The Dazu Rock Carvings — The Jade Emperor
|
|
|
|
The steep hillsides of the Dazu area contain an exceptional series of rock carvings dating from the 9th to the 13th century. They are remarkable for their aesthetic quality, their rich diversity of subject matter, both secular and religious, and the light that they shed on everyday life in China during this period. They provide outstanding evidence of the harmonious synthesis of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre)
There is no better place than the Dazu Rock Carvings to look for artworks of different Chinese belief systems. Here we list three Dazu sculptures that are representative of the Confucian, Buddhist, and Taoist belief systems.
Therefore substance combines with law, and the combination produces illumination. Illumination is enough to see the law, and the law is able to become a system.
And because human nature invades illumination, each [partiality] has its merits and defects.
To establish affairs and set up standards, it is necessary to determine [all things] according to laws. To discuss this adequately is difficult; there are few who are able to determine it. Why is this? Laws are of many kinds, while men differ. When laws are of many kinds, then they are difficult to understand. When the abilities of men differ, then temperaments are deceitful. When temperaments are deceitful and understanding is difficult, then law is lost, and affairs go to the contrary.
Laws have four categories.
Illumination has four classes.
Temperament has nine partialities.
Developments have seven similitudes.
Debates have six causes of irritation.
Understanding has eight capacities.
The changeableness of all phenomena, the filling and emptying, the increasing and lessening, is the law of Tao.
The rectification of affairs by laws and institutions is the law of affairs.
The suitability of ritual and doctrine is the law of correct behavior.
The pivot of human emotions is the law of temperament.
These four laws are not similar. When they are acting through the innate abilities [of men], they wait for illumination and manifestation. Illumination waits for substance before it can act. Therefore substance combines with law, and the combination produces illumination. Illumination is enough to see the law, and the law is able to become a system.
Therefore [when a man’s] substance and nature are balanced, his mind is subtle and profound. He is able to understand naturally, and belongs to the class of [those who understand] the law of Tao.
[When man’s] substance and nature are active and intelligent, his plans are cunning and clever, and he is able to administer complicated affairs. He belongs to the class of [those who understand] the law of affairs.
[When man’s] substance and nature are peaceable and able to discuss matters of ritual and doctrine, their merits and defects, he belongs to the class of [those who understand] correct behavior.
[When man’s] substance and nature are subtle and analytical, he can infer from the emotions the ideas which were their cause, and is able to suit their changing emotions. He belongs to the class of [those who understand] the law of temperament.
Since the illumination of these four classes is different, possessing the nine partialities of temperament, and because human nature invades illumination, each [partiality] has its merits and defects.
The unyielding and generalizing man cannot deal with details. Therefore when he discusses matters of importance, he is vast and wide. But when he calculates minute laws, he does not stop but skips over them.
The obstinate and austere man is inflexible. When he discusses law, he is complete and just. But when he speaks about changing conditions, he runs contrary to the facts, and cannot begin to understand.
The firm and strong man likes to work upon actual facts. When he indicates the crucial point in the reasoning, he is penetrating and complete. But when he comes to general principles, he is exposed and isolated.
The fluent man has many words and sharp ideas. When he infers concerning human affairs, he sees the essentials and arrives at causes. But when he comes to general concepts, he is greatly astonished, and cannot be all-embracing.
The drifting man cannot think profoundly. When he talks about general estimates, he is broad and shallow. When he comes to set up the essentials of things, he is wavering and unstable.
The man of shallow explanations cannot go deeply into difficulties. When he hears discussions, he is astonished and pleased. But when he examines essential reasons, he changes frequently and has no principles of his own.
The forgiving and considerate man cannot act quickly. When he discusses virtue, he is vast, minute, endless, and refined. But when he comes to actual affairs, he is dilatory and lags behind.
The mild, pliant man cannot be strong. When he is chewing over principles, he is harmonious and clear. But when he comes to settle a doubtful difficulty, he is weak and incomplete.
The man who likes extraordinary things is adventurous and seeks for the unusual. When he comes to create fanciful things, he is masterful and fertile. But when he comes to pure principles, he deviates from the norm and is wide off the mark.
These are what are called the nine partialities of human nature. Each man follows what he regards as reasonable.
If a man’s nature is not refined and perspicuous, this results in the seven similitudes.
There are men who talk aimlessly about ancient things, as if they could put these things into practice.
There are men who give many reasons, and seem as if they had broad thoughts.
There are men who can discuss agreeably, and seem as if they explained laudably.
There are men who by lagging behind appear to choose correctly, and who follow what is liked by the multitude, so that it seems as if they could judge correctly.
There are men who avoid the difficult by not replying. They seem to have more than enough, and yet in reality they do not know.
There are men who love to comprehend the explanations of others, and who seems to be pleased, yet they are not happy.
There are men whose arguments are empty, although they themselves think they are plausible. Their reason fall down, yet they continue to urge them. Really they seek a double interpretation. It seems that they cannot be defeated by reason.
All these seven similitudes are the cause of the deception among the multitude.
In discussion, there are those who win by reason, and those who win by words. Those who win by reason put black and white in their right places, in order to enlarge their argument, and by explaining subtleties they bring about understanding. Those who win by words break the right reason, in order to arrive at something different, and to obtain something different, the right is lost.
The abilities of the nine partialities have similarities, opposites, and mixtures. The similarities will explain each other. The opposites will contradict each other. The mixtures will enlarge each other.
Therefore a man who is able in discussion measures the advantages and discusses them. He will not try to persuade those whose minds are preoccupied. He will not discuss with those who are unable to understand.
A man who is not able in discussion will endeavor to persuade others by means of opposites and mixtures. If he endeavors to persuade others by means of opposites and mixtures, he will not succeed.
Those who are apt in illustration will use one word to explain several things. Those who are not apt in illustration will use a hundred words without explaining one idea. If a hundred words do not explain one idea, no one will listen.
These are the three defects of discussion.
Those who are good in debate must explain the roots of things. Those who are not good in debate forsake the roots and deal with the tips of the branches. If they forsake the roots and deal with the tips of the branches, a structure of [mere] words is built up.
Those who are able to attack the powerful [in debate] will avoid the sudden burst of enthusiasm and sharpness [of the good debater], sticking to fundamental points and attacking gradually. Those who are not good in attacking the powerful will pick up their opponent’s misstatements, in order to push down his sharp ideas. To push down an opponent’s sharp ideas, is to arouse his temper.
Those who are good at stepping on the faults of others, point out only the cause of the faults. Those who are not good at stepping on the faults of others will take advantage of the mistakes of their opponents, in order to blame their natures. To take advantage of mistakes, and to blame their natures, is to build up hatred.
Sometimes a man will think over a problem for a long time. Finally he gets it (the solution). He tells others, without giving them time to think it over. The others cannot comprehend it quickly, so he regards them as hard to instruct. To regard others as hard to instruct, is to build up fury.
In the height of a debate, an opponent’s misstatements must not be pressed too hard. Therefore the good debater will turn his opponent’s mistakes back to the original point. The poor debater will over-ride his opponent’s mistakes and press them. Although his opponent wishes to yield, the circumstances will not permit it. As the circumstances will not permit [yielding], falsity will be built up.
When a man is thinking, he is sometimes unconscious of what his ears hear. When telling and thinking are hindering each other, and the speaker wishes others to understand him, the others are thinking, and so do not understand. The speaker regards them as lacking in understanding. But human nature resents being regarded as lacking in understanding. To resent being regarded as lacking in understanding is to build up anger.
All these six causes of irritation are the sources of transformations. Although there are changes and irritation, still something is obtained. If there are only discussions, but no debates, and each one gives what he sees, that which was the cause remains unknown.
So we may infer from these conditions that those who merely discuss, and yet are able to fix principles, are few. [Such a man’s] intelligence must be able to understand order. His thoughts must be able to create beginnings. His illumination must be able to see the pivot. His words must be able to make clear his ideas. His alertness must be able to hold up his faults. His defense must be able to repulse attacks. His attack must be able to take the defense. He must be able to take in and give out. One must possess all these eight, and then he will be able to understand the law of the universe. If he can understand the law of the universe, then he can understand man.
If one does not possess all these eight beautiful powers, but possesses only one of them, then what he achieves will be one-sided, and what he possesses is of a different category.
Therefore when intelligence can understand order, this is called the ability of classification.
When thought can create beginnings, this s called constructive ability.
When illumination is able to see secrets, this is called the ability for apprehension.
When words make clear the ideas, this is called the ability for adequate expression.
When alertness holds up faults, this is called the ability for quick adjustment.
When defense repulses attack, this is called the ability for upholding discussion.
When the attack takes the defense, this is called the ability for advancing.
When taking can be transformed into giving, this is called the ability for bartering discussions.
A man who understands ability possesses all these eight abilities, and uses them in the proper way. When he speaks to another man who understands all things, there will be similar understandings in their minds. When he speaks with the multitude, he examines their appearance and acts in accordance with their nature. Although his illumination embraces all law, he does not use it to over-top men. Although his intelligence is resourceful, he does not use it to go ahead of men. Good words proceed from his mouth, but stop where they are sufficient. He passes and does not press the vulgarity and mistakes of others. He describes what others have in mind. He aids the capacities of others. He does not so use his facts as to offend others who are incapable. He does not speak so as to exemplify that in which he excels. Whether he speaks directly or indirectly, he has nothing to fear. He will gather the beautiful sounds of the insects, and praise the accidental attainments of the foolish man. There is propriety in what he takes and gives. He is proper in going and staying. When others are at the height of their anger, he will freely apologize. When he wins a debate, he will not be arrogant because of his victory. His mind is balanced, and his determination is instructive, without reproofs or negations. It aims only at the attainment of Tao. With a man like this, one can discuss the warp of the universe, and the law of things.
* Liu Shao. Jen wu chih. Translated by J. K. Shryock. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, 1937.
Previous | Next
Riemann died seven years after he introduced the Riemann Hypothesis, leaving the world without a proof. And so it was, as the 19th century gradually came to a close. In 1900, David Hilbert included the Riemann hypothesis in his famous list of 23 unsolved problems. The list was intended to shape the direction of mathematics for the new century. The Riemann Hypothesis is part of Problem 8 in the 23 problems. Hilbert said of the problem: “If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has the Riemann Hypothesis been proven?”
Hilbert was not exaggerating. The Riemann Hypothesis resisted all attacks in the 20th century. It even threw some contestants into madness. According to Sylvia Nasar’s biography, A Beautiful Mind, mathematician John Forbes Nash was captivated by the prospect of proving the hypothesis and soon became delusional of having obtained a solution. Nash presented his solution to the American Mathematical Society in 1959, stunning fellow mathematicians with a series of nonsensical sentences. Less dramatic yet equally frustrating stories were all too common.
At the conclusion of the 20th century, the Riemann Hypothesis remained the only unsolved problem on Hilbert’s list. In 2000, the Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts announced the Riemann Hypothesis as part of a new list of 7 problems for mathematicians in the new millennium. Attached to each problem is a $1,000,000 prize. Now, a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis is not only worth satisfaction and recognition, but also one million dollars.
But there is far more at stake. In the 1970s, the study of prime numbers was suddenly pulled out of the ivory towers of pure mathematics and into the rough and dirty world of commerce. Three MIT scientists exploited one of Fermat’s many discoveries about prime numbers and constructed a code that would provide impeccable security for sensitive information traveling over the Internet. This cryptography method is now commonly adopted by e-businesses and national intelligence agencies. The method relies on the fact that our knowledge of the primes is just enough to construct the code, but too little to crack it. Since the Riemann Hypothesis provides significant insight to the prime numbers, it is now the center of attention for the likes of AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, and the US National Security Agency.
As for the everyday online shopper, there is little need to worry. The proving of the Riemann Hypothesis has no immediate impact on Internet security. By the time its long term effects trickle down to the cracking of Internet security codes, governments and businesses will have had plenty of time to replace all cryptography methods involving the prime numbers. (The mathematical objects known as elliptical curves, for example, are ready alternatives for the prime numbers.) So, as the study of the primes continues, we may continue to enjoy the convenience and security of online shopping.
Prime numbers have fascinated humankind for millennia. The earliest investigation into the primes is evidenced by a bone discovered in the mountains of central equatorial Africa, which dates from 6500 B. C. and records all prime numbers between 10 and 20. The ancient Chinese, characterized by their practical approach to mathematics, developed a physical understanding of the prime numbers by as early as 1000 B. C. The ancient Greeks, distinguished by their abstract view on mathematics, set out to discover universal truths underlying the primes.
In the 4th century B. C., Greek mathematician Euclid, arguably the father of mathematics, showed that there are infinitely many primes – one of the first marvelous truths about the prime numbers discovered by men. Around the same time, the Greeks also proved that any number can be built by multiplying one or more prime numbers, thereby revealing the potency of prime numbers as fundamental building blocks in the world of mathematics.
Drawn to this potential power of primes, mathematicians since Euclid relentlessly studied these numbers. If the sciences resort to mathematics to describe patterns and orders in the universe, and if the prime numbers are the cornerstone of mathematics, wouldn’t the study of the primes bring new insights into the understanding of the world? However, the deeper mathematicians delve into the prime numbers, the more troubling mysteries they uncover.
A mathematician may begin the study of the primes by asking a simple question about the behavior of these numbers: How are the primes distributed in all numbers? Surely one can generate a distribution of primes by removing all non-prime numbers one by one, as demonstrated by the 3rd century B. C. Greek librarian Eratosthenes in his construction of tables of primes. But most mathematicians set out believing that there exists an order in the distribution of primes, a pattern that allows these numbers to be described by elegant formulae rather than tabulated by brute force.
One such mathematician was Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665). He proposed that raising 2 to the power of 2N and adding 1 would generate a prime number. This formula, though unproven at the time, inspired mathematicians to construct a formula that describes a specific class of prime numbers. The French monk Marin Mersenne, for instance, constructed a formula, 2p-1 (with p being any prime number), that generates a class of prime numbers now known as the Mersenne primes. The hope was that by constructing formulae describing specific primes, one might eventually stumble upon the secret to constructing a formula describing prime numbers in general.
Fermat’s first prime-generating formula, eventually disproved by Euler, was nonetheless a steppingstone for German mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss, who conjured up an approximate description of prime numbers in general. Gauss (1777-1855), often referred to as the “prince of mathematics,” brought forth revolutionary ideas to most fields of mathematics: geometry, arithmetic, algebra, analysis, and, of course, the prime numbers. In 1801, Gauss proposed that the number of primes distributed between 1 and n is roughly equal to n over the natural logarithm of n. This rule for the distribution of prime numbers was proved forty-one years after Gauss died, and is now known as the Prime Number Theorem.
The Prime Number Theorem never correctly describes the prime numbers. It is only an approximation. Take the number 10,000,000,000 for example; if we count the prime numbers below it, there are exactly 455,052,512. The Prime Number Theorem predicts that there will be 434,294,493. The error is 20,758,019, or 4.5 per cent. To make matters worse, the error, though small, appeared to be unpredictable.
Working to remedy this deficiency was Gauss’s most eminent successor, Bernhard Riemann. Riemann (1826-1866) studied under Gauss and did important work in geometry, complex analysis, and mathematical physics, which ultimately led to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Riemann was attempting a proof to guarantee that the per cent error of the Prime Number Theorem would get smaller as the numbers grew larger. What he discovered was what is now known as the Riemann zeta function. The Riemann zeta function indeed supplied the missing ingredient in Riemann’s proof, but there is something more peculiar about it. As Riemann began observing some prime numbers through the function, he saw that the primes would always order themselves in a perfect straight line. If this was true for all prime numbers, Riemann would have found a pattern that described the prime numbers exactly, as opposed to Gauss’s never-exact Prime Number Theorem.
Excited about this breakthrough, Riemann shared his idea in the 1859 paper On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude to the Berlin Academy. As the mathematical community slowly came to grips with Riemann’s perspective on prime numbers, the brilliance of this new approach became evident. Riemann’s proposal of ordering the primes with his zeta function became known as the Riemann Hypothesis, which had set the course for the study of prime numbers to this day.
On June 8, 2004, Purdue University announced that Louis de Branges de Bourcia, professor of mathematics, had proven the Riemann Hypothesis and solved a great mystery surrounding the prime numbers. Businesses, financial institutes and intelligence agencies round the world were at once alerted to the news.
“There are some mysteries that the human mind will never penetrate,” Leonhard Euler wrote in 1751, “To convince ourselves we have only to cast a glance at tables of primes and we should perceive that there reigns neither order nor rule.”
Euler (1707-1783) had won the Paris Academy Prize 12 times, and is the most prolific mathematical writer of all time. The architects of modern technologies had no doubt in him, devising security mechanisms protecting Internet commerce, bank transactions and intelligence work with prime numbers, confident that these numbers are “mysteries that [the minds of hackers and counterintelligence agencies] will never penetrate.”
Now, it would appear that Euler had been wrong.
There are twelve categories of abilities: the man of sublime behavior, the statesman, the strategist, the leader of a state, the man of instrumental ability, the critic, the practical man, the astute man, the literary man, the learned man, the dialectician, and the [military] hero.
[If a man’s] virtuous actions are high and admirable, his bearing and conduct may be used as models. Such a one is called a man of sublime behavior. Yen Ling and Yen Ying were [of this class].
[If a man can] frame laws and set up institutions, strengthen the country and enrich the people; such a one is called a statesman. Kuan Chung and Shang Yang were [of this class].
[If a man’s] thoughts are penerating and his way fluid, while his plans are marvelously clever; such a one is called a strategist. Fan Li and Chang Liang were [of this class].
[It is possible for a man to have] these three qualities, all three in completeness. His virtue is sufficient to encourage the [keeping of the] mores. His law is enough to set the world right. His plans are able to win victory from within the temple. Such a one is called the leader of a state. Yi Yin and Lü Wang were [of this class].
One may have all these three qualities in small measure. His virtue is enough to lead a state. His law is sufficient to set right a village or a town. His plans are able to meet the exigencies of affairs. Such a one is called a man of instrumental ability. Tzu Ch‘an and His-meng Pao were [of this class].
A man may have one of these three qualities incompletely, and this gives rise to three other categories.
[A man approximating] the man of sublime behavior may be unable to be all-embracing and considerate. He likes to be sarcastic and scornful, and to discriminate between right and wrong. Such a man is called a critic. Those like Tzu Hsia are [of this class].
[A man approximating] the statesman may be unable to evolve new ideas and plan far ahead, yet able to perform the duties of an office, to polish ideas and carry [them] out cleverly. Such a one is called a practical man. Chang Ch‘ang and Chao Kuang-han [were of this class].
[A man approximating] the strategist may be unable to found institutions and form permanent policies, yet able to use his versatility in changing circumstances. He has more than enough wisdom and cunning, but is deficient in character. Such a one is called an astute man. Ch‘en P‘ing and Han An-kuo were [of this class].
These eight categories all use the first three qualities as their sources. Therefore although there are differences in their variations, they are all abilities which make affairs easy.
One who is able to compose essays and write books is called a literary man. Ssu-ma Ch‘ien and Pan Ku were [of this class].
One who can transmit the doctrines of sages, but who is incapable of action and administrative duties, is called a learned man. Mao Kung and Kuan Kung were [of this class].
One whose discussions do not enter Tao, but whose conversation is full and fluent, is called a dialectician. Lo Yi and Tsao-ch‘iu Sheng were [of this class].
One whose courage and strength are superior to the average, whose ability and tactics surpass those of the mass of men, is called a [military] hero. Po Ch‘i and Han Hsin were [of this class].
All these twelve abilities are qualities of officials. The virtue of the sovereign is not included.
One having the virtue of the sovereign has wisdom and balance of character, integrating and directing all these qualities, yet not assuming the duties himself. Therefore when the Tao of the sovereign is established, the twelve abilities will receive their proper offices.
The virtue of the man of sublime behavior belongs to the office of teacher.
The ability of the statesman belongs to the office of ssu-k‘ou.
The ability of the strategist belongs to the office of san-ku.
Those who have these three qualities in their completeness belong in the office of san-kung.
Those who have a little of the three abilities belong in the office of prime minister.
The ability of the critic belongs to the office of assistant to the teacher.
The ability of the astute man belongs to the office of assistant to the prime minister.
The ability of the practical man belongs to the office of ssu-k‘ung.
The ability of the learned man belongs to the office of pacificator.
The ability of the literary man belongs to the office of imperial historiographer.
The ability of the dialectician belongs to the office of the minister of foreign affairs.
The ability of the military hero belongs to the office of commander.
Therefore when the way of the sovereign is achieved, the way of the ministers follows as a corollary. The officers will not change their places, and peace will be attained.
If the way [of the sovereign] is not balanced, but inclines toward one of these abilities, that ability will acquire [undue] power, and the other abilities will lose employment.
* Liu Shao. Jen wu chih. Translated by J. K. Shryock. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, 1937.
The nature of partial abilities cannot be transformed.
Therefore there is some show of excellence, but also some falling short of reasonableness.
The substances of the virtue of the mean cannot be classified. Therefore it is salty and yet not salty, tasteless and yet k‘uei, plain yet not undecorated, refined yet not over-decorated. It can be awe-inspiring, and it can cherish. It can argue fluently; it can speak briefly and cautiously. It is capable of infinite change, reaching the proper state as its limit.
Therefore the ambitious man will go beyond it; the conventional man will not reach it. Both the ambitious man and the conventional man violate the mean. Therefore there is some show of excellence, but also some falling short of reasonableness.
So [when a man is] severe, strict, sharp, and resolute, his ability lies in regulating others, but his defect is to stimulate their faults.
[When a man is] soft, pleasant, peaceful, and considerate, his beauty lies in toleration, but his defect lies in a lack of decision.
[When a man is] fierce, brave, heroic, and strong, his task lies in fiery action, but his defect lies in too much jealousy.
[When a man is] refined, docile, fearful, and cautious, his goodness lies in courteous carefulness, but his defect lies in having too much suspicion.
[When a man is] strong, exemplary, firm, and unyielding, his use lies in being a pillar, but his defect lies in self-will and obstinacy.
[When a man can] discuss and explain, his talent lies in unraveling knotty problems, but his defect lies in sophistry.
[When a man is] universal, broad, and all-giving, his greatness lies in covering all, but his defect lies in being muddy.
[When a man is] clear, resolute, incorruptible, and pure, his reputation lies in thriftiness and determination, but his defect lies in conventionality.
[When a man is] eminent and superior in action, his achievement lies in advancing, but his defect lies in looseness, and in going too far.
[When a man is] profound, calm, and crafty, his essence lies in subtlety, but his defect lies in slowness.
[When a man is] simple and upright, his substance is sincere, but his defect is a lack of subtlety.
[When a man has] much wisdom and strategy, his versatility lies in cleverness, but his defect lies in complacency.
Until the day of advancing their virtue, they do not stop at the mean as their norm in order to refrain from the conventionality or ambition of their abilities, but point out the defects of others in order to increase their own defects. It is like wearing the sword in the states of Chin and Ch‘u; either side is wrong.
Therefore the strong-willed man is fierce, unyielding, and unamiable. He does not refrain from the rudeness of his strength, but regards compromise as surrender, in order to incite his ambition. So one can use him to establish law, but it is hard to enter into subtleties with him.
The mild, easy-going man is slow of thought and loose in judgment. He does not refrain from the disorder of his affairs, but regards ambition as injurious, in order to rest in his comfort. So one can do ordinary things with him, but it is hard to deliberate about doubtful matters with him.
The bold, imperious man is impetuous and courageous. He does not refrain from the ruinous fall of his bravery, but regards compromise as cowardice, in order to put forth his power to the utmost. So one can go through difficult situations with him, but it is hard to stay with him under restraint.
The fearful and cautious man is afraid of trouble, and has much superstition. He does not refrain from his own timidity with reference to duty, but regards bravery as imprudent, in order to increase his doubts. So one can preserve the present order with him, but it is hard to perform a heroic feat with him.
The dominating man holds to his own ideas, and is outstanding. He does not refrain from the obstinacy of his feelings, but regards discussion as hypocrisy, in order to strengthen his absoluteness. So one can use him to maintain uprightness, but it is hard to lead the mass of men with him.
The talkative man discusses adequately. He does not refrain from the flood of his words, but regards patterns as too binding, in order to follow his sophistry. So one can hold a flood of discourse with him, but it is hard to set up a concise standard with him.
The all-embracing man pervades all things with his benevolent feelings. He does not retrain from the muddiness and mixed nature of his friendships, but regards rectitude as one-sided, in order to enlarge his muddiness. So one can use him to pacify the mass of people, but it is hard to uplift vulgarity with him.
The one-sided and righteous man scorns both the clean and the unclean. He does not refrain from the narrowness of his way, but regards toleration as dirtiness, in order to increase his bigotry. So one can guard moral principles with him, but it is hard to use him in changing situations.
The active man has high ambitions. He does not refrain from the multiplicity of his ideas, but regards calmness as stagnation, in order to strengthen his sharpness. So one can use him to advance, but it is hard to hold the rear with him.
The profound and calm man encircles with his thought. He does not refrain from the tardiness of his placidity, but regards action as carelessness, in order to ennoble his timidity. So one can plan deeply with him, but it is hard to act swiftly with him.
The simple and transparent man has no doubts. He does not refrain from the rudeness and directness of his sincerity, but regards cunning as boastfulness, in order to manifest his sincerity. So one can establish loyalty with him, but it is hard to weigh changing values with him.
The cunning and scheming man is all things to all men. He does not refrain from trickery which deviates from the right, but regards sincerity as foolishness, in order to enhance his falsity. So one can praise goodness with him, but it is hard to correct flattery with him.
The purpose of education is to perfect the abilities. The purpose of a consideration for others is to extend the emotions. The nature of partial abilities cannot be transformed. Although one teaches them by education to perfect their abilities, these are followed by their defects. Although one trains them by consideration of others to extend their emotions, each will follow his own mind. The loyal man will accord with the loyal. The deceitful man will accord with the deceitful. Therefore education cannot lead a man to the right way, nor a consideration for others enable a man to understand things, [if the man possesses only partial abilities]. This is the increasing defectiveness of partial abilities.
* Liu Shao. Jen wu chih. Translated by J. K. Shryock. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society, 1937.
I have long been seeking for a systematic procedure of creating multidimensional characters for my stories.
The search is over. I decided on constructing a character template following guidelines from The Study of Human Abilities, translated by Dr. J. K. Shryock from Liu Shao's Jen wu chih. As soon as the template is complete, I will begin using it to create characters for a new story.
The five categories of things are all exhibited in our bodies.
The differentiation of the five constants is arranged in order as the five virtues.
That whereby the nature may be understood is the manifestation of the nine substances.