An encompassing love we call humaneness, and its embodiment and implementation righteousness. Moving from one to the other is the way, and keeping your feet upon it without veering we call virtue. Humanity and righteousness are fixed, but the way and virtue are mutable. Thus there are ways of lords and ways of the petty, and virtue of the ominous as well as the auspicious. Laozi did not destroy humanity or righteousness with his disdain, but rather diminished himself through his regard for them — sitting in a well staring at the heavens and finding them small does not make the heavens small — he took humanity to be a tepid benevolence and stark solitude as righteousness, so he could do nothing but disdain. As for his so-called Way, and his ways of walking and talking the Way — it is not my way. Neither are the vortices of his virtue what I call virtue. Rather, my discussion of the way and virtue will combine humaneness and righteousness, and is a discussion for all people under heaven. Jettisoning humaneness and righteousness, Laozi’s discussion of his “Way” and his “Virtue” amounts to no more than the words of one man.
The way as it was in the Zhou has deteriorated, and Confucius has been drowned. From the fires of the Qin to the old perversions of superstitious alchemists of the Han, from the Buddhists in the Jin and Wei to those of the Liang and Sui, those who would discourse upon the way and virtue, or humaneness and righteousness, are either led astray by egoists such as Yang Zhu or deceived by so-called altruists such as Mozi — and if they’re not sucked in by Laozi, they’re sucked in by the Buddha! (When you’re sucked in by one thing, you spit out another. What sucks you in becomes your new king, and what you’ve spat out your new slave; what sucks you in you adhere to, and what you’ve spat out you shun). But oh — we who yearn to hear of humaneness and righteousness, and of the way and of virtue, whom can we follow? Laozi’s followers tell us, “Confucius was a disciple of my master.” And the Buddhists tell us, “Confucius was a disciple of my master!” And would-be Confucians, accustomed to such blather, indulge these absurdities and deprecate themselves, saying, “My master humbly paid his respects to your masters”! Not only have they said this in speech, they have written it in books! Oh — we who yearn to hear of humaneness of righteousness, and of the way and of virtue, whom do we appeal to? Alas — people will be addicted to the paranormal, considering neither its reasons nor results, giving in to only more paranormal yearnings.
In antiquity there were four classes ofpeople; today there are six. In antiquity there was one teaching, today three. The farmer is but one, while his grain goes to feed six. The craftsman one, his craft used by six. Merchants, one class raising capital for six. How could the people not be thieving and poor?
In antiquity much could cause harm, but then sages emerged to teach the way of mutual cultivation of life. They gave us lords, they gave us masters, and they drove away the beasts and vermin and so we could settle the central plains. In the cold they clothed us, and in our hunger they fed us. Living in the trees we would fall, and on earth we would sicken, but they gave us palaces and houses. They gave us craftsmanship, and all the crafts we use. They gave us commerce, exchanging what we have for what we have not. They gave us the remedies and medicine that free us from early death. They gave us funerary sacrifice, to extend our love for our forebears. They gave us the rites, putting secondary after primary. They gave us music for our sorrows. They gave us the governance that straightens out slackers and the punishments to root out stubborn weeds. When we were dishonest, they gave us a foundation for trust in records, seals, and proper weights and measurements. When we battled, they gave us ramparts and soldiers to stand guard. They prepared us against harm as we forefend against illness.
But then there are those who say, “If the sages don’t die, the thieves do not rest ... smash the weights and scales, and we shall fight no more.” Such thoughtless thought — without ancient sages, wouldn’t we have gone extinct long ago? Without feathers or fur, scales or shells, how would we shelter from heat and cold? Without claws and sharp teeth how would we catch our food? Hence our lords, to give their edicts; the ministers, to implement those edicts amongst the people; the people, to produce grain and rice, hemp and silk, to build crafts, circulating goods and money, in service of those above them. If the lords had not given edicts, they would have given up what makes them lords; if the ministers did not implement the edicts amongst the people, they would have given up what makes them ministers. And whoever produces no grain or rice, no hemp or silk,or whoever gives up building crafts and circulating goods and wealth, against the service of those above, deserves execution!
And the Buddhists say, “Thou shalt renounce lord and minister, and jettison thy father, and eschew mutual cultivation of life,” so we can seek after so-called “purity” and “insentience.” Ha! Lucky they came after the Three Dynasties, when they would have been rebuffed by the Emperors Yu and Tang, Kings Wen and Wu, and the Duke of Zhou and Confucius. Or, unlucky they did not come before the Three Dynasties, when they would have been rectified by Yu and Tang, Wen and Wu, and the Duke of Zhou and Confucius.
Though “Emperor” and “King” go by separate names, they follow the same principles, just as summertime linen and wintertime fur are nominally separate, but operate under the same principle, just as we eat when we’re hungry and drink when we’re dry, nominally different, but in principle the same. But then there are those who say, “Why not then follow the non- action of antiquity?” as if they would suggest to someone wearing fur in winter, “Wouldn’t you rather wear linen?” or say to someone eating, “You know, it’d be simpler if you just had a drink.” The Great Learning states: Whereupon the ancients would elucidate the bright virtue upon all under the heavens, they first ruled their states; when they would rule their states, they first set their homes in order; when they would set their homes in order, they first disciplined themselves; when they would discipline themselves, they first rectified their minds; when they would rectify their minds, they first made meaning sincere. What the ancients meant by rectifying their minds and making meaning sincere requires action, whereas nowadays, those who would “rule their minds” ignore state and home and abolish the heavenly relations — where are the sons who treat their fathers as fathers, the ministers who treat their lords as lords, the people occupied with their occupations? In composing the Spring and Autumn Annals, Confucius treated the dukes and lords practicing foreign rites as foreigners, and those who approached our Chinese center as Chinese. The Canon states: “Had foreigners lords they would be no match for the Chinese had we none!” and the Verses sing, “Outsiders shall be beat, punish the states Jing and Shu.” Nowadays, when we have people raising the foreign dharma over and above the teachings of our first kings, how long will it be before we’ve become foreign ourselves?
But what, then, were our first kings’ teachings? That an encompassing love we call humaneness, its embodiment and implementation righteousness, and that moving from one to the other is the way, and keeping your feet upon it without veering we call virtue. Their writings were the Verses, the Documents, the Changes, and the Spring and Autumn Annals; their “dharma” — by which of course I mean their method — were Rites, Music, Punishment, and Governance; their classes of people were officers, farmers, craftsmen, and traders; their fundamental relationships were between lord and minister, father and son, with teacher and with friend, between guest and host, amongst brothers elder and younger, and between a man and his wife; they wore nothing but silk and hemp; where they lived were palaces and houses; they ate grain and rice, fruits and vegetables, and fish and meat; their way was easy to understand and their teachings easy to implement. Enact it with yourself, therefore, and find fluidity and fortune. Enact it with others, and have love and fairness. Enact it on your mind, and be at peace and harmony; enact it throughout the state and under the heavens, and nowhere will it not be. Thus in life attain kindness, and in death fulfill eternity; to their altars the gods of the heavens attend, in their temples the spirits of humans partake.
You ask, “What way is this way?” And I say, “This is what I call the way, which is not the ‘way’ of the Daoists or Buddhists.” Yao taught it to Shun, who taught it to Yu, who taught it to Tang, who taught it to King Wen and King Wu and the Duke of Zhou, who taught it to Confucius, who taught it to Mencius. It was taught no more after Mencius’s death, only the sloppy excerpts and imprecise discourses of Xunzi and Yang Xiong. Before the Duke of Zhou, those at the top were true lords, whose actions endured; since the Duke of Zhou we have been under administrators, whose words have been longwinded.
So what is to be done? I say, Lest we clog them we cannot flow, lest we stop them we cannot go. We must humanize these humans — burn their books, reside in their temples, and light up the way of the first kings and set them upon this way. Thus can the widows and widowers, the orphans and the childless, the abandoned and diseased, all be nourished, and all be made whole.
韓愈:原道
博愛之謂仁，行而宜之之謂義。由是而之焉之謂道，足乎己無待於外之謂德。仁與義為定名， 道與德為虛位。故道有君子小人，而德有凶有吉。老子之小仁義，非毀之也，其見者小也。坐 井而觀天，曰天小者，非天小也。彼以煦煦為仁，孑孑為義，其小之也則宜。其所謂道，道其 所道，非吾所謂道也;其所謂德，德其所德，非吾所謂德也。凡吾所謂道德云者，合仁與義言 之也，天下之公言也。老子之所謂道德云者，去仁與義言之也，一人之私言也。
周道衰，孔子沒。火于秦，黃老于漢，佛于晉、魏、梁、隋之間。其言道德仁義者， 不入于楊，則入于墨。不入于老，則入于佛。入于彼，必出于此。入者主之，出者奴之;入者 附之，出者汙之。噫!後之人其欲聞仁義道德之說，孰從而聽之?老者曰:「孔子，吾師之弟 子也。」佛者曰:「孔子，吾師之弟子也。」為孔子者，習聞其說，樂其誕而自小也，亦曰: 「吾師亦嘗師之云爾。」不惟舉之於其口，而又筆之於其書。噫!後之人，雖欲聞仁義道德之 說，其孰從而求之?甚矣!人之好怪也，不求其端，不訊其末，惟怪之欲聞。
古之為民者四，今之為民者六。古之教者處其一，今之教者處其三。農之家一，而食 粟之家六。工之家一，而用器之家六。賈之家一，而資焉之家六。奈之何民不窮且盜也! 古之時，人之害多矣。有聖人者立，然後教之以相生養之道。為之君，為之師，驅其 蟲蛇禽獸，而處之中土。寒，然後為之衣。飢，然後為之食。木處而顛，土處而病也，然後為 之宮室。為之工，以贍其器用。為之賈，以通其有無。為之醫藥，以濟其夭死。為之葬埋祭祀 ，以長其恩愛。為之禮，以次其先後。為之樂，以宣其凐鬱。為之政，以率其怠倦。為之刑， 以鋤其強梗。相欺也，為之符璽斗斛權衡以信之。相奪也，為之城郭甲兵以守之。害至而為之 備，患生而為之防。今其言曰:「聖人不死，大盜不止。剖斗折衡，而民不爭。」嗚呼!其亦 不思而已矣!如古之無聖人，人之類滅久矣。何也?無羽毛鱗介以居寒熱也，無爪牙以爭食也 。是故君者，出令者也。臣者，行君之令而致之民者也。民者，出粟米麻絲，作器皿，通貨財 ，以事其上者也。君不出令，則失其所以為君。臣不行君之令而致之民，則失其所以為臣。民 不出粟米麻絲，作器皿，通貨財，以事其上，則誅。今其法曰:「必棄而君臣，去而父子，禁 而相生養之道。」以求其所謂清淨寂滅者。嗚呼!其亦幸而出於三代之後，不見黜於禹、湯、 文、武、周公、孔子也。其亦不幸而不出於三代之前，不見正於禹、湯、文、武、周公、孔子 也。
帝之與王，其號名殊，其所以為聖一也。夏葛而冬裘，渴飲而飢食，其事殊，其所以 為智一也。今其言曰:「曷不為太古之無事?」是亦責冬之裘者曰:「曷不為葛之之易也?」 責飢之食者曰:「曷不為飲之之易也。」傳曰:「古之欲明明德於天下者，先治其國。欲治其 國者，先齊其家。欲齊其家者，先修其身。欲修其身者，先正其心。欲正其心者，先誠其意。 」然則古之所謂正心而誠意者，將以有為也。今也欲治其心，而外天下國家，滅其天常;子焉 而不父其父，臣焉而不君其君，民焉而不事其事。孔子之作春秋也，諸侯用夷禮，則夷之，進 於中國，則中國之。經曰:「夷狄之有君，不如諸夏之亡!」詩曰:「戎狄是膺，荊舒是懲。 」今之舉夷狄之法，而加之先王之教之上，幾何其不胥而為夷也!
夫所謂先王之教者，何也?博愛之謂仁，行而宜之之謂義，由是而之焉之謂道，足乎 己無待於外之謂德。其文，詩書易春秋;其法，禮樂刑政;其民，士農工賈;其位，君臣父子 師友賓主昆弟夫婦;其服，麻絲;其居，宮室;其食，粟米果蔬魚肉:其為道易明，而其為教 易行也。是故以之為己，則順而祥;以之為人，則愛而公;以之為心，則和而平;以之為天下 國家，無所處而不當。是故生則得其情，死則盡其常;郊焉而天神假，廟焉而人鬼饗。曰:「 斯道也，何道也?」曰:「斯吾所謂道也，非向所謂老與佛之道也。」堯以是傳之舜，舜以是 傳之禹，禹以是傳之湯，湯以是傳之文武周公，文武周公傳之孔子，孔子傳之孟軻。軻之死， 不得其傳焉。荀與揚也，擇焉而不精，語焉而不詳。由周公而上，上而為君，故其事行;由周 公而下，下而為臣，故其說長。
然則如之何而可也?曰:「不塞不流，不止不行。人其人，火其書，廬其居，明先王 之道以道之，鰥寡孤獨廢疾者，有養也，其亦庶乎其可也。」Han Yu 韓愈 (768 - 824) was a mid-Tang man of letters and a forefather of the Neo-Confucianism of the Song Dynasty (960 - 1279). A believer in a strong central government and the supremacy of Chinese tradition, he saw moral rectitude embodied through a direct and unadorned literary style and led the Ancient Prose Movement with his friend Liu Zongyuan (773 - 819). He passed the Imperial Examination in 792 (his fourth try), was promoted to a post in the central government in 802, but exiled in 819 for remonstrating the emperor for his acceptance of Buddhism (he was reinstated shortly before he died). In addition to “The Original Way,” among his most famous prose pieces are “Treatise on the Buddha’s Finger Bone” and his “Address to the Crocodiles”; he is also known for writing a thoroughly unpoetic poetry.
Lucas Klein is a father, writer, and translator, as well as assistant professor in the School of Chinese at the University of Hong Kong. His translation Notes on the Mosquito: Selected Poems of Xi Chuan (New Directions) won the 2013 Lucien Stryk Prize, and his scholarship and criticism has appeared in Comparative Literature Studies, LARB, Jacket, CLEAR, PMLA, and other venues. Other publications include October Dedications, his translations of the poetry of Mang Ke (Zephyr and Chinese University Press, 2018), and contributions to Li Shangyin (New York Review Books, 2018), as well as the monograph The Organization of Distance: Poetry, Translation, Chineseness (Brill, 2018). His translations of the poetry of Duo Duo, forthcoming from Yale University Press, recently won a PEN/Heim Translation Fund grant.