“Self-Cultivation as the Root of All”—The Individual in the Recursive Process of “Ensuring Peace for All Under Heaven, Good State Governance and Regulation of Family Affairs, and Self-Cultivation”

1 “Regulation of Family Affairs, Good State Governance, and Ensuring Bringing Peace to All Under Heaven” Taken Out of the Context

In the narrative of “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven,” the concept of family based on blood lineage creates a sense of belonging and homeland that then fosters a national identity and feelings toward “all under heaven.” Some scholars claim that the concept is a lofty expression of “civilization in space and time, political imagination, worldviews, and moral ideals”; others argue that the concept can be interpreted as “individual aspirations, collective expectations, national ideals and citizen visions.” Both views are expressions containing four components, and all sound perfectly logical and comprehensive.

However, the “ideal” narrative of “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” also contains some less satisfactory aspects, especially for the present situation. That is why some scholars suggest that those unsatisfactory traditional implications be rejected while emphasis should be put on a modern interpretation for the new order. This highlights a new family-state framework which aims, in a Chinese way, to resolve the atomized individualism fueled by the “great disembodying” (大脱嵌) in modern society. These scholars see the modern interpretations of “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” as providing a sense of belonging to the isolated individual. Their extended interpretation is significantly different from that of the scholars in the previous paragraph, however, both groups agree on the value of this concept for modern times.

Some scholars try to connect the modern narrative of “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” with the original expression in The Great Learning, and stress that this should be the precondition for accurate modern interpretations of the original. Of course, they acknowledge that “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” has taken on a new meaning in the modern age. However, they point out that this is an incomplete narrative, and should be rounded off by adding “cultivating oneself.” (立身) Confucian thought teaches that “cultivation of oneself is the root of everything,” (修身为本) that body and mind are “the two sides of a coin” (一体之两面) and that through “self-cultivation” it is possible to “control the body through the mind,” (以心控身) so the spirit can govern desire, and body and heart become unified. This is the starting point for the reasoning of “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” in a progressive order.

Still other scholars particularly stress that “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” is incomplete, and should be amended to “self-family-state-all under heaven,” (身—家—国—天下) and given a modern interpretation. They point out that the relation between self and family differs in traditional and modern societies, specifically: in traditional society, the self is an appendage of the family, whereas in modern society it is the foundation. The collective nature of the original expression (family-state-all under heaven) therefore now changes into an individual one. Moreover, in this new discourse the family-state structure is not unchanging either: in the era of nations, the self serves as the social subject rather than the family, while in the era of supra-nations, the state is no longer a subject but the self continues to be.

All the above narratives are reasonable and well founded. Their proponents all wish to discuss the original expression in terms of both traditional and modern thinking, to find a place for modern values within the traditional principles and thus pave the way forward under the current framework. They are interested in the continuity between ancient and modern China, whether their starting point be idealistic political expectations, realistic political transformation, or a desire to extol traditional values. At the same time, they all agree that “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” cannot be directly applied to present-day society, and needs to be reformulated to keep abreast with modern social changes.

The “eight essential principles” which contain “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” are all closely related, and come from the “Great Learning” section of The Book of Rites (《礼记 · 大学》). They are listed first in reverse order and then the logic rotates back:

The ancients who wished to demonstrate illustrious virtues to all under heaven, first ran their own states well. Wishing to run their states well, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first regulated themselves. Wishing to regulate themselves, they first rectified their heart. Wishing to rectify their heart, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things. With things being investigated, knowledge then became complete. With their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were then sincere. With their thoughts being sincere, their heart was then rectified. With their heart being rectified, they were then cultivated. With themselves being cultivated, their families were then regulated. With their families being regulated, their states were then rightly governed. With their states being rightly governed, there was peace to all under heaven. From the Son of Heaven (天子) to the common people (庶民), all must consider the cultivation of oneself as the root of everything. It cannot happen that when the root is neglected, and what should spring from it will be well ordered. It has never been the case that what was of great importance has been slightly cared for, or that what was of slight importance has been greatly cared for. This is called knowing the root, and it is the highest state of knowing.^[1]

Following the thought of the writer there are three points to keep in mind. First, “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” is an idealized aspiration dating from ancient times, and so transcends the realities of society and politics. Second, it lists in logical recursion from the ultimate aim (peace under heaven) back to the source. Specifically, the six “firsts” in their descending order are all preconditions for illustrious virtue throughout the state. If any of them is omitted, the ultimate aim cannot be achieved. Third, seven “thens” starting from “investigating things” are listed in a progressive order to achieve this ultimate aim. If one link is missing, the next will also fail. In other words, if any one of the “eight essential principles” is absent, the ultimate aim will be unachievable.

By employing this kind of logical description in both descending and ascending order, The Great Learning lays strong emphasis on the root: “From the Son of Heaven down to the common people all must consider self-cultivation as the root of everything.” This is vital for understanding the “three cardinal guides and eight essential principles,” because self-cultivation addresses the issues surrounding differences in social status within Confucian concepts of social origins and structures. That is, understanding self-cultivation in a progressive order means the “eight essential principles” create conditions for members of society to obtain a certain social recognition. Understanding it in a recursive order touches on the origins and evolution of society from family to state to society and politics, and then more broadly to all under heaven. Unfortunately, scholars tend to start only from “family” and give it first importance when highlighting the progressive relationship between “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven.” They have in fact overlooked the importance of “self-cultivation.” In fact, understanding “ensuring peace to all under heaven” in a recursive way complements the progressive relationship of the “eight principles.” Presenting both relationships at the same time makes it possible to understand their profound significance.

2 The Complete Structure: Progression and Recursion

The “eight essential principles” are both relatively separate and yet closely interconnected. On the one hand, each of them can be discussed independently; on the other, the entire set is hard to understand accurately without considering them all in close connection. Since they can be examined apart, it is possible to discuss each element’s weight and effect on both the one before it and the one after it. That is why it is understandable that nowadays there are many different discussions of the meaning of “family” and “all under heaven.” However, the “principles” are also closely interconnected moral precepts and should not be separated from each other. Instead, their strong linkages should be highlighted, particularly since there are attempts to interpret them separately today. They must be seen together as a cornerstone of Confucian ethics and not as separate independent elements.

How is their inseparability expressed? It is shown by the fact that they are laid out in full in both progressive and recursive order. The term “progressive” (递进) has two regular meanings: first to move forward in due order, and second, in a rhetorical way to describe two or more things moving step by step in an ascending order, whether by size, weight, importance or sequence (Dictionary Editorial Office, Institute of Linguistics, CASS, 2020, p. 288). In a progressive relationship (递进关系), the meaning advances step by step, linked by words that express their logical connection. In contrast, the term “recursion” (递归) is borrowed from mathematics, and its meaning is complicated. In brief, it is designed to reveal the leading basic rules to be followed by a process. It denotes a form of circular definition, or a repeating of items in a self-similar way in a descending order.

The “Great Learning” uses both progressive and recursive logic to clarify the relationship between the eight principles, showing an uninterrupted interconnection between them in both an ascending and a descending order. To clarify the relationship between study and knowledge, Zhu Xi (朱熹 1130–1200) comments:

Acquiring knowledge lies in examining things and studying their laws thoroughly. The human mind has the ability to study, while all things under heaven obey laws. Human knowledge is limited because these laws are not thoroughly grasped. That’s why at the beginning of The Great Learning, Confucius urges anyone who learns to investigate all things under heaven must study more than what is already known in order to fully understand the laws that govern them. Diligence will lead to enlightenment. The external and internal, the obvious and less obvious will be thoroughly grasped and the heart fully opened. This is what is meant by “acquiring knowledge to the greatest extent.” (Zhu, 1983, pp. 6–7)

Study is a precondition for acquiring knowledge, which in turn is the sure outcome of these efforts.

“Being sincere in thought” (诚意) is clearly of great importance. A man of virtue, a person of ideal character as recommended by Confucian thinking, should be prudent when alone. Only by being genuine in dealing with others can such a person avoid the deviousness of the immoral, and remain strong and safe. This already implies that a person must maintain authenticity (本真性) toward himself,^[2] which will allow knowledge to be acquired from above and his thoughts to be rectified from below. This is why “being sincere in thought” is an integral part of the “eight essential principles.”

On the relationship between self-cultivation and heart rectification, Zhu Xi has the following commentary:

The fact that the cultivation of the person depends on rectifying the heart may be illustrated thus: if a man is under the influence of passion he will be incorrect in his conduct. The same will happen if he is under the influence of fear, or under the influence of fondness for something, or of sorrow and distress. When the heart is not present, we look but do not see; we hear but do not understand; we eat but do not know the taste of what we eat. This is what is meant by saying that the cultivation of the person depends on rectifying the heart. (Zhu, 1983, p. 8)

Heart rectification is the next step after being sincere in thought. Conversely, being truly sincere in thought can lay a solid foundation for heart rectification. Thus, heart rectification serves as a link between being sincere in thought and self-cultivation.

On the relationship between self-cultivation and regulation of family affairs, Zhu Xi comments:

The regulation of one’s family depends on the cultivation of his person means: men tend to be partial where they feel affection and love; they tend to be partial where they despise and dislike; they tend to be partial where they stand in awe and reverence; they tend to be partial where they feel sorrow and compassion; they tend to be partial where they are arrogant and rude. Thus, it is extremely rare that in this world that men who love and yet know the bad qualities of the object of their love, or who hate and yet know the excellence of the object of their hatred. Hence the common adage says, “He who does not know the wickedness of his son does not know the richness of his growing corn.” This is what is meant by saying that if the person is not cultivated, his family affairs cannot be regulated. (Zhu, 1983, p. 8)

This is an interpretation of “self-cultivation,” which is the precondition for “regulation of family affairs.” In this context, self-cultivation is to improve the moral foundation and assess morality without partiality. In this way, by the strength of self-cultivation, the “eight essential principles” are able to extend outwards.

The next relationship between family and state is familiar for everyone: governing a state well depends on exemplary families. In the context of the family-state structure, such a relationship is obvious. If all the families are kind-hearted and considerate, a state composed of such families will be pretty much the same. If all families are greedy and violent, the state they form will be plagued with rebellions. As for good state governance and ensuring peace to all under heaven, the ruler has to be exemplary when governing the state, showing respect for the elderly and care for orphans, so ordinary people too will treat their parents with filial respect, show esteem for their elders, and sympathy for the weak.

The Great Learning lays out the connections between the “eight essential principles” in both a progressive and a recursive order, thereby showing the full process for reaching the state of “expounding illustrious virtue throughout the state.” This rhetorical method of listing each element as dependent on the one before it clearly demonstrates the close connection between each neighboring two and among them all. Without grasping the complete process of Confucian moral rectification, it is not possible to fully understand how to progressively “attain illustrious virtue, renew the nature of people, and climb all the way up to the highest excellence.” Conversely, without understanding the “eight essential principles” in a recursive manner, it is not possible to fully grasp the original basis of “climbing all the way up to the highest excellence.”

However, it should be pointed out that the progressive and recursive relationships among these “eight principles” listed in The Great Learning are not airtight arguments but rather merely an expression of their connections. Some things are clearly missing. First, the progressive relationships are roughly described rather than logically reasoned or deduced; so they express emotional similarities to daily life rather than strict logical moral connections. Second, the recursive order is a “back to basics” form of reasoning, not one of cause and effect or structural logic; so it depends on the similarities between the linked elements, rather than the basic initial point of departure. As a result, the starting proposition of studying things needs further elaboration, while the ultimate aim of ensuring peace to all under heaven needs to be substantiated. The first weakness is caused by the lack of a definition as to what should be studied, making it difficult to verify, as Leibnitz did in his theory of monads. This results in a kind of circular thinking. The second weakness is caused by no clear mechanism for ensuring peace to all under heaven, so the political systems that could do so are undetermined. However, in spite of these shortcomings, the “eight essential principles,” expressed in both progressive and recursive order, form a fairly complete pathway for moral cultivation. They should be discussed carefully because focusing on only one or a few is not enough to explain the overall Confucian concept of morality.

3 Individual Recursion in a Collective Context

At the heart of the “eight essential principles” is self-cultivation, as expressed in “The Son of Heaven and all common people must consider self-cultivation as the root of everything.” As such, “self-cultivation” is the interconnecting thread that binds all the “principles” together. Here three implications are important: first, self-cultivation is the foundation; second, both the Son of Heaven and the common people must all cultivate themselves; third, differences in social status are not a consideration. On the one hand, self-cultivation is pivotal in the “eight principles,” which is why Zhu Xi said,

Studying things to acquire knowledge, being sincere in thought, rectifying one’s heart, and cultivating oneself are meant to expound illustrious virtue, while regulating one’s family affairs, governing the state well, and ensuring peace to all under heaven are meant to renew the nature of people. (Zhu, 1983, p. 4)

On the other, in the moral ordering of the “principles,” “Studying things to acquire knowledge, being sincere in thought, and rectifying one’s heart are the means to cultivating oneself, while regulating one’s family affairs, governing the state well, and ensuring peace to all under heaven refer to appropriate actions in practice.” (Zhu, 1983, p. 4)

These two separate statements both explain the major significance of “self-cultivation.” The first explains the status and pivotal role of “self-cultivation” within the “eight principles,” and then how it relates to the “three cardinal guides.” Studying things, acquiring knowledge, sincerity in thought and a rectified heart are all part of showing illustrious virtue; in other words, they are all ways toward moral cultivation. Following both the progressive and recursive orders, it clearly shows that without taking “studying things” as the starting point, it is not possible to combine what is known with what can be known, nor to create a moral resonance between the external world and the inner self. On the other hand, without sincerity in thought or a rectified heart, it is not possible to know and act according to universal virtues. That is why expounding illustrious virtue is not only the prerogative of officials, aristocrats, or rulers but something everyone, the Son of Heaven and all commoners, have to try hard to achieve. These virtues need to be acquired by each individual member of society, which is why studying things to acquire knowledge, being sincere in thought, and rectifying one’s heart become in turn the preconditions for expounding illustrious virtue. This is where “self-cultivation” comes into play, since it too requires studying to acquire knowledge, sincerity in thought, and a rectified heart to reach the ideal moral state. Zhu Xi continues by saying that the body is both the basis of and the subject of moral cultivation. The heart is the spirit and master of the body. By combining body and heart, overcoming the weaknesses of flesh and spirit and refusing self-deception, it is possible to know and act according to universal virtues. Starting from “regulating one’s family affairs” the focus is on renewing both the self and the people, not on moral cultivation per se. In both these quotes (previous paragraph), the focus shifts after the statement on “regulating one’s family.” Before it, the focus is on self-cultivation; after it the focus shifts to social and political matters.

Zhu Xi’s second statement explains how “self-cultivation” relates to other parts of the “eight principles.” “Studying things to acquire knowledge, being sincere in thought and rectifying one’s heart” all fall into the category of an individual’s moral cultivation, while “regulating one’s family affairs, governing the state well, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” shift into practical action outside the individual and into a renewing of all people within a social and political framework. Moral cultivation thus moves from action within the individual and self to a relationship between the individual and others. Similar to the explanation of the “three cardinal guides” to the “eight essential principles,” this moral practice aims to abolish what is old and establish in its place a new order of things. However, here self-cultivation now is no longer a personal matter but a sociopolitical process in which one has to extend personal feelings to others. Zhu Xi also says: “To renew the people is to make them get rid of old ways of thinking. One has to extend his own feelings to others to make them get rid of such old ways of thinking.” (Zhu, 1983, p. 3) In this process, members of society influence each other, thus showing the key role self-cultivation plays in transforming individual moral cultivation into political action by “renewing the people.” Thus it serves as a link between “studying things to acquire knowledge, being sincere in thought, and rectifying one’s heart” and the “family-state-all under heaven” discourse in the “eight principles.”

Although improving individual “self-cultivation” is a major content of these Confucian principles, it is, however, not given substantive discussion in The Great Learning. Xunzi (荀子 313 B.C.E.–238 B.C.E.), an early Confucian scholar, did deal with it in a relatively systematic way in his own writings. Later, the Neo-Confucian philosophers of the Song and Ming dynasties all discussed the relationship between body and heart in great depth.

According to Xunzi, self-cultivation is based on the quality of goodness. He pointed out that good actions and bad nature must be differentiated, and that self-cultivation is what determines the boundaries between them. By adopting goodness to guide individual self-cultivation, a person can draw the line between good and evil. In Xunzi’s view, to cultivate oneself socially implies complying with social norms, namely rites (礼), and doing so means complying with moral rules in all things. Self-control is necessary to combat immorality, remain persistent and dauntless in the face of adversity, and follow the rites always and everywhere. This will make things smooth and easy, the reverse will lead to coarseness and vulgarity. This is because rites are rules for survival, for handling affairs, and for governing the state. That is why in this context, self-cultivation is the basis of the “eight essential principles” and has a direct influence on the self, the family, and the state. In short, self-cultivation fosters an upright personality, enables making the choice between what is right and what is selfish, so as to realize the goal of moral cultivation: “Righteousness triumphs over selfish desires.” (Lou, 2018, p. 30)

Self-cultivation means purifying the heart so as to have a sincere heart, and this specific meaning is derived from the recursive process of “rectifying the heart and being sincere in thought.” However, here the “self” need not be to expound the illustrious virtue but rather to put morals and ethics into practice. In other words, the individual’s moral cultivation extends into the social and political spheres of “regulating one’s family affairs,” “governing the state well” and finally to “ensuring peace to all under heaven.” This is how the individuals endeavor to expound illustrious virtue through “studying things to acquire knowledge, being sincere in thought, and rectifying one’s heart.” In this way, self-cultivation is transformed into attempts to renew the broader public in social and political spheres.

Wang Yangming (王阳明 1472–1529) discussed this succinctly. His “Clearness of the Heart” theory is about ascertaining the true essence of morals through the heart’s control of the body. He explained that the heart imparts meaning and value to all things under heaven. The heart is the master of the body; through cognition, the heart is also the light that illuminates the self as well as all things. Self-cultivation here means to rectify the heart, namely an internal endeavor of the individual to expound illustrious virtue.

The “self-cultivation” in the eight principles that links expounding illustrious virtue by renewing the people is thus clearly about individuals cultivating themselves, not about relationships, or collective entities, even less about states. However, there are problems here of bridging this gap between individual self-cultivation and regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and peace to all under heaven. On the one hand, according to “from the Son of Heaven down to the broad population, all must consider the cultivation of the person as the root of everything,” all need to work together, and yet there is no direct relationship between them. Individuals already have great difficulty communicating with each other, so converting self-cultivation into good state governance and peace to all under heaven is a much greater challenge. That is why self-cultivation needs to rely on the structures of the state in order to transform into governance and peace to all. On the other hand, the Son of Heaven and the wider population both share the same ultimate goal in their self-cultivation within the framework of the “eight essential principles,” and must all examine themselves against the various elements listed in both the progressive and the recursive orders within the “principles” and the “cardinal guides.” They seem here to be on an equal footing, since they can all make independent moral choices. In fact, this actually conceals their different identities. Though they all share the same ultimate goals in terms of moral and sociopolitical practice, their specific, concrete reasons are very different. The Son of Heaven is indeed an individual following the “eight essential principles,” but his sociopolitical identity is quite different from the ordinary people. Similarly, though the people are also all individuals carrying out the “eight principles,” their sociopolitical identity cannot compare in any way to that of the Son of Heaven. This is the basic structural inequality within the equality of “all must consider the cultivation of the person as the root of everything.”

Notwithstanding this, the subject of self-cultivation for all must be separate individuals who are equal and have many features in common. Purely from the goal of “renewing the people,” namely dealing with general sociopolitical affairs, the “self” is the starting point, the recursive result is “self-cultivation, regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and peace to all under heaven.” That is why from this specific angle, Confucian ethics holds that the “self” lies at the root of all collective entities, including families, states, and all under heaven.

There is a very widespread opinion these days that in Confucian thinking, the individual is nested in a web of relationships and thus differs from the solitary individual in Western thinking. So, in a strict sense, the concept of the individual is the product of Western culture, while in Confucian terms, the individual reflects the spirit of social groupings and therefore should fall into the collective category. It naturally follows that the concepts of Confucian collectivism and Western individualism become a basis for comparison between Chinese and Western cultures. This argument calls for further analysis. Does the “individual” belonging to a set of group relationships lose his/her individual value and social/political roles, thus becoming a synonym for a collective entity? Or does he/she retain “individuality” even within the group? An “individual” existing within complicated social relations should not change his/her inherent qualities because of the collective environment in which he/she exists and plays a role in it.

By interpreting the elements of the “eight essential principles” separately, the collective narrative of “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven” has become over time fixed, widespread, and persistent. The absence of “self-cultivation” from these three elements can be regarded as a failure of Confucian thinking which puts such a high value on individual cultivation. The question then becomes how self-cultivation of the individual morphed into the groups as represented by family, state, and all under heaven? Two factors came into play here. The first was internal: individuals who focus on self-cultivation are by definition restrained and introspective. They differ radically from the outgoing and ambitious individuals who play a decisive role in creating the intertwining relationships that make up social structures. The second factor was external: the concept of the ideal society as envisaged in the “eight principles” based on the morality of equal individuals changed irreversibly after the age of Confucius, as the social and political environment shifted. Briefly put, the old political framework of separate states in the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods (722 B.C.E.–481 B.C.E.) eroded while a new imperial political system came into being. Governance thereafter could no longer be based on the primacy of individual self-cultivation, and this brought to the fore the collective narratives of “regulation of family affairs, good state governance, and ensuring peace to all under heaven.”

4 Modern Slicing Up of the “Eight Essential Principles”

The “three cardinal guides” and the “eight essential principles” are the basis of Confucian philosophy. The “three guides” have the single goal of morality, namely virtue/goodness reaching the highest excellence (至善), and two purposes, namely expounding illustrious virtue, and renewing the people. On the other hand, the “eight principles” follow a progressive order of “studying things, acquiring knowledge, being sincere in thought, rectifying one’s heart, cultivating oneself, regulating one’s family affairs, governing the state well, and ensuring peace to all under heaven,” and then a recursive order of “ensuring peace to all under heaven, governing the state well, regulating one’s family affairs, cultivating oneself, rectifying one’s heart, acquiring knowledge, and studying things.” This circular discourse actually lays out the two phases of “expounding illustrious virtue” and “renewing the people,” first in the recursive order of studying things, and then the progressive one of ensuring peace to all under heaven. After all, “expounding illustrious virtue” composed of four elements: “studying things, acquiring knowledge, being sincere in thought, and rectifying one’s heart”; while “renewing the people” is also made up of four elements: “cultivating oneself, regulating one’s family affairs, governing the state well, and ensuring peace to all under heaven.” Together they make up the full “eight essential principles” framework, so strictly speaking they should not be separated. However, “expounding illustrious virtue” and “renewing the people” can also be understood in a two-way recursive/progressive process. For “expounding illustrious virtue,” everything begins with “studying things,” which means both moral understanding and actual practice should not be divorced from external things. Without the study of things leading to being sincere in thought, the whole moral goal of knowing will be lost altogether. As for “renewing the people,” self-cultivation is the most solid foundation for ensuring peace to all under heaven, while bringing such peace is also the loftiest moral goal of self-cultivation. By comparing these two purposes each with their four elements, it is clear that the “self-cultivation” of the individual plays a major role in “expounding illustrious virtue,” through “studying things, acquiring knowledge, being sincere in thought, and rectifying one’s heart.” Here the individual is the key. The relationship between the self and others does not appear until later with the purpose of “renewing the people” which states: “Cultivating oneself, regulating one’s family affairs, governing the state well, and ensuring peace to all under heaven.” This constitutes a process moving from individuals to families, states, and all under heaven, where the goal of “renewing the people” becomes increasingly collective, expands in scope with higher moral standards, and spreads more widely. Since the “eight principles” can thus be divided into two sub-parts, it is reasonable to examine them separately in both progressive and recursive order. By extension, it is also reasonable to examine carefully each of the eight elements separately. That is why when taken all together, the “three cardinal guides” and the “eight essential principles” can be divided into 11 separate parts. Over the centuries, the separate longer “eight principles” have become more popular than the “three guides” and are deeply rooted in Chinese intellectual history.

Taking together the “eight principles” form a complete and connected narrative. However, throughout the history of Confucian thought, a large number of separate and even fragmented structures have been derived from them because of what Confucius himself said about the relationship between the individual’s moral cultivation and both loyalty and filial piety. For example, Confucius says “Each day I reflect on myself several times,” “It’s up to the individual to practice benevolence and virtue,” “Fraternal duty and filial piety are the very foundation for conducting oneself,” and “deliver extensive benefits to the people and relieve the suffering of the poor,” each of which discusses the sociopolitical aims and functions of different aspects of Confucian thought. However, he fails to present his ideas in a systematic way. Mencius, a successor to Confucius, is aware of the status and role of the family within the structure of the state when he says, “The root of the state is in the family. The root of the family affairs is in the self.” However, his discussion of the four initiators (四端) and the seven emotions (七情) fails to clarify the relationship between self, family, state, and all under heaven. The full discussion of Confucian ethics in The Great Learning is a systematic overview of the earlier theories of Confucian ethics. According to Zhu Xi, a leading Neo-Confucian scholar of the Song Dynasty and founder of the School of Principle (理学), the recursive structure of the “eight essential principles” highlights the paramount importance of studying things and ensuring peace to all under heaven. However, according to the Neo-Confucian School of Heart represented by Lu Jiuyuan (陆九渊 1139–1193) and Wang Yangming, “the heart” becomes the most important and determines the remaining seven steps, which results once again in the dislocation and slicing up of the “eight essential principles” and of the overview in The Great Learning. This is why Zhu Xi criticized Lu Jiuyuan for seeing the heart as paramount, which is what Chan Buddhism preaches. When the four elements for achieving “expounding illustrious virtue” and the four for “renewing the people” are discussed separately, “self-cultivation” is in fact the link in both progressive and recursive order for both rectifying one’s heart and regulating one’s family affairs. However, often in the recursive process, “rectifying one’s heart” is instead regarded as the focal element, while in the progressive process, the “family” in “regulating one’s family affairs” is regarded as the focal element. In fact, both have mistaken the true basis of the “eight essential principles.”

Each step in these principles is indispensable to the overall framework. However, there have been repeated efforts to take them apart, or break them to pieces. This is precisely what poses challenges to some modern interpretations of Confucian ethics today. For example, the widely-held discourse on Confucian collectivism will need to be reviewed. This is because, whether in “expounding illustrious virtue,” which is the goal of “self-cultivation,” or in “renewing the people,” where “self-cultivation” is listed in recursive order, Confucian thought clearly asserts the key role of the individual both in moral cultivation and in the building of society and states. The concept of Confucian collectivism only emerges when individual self-cultivation is either downgraded or even totally disregarded in the process of building state power. In this sense, it is extremely important to compare the atomized individual in Western philosophy and the Confucian individual embedded in a relationship, because even within relationships the individual will never disappear. It is true that the complex, sociopolitical relations in traditional Chinese society severely restricted the environment of the individual, but this did not turn the self-cultivated individual into “a group.” In other words, the individuality of the individual in a relationship remains unchanged and does not become a collective. It is in fact “regulation of family affairs, good state governance and ensuring peace to all under heaven” that is the collective, not “self-cultivation.” No social group or collective can emerge or perform any action without the planning or the key role of individuals; without individuals the group would be an abstraction. A group must exist in the concrete since it is composed of individuals. This is a confirmation of the individualistic approach as described in The Logic of Collective Action. ^[3] Abstract collectives cannot take any concrete action because there are no such things as abstract actors; they must all be real individuals. That is why, in the ascending order of “self-family-state-all under heaven,” the “self-cultivated” individual is, in philosophical terms, the elementary particle.

This being the case, where is the incision point in the eight principles for mining their significance in the modern world? First of all, to truly value this major traditional heritage of Confucian thought, it is essential to reaffirm its universality. The logical sequence to reach moral cultivation as expressed in Confucian philosophy is not something rigidly set in the traditional society of the past. Instead, it is a universal pattern for humans everywhere, following Lu Jiuyuan’s statement that “people with similar natures and emotions will have similar understandings.” This significance is universal, transcending both space and time. Therefore, based on such an understanding there can be no doubt about the meaning and value of the “eight essential principles” for the modern age.

Secondly, each step in these principles is significant for our times, because together they deal with all the aspects of human moral practice, both the individual factors and their interconnections. Human existence and development start from the individual, involving the self, the relationship with other people and things, the internal and the external, the family, the state, and finally all under heaven. Thus, with such an understanding it is possible to follow the lines of thought in the “three guides” and “eight principles,” and to find similar ideas and inspiration from them.

Thirdly, it is possible to observe this effectiveness in the actual modernization of China and of the world. The recent widespread discourse on the differences between Chinese and Western thinking does not sufficiently examine or explain the meanings or purposes or practice of the “guides” and “principles” for the modern world. The discussion of differences is a superficial way to compare cultures, whereas examining their similarities goes much deeper. More importantly, comparing similarities helps preserve tolerance, peace, and human ideals, whereas comparing differences is more likely to lead to confrontation, zero-sum gaming, and tragedy. It must be pointed out that it is not the classical interpretation of these ancient precepts but modern practice itself that has made their effectiveness so obvious today.