On The Deification Of Confucius (one of the 10 Primordial Masters)

[Guest guest]

ON THE DEIFICATION OF CONFUCIUS

 

First published in Asian Philosophy 1:3 (1993), pp. 43-54; linked

with permission of editor

Revised as Chapter Nine of Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and

Western Perspectives

 

" It is fair to say that Confucius never ceased to be the object of

the cult he had wanted: . . . [celebrating] the wisdom that causes

men to turn away from mystical practices and theories, from magic and

prayer, from doctrines of personal power and salvation. "

Marcel Granet1

 

" It is most interesting that [the] educated elite resisted all efforts

to deify their Master and that in a land where it was commonplace to

turn men into gods, Confucius remained a human figure. Perhaps he

could most aptly be called the spiritual ancestor of the literati. "

Laurence G. Thompson2   

 

" [Confucius] was surely no deity figure, but a humanist and a

scholar. . . It is interesting that later generations nearly made him

a god, but actually made him a king. . . to highlight his wisdom

[and] his moral claims to rulership. "

Julia Ching3

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Except for a miraculous birth story, Confucius was not elevated in

the same way that Jesus, Krishna, or Gautama have. The deification

of Jesus and Gautama happened fairly soon after their deaths, but the

glorification of Confucius by Chinese culture did not happen for 500

years. An analysis of the ways in which Confucius was regarded by

Chinese culture reveals instructive differences between him and the

other saviors. Mahoyona Buddhist and orthodox Christian philosophers

rejected many popular notions about their respective saviors, but

most accepted them as gods. For the purposes of our thesis, it is

significant that most Confucian philosophers never viewed Confucius

as a deity. Furthermore, popular notions of Confucius as a perfect

sage differ very much from the modes of deification we have seen so

far. In summary terms, Confucius was not divinized as a savior;

rather, he was canonized as the saint of the literati.

 

In this chapter we will investigate the development of ideas about

the nature of Confucius' person. First, we will review the relevant

historical facts about how he was regarded in Chinese culture and

politics. Second, we will analyze two crucial texts which some claim

support the divinity of the sage. Here we will take issue with

recent attempts by Roger Ames, David Hall, and Edward Machle to deify

Confucius and the Confucian sage in general. Finally, we will propose

Confucianism as one of the most constructive Eastern answers to

spiritual Titanism. 

 

 

THE HISTORY OF CONFUCIUS' ELEVATION

 

The first phase of the cult of Confucius was the regular sacrifice

made by his own family at Chufu in Shandong province. In 59 C.E.

emperor Mingdi initiated the second phase by making the ritual

obligatory for all Confucian scholars. In 72 C.E. Mingdi traveled to

Chufu and offered sacrifices at the temple there.4 The aim of these

sacrifices, following the dictates of the Liji, was to honor the

deeds of a great man, not to propitiate a god. James Legge explains

the nature of Chinese sacrifices: " There is not, and never was, any

idea of propitiation or expiation in them. They are the tributes of

duty and gratitude, accompanied with petitions and thanksgivings. " 5

The movement to glorify Confucius reached its peak at the beginning

of the later Han dynasty, but, as Fung Yulan observes, " with the rise

of the Old Text School . . . this literature gradually fell into

disfavor and the position of Confucius reverted from that of a semi-

divine being back once more to that of a teacher. " 6 The literature

to which Fung refers includes an amazing tale about a sexual liaison

between Confucius' mother and the Black Emperor and her confinement

in a hollow mulberry tree. This material also portrays Confucius as

an uncrowned king, a savior of the world, and a sage who could

foretell the future.

 

It is a significant fact that the Tartars of the Wei dynasty (220265)

forbade barren women from praying to Confucius to alleviate their

condition.7 During the Tang dynasty, however, the pendulum swung

back in the direction of glorification. In 630, on the recommendation

of Fang Xuanling, prime minister of Emperor Taizong, all districts

had temples erected to Confucius. His title was " The Late Sage " and

Yen Hui, his favorite disciple, was called " The Late Teacher. "  

 

The Tang era saw the third phase of the development of the cult of

Confucius: its incorporation into the state religion. During this

period Confucius joined Laozi in the Daoist pantheon, which was

headed by the Tang emperor himself. The emperor also ruled over many

other subordinate deities, including the kitchen god of every Chinese

household. (One might imagine that this religious system kept the

masses in line far better than any actual spy network.) Marcel

Granet explains this system: " It had been so from antiquity in the

case of the Heroes linked to the cult of a Holy Power. Under the

Empire, the gods themselves were promoted, demoted, or cashiered;

they were merely the officials of a state religion whose true deity

was the Emperor. His will alone endowed all other gods with being. " 8

Although the emperor called himself " Heaven's humble servant, " it is

clear that he made himself a Titan by taking over divine prerogatives

in this hierarchical system. In the preface of his translation of Wu

Chengen's Monkey, Arthur Waley observes that, of all people, the

Chinese are most transparent in confirming the " theory that a people's

gods are the replica of its earthly rulers . . . . Heaven is simply

the whole bureaucratic system transferred to the empyrean. " 9 Confucius

appears only once in this delightful tale, which involves practically

every Buddhist, Daoist, and nature deity in Chinese religious istory,

and in this one appearance he is portrayed as a human teacher of

virtue.10

 

After the uncertain years of the Tang dynasty, Confucianism regained

its preeminent position during the Song dynasty. This was due

primarily to the brilliance of the neoConfucian philosophers of this

period, and none of these thinkers saw Confucius as anything other

than a great sage. For example, Anne D. Birdwhistell observes that

for Shao Yong " the sage does not possess any unique existence that

excludes him from the class of humans. He is not a deity or a

spirit. " 11 The state cult of Confucius, however, continued. Emperor

Taizu (960976) sacrificed to him on a regular basis. In 1008 records

indicate that emperor Chenzong (9971022), who claimed to have had

frequent heavenly visitations, set a precedent by kowtowing to

Confucius at the temple in Lu.12 In 1012 Chenzong bestowed on him

the title " Most Perfect Sage. "

 

It was not until the reigns of Renzong and Shenzong (10231086) that

neoConfucian influence was powerful enough to moderate the excesses

of the cult. In 1074 some officials proposed that Confucius be

called di (God), but the Confucians of the Hanlin Academy and the

Board of Rites rejected the proposal. The official reason given was

that di was not a title Zhou officials ever used for nobility, but

John Shryock suspects that " the real reason was [that] the idea of

divinity associated with the word. . . would have been obnoxious to

the neoConfucians. " 13 As an obvious but instructive contrast, just

think of the undisputed doctrine of Christ's divinity in the medieval

church.

 

The Mongol emperors ordered that the spirit tablets of Zhuxi and

other neoConfucian masters be placed alongside those of Yen Hui,

Zengzi, Zisi, and Mencius. (Other Confucian scholars were installed,

and sometimes removed, over the centuries, with two added as recent

as 1919.) In his detailed description of the Confucian temple at

Anjing, Shryock hesitates to translate the word shen as " god(s) " for

this very reason, viz., that the Chinese could not possibly have

considered all these men, including Confucius, as gods. 

 

Significantly, the word di is used to describe Guangong, the " god " of

war, and currently the most popular god in Hong Kong. Shryock

concludes that the " positions of Confucius and Guangong are different.

The former is usually considered as the perfect man, while the latter

is a god in full standing. " 14 Reflecting this distinction in recent

centuries, Confucian temples have been called wen miao, rendered most

appropriately as " civil temple, " not sacred temple. As Laurence

Thompson states: " The entire complex was thus a memorial hall rather

than a palace of gods. " 15

 

In 1530 further attempts to discourage the deification of Confucius

were made. It was decided that Confucius would no longer be called

" prince " and that the buildings erected in his honor would not be

called temples, but simply halls. (Under the Manchus, however, the

title " prince " was not only restored, but also applied to Confucius'

ancestors.) Furthermore, images of Confucius and his disciples,

installed under Buddhist influence during the reign of Xuanzong

(712756), were replaced by spirit tablets. Because of this switch,

the Jesuits, who arrived at the end of the 16th Century, had no

reason to call Confucianism an idolatrous religion. 

 

The coming of the Jesuits offers some significant insights about how

the Ming Chinese viewed Jesus visàvis Confucius. It is obvious that

the Chinese, however much they elevated Confucius, definitely did not

see his nature in terms of anything like the Christian Incarnation. 

Surveying passages of antiChristian polemics from studies of the

JesuitConfucian encounter, one is struck by the surprise and

incredulity caused by the claim that the Christian God became a man.16

A paraphrase of a recurring question found among these critics would

be: " Who is minding Heaven while God is walking around as this

carpenter's son turned religious fanatic and criminal? "  When Confucius

is mentioned in this material, he is not a god, but simply a sage who

knew what Heaven was. The Chinese sages had a clear sense of the

proper place and function of Heaven, Earth, and human beings. God's

place is in Heaven and the human task is to establish the virtues and

cultivate social harmony on earth. These antiChristian comments,

combined with the previous evidence, lead to the conclusion that the

elevation of Confucius cannot possibly be conceived as the presence

of God in a human being.

 

In 1700 Jesuit priests asked the emperor Kangxi whether the

veneration of Confucius was a religious act, and his answer was that

it was not.17 Kangxi explained the cult of Confucius in the following

terms:

 

The sage, by the doctrine of the five human relationships, the

virtues of Tao, and the cardinal principles of (the relationship

between) ruler and minister, father and son, had handed down such

eternal truths which inculcate in people the duties of honoring their

superiors and ancestors. This is why the sage should be worshipped. 

You Westerners also have saints, and honor them because of their

deeds.18

 

Confucius is " worshipped " not because of his divine nature, but

because of his actions and thoughts. Note, also, that Confucius is

not compared to Christ, but to the Christian saints.

 

With this perspective in mind, let us look at the standard emperor's

" prayer " to Confucius:

 

Great art thou, O thou of perfect wisdom. Full is thy virtue, thy

doctrine complete. Mortals have never known thine equal. All kings

honor thee. Thine ordinances and laws have come down to us in

glory. Thou art the model from the school of emperors. With profound

reverence the vessels of worship and sacrifice have been placed here.

Filled with awe we clash our cymbals and strike our bells.19

 

These words celebrate Confucius' unequalled moral virtue, but it no

way implies that he is a god. This constitutes the veneration of a

saintsage, not a deity.

 

Let us now look at the accompanying mandarin's benediction:

 

I sacrifice to the philosopher K'ung, the old teacher, the perfect

sage, and say: " O Teacher, like to Heaven and Earth in virtue, whose

doctrine embraces past, and present, thou didst gather and put forth

the Six Classics, and produced teachings for all generations. . . I

present in reverential obedience to the ancient ordinances sacrifices

chosen with care--animal offerings, silks, wines, and fruits. With

thee are united the philosopher Yen Hui, the continuer of thy work;

the philosopher Tseng-tzu, the interpreter of thy basic teachings;

the philosopher Tzussu, thine own mediator; and the philosopher Meng

[Mencius] next in dignity after thee.  Mayst thou be pleased with our

offerings!20

 

Confucius is called a perfect sage, and his virtue is compared to

Heaven, but he is not identified with Heaven. The fact that

sacrifices are also given for his favorite disciple, his grandson,

and two other Confucian philosophers indicates that humans are being

celebrated, not gods. 

 

During the Qing dynasty, Confucius was elevated to the second rank of

official deities, determined of course by the emperor himself. The

first rank in the pantheon was reserved for Heaven, Earth, and the

guardian spirits of land and harvests. In addition to the sun and

the moon, Confucius joined all preceding emperors and kings, the

patron saint of agriculture, and the planet Jupiter. The third rank

of divinities was crowded with the patron saint of medicine, the god

of war, a separate god of artillery, the North Star, the East Peak,

the city god of Beijing, the dragons of the Jade Fountain (near

Beijing) and Kunming lake, and a host of other luminaries.21 Again

it is clear that we are dealing with a very different concept of

deity than is found in the West.    

 

In 1907 Confucius was promoted to the first rank of divinity, making

him equal to Heaven and Earth. Here is part of the Empress Dowager's

decree:

 

In view of the supreme excellence of the great Sage Confucius, whose

virtues equal Heaven and Earth, and make him worthy of the adoration

of a myriad ages, it is the desire of Her Imperial Majesty, the

Empress Dowager, Tzuhsi, etc., that the great Sage shall in future be

accorded the same sacrificial ceremonies of worship as are accorded

to Heaven and Earth when sacrifice is paid by the Emperor.22

 

In a desperate attempt to thwart republican reformism, all mandarins

were commanded to worship in Confucius' temple twice a month, rather

than the previous monthly rite.

 

The rites at the Confucian temples were discontinued during the 1911

revolution, but in 1914 Yuan Shikai, warlord president of the new

Republic, declared that they should resume. Harboring imperial

ambitions, he performed the ceremony December 23, 1914, but he merely

bowed at the altar rather than kowtowing and only parts of a bullock

were sacrificed.23 Nevertheless, when asked if this meant that the

Republic was now supporting a state religion, Yuan's answer was very

much like emperor Kangxi's response to the Jesuits: the worship of

Confucius was not a religious rite. Some eminent Confucian scholars

Kang Yuwei, Chen Huanzhang, and Yan Fudid orchestrate an ill-fated

move to make Confucianism the state religion and Confucius its

spiritual head. At the Constitutional Convention of 1915 the Kang

group presented its bold proposal, but all it got, after much heated

debate, was wording praising the moral superiority of Confucianism.

Kang revived the New Text School of the early Han dynasty to support

the spiritual nature of Confucius (e.g., Kang retold the story of his

miraculous birth), and he reintroduced the idea of the Three Ages,

but now with a distinctively evolutionary and progressive meaning. 

Yet even Kang stops short of deification:

 

But there was one in whom was concentrated the excellence of all the

other philosophers, and whose surpassing godlike sageness was such

that all men rallied around him, so that he bound them into one great

unity, this way becoming the model for a myriad ages.24

 

In the next section we will argue that there is a subtle, but

important difference between a person having godlike qualities and

actually being divine. 

 

In arguing that China should have a state religion like Japan's

Shintoism or Italy's Roman Catholicism, Kang made a telling

distinction between his Confucian ren daojiao and a Christian shen

daojiao. The former would be humanistic and civil, and the latter

was theocentric and sacred. Kang argued that Confucianism is superior

because it eliminates divine authority, for a ren daojiao society

would be ruled by a human king not a divine one.25 What we see in

Yuan's rejection of a Confucian religion and Kang's quasiscientific

humanism is essentially a fulfillment of the Confucian view of, as

Herbert Fingarette so aptly phrased it in a book title, the " secular

as sacred. "  On such a view, where the idea of a transcendent deity is

not functional, the word " deification " has no meaning at all.

 

 

IS THE SAGE GOD?

 

In their excellent book, Thinking Through Confucius, Roger Ames and

David Hall reformulate Confucius' genius in a brilliant way,

especially with regard to the issue of aesthetic ordering. But it is

both disappointing and puzzling to read that Ames and Hall want to

deify Confucius, something most Confucian philosophers, as we have

seen, always resisted. Their argument is not taken from Confucius

himself, where obviously no argument can be found, but from Mencius

and the Doctrine of the Mean.26 From the Mencius 7b25, Ames

translates the following: " Being sage, to be unfathomable, is

called 'divinity' (shen). Ames has probably mistranslated this

passage, for it is clear that the character shen is predicative not

substantive. If shen is predicative, then a standard ChineseEnglish

dictionary dictates that the sage is " wonderful, marvelous,

miraculous, " not divine.27 In his annotated Mencius Yang Buojun

lists five instances of the character shenthree substantive and two

predicative, and 7b25 is definitely one of the latter.28  

 

Tu Weiming quotes this passage from the Lau translation ( " to be a

sage. . . is called 'divine' " ), but qualifies it by observing

that " the idea of spiritual in this connection by no means signifies

a 'spiritual being' (shen ren) which rises above the sage. " 29 Even if

Mencius actually meant to divinize the sage, this is clearly not the

original position of Confucius. It is consistent with his position

to call the sage " goodness itself, " but neither the Analects nor the

other early literature support the deification of the sage.

 

Ames and Hall's use the of the Doctrine of the Mean is also

problematic. They quote the famous passage: " So earnest and sincere

is humanity! How deep and unfathomablehe is abyss! How vast and

greathe is Heaven (tian). Who can know him except he who really has

quickness of apprehension, intelligence, sageliness, and wisdom, and

understands [the] character of Heaven? " 30 Ames and Hall's

interpretation goes wrong for at least two reasons: (1) they ignore

the obviously figurative nature of this passage; and (2) they do not

read the passage in its own context or the context of traditional and

contemporary commentary. On the first point, Ames and Hall overlook

the nature of the text's language. Just as we are not to believe

that the sage is actually an abysshe is only " deep and unfathomable "

as an abysswe are not to think that the sage is literally Heaven. 

Charles Muller's translation does not even hint at the sage's

divinity: So sincere is his ren, so unfathomable is his depth, so

vast is his spaciousness.31

 

On the second point, Chapter 31 describes the sage in human, not

divine terms:  " Only the perfect sage. . . has quickness of

apprehension, intelligence, insight, and wisdom, which enable him to

rule all men. . . . All embracing and extensive as Heaven and deep

and unceasingly springing as an abyss! He appears and all people

respect him, speaks and all people believe him, acts and all people

are pleased with him. . . . Therefore we say that he is a counterpart

of Heaven. "  The attributes of the entire passage are elevated and

exaggerated, but they are not to be taken as divine. Furthermore, we

see the source of the similes with Heaven and the abyss. Finally, we

see that the sage is the counterpart of Heaven, not identical to

Heaven. This passage reinforces the Chinese view of the Cosmic Triad,

in which each member maintains its own place, role, and integrity.

 

Tu Weiming, even though cited favorably by Ames and Hall, offers a

less monistic, less pantheistic view of the cosmic triad of Heaven,

Earth, and human beings. For Tu human beings constitute a trinity

with Heaven and Earth, in which they " form a coincidence with

Heaven, " but they maintain a " conceptual separation " within " an

unbreakable organismic continuum. " 32 This has to be the correct view

of the Cosmic Triad. " Coincidence " and " conceptual separation "

clearly do not indicate identity of any kind. Ames and Hall even

quote Tu's warning that the Doctrine of the Mean " does not mean to

suggest that Confucius is, in a sense, being 'deified.' " 33 

Nevertheless, Ames and Hall, going against the texts and the

tradition, claim that " the fact is, however, that Confucius is

deified, or rather deifies himself. " 34 Ironically, Ames and Hall

fight gallantly against the Christian idea of transcendence all

throughout their book; but then, by raising the issue of deification,

which makes sense only within a view of divine transcendence (or

human transcendence in the case of Yoga Titanism), they undercut

their otherwise innovative reinterpretation of Confucius. Ames and

Hall's deification of Confucius is especially baffling because they

argue persuasively that tian should be defined in a completely

naturalistic way. Tian is " the cosmological whole " ; or it is " a

general designation for the phenomenal world as it emerges of its own

accord. " 35 On this view a person aspires to become tian by extending

the self into nature, not identifying the self with a god. Within

the context of Ames and Hall's own rendering of tian, the verb " deify "

is totally inappropriate. If tian is not a deity, then there can be

no discussion about deification.

 

Ames and Hall's insightful analysis of de leads us to the same

conclusion. For them " accumulating de " allows us to integrate

ourselves with our environment so that we act effortlessly and

harmoniously with nature and society. Ames and Hall quote the Yi

Jing on this point:  " The greatest person is one whose de is

coincident with the heavens and earth, whose brilliance is coincident

with the sun and moon, whose ordering is coincident with the four

seasons. . . . " 36  Again there is modelling, complementarity, and

interpenetration, but there is not identity or deification. In the

Analects Confucius says: " It is Heaven that is great and it was Yao

who modeled himself upon it. " 37

 

If not interpreted too monistically or mystically, Ames and Hall

correctly define the Confucian religion as one which attempts to

achieve " a quality of integration in the world which dissolves the

distinction between part and whole, and makes of one a peculiar focus

of meaning and value in the field of existing things, " but then they

reiterate their claim that tian ren means " the human being becomes

'deity.' " 38 At least they qualify " deity " with quotation marks, but

their choice of words is still wrong. Except for mystical traditions

East and West, a central message of the world religions has been to

respect the qualitative difference between Creator and creature,

between  ground of Being and beings themselves. The Confucian

tradition maintains this distinction in a more acceptable way, using

what I call a doctrine of " relative " transcendence, while the

JudeoChristian tradition makes the distinction problematic with

their view of " radical " transcendence.

 

Even so, we can learn a lesson from the prophet Isaiah. When he

describes the Messiah as " mighty God " ('el gibbor),39 he is not

deifying him; rather, he is only saying that the Messiah will act

with the power of God. The Hebrew word 'el (God) is sometimes used

to make superlatives, such as harere'el " towering mountains " not

divine mountainsand 'arze'elthe " towering cedars " of Lebanon. Just

as the Confucian sage is great like Heaven, so too will the Messiah

be mighty like God. Ames and Hall are making the same mistake as

Christian commentators do, when they claim that the Hebrew prophets

spoke of a divine Messiah. Most Confucian philosophers have resisted

the deification of Confucius with the same fervor that the Jews have

rejected the divinity of Jesus, and we should do the same.

 

Edward Machle's innovative rereading of Xunzi (discussed in the next

chapter) is also marred by his view that the sage is a supernatural

being: " The sages may thus justly be considered godsand greater gods

than most, since a sage is 'equal to Tian and Earth.' " 40 Machle

claims that " such an apotheosis of human into godhead is, of course,

no great problem for Chinese culture, " 41 but in the previous section

we have seen that there was a general waxing and waning of the

elevation of Confucius and the other sages. Most important, however,

is that the philosophers themselves, except for Kang Youwei, Chen

Huan Chang, and Yen Fu early in this century, resisted the deification

of Confucius. Not one of the medieval Confucian scholars, as we shall

see in the next chapter, supported such a notion. Buddhist and

Christian philosophers appeared to have no problem with the

deification of their respective figures, but Confucian philosophers

obviously did. On this issue especially it is important to keep

Chinese popular culture and religion separate from Confucian

philosophy.

 

Machle shows that previous commentators have underplayed the use of

the words shen and shenming in the text of the Xunzi. As a result

they end up overemphasizing Xunzi's naturalism. The shen or divinity

of Tian is shown only indirectly in the cycles of the heavens and the

seasons. As the Xunzi states: " It is to be called shen because

though we do not see its workings, we see its effectiveness. " 42 As

we shall see, this is how Machle is able to distinguish between Tian

and nature: Tian is the invisible spiritual force behind nature. As

there is no plural in Chinese, shen can be seen as both the singular

divinity Tian and the plurality of its spiritual effects.  " Not

seeing the actual workings, we see the effects, and for this reason

[the agents] are properly called spirits (shen). " 43 But surely we

are not to call these spiritual effects either God or gods. If we

are to use the word " God, " we should reserve it exclusively for Tian,

which according to Machle is at the " top of the cosmic hierarchy, as

perfect yang and as preeminent shen. " 44

 

As in the Hebrew uses of ruah (spirit) and nephesh (lit. " breath " ),

the Chinese soul can also be called shen, this time " human spirit "

not a divine being. (Machle correctly relates this usage to the

Greek psych>.) Therefore, Xunzi has no problem celebrating departed

shen, but he does reject superstitions about ghosts (gui). It is

clear that in stating that the natural effects of Tian, including the

actions of the sage, are shen, Xunzi is in no way saying that they

are divine beings. This conclusion is consistent with Machle's

insistence, in a dispute with Robert Eno,45 that Tian and the sage

kings must be seen as distinct beings. This criticism also applies

to Ames' and Hall's monistic tendencies to identify or merge Tian and

the sage. 

 

The parallel to the Hebrews and the Greeks is instructive: neither

human nephesh nor psyche can be called a divine being. A Christian

parallel is also appropriate: Confucians are born with the shen of

Tian in the same way that Christians are created in the image of

God. Tian gives humans mind (xin), sensibilities, and feelings, and

the Christian God bestows reason, conscience, and righteousness, but

the resultant beings are not gods, even if they are saints or sages. 

(The Christians are closer to Mencius on the presence of conscience

in the human soul.) Sages then become " host of a divine

manifestation (shenming) " 46 so they can do Tian's work on earth. 

(Consistent with Confucian humanism, they do this by learning, not by

original divine endowment or by grace.) But in neither Christianity

nor Confucianism does the knowledge of God Tian result in becoming

God, especially since, in both traditions, complete knowledge of God

is impossible. 

A grammatical analysis of the Xunzi also supports my position, and

Machle himself supplies the data. In Xunzi's usage of shen, it " is

often more adjectival in force (eight times) or part of an adjectival

or adverbial phrase (eight times); twice, as a noun, it refers to

one's vital functionings.  The rest of the time it clearly indicates

'supernatural' beings or forces. . . . " 47 We have already discussed

Mencius' use of shen as a predicate adjective, so we must use the

meanings  " wonderful, marvelous, miraculous " not " divine " for the

adjectival uses that Machle finds in the Xunzi. If Tian's natural

effects are shen, then that means that its effects and the sage's

actions are " spiritual, " just as " Tian in us " or the " image of God "

might be called our " spiritual " natures. Therefore, the claim that

the sage is " the equal of Tian and Earth " is not to say that she is

same as Heaven; rather, it means that each of the members of the

cosmic triad are equally valuable, although Heaven and Earth can

claim supremacy in the fact that they both produce human beings.  On

the other hand, Heaven and Earth cannot be truly fulfilled without

the sage.  " Tian and Earth produce the junzi. . . (who) is the

'general manager' (ling) of the myriad things. " 48 Even Xunzi's

" perfect man " (zhi ren) does not " compete with Tian " by encroaching

on " Tian's province. " 49

Although we can understand his reasons for using the first two terms,

we must reject as misleading Machle's characterization of the sage

as " unnatural, artificial, and indeed, supernatural. " 50 Machle's

defense of Xunzi against Mencius and his later Confucian supporters

is a compelling one. Mencius believed that the sage was a natural

development from innate potentials in human nature. Xunzi rejected

this potential goodness, and his critics were justified in asking

about how the sage could ever come about. Machle, after presenting

the deficiencies of the Mencian position,51 believes that the answer

to this question is implied but obvious: the Confucian sages learned

virtue from the great sagekings. This, then, is the reason for the

two misleading terms " unnatural " and " artificial " to describe the

sage's education. Machle believes that the sage is " supernatural " in

part because " Xun[zi]'s idea of the sage's 'transforming like a god'

goes far beyond mere modelemulation. " 52 Machle does not give

references for either " transforming like a god " or " as if he were a

god, " 53 so I was unable to check the context, but the simile

obviously weakens the attribution of divinity in the same way that it

does in the passage from the Doctrine of the Mean discussed above. 

Furthermore, when Machle refers to " nothing is more divine than to be

transformed according to the Dao, " 54 the adjective shen would be

better translated as " wonderful, marvelous, or miraculous. "   Finally,

with such weak evidence for the divinity of the sage, we must stand

by the " modelemulation " as the essential foundation of Chinese virtue

ethics.

 

THE SAGE AS GREAT PERSON

The Confucian sages Yao and Shun were not gods, they were great

humans, who ordered themselves according to the seasons, shone like

the heavens, and attuned themselves with the cosmic harmonies.  They

were mighty like Heaven, not Heaven themselves. In the Doctrine of

Mean we read that " the highest integrity is 'godlike'. . . Integrity

is not simply completing oneself, it is the means of completing

things and events. " 55  Again great persons are not gods, but simply

leaders who have wisdom, the perspicacity to get things done, and to

expand their influence in the world.  This is the meaning of Mencius'

profound remark that " everything is complete here in me.  Can there

be any greater joy than in plumbing oneself and finding oneself

true. " 56  What Mencius means is that all of us in our original

natures have the potential of " completing things and events " ; we all

have the potential of becoming sages, but not gods. Confucius

is " cosmic " only in the sense of the extent of his influence, not

because of any special divine nature. The lives of the sages are,

like nature, expansive and productive, and this is a key to

understanding a crucial text in the Analects: " It is the person who

extends the Dao, not Dao that extends the person. " 57 As we have seen,

this passage sums up beautifully the nature of Confucian humanism.

Without ever approaching anything like the Christian idea of

transcendence, Confucian philosophers nevertheless recognize a

qualitative difference between humans and the divine. Therefore,

Confucian thinkers do not humanize God nor do they divinize human

beings. Even the ancient sage kings, although great, were not

considered gods. Confucius, himself humble about his own achievements,

clearly recognized the necessity of balance, accepting limitations,

and concentrating an earthly moral life. Even though they are

mediators between heaven and earth, the Confucian sages are still

rooted firmly in the earth, their physical selves, and the body of

society.

Confucius offers the best answer to Titanism for the following

reasons: (1) He rejects the distinction between theory and practice

as well as the bifurcation of heart and mind; (2) he believes that

the purpose of knowledge is not for power or control, but for

edification and pure joy; (3) he has no concept of rational autonomy,

a dominant idea in Western humanism, but operates with a relational,

social self; and (4) he proposes an aesthetic, rather than rational,

ordering of human lives. Like an artist, the Confucian sage seeks

harmony among human selves and attunement with natural things. This

contrasts significantly with mere agreement, or what is worse,

bureaucratic enforcement of rules and shortsighted exploitation of

the environment. Like an expert performer, the Confucian participates

in the holy rites of li and is thereby humanized, not divinized, by

them.

On The Deification Of Confucius

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/confdeity.htm

ENDNOTES

1. Marcel Granet, The Religion of the Chinese People (Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, 1975),  p. 118.

2..  Laurence G. Thompson, Chinese Religion: An Introduction

(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 3rd ed., 1979), p. 78.

3..  Julia Ching, " Who Were the Ancient Sages? " in Julia Ching and R.

W. L. Guisso, eds., Sages and Filial Sons (Hong Kong: The Chinese

University of Hong Kong Press, 1991), p. 17.

4..  See D. Howard Smith, Confucius (New York: Scribner's Sons,

1973), p. 124. 

5..  Quoted in ibid., p. 176. 

6..  Fung Yulan, A History of Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1953), vol. 2, p. 168. 

7..  E. H. Parker, Studies in Chinese Religion (London: Chapman and

Hall, 1910), p. 221. 

8..  Granet, op. cit., pp. 11011.   

9.. Wu Chengen's Monkey, trans. Arthur Waley (New York: The John Day

Co., 1943), pp. 78. 

10.. See ibid., p. 284. 

11..  Anne D. Birdwhistell, Transition to NeoConfucianism (Palo Alto,

CA: Stanford University Press, 1989), p. 168.  In her excellent study

of sagehood, Julia Ching states: " The word 'sage' clearly refers to a

great and superior being: not necessarily a god, but a human being

whose understanding and virtue may be described as godlike. "   Ching

adds that there were deity symbols in the sageking tradition, but

these were demythologized by Confucian philosophers.  See Ching, op.

cit., p. 17. 

12..  See Raymond Dawson, Imperial China (London: Hutchinson & Co.,

1972), p. 141.

13..   John K. Shryock, The Origin and Development of the State Cult

of Confucius (New York: The Century Co., 1932), p. 155.

14..  Shryock, The Temples of Anking and their Cults (New York: AMS

Press, 1973), p. 55.

15..  See Thompson, op. cit., p. 78.

16..  See John D. Young, Confucianism and Christianity: The First

Encounter (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1983); and Jacques

Gernet, China and the Christian Impact: A Conflict of Cultures,

trans. Janet Lloyd (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

17..  See Shyrock, The Temples of Anking. . . ,  p. 57.

18..  Translated by John Young, op. cit., p. 121.

19.. Quoted in K. L. Reichelt, Religion in Chinese Garment, trans.

Joseph Tetlie (London: Lutterworth Press, 1951), p. 55.

20..  Ibid., p. 56.  Another version of this benediction contains the

phrase " the efficacy of the Master matches that of Heaven and Earth, "

but this is the only allusion that might imply that Confucius has

divine powers.

21..  E. T. Williams, " The State Religion of China During the Manchu

Dynasty, " Journal of the North China Branch, Royal Asiatic Society 44

(1913), p. 151; quoted in ibid., p. 75.

22..  Quoted in Friedrich Starr, Confucianism: Ethics, Philosophy,

Religion (New York: Covici Friede, 1930), p. 232.

23.. Quoted in ibid., pp. 233-34.

24..  Kang Yuwei, Confucius as a Reformer 2.12, quoted in Fung Yulan,

op. cit., vol. 2, p. 678.

25..  Ch'u Chai and Winberg Chai, eds., Confucianism (Worbury,  NY:

Baron's Educational Series, 1973), p. 162.

26..  David L. Hall and Roger T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius

(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1987), pp. 24-23.

27..  A Chinese-English Dictionary (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1980),

p. 608.  I am grateful to Chen Lai of Beijing University and Tang Yi

of Beijing's Institute of World Religions for making me aware of this

mistranslation.

28..  Yang Buojun, Mengze Yi Zhu (Mencius Annotated and Translated

into Modern Chinese) (Beijing: Zhong Hua Press, 1984), p. 417.  This

means that every translator of 7b25 that I consulted has missed this

predicative meaning of shen.  Lionel Giles:  " A sage who is beyond

our comprehension may be called a divine man " ;  James Ware: " What

remains unknown despite the fact that one is a sage is called

divine " ; WingTsit Chan: " When a sage is beyond our knowledge, he is

called a man of spirit " ; and D. C. Lau: " To be sage and to transcend

the understanding is called 'divine.' "

29..  Tu Weiming, Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative

Transformation (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1985), p. 152.  Tu calls on

the authority of Zhuxi on this point.  Tu also uses another

unidentified translation of this passage which is does not deify the

sage: AHe whose sageliness is beyond our comprehension is called

spiritual@ (p. 96).

30..  Doctrine of the Mean, chap. 32 (Chan trans.).

31..  Charles Muller, The Doctrine of the Mean at

www.acmuller.gol.com/contao/docofmean.htm.

32..  Tu WeiMing, Confucian Thought, p. 129.  In his commentary on

the Doctrine of the Mean, Tu makes it clear that " this godlike

creativity of Confucius must not conceived as the demonstration of

some superhuman quality inherent in his nature.  Far from being

superhuman, what Confucius was able to manifest can be characterized

as a 'refinement' of his humanity " (Centrality and Commonality: An

Essay on ChungYung [Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1985], p. 86).

33..  Tu, Confucian Thought, p. 135.

34..  Hall and Ames, op. cit., p. 243.

35..  Ibid.,  p. 207.

36..  Yi Jing 3.1

37..  Analects 8.19.

38..  Ibid., p. 243.

39..  Isaiah 9:6.

40..  Edward Machle, Nature and Heaven in " The Xunzi " (Albany, NY:

SUNY Press, 1993), p. 162.

41..  Ibid., p. 163.

42..  Xunzi, chap. xvii, quoted in ibid., p. 168. 

43..  Ibid., p. 92.  In a letter to me P. J. Ivanhoe contends that

Machle is overplaying divine agency in this passage.  Graciously

accepting my rendering of shen, he would  translate the last phrase

as " and for this reason we regard this as marvelous. "

44..  Ibid., p. 152.

45..  Ibid., p. 21.

46..  Xunzi, chap. xxi (Machle).

47..  Machle, p. 168.

48..  Xunzi, chap. ix, trans. in ibid., pp. 150-51.

49..  Xunzi, chap. xvii, trans. in ibid., p. 86.

50..  Machle, p. 155.

51..  Ibid., pp. 185-87.

52..  Ibid., p. 103.

53..  Ibid., p. 133.  In a personal communication Machle mentioned

several more phrases like this in chapters 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 22,

24, and 26.

54..  Xunzi, chap. i, trans. in ibid., p. 161.

55..  Doctrine of the Mean, chap. 24 (Ames).

56..  Mencius 7a4 (Ames).

57..  Analects 15.29.  This is Ames' translation as found in

his " Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' and Chinese 'Virtuality (De)' " in

Nietzsche and Asian Thought, ed. Graham Parkes (Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 139.