Ge Hong’s seminal fourth-century work Baopuzi is a fundamentally important work for understanding Chinese late-antiquity religion and its practices. Chief among the concerns of the Baopuzi is the achievement of immortality and the cultivation of the self, which Ge Hong explores in excruciating detail to demonstrate the distinctions between what is of earth and what is of heaven. Along the way, Hong also showcases his immense fealty to, and support of, Confucian ideals of cultivating the self through study and political action within the Baopuzi. As a result, Ge Hong’s Baopuzi focuses on ways to fix the social and political issues of late antiquity China through the lens of Confucianism. As Hong describes, Confucius’ teachings solidified his status as a sage, a uniquely enlightened type of human whose focus was on the external, worldly advancement of mankind as a species, and not on a personal divine advancement to godhood.
Throughout the Baopuzi, Ge Hong demonstrate the ability for the heavenly spirits (shen) to possess incredible amounts of clarity (ming), which permits them to understand the nature of the world with incredible accuracy. These things break the fundamental cycle of life and death that most humans are situated within; however, they are not to be held up as better than humanity or other things earthly. In terms of human beings, the benevolence they see is in their ability to care for their children and mourn the dead – they then overcame the same limitations that animals had by inventing shelter, agriculture, cooking, clothes and civilization in general to elevate humanity beyond the natural state of things.
Ge Hong’s primary emphasis in the Baopuzi is to advise on the cultivation of the self, which creates ‘sages’ that can find ways to see with the kind of heavenly clarity the spirits themselves have. These particular sages are important, critical figures in human history, who were the ones to elevate mankind using the aforementioned technological advancements and societal attributes like civilization. Humans must become sages through transcendence, a process in which people use the heavenly clarity they have been endowed with to transcend their own realm and become spirits like the shen. In this respect, even the immutable elements of life and death are malleable in ways one would not normally expect: “To be sure, life, death, beginning and ending do form the grand framework, but there are differences and variations” (Hong 36).
Ge Hong highly criticizes the provincial nature of the ‘shallow-minded’ man, who will “cling to popular beliefs and preserve the ordinary ways” (Hong 38). In this respect, Hong advises that people advance themselves to the level of the sage by letting go of these limited, shallow perceptions of the self and looking to improve oneself and their nature: “An allotment of life is ours, but we never understand how its actual measure is achieved” (Hong 38). Hong describes the presence of ‘genii’ in the world, who are enlightened men described as being “intelligent of great ability,” living simply without the need for employment, social graces and any sense of falsehood (Hong 38). While they live among men, it is the role of men to attempt to identify these genies – however, Hong believes that ordinary men “are but walking corpses,” unable to see and discern the world around them (Hong 39). This essentially creates a further divide between those who focus on cultivating the Self and those who do not, separating mankind into those who are awakened to the possibilities of the universe and those who remain hopelessly material in nature.
In Hong’s ideas of the self, geniehood is the ultimate achievement of mankind, though Hong differentiates between genies and sages. While sages are meant to be more socially and politically active within Chinese life, working to “remove oppressors, exterminate bandits, overcome dangers,” and the like, genies are peaceful, disinterested men who focus on self-cultivation and personal enlightenment (Hong 200-201). Hong’s central concern with the genie is that they achieve “Fullness of Life and lasting vision,” an extremely internal process that focuses much more on the divine than the more outward journey of the sage (Hong 201). Sagehood, for instance, is “divisible,” as there can be sages of government and sages of God, experts who have cultivated their interests in both (Hong 201). Sages surpass the unenlightened in the basic elements of talent, writing, rhetoric, purity, wisdom and education, among other things; to that end, Hong does not expect them to follow along with the cultivation required of geniehood.
When relating these ideas to the principles of Confucius, Ge Hong’s assertions in the Baopuzi match his very closely. As Hong himself admits, Confucius was “the profoundest in eminent talent and in study on a broad scale,” with little to no interest in some of the lesser arts that other people may be better at (Hong 205). This made Conficius a sage, with limited knowledge of the nature of transcendence but with tremendous focus on ethical thinking. Sagehood or geniehood are not contingent upon people being good at everything, simply in finding their focus and achieving a godlike understanding and cultivation of that talent. Sages like Confucius are important for the continuation and advancement of human history, and have a nearly-divine level of clarity, but they do not fully reach the divine.
Confucius himself was not innately concerned with reaching the divine; viewing his behavior through the lens of Hong, it is nonetheless clear that he was a sage whose priorities lie in the advancement of the mind and a civil sensibility. Confucius taught the basic principles of moral nobility, including filial devotion (xiao), humaneness (ren), and ritual decorum (li) – all of which were his central focus (Confucius 43). In the context of Confucius, self-cultivation meant learning the ins and outs of these particular disciplines, until you had a full understanding of family and government based around these principles. In the Analects, Confucius teaches his disciples many of the fundamental elements of these principles, as well as the need to learn in the first place: “To learn, and at due times to practice what one has learned, is that not also a pleasure?” (Confucius 45). The very act of learning, taking that and placing it in a greater philosophy of being, appears to be the central tenet for achieving sagehood, according to Hong, and Confucius would qualify as a sage in this respect. From the perspective of Hong, Confucius’ power as a sage came from his innate understanding of governance as based around these three principles.
Confucius believes that rules must be able to treat his subjects the way he would want to be treated, which cultivates devotion and humaneness; furthermore, leaders must express their own moral powers and virtues through the forms of ritual. With his understanding of these principles, Confucius can easily qualify as a sage (though he himself denies his sagelike nature). If asked to examine the works and beliefs of Hong, he would both deny being a sage for the sake of humaneness and humility, and would likely also challenge the nature of geniehood – that way to become individually divine without helping others. Confucius’ personal philosophy revolves so much around government and society that his laser-like focus on the principles of sagehood would render any direct, selfish pursuit of the divine moot. As Confucius notes, “Without knowing what is ordained [by Heaven], one has no way to become a noble person,” thus making it clear that his emphasis on the principles of xiao, ren and li constitute the fundamental ways the Self can be cultivated into its greatest version of nobility (Confucius 63). Hong’s differentiation between sagehood and geniehood, therefore, is of little concern to Confucius.
Judging from the major elements of Ge Hong’s Baopuzi, Hong’s central concern is the differences in the way people cultivate their ideal selves. Hong writes in detail about sages, who are worldly thinkers who devote their time and energy to learning the essential nature of man or nature or society, in ways which allow them to be leaders amongst the less enlightened. Geniehood, however, involves the sequestration of an individual from society and a great deal of directed inner thought in order to achieve true divinity. These two are seen as separate but somewhat equal in Hong’s eyes, though geniehood is shown to be inherently more divine than sagehood. Hong considers Confucius a sage, though Confucius is uniquely unconcerned with the divinity of inner tranquility and transcendence. In order to cultivate one’s best self, thought Confucius, the principles of xiao, ren and li needed to be brought to their peak. While Hong saw self-improvement as one of two distinct paths, Confucius believed that wise government service and humaneness was the ultimate path to performing the duties of Heaven.
Works Cited
Confucius. Confucius and the Analects. Ed. Bryan W. Van Norden. Oxford University Press,
2002.
Hong, Ge. Baopuzi. Trans. James R. Ware. MIT Press, 320.
