University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XXXV.

Simplicity of Funerals (Po-tsang).

Sages and Worthies all are agreed in advocating simplicity of
funerals and economy of expenses, but the world sets high store on
expensive funerals, and there are many that do amiss by their extravagance
and lavishness. The reason is that the discussions of Confucianists
on this subject are not clear, and that the arguments put
forward by the Mêhists are wrong. As to the latter, the Mêhists
contend that men, after their death become ghosts and spirits,
possess knowledge, can assume a shape, and injure people. As
instances they adduce Earl Tu and others.[1704] The Confucianists do
not agree with them, maintaining that the dead are unconscious, and
cannot be changed into ghosts.[1705] If they contribute to the sacrifices
and prepare the other funeral requisites nevertheless, they desire
to intimate that they are not ungrateful to the deceased, and therefore
treat them as though they were alive.

Lu Chia speaks like the Confucianists and, whatever he says,
avoids giving a distinct answer. Liu Tse Chêng wrote a memorial
on the simplicity of funerals, pleading for economy, but he did not
exhaust the subject.

Thus ordinary people, on the one side, have these very
doubtful arguments, and, on the other, they hear of Earl Tu[1706] and
the like, and note that the dead in their tombs arrise and have
intercourse with sick people whose end is near. They, then, believe
in this, and imagine that the dead are like the living. They
commiserate them that in their graves they are so lonely, that
their souls are so solitary and without companions, that their tombs
and mounds are closed and devoid of grain and other things.

Therefore they make dummies to serve the corpses in their
coffins, and fill the latter with eatables, to gratify the spirits. This
custom has become so inveterate, and has gone to such lengths,
that very often people will ruin their families and use up all their
property for the coffins of the dead.[1707] They even kill people to

follow the deceased into their graves,[1708] and all this out of regard
for the prejudices of the living. They ignore that in reality it is
of no use, but their extravagance is eagerly imitated by others.
In their belief, the dead are conscious and do not distinguish
themselves from the living.

Confucius condemned these practices, but could not establish the
truth, and Lu Chia, in his essay, does not adopt either alternative.
The memorial of Liu Tse Chêng does not do much to elucidate the
assertion of the Confucianists that the dead are unconscious, or the
arguments of the Mêhists to the effect that they are conscious. The
subject not being borne out by proofs, and the question not being
settled by evidence, there is nothing but empty words and futile
talk, and even the views of the most honest people do not find
credence. Therefore, the public remains wavering and ignorant,
and those who believe in a lucky and unlucky destiny, dread the
dead, but do not fear justice; make much of the departed, and
do not care for the living. They clear their house of everything
for the sake of a funeral procession.

Provided that the disputants and men of letters have proofs
such as Earl Tu adduced by the Mêhists, then the truth that the
dead are unconscious can be borne out, and the advice to be
economical and not to squander too much money on burials, be
substantiated. Now the Mêhists say that the Confucianists are wrong,
and the Confucianists think the same of the Mêhists. Since they both
have their different tenets, there is such a discrepancy of opinions,
and a consensus so difficult to be attained.

In this dispute of the two schools, the problem of life and
death has not yet been solved, nobody having ever been resuscitated
by sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the dead are hidden from our
view, being dissolved and belonging to another sphere than the
living, and it is almost impossible to have a clear conception of them.
Unless, however, their state of consciousness or unconsciousness be
ascertained, the true nature of ghosts cannot be determined. Even
men of great learning and able scholars may be unfit to discover
the truth, though they avail themselves of all the old and modern
literature, plunging into the works of the various schools of thought,
and perusing them page after page and paragraph after paragraph.

To attain this aim there must first be a holy heart and a
sage mind, and then experience and analogies are to be resorted
to. If anybody in his reasoning does not use the greatest care

and discernment, taking his evidence indiscriminately from without,
and thus establishing right and wrong, he believes in what he has
heard or seen from others, and does not test it in his mind. That
would be reasoning with ears and eyes, and not with the heart
and intellect. This reasoning with ears and eyes conduces to empty
semblances, and if empty semblances be used as proofs, then real
things pass for fictions. Ergo, right and wrong are independent of
eyes and ears, and require the use of the intellect.

The Mêhists, in their investigations, do not inquire into things
with their mind, but thoughtlessly believe the reports of others.
Consequently, they fail to find the truth in spite of the plainness
of their proofs. An opinion incompatible with truth, however, is
not apt to be imparted to others, for though they may have the
sympathies of illiterate people, they do not find favour with the
learned. It is owing to this that the maxim of the Mêhists that all
expenses for the various things employed at funerals are unprofitable
does not gain ground.

A man of Lu was going to put cat's-eyes[1709] into a coffin.
Confucius, upon hearing of it, went across the court-yard, passed
over the steps (of the hall), and remonstrated; this was a breach
of etiquette. The intention of Confucius was to avert a calamity.[1710]
Calamities very often originate from covetousness. Cat's-eyes are
precious stones; when the man of Lu put them into the coffin,
wicked people spied it out, and their greed was roused. The desires
of wicked people having been excited, they do not fear laws or
penalties, and break tombs open. Confucius, from some insignificant
indications, foresaw this result, therefore he crossed the court,
ascended the steps (of the hall), and, in order to avert this calamity,
straightforth made his remonstrance. But since he did not show
that the dead are deprived of consciousness, barely limiting himself
to a remonstrance, on the ground that the grave might be violated,
people would not have listened to him, even though he had possessed
the same influence on mankind as Pi Kan. Why? Because the wealth

of the feudatory lords was so great, that they were not apprehensive
of poverty,[1711] and their power so strong, that they did not fear a
desecration of their graves.

Thus, the doubts concerning the dead were not solved, and
for a dutiful son the best plan was to follow the advice imposing
upon him the heaviest obligations. Had it been plainly shown that
the dead have no knowledge, and that sumptuous burials are of no
advantage, the discussion would have been closed, and the question
settled, and after it had been made public, the custom of using
cat's-eyes would have been abandoned, and there would have been
no occasion for crossing the court-yard and remonstrating. Now,
the problem was not solved, and barely a strong protest made.
That is the reason why Confucius could not carry through his doctrine.

Confucius perfectly well understood the true condition of life
and death, and his motive in not making a clear distinction is the
same which appears from Lu Chia's words. If he had said that
the dead are unconscious, sons and subjects might perhaps have
violated their duties to their father and sovereign. Therefore they
say that the ceremony of funeral sacrifices being abolished, the love
of sons and subjects would decrease; if they had decreased, these
persons would slight the dead and forget the deceased, and, under
these circumstances, the cases of undutiful sons would multiply.
Being afraid that he might open such a source of impiety, the Sage
was reluctant to speak the truth about the unconsciousness of
the dead.

However, different spheres must not be confounded. The care
taken in abundantly providing for the wants of the living leads to
moral perfection, but how does carelessness about the dead interfere
with it? If the dead possess knowledge, then a disregard might have
evil consequences, but if they are unconscious, a neglect cannot
cause any injury. The conviction of their unconsciousness does not
necessarily lead to an ill-treatment of the dead, whereas the ignorance
of this fact involves the living in ruinous expense.

A dutiful son nursing a sick parent before his death, calls in
the diviners and requests the services of physicians with the hope
that the malady may be expelled, and the medicines prove efficacious.
But, after the death of his parent, nobody—be he as wise as
Wu Hsien,[1712] or as clever as Pien Ch`io—can bring him back to life

again, well knowing that, when, by death, the vital fluid is destroyed,
there is absolutely no help, and no treatment whatever would be
of any benefit to the dead. Is there any great difference in an
expensive funeral? By supineness with regard to the deceased, people
fear to violate the moral laws, but would it not likewise be an
impiety to dismiss the diviners and keep the physicians from the dead?

As long as a parent is alive, he takes an elevated seat in the
hall, but, after death, when buried, stays under the yellow springs.[1713]
No human being lives under the yellow springs, yet those burying
the dead have not the slightest scruples about it, because the dead
inhabit quite a different region, and cannot live together with the
living. If they were to be taken care of like living people, and
supposed to take offence, they ought to be buried in their house
and be close to the living. Those ignorant of the unconsciousness of
the dead, are afraid that people might offend against their parents.
They only know that, having been buried, they live under the
yellow springs, but do not think of the separation from their ancestors.[1714]

When a parent is in jail, and his case still pending, a dutiful
son hurries about, to rescue him from this danger, but after the
case has been tried, and a penalty has been fixed, there is no escape
left, and even a Tsêng Tse or a Min Tse Ch`ien[1715] could do nothing
but sit down and weep. All schemes would be in vain and lead
to useless trouble. Now, the souls of deceased parents decidedly
have no consciousness, and are in a similar position to imprisoned
parents who cannot be rescued from their punishment. Those who
ignore the unconsciousness, apprehend lest people should show a
disregard for their ancestors, but do not take exception that, when
punishment is settled, parents are abandoned.

When a sage has established a law furthering progress, even
if it be of no great consequence, it should not be neglected; but
if something is not beneficial to the administration, it should not
be made use of in spite of its grandeur. Now, how does all the
care bestowed on the dead benefit mutual good feeling, and how
could any disregard or neglect violate any law?

Confucius further said that "spirit vessels" are not substantial,
but merely symbolical and imaginary. Therefore puppets are made
to resemble men, and effigies like living persons. In Lu they used

dummies for burials. Confucius sighed, seeing in this custom an
indication that living men would be interred together with the dead.[1716]
This sigh was an expression of grief, and if (at funerals) things
had to be used as if for the living, he warned against an overstraining
of this principle. Dummies being buried, it was to be
feared that later on, living men might be forced to accompany
the dead,[1717] but why did Confucius not consider the possibility that
for "spirit vessels," real vessels might be placed in the graves in
future?[1718] He obviated human sacrifices, but did nothing to prohibit
the use of funeral gifts. He valued human life so much, that he
was afraid of wasting it, and he felt pity for the individual
but no sympathy for the State.[1719] In this his reasoning was
wrong.

In order to prevent the water from leaking out, one must
stop all the holes, then the leakage ceases. Unless all the holes
be stopped, the water finds an outlet, and having an outlet, it
causes damage. Unless the discussion on death be exhaustive, these
extravagant customs are not stopped, and while they are going
on, all sorts of things are required for burials. These expenses
impoverish the people, who by their lavishness bring themselves
into the greatest straits.

When Su Ch`in was envoy of Yen, the people of Ch`i were
in the habit of erecting enormous sepulchres, filled with heaps of
valuables. Su Ch`in personally did nothing to incite them. When
all their wealth was gone, and the people greedy for money, the
exchequer empty, and the army good for nothing, the troops of
Yen suddenly arrived. Ch`i was unable to stand its ground:—the
State was ruined, the cities fell, the sovereign left his country, and
his subjects dispersed.[1720] Now, as long as people are in the dark,
regarding the unconsciousness of the dead, they will spend all their
money for the sumptuous burial of a parent, and be ruined in
the same manner as Ch`i was by the cunning of Su Ch`in.

The device of the Mêhists is self-contradictory:—on the one
side, they advocate a simple burial, and on the other, they honour

ghosts. To justify this veneration, they refer to Earl Tu, who was
a dead man. If Earl Tu be deemed a ghost, then all the dead
really possess knowledge, and if they do, they would be incensed
at the shabbiness of their burials.

There is a general craving for luxuriance and a strong aversion
to paucity. What advantage, therefore, would the veneration of
ghosts bring to those guilty of mean burials? Provided that ghosts
be not dead men, then the belief in Earl Tu is preposterous, if,
however, ghosts be dead men, then a mean burial would not be
proper. Thus theory and practice of the Mêhists are inconsistent,
head and tail do not agree, and it cannot but be wrong. But right
and wrong not being understood, cannot be practised. Therefore
the public should carefully consider what has been written, and
having done so, they may bury their dead in a simple style.[1721]