The prose passages dealing with government and Li before and after the poetic passage definitely suggest that the transformation Xunzi calls

p. 142

for is not technological but spiritual and cultural. Machle has it just right:

Order at the bottom or the cosmic hierarchy is not only not by nature, but is attainable only through highly cultivated humans. It is not brought about by purely technological means, for Xun[zi] admits that the farmer knows more about farming than does the junzi -- any technologist knows more about his specialty than does the junzi -- but it is still the junzi, following the sage. who sets things in order. [27]

Xunzi's warning not "to neglect human effort and admire Heaven" (right after the poetic lines) is not a call for the control or exploitation of nature, but an exhortation for the junzi to fulfill a spiritual obligation. This is what Confucius meant by his cryptic saying "the junzi is not an implement" (Analects 2:12). Likewise, Xunzi is saying that nature is not a mere instrument either. We do not use Heaven and Earth for our own ends (the rites are not propitiatory; the prayers are not petitionary), but we celebrate and fulfill them for their own sake and value.

　　 The human function, specifically the sage, in the cosmic triad is to complete the work of Tian, which "produces" but "cannot order." Tian produces a cosmos that has "veins" of li, like the veins of a piece of jade. One is reminded of Plato's logos, which he analogues as the joints of a carcass. The true dialectician is like the expert butcher who knows exactly where to cut up the body of reality. [28] Similarly, the Confucian sage is like the master carver who knows that not to follow the veins is to destroy a good piece of stone. Therefore, as opposed to the Taoist sage, the Confucian sage is activist and exploitive in the good sense. The sage has a sacred duty to transform Tian's natural constancies (xing) into patterns of culture (wen), certainly not machines or factories. In short, the sages transform cosmic li (Machle's "underlying rationale") into cultural Li. (I endorse Machle's convention of leaving li as the Chinese logos in italics and always indicating the ritual li as Li.)

　　 If we take a closer look at Xunzi's view that the mind (xin) is the

p. 143

"ruler" of the body, we find that this phrase has been misinterpreted. The human mind, located in the "central cavity" and still close to the heart, is produced by Tian to rule the five senses ("sensibilities" in Machle's translation). (By correlation, the emperor's job, as the "son" and "mind" of Tian, is to rule the people's sensibilities.) Xunzi's concept of mind is obviously not separated from a person's affective or moral dimensions, because for him our moral faculties (yi) are found in our xin. [29] Xunzi believes that the sage's mind enables him to understand the Dao, and this mind is anything but manipulative and calculative. The sagely mind understands the Dao by its "emptiness, unity, and stillness." [30] Xunzi's activism appears to begin in Taoist passivity, not in a desire for exploitation.

　　 Whereas the yogi's goal is to discover the power of the universe and then use it as a means to liberating himself from all constraints -- both natural and cultural -- the Confucian sage's goal is just the opposite -- integrative and embracing. Machle correctly sees that the sage's mandate is very different from the Indian view described by Karl Potter: "Indian philosophy does in fact elevate power, control or freedom to a supereminent position ... the ultimate value ... is not morality but freedom ... complete control over one's environment." [31] Potter has described the essence of Indian Titanism beautifully and the Confucian sage stands as the most constructive response to this form of radical humanism.

IV.
　　 In their excellent book, Thinking Through Confucius, Roger Ames and David Hall reformulate Confucius' genius in a brilliant way, especially with regard to the issue of aesthetic ordering. But it is both disappointing and puzzling to read that Ames and Hall want to deify Confucius, something most Confucian philosophers always resisted. Their argument, interestingly enough, is not taken from Confucius himself, where obviously no argument can be found, but from Mencius and the Doctrine of the Mean. [32] From the Mencius, Ames translates the following: "being sage,

p. 144

to be unfathomable, is called 'divinity'" (7b25). In another article, [33] I have demonstrated that Ames has probably mistranslated this passage, for the character shen is most likely predicative not substantive. A standard dictionary stipulates that, if shen is predicative, the sage is "wonderful, marvelous, miraculous," not divine. [34]

　　 Tu Wei-ming quotes this passage from the Lau translation ("to be a sage ... is called 'divine'"), but qualifies it by observing that "the idea of spiritual in this connection by no means signifies a 'spiritual being' (shen-ren) which rises above the sage." [35] Even if Mencius actually meant to divinize the sage, this is clearly not the original position of Confucius. It is consistent with his position to call the sage "goodness itself," but neither the Analects nor the other early literature support the deification at the sage.