Abstract
Understanding Heaven and its governance or decree is essential to the Confucian ethos. Yet recent scholarship displays deep disagreements on how Heaven (tian 天) and its decree (ming 命) are to be understood. Contrary to some recent scholars, in this paper I argue that the conception of Heaven and its decree within the Analects and the Mencius is quite consistent and unified, and so is its ethical status. I argue that Heaven is the physical heavens, understood as a divine agency that brings into being and orders every particular thing that exists. I further argue that Heaven is a beneficent force that humans should strive to harmonize with, and that Heaven’s beneficent character is reflected in its decree, the content of its governing agency. In particular, the moral standard Heaven sets for human activity is part of a coherent order it establishes for the world and actively works to realize, in part through the actions of its chosen servants. Like the ancient sage kings, Confucius and Mencius regard themselves as partners with Heaven in carrying out its designs, conspiring with Heaven to fulfill its decree and put into effect its pattern of benevolent governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Analects 20:3. Where not marked otherwise, I quote from the Slingerland translation of Confucius’ Analects (2003). While I regard early Confucian moral ideals as equally appropriate for human beings regardless of gender, for the sake of verbal economy and to avoid anachronism I am content to use “gentleman” as a translation for ‘junzi 君子.’
Eno (1990: 106). I have changed Wade-Giles transliteration to Pinyin.
Michael Puett, for instance, sets aside Ning Chen’s plural meanings of ming with one sentence, simply affirming that “ming is used quite consistently in the Lunyu and Mencius to refer to the mandates or commands sent down by Heaven” (Puett 2004: 52).
Mencius 1B3. Here and where not otherwise marked, I quote from the D. C. Lau translation of the Mencius (2003).
That all mentions of the term in these texts can be read in a consistent manner does not strictly prove that their authors had a uniform and consistent conception in mind at all times. Certainly there is fluidity in the conception of Heaven over the centuries prior to Confucius, and debates over the nature of Heaven continue throughout the Warring States period. It is likely that Confucius’ and Mencius’ individual understandings of Heaven underwent some development over the course of their lives, and certainly Mencius presents many ideas about Heaven and its operation that go well beyond what is expressed in the Analects. However, it is clear that Confucius, Mencius, and their followers thought very seriously and carefully about Heaven, and their understanding of Heaven figures prominently in their teachings. Hence we should expect to find consistency in their thinking, and should only attribute inconsistency where there is strong evidence for it. In this context, the fact that all the various passages are consistent with a unified and even natural understanding of Heaven gives us very strong reason to take this as their actual view.
Of course, in some passages ‘ming 命’ is used to refer to the order or command of a human being such as a king. In these cases, too, though, the sense of the word is the same; ‘ming 命’ refers to a decree, charge, or order whether this order is coming from a human being or from Heaven.
Some interpreters might disagree, reading what appear to be capricious or amoral actions by Heaven as signs of inconsistency, or of more than one agency being referred to as Tian or ming. Chen (1997) takes ming to refer to multiple, quite distinct things in a manner like this. I address this concern infra.
Here I have modified the Lau translation.
For more on this point, see Hall and Ames 1987: 198.
Perkins also takes this view (2014: 133).
Mencius 7B24; for a more thorough exploration of this point, see Graham 2002.
Mencius 7B24; see also 7A38. Perkins’ interpretation of the relation of human nature to Heaven’s decree in the Mencius shares significant features with mine while also departing in important ways. A detailed discussion of our differences will have to wait for another occasion.
Here I have modified Lau’s translation to render ‘li 立’ as “fulfills,” which better expresses the intent of the passage, rather than “stands firm on.” In this I follow Chan 1963: 78.
My account of the Zhou doctrine here agrees in essentials with Robert Eno’s account (1990: 19–29). I differ from Eno, however, in maintaining that the Analects and the Mencius continue to consistently express this same, relatively straightforward understanding of Heaven and the service it calls for. Another helpful discussion of the history of the concept of Heaven appears in Hall and Ames 1987, particularly 195–204.
Interestingly, Perkins comments at some length on the Mohist’s adherence to a similar view, that “Heaven’s care is shown in the way nature generates things and the resources they need to survive,” noting that “These aspects of the Mohist position are fundamental to views of nature in the Warring States period.” He seems to overlook them in the Mencius, however. Perkins 2014: 72.
For a similar view, see Schwartz 1985: 50.
As his chapter on the Mencius proceeds, Perkins briefly considers the idea that human psychological mechanisms may be considered part of the operation of Heaven, but then sets it aside as not reflecting the “functional use of heaven,” which is “invoked primarily to explain bad things” (2014: 127). Perkins’ exposition raises a number of other interesting issues of relevance to the themes of the current article, but a discussion of them will have to wait for another occasion.
Mencius 7A2; I have modified the Lau translation for verbal continuity. Perkins weighs this statement quite carefully, developing a perceptive, multi-layered account of the meanings of decree in the Mencius. In my view the encompassing view of decree I emphasize here is the most important for understanding the Mencius. To properly address his arguments, however, will require more space than I can allot here.
The question of what meaning to attach to Mencius 7A2 instead of this is an interesting one which I hope to take up on another occasion.
Mencius 5A7. I have modifed the Lau translation to more directly address the point at hand.
Many commentators have claimed that in 2B13 Mencius is explaining why he is actually not unhappy, but 2B12 indicates his disappointment clearly and at length, and the disciple’s remark in 2B13 also strongly suggests that Mencius is unhappy. To overturn this evidence would require rather powerful reasoning, and the commentators’ arguments do not measure up.
For an exploration of a less radical form of utopianism in classical Confucian thought, see Ing 2012, especially chapter 5.
Karen Lai makes a tanatalizingly brief reference to “the different ordering of theo-dicy and anthropo-dicy in the Chinese and the theistic traditions” in her review of Heaven and Earth Are Not Humane (2016: 138). Perhaps she has something like this point in mind.
For a more thorough analysis of these aspects of Mencius’ thought, see Back 2016.
I am grateful to Michael Ing for pressing me to develop this important point.
Though I read other aspects of 2B13 differently, on the relevance of trust I agree with Ivanhoe 1998: 160–161.
References
Back, Youngsun. 2016. Confucian Heaven: Moral Economy and Contingency. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 8 (1): 51–77.
Chan, Wing-Tsit. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chen, Ning. 1997. The Concept of Fate in Mencius. Philosophy East and West 47 (4): 495–520.
Confucius. 2003. Analects. trans. Ted Slingerland. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Eno, Robert. 1990. The Confucian Creation of Heaven. Albany: SUNY Press.
Fung, Yu-lan. 1983. A History of Chinese Philosophy. trans. Derk Bodde. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 31.
Graham, Angus C. 2002. The Background of the Mencian Theory of Human Nature. In Essays on the Moral Philosophy of Mengzi, ed. Xiusheng Liu and Philip J. Ivanhoe, 1–63. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Hall, David, and Ames Roger. 1987. Thinking Through Confucius. Albany: SUNY Press.
Huff, Benjamin. 2016. Putting the Way Into Effect (xing dao 行道): Inward and Outward Concerns in Classical Confucianism. Philosophy East and West 66 (2): 418–448.
Ing, Michael. 2012. The Dysfunction of Ritual in Early Confucianism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ing, Michael. 2015. Review of Perkins 2014. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 10 (1): 153–158.
Ivanhoe, Philip J. 1998. A Question of Faith. Early China 13: 160–161.
Ivanhoe, Philip J. 2007. Heaven as a Source for Ethical Warrant in Early Confucianism. Dao 6: 211–220.
Lai, Karyn. 2016. Review of Perkins 2014. Dao 15 (1): 135–139.
Mencius. 2003. Mencius. trans. D. C. Lau. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Mencius. 2008. Mengzi, With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. trans. Bryan Van Norden. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Olberding, Amy. 2013. Confucius’ Complaints and the Analects’ Account of the Good Life. Dao 12: 417–440.
Perkins, Franklin. 2014. Heaven and Earth Are Not Humane. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Puett, Michael. 2004. Following the Commands of Heaven. In The Magnitude of Ming: Command, Allotment, and Fate in Chinese Culture, ed. Christopher Lupke, 49–69. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Schwartz, Benjamin. 1985. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Slingerland, Ted. 1996. The Conception of Ming in Early Confucian Thought. Philosophy East and West 46 (4): 570.
Yearley, Lee H. 1975. Toward a Typology of Religious Thought: A Chinese Example. Journal of Religion 55 (4): 426–443.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I am very grateful for discussions and correspondence on this subject with Michael Ing, Youngsun Back, Frank Perkins, and Steve Angle that have stimulated my thinking, broadened my horizon, and spurred me to deepen my analysis substantially. Michael Ing offered especially detailed and helpful comments on a draft. I am also grateful for the prodding of thoughtful comments by several participants in the 2016 East–West Philosophers Conference, including Jim Behuniak.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huff, B. Servants of Heaven: the place of virtue in the Confucian cosmos. Int. Commun. Chin. Cult 4, 271–298 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40636-017-0094-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40636-017-0094-1