taking a stroller, totally unaware, the act is physically harmful but the intention to harm was absent. The results of this action is also muted to some considerable extent, perhaps completely and totally. The volition is a critical component of the merits produced.

Karma also has a reinforcement effect on your mind. If you keep doing compassionate acts, you will become more compassionate. If you keep doing malicious acts, you'll keep becoming more malicious. If you keep indulging your greed or lust, you'll become even greedier and more lustful.

Compassion is less difficult to explain. If you have the intent to alleviate others' suffering and bring them happiness, it's naturally you'll avoid certain things and commit certain actions. For example, becoming vegetarian is advocated because one will be freeing livestock animals from harm. You might donate to charity simply because the charity will inevitably help people.

So with regards to premarital sex, because sex in an unstable relationship can really end up hurting people, a good Buddhist will avoid having sex recklessly. And because indulging in lust will bring about more lust (and lust, or greed, is one of the "three poisons" that causes suffering), sex in general is to be avoided as much as possible. So certainly, one-night stands are not looked favorably upon. I would even argue that upon these grounds, a compassionate individual would have sex only in the context of marriage, because this is the safest and most stable scenario for his would-be sex partner. A lot of anxiety and confusion arises with premarital sex, and if you truly loved someone, you would keep him or her from experiencing that. At the least, you ought to assure your loved one that you'll always be there for him/her (which is one of the central elements of, of not in and of itself totally equivalent to, marriage) before you start having sexual relations.

To further my point, I'll quote from the Buddha himself, who describes in the Culakammavighanga Sutra (found in the Majjhima Nikaya of the Pali Cannon) a person who commits sexual misconduct as a person who

has intercourse with women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected by law, and even with those already engaged.

It's pretty clear that the Buddha did not look favorably upon extramarital sex, whether it's premarital sex or adultery.

(At this point, I'd like to refer to the fact that mental health problems (eg depression, suicide) are strongly correlated with premarital sex, particularly for the teenage age range. I won't discuss this evidence further in this post, but I certainly will soon in the future.)

From a strict interpretation of the Buddhist perspective, premarital sex results in harm because it engages oneself and one's partner in lust, and the instability of the non-marital relationship creates anxiety in both sex partners. Furthermore, the risk of pregnancy always haunts the couple, no matter what contraceptive is used. If a fetus is aborted (and in Buddhism, life begins at conception), murder is committed upon one's child, which of course is evil karma. If a child is born, he or she is born into an unstable family situation, and there are various harms resulting from that as well. So premarital sex results only in harm, the least of which is indulging in lust and living in anxiety, and the worst being either ruining a child's life or murder itself.

A similar analysis could be done on the "near-sins" of dirty dancing or lewd appearance. They arise lust in others, they arise lust in oneself, both of which is bad in and of itself. But this lust can result in harm later on! At Swarthmore, there used to be (and perhaps still are) an annual campus-wide party in which women dress in lingerie. Not too surprisingly, the vast majority of rapes during the school year occurred during that one night. By arousing lust in others, you are putting both yourself and others in grave danger.

Of course, I'm not justifying that a woman who dresses lewdly "deserves" to be raped. No one in the world deserves such a heinous experience, for any reason whatsoever. But I do liken the situation to one in which one approaches dogs with rabies. In that situation, no one deserves to be bitten, but one should certainly avoid that situation for his own safety!

So in Buddhism I found the justification of morality as "do not harm others" and "try to benefit others." Rather than speaking of individual rights, in which you could do whatever you wanted within those boundaries, harmful or beneficial, Buddhism talks about causality (karma) and compassion.

One of the things I found in Confucianism that I found to be lacking in Zen cultivation was finding the spiritual and sacred in all worldly things, the transformation of mundaness into richness, channeling suffering and the lesser desires into forces of benevolence and virtue.

The essence of Confucian morality is incredibly difficult to explain because it is infused with spirituality to the point of oneness. Confucian morality is not simply united or integrated with spirituality, they are one and the same. A separation between morality and spirituality comes only from a lack of cultivation.

The point is further muddled when we consider the fact that other religions have something of a claim to this effect as well. For example, Buddhists can argue that a highly cultivated individual will naturally act ethically. In Mahayanan Buddhism, when one perfects one of the six paramitas - charity, morality, patience, effort, meditation, wisdom - one perfects all. While I do agree that the perfected individual of any religion does not morality and spirituality, the emphasis on this oneness as critical for the path of cultivation lies best with the Confucians. The intermediate Buddhist cultivator will have a lesser ability to integrate the two than the intermediate Confucian cultivator, even though the perfected ideal (the "sage" in Confucianism, the fully-enlightened Buddha in Buddhism) is the same, because of the difference in emphasis for practice. An opera composer needs to develop different skills in order to create the 'perfect opera.' In doing so, he can choose to see the poetics of the text as primary, with the musical score and plot following naturally. Or he can see the musical score as primary, with the poetics and plot following naturally, or he can see the plot as primary, with the poetics and score following naturally. Whatever focus he chooses, he will produce different products based on that focus than had he chosen a different focus, until he reaches a stage where all skills are fully mastered.

To return to Confucian ethics, each action has an ethical dimension because it inevitably effects others. Ethics, especially in Confucianism, is not about the individual, but rather about relationships. The concept of individual rights is superceded by the ideal of harmony. Harmony is expressed through ritual, propriety, and ettiquette. Ettiquette, in fact, is the outwardly manifestation of ethics. A handshake in the Western culture, or a bow in the Eastern culture, are symbolic acts both of ettiquette and ethics. Propriety has an important place, because it emphasizes order and ettiquette, and is infused with a sense of sacredness about every action. Ritual, ettiquette, propriety - these are all orderly and harmonious actions that connect us to other human beings and the cosmos in a profound and sacred way.

So to apply this understanding to sexuality is intellectually fascinating, but more significantly, empowering and enriching. Sex, to a Confucian, is among the most intimate of relational acts, and the most intimate of the marriage relationship. Sex is tantamount to an expression of the closest intimacy. Intimacy, by definition, cannot be established with multitudes of people, but rather with a select few. Exclusion is necessary for the closest and highest intimacy to occur. Therefore, to have sex with many individuals means to express the highest intimacy with many individuals.

But do people who have sex with many individuals really have the highest intimacy with all of those individuals?

The answer, practically speaking (and Confucians are strong on practical ethics), is no. Clearly, even if at some point the couples felt intimate, that intimacy is no longer there, by decision (excluding cases of death).

The marriage bond is built upon a promise of intimacy and security. If sex is to have spiritual and sacred meaning as an act of intimacy, it should be reserved only for as few as people as possible. As few as people possible ideally means only one person. That one person should be one's spouse, because no one else in the world is expected to be as intimate in which sexual relations are appropriate.

So why is sex so natural to be chosen as the act of sacred and spiritual intimacy? Becaise Confucians believing in transforming the lesser desires into virtues, finding the spiritual in the mundane. As I've established before, sex undeniably has strong emotional feelings attached to it, and is certainly physically highly pleasurable. So the Confucian takes these spontaneous, natural responses and transforms them into something sacred, spiritual and noble. They no longer become simply pleasures of the body and heart - they have spiritual meaning!

Sex then becomes an expression of "I love you" with physical, emotional, and spiritual meaning of the highest intimacy. And in order for this expression to be most meaningful, sex should be reserved only for husband and wife, after they have verbally dedicated themselves to each other.

Contradictory Positions

So far I've discussed the importance of family, filial piety, and the intrinsic evils of divorce. But I've also described dysfunctional families, established the condemnability of bad parenting, and admitted the necessity of divorce in extreme situations.

It seems contradictory to uphold something in one post, only to later take the opposite aspect and decry it. If family is so important, why do I decry certain family forms over others? If filial piety is so virtuous, why do I scathingly blame parents for maligned children? If marriage is so important and divorce so evil, how can I make exceptions for certain situations?

My purpose in writing these posts is primarily to describe causality so that the reader can assess the implications and destinies of his actions. If someone is considering divorce, for example, he will need to weigh the dangers of staying together (for example, exposing the child to hostility or even violence) against the dangers of separation (for example, the child loses a father figure or mother figure). Each situation is different, so we can never say that "divorce is always the wrong choice" or vice versa.

Same thing goes with family type. Perhaps a domestic-atomistic hybrid is better than having no family at all. Perhaps neglectful parents should be honored via filial piety anyway, though it might not be the most 'just' course of action. Or maybe filial piety should be disregarded in the name of cultivating oneself. If a daughter needs to resent her neglectful and corrupted mother in the process of growing into a better person, then this period of resentment is for the better.

Or even my post on appearance. Some tattoos, such as the infamous "tramp stamps" are truly unjustifiable, but others actually might have the potential for fulfilling the idea that appearance should be used to inspire others toward greater change. For example, a friend of mine has the words "praxis" and "theory" tattooed on her left and right wrists. I still cringe knowing that her body has been altered in some way (which I do even with 'normal' pierced ears), but her tattoos certainly fit the notion that appearance should be geared toward inspiration.

The idea is not to establish hard and fast rules regarding everything, but to deepen people's understandings of what's really going on, and what's to come as a result. Because only with a deeper understanding of reality can we make better decisions when dealing with the ever-present complexity of human life.

The Intrinsic Dangers of Divorce

There are three intrinsic dangers of divorce. First, the child is taught that family members are disposable. Second, the child is deprived of a parent. Third, the child is deprived of seeing how a harmonious, successful marriage relationship works.

Even if the divorce is not acrimonious, both in terms of the events leading up to it and the process of divorce itself, the child will learn that family members are disposable. A divorce is by definition a breaking up of a family, and so is a discretion against the family bond. The child learns by example that his relationships, no matter how intimate, are undependable. This sense of undependability creates a sense of fear and anxiety about relationships in general, or outright suspicion and hostility.

Divorce that occurs in non-extreme circumstances (extreme circumstances including abuse, violence, adultery, severe neglect, abandonment) teaches children the atomistic conception of family and relationships. They teach children that relationships are like private contract, and/or that people are sources of pleasure that when they become burdensome can be disposed of. If the divorce is truly conflict-free and nonchalant, then the child is taught that individuals they have intimate relationships are disposable or replaceable, and really don't matter.

In a divorce, the child can lose either the same-sex parent or the opposite-sex parent. Either way, the child loses a critical role-model, from the "functional" perspective of family. If it's the same-sex parent, the child loses a role-model to explain how to deal with and grow into gender roles. A boy without a proper father will have difficulty knowing how to act as a man as he grows older. If it's the opposite-sex parent, the child loses a resource to understand the opposite sex from. A daughter will not know how to deal with the different types of men that could potential hurt her, nor how to tell the difference, as well as if she learned these things from her father instead of her mother.

The loss of a parent, an intimate family member, is emotionally devastating, and needs no further explanation here.

Finally, the child is deprived of experiencing and seeing how a harmonious, successful marriage relationship works. Instead of working problems out, the parents give up and call the marriage a failure. So the child learns the problems, but nothing of the right solutions. So the child is left not knowing how to properly resolve conflicts, and may become suspicious or hostile toward relationships in general. The child does not learn to value harmony enough, nor does the child learn how to successfully pursue harmony.

To all those who argue that divorce is not an evil, you yourself are committing an act of evil. You are like someone who goes up to a sick person and tells them that they are healthy and have nothing to worry about; only disaster and great suffering will result.

Divorce may be a necessary evil, and I will never argue against this all-too-frequent situation where divorce is a necessary evil, but we should never deny that it is indeed an evil.

There has never been a case where...

There has never been a case where the parent has raised his children well and they treat him badly. There has never been a case where the parent has raised his children badly and the children treat him well.

There has never been a case where the parent has raised his children well and they do not love him back. There has never been a case where the children love the parent and the parent has not raised them well.

Parents influence their children before they are even conceived in the womb. By choosing who to marry, he is choosing who will become the other parent of his children. When the child is born, he and his spouse chooses who the child will spend time with (friends, teachers), what is emphasized within the family (which will shape the child's values), what the child will be exposed to (television, books, school), and so forth. The parent, through words and actions, constantly educates his child from his moment of first consciousness. Truly, the parent acts as God for the child.

Therefore, parents must take all the responsibility for their children's failures, exactly as leaders must take all the responsibility for their subordinates' failures.

A parent who fights perpetually and acrimoniously with his spouse endangers his children. Either the child must take a side and develop anger against one parent, or must ignore the issue being fought over. If the child takes a side, he must denigrate the parent he deems as wrong. In doing so, he damages the child's practice of filial piety. Inevitably, the child's lack of filial piety will be turned against the parent pushing him to take a side.

On the other hand, if the child ignores the issue being fought over, he will practice stupidity, acceptance of injustice, and acceptance of disharmony. By not investigating who is at fault and why, he practices stupidity and will lack wisdom. By not finding blame and rectifying wrong, he will accept injustice. By accepting fighting, he becomes at ease with disharmony and begins to believe it to be the natural and inevitable state of things.

If a child is wise and mature to be aware of both possibilities, he must face a great inner struggle.

A parent who deeply neglects his duties as parent endangers his children greatly. Either the child will recognize the fault or not recognize the fault. If the child recognizes the fault, he will have a great hindrance, a great obstacle toward cultivation of filial piety.

If the child does not recognize the fault of his wrongful parent, he will accept the parent's habits as acceptable and not requiring severe amendment. In accepting this, the child will absorb these habits and harmful personality traits into his own being, and his own future family (spouse and children) will be exposed to the same dangers as well.

If the child is wise and mature to be aware of both possibilities, he must face a great inner conflict.

A child who grows up with parents loving harmoniously will be happy and fully capable of loving his future spouse with care and tenderness.

A child who grows up with parents dutiful and loving will be happy and fully capable of raising his children with love and able excellence.

That is why good parents deserve the greatest praise, bad parents deserve condemnation, and all parents in fact deserve how their children treat them.

The Spiritual Force of Practicing Filial Piety

In cultivating one's humanness, one should take the natural, spontaneous virtues of his heart and expand upon them to all of humanity and beyond into the cosmos. When one practices love for one's family, one's heart is awakened to commiseration, pity, compassion, care, and all the noble virtues. Because one's heart is awakened in this way, one can use these forces to have commiseration, pity, compassion, care for all others, friends and strangers.

Many people experience true love only when they first have children. This is the first time in their lives they understand sacrifice, undying and unconditional care, and are fully willing to suffer for their love.

When people become parents they also naturally begin to develop commiseration for both other parents and children in general. Because they can know fully the difficulties of loving and raising their own children, they naturally begin to have compassion for other parents who struggle. Because they fear their own children hurt, they naturally begin to have compassion for other children who struggle or are in pain. Becoming a parent not only brings one in union with one's children, but begins to put one in union with all other parents and children as well.

Parents who are cultivators should then take this natural commiseration and cultivate it, developing its depth and extending it to the world. Seeing every person as someone's child, they should ask themselves "how would I like someone else to treat my child in this situation?" Would I want someone else to lust after him/her? Would I want someone else to disparage him/her, or otherwise hurt him/her? Would I want someone else to convince him/her of foolish things? In doing so, cultivators naturally develop deep pity, strong ethical conduct, and great benevolence.

Those who truly love their husbands or wives should also ask themselves "how would I like someone else to treat my spouse in this situation?" Seeing every person as someone's spouse or someone's future wife or husband, they should inquire within themselves. Would I want someone else to lust after him/her? Would I want someone else to disparage him/her, or otherwise harm or hurt him/her? Would I want someone else to convince him/her of foolish things? In doing so, cultivators naturally develop deep pity, strong ethical conduct, and great benevolence.

Those who truly love their brothers and sisters should also ask themselves "how would I like someone else to treat my brother or sister in this situation?" Seeing every person as someone's brother or sister, they should inquire within themselves. Would I want someone else to lust after him/her? Would I want someone else to disparage him/her, or otherwise hurt him/her? Would I want someone else to convince him/her of foolish things? In doing so, cultivators naturally develop deep pity, strong ethical conduct, and great benevolence.

To love someone deeply means to care for them deeply. In caring for someone deeply, one's care becomes unconditional. To be unattached to conditions means to love someone without demand of conditioned things, first including physical appearance, then personality, lastly personal relation, and then completely unconditionally. When one masters these things, he sees his beloved in all others and cannot bring himself to harm others.

However, among the four types of familial love (spousal, parental, sibling, and filial), filial piety has a special place.

Why is filial piety special? Because filial piety is easily aspired toward, but most difficult to manifest. To bridge the gap between aspiration and practice demands such great self-cultivation, that anyone who can master filial piety can become a truly noble person in mind and heart.

Why is filial piety worthy of aspiration? Because our parents' love is far deeper and vaster than the world's oceans combined. A parent's love is so strong that a parent is willing to die and suffer eternally for the benefit of his/her children. A parent's love is so intense that every moment of a parent's life, awake or in slumber, is filled with the nagging anxiety of the possibility that at any given moment something horrible might be happening to his/her child.

When I was in college, I hadn't return my mother's phone messages in a long time. At one point she left me a message that said sadly, "I just want to hear your voice." Only years later did I understand what that meant. Even if the conversation is short and with little content, it's meaningful to the parent; my mother just wanted to feel that I was safe, alive, and well.

There is no human force in the world stronger than a parent's love. And if there is any justice in one's heart, one ought to at least attempt to return the great love and care to one's parents.

How is filial piety and love difficult to manifest? Because unlike parental love, filial love does not come naturally. Animal parents naturally care and sacrifice for their animal offspring, but the animal offspring never sacrifices its life for its mother. No animal can even recognize its own mother after a certain age. There is no biological origin for filial love. Filial love comes exclusively from a human heart.

How is the human heart capable of filial love? Because the human heart has gratitude. Only when one is grateful for the love another gives him, can he truly appreciate this love. One must be grateful for not only the material comforts that one's parents give him (such as clothing, housing, food, and the products of wealth), but the profound love of one's parents.

How is the human heart capable of filial love? Because the human heart has imagination. Though one may or may not yet be a parent himself, he can take his own experiences in loving others (his children or otherwise) and use his imagination to extend this understanding of love to that of his parents. Through this imagination, he attains commiseration and harmony with his parents.

How is the human heart capable of filial love? Because the human heart has justice. Because a parent's love is so valuable and rich, and given to a child without expectation or condition, a person with any sense of justice will attempt to return this love. When one is given something good, small or great, one feels that he/she should return the gesture. Why is parental love any different?

To master these qualities requires one to truly expand and deepen one’s heart. To sincerely embark on returning a parent’s love, one’s sense of gratitude and justice must be great. This sincerity then leads one to truly understand his parents love and to return this love.

As one masters these qualities, one benefits himself and others. As he becomes more grateful he becomes more happy in his life. With gratefulness comes a sense of richness, for when one treasures everything he has, he feels truly rich. With justice, one becomes more compassionate and seeks to return the goodwill given to him from anyone. Through imagination, one becomes more sensitive and understanding of the joys and sufferings of others, allowing him to become harmonious with them.

To appreciate one's parents fully, one must truly master gratitude and appreciation; sensitivity, understanding and wisdom; care, compassion and love. In mastering these qualities, he can extend these great virtues to benefit the world.

How can one return a parent's love in practice? To do this is full measure is nearly impossible. One can shelter, feed, and clothes one's parents, but this is not fully repaying one's parents, because this is not the essence of a parent's great love. A stranger, a government, an organization can provide shelter, food, and clothing. The essence of a parent's great love contains the unconditional care, neurotic anxiety, and willingness to die and suffer greatly. This love is extremely rare in the world, and what is truly valuable. These are the things that must be returned.

But, except for a theoretical few, one can only come close to returning in full this great love from one's parents. So how can one attempt to repay one's parents?

First, by sincerely attempting to repay this love in full. Even though such a feat might be impossible, one is not human if one cannot even attempt to try.

Second, by having children of one's own can one pay homage to one's parents. When one becomes a parent, he loves as a parent and begins to truly understand his parents. By giving his children the same or greater love his parents gave to him, he pays homage to the greatness of his parents’ love for him.

Third, one can teach one’s parents profound teachings that lead them to greater happiness. If one’s parents are deficient in morality, one should help them self-cultivate. If one’s parents are lacking in spiritual character, one should help them self-cultivate. For a son or daughter to help one’s parents in this way is extremely difficult, but very worthwhile.

A fun post this time

"The line must be drawn here. This far and no further. And I will make them pay for what they've done." - Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: First Contact

So I thought I would write a post that was less on the serious, abstract side of things and do something that was more casual, fun, and a bit more playful. After all, as Mencius had said, “great is the man who has not lost his childlike heart.”

For those who have not watched Star Trek before, or more specifically, an episode or movie with The Borg in it, I strongly recommend this. Much like Skynet in the Terminator movie series, The Borg are an eerily threatening symbol of future possibilities.

Actually, before I start talking about the Borg, why don't I talk a little about the Terminator series, because it's had more mainstream exposure than Star Trek, and the concept of how Skynet works as a socio-political warning of extreme modern thinking is more obvious.


To summarize the role of Skynet in both James Cameron's Terminator films, Skynet is a computer program designed to not only manage our nuclear strike abilities, but to actually make decisions regarding when and how to attack other countries using nuclear via its algorhythms. In addition, it coordinates all automated military units (we actually have these kinds of things, Obama's been using military drones to bomb certain targets in Pakistan for sometime). However, shortly after going online, gaining sentience, and given control of America's nuclear weaponry and automated machinery, it immediately declares de-facto war upon humankind and proceeds to exterminates us all.

The Terminator has a strong libertarian undertone to it. Skynet is symbolically and literally a government program given far too much power and way too easily trusted. Of course, as the plot follows its libertarian undertones, the government program is not only incompetent, it actively and constructively damages the people it was supposed to help.

The other element in the Terminator films is a critique of our false assumption that technology will help us progress. More specifically, we're called to re-think how often we immediately and uncritically assume that the newest piece of technology will always embetter us or our situation. The government's willingness to implement the Skynet program exemplifies this dangerous mentality toward technology. Of course, for those of us who are naturally more skeptical or have been paying closer attention, we know that technology keeps getting us into more and more trouble. Anyone who has heard of Monsanto and their genetic engineering of seeds knows this. In fact, we've actually come close to the brink. Some years ago, there was an experiment in Oregon where researchers developed a genetically-modified bacterium designed to break down waste vegetation into ethanol outcompeted soil fungi, essential to plant life, and rendered the soil completely infertile. The researchers concluded had the bacteria spread to the rest of the world, all plant life on earth could have theoretically ended (The Constant Economy, by Zac Goldsmith).

The reality is that none of the technological developments past a certain point in history are essential for humanity, few are substantially more beneficial than harmful, and most are simply long-term harmful. But this is a topic to be explored another time...

Skynet also symbolizes the inhumaness of government beaucracy. A computer program is a set of algorhythms that always produces the same output with the same input. A system of beaurcracy, built solely upon a system of laws and policies, works exactly the same way. In fact, a computer program is the natural extension of the government beaucracy. The problem with having a set of algorhythms that determines everything is that either it goes haywire when presented with a extreme or usual case (due to inherent inflexibility), and/or it makes heartless/ruthless decisions.

Either cause accounts for Skynet's decision to exterminate humanity. Skynet may have produced a "haywire result" when faced with the extreme situation of the possibility of nuclear annhiliation, or decided via algorhytms that humanity is too much of a threat to be allowed to continue to exist. It wouldn't surprise me, actually, that a computer program designed to minimize the number of human causalities would choose "extinction now" as the optimal way to achieve that goal. After all, as the human population grows and continues inidefinitely, more and more human beings' deaths will accumulate (even in an entirely peaceful world, not to mention a global nuclear holocaust 100 years down the road when the Earth holds perhaps 30 billion individuals instead of 6 billion). So killing 6 billion now instead of many more in the future is the "logical" decision.

On a sidenote, I want to also point out that I think it was a great directing choice in Terminator 2 to have the T-1000 takes the form of a police officer.


Directly because the T-1000 has taken the appearance of a police officer, everyone gives him their full and complete trust. As a result, he always gets honest answers from the people he asks questions to, nobody stops him from going anywhere, etc etc. He has full license to do whatever he wants, and nobody questions him! Not even John Connor's foster parents suspect a thing - after all, why would they, he's a cop? Whereas Connor's party are hunted down by the police, the T-1000 never, even once, faces any such obstacle.

I'm sure I can go into more detail about the Terminator films and their socio-political implications, and whoever reads this blog surely can, but I'll leave that for the comments section.

So let's go back to the "original" subject of this post, The Borg


"We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

The Borg are a 'species' of cyborgs, part human and part machine, that work together as a singular hive-mind. Their purpose is to find other species or cultures, assimilate them into their collective, and bring themselves and the assimilated closer to perfection.


Can we see how much interpretive fun we can have with these guys? The Borg has been explained as a symbol for any technological, monopolizing multinational corporation such as Microsoft or Google, to any culturally-homogenizing force such as globalization or the American melting pot, or sociopolitical coercion that echoes the sentiments of the "white man's burden" in which the harm is done in the name of helping the coerced, including colonialism and neocolonialism, Communism, or specific liberal government programs such as universal healthcare or public schooling. The Borg can also be likened to certain religious activity, including but not limited to cults (like Scientology) or evangelical Christians.

In a society that continues to become more and more homogenized, technologized, nationalized and globalized, the threat that the Borg represents looms closer and taller. For the threat that the Borg symbolizes is not a foreign threat, it's the potential of what we could become.

When forces from television to public schooling both homogenizes and dulls our minds, we become closer to sharing a hive mind devoid of true individuality. We become closer to the Borg.

When the rapid change in technology continues to disrupt social dynamics, such as facebook and online chat replacing the richness of person to person communication (with its dimensions of facial expression, tone of voice, and immediate real-time response) with a method of communication that is purely textual and devoid of any other dimensions, we become closer to becoming more and more dependent on technology for our social needs. We become closer to the Borg.

When politicians, both Republican and Democrat, neoconservative and liberal, continue to shift power toward the federal government and away from local communities, every individual loses their agency. Because the ordinary citizen can always go to city council meetings, but never actually meet the president of the United States, a more federalized nation necessarily means a depowered citizen. And when we keep losing power as individuals in an increasingly larger and larger community, we become more like the Borg.

When people talk about globalization of cultures as a progessively good thing, when certain people talk about a new emerging "global spiritual consciousness," when people conceptualize the world as a melting pot, we become more and more homogenized. We abandon the unique customs and expressions of our localities, and and we merge into this mass of undifferentiated humanity shared with 6 billion other unknown individuals. In this way, we become more like the Borg.

But resistance is not futile. We can return to the local world. We can reserve our power by simply saying no to politicians who extend the national (or even international) government's power, no matter how appealing the idea is, by saying "we can do it locally!" We can use technology critically, keeping it strictly for uses that are harmless, beneficial, and can be done in no better way. We can avoid forces that homogenize and dull our minds by watching television critically and discriminately, or by reforming public schools that only instruct knowledge memorization intead of developing thinking.

"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!"

The quote above is said by the captain of the Enterprise, in response to the Borg's invasion of his ship and Earth. Even though it's from a science-fiction movie, it really captures what our mentality should be in stopping this trend of becoming "more like the Borg."

This far, no further!

The Great Learning

The following is from The Ways of Religion: An Introduction to the Major Traditions edited by Roger Eastman. It is a translation of The Great Learning, a central text in Neo-Confucianism.

The Great Learning

Wing-tsit Chan (translator)

“The importance of this little Classic is far greater than its small size would suggest,” states Wing-tsit Chan, its translator in these pages. “It gives the Confucian educational, moral, and political programs in a nutshell.”¹

It was in the twelfth century that the Neo-Confucian scholar Chu Hsi grouped together The Analects, The Book of Mencius, The Great Learning, and The Doctrine of the Mean to form the Four Books, the basic documents of Confucianism, and since that time the role of The Great Learning in the life of China has been immeasurable: until the present century, it was with this essay that all Chinese children began their studies.²

The theme of The Great Learning is that the health and well-being of individuals, the family, and the state are inextricably connected. There is, in fact, no distinction to be made between ethics and politics: both private conduct and the affairs of state are similarly moral issues. Moral behavior is dependent upon the proper “cultivation” of the young in the family – but the family cannot function as it ought unless the affairs of state are conducted in a moral manner.

Appearing throughout The Great Learning are editorial comments by Chu Hsi. He explains in one of his notes that he thought the first portion of the book was in the words of Confucius, as recorded by his disciple Tsang, and that the following chapters of commentary were by Tsang, as recorded by his followers. It is now considered unlikely that Confucius and Tsang were the sources of the book. The Great Learning was originally a chapter of the Li Chi (The Book of Rites) and possible dates from the third century B.C.E.; the author is not known.

Wing-tsit Chan (1901 - ) has a had a long and notable career as a professor, author, and translator. Raised in South China, he received a Confucian education there and then a doctorate from Harvard in 1929. He was Professor of Chinese Thought and Culture at Dartmouth College and held similar positions at the University of Hawaii and Columbia University. He was published some twenty books and over a hundred articles in English and Chinese.

The Great Learning

Chu Hsi’s Remark. Master Ch’eng I said, “The Great Learning is a surviving work of the Confucian school and is the gate through which the beginning student enters into virtue. It is only due to the preservation of this work that the order in which the ancients pursued their learning may be seen at this time. The Analects and the Book of Mencius are next to it. The student should by all means follow this work in his effort to learn, and then he will probably be free from mistakes.”

The Text

The Way of learning to be great (or adult education) consists in manifesting the clear character, loving the people, and abiding (chih) in the highest good.

Only after knowing what to abide in can one be calm. Only after having been calm can one be tranquil. Only after having achieved tranquility can one have peaceful repose. Only after having peaceful repose can one begin to deliberate. Only after deliberation can the end be attained. Things have their roots and branches. Affairs have their beginnings and their ends. To know what is first and what is last will lead one near the Way.

The ancients who wished to manifest their clear character to the world would first bring order to their states. Those who wished to bring order to their states would first regulate their families. Those who wished to regulate their families would first cultivate their personal lives. Those who wished to cultivate their personal lives would first rectify their minds. Those who wished to rectify their minds would first make their wills sincere. Those who wished to make their wills sincere would first extend their knowledge. The extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things. When things are investigated, knowledge is extended; when knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, the mind is rectified; when the mind is rectified, the personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, the family will be regulated; when the family is regulated, the state will be in order; and when the state is in order, there will be peace throughout the world. From the Son of Heaven down to the common people, all must regard cultivation of the personal life as the root or foundation. There is never a case when the root is in disorder and yet the branches are in order. There has never been a case when what is treated with great importance becomes a matter of slight importance of what is treated with slight importance becomes a matter of great importance.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above is the text in one chapter. It is the words of Confucius, handed down by Tsen Tzu. The ten chapters of commentary which follow are the views of Tsen Tzu and were recorded by his pupils. In the traditional version there have been some mistakes in its arrangement. Now follows the new version fixed by Master Ch’eng I, and in addition, having examined the contents of the text, I (Chu Hsi) have rearranged it as follows:

Chapters of Commentary

1. In the “Announcement of K’ang” it is said, “He was able to manifest his clear character.” In the “T’ai-chia” it is said, “He contemplated the clear Mandates of Heaven.” In the “Canon of Yaho” it is said, “He was able to manifest his lofty character.” These all show that the ancient kings manifested their own character.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above first chapter of commentary explains manifesting the clear character.

2. The inscription on the bath-tub of King T’ang read, “If you can renovate yourself one day, then you can do so every day, and keep doing so day after day.” In the “Announcement of K’ang,” it is said, “Arouse people to become new.” The Book of Odes says, “Although Chou is an ancient state, the mandate it has received from Heaven is new.” Therefore, the superior man tries at all times to do his utmost [in renovating himself and others].

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above second chapter of commentary explains the renovating of the people.

3. The Book of Odes says, “The imperial domain of a thousand li is where the people stay (chih).” The Book of Odes also says, “The twittering yellow bird rests (chih) on a thickly wooded mount.” Confucius said, “When the bird rests, it knows where to rest. Should a human being be unequal to a bird?” The Book of Odes says, “How profound was King Wen! How he maintained his brilliant virtue without interruption and regarded with reverence that which he abided (chih).” As a ruler, he abided in humanity. As a minister, he abided in reverence. As a son, he abided in filial piety. As a father, he abided in deep love. And in dealing with the people of the country, he abided in faithfulness.

The Book of Odes says, “Look at that curve in the Ch’i River. How luxuriant and green are the bamboo trees there! Here is our elegant and accomplished prince. [His personal life is cultivated] as a thing is cut and filed and as a thing is carved and polished. How grave and dignified! How majestic and distinguished! Here is our elegant and accomplished prince. We can never forget him!” “As a thing is cut and filed” refers to the pursuit of learning. “As a thing is carved and polished” refers to self-cultivation. “How grave and how dignified” indicates precaution. “How majestic and distinguished” expresses awe-inspiring appearance. “Here is our elegant and accomplished prince. We can never forget him” means that the people cannot forget his eminent character and perfect virtue. The Book of Odes says, “Ah! The ancient kings are not forgotten.” [Future] rulers deemed worthy what they deemed worthy and loved what they loved, while the common people enjoyed what they enjoyed and benefited from their beneficial arrangements. That was why they are not forgotten even after they passed away.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above third chapter of commentary explains abiding in the highest good.

4. Confucius said, “In hearing litigations, I am as good as anyone. What is necessary is to enable people not to have litigations at all.” Those who would not tell the truth will not dare to finish their words, and a great awe would be struck into people’s minds. This is called knowing the root.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above fourth chapter of commentary explains the root and the branches.

5. This is called knowing the root. This is called the perfecting of knowledge.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above fifth chapter of commentary explains the meaning of the investigation of things and the extension of knowledge, which is now lost. I have ventured to take the view of Master Ch’eng I and supplement it as follows: The meaning of the expression “The perfection of knowledge depends on the investigation of things (ko-wu)” is this: If we wish to extend our knowledge to the utmost, we must investigate the principles of all things we come into contact with, for the intelligent mind of man is certainly formed to know, and there is not a single thing in which its principles do not inhere. It is only because all principles are not investigated that man’s knowledge is incomplete. For this reason, the first step in the education of the adult is to instruct the learner, in regard to all things in the world, to proceed form what knowledge he has of their principles, and investigate further until he reached the limit. After exerting himself in this way for a long time, he will one day achieve a wide and far-reaching penetration. Then the qualities of all things, whether internal or external, the refined or the coarse, will be apprehended, and the mind, in its total substance and great functioning, will be perfectly intelligent. This is called the investigation of things. This is called the perfection of knowledge.

6. What is meant by “making the will sincere” is allowing no self-deception, as when we hate a bad smell or love a beautiful color. This is called satisfying oneself. Therefore the superior man will always be watchful over himself when alone. When the inferior man is alone and leisurely, there is no limit to which he does not go in his evil deeds. Only when he sees a superior man does he then try to disguise himself, concealing the evil and showing off the good in him. But what is the use? For other people see him as if they see his very heart. This is what is meant by saying that what is true in a man’s heart will be shown in his outward appearance. Therefore the superior man will always be watchful over himself when alone. Tseng Tzu said, “What ten eyes are beholding and what ten hands are pointing to – isn’t it frightening?” Wealth makes a house shining and virtue makes a person shining. When one’s mind is broad and his heart generous, his body becomes big and is at ease. Therefore the superior man always makes his will sincere.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above sixth chapter of commentary explains the sincerity of the will.

7. What is meant by saying that cultivation of the personal life depends on the rectification of the mind is that when one is affected by wrath to any extent, his mind will not be correct. When one is affected by fear to any extent, his mind will not be correct. When he is affected by fondness to any extent, his mind will not be correct. When he is affected by worries and anxieties, his mind will not be correct. When the mind is not present, we look but do not see, listen but do not hear, and eat but do not know the taste of food. This is what is meant by saying that the cultivation of the pesonal life depends on the rectification of the mind.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above seventh chapter of commentary explains the rectification of the mind in order to cultivate the personal life.

8. What is meant by saying that the regulation of the family depends on the cultivation of the personal life is this: Men are partial toward those for whom they have affection and whom they love, partial toward those whom they despise and dislike, partial toward those whom they fear and revere, partial toward those whom they pity and for whom they have compassion, and partial toward those whom they do not respect. Therefore there are few people in the world who know what is bad in those whom they love and what is good in those whom they dislike. Hence it is said, “People do not know the faults of their sons and do not know (are not satisfied with) the bigness of their seedlings.” This is what is meant by saying that if the personal life is not cultivated, one cannot regulate his family.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above eighth chapter of commentary explains the cultivation of the personal life in order to regulate the family.

9. What is meant by saying that in order to govern the state it is necessary first to regulate the family is this: There is no one who cannot teach his own family and yet can teach others. Therefore the superior man (ruler) without going beyond his family, can bring education into completion in the whole state. Filial piety is that with which one serves his ruler. Brotherly respect is that with which one serves his elders, and deep love is that with which one treats the multitude. The “Announcement of K’ang” says, “Act as if you were watching over an infant.” If a mother sincerely and earnestly looks for what the infant wants, she may not hit the mark but she will not be far from it. A young woman has never had to learn about nursing a baby before she marries. When the individual families have become humane, then the whole country will be aroused toward humanity. When the individual families have become compliant, then the whole country will be aroused toward compliance. When one man is greedy or avaricious, the whole country will be plunged into disorder. Such is the subtle, incipient activating force of things. This is what is meant by saying that a single word may spoil an affair and a single man may put the country in order. (Sage-emperors) Yao and Shun led the world with humanity and the people followed. (Wicked kings) Chieh and Chou led the world with violence and the people followed them. The people did not follow their orders which were contrary to what they themselves liked. Therefore the superior man must have the good qualities in himself before he may require them in other people. He must not have the bad qualities in himself before he may require others not to have them. There has never been a man who does not cherish altruism (shu) in himself and yet can teach other people. Therefore the order of the state depends on the regulation of the family.

The Book of Odes says, “How young and pretty is that peach tree! How luxuriant is its foliage! This girl is going to her husband’s house. She will rightly order her household.” Only when one has rightly ordered his household can he teach the people of the country. The Book of Odes says, “They were correct and good to their elder brothers. They were correct and good to their younger brothers.” Only when one is good and correct to one’s elder and younger brothers can one teach the people of the country. The Book of Odes says, “His deportment is all correct, and he rectifies all the people of the country.” Because he served as worthy example as a father, son, elder brother, and younger brother, therefore the people imitated him. This is what is meant by saying that the order of the state depends on the regulation of the family.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above ninth chapter of commentary explains regulating the family to bring order to the state.

10. What is meant by saying that peace of the world depends on the order of the state is this: When the ruler treats the elders with respect, then the people will be aroused toward filial piety. When the ruler treats the aged with respect, then the people will be aroused toward brotherly respect. When the ruler treats compassionately the young and the helpless, then the common people will not follow the opposite course. Therefore the ruler has a principle with which, as with a measuring square, he may regulate his conduct.

What a man dislikes in his superiors, let him not show it in dealing with his inferiors; what he dislikes in those in front of him, let him not show it in preceding those who are behind; what he dislikes in those behind him, let him not show it in following those in front of him; what he dislikes in those on the right, let him not apply it to those on the left; and what he dislikes in those on the left, let him not apply it to those on the right. This is the principle of the measuring square.

The Book of Odes says, “How much the people rejoice in their prince, a parent of the people!” He likes what the people like and dislikes what the people dislike. This is what is meant by being a parent of the people. The Book of Odes says, “Lofty is the Southern Mountain! How massive are the rocks! How majestic is the Grand Tutor Yin (of Chou)! The people all look up to you!” Thus rulers of states should never be careless. If they deviate from the correct path, they will be cast away by the world. The Book of Odes says, “Before the rulers of the Yin (Shang) dynasty lost the support of the people, they could have been counterparts of Heaven. Take warning from the Yin dynasty. It is not easy to keep the Mandate of Heaven.” This shows that by having the support of the people, they have their countries, and by losing the support of the people, they lose their countries. Therefore the ruler will first be watchful over his own virtue. If he has virtue, he will have the people with him. If he has the people with him, he will have the territory. If he has the territory, he will have wealth. And if he has wealth, he will have its use. Virtue is the root, while wealth is the branch. If he regards the root as external (or secondary) and the branch as internal (or essential), he will compete with the people in robbing each other. Therefore when wealth is gathered in the ruler’s hand, the people will scatter away from him; and when wealth is scattered [among the people], they will gather round him. Therefore if the ruler’s words are uttered in an evil way, the same words will be uttered back to him in an evil way; and if he acquires wealth in an evil way, it will be taken away from him in an evil way. In the “Announcement of K’ang” it is said, “The Mandate of Heaven is not fixed or unchangeable.” The good ruler gets it and the bad ruler loses it. In the Book of Chu’u it is said, “The State of Ch’u does not consider anything as treasure; it considers only good [men] as treasure. Uncle Fan (maternal uncle to a prince of Chin in exile) said, ‘Our exiled prince has no treasure; to be humane toward his parents in his only treasure.’” In the “Oath Ch’in” it is said, “Let me have but one minister, sincere and single-minded, not pretending to other abilities, but broad and upright of mind, generous and tolerant toward others. When he sees that another person has a certain kind of ability, he is as happy as though he himself had it, and when he sees another man who is elegant and wise, he loves him in his heart as much as if he said so in so many words, thus showing that he can really tolerate others. Such a person can preserve my sons, and grandsons and the black-haired people (the common people). He may well be a great benefit to the country. But when a minister sees another person with a certain kind of ability, he is jealous and hates him, and when he sees another person who is elegant and wise, he blocks him so he cannot advance, thus showing that he really cannot tolerate others. Such a person cannot preserve my sons, grandsons, and the black-haired people. He is a danger to the country.” It is only a man of humanity who can send away such a minister and banish him, driving him to live among the barbarian tribes and not allowing him to exist together with the rest of the people in the Middle Kingdom (China). This is what is meant by saying that it is only the man of humanity who can love or who can hate others. To see a worthy and not be able to raise him to office, or to be able to raise him but not to be the first one to do so – that is negligence. To see bad men and not to be able to remove them from office, or to be able to remove them but not to remove them as far away as possible – that is a mistake. To love what the people hate and to hate what the people love – that is to act contrary to human nature, and disaster will come to such a person. Thus we see that the ruler has a great principle to follow. He must attain it through loyalty and faithfulness and will surely lose it through pride and indulgence.

There is a great principle for the production of wealth. If there are many producers and few consumers, and if people who produce wealth do so quickly and those who spend it do so slowly, then wealth will always be sufficient. A man of humanity develops his personality by means of his wealth, while the inhuman person develops wealth and the sacrifice of his personality. There has never been a case of a ruler who loved humanity and whose people did not love righteousness. There has never been a case where the people loved righteousness and yet the affairs of the state have not been carried to completion. And there has never been a case where in such a state the wealth collected in the national treasury did not continue in the possession of the ruler.

The officer Meng-hsien said, “He who keeps a horse [one who has just become an official] and a carriage does not look after poultry and pigs. [The higher officials] who use ice [in their sacrifices] do not keep cattle and sheep. And the nobles who can keep a hundred carriages do not keep rapacious tax-gathering ministers under them. It is better to have a minister who robs the state treasury than to have such a tax-gathering minister. This is what is meant by saying that in a state financial profit is not considered real profit whereas righteousness is considered to be the real profit. He who heads a state or a family and is devoted to wealth and its use must have been under the influence of an inferior man. He may consider this man to be good, but when an inferior man is allowed to handle the country or family, disasters and injuries will come together. Though a good man may take his place, nothing can be done. This is what is meant by saying that in a state financial profit is not considered real profit whereas righteousness is considered the real profit.

Chu Hsi’s Remark. The above tenth chapter of commentary explains ordering the state to bring peace to the world. There are altogether ten commentary chapters. The first four generally discuss the principal topics and the basic import. The last six chapters discuss in detail the items and the required effort involved. Chapter five deals with the essence of the understanding of goodness and chapter six deals with the foundation of making the personal life sincere. These two chapters, especially, represent the immediate task, particularly for the beginning student. The reader should not neglect them because of their simplicity.

Endnotes:

[1] Source Book of Chinese Philosophy(Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 84

[2] Yin Yutang, The Wisdom of Confucius (New York: Random House, 1938), p. 135