The Great Learning: An Honest Review

🕑 16 min read

What This Book Is

The Great Learning, Da Xue in Chinese, began life as one chapter inside the Book of Rites, a large and untidy compilation of ritual material assembled in the Han dynasty from older sources. For over a thousand years it sat there, unremarkable, one chapter among dozens.

In the twelfth century the philosopher Zhu Xi took it out. He grouped it with the Analects, the Mencius and the Doctrine of the Mean, called the four of them together the Four Books, and declared that a student should read the Great Learning first because it lays out the frame into which everything else fits.

That decision reorganised Chinese intellectual life. From the early fourteenth century the imperial examinations were set on the Four Books with Zhu Xi's commentary attached, and they stayed that way until the whole examination system was abolished in 1905. For roughly six hundred years, the route into government in the most populous state on earth ran through six pages of text.

The Shortest Book in the Canon

It is worth being concrete about the scale here. The core passage, the part Zhu Xi designated the classic proper, is about two hundred Chinese characters. The full text including all ten commentary chapters comes to well under two thousand. In English translation the whole thing occupies six or seven pages with room to spare.

You can read it over a cup of tea. Millions of educated people spent decades on it. The gap between those two facts is the interesting thing about this book and the reason it repays attention.

What made it inexhaustible was the commentary tradition. Nobody read the Great Learning bare. They read it with Zhu Xi, and then with the critics of Zhu Xi, and then with the critics of the critics, until the six pages were carrying several thousand pages of argument on their back. A modern reader who picks up a plain translation and finds it thin has not encountered the book at all. They have encountered its skeleton.

The Three Guiding Principles

The opening sentence announces three aims, traditionally called the three cords or guiding principles.

The first is to make bright virtue shine forth. The claim behind it is that moral clarity is native equipment that has become obscured, so the work is uncovering rather than manufacturing. This is the same premise Mencius argues for at length with the child at the well, and the Great Learning simply assumes it.

The second is the disputed one. The received text reads qin min, loving the people. Zhu Xi, following the Cheng brothers before him, argued that qin was a scribal error for xin, renewing, and emended the text accordingly. Renewing the people means moral reform imposed from above by an educated class. Loving the people means something rather different and considerably warmer. Wang Yangming later rejected the emendation and restored the older reading, and the choice between those two characters marks the fault line between two versions of Confucianism for the next five hundred years.

The third is to come to rest in the highest good. The verb matters. It is not pursuing or approaching but settling, arriving at a place and staying. The text takes this seriously enough to spend a commentary chapter on it, arguing that knowing where to stop produces stability, stability produces calm, calm produces careful thought, and careful thought produces attainment.

The Eight Steps

Then comes the passage everybody quotes. It works backward from the largest scale to the smallest and then forward again.

Those who wished to make bright virtue shine throughout the world first ordered their states. To order their states, they first regulated their families. To regulate their families, they first worked on themselves. To work on themselves, they first rectified their hearts. To rectify their hearts, they first made their intentions sincere. To make their intentions sincere, they first extended their knowledge. And the extension of knowledge lies in the investigation of things.

Then the chain runs back the other way, from the investigation of things all the way up to peace in the world, and the passage closes with a line that got the book its reputation: from the emperor down to the common person, all without exception must regard working on the self as the root.

Two things are worth noticing. The first is that the chain is presented as a dependency, not a sequence of good habits. You genuinely cannot skip a link. The second is the last clause, which applies the same requirement to the sovereign as to the peasant. In a hierarchical society that is a substantial claim, and it is the lever Confucian officials used for centuries when they needed to criticise an emperor without being executed for it.

The Two Words Everything Turns On

The chain bottoms out in two characters: ge wu, conventionally rendered the investigation of things. The text does not explain them.

This is the most consequential ambiguity in Chinese philosophy. Wu means things, affairs, matters, and is uncontroversial. Ge is the problem. It can mean to reach, to arrive at, to correct, to rectify, or to classify, and different readings produce radically different philosophies.

Zhu Xi took ge as reaching or arriving at, and read the phrase as an instruction to examine the pattern, the li, present in every particular thing until understanding breaks through. His programme was broadly investigative: read history, study texts, observe the world, examine one thing today and another tomorrow, and eventually the coherence of the whole becomes apparent. It has been compared to empiricism, though the comparison is loose, since the pattern Zhu Xi expected to find was moral as well as physical.

Wang Yangming took ge as rectifying, and read the phrase as rectifying the affairs of the mind. On his account the principle is already complete in the heart-mind, and going out to examine external objects is a category error. What you rectify is your own intention as it engages with a situation, which is why he insisted that knowledge and action are a single thing and that knowing without doing is simply not knowing.

Both men are reading the same two characters in the same six-page text. Their disagreement produced two schools, two educational programmes, and a very great deal of Chinese and later Japanese political history.

The Chapter Zhu Xi Wrote Himself

Here is the part most introductions skip, and it is remarkable.

When Zhu Xi rearranged the text into a classic plus ten commentary chapters, he found that the chapter which should have explained the investigation of things was missing. His conclusion was that it had been lost at some point in transmission. His response was to write a replacement.

He said so plainly, marking the passage as his own supplement. It is a short paragraph explaining that the mind of every person possesses knowledge and everything in the world possesses pattern, that we should proceed from what we already understand toward what we do not, and that after sustained effort a day arrives when everything opens at once.

That paragraph, composed in the twelfth century by a commentator who told his readers he was filling a gap, became the philosophical centre of orthodox Neo-Confucianism and was memorised by candidates for public office for the following six hundred years.

Wang Yangming and the Bamboo

In 1492 a young man named Wang Shouren, later known as Wang Yangming, decided to test Zhu Xi's method directly. If principle is present in every thing, then it should be findable in any thing. He chose a stand of bamboo in a courtyard and sat in front of it to investigate.

He sat for seven days. He found no principle. He made himself ill and gave up.

The episode reads like a joke and Wang told it against himself, but he drew a serious conclusion from it. If exhaustive attention to an object yields nothing, the fault is in the method. Principle is not lying inside the bamboo waiting to be extracted. It is in the mind that meets the bamboo, and the work of investigation is therefore work on the mind.

From that came his doctrine of innate moral knowing, liangzhi, and the unity of knowledge and action. His influence in China was enormous and in Japan larger still: the Oyomei school shaped a great deal of samurai ethics and, through it, aspects of the Meiji Restoration. All of it traces back to a man failing to get anything out of a bamboo grove and being honest about the failure.

Make It New

The second commentary chapter, on renewing the people, quotes an inscription said to have been cut into the bathing vessel of Tang, the founding king of the Shang dynasty. Renew yourself daily, it reads, day by day renew, and again renew.

The image is domestic and precise. The place you encounter the instruction is the bath, every morning, while washing. Moral renewal is put on the same footing as ordinary hygiene, something done daily and without ceremony because the dirt comes back.

Ezra Pound found this passage, was permanently struck by it, and took from it the slogan Make It New, which he used as a book title in 1934 and which became the closest thing modernism had to a motto. Almost nobody who repeats the phrase knows it started as a Bronze Age note about a bath, translated by a poet who thought Confucian statecraft was the cure for European decline.

Watchful When Alone

The chapter on making the intention sincere contains the text's sharpest psychological observation, under the heading shen du, being careful about your solitude.

The small person, it says, does bad things when idle and alone, and then puts on a good face when a gentleman appears, concealing the bad and displaying the good. But people see him as though they saw his lungs and liver. What is genuinely inside forms the outside.

The argument is not primarily that you will be caught. It is that the division itself is the damage. Sincerity of intention, cheng yi, means the inside and the outside are the same object, and the person who maintains a public version and a private version has already failed at the second link in the chain, which means everything above it is compromised no matter how well it appears to be going.

Ten centuries of Chinese diarists took this seriously enough to keep daily records of their private failings. The practice looks obsessive from outside. From inside it is the direct application of one sentence in a six-page book.

Seven Centuries of Required Reading

It is difficult to overstate what happened to this text institutionally. Once the Four Books with Zhu Xi's commentary became the examination curriculum, the Great Learning stopped being a book that people read and became the frame through which an entire administrative class perceived politics.

The effects cut both ways. On one side, an empire was governed for centuries by people trained to believe that the state's health depends on the personal honesty of the people running it, and that the sovereign is subject to the same requirement as everyone else. That is a genuine restraint on power and it was used as one.

On the other, freezing a curriculum for six hundred years produces exactly what you would expect. By the nineteenth century the examinations rewarded formal command of a fixed body of commentary and punished originality, and reformers identified the system as a principal reason China had been outpaced. The abolition in 1905 was not an attack on Confucius. It was an attack on what six centuries of standardisation had done to him.

What Is Wrong With It

An honest review has to say where the argument fails, and this one has a specific hole.

The chain assumes that ordering a family scales up into ordering a state, and that the difference is size rather than kind. This is the weakest link in the whole sequence. Families run on affection, proximity and shared interest. States run on strangers, competing interests, coercion and law. The mechanisms that make a household work do not simply enlarge.

Related to this, the text contains no theory of institutions. There is nothing about the design of offices, the separation of functions, the auditing of power, or what to do when the person at the top is sincere and also wrong. Its entire answer to bad government is better people. Chinese administrative practice had to supply the missing machinery over the following two millennia, and it did, at enormous cost and largely by trial and error.

There is a further problem. If political order rests on the ruler's inner state, then criticism of policy becomes criticism of the ruler's character, which is a dangerous thing to make into a system. The Legalists said so at the time. Their answer, that you should build institutions which work even when staffed by bad people, is the one modern political thought largely accepted, and reading the Great Learning against them is more instructive than reading it alone.

None of this makes the book worthless. It makes it a text about personal formation that was pressed into service as a text about government, and much of the strain in the tradition comes from that promotion.

Which Translation to Read

Because the text is short and always came with commentary, the edition you choose matters more here than it would for a longer book.

Daniel Gardner's The Four Books: The Basic Teachings of the Later Confucian Tradition gives you the text together with Zhu Xi's commentary in translation, which is how it was actually read for seven hundred years. For most readers this is the right first purchase, because the bare text without commentary is genuinely thin.

Andrew Plaks translated the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean for Penguin Classics and it is the most careful literary rendering in English, attentive to how the sentences are built.

Wing-tsit Chan's A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy contains the text plus the essential Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming material, and if you want to follow the ge wu argument it is the efficient way in.

James Legge's Victorian version circulates in cheap Dover reprints, bundled with the Analects and the Doctrine of the Mean. It is complete, accurate in its way, and free of charge in the public domain, and its idiom is heavily nineteenth-century. It is a reasonable place to start if cost matters, and you will want something else afterwards.

Ezra Pound's The Great Digest is not a translation in any normal sense and should not be your first encounter. As a piece of English writing driven by a particular obsession it is fascinating, and it is the reason the text has any presence in Western poetry at all.

Who Should Read It

Read it if you want the shortest route into the Confucian tradition, and read it before the Analects, which is what Zhu Xi told his own students. Read it if you are interested in how contemplative discipline and public life were held together by a civilisation that never separated them. Read it alongside Plato's Republic, which asks the same question about the relation of the just soul to the just city and answers it very differently.

Read it if you have been circling the idea that fixing the world starts with fixing yourself and you want to see the most rigorous version of that claim, including its failure points.

Do not read it expecting mysticism. There is no cosmology here, nothing like the I Ching or the inner alchemy of the Secret of the Golden Flower. Do not read it in a bare translation and conclude it is trivial, because the tradition never read it that way. And do not treat the eight steps as a self-improvement programme, because the text is explicitly about public consequence, and stripping the political half off leaves you with a fortune cookie.

Frequently Asked Questions