Taking history as a mirror
Q: People in the past have looked at Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government as a textbook for how emperors should govern, but you think it should be considered a reflection of the people, that it can be used to look at our position in history and the attitudes of the ruling class. Currently the vast majority of publishing houses publishing books about history try to sell them with a pitch about learning about strategy and how to play power games. That is a very different attitude from reading history so as not to be condemned to repeat it. Is this a result of the historical environment? What kind of attitude do you take to studying history?
A: The Chinese are a very practical people. Anything, regardless of what it may be, is integrated into practical life. That modern people take history as a way to study strategy symbolizes how history's functions have been integrated into practical life.
In China there are not high moral standards. The greatest value of history is in the lessons it provides, but not a single emperor, especially after having taken power, took lessons from it. Power blinds people and can also make people foolish. People have very weak souls. Power takes over the soul, and it is very hard to resist.
I think that history is used in ways quite different from what Ssu-ma Kuang had expected. If the emperors had learned the lessons of the Comprehensive Mirror, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. It has been 900 years since Ssu-ma Kuang finished the Comprehensive Mirror. If things were going to get better they would have already.
The true function of history shouldn't be in the lessons it provides. It should go beyond strategy to be something from which people themselves can get nourishment, something that gives people a sense of belonging to the group. Many Chinese don't know who their ancestors were beyond three generations. With this being the case for a group as small as the family, the ethnic group as a whole is even more fragmented, drifting rootless in a vacuum. In government there can be independence, but in the history of one's life one needs roots. Otherwise the spirit of the entire ethnic group will be insecure and this will make people seek satisfaction in the sensual.
History can't be too utilitarian. By always thinking of getting lessons from history, the Chinese have lost sight of the higher functions of history.
The past is a reflection of the present
Q: Many people are upset that people don't read history today, to the point that they even deny their own history. You have also lamented, "classical literature has already come to a dead end. " Is not classical Chinese the key reason that Chinese history is inaccessible to modern Chinese?"
A: As I see it, classical literary Chinese and the vernacular are two different languages. Classical Chinese is already a dead language today. But modern Chinese can give some new vitality to the ancient books which are dead or moribund.
Of course, many people offer all sorts of reasons for opposing the translation of classical Chinese books into the modern vernacular, but I think that this is a kind of elitism, a way to monopolize knowledge. Whether or not to translate them is a matter of principle. Whether they are translated well or not is a matter of the individual's ability.
The free market explains this necessity even more clearly. The lack of universal education in China was related to this small number of people wanting to keep their monopoly on knowledge.
Culture is an organism, and it can get old. Why do Chinese young people not like to read history? History is stories. What children don't like to listen to stories? In all the world, only China has this problem. China has the longest history in the world, which shows that Chinese history books aren't of a high enough standard and everybody is afraid of history. Chinese people don't have an understanding of their own history because the books are not written in an accessible manner. We ought to constantly translate anew. If we don't, history will become disconnected from most people.
Q: A special feature of the book, besides your use of modern place names and official names, are the "Po Yang Says" sections in which you analyze the causes and effects of historical events from a modern Chinese perspective. What kind of messages do you hope the readers will get?
A: I hope that everyone will discuss things. I certainly hope that the readers won't automatically assume that what I say is right--in that way they would be losing their ability to think. And I don't want to create a brood of Po Yang worshippers. I don't mind any kind of opposition to what I say--even if the critics have nasty attitudes.
From Ssu-ma Kuang to Po Yang
Q: Some critics have said that Ssu-ma Kuang is a guardian of tradition, whereas you are someone who is firmly opposed to tradition. But in translating the Comprehensive Mirror, they say you are in harmony, each with his strengths. What is your opinion about this? In what ways do his philosophy of history and your thoughts clash and in what ways are they in accord?
A: It is necessary to admit the realities of history. Traditional Chinese history is very strange. The historians deny much, to the point of distorting history. For example, after Liu Pang died, his son became the emperor. Afterwards there were still two emperors. But it is as if these two emperors just don't exist. Even in the Comprehensive Mirror. There is no record of them. Of the two emperors, one was on the throne for five years. Why does that not count? On the other hand, Chou Wen-wang never served as emperor. Why was it said that he was a emperor, when this is clearly a lie? It is for political reasons. It is quite unforgivable.
The historical facts have first got to exist, and then afterwards people can all have their own ways of looking at them--regardless of whether one looks at them from a traditional and conservative or a twentieth century standpoint.
Some critics hold that we can't expect that Ssu-ma Kuang, an ancient after all, to have a modern, more progressive and democratic way of looking at things. This is all well and good, but as a major thinker, we can still expect that he should have a relatively more enlightened attitude. Aristotle and Rousseau's ideas about democracy also had their origins in a very autocratic age, and thus we are at a loss as to why Chinese thinkers couldn't reach their conclusions!
Secondly, Ssu-ma Kuang has said, "The laws of our ancestors cannot be changed. " He believes that the legal models set up during the reign of Emperor Yao and Emperor Shun should not be changed. This idea of never changing your way of thinking is very alarming. Where has there been a society or culture where everything remained eternally unchanged? What a major thinker says influences future generations for thousands of years to come. As for me, of course I use a modern standpoint to look at historical books. For example, in an autocratic age, when there was a miscarriage of justice that clearly violated human rights, I am not going to say that I think the ancients killed well!
My philosophy of history is in accord with Ssu-ma Kuang's in very few places. He supported the Confucian ideas of "maintaining mourning for three years" and "resistance to change." As I see it, all these should be reformed. Otherwise they will become obstacles to progress.
It's like the expression in classical Chinese that means if a change isn't 100 percent beneficial, then don't make it. In this world, where is there something that is 100 percent beneficial? If it's 51 percent beneficial, then make the change.
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)