Sageliness Within, Kingliness Without
What is the ideal human being?
Some people might say it's a rockstar. Some would claim it's a philanthropic billionaire. Others would answer that a genius doctor-scientist is the ideal. But when we look at cultures as a whole historically, they have often elevated spiritual or moral ideals above all else. We can clearly see that the ideal of the Christian West has been that of the Saint—someone detached from the world, living and breathing the will of God, devoting their life to the service of others. And in the Buddhist East, the ideal has been that of the Buddha—an enlightened monk who has transcended all earthly attachments and desires. But in China, the ideal has always been the Sage. What, then, defines the Chinese Sage?
To answer this question, I read Fung Yu-lan’s A Short History of Chinese Philosophy to get a nuanced understanding from a truly great scholar.
In ancient China, philosophy wasn’t just for scholars. It was the foundation of society. Every educated person studied the Four Books: the Analects of Confucius, the Book of Mencius, the Great Learning, and the Doctrine of the Mean.
According to the tradition of Chinese philosophy, its function is not the increase of positive knowledge, but the elevation of the mind. Lao Tzu said: "To work on learning is to increase day by day; to work on Tao (the Way, the Truth) is to decrease day by day."
The Sage was the highest achievement of humanity. Not just a wise person, but someone who had identified their individual self with the entire universe. But here’s the question: To reach this state, did the Sage have to abandon society? Did they have to turn their back on life itself?
Some traditions said yes. The Buddha taught that life was the root of suffering. Plato called the body a prison for the soul. Therefore, many have interpreted these teachings quite literally: true wisdom requires leaving the world behind. This way of thinking can be categorized as "Otherworldly Philosophy."
There is another kind of philosophy which emphasizes what is in society, such as human relations and human affairs. This kind of philosophy speaks only about moral values, and is unable to or does not wish to speak of the super-moral ones, and can be generally described as "this-worldly."
From the point of view of a this-worldly philosophy, an other-worldly philosophy is too idealistic, is of no practical use, and is negative.
From the point of view of an other-worldly philosophy, a this-worldly philosophy is too realistic, too superficial. It may be positive, but it is like a man who has taken the wrong road: the more quickly he walks, the further he goes astray.
According to Fung, Chinese philosophy cannot be understood by oversimplification of this kind. So far as the main tenet of its tradition is concerned, if we understand it aright, it cannot be said to be wholly this-worldly, just as, of course, it cannot be said to be wholly other-worldly. It is both of this world and of the other world. One philosopher described it this way: "It is not divorced from daily ordinary activities, yet it goes straight to what antedated Heaven."
This worldliness and other-worldliness stand in contrast to each other as do realism and idealism. The task of Chinese philosophy is to accomplish a synthesis out of these antitheses.
The man who accomplishes this synthesis, not only in theory but also in deed, is the Sage. He is both this-worldly and other-worldly.
The Chinese Sage is not one who does not concern himself with the business of the world. His character is described as one of "sageliness within and kingliness without." That is to say, in his inner sageliness, he accomplishes spiritual cultivation; in his kingliness without, he functions in society. It is not necessary that the Sage should be the actual head of the government in his society. The saying "sageliness within and kingliness without" means mostly that he who has the noblest spirit should, theoretically, be king.
Therefore, it is the task of philosophy to enable man to develop this kind of character, and what it discusses is what the Chinese philosophers describe as the Tao (Way, or basic principles) of sageliness within and kingliness without.