Mandate of Heaven, the Analects, et cetera

[tarigwaemir]

Lowell House, on the Feast of St. Constantius

I'm mostly treading old ground (i.e. I have nothing actually new to say that hasn't been said before) but I wanted to put down whatever vague connections that occurred to me before I forgot them.

According to Prof. Puett, the first sage king Yao became a ruler because of his innate virtue (悳). Before Yao, humans were savage; in a sense, he "invented" civilization. Yao chose his successor by looking for the next most virtuous man, which was Shun. And Shun chose his successor, Yu, in the same way. (In a footnote to the Chinese philosophy reader we're using for class, it says that Yu invented irrigation for agriculture.) Yu, however, passed his throne down to his son, thus beginnng the Xia dynasty. The change was justified--in the words of Prof. Puett--by saying that although Yu's son might not be the most virtuous man, he was virtuous enough to earn the Mandate of Heaven (天命), which would remain with the dynasty until the ruler became so depraved that he lost his legitimacy to rule.

We haven't really delved into the debate surrounding such a controversial concept yet, but the questions this concept sparks are immediately obvious. How do you know whether the king still holds the Mandate of Heaven? By physical omens, such as natural disasters? By popular unrest? The success of a rebellion? In a sense, it seems that you can only accurately interpret the will of Heaven retroactively, after the event has happened. (The nice-and-tidy aspect of the Juuni Kokki world is that it lacks this confusion: you know when the ruler has lost the favor of Tentei through concrete signs like shitsudou and youma attacks.) The other part that's always intrigued me about the Mandate of Heaven--although it hasn't really come up in class yet--is the inevitability of the dynastic cycle: eventually, an imperial family will decline and lose the Mandate. At least as far as I can tell, there's no utopian concept of an ideal dynasty that will continue forever, even as a theory. I remember reading that Chinese culture looks backwards and idealizes the past so that greatest rulers were the first, Yao and Shun; virtuous emperors may be compared to these sage-kings but no one really ever measures up to them. The flip side of the coin is that there is no real conception of a future that can exceed the glory or the virtue of the past, and the cyclical rise and fall of dynastic history is inescapable. (More on that later, when I am more educated.)

Confucius likes to talk about ren (仁), which the text translates as "Goodness". He also likes to talk about yi (義) or "righteousness" and shu (恕) or "sympathy". (Reading the Analects is a lot like listening to my mother, with all the emphasis on "self-cultivation", which I suspect bears witness to the extent which Neoconfucianism buried itself in Korean culture as the Yi Joseon state religion.) The virtuous man, according to Confucius, will affect the world around him and inspire ren in others, not by any specific action but by his very nature. Thus, the virtuous ruler can transform a whole society and bring peace and justice to the people he governs simply by being a man of virtue. After having read that, I finally understand why Luo Guanzhong thinks so much of Liu Bei. See, when I first read the abridged Three Kingdoms, I spent most of the book wondering why exactly Liu Bei was supposed to be wonderful when he essentially did nothing throughout most of the book. To my eyes, Cao Cao was much more interesting, even if he was characterized as being unscrupulous and villainous. Being the sort of person who usually likes the main character in a book, I found the whole situation very odd. When I asked my parents about it, they answered with complete puzzlement (as if wondering why the question would ever arise) that Liu Bei was a good man. So I accepted it and moved on.

But now it actually makes sense. Liu Bei is a good man--well, according to Luo Guanzhong, anyway--and that is why he does not need to do anything. He attracts talent and inspires his men all simply by being who he is, because people recognize his innate virtue. It's kind of interesting how Chan Mou reinterprets it because if you think about it, Liu Bei still does (mostly) nothing but he actually has a quirky personality to go with it. I'm thinking of that scene with those thirteen generals who are offended by the company of cavalry archers: Liu Bei allows himself to be struck and insulted without fighting back. Also a very Confucian action, come to think of it, but in any case, Chan Mou gives Liu Bei a sort of underdog charm that didn't really come through in Three Kingdoms. Liu Bei isn't just a paragon of morality by nonaction but someone who lives by his intuition.

What's also interesting is the justification of Cao Cao's ren: that long comparison of the empire to a crumbling shack and the old man asking is it really the act of a good man (仁者) to prolong the suffering by attempting to maintain the shack. (Excuse my paraphrase; I read that particular chapter in Korean.) In that light, Liu Bei, who at least nominally is trying to uphold the crumbling Han dynasty, is without ren in not recognizing that the Han has lost the Mandate of Heaven.

Oh, while I'm talking about Ravages of Time, sweetxsangria, I put up a more complete version of the character guide with most of the missing pinyin from before. Still only covering the first ten volumes though. (Please let me know if you find any mistakes!)

And yay, blind_go answers are up here! I unlocked my post from several days ago with all my guesses for blind_go, if you're curious. Edit: Apparently being able to eliminate four fanfics (three of which I inadvertently knew through my mod privileges) makes a huge difference in your guessing percentage. O_O;;

Yours &c.

Comments

[mercurysblood.livejournal.com]

Thank you! * steals file *

[troisroyaumes]

You're welcome! Please do let me know of any mistakes. ^_^

[thisresonance.livejournal.com]

Cool. ^_^ This'll help me later when I get the time do start up with my notes again (whenever that will be).

[troisroyaumes]

Ah, thank you! ::adds::

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this post. It's so different from the Japanese system, where the imperial family was considered to be divinely descended and thus unshakably in charge, vs. a system where from the beginning the justification for rule is not ancestry, but virtue/competence.

But yes, in Ravages of Time, I think the characters do have this cyclical idea. It reminds me of how Guo Jia and Jia Xu see themselves in... symbiosis with Xun Yu, because they see their role as pushing the cycle back to the bright side again. Also, did you get to Zhuge Liang's monologue about destiny and such? That also is an instance of a cyclical view.

Yeah, the passive diffusion idea of virtue is something that is difficult for my mind to accept. XD My further problem with this is that then Liu Bei must do things that are against virtue, so these are seen as being motivated by his less virtuous compatriots, but then that makes Liu Bei look.... well, not so good. Whereas Cao Cao makes his own decisions.

Yeah, that scene with Cao Cao wasn't in the book (I think?). That's one of the more disturbing/interesting themes in Ravages of Time, that many of the people support Cao Cao, because he will do what it takes to gain ultimate power and stablilize the country (and not only the people... this is why his generals and strategists support him, because he understands this). In contrast, Liu Bei is unwilling and ambiguous about taking power. (Right now in the comic he's rather at sea) His brothers are very certain about this, as is Zhao Yun/Huo, but this is why Zhuge Liang is like... on vacation, and Pang Tong is doing his own thing.

[troisroyaumes]

Yes, Prof. Puett exclaimed quite a bit about how unique the Chinese system was because it was legitimacy by merit, etc. In Korea, ancestry is much more important as well (Silla, for example, which ranked its nobles by how much royal blood they could claim in their ancestry and put two queens on the throne simply because no one else had the right pedigree). Although later, during the Yi dynasty, the Confucian argument was often used to go against primogeniture and pass the throne down to the most competent son, not just the eldest.

Apparently, the whole paradox of being virtuous and yet requiring not-so-good actions to be a good ruler becomes one of hot topics of debate later in Chinese philosophy. Although we haven't gotten there yet in class. ^_^ Liu Bei in Ravages of Time comes across as a Robin Hood-style adventurer, which makes him much more interesting, but doesn't really convince you that he's any more qualified to take power. That whole scene where Gongsun Zan's army exclaims, "We've seen generals die for their lord but this is the first time we see a lord risk his life for one of his generals," was inspiring but kind of made me think that he's not really cut out to be a ruler. ^_^;;

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that is interesting. Aside from watching several Korean dramas, I know nothing about the Korean inheritance system. I was watching part of Goong until I just got exhausted and skipped around, but I found the discussion of who got to be crown prince there interesting.

Oooh, I'd love to hear about those debates! That does sound haha, quite connected. Yeah, Liu Bei is a nice guy, but unless you have the mentality that virtue diffuses, it's hard to see why he deserves to be emperor, especially if it doesn't even seem like he wants to be emperor.