#neoconfucian

Before I begin this, I find this passage as a way to ground and affirm the “supernatural” and “strange” in a way with what I believe to be in accordance with the Principle of Dao. Zhu Xi, and for the most part, the entirety of Neo-Confucian doctrine had a very nuanced belief about ghosts, spirits, and the Gods. Zhu Xi and Kongzi did believe in ghosts and spirits, however, their "existence" is a lot more rational and grounding. The Rujia school, from Kongzi to Zhu Xi seem to want to distance themselves from the "superstitious" aspects of the words 鬼 & 神, ghosts and spirits (and Gods) respectively. 鬼 & 神 are very real for Zhu Xi, but they are simply natural manifestations of Yin and Yang respectively. The mystical and faith-based beliefs and explanations of 鬼 & 神 are simply removed from the curriculum. This sort of rationalization of 鬼 & 神 is something I can appreciate and understand, and can ultimately confirm with my own experiences as well. However, I too, am faith-driven. There is an element of mysticism to the 鬼 & 神. I pray to the 鬼 & 神 of every budling and room I encounter. And not because a doctrine tells me this must be so, or because some superstitious ghost story led me to this practice. Rather, I've come to this practice via my own investigation of the Nature and Principle of ghosts, spirits, and the Gods (鬼 & 神). This is probably where I differ from the Rujia school of thought as proposed by Zhu Xi and all the thinkers found in the Reflections on Things At Hand (from here on out, referred to as Reflections). The following is a commentary on a Neo-Confucian passage through the lens of a student studying and practicing Daoism. I want to thank Yangzi (on Discord); whose @ on Twitter/X is MichaelMjfm, for helping clarify the nuances of the Neo-Confucian position of 鬼 & 神 to me. May the 鬼 & 神 bless you in every endeavor you embark on.

With that out of the way, let us look at this passage from the Reflections of Things at Hand 3.5 (here on out referred to as simply Reflections) along with comments from Chiang Yung:

People today believe in all kinds of supernatural things and strange tales simply because they do not clearly understand [universal] principle. If they try to understand principle in everything [that seems strange], when will there be an end? We must try to understand [universal principle] through learning.

Comments by Chiang Yung:

If we understand principle clearly, we can judge all supernatural things according to it. According to principle, some things are regular and others are not. Supernatural things need not seem strange to us. (Chiang Yung, Chin-ssu lu chi-chu, 3:1b)

This is an interesting statement to make. This comment that Zhu Xi includes makes it even more interesting. Albeit, one can derive a very secular interpretation from this. The comment by Chiang Yung makes me ponder…

There seems to be a kind very practical and grounding way to understand things that are “supernatural” in a way that makes them less “strange.” As per Kongzi Analects 3.12:

祭如在，祭神如神在。子曰：「吾不與祭，如不祭。」

The expression "sacrifice as though present" is taken to mean "sacrifice to the spirits as though the spirits are present." But the Master said: "If I myself do not participate in the sacrifice, it is as though I have not sacrificed at all." (tr. Roger T. Ames & Henry Rosemount Jr.)

Kongzi himself participated in things that may appear to the western mind as “strange.” But I purpose that Kongzi is actually investigating the nature of sacrificing to spirits (presumably ancestral ones in the context of Analects 3.12) through the Principle of Dao here in Analects 3.12.

Sacrificing to the spirits as though one were not present is what makes the whole ordeal of “sacrifice” strange. Behave as though the spirits are present…one’s sacrifice becomes ever real, ever “regular” as Chiang Yung might suggest. To sacrifice to the spirits as though they were fully present is to investigate the nature of sacrifice through Principle 理 -- the true reality of the thing being investigated. As Chiang Yung states: "According to Principle, some things are regular and some things are not. Supernatural things need not seem strange to us." If we take the time to investigate the "supernatural" and "strange" we begin to realize that everything labeled as "supernatural" and "strange" begins to fall apart. Self and other begin to fall apart. This is the Principle of the supernatural in one's practice. To begin to understand that ghosts, spirits, Gods, and the like are real in every sense of the word; now the "supernatural" becomes quite "natural." However, The "existence" and "non-existence" of the supernatural and strange and the natural and regular become obliterated too once investigating the Principle of this matter. To implore further about the "existence" or "non-existent" of what is regular or strange, supernatural or natural, is the reason why Dao and its Principle are diminished (Zhaungzi 2.12.4-5 tr. Richard J. Lynn). Do not become so overtly attached to the "realness" or "not realness" of the strange, the supernatural, and likewise the regular and natural. Trust in Dao with all your heart-mind and let yourself become absorbed within it All. I encourage anyone who reads this to read the Qingjing Jing, Humingjing, and Zhuangzi 2 to further elucidate the dissolution of these categories, as I am not qualified to speak any further on this.

So, my concluding comment to Reflections 3.5 and its comments by Chiang Yung:

Chapter 3.6 of the Reflections encourages us to investigate the “supernatural” and “strange” through the [universal] Principle [of Dao]. We do this by reading the ancients: Laozi & Kongzi; then the classics. The Daoist teacher then must teach the dizi 弟子 techniques of investigating the subtleties of the world away from the classics and books. The books teach you to crawl, then walk. They are your foundation.

With the foundation of the classics equipped; internalized within the dizi… the mysteries of Daoism then teach you to run into the “supernatural” and “strange” in order to shed these very dichotomies of “supernatural” and “strange.”

Although my understanding of “classics” here is very different from the Confucian tradition, I believe one must start with the Laozi. There are good arguments out there as to why this may be a bad idea, and they are good points to consider. However, I am a Daoist, so I make no excuse for my reasoning. The image below is a wonderful curriculum that one should diligently adhere to. Start with the Five Classics as listed in the picture below. The fifth is the Humingjing which I linked earlier in this post. Study them intently and intimately. Then read Zhu Xi and Kongzi, and if you wish, dip your toes into Confucian classic texts. After one deeply reads and reflects on the Five Classics and some Ruist literature, move on to the Four Books as listed below in the picture. This is my own curriculum and does not reflect the desired curriculum for the school of Daoism I'm training under (not initiated into, but simply training under).