Mencius

In my last post, I stated my belief that Chinese culture has little in the way of a concept of global community, and backed this up by mention of the concept of 'guanxi'. The link I provide here gives a very general view of guanxi, but does not explain how it relates to things such as in-group and out-group, and the idea of 'face'. Whether guanxi is a positive or negative aspect of culture is, of course, a matter of perspective, but I believe it is true to say that many Westerners living and doing business in China find guanxi to be close to (if not identical to) nepotism and corruption. Moreover, since they, as foreigners, are not part of the guanxi in-group, they find that it is a cultural feature that militates against them, excluding them from real involvement in Chinese society. It is this idea upon which I based my original statement.

I am aware of certain currents in Chinese philosophy, however, that would seem, certainly if taken at face value, to promote an idea of global community in one form or another. Taoism is one such philosophy. It is possible to interpret it as a kind of pantheism, in which the Tao corresponds to 'god'. The Tao, therefore, is the unity behind the diversity of the 'ten thousand things' which make up creation.

Some time ago, when I was in Japan, I found myself, for some reason, hanging around with a number of Chinese girls, and one of them was a student of Chinese philosophy. She spoke to me about the Chinese concept of 'tian', which is often translated as 'Heaven', but which she said also included the idea of Nature. Before I left Japan, she presented me with a gift – two volumes of the work of the Confucian philosopher and sage, Mencius.

I have often thought of Confucianism and Taoism as opposing philosophies, with the former being secular and dogmatic, and the latter being transcendent and mystical, and, indeed, there are accounts of Lao Zu and Confucious meeting each other, and of the former being a bit too clever for the latter, and the latter going off in a bit of a fit of professional-philosophical jealousy (if I remember aright). However, things are never quite that simple, are they? The T'ai Chi symbol shows a spot of black in the white half of the circle and a spot of white in the black half of the circle. All things partake of the nature of their opposite.

Anyway, I lifted the book of Mencius from my shelf today, perhaps prompted by recent thoughts and wonderings, and read the opening paragraph of the text. I shall attempt a translation here:

Mencius came for the first time to the court of King Hui of Liang.

King Hui spoke: "Great teacher, thou hast not forborne to journey a thousand leagues to come here, dost thou purpose to bring profit to our land?"

Mencius gave reply: "Great king, wherefore speakest thou only of profit? In the governing of a kingdom there is need of naught but benevolence and justice. If the king shall say, 'Whereby might my kingdom profit?' then his lords shall say, 'Whereby might my household profit?' and the officials and common people shall also say, 'Whereby might I profit?', and as above, so below, each shall attempt to snatch that profit for himself, and the land shall come to ill. In a land of ten thousand chariots, the man who slays the king shall be he of the house of a thousand chariots. In the territory of a thousand chariots, the man who slays the lord shall be he of the house of one hundred chariots. A thousand in ten thousand, or a hundred in a thousand, to possess such cannot be said to possess little. And yet, if profit is put first and duty second, none shall be satisfied until he has taken all. He who knows benevolence has never abandoned his parents. He who knows duty has never despised his lord. Great king, speak therefore only of benevolence and justice. Why speakest thou of profit?"

I am made somewhat uneasy by the suggestions of hierarchy here (the rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate), and Taoism would say (or so I interpret) that the emphasis on duty only serves to propagate the opposite (for every action an equal and opposite reaction?); but that the above sentiments are far removed from the destructive consumption of today hardly needs pointing out.

By the way, please excuse my clumsy attempts at archaic language. I could not resist. You may find a less pretentious translation here.