Four Books

Q: What are the Four Books and Five Classics?

The Four Books 四書 were conceived by Song Dynasty scholar Zhu Xi 朱熹, who crafted a systematic curriculum by selecting these specific texts, writing and curating commentaries, and first publishing them as a collection in 1190. This curriculum, known as the Four Books with Collected Commentaries 四書章句集注, in time replaced the Five Classics 五經 as the central focus of education and established itself as the orthodox Confucian canon for six hundred years. Master Zhu gave this advice for how to read the texts…

I would ask that people first read the Great Learning 大學 in order to establish the [Confucian Way’s] framework. Next the Discourses 論語 to ground its fundamentals. Then the Mengzi 孟子 to observe its development. And finally the Doctrine of the Mean 中庸 to strive for the ancients’ subtly mysterious insights. – Zhu Xi, Yulei 14:1:3

The Discourses and the Mengzi require less effort but will yield more result, whereas the Five Classics, Book of Changes 易經, Book of Poetry 詩經, Book of History 書經, Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋, and Book of Rites 禮記, require more effort but will yield less result. – Zhu Xi, Yulei 19:1

For an introduction there is no better starting point than Wing-tsit Chan’s partial translation of the Four Books in one hundred pages: Source Book pg. 14 – 114. There is also Legge’s full translation with notes in over a thousand pages: The Four Books. Unfortunately, neither of these include Zhu Xi’s Collected Commentaries, which are necessary to properly interpret and inspire practice.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: What is the book of “Discourses”?

The Lunyu 論語 (“Discourses”) is the second of the Four Books. It is a collection of fragmented dialogues preserved from around 500 BC, centuries before the invention of paper, transmitted generationally and eventually compiled into an anthology by the descendants of the Ru School 儒家 (“Confucian School”). This book was most likely created by 200 BC by followers of Zengzi 曾子 and Youzi 有子, who were disciples of Kongzi 孔子 (“Confucius”). These three historical figures and many others appear in the Discourses. It is important for Western readers to set aside their misconceptions and recognize that this text is not a series of pithy “Confucius said” wisdoms. Instead, it consists of philosophical discourses and dialogues among early thinkers of the Confucian school, embodying their passed-down traditions (i.e. actual practices). Admittedly, this text reads rather disjointedly and is not a great piece of literature. However in the Song Dynasty it was elevated to one of the Confucian Classics, with commentators linking the passages together and extensively expounding upon them, as seen with this book, the Lunyu with Collected Commentaries 論語集注. The volume presented here is the first chapter which Zhu Xi said contains “the fundamentals of the [Confucian] Way.”

As for the English title, James Legge was the one who translated this text as “Confucian Analects” in the 1800s, although Confucian “Discourses” or “Dialogues” is a more literal translation, and more descriptive of the contexts of the book. For an essay which explores the history of this title see The Analects of Confucius: A Rectification of Names.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: Who is Zhu Xi?

Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130 – 1200) could be rightly called the “sage of education.” He was a diligent scholar whose life mission was to transmit the knowledge in the Classics to Chinese society. He crafted a systematic curriculum, wrote or selected from existing commentaries, and published them as a collection in 1190. His “Four Books” curriculum eventually replaced the “Five Classics” as the central focus of education and became the standard way Chinese have studied the Confucian Classics for over six hundred years. Having a standardized interpretation made it possible to test applicants for the prestigious civil service examinations. Master Zhu’s success ultimately surpassed even his own goals, with the spread of this philosophy to Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and Singapore following his passing. One of the many strange gaps in Western education is the complete lack of awareness of this entire period of history. Yet everyone among the 1.5 billion people in East Asia knows the name of Zhu Xi, as he is the Eastern equivalent of Aristotle.

His most important innovation, so far as books are concerned, is his gathering the Great Learning, the Analects, the Book of Mencius, and the Doctrine of the Mean as the “four masters” in 1190, an innovation seemingly insignificant but having long and extensive effects on Chinese education, civil service examinations, and thought. For decades he had been working on them [forty years]. The grouping is the culmination of this effort. Ever since 1190, discussions on Confucian thought have been centered on these works. From 1313 to 1912, they were the basic texts in civil service examinations and in school education. It is not an exaggeration to say that they provided the framework for Chinese thought for 600 years. In this set of books, Zhu Xi presented a systematic methodology in the study of Confucian principles. – Wing-tsit Chan, Chu Hsi: Life and Thought, p. 42-43

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: Who all wrote the commentaries on the Four Books?

The ancient Confucian texts were written in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (771 – 256 BC). Roughly a millennium and a half later there was a classical revival in the Song Dynasty (960 – 1279), and these commentaries were written then, by the “Five Masters” of the Northern Song dynasty: Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (b. 1017), Shao Yong 邵雍 (b. 1011), Zhang Zai 張載 (b. 1020), Cheng Hao 程顥 (b. 1032), and Cheng Yi 程颐 (b. 1033). Then in the Southern Song a great synthesis occurred (ji dacheng 集大成, “gathering into a great completion”) under Zhu Xi 朱熹 (b. 1130). Born quite later, he was positioned to view all that had transpired with perspective and synthesize it into a coherent philosophy. Thus, his Collected Commentaries 集注 include thoughts from himself, the Five Masters, and their disciples. These Middle Ages sages are having a sort of temporal discussion with the Ancient sages: Kongzi 孔子 (b. 551 BC), Mengzi 孟子 (b. 372 BC), and their various disciples such as Zengzi 曾子 (b. 505 BC) and Youzi 有子 (b. 518 BC). Chinese philosophy is not a monologue, nor did it end in 300 BC—it is a living and evolving thing, which occurs through the tradition of commentaries and respect for predecessors.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: Why not just study the original books without the commentaries?

Because that is not how it is done. In East Asia, the Classics have always been studied through the traditional commentaries. That is how you decipher what they mean. These “commentaries” are really works of art in themselves, do not merely clarify but evolve the concepts, and in many cases are better than the original text. Without the Wang Bi commentaries, you cannot know the Dao De Jing 道德经; without the Guo Xiang commentaries, you cannot know the Zhuangzi 莊子; without Zhu Xi’s collected commentaries, you cannot know the Four Books 四書. If you try to navigate without these, you will have odd interpretations that do not match reality, i.e., not how East Asian thinking and culture actually evolved. Your “knowledge” will be both false and irrelevant. Unfortunately this approach is extremely popular in the English-speaking world, where their own philosophy often emphasizes having opinions, showing creativity, and a general disregard for tradition and study. But are we here to merely retrace more modernistic Western thinking? Or are we here for a different way? Thus if you want to learn, do not make this mistake.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: Have they ever been translated?

Unfortunately, the Four Books with Collected Commentaries have never been fully translated into English. Instead, English scholars have used the commentaries to understand the books for themselves but have denied their readers that privilege, offering their own commentaries and explanations. Yet none of these modern commentaries have been so successful as the traditional ones and often leave readers confused or misguided. To avoid making the same error, I am providing only the original verses and traditional commentaries without translator comment or opinion. This respects the legendary influence of the traditional commentary, which seems unlikely to be improved upon by our modern Western additions and subtractions. As an emperor of the Qing Dynasty put it…

Even if the sages were to return, they could not surpass his achievements. Zhu Xi brought the teachings of the ancients to a pinnacle and revived the scholarship that had been lost for thousands of years. He established definitive principles for countless generations. This understanding is critical for all people. – Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: Did this Song Dynasty movement have a name?

The scholars of the Song Dynasty referred to their intellectual occupation as Daoxue 道學 (lit. “Way Studies”). This term was first used by the renowned Cheng brothers and Zhang Zai in the 11th century and later by Zhu Xi, who brought the movement to its height in the 12th century. In modern Chinese, it is referred to as Lixue 理學 (“Philosophy of Principle” or “Rationalistic School”). In Korean it is called Seongnihak 성리학 性理學 (“School of Nature’s Principle”), which is the most descriptive. In English, it is unfortunately termed Neo-Confucianism, which is the least descriptive, and which ignores that it was the great synthesis of Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist thought. During this lively intellectual era the Chinese studied themselves: embarking on introspection into their own philosophies, and revisiting the classic texts of the chaotic Warring States period. For the first time, from a distant temporal position that allowed perspective, those thoughts could be clarified and synthesized into a complete system encompassing Rujia 儒家 (“Confucianism”), Daojia 道家 (“Daoism”), and Fojia 佛家 (“Buddhism”).

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: How far did this movement spread?

The Daoxue movement, or Lixue as it is now called, might quantifiably be the most successful movement in the history of philosophy. It began in the 11th century with Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (b. 1017) and its curriculum was perfected by Zhu Xi 朱熹 (d. 1200). It then spread throughout China, gaining popularity, and in 1313 Zhu Xi’s commentaries were declared the orthodox interpretation of the Confucian Classics with government officials studying them to pass the prestigious civil service exams. This continued for 600 years, with Master Zhu’s curriculum being the standard of education in China until 1912 with the end of the Qing Dynasty. During this time, it spread to Korea, with the Joseon Dynasty also being a revolution of this “New Confucianism” over Buddhism, as well as to Japan and Vietnam. So we’re talking about a run of 900 years encompassing billions of people. Westerners not knowing anything about this is quite shocking and likely explains their issues with understanding East Asian culture and thought. We should ask ourselves: given that this mode of thought was so widely successful, what did it contain that we should know? Regardless, it is required for understanding the world, here, in what many are calling the “Century of Asia.” Keep in mind that if you try to understand modern East Asia by way of the ancient classics (typically Analects and Dao De Jing) you cannot possibly succeed. Better to start with this more recent movement, and understand the Classics through it. Then add in modern developments, and this thought-lineage will start to make sense.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: What is this writing style called?

Chinese philosophy is written in Classical Chinese, which is different from Modern Chinese or “Mandarin,” and so when you read ancient texts they are written in this guwen 古文 (literally “ancient writing,” or “Classical Chinese”). Its characteristic is formal yet sparse, extremely direct, open causation, with repeated geometric patterns of characters called “parallelism.” In the Middle Ages the famous writer Han Yu 韓愈 advocated for a return to this hard-hitting direct style, instead of the flowery style which had circulated since the Han Dynasty. This gave rise to guwen yundong 古文運動 (“Classical Prose Movement”). That is the style in which these commentaries are written. It is still Classical Chinese, but evolved, with new colors of expression and more specific grammar so that meaning is not as vague as in the ancient texts. So in reading the Four Books with Collected Commentaries, you are reading the ancient guwen 古文 passage, followed by guwen yundong 古文運動 commentary. This works well for clear understanding. Remember, you must not make the mistake of using a modern dictionary, instead get Kroll’s “A Student’s Dictionary for Classical and Medieval Chinese” (an add-on for the Pleco app).

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: I thought “the Dao” was a Daoist thing?

This idea really needs correcting. In the ancient period, in addition to the common meaning of “road,” the term dao 道 was used by all schools to refer to “the Way” of their teachings, and this continued in the Middle Ages. We might rightly call them “Wayists” (daozhe 道者) rather than the foreign term “philosophers,” as the term “philosophy” (zhexue 哲学) did not even exist until the late 19th century when China encountered the Western conception. Thus a strange gap in Western education is this sole association of the dao with the “Daoists,” and of course the Dao De Jing 道德经. In reality, Confucian use of “the Way” in texts absolutely dwarfs any other school. Looking at some statistics, even in the ancient period, dao appears 4,100 times in Confucian texts, while only 1,800 times in Daoist texts. In the Middle Ages text the Zuzi Yulei 朱子語類 (“Collected Conversations of Master Zhu”) dao appears nearly 9,000 times! One of the important parts of this Daoxue (“Way studies”) movement was its reclaiming of this character: after hundreds of years of Buddhism having popularity, and Daoism riding along with that, the famous writer Han Yu 韓愈 (b. 768) unsheathed a scathing attack on Laozi’s “The Way,” and the Way of Chan Buddhists, successfully urging a return to the historic mean — the Confucian Way. This has remained the case for the last millennium, with the Confucian Dao being the dominant of the three across East Asia. That said, significant parts of the Daoist and Buddhist Dao were incorporated into “Confucian” philosophy during this Song Dynasty synthesis.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: What is the “Confucian Dao”?

The Confucian Dao 道 is the principle that underlies human affairs, thus ‘the Way’ by which civilization should develop. In general, it is the road on which all of mankind travels; specifically it is to follow one’s nature as endowed by Heaven. Such are the self-directing “right principles of the Way” of man (daoyi 道義). The Confucian Way is concrete and humanistic, unlike the Daoist and Buddhist Dao, which is vacuous and empty—this is not meant as an attack, but merely a factual differentiation of the three. Another way to put this is that the Dao De Jing is literature, while the Confucian Dao is East Asian civilization (i.e. concrete behaviors, values, and laws). Or we could understand their relation by saying that the Confucian Dao is the application of the Daoist Dao (“the Way of Nature”) in human society (“the Way of Man”)—after all, nature and man form a unity in Chinese philosophy—one is the general; one is the specific. But since we are man, the latter is what is important for us. As Chen Chun 陳淳 said in his definition of Confucian terms, “The general principle of Dao is the principle people should follow in their daily affairs and human relations” (Ziyi 15:1). In Western philosophy, this underlying “principle” (li 理) that we should follow might be called “natural law.”

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: I thought Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism were separate things?

This is a problem of not having learned Middle Ages history. The Song Dynasty movement solved the problem of how to synthesize these three great traditions. Actually, the synthesis began around the fall of the Han Dynasty with the so-called “Neo-Daoists” (another unfortunate English term, as they were actually Confucians who explored Daoist texts and experimented with those ideas in counter-culture). He Yan 何晏 (b. 195 AD), Wang Bi 王弼 (b. 226), and Guo Xiang 郭象 (b. 252) made progress with that Han synthesis, but their movement was interrupted by the collapse of civilization and the rise of Buddhism. By the Song Dynasty, this synthesis resumed, now including Chan Buddhism as its target as well. In fact, many of those so-called “Neo-Confucian” thinkers started out as Buddhists or with an interest in Daoism. However, they were unable to make those work as a solution to the problems of society and instead moved on to studying the Confucian Classics. Still, they took with them knowledge from their Buddhist and Daoist studies. By the end of the Song Dynasty, Daoist cosmology and Buddhist concentration, plus various other themes, were synthesized into “Confucian” thought, creating a cohesive mode of thinking that used the functional parts of all schools. This synthesis was so successful across hundreds of years and numerous countries that it continues to be the dominant influencer on modern East Asian thought and tradition. Things are not as monotheistic as they are in the West, and people are generally not specifically identifiable as “a Daoist” or “Buddhist” or “Confucian.” Because of this history, and lack of monotheism, the three are quite blended together today.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

GENERAL QUESTIONS ON CHINESE PHILOSOPHY

Q: Why all the different spellings: Lao Tzu or Laozi; Confucius or Kongzi?

The difference in renderings is due to the old Wade-Giles system, invented by Westerners, and the newer Pinyin system, developed by the Chinese. Wade-Giles was created by Thomas Wade and Herbert Giles in the mid to late 1800s and was the first system to transcribe Chinese characters into the Latin alphabet. This system was widely used by scholars and translators throughout the 1900s. Pinyin was developed by a Chinese committee of linguists and officially adopted by the People's Republic of China in 1958. Here in the 21st century, English scholarship and most new translations have shifted to this standard. Pinyin is a phonetic system designed to standardize pronunciation and facilitate the input of Chinese characters on an English keyboard. It provides a more accurate representation of pronunciation and includes intuitive punctuation marks for tones. Examples include Dao not Tao, Laozi not Lao Tzu, Zhu Xi not Chu Hsi, and Kongzi not Kung Fu-tzu or Confucius (the latter being a term coined by Jesuit missionaries for Kong Fuzi). Wade-Giles has been largely replaced by Pinyin in contemporary scholarship, with some texts even being republished using the newer system. Honestly, it is just not cool to keep saying “Tao” and is probably better to just get with the new standard. This site exclusively uses the Pinyin standard.

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: Is Daoism a religion or a philosophy, and what about American Daoism?

We need to understand distinctions and use correct terms: there is philosophical Daoism (daojia 道家 “Daoist School,” the scholarly political doctrines) and there is religious Daoism (daojiao 道教 “Daoist Religion,” a broad term for the many folk religions). As scholar Wing-tsit Chan said, “In the Chinese tradition the two have been separate, but in the West they have often been confused under the name Daoism.”

As for Anglo-Daoism, as popularized by Alan Watts et al, this is a third distinct thing. This English language spin-off tends to be spiritual in nature and is not at all concerned with traditional interpretations of the texts nor with their historical political function in Chinese philosophy. And so it is better understood as a spin-off of Western philosophy, namely Western esotericism (e.g. New Age; mindfulness), which seeks to create a “secret knowledge” leveraging phrases like “the Dao that can be spoken is not the true Dao.” Anglo-Daoism also has a relation to neoliberalism by its “corporatization” of this spirituality into a flattened marketable product. The easiest way to prove its unique character is that if one goes to China or Korea and tries to talk with people about these ideas, nobody will have any clue what they are talking about—it matches neither philosophical nor religious Daoism in East Asia. Between the two, Anglo-Daoism is perhaps more similar to religious Daoism. The solution, of course, is just to be honest and admit it is a new Western spirituality—however since Anglo-Daoism relies on being the “one true thing; the ancient tradition of Asia” for its commercial marketability, it cannot. The same is true of Anglo-Buddhism or “Zen.”

This site adheres to the Chinese lineage of scholarly philosophical Daoism (daojia 道家), and the Chan Buddhist philosophy (chanzong 禪宗), which contributed to the evolution of the School of Nature’s Principle (lixue 理學).

⚬ ⚬ ⚬

Q: Is Chinese philosophy ‘real’ philosophy?

Not by your English definition. Chinese philosophy is a parallel thought-lineage that evolved independently of Western thought, with virtually no contact for thousands of years. In fact, a term for “philosophy,” zhexue 哲學 (literally “wisdom studies”), was not created until the late 19th century, following contact with the Western conception. Previously, it was simply called jiao 教 (“doctrines”), xue 學 (“learnings”), or dao 道 (“ways”). Therefore it does not follow the culturally specific modern English definition: “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline” nor the ancient Western definition of “the love of wisdom.” The fundamental difference was well articulated by Wing-tsit Chan…

The chief reason [for the American resistance to Chinese Philosophy] is the Western concept of philosophy, which insists that it must be a theoretical study of concept and laws of knowledge, reality, and value. Chinese philosophy fulfills this definition only to a limited extent. While there are theoretical discussions on the principle and nature of things, they are intended not for knowledge for its own sake, but to support a way of life the conclusions and convictions of which are arrived at not through idle speculation but through actual handling of human affairs. – Professor Wing-tsit Chan, “Reflections on Teaching Chinese Philosophy to American Students” (1959)

These are the most common gaps in knowledge and persistent misunderstandings that I encounter in discussions about the Four Books specifically, and about Chinese philosophy more generally. The quicker one discards false impressions without clinging to them obstinately, the quicker one may advance their learning.

– Sol 솔