Mysticism and Kingship in China: The Heart of Chinese Wisdom (review)

FEATURES Julia Ching. Mysticism and Kingship in China: The Heart ofChinese Wisdom . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. xxi, 302 pp. Hardcover $64.95, ISBN 0-521-46293-2. Paperback $22.95, 1SBN 0-521-46828-0. Mysticism and Kingship in China approaches Chinese intellectual history from the central thesis that mysticism—the ecstatic communion between man and the cosmos —lies at the center of Chinese wisdom. The sage-king paradigm is founded on the mystical idea ofthe oneness ofheaven and humanity. The breadth of the work—from the late fifth and early fourth millennia b.c.e. to the twentieth century —is understandably at some expense ofdepth, but excellent references are given for readers who wish to pursue any issue further. Ching discusses the shamanic function ofancient Chinese rulers, the intertwining of the sacred and the secular, by surveying the archaeological information —on divination, petitions to spirits, sacrifices, and the functions and activities ofshamans—in the light ofancient texts and cross-cultural clues found in the religious practices ofother ancient cultures. As mediator between heaven and earth, the king came to represent cosmic humanity in Chinese thinking, with the power to influence, and therefore the responsibility for, the fortunes ofall under his rule. Even after shamanism declined, the sacral character ofkingship survives in myths ofdivine descent and rituals with religious origin or connotations. Such rituals, as shown in Ching's study ofenthronement rituals in Japan and China, has legitimizing power. Ching examines the myths ofancient sage-kings and asks ifthey were historical figures or products ofthe imagination. Her view is that sage-kings never really existed, but thinkers who wanted to influence the actions ofkings promoted these myths to make their point that the wise should govern, if not as rulers, then at least as their advisors. Chinese philosophy, through the "mandate ofheaven" theory, has contributed to the "aura ofsacrality" surrounding the political institution ofkingship. Developed by the Zhou kings to legitimize their overthrow oftheir Shang overlords, it is a double-edged sword: linked with ethical criteria for kingship, it could discredit as well as legitimize. The sage-king paradigm was appropriated by philosophy and transformed.© 1998 by University Ching assesses Confucius' traditionalist and reformisttendencies, and offers a ofHawai'iPresssynopsis ofthe main tenets inhis teachings on rituals/propriety (H¡it) and humaneness [ren £l). While Confucius never called himself a sage, he has been regarded as such by generations ofChinese. Ching suggests that Confucius could 3o8 China Review International: Vol. 5, No. 2, Fall 1998 also be considered a prophet, under an expanded definition of "prophet." An examination of the social background of Confucius and his followers reveals a group of "scholar-aristocrats," even though Confucius did not make class distinctions in accepting students. Despite the continuing elitism of education in China, in the hands of Mencius, Confucius' selective and critical transmission of ancient wisdom became revolutionized: sagehood is no longer limited to rulers or high ministers, and everyone is equal in their access to this exalted state. While recognizing the potential of Confucianism for individual liberation, Ching also takes a critical stance toward its limitations in her discussion of the subordination of women. Even as philosophy appropriated the sage-king paradigm, the political establishment appropriated Confucianism. As a state orthodoxy, Confucianism, drained of its humanistic content, became diminished into an ideology serving the absolute monarchy. The philosophical appropriation of the sage-king paradigm was strengthened with the development of the theory of "Oneness of Heaven and humanity" [tianren heyi ??1?G—). Ching compares Mencius' mystical consciousness— "The myriad things are all within me"—and Xunzi's rationalistic view ofheaven as physical nature, irrelevant to the failure or success ofhuman undertaking. Dong Zhongshu lÈfàÊT, usually credited with establishing Confucianism as the state orthodoxy during the Han dynasty, is also credited with turning the tradition away from Xunzi's "completely rationalistic way," even though it was Xunzi who was considered the carrier of Confucius' mantle for over a millennium after the deaths of Mencius and Xunzi. Han Confucians recognized the schism between wisdom and power when they made Confucius the uncrowned king, but they continued to expect sagely conduct from kings. In the absence of sage-kings, Confucians...