Section 3: This section contains twenty-four letters. The first seven are relatively long letters to friends on specific topics, notably scholarship (3.1), the Changes (3.2, 3.3), and disciples (3.6). The remaining seventeen are addressed to particular individuals. Five of these are replies.
Recently, during my travels north and south, I was much indebted to my friends for holding someone in high regard who is only a day or so older than themselves and for asking the way from a blind man. I have sighed with regret because, over the past hundred years or more, those who are deemed scholars have frequently spoken of mind ]xin 心] and nature [xing 性] and yet have completely failed to gain an understanding [of these terms]. The decree of Heaven [ming 命] and ren 仁 [loving-kindness, benevolence, humanity] were things the Master seldom spoke of. Nature and the Way of Heaven were things Zigong never heard of. The li 理 [principle, pattern, coherence] of the decreed nature [xing ming 性命] was set out in his commentary on the Changes so he [Confucius] did not often tell people about them. In reply to those who enquired about [the meaning of] “scholar,” he said, “In your conduct, let there be a sense of shame” and, with regard to learning, “love what is ancient and diligently seek it.” In speaking with his disciples on the statement passed from Yao to Shun about “wavering, subtle, discriminating, and undivided,” he said nothing at all. He only said, “Strongly hold fast to the center. If, within the four seas, there is distress and want, the heavenly revenue will come to a perpetual end.” Indeed, how plain and simple is the Sage’s learning; how easy it is to follow!1
Thus, [the Master] said, “I study what is below and yet I aspire to an understanding of what is above.” Master Yan was almost a sage and yet he could still say, “He broadened my mind with learning.” In telling Duke Ai of the merit of making clear what is good, he gave first place to wide learning. From Zengzi onward, there was no one like Zixia in regard to sincerity and truthfulness. In speaking of ren 仁, he said, “[It is to be found in] broad learning and a sincere will, eagerness in questioning, and thinking of what is close at hand.” The noble men of the present day are not like this. They gather guests and disciples, seeking scholars—thousands of men who, “like plants and trees, have to be separately treated according to their kinds.” And yet they speak with all of them about mind and nature. They set aside “study much and commit it to memory” and “seek the method of one thread.”2 They dismiss talk of distress and want within the four seas, all the time expounding the theory of “wavering, subtle, discriminating, and undivided,” in the certainty that their way is higher than the Master’s and their disciples more worthy than Zigong.3 They overlook the “school of eastern Lu” [Confucians] and see themselves as directly continuing the transmission of mind of the two emperors [Yao and Shun]. I dare not approve of this.
Mencius, in his book, speaks of mind and nature but is also very cautious. Then, when it comes to what questions Wan Chang, Gongsun Chou, Chen Dai, Chen Zhen, Zhou Xiao, and Peng Geng asked and what Mencius’s answers were, they were always about going forth and staying at home, retiring from and taking up office, rejecting and accepting, and taking and giving. In considering Yi Yin as being a great sage and the outstanding virtue and great merit of Yao and Shun in ruling their people, the basis of these things was in “not looking at a thousand teams of horses” and “not taking a single straw.”4 Bo Yi and Yi Yin were not the same as Confucius, but they were alike in this: “Neither of them would have committed one unrighteous act or put to death one innocent person in order to obtain all under Heaven.”5 This is why nature, the decree of Heaven, and Heaven itself were things the Master seldom spoke about, and yet they are what noble men of the present day constantly speak about. The distinctions between going forth and staying at home, retiring from and taking up office, rejecting and accepting, and taking and giving are what Confucius and Mencius constantly spoke about, and yet they are what noble men of the present time seldom speak about. To speak of loyalty and purity as not reaching to ren 仁 and yet not to know that there can be talk of ren 仁 without loyalty and purity is a matter of ignorance. To speak of not hating and not coveting as being not sufficient to complete the Way [dao 道], and yet not to know that in a lifetime of hatred and covetousness it is possible to speak of the Way [dao 道], is a matter of ignorance. I dare not presume knowledge of this.6
What is it that I speak of as the Way [dao 道] of the Sage? I mean, “to widely study the writings”; I mean, “to have a sense of shame in one’s actions.”7 From the individual life right up to the empire and its kingdoms, everything is a matter of learning. From [the obligations incumbent on a] son, subject, younger brother, and friend right up to going out and entering, coming and going, rejecting and accepting, and taking and giving—all are matters in which there is a sense of shame. Shame, in relation to a man, is a very great matter. This is not “to be ashamed of bad clothing and bad food” but “to be ashamed of ordinary men and women not receiving their due blessings.”8 Therefore, it is said, “The ten thousand things are all complete in ourselves; when I look at myself, there is cheng 誠 [genuineness, integrity].”9 Ah, alas! To be a scholar and not first speak of shame is to be a man without a foundation. If one does not love the ancients and listen assiduously, then one’s learning is empty and without substance. To be a man without a foundation and expound learning that is empty and without substance, I see as becoming more remote from the matters of the Sage every day. Although this is something I hardly dare speak of, nevertheless, with my trivial thoughts, I look forward to your enlightening reply.