“A COMPARISON OF CONFUCIUS’ NOTION OF REN AS INNER HUMANITY AND HUMAN-HEARTEDNESS WITH GANDHI’S VIEW OF AHIMSA AS

COMPASSION”

Hope K. Fitz

ISUD EIGHTH WORLD CONGRESS

“Dialogue Among Cultures: Peace, Justice and Harmony”

Beijing, China

Broad Topic: “Ethics of Peace”

July 23- 28th, 2009

Dr. Hope K. Fitz Professor of Philosophy

Webb Hall #356Eastern Connecticut State University

Willimantic, Ct. 06226fitzh@easternct.edu(860) 465-4606Secretary Ann Fratonifratoni@easternct.edu(860) 465-4594

The topic of this paper is clear from the title, namely, a comparison of Confucius’

notion of ren, as inner humanity and human-heartedness, with Gandhi’s view of ahimsa

as compassion. One might wonder how these two virtues could be compared. After all,

Confucius and Gandhi were far apart with regard to certain aspects of what the great

French philosopher, Michel Foucault, referred to as an episteme, i.e., body of knowledge.

For Foucault, this ancient Greek term included one’s culture, including history and

language; the physical properties and psychological dimensions pertaining to when and

where a people lived; one’s role and station in a society, etc. Also, what I think is key in

the comparison which I am undertaking is Foucault’s insistence that to understand a

people, one must consider the episteme itself before applying the methodology of one’s

own time to that episteme.

Despite the differences between Confucius and Gandhi as to the time of their lives

(Confucius, 551-479 B.C.E.;i Gandhi, 1869–1948 A.C.E.); culture, including history and

language; and to some extent their ethical goals, they both believed in a virtuous way of

life or as Aristotle would say, “living virtuously.”ii Also, both were exemplars of this

moral belief. In fact, it was this “walking the talk,” as the students say, that made them

such great teachers. They each tried to adhere to what they took to be the virtues and

principles needed to live a virtuous life. Hence, there is the ever growing influence of

their thought upon peoples of the world.

Regarding a virtuous life, both Confucius and Gandhi were concerned with the

“good.” As we shall see, their notions of “good” differed as to a telos or goal, but they

shared a concern for the welfare of the people, i.e. people in general. Other shared views

of the “good” were: seeking and adhering to truth; non-harm and non-violence whenever

1

and wherever possible; living with dignity and affording it to others; overcoming the ego

or as we in the western world would say “overcoming ego-centrism or egotism”; being

steady or constant in their demeanors; and not being defeated by adversity.

Given the foregoing similarities between Confucius and Gandhi as to character,

that are familiar to most comparative philosophers, let us focus on what each takes to be a

major virtue to which he adheres. For Confucius this virtue is called jen (in earlier texts)

or ren (in recent texts); I shall refer to the virtue as jen/ren. For Gandhi, the virtue is

called ahimsa. As we shall see, the main difference between Confucius’ notion of jen/ren

as inner humanity and human-heartedness and Gandhi’s view of ahimsa as compassion is

in the degree of the concern or caring for all humans and in the belief that compassion

applies to all living beings. Gandhi held that compassion meant the greatest love or

concern for all living creatures.

The approach to the objective, as stated, will be first to determine what Confucius

meant by Jen/Ren in the Analects and then to consider what Gandhi meant by ahimsa.

With regard to determining Confucius’ meaning of jen/ren, I will consider: what various

Chinese scholars have taken it to mean; an examination of an old Chinese character for

benevolence, by a Chinese linguist; and how the meaning obtained by the linguist, which

lends itself to explaining the term as inner-humanity and human-heartedness, fits in with

the basic values and beliefs expressed by Confucius in the Analects. With regard to a

consideration of what Gandhi meant by ahimsa, I will adumbrate its origins in Hinduism

and its development in this tradition and subsequently in Jainism and Buddhism. iii As we

shall see, ahimsa originally meant non-harm, but eventually it also came to mean both

non-harm and compassion to the Jains. However, it was the Buddhists who fully

2

developed the idea of ahimsa as compassion. For Gandhi, although ahimsa meant both

non-harm and compassion, it is his view of ahimsa as compassion which I want to

compare with Confucius’ notion of jen/ren. In the process of establishing the meanings

of jen/ren as inner-humanity and human-heartedness and ahimsa as compassion, the

meanings of these virtues, as understood by Gandhi and Confucius respectively, will

begin to emerge. Thus, one will begin to see the similarities and differences. However, I

will undertake the comparison of these virtues at the end of the paper.

Confucius’ Notion of Ren:Culling out Confucius’ meaning of ren as inner humanity and human-heartedness

is more difficult than determining what Gandhi meant by ahimsa as compassion. The

problems associated with establishing what Confucius meant by jen/ren involve

translation, transliteration and hermeneutics. Regarding these problems as stated earlier, I

want to appeal to Foucault’s advice that one look carefully at the episteme before

applying a particular methodology. I think that certain linguists do not adhere to his

advice.iv However, having said this, I want to emphasize that with any work of antiquity,

there are challenges and problems regarding interpretation. Some of these problems are

expressed by Ying Xiao in his article, “How Confucius Does Things with Words.”v He

said that his study incorporated: “. . . research (including pragmatics), hermeneutics,

Sinology (including Chinese classicism), religious studies, and intellectual history, to

illustrate certain features of Chinese communicative and hermeneutic practice.”vi He also

said, “I believe people’s communicative practice of which our philosophical theory is

supposed to give an account is always primary over theory.”vii Continuing, he said,” No

theory has unquestioned authority; any theory of human communication has to be tested,

3

adjusted, revised or even abandoned according to how well it can cope with linguistic

practice.viii As will become clear later, my approach is in accord with Xiao’s advice to

look to the communicative practice as primary. Also, I offer it as only a theory which

can and should be tested and adjusted or revised.

Looking more closely at the aforementioned language problems, it may well be

that the full meaning and implications of the Chinese term for jen/ren, have not been

correctly or fully understood and furthermore, it is clear that this term has changed

meaning over time.ix In addition to these language problems, and focusing on history, it

has been suggested that the literary character of Confucius in the Analects may not be one

person;x It is also possible that the Analects may have been written over a long period of

time.xi

Certainly, the various meanings attributed to jen/ren in the Analects by different

Chinese scholars is evidence of the foregoing problems in rendering the meaning. Before,

I mention some of these various meanings, I want to make clear that I agree with Wing-

Tsit Chan that there is a general meaning and a particular meaning of jen/ren. This

would be comparable to the ancient Greek notion of “wisdom” as a virtue that can be

considered as one of the four cardinal virtues or as the overarching virtue that embraces

the other three.xii The general meaning of jen/ren, according to Wing-tsit chan, and the

meaning given to the term by H. G. Creel, is virtue.xiii The more particular meanings are

many. manhood – Lin Yu-Sheng;xiv true manhood – Lin Yu Tang, xv humanity –

Wing-tsit Chan,xvi Julia Ching (one meaning);xvii humaneness – W. T. De Bary;xviii other

meanings listed by De Bary are filiality and fraternity;xix qualities;xx devotion;xxi

love,xxii also mentioned by William Jennings,xxiii and Wing-tsit Chan,xxiv teachers;xxv

4

virtuous; xxvi goodness,xxvii also mentioned by Lin Yu Sheng,xxviii and Julia Ching (one

meaning);xxix benevolence, which seems to be one of the most common interpretations –

The Five Thousand Dictionary, Chinese-English, compiled by C.H. Fenn, with the

assistance of Chin-Hsien Tseng, 1932,xxx D.C. Lau,xxxi Wing-tsit chan,xxxii Julia Cheng

(one meaning);xxxiii the author of my old copy of the Analects, xxxivLu Gu (the name on the

seal is Ting Yi.); xxxv authority (moral authority) – Roger Ames and Henry

Rosemont;xxxvi

Having set forth many meanings attributed to jen/ren, it is important that context

be considered. In addition to the foregoing problems which I have mentioned as to

whether or not Confucius was one person and whether or not the Analects were written

over a period of time, we need to look more closely at the beliefs and values which were

held by Confucius. In particular, we need to look at the five human relations and the

cardinal virtues, especially li, i.e., propriety which refers to social and ritual conduct.

Underlying all of the relations is a special kind of relation which is well-known. This is a

relation of reciprocity. Basically it is a belief that you do not do to another what you

would not want done to you. xxxvii We also need to be aware of the Book of Poetry which,

according to one scholar, Lin Yu-sheng, is the only classic text written after the Zhou

period and perhaps the first time that the term jen/ren appears in the Chinese language.

According to Lin Yu-sheng, when the term jen/ren first appeared in the Book of Poetry, it

meant manhood.xxxviii Finally, we need to keep in mind the Chinese emphasis on harmony

in nature and that there is a unity of nature and humans.

Focusing on the five relations, there are: father to son; ruler to subject, older

brother to younger siblings; husband to wife and friend to friend. The father to son

5

relationship is based on the virtue of hsaio, i.e., filial piety or the earned respect that is

given to the father because, ideally, he is a person of jen/ren and the benevolence that the

father shows to the son. Except in the case of friend to friend, the relationship of father to

son sets the tone of the other relationships. Both deference and respect is shown to one

who has earned it because he is what Confucius calls a “superior person.” This term is

oft-times used interchangeably with that of a “gentlemen.”xxxix However, it seems to me

that whereas “superior person,” was a political term that applied to one in office as

opposed to the common people,xl “gentleman” seems to have referred to a virtuous

person, i.e., one who had developed the virtues and who lived by the relationships. Such

a person would be contrasted to someone who lacks moral development.xli Thus, I would

venture to guess that the term “gentleman” was used to describe a person who is virtuous

regardless of whether or not he holds office. Such is the case because a gentleman could

be a superior person and a superior person could be a gentleman, but not necessarily.

Of course, Confucius was called a “gentleman,” by others, even though for most

of his life, he did not hold office. Perhaps, the emphasis that Confucius put on a

“gentleman”, and the respect that was due to him, was because he wanted to show those

in authority that one could be superior even if he were not in office.

Focusing again on the relations, except for the relation of friend to friend, there is

a sense of earned respect given to the superior person or person of authority. Also, as

shall become clear shortly, the superior person should offer both a common person and a

friend or acquaintance benevolence. These relations have to be strictly adhered to, or

Confucius held that the society would lose harmony and thus be in peril.xlii

6

In addition to the relations, there are the four cardinal virtues that must be

observed. I have spoken of hsiao, i.e., filial piety, as the virtue that underlies the father to

son relationship. The other three cardinal virtues are: chih, i.e., moral wisdom, li, i.e.,

propriety and yi, i.e., righteousness. I would also add cheng, i.e., sincerity, as it is

i There is some question as to the exact date of Confucius’ birth. Another date that is given is 552 B.C.E.ii As most western philosophers know, when Aristotle spoke of eudaimonia , i.e., happiness, in the Nichomachean Ethics, he equated it with living virtuously. This is discussed in “Conditions for Individual Freedom as Applied to the European Union,” by Hope K. Fitz and Christopher Vasillopulos, published in the anthology, Humanity at the Turning Point: Rethinking Nature, Culture and Freedom, ed by Sonia Servomaa, Renvall Institute Publications, 23, The Renvall Institute for Area and Cultural Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2006. iii I have written about this in, more depth, in “Ahimsa” A Way of Life; A Path to Peace,” published in an article by UMASS/Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies; Gandhi Lecture Series, Fall 2007.iv As an example, I was disappointed in a translation of the Analects, by Roger Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr., because Ames and Rosemont reduced the meaning of jen/ren to authority. In the introduction to the work, they made clear that it is moral authority to which they refer. I certainly agree with them that authority is one of the meanings of jen/ren, but, it is earned authority that is based on one’s moral character. Ames, and, I believe, also, Chung Yin-Cheng, from the University of Hawaii stressed this fact at an NEH Summer Institute for Studies in Asian Philosophy, which I attended a number of years ago. However, in the Analects, by Ames and Rosemont, this is not stressed. Also, whereas Ames and Rosemont viewed the term “benevolence” to be vague, I take the term “authority,” by itself, to be even more so.v Yang Xiao, “How Confucius Does Things with Words: Two Hermeneutic Paradigms in the Analects and its Exegesis,” published in The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 66, No 2 (May) 2007, 497-532. vi Ibid, p. 499.vii Ibid, p. 503.viii Ibid.ix Lin Yu-sheng, “The Evolution of the Pre-Confucian Meaning of Jen and the Confucian concept of Moral Authority,” published in Monumenta Senica, Vol. 31, 1974-1975, p. 180. Apropos of this point, Yu-sheng says, “I suspect that the formal sense of jen did not change until Confucius made jen the central concern of his moral discourse, but the substantive sense of the word gradually widened [from what Yu-sheng takes to be “manhood” or “manliness”] to include moral connotations in the 200 years . . . before Confucius.”x Yang Xiao, p. 499. xi Ibid. pp. 499-500.xii The other three are courage, justice and temperance.xiii Wing-tsit Chan, pp. ; H.G. Creel, (Add necessary information.)xiv Lin Yu-sheng, article listed in endnote ix.xv A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, tr. and compiled by Wing-Tsit Chan. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, c. 1963. pp. 15 and 788.xvi Ibid. xvii Chinese Religions, by Julia Ching, New York, Arbis Books, c. 1993, p. 58xviii Sources of Chinese Tradition, compiled by Wm. Theodore de Bary and Irene Brown, 2nd Ed., Vol. I., New York, Columbia University Press, Index. p. 962.xix Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.xx Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.xxi Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects

7

mentioned repeatedly in the Analects.xliii These virtues are basic to living the life of a

“gentleman,” i.e., one who has developed all of the virtues. .

It is worthy of note to state that of all the virtues, the one that plays the key role in

the harmony of society is li. As I have stated elsewhere, this notion of propriety really

has to do with social and ritual conduct and what is meant is proper conduct. One might

wonder why the rites, rituals and what we in the west might call “manners” were so

important to Confucius. In order to gain an answer to this question, I asked a former

student from China, who is now a friend attending graduate school, to help with this

problem.xliv In turn, she consulted her father, who lives in China, to answer this question. xxii Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.xxiii The Wisdom of Confucius, tr. by William Jennings, Boston, Books, Inc. Publishing, The World’s Popular Classics, c. 1900.xxiv A Souce Book in Chinese Philosophy by Wing-tsit Chan, p. 788,xxv Wm. Theodore de Bary, says found in the Analects.xxvi de Bary, says found in the Analects.xxvii de Bary, says found in the Analects.xxviii Lin Yu-sheng, “The Evolution of the Pre-Confucian Meaning of Jen as noted in endnote VI.xxix Julia Ching, p. 58.xxx This Chinese Dictionary first belonged to an Edgar Snow and then to a Helen Foster Snow. It has been in my family, I believe, since I was a child.xxxi The Analects of Confucius, tr. and with an introduction by D.C. Lau, New York, Dorset Press, p. 124. Jen is translated as benevolent. xxxii Wing-tsit Chan, p. 788.xxxiii Julia Ching, p. 58.xxxiv The book is in Chinese and translated into English. My friend, Qi Lu, mentioned in the paper, said that the Chinese Characters are very old. The cover page, in Chinese, gives the author’s name and his pen name in the Chinese stamp. In English, one reads: a volume with four writings, namely: The Confucian Analects; The Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; and The Works of Mencius. So far, we have not been able to discover the publisher or when or where it was published. The name on the fly leaf is James Leggett and the book was given to me by Anna Lifshiz, when she was quite elderly. She was Margaret Sanger’s secretary when Mrs. Sanger was establishing the Birth Control Center in New York. xxxv Ibid.xxxvi The Analects of Confucius: a Philosophical Translation, tr. with an introduction by Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr., New York, Ballantine Books, The Random House Publishing Group, c. 1998.xxxvii The Analects, by Lu Gu, Book XII, Chap. XX II, and Book XV, Chapter XXIII. xxxviii Lin Yu Sheng, p. 172-175.xxxix D.C. Lau, Confucius: The Analects, p. 15.xl Ibid., pp. 12-15.xli The Wisdom of Confucius, tr. by William Jennings, Book II., “Good Government – Filial Piety – The Superior Man”; Book IV, “Social Virtue – Superior and Inferior Man.” xlii H. G. Creel, Confucius and the Chinese Way, Chapter IV, Biography, pp. 25-56, xliii The Analects, tr. by Lu Gu, Book I, Chap. IV, Chap. V, Ch. VIII; Book VIII, Chap. IV; Book IX, Chap. XXIV; Book XII, Chap X; Book XV, Chap. V; Book XVII, Chap. VI.

8

He is an educated Chinese gentleman who spends his time studying the development of

Chinese characters and patterns on old Chinese textiles,xlv They both helped me with this

question. They said that if one looks at the Analects of Confucius, 1.12, one will read:

Harmony is the value of performing the rites.Such was the beauty of the way of emperors past in matters great or small.

Yet there are times when this is not acceptable. Whenthere is harmony for harmony’s sake undisciplined bythe rites, it is not acceptable.

According to my friend and her father, what is behind these statements was

Confucius’ belief that the Warring States period had destroyed the harmony of the

Chinese society and that to regain and keep that harmony, there had to be a strict

hierarchy of power in the country. Thus, we observe his insistence on the virtues,

especially li, and the relations that reflect that hierarchy and the respect that must be

shown to those in authority. It is worthy of note that the giant of western philosophy,

Immanuel Kant, even though he believed in the autonomy of the individual, held that

respect kept the physical and mental spaces between people that were needed for a

harmonious society.xlvi

xliv Qi Lu is originally from Wuxi, Jaingsu, China.xlv Qi Lu’s father is Ruixing Lu – Xian Sheng or Mr. Ruixing Lu. When he was young, he was kept from continuing his education beyond the Bachelor’s level. Such was the case because at the time that he lived, gentlemen were often sent into the countryside in China to work in the fields. He did this in his youth, but when he was free to return to his home, he began his own careful research on Chinese characters and the Creation of Textile Patterns in China, Jia Xie. .xlvi Margaret Dell Jewett, The Role of Feeling in Kantian Ethics, a Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School, University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Philosophy, May 1986, pp. 202, 205-206, 216.. Dr. Margaret Jewett was one of my dearest friends and we discussed Kant at length during and after her Ph.D. program. We even had an article, that we wrote together, “The Integral Nature of the Categorical Imperative, published in the Journal of Religious Studies Vol. XXI Spring-Autumn 200, Nos. 1 & 2, Punjabi University, Patiala, India., In our many discussions on the subject, as well as in her dissertation, she emphasized that it was respect that kept the physical and mental spaces between people.

9

I think that in the Chinese context, li is not only essential for the respect that

enables each person to know his station and act according to that station, and to show

deference to those in authority, but it is also responsible for the virtue of benevolence

which brings people together and gives them an incentive to help one another when and

where needed.? Again, it is noteworthy that, according to Kant, it was the practice of

benevolence that accomplished the coming together of the members of society.xlvii

As we have seen, a number of Chinese scholars, many of them classicists, have

taken jen/ren, to mean benevolence. My own research has led to the same conclusion.

However, I based my conclusion on what was referred to earlier in the paper as

“communicative practice.” To be more specific, I decided to ask the Chinese friend and

her father to see what they could find about the history of the Chinese character of

Jen/Ren taken to mean benevolence. Before long, my former student brought me some

very helpful information. She had accessed the official education website in Hong King,

named Quality Education, for an analysis of Chinese character for jen/ren as

“benevolence.”xlviii According to the web site, the left part of the Chinese character means

“human being.” The figure, especially in an older form, is clearly that of a person

bending over. (Please see the attachment with this form.) The two lines attached to or on

the right of the figure are taken to be a chong or a repetition of the figure. xlix

In addition to this information, my friend sent me part of an article, in Chinese, by

a Chinese linguist, analyzing this old Chinese character. In the article, as she translated it,

xlvii Ibid. Dr. Jewett also made clear in her dissertation, pp. 120-121, and 216, as well as the many discussions we had on the subject, that benevolence, for Kant, was tied to his telos, i.e., objective of moral reason, namely, the happiness or well-being of humans (found in The Doctrine of Virtue) and his belief that benevolence, as kindness, charity and the wish to help others, was what brought people in the society together..xlviii Please see the attachment with the e-mail to me from Qi Lu about the contact with this web site.xlix Please see the attachment at the end of the paper and the Chinese Character for jen.

10

one reads of the belief that both sides of the character for benevolence mean “human

being,” [This in itself is not unusual. Different Chinese scholars have held this view.]

However, based on this belief, Xi Bai, a Chinese scholar, citing the work from an earlier

scholar, Wenying Liu, explained that the character illustrates a traditional greeting that

expresses kindness and concern for the well being of others. This, he said is what was

expressed in ancient Chinese society. Furthermore, he claimed that the traditional

greeting of the people was such that when they met, the people would stand face to face

and look at each other. Then, they would bow to one another with hands clasped and

offer each other their best regards. [Looking at that left hand side of the older Chinese

character, one can readily see that a person is depicted as bending over or bowing.]

Wenying Liu considered this character as the hieroglyphic to show this traditional

greeting. Thus, it was that this greeting is the basis of the concept “benevolence.” l Based

on what I said earlier about li, as propriety, being responsible for respect in the society, it

now seems clear that the virtue of li, is responsible for both respect and benevolence.

Having explained that I take jen/ren, as Confucius used the term, to mean

benevolence, i.e., kindness, charity and concern for the welfare of others, I again checked

the several translations of the Analects which I referred to in writing this paper. It was

consistent. I refer especially to Confucius’ remarks to the person in power or authority to

love the people.li I also think that his suggestions to that person to give the people a way

of earning their living, and I would add hope, if you will, for a better future for their

l Please see the attachment with the article in Chinese and the e-mail to me explaining the meaning described in this paper. li Analects, tr. by D. C. Lau, XII, 22; Analects, tr by Lu Gu, Book XX, Ch. II. “When the person in authority makes more beneficial to the people the things from which they naturally derive benefit – is not this being beneficent, without great expenditures? When he chooses the labours which are proper and makes them labour on them, who will repine? When his desires are set on a benevolent government, and he secures it, who will accuse him of covetness? Whether he has to do with things great or small, he does not dare to indicate any disrespect; - is not this to maintain a dignified ease without pride? . . . “

11

children, were such that if a superior person were to do this, the people would hold that

person in high esteem.lii On the other hand, if the superior person did not see to the

people’s needs, he would be looked down upon.liii Of course, there is the ancient belief in

the “Mandate of Heaven” to support this view. Since ancient times, the Emperor or

Empress of China has been cognizant that if he or she did not consider the well-being of

the people, he or she would lose his or her power.liv

With regards to friends or those of one’s own station, there are many expressions

of benevolence in the Analects. Also, with regard to his younger disciples, Confucius

was often direct, but always the kind teacher. He was rarely, if ever, condescending, but

always trying to teach by example as well as by his words. With older persons and those

who were not necessarily of his station, Confucius was so considerate. Recall that when

drinking at a village gathering, he would not leave until those who carried walking-sticks

had left.lv It is clear to me that even though Confucius believed in a stratified society and

a strict adherence to propriety at all levels, he was a kind person who cared not only for

those in power or those of his superior intelligence and learning, but for the welfare of the

people of his society. No doubt, he looked upon the peasants as inferior in education and

station, but he wanted to help them whenever and wherever he could and thus he spoke

repeatedly to those in power about showing kindness and charity to the people.lvi

lii Analects, tr. by D. C. Lau, XII, 22.liii Ibid.liv From what I can gather, the origins of this myth are lost in antiquity.lv Analects, tr. by D. C.Lau, Book 10, Chap. 13. .lvi Analects, tr. by Lu Gu, Book XX, Chap II.2; Book XIX, Chap. XXV.4; Book Xvii., Chap VI. In these passages, aspects of perfect virtue are described. These include love, i.e., charity, to the people Obviously the person of authority should strive for these virtues. The virtues which Confucius listed were:gravity, generosity of the soul, sincerity, earnestness and kindness. Regarding sincerity, Confucius said, “ . . . people will trust you.” Regarding kindness, Confucius said, “If you are kind, you will be able to employ the services of others.” Book XVI, Chap II, Chap. X; Book XV, Chap. XVII.

12

Having culled out a meaning of “benevolence” for jen/ren , it is not a stretch to

say that such a person has inner humanity. This would mean, as one of my students said

recently, that the person would seek the good within himself. lvii Of course that good is

relational, i.e., it has to do with one’s relations to others in society. My notion of that

good or goal would be that a person would strive to develop his character and the cardinal

virtues and relations that make up the ideal character of what Confucius took to be a

gentleman. Since the cardinal virtues and relations have to do with other persons, one’s

character is relational in that who and what one is, is defined in terms of his or her

relations to others. Finally, jen/ren as benevolence also involves human-heartedness in

that a person who has developed inner humanity would be concerned for the welfare of

other people. He would act with what the Chinese refer to as Hsin, i.e. heart/mind.

Granted that there would be more concern for the superior person, i.e., those in authority,

and, I believe, for the gentleman, but there would also be concern for the well being of

the common people.

Let us turn now to a consideration of what Gandhi meant by ahimsa as

compassion and then compare that view with Confucius’ notion of jen/ren as inner-

humanity and human-heartedness.

Gandhi’s View of Ahimsa as Compassion:

The Influence of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist Thought on Gandhi’s View of Ahimsa as Compassion:

By the time, Gandhi was in his late forties, we see that he had fully developed

what he took ahimsa to mean. In essence, he held ahimsa to mean: no harm to any living

lvii Upon making this statement, another student quickly added that a person with inner-humanity would internalize his connectedness to other humans.

13

being by thought word or deed, a vow never to hurt and the greatest love, i.e.,

compassion for all creatures.lviii This view of what ahimsa, in general meant, was the

culmination of a belief and practice which is ancient.

Hindu Origins and Development of Ahimsa:

The origins of ahimsa, found in the Vedic Literature of the Hindus, are at least 3,600

years old.lix For the Hindus, himsa was harm and ahimsa was non-harm. Also, since

Hindus condoned some taking of human life, such as in a war to protect a king, lx and

some taking of animal life, such as in sacrifices,lxi they had to make a distinction between

what was morally acceptable and what was not. Hence, himsa referred to those killings

which were not accepted and ahimsa referred to those that were.lxii As time passed, the

Hindus developed the idea of ahimsa as non-harm to a great level. Patanjali, the author

of the great Yoga Sutra made a distinction between what he called raga and dvesa.

Basically, raga had to do with that part of ego which is attached to those persons and

ideas that feed the ego and dvesa had to do with the aversion to those people and ideas

that are threatening to the ego.lxiii As Patanjali noted in the Yoga Sutra, it is dvesa which

can cause the ego to strike out and harm others.lxiv However, as I have argued elsewhere,

lviii Gandhi, “Letter in the Modern Review,” quoted in The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, by Raghavan Iyer, Concord Grove Press, 1983, pp. 179-180

14

raga can also harm people albeit indirectly.lxv I have in mind, the ignoring of the needs of

others and the harm that can come to people because they are excluded from either basic

rights or privileges afforded to others.lxvi

Based on my research and studies,lxvii it seems clear that the Hindus preceded the

Jains by many years, although, it could be that they had a common root. What

determines my view is that one book of the Vedas, the sacred text of the Hindus, was

written by at least 1500 years B.C.E. The first writings we have of the Jains are around

500 B.C.E. although they are referred to in some of the Vedic literature and some other

ancient documents.

Jain Development of Ahimsa as Non-Harm:

The Jains developed ahimsa as non-harm to the highest level of any people past or

present. In fact, ahimsa is their most fundamental principle for life. They apply this

principle to animals and plants as well as to people. According to them, every living

being has a soul. Lest one wonder how Jains eat to survive, they classify living beings

into 5 classes based on the senses. These range from beings with only one sense to

lix The roots of ahimsa are found in the Vedas, i.e., the sacred literature of the Hindus. More specifically, in my research on ahimsa, I have found most of them in the second book of the Vedas, called Yajur Veda. The exact dating of this book is not known. However, the first book, called Rg (pr. Rig) Veda, is conservatively dated at 1500 B.C. lx Ahimsa: Gandhian And Buddhist, by Indu Mala Ghosh, Delhi, India, Indian Bibliographies Bureau, Co-Publisher, Balaji Enterprises, c. 1947. p. 2. lxi Ibid. pp. 3, and 40.lxii Ibid., p. 3.lxiii Hope Fitz, “Ahimsa: A Way of Life; A Path to Peace,” published in a booklet by UMASS/Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies, Gandhi Lecture Series, Fall, 2007. lxiv Ibid.lxv Hope Fitz, “Ahimsa and its Role in Overcoming the Ego: From Ancient Indic Traditions to the Thought and Practice of Mahatma Gandhi, The Icfai University Press, Hyderabad, India, Vol. II, No. 4, October 2008, p.56, lxvi Ibid.lxvii I have been doing research on ahimsa for years. In addition to a number of articles on the subject, Linus Publications in New York and Motilal Banarsidass Publishers in Delhi, India, have both expressed interest in the book, Ahimsa: A Way of Life; A Path to Peace, which I hope to complete this year.

15

humans who have 5 senses plus a mind. The Jains are only allowed to eat one-sensed

beings.lxviii Jains are all vegetarians, and many are what we call “vegans.” Furthermore,

they hold the view, first found in regard to humans in the Vedic Literature, according to

which one is not to harm any living creature by thought, word or deed.lxix

There are two fundamental groups in the Jain communities, namely, the lay

people, and the mendicants, both men and women. Without going into detail about the

major sects and how they differ, let me just say that both the lay people and the

mendicants have basically the same principles by which they guide their lives. However,

the mendicants must strictly adhere to these principles, especially that of non-harm to any

living organism. Hence, they do not prepare their own food. The lay people provide it

for them.

The principles, to which the Jains subscribe, are based on a very complex

metaphysics according to which each soul can achieve omniscience and end the process

of samsara, i.e., repeated life cycles. However, at the human level, one is aware of the

karmic matter that attaches itself to the soul and binds one to samsara. Only if he or she

can rid herself or himself of this karmic matter, and stop any incoming karmic matter, can

he (or she according to one sect),lxx hope to achieve omniscience. Only the most

advanced of the mendicants, called acharyas, can hope to achieve omniscience. When

they have achieved this highest state of spiritual development, it is believed that they will

live in a state above the world, free from the fetters which bind them to continued life-

cycles, so they will never be born again. Hence, they will suffer no pain. It is believed,

lxviii Jain Philosophy and Practice, compiled by the Jain Education Committee, Dr. Pravin Shaw, Chairman, Federation of Jain Associates of North America, pp. 69-71lxix Ghosh, p. 41. lxx Padnanabh S. Jaini, The Jain Path of Purification, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, Reprint 2001, Chapter IV, “The Mechanism of Bondage.

16

by the Jains, that these omniscient beings will think and that they will have a body, albeit

not a physical body. To a westerner, this state would seem to be similar to what Aristotle

described as active mind.

In the Jain tradition, the belief arose that ahimsa included not only non-harm, but

also compassion which in Sanskrit is karuna and anukampa in Prakrit (a language that is

simpler than Sanskrit and was chosen for the people by the great Jain spiritual leader

Mahavir, @ 5th century B.C.E.) Anukampa has the sense of reaching out to help

others.lxxi. However, Jains have a tension between compassion as reaching out to help

others and the concern with purification from the karmic matter.

Buddhist Development of Ahimsa as Compassion:

It is the Buddhists with their particular metaphysics that have fully develop

ahimsa as compassion. Their metaphysics, according to which we are all interrelated,

inter-connected, interdependent, co-arising and co-existing, rules out any ego or

substantive self that is concerned with a soul. There is no soul, no God and no abiding

state of reality according to Buddhist logic. All is in a state of flux and change.

The founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, i.e., the Buddha, was concerned

with ending suffering, i.e., dukkha, and he thought that this suffering was caused by

craving, and more basically the ego which he took to be the root of craving, So persons

are taught to give up the idea of any cravings, especially those for permanence and to

realize that the ego is a construct. In order to achieve these goals, Buddha taught the

people the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Noble Path. According to the Four

Noble Truths: 1. There is suffering; 2. Suffering is caused; 3. If one destroys the cause,

lxxi Ibid., p. 150.

17

the suffering ends; 4. The Eight –Fold Noble Path is the way to end the cause, i.e., a

belief in an ego and clinging to cravings.lxxii What one hopes to achieve by practicing the

Eight-fold Noble Path is a state called Nirvana, in which all cravings, and the root of

those cravings, namely ego, have been extinguished. In that state, all suffering, dukkha,

is extinguished.

Having adumbrated the origins of ahimsa in the Hindu, Vedic Literature, and the

development of ahimsa in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, let us now turn our

attention to what this term came to mean for Mohandas K. Gandhi, who was given the

title, by his people, of Mahatma which means “Great Soul.”

The Culmination of the Development of Ahimsa in Gandhi’s Thought and His View of Ahimsa as Compassion:

Gandhi, a Hindu, was equally influenced by Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism

(perhaps most by Jainism).lxxiii As stated earlier, he took ahimsa to mean no-harm to any

living being by thought, word or deed, a vow not to hurt and the greatest love, i.e.,

compassion for all creatures. Furthermore, he held that ahimsa was:

1. the means to Truth. Truth, for him, meant both the impersonalabsolute called Brahman, held by the Advaita Vedanta Hindu tradition,and a more personal deity. Both involved love.lxxiv As I havewritten elsewhere, Gandhi never attempted to resolve thisseeming contradiction between an impersonal absolute and a personal supreme being; however, another great Indian thinker,

lxxii As is well-known to those who are familiar with Buddhist beliefs and practices, the Eightfold-Noble Path is made up of three categories, namely: wisdom; Moral Conduct and Contemplation. Wisdom consists of: Right Understanding and Right Intentions. Moral Conduct consists of: Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood. Contemplation consists of: Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. Actually, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, have to do with what we in the west call “meditation.”lxxiii The more that I study Jainism, the more that I can see how profoundly Gandhi was influenced by it. He practiced the fasting, taking a vow not to hurt anyone, the dietary considerations and most of all his insistence on not harming any living being. lxxiv Dr. Hope Fitz, “Gandhi ‘s Ethical/Religious Tradition,” published in The Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. XXVII, Spring-Autumn, Nos. 1 & 2. Punjabi University, Patiala, India, p. 100.

18

Sri Aurobindo, did;lxxv 2. the means to truth. The term “truth,” with a small “t” meant not only never deliberately telling a falsehood or deceiving someone, but also standing up and speaking out for what was true and right;lxxvi 3. the fundamental virtue needed for a moral life;lxxvii 4. the foundation of satyagraha, i.e., the Truth Force against oppression which Gandhi developed when he was in South Africa. With this Truth Force, he was able to take on both corrupt governments and corrupt government officials armed with only courage, non-harm and compassion, fortitude and steadfastness, and a conviction thata satyagrahi would have to suffer in order to bring about change in the political arena. Of course, that suffering is due to the fact that one is never to harm another, hence he or she would take the blows and insults of the oppressor. Furthermore, a satyagrahi was never to harbor anger let alone hatred when engaged in “battle.” Instead he is to try to shamethe oppressor and thereby eventually convert him or her to ahimsa. What is this “battle” then? At the time of Gandhi, it consisted basically of non-cooperation and later of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, in rare instances, in response to corrupt governments and/or corrupt governmentofficials. lxxviii Today, as a self-proclaimed modern-day satyagrahi,I would say that the satyagraha can be used to thwart any act of oppression.

It is amazing that Gandhi took the ancient idea of ahimsa and brought it into the

social/political arena. Talk about genius! Imagine that he not only won many rights for

the Indian people in South Africa, but he actually won India’s independence from Great

Britain with his satyagraha.

Let us look more closely now at what Gandhi meant by ahimsa as compassion.

Since he saw no difference between himself and others at a spiritual level,lxxix he truly

lxxv Sri Aurobindo writes about this in his Essays on the Gita, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, First Published 1921-1922, c. 1972. .lxxvi Ibid. When I wrote the article, Ahimsa: A Way of Life; A Path to Peace, I combined numbers 2 and 3. However, with further research and reflection, it is now clear that ahimsa, as a virtue needed for a moral life, involves much more than speaking out for what is true and right. As I say in my upcoming book, Ahimsa: A Way of Life; A Path to Peace, ahimsa must form part of one’s attitudes and weltangschauung, i.e., world perspective.lxxvii Ibid. lxxviii Raghavan Iyer, pp. 281-285.

19

believed that one can care for others as he or she does for himself or herself. His own sect

of Hinduism is based on a spiritual belief that supports such a view. The sect that he

belonged to is called Advaita Vedanta lxxx Vedanta refers to a unified metaphysical view

and advaita means non-dual. Hence, this is a monistic view of reality. Gandhi did not

hold to it completely, but he did share the view that ultimate reality can be experienced

after many lifetimes, if one is living as an Advaitin should. This would involve one living

according to his duty which is prescribed by Varna (which meant class in ancient times,

but came to mean caste and still does).lxxxi Following one or more of the yoga paths,

which in English are basically: devotion (bhakti), good works done without attachment to

the objects of desire (karma), and a spiritual kind of path which involves intuition that is

based on both keen reasoning powers and high moral development (jnana).lxxxii All of the

yoga paths, and especially the last one, involve meditation. Gandhi spent a great deal of

time meditating.

According to Advaita Vedanta, if one lives according to the foregoing and other

basic Hindu beliefs and principles, it is expected that eventually, he will achieve self-

realization.lxxxiii What this means is that a person will realize his True or spiritual Self.

lxxix Hope Fitz, “Gandhi: ‘Boundaries of the Self” as They Affect Nonviolence and Peace,” published in the Proceedings of the World Association of Vedic Studies, WAVES, Biennial International Conference on Contemporary Views of Indian Civilization at the Steven Institute of Scholars, New Jersey, July 28-30, 2000. lxxx Gandhi, Truth is God, compiled by M. K. Prabhu, Ahmedabad, India, Navajivan Trust, c. 1955, pp. 10 – 11.lxxxi In the Hindu tradition, the first mention of the varnas, i.e., classes, is in the “Hymn to Purusa” found in the ancient Rg Veda. (Purusa, in this context, means cosmic man.). Different parts of the body are related to different classes: the head is the Brahman or priest; the shoulders are the ksatrias or warriors; the torso is the vaisya class (Gandhi was a vaisya.); and the feet were the sudras or servants. There is nothing said in the hymn about caste as there is no mention of one being locked into a class by birth.lxxxii Not too many westerners are familiar with jnana. Actually, this was first discussed in the great Yoga Sutra of Patanjali (from about 500 – 200 B.C.). lxxxiii The other basic beliefs and principles include the four stages of life or ashramas; student, house-holder, forest-dweller and sannyasin, i.e., holy person. It is believed that each person will spend lifetimes in each of these stages during her or him many samsaras, i.e., life cycles. There are also the goals of life which include: love, material desires (These are fine for a house-holder.) and ultimately. moksa, i.e., release from samsaras.

20

This True-Self is called Atman. When self-realization is achieved, one not only knows,

i.e., experiences his or her True-Self, but the ultimate state of reality which is called

Brahman. In Advaita Vedanta, Atman and Brahman are identified with one another.

However, this identification has more to do with experience than an explanation of either

state of reality. This is especially the case with Brahman. When asked about the ultimate

nature of reality, the great Hindu seers or philosophers of antiquity would say neti net.

This is a Sanskrit term which literally means neither this nor that. However, in context, it

means, that the nature of Brahman is beyond human categories of understanding.

However, it is possible for persons to experience Atman/Brahman. This experience is

called, saccidanada. Taking this term apart, the sac is a derivation of the noun stem sat

from satya which means truth. Cid is a noun stem of the term citta which is usually

translated as consciousness. (Oddly, Gandhi translated it as knowledge.) lxxxiv Finally,

ananda is a noun which means bliss. However, this is a spiritual state, not to be likened to

a euphoric state that is sometimes the result of abusing some substance. So, the term

saccidanada, is usually taken to mean, truth, existence or Being (for sac), consciousness

for cid and bliss. When we combine these, what we have is what Carl Jung might call a

collective state of consciousness and bliss. One’s spiritual self or soul is a part of this

state. Sometimes Hindu scholars speak as if the material/sensual person is just a vessel

that holds this state of consciousness. However, the important point is that it takes many

lifetimes for a person to overcome the material/sensual self and realize this state of

saccidananda. When one is self-realized, he is free from samsara or rebirth. This is

called moksa.

lxxxiv Gandhi, Truth is Love, p. 19.

21

Gandhi accepted all of the foregoing Hindu beliefs. He also accepted the ancient

yoga limbs or steps of self realization which were described by Patanjali in the great

Yoga Sutra. These were actually written for yogins or monks who had renounced the

world. Also, “yoga proper” is about what we in the west call meditation and the Hindus

call “stilling the mind. “The limbs or steps leading up to meditation are simply

preliminary to meditation. Very briefly, these steps are: 1. moral restraints that include

ahimsa as non-harm (Actually, non-harm is basic to all of the restraints.), non-stealing,

non-injury by word or speech, non-acquisitiveness (not acquiring more than one needs),

and chastity; 2. spiritual development; 3. physical development of posture when

meditating; 4. breathing when meditating; 5. mentally determining that one wants to stop

all incoming fluctuations of the mind due to stimulus from the world. Finally, at the

stage of meditation or yoga proper, there is 6. a state of fixed attention, 7. a flow of

energy between the subject and the object of meditation, and 8. a state wherein the person

meditating cannot distinguish between himself and the object of meditation. Finally,

there is the highest stage, which only a yogin can reach, wherein the three steps of

meditation are combined and one has achieved a state in which he can constrain any

stimulus whether from outside or inside the self. lxxxv At this point, it is believed that a

yogin has achieved the highest state wherein he has supra-normal, intuitive powers.

What is important for this paper is to know that Gandhi practiced the earlier steps,

laid out in the Yoga Sutra, especially the moral restraints. This includes his deciding to

become celibate. Thus, we can see that for Gandhi, the good that one sought included

much of his Hindu upbringing. However, if possible, it also involved much of the Jain

lxxxv Hope Fitz, Intuition: Its Nature and Uses in Human Experience, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, Chapter, “The Mystical Experience,” 2001.

22

teaching. His mother had known a Jain priest in the town in Gujarat where he was born.

She learned to fast from this priest. She probably also learned basic Jain teachings such

as to take a vow not to harm any living creature, to pray for peace for about a quarter of

an hour everyday,lxxxvi not to eat the flesh of living creatures, to harbor no hatred and to

feel compassion for all life. Gandhi loved his mother and his father, but in these matters

of compassion, it seem to have been his mother who influenced him the most. Finally,

years later, when Gandhi was grown, his dearest friend was a Jain monk who was very

advanced according to the Jain principles.lxxxvii Apparently, he had a great effect on

Gandhi’s view of ahimsa both as non-harm and as compassion.

Finally, although I am not aware that Gandhi ever says so directly, I believe that

Buddhism had a profound effect upon him. He never rejected the caste system as

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, had done, but he did fight against the mistreatment and

oppression of the outcastes in society. Also, he was so selfless. Of course, one could say

that he had attained that highest level of Hindu thought wherein one was not focused on

material or sensual pleasures, but it is more than that. Hindus and Jains both believe in a

soul, although for Hindus it is a collective state, as I explained. Only Buddhists, as far as

I am concerned, can achieve that very high state wherein they have overcome the ego.

Such is the case because, as I explained earlier, they believe that the self or ego is a

construct and that all life is inter-related, inter-connected, inter-dependent, co-arising and

lxxxvi All of these are common practices for the Jains.lxxxvii His friend was a Jain Muni or Monk. His given name was Rajchandra Ravibhai Mehta. However, as a monk he was called Shri Rajchandrabhai. On November 5, 1926, Gandhi wrote of him: “Three persons have influenced me deeply. Tolstoy, Rushkin and Rychandbhai: Tolstoy through one of his books and through a little correspondence with him. Rushkin through one of his [books], Unto This Last – which in Gujurati, I have called Sarvodaya – and Rajchanbhai through intimate personal contact. When I began to feel doubts about Hinduism as a religion, it was Rajchanbhai who helped me to resolve them . . . Nevertheless, I have not accepted him as my guru.” From the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG), Vol. 32, Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad, April 1960, p. 4.

23

co-existing. Where is an ego or a self if one holds such a world view? This is why

compassion can flourish in this system. There are no what I call “boundaries of the self.”

They are constructs. We are all as if in a flowing matrix, changing moment to moment.

A fully developed compassion is natural here. As is stated in the Dhamapada:

Compassion embraces all sorrow of stricken beings and eliminates cruelty.lxxxviii

A Comparison of Confucius’ Notion of Jen/Ren with Gandhi’s View of Ahimsa as Compassion:

Based on the explanation of Confucius’ notion of jen/ren as inner humanity and

human-heartedness and Gandhi’s view of ahimsa as compassion, it is clear that they both

shared a concern for the well-being of their people. As said earlier, they both believed in

living virtuously and were exemplars and teachers of the virtuous life. However, what

they took to be a virtuous life differed as to both goals and practices.

Confucius goal was harmonious, virtuous, society and the practices that he

advocated in order to bring this about and maintain it were and emphasis on respect and

benevolence. We western philosophers recognize these as central to Kant’s Moral

Theory. However, whereas Kant’s citizens were ideally autonomous or self-governing,

in Confucius’ time, there were basically those who governed and those who were

governed. The governed were to respect those in authority and those in authority were to

treat the governed with benevolence. It was li, the virtue of social and moral conduct

which Confucius held would establish and maintain these relations and thereby preserve

harmony in the society. Of course, as I have explained earlier, there were also the other

virtues of hsaio, i.e., filial piety; chih, i.e., moral wisdom; and yi, i.e., righteousness. As I

mentioned earlier, I would also add cheng, i.e., sincerity. In addition to the virtues, there

lxxxviii Buddha’s statement about compassion as quote in Ghosh, p. 27.

24

are the five relations of: father to son; ruler to subjects or ruled; older brother to younger

siblings; husband to wife and friend to friend. These virtues and relations form the “warp

and woof” of what Confucius took to be essential for a harmonious society.

As to jen/ren as inner-humanity and human-heartedness, it is not only what a

superior person or person of authority should show the masses, but an attitude and broad

perspective which one expresses to all people great and small

25

Gandhi’s view of ahimsa as compassion, differs from Confucius’ notion of

jen/ren, as inner-humanity and human heartedness, in that ahimsa was fundamentally a

means to Truth and Truth for Gandhi was both ultimate reality and God, and both

involved love.lxxxix Ahimsa was also the means to truth, i.e., not engaging in falsehood or

deception and speaking out for what is true or rights. Furthermore, this virtue was the

basic virtue needed in order to live a virtuous life. Of course, Gandhi held, as did the lxxxix Hope Fitz, “Gandhi’s Ethical/Religious Tradition, p. 100.

“仁”与“相人偶”——对“仁”字的构形及其原初意义的再考察白奚孔子创立了“仁”的学说，并将“仁”的最基本含义确定为“爱人”。汉字的意义往往同它的字形结构有密切关系，作为会意字的“仁”字即是如此。那么“仁”字何以能够表达“爱人”的意义呢？这就需要从字形结构入手来探求“仁”字的原初意义。而要深入地讨论“仁”字的构形和本义，就难以避开“相人偶”这个棘手的问题。近年来已有学者在这方面进行了深入的研究，本文拟在已有研究的基础上，通过对“相人偶”的进一步讨论来考察“仁”字的构形和本义，以期由此提供一种对“仁”的更深层面的理解。一考察“仁”字的初始意义，最常见的是引用许慎《说文解字·人部》的说法：“仁，亲也，从人二。”我们的讨论也从这里开始。“仁”字作为会意字，理解其意义的关键是其构形的右半边的“二”字。段玉裁《说文解字注》对这个

26

ancient Greeks, that courage was essential for moral behavior. So the practice of ahimsa

has a goal of Truth, and truth that is based on courage. Finally, Gandhi took ahimsa into

the social/political arena for the first time in its long history. (As I stated earlier, the roots

of ahimsa are at least 3,600 years old.) He made it fundamental to his satyagraha or

Truth Force against oppression. Recall that a satyagrahi is told to harbor no anger, let

along hatred against one’s oppressors. He must suffer their blows and insults. He wants

“二”字的解释是：“独则无耦，耦则相亲，故其字从人二。”这一解释乃是建立在郑玄“相人偶”一说的基础上的。 郑玄在《中庸》中的“仁者人也”一句之下注曰：“人也，读如相人偶之人，以人意相存问之言。”郑玄以“相人偶”注“仁者人也”，则“以人意相存问”一句就不仅是在解释“仁者人也”之“人”是什么意思，而且也表明了“相人偶”的意义，即“相人偶”就是“以人意相存问”。讨论“相人偶”，不能不提到刘文英先生的研究。刘先生认为，“相人偶”是一种古老的礼仪：“两个人见面，首先观顾对方，然后互相作揖，表示敬意和问候”，并进一步认为，“仁”字的结构就是“相人偶”的象形，因而“‘仁’的观念是由‘相人偶’礼仪产生的，这种礼仪就是‘仁’的观念的客观原形”。（参见刘文英）刘先生甚至认为，“相人偶”是夷人的礼俗，因而“仁”的观念可以追溯到夏代和夏代以前。刘先生对“相人偶”的研究相当有深度。不过，为了把研究引向深入，这里面有几个问题需要提出来加以讨论。首先，刘先生关于“相人偶”是一种礼仪的说法是建立在对“仁”字构形的分析上的。他引用章太炎的说法，认为构成“仁”字右半边的“二”不是一二三四之“二”，而是古文字中常见的“重文”符号。这种说法对“重文”符号的作用理解有误。古文字中的“重文”符号，乃是同一个字连续出现时的一种书写标识，一般是在某字的右下方刻上两条短线“=”， 表示该字重复出现，不再重写。而“仁”字右半边的“二”字却是构成“仁”字的不可分割的组成部分，因而用“重文”符号来解释“仁”字的“从人二”之“二”，显然是不正确的。退一步说，即便“从人二”之“二”是一个“重文”符号，所构成的也应该是并列在一起且朝向相同的两个“人”字即“从”字（《说文解字·人部》：“从，二人也”），而不可能

27

to teach them shame in the hopes that it will convert them to ahimsa. He must harbor

both a desire not to harm them, and a love or compassion for them as it is their act which

is evil, not the person.

Comparing the depth and breadth of ahimsa as compassion with jen/ren as inner-

humanity and human-heartedness, as I said early in the paper, ahimsa is both deeper, i.e.,

the greatest love, and broader in that it applies to all living beings. However, what

是与“相人偶”意义有关的两个面对面的“人”字即“仁”字。“从”字乃是二人相随之形，且表示的是动态或动作，与表示亲爱之意的“仁”在意义上毫不相关。刘先生指出，“相人偶”是一种礼仪，这极具启发性。但是说“先有‘相人偶’的礼仪。而后才有‘仁’之观念”，“‘仁’的观念是由‘相人偶’礼仪产生的”，这就值得商榷了。因为从逻辑上来讲，应该是先有一定的观念和意识，然后才能有表达这一观念和意识的相应的礼仪，而不应是相反。《礼记·郊特牲》论礼之起源曰：“男女有别然后父子亲，父子亲然后义生，义生然后礼作。”义者宜也，合理、正当之谓也，而所谓合理、正当与否，当然首先就是一种观念和意识。有了这样的观念和意识，才产生了表达和确认此种观念意识的相应的礼，故《左传》曰：“义以出礼”、“礼以行义”。“仁” 这种人际之间互敬互爱的观念和意识，同样也需要借助某种外在的形式表达出来，于是才有了相应的礼仪。“相人偶”就是这样的礼仪，因而通过这些礼仪，我们便可以窥见包含于其中的这种人际意识。诚然，“仁”的观念和意识也有一个逐步成熟的过程，相应的礼仪在这一过程中起到了促进其发展成熟的作用，但若要就两者之产生作一种溯源性的考察，则应承认是先有“仁”的观念意识，而后才有相应的礼仪。刘先生引证《说文解字·羊部》“夷俗仁”的说法，把“相人偶”的礼俗上推到夏代以前，从而把“仁”的观念也上推到夏代以前，并引《山海经·海内西经》“非仁羿莫能上冈之岩”和郭璞“言非仁人及有才艺如羿者，不能得登此山之冈岭巉岩也”的注文以证之。刘先生说，称为“仁羿”者，乃是以“仁”的特殊礼俗作为夷人酋长的标志，这种夷人特有的礼俗即《白虎通·礼乐》“夷者，蹲夷无礼义”“仁”与“相人偶”——对“仁”字的构形及其原初意义的再考察Page 1 of 4http://philosophy.cass.cn/chuban/zxyj/yjgqml/03/0307/08.htm 2009-1-6

28

Confucius taught about jen/ren as inner-humanity and human-heartedness is critical, even

for Gandhi’s notion of ahimsa as compassion. In fact in my continued work on ahimsa, I

emphasize that it must be taught and practiced, until it forms part of one’s attitude and

general perspective. This inner development of character is what Confucius was

concerned with when he spoke of jen/ren as inner-humanity and human-heartedness.

所说的“蹲”，称夷人为“蹲夷”，乃是以屈腿下蹲为夷人的标志，这就是最早的“相人偶”。这样的论证有几点值得商榷。其一，《说文解字》“蹲”、“踞”互训，段玉裁指出二者的细微区别，前者为“足底着地，而下其臀，耸其膝”，后者为“臀着席，而伸其脚于前”，而无论是“蹲”还是“踞”，用以待人皆为无礼、不敬之态。《论语·宪问》“原壤夷俟”，朱子《论语集注》曰：“夷，蹲踞也；俟，待也。言见孔子来而蹲踞以待之也。”原壤蹲踞以待孔子而不出迎，貌甚无礼，因而遭到孔子的斥责。“夷”字何以训为“蹲踞”？考《广雅》云：“蹲、跠……踞也。”《广雅释诂》：“跠，踞也。”可见“夷”为“跠”的借字，“蹲夷”即“蹲跠”。“蹲跠”在古汉语中是一个固定的词组，“夷者，蹲夷无礼义”，显然是说夷人以蹲跠为俗而不知礼。退一步说，即使“蹲夷”之“夷”不为“跠”之借字而为本字，也是说夷人以蹲踞为俗，在华夏民族看来就是不知礼、不文明的表现。因而，“蹲”不过是夷人习惯上采取的一种姿势，而与礼仪、礼节无关。这样，“蹲”与“相人偶”和“仁”也就无关了。其二，既然夷人不知礼仪，那么《说文解字》为什么又说“夷俗仁”呢？因为“南方蛮闽，从虫；北方狄，从犬；东方貉，从豸；西方羌，从羊；此六种也（段注：当云皆异种也）。西南僰人、焦侥，从人，盖在坤地，颇有顺理之性。唯东夷从大，大，人也”（《说文解字·羊部·羌》），故曰“夷俗仁”。段玉裁注曰：“僰、焦侥略有人性，故进之，字从人。东夷俗仁，故又进之，字从大。”并引《汉书·地理志》云“东夷天性柔顺，异于三方之外”以证之。可见“夷俗仁”并不是赞誉之辞，而是说东方的夷人同“三方之外”的其他民族相比，“天性柔顺”，较有人性，不那么野蛮，比较接近华夏民族的文明程度。当然，这

29

是后儒的种族偏见。其三，至于《山海经》所谓“非仁羿莫能上冈之岩”，恐怕也不是刘先生所认为的“以‘仁’的特殊礼俗作为夷人酋长的标志”。“仁”与“夷”古文音、形皆同，《说文解字》中收录了“仁”字的古文“　”，段玉裁注曰：“按古文夷亦如此。”《经典释文·孝经音义》亦曰：“ ，古夷字。”故“夷”可借为“仁”，“仁羿”即“夷羿”。典籍中称“仁羿”只此一处，而称“夷羿”却很常见。称“夷羿”或“仁羿”者，不过表明羿（又称后羿）的夷人身份而已，与“仁”的观念并无联系。这样一来，“相人偶”及其所反映的“仁”的观念的出现能否上推到夏代以前的夷人部落，就值得认真考虑了。其四，道德观念以及表现一定道德观念的礼俗，是社会文明的标志。一般来说，以中原的华夏民族为主体的古代中国各民族，越是年代久远和地处边远，其文明程度总体上就越低，而不会是相反。在先秦时期中原华夏民族的眼中，周边地区的各民族都是文明程度落后的蛮夷戎狄之人，前注所引的“夷羿”也是这样。在古代典籍中，“夷羿”常与犬戎、蚩尤并提，皆为作乱的落后民族。《论语·八佾》载孔子之言曰：“夷狄之有君，不如诸夏之亡也”，就毫不掩饰地表示了对华夏文化的自信和对夷狄的轻视。《论语·子路》载：“樊迟问仁。子曰：‘居处恭，执事敬，与人忠，虽之夷狄，不可弃也。’”也明白地表明了孔子认为当时的夷狄没有仁的观念，而孔子正是要将仁的原则推行于夷狄之邦。就连到了战国时期的秦国，还被说成是 “与戎狄同俗，有虎狼之心，贪戾好利而无信，不识礼义德行”（《战国策·魏策三》），中原诸夏之国以秦之落后，故“夷狄遇之”（《史记·秦本纪》），连诸侯的会盟都不让秦参加。因而我们很难想象在夏代以前的远古时代，文化上远远落后于中原华夏族的夷人就率先产生了“仁”

30

ENDNOTES

的观念，并创立了相应的礼俗仪节。一般来说，文化的交流总是程度高的影响程度低的，据现有的可靠的文字材料，仁的观念产生于春秋时期，最早也早不过西周，因此我们也很难想象这种极为深刻而重要的观念来自比西周还要早一千多年的夷狄之邦。二根据以上讨论，笔者认为，“仁”字并非两个人面对面互相礼敬的象形，而仍应如段玉裁所言，为表示互相亲爱之情的会意字。“相人偶”为我们准确地理解“仁”字所表示的互相亲爱之情提供了一个很好的切入点。“相人偶”的确切涵义，恐怕还是要从传统的解释中求得。前引汉代经学大师郑玄将“相人偶”解释为“以人意相存问”，这应该说就是“相人偶”的基本涵义。为了更清楚地解释这一涵义，让我们以段玉裁《说文解字注》提供的材料为线索，进行一番分析和讨论。段玉裁在引用了《中庸》“仁者人也”郑注之后，接着又说：《大射仪》“揖以耦”注：“言以者，耦之事成于此，意相人耦也。” 《聘礼》“每曲揖”注：“以相人偶为敬也。”《公食大夫礼》“宾入三揖”注：“相人耦。”《诗·匪风》笺云：“人偶能烹鱼者，人偶能辅周道治民者。”《正义》曰：“人偶者，谓以人意尊偶之也。《论语》注：‘人偶，同位人偶之辞。’《礼》注云：‘人偶，相与为礼仪。’皆同也。”按人耦犹言尔我亲密之辞。独则无耦，耦则相亲，故其字从人二。段玉裁这段注文集中了郑“仁”与“相人偶”——对“仁”字的构形及其原初意义的再考察Page 2 of 4http://philosophy.cass.cn/chuban/zxyj/yjgqml/03/0307/08.htm 2009-1-6玄、何晏、孔颖达的相关解释。值得注意的是，这些解释有时是在解释“人偶”，有时是在解释“相人偶”，因此我们应将“人偶”和“相人偶”分开讨论。先看“人偶”。《诗·桧风·匪风》：“谁能烹鱼？溉之釜鬵。谁将西归？怀之好音。”郑注云：“谁

31

能者，言人偶能割烹者……谁将者，亦言人偶能辅周道治民者也。”上引孔颖达疏云：“人偶者，谓以人意尊偶之也。《论语》注：‘人偶，同位人偶之辞’，《礼》注云：‘人偶，相与为礼仪’，皆同也。烹鱼小伎，谁或不能，而云‘谁能’者，人偶此能割烹者，尊贵之，若言人皆未能，故云‘谁能’也。”这些古奥的语言告诉我们，无论是“能烹鱼者”这样的下层人，还是“能辅周道治民者”这样的大人物，皆应“人偶”之，待之以“同位”之人，并“相与为礼仪”，即“以人意存问之”，以示尊敬。再看“相人偶”。《仪礼·大射仪》“揖以耦”郑注曰：“‘以’犹‘与’也，言以者，耦之事成于此，意相人偶也。”“与”即相与，“偶（耦）”有“合”、“对”、“配”、“并”等义，皆强调对方、双方。两人见面相揖为礼，彼此之间互致敬意与问候，便是“相人偶”。《仪礼·聘礼》“每曲揖”郑注曰：“每门辄揖者，以相人偶为敬也”，贾公彦疏曰：“云以相人偶者，以人意相存偶也”，《仪礼·公食大夫礼》“宾入三揖”郑注：“每曲揖，及当碑揖，相人偶”，都是说的宾主之间以同位之礼互致敬意和问候。可见，“人偶”主要是单指己方对他人的敬重态度，“相人偶”则是双方皆以对方为重而互相礼敬，即相互“人偶”。不过，这一差别似乎并不严格，人们亦可用“人偶”表示“相人偶”的意义，如“人偶，相与为礼仪”。段玉裁本人对此的结论是：“按人耦犹言尔我亲密之辞。独则无耦，耦则相亲，故其字从人二。”在笔者看来，段玉裁的这一结论，是为了往许慎的“仁，亲也”的意义上靠，而从上面所引的几条材料中不难看出，“人偶”或“相人偶”的意义主要是或首先是“相敬”，然后才能引申为“相亲”。清人马瑞辰《毛诗传笺通释·匪风》指出：“相敬谓之人偶也”，可以说更为符合“人偶”或“相人偶”的

32

原意。马瑞辰又指出：“《贾子·匈奴篇》‘胡婴儿得近侍侧，胡贵人更进得佐酒前，上时人偶之。’此相亲谓之人偶也。”此“相亲”已是“相敬”的引申义。马瑞辰于是指出：“汉时以相敬、相亲皆为人偶。”从以上讨论中我们还注意到，第一，相亲未必相敬，如上引《贾子·匈奴篇》中的胡婴儿和胡贵人都是皇帝宠幸之人，皇帝虽与之亲昵，却不会敬重他们。第二，相敬也未必相亲，上引《诗·匪风》郑笺“人偶能烹鱼者”，虽然对“能烹鱼”的庖厨亦“以人意尊偶之”，但并不包含相亲之意。第三，虽然“相人偶”在宾主相见等人际交往中需要表现为一定的礼仪，但无论是相亲还是相敬，作为“相人偶”所要表达的意识情感，都并非一定要通过礼仪来表现，有时亦可与礼仪无关，如上两例就都与礼仪无关。第四，“人偶”是一个固定的用法或词组，“相人偶”就是互相“人偶”，而不应理解为“人相偶”。 以“相人偶”为“人相偶”者，如康有为《中庸注》曰：“仁从二人，人相偶，有吸引之意，即爱力也。”又如杨向奎曰：“人是‘相人偶’，也就是‘人相偶’，一人不得为仁……现在来说，就是搞好‘人际’关系为仁。”（杨向奎，第426页）要之，“相人偶”即以待人之道来互相对待，以待人接物所应有的礼貌和情感来表达敬意和亲爱之情，此即郑玄所谓“以人意相存问”。以“相人偶”解释“仁”，展现了“仁”字中所包含的人际意识和古老的人道主义观念——“仁”就是“人”，两者互相规定，真正能够做到以待“人”之道对待他人，便符合了“仁”德的基本要求。故《中庸》曰：“仁者人也”，《孟子·尽心下》亦曰：“仁也者，人也”。此种人与人之间应有的待人之道，其基本内容就是相亲、相敬、相爱。孔子对“仁”的著名定义——“爱人”，正是由此而来。

33

“仁”字从人从二的构形，简单明了而又准确地表达和涵盖了“仁”这一道德观念的以上意义。我认为，“仁”字右边的“二”字表示的是两个人在一起，但并不是指数量上的两个人或人两个，而是指由此而发生的人际关系，即合耦或耦合的关系和意义，正如阮元所说：“凡仁，必于身所行者验之而始见，亦必有二人而仁乃见。”（阮元：《　经室一集》卷八）诚然，人们可以如此指问：两个人在一起就一定是合耦的关系吗？对此，笔者的理解是，两个人在一起，主要或大多数情况下是相见并进行语言和情感的交流，因而一提起两个人在一起，人们首先想到的不会是二人相随（“ 从”），更不会是二人相背（“北”），而应该是二人面对面地交流（“仁”）。当然，面对面地交流也包括怒目相对，但这也不是两人在一起的常态，只有以对待同类所应有的感情，把对方当作同位之人来互相礼敬和交流情感，才是基本的、常态的人际关系。“仁”字的构形，依据的就是这一最简单也最基本的人际意识，也就是梁启超所“仁”与“相人偶”——对“仁”字的构形及其原初意义的再考察Page 3 of 4http://philosophy.cass.cn/chuban/zxyj/yjgqml/03/0307/08.htm 2009-1-6说的“二人以上相互间之同类意识”（梁启超，第82页）。所以，段玉裁说“耦则相亲，故其字从人二”，应该说是准确地表达了“仁”字这一特定构形所包含的基本含义。总之，通过本文对“相人偶”的讨论可以看到，“仁”字的构形表达了一个古老的人道主义观念，即互相把对方当人看，以待人之道交往之，所以《中庸》才说“仁者人也”。“仁者人也”，这既是用“人”来规定“仁”，也是用“仁”来规定“人”。“仁”就是人类之间以亲爱之情和互相尊重为基本内容的人际意识和道德观念。由于“仁”的观念中蕴涵了人类最普遍的思想情感和最基本的道德原则，因而它才能成为儒家学说的基石。参考文献

34

古籍：《说文解字》，《说文解字注》，《礼记》，《左传》，《论语》，《战国策》，《史记》，《诗经》，《仪礼》，《孟子》，《毛诗传笺通释》，《　经室一集》。梁启超，1996年：《先秦政治思想史》，东方出版社。刘文英，1990年：《“仁”之观念的历史探源》，载《天府新论》第6期。杨向奎，1997年：《宗周社会与礼乐文明》，人民出版社。（作者单位：首都师范大学东方文化研究所）责任编辑：冯国超·学术评论·(《哲学研究》2003年第7期)“仁”与“相人偶”——对“仁”字的构形及其原初意义的再考察Page 4 of 4http://philosophy.cass.cn/chuban/zxyj/yjgqml/03/0307/08.htm 2009-1-6_ _ *___ ________________3___恄______`___`___ _?__ _____蘝__@_$_____塤_[___嘷______________焈_ ____al______鋉__p_______#______________恄__________T_i_m_e_s_ _N_e_w_ _R_o_m_a_n___________________________________T_i_m_e_s_ _N_e_w_ _R_o_m_a_n___________________________________________________________________________________________________R_e_g_u_l_a_r___________________________________________________W_e_s_t_e_r_n___________________________________________________dv___________ _ #______________________Q___ 恄______`___`___ _?__ _________@_$_____躝__5___?_郃 x_?_______ __@__ al______ 鋉__p_______#______________恄_____盻___T_i_m_e_s_ _N_e_w_ _R_o_m_a_n___________________________________T_i_m_e_s_ _N_e_w_ _R_o_m_a_n___________________________________________________________________________________________________R_e_g_u_l_a_r___________________________________________________H_e_b_r_e_w_____________________________________________________dv___________ _ #______________________Q___ 恄______`___`___ _?__ _____盻__@_$_____躝__5___?_郃 x_?_______ __@__ al______ 鋉__p_______#______________恄_____瞋___T_i_m_e_s_ _N_e_w_ _R_o_m_a_n___________________________________T_i_m_e_s_ _N_e_w_ _R_o_m_a_n___________________________________________________________________________________________________R_e_g_u_l_a_r___________________________________________________A_r_a_b_i_c_____________________________________________________dv___________ _ #______________________Q___ 恄______`___`___ _?__ _____瞋__@_$_____躝__5___?_郃 x_?_______ __@__ al______ 鋉__p_______#__________

35