Three types of Man

Those who have read the Book of Changes (Zhouyi/ I Ching), Daoist texts, the Confucian books and classics, would be familiar with the three types of man referred within namely the Great Man (Da Ren), Superior Man (Junzi) and the Inferior or Mean Man (Xiao Ren).

However Yi students often get confused when they come to interpret what these terms actually mean in relation to interpretations of hexagrams and the lines. What they know is what they gleaned or learned from the various available Yi translations and online discussions with experts. It follows that when translators and experts themselves are unclear about the terms, students or readers will get confused. But if Yi students are really earnest in their studies then they could probably learn more by reading ancient books and classics. (A point also emphasized by Steve Marshall in his Biroco website in April when he commented on this author.)

Consider these two statements by Confucius and perhaps readers can see the point: ‘By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart. There are only the wise of the highest class and the stupid of the lowest class, who cannot be changed’. [Analects 17 / Legge]

Words and deeds are what a person rest on and judged by the world. If words or deeds are insincere, it reveals the person’s character as sincerity is ever so important to the good.

Ancient thoughts on the three types of man apply to a man’s words and deeds. The Da Ren can be said to rest on benevolence (humaneness/ compassion), the Junzi rests on righteousness (justice/ uprightness) while the Xiao Ren rests on gain (exploitation/ taking advantage). [Analects and The Great Learning / Legge]

The terms, Da Ren were reserved for sages and sage kings, Junzi for those upright and just, and Xiao Ren for those who sow discord, cause confusion, and do evil to people for their own selfish gains. According to Confucius, there are three things of which the Junzi stand in awe of: mandates of Heaven, Da Ren, and the words of sages. Whereas the Xiao Ren does not know Heaven’s mandates, is disrespectful to the Da Ren, and makes sport of the words of sages. Consequently how can the Xiao Ren be in awe of these things? (Laozi also has similar thoughts on Heaven, sages and of the lowest class scholars on Tao in the TTC.)

Much later, Da Ren and Xiao Ren became titles for addressing court officials as a show of respect and courtesies. Scholars and the learned will sometimes be loosely called Junzi. But the roles of a Da Ren, Junzi and Xiao Ren can interchange depending on the words and deeds of the person concerned. This effectively means that the seemingly Da Ren or Junzi can sometimes turn out to be a Xiao Ren; or a seemingly Xiao Ren can sometimes turn out to be a Junzi or even a Da Ren. (This is based on an understanding of tradition and derived from reading the ancient books and classics including the Yi.)

It is good to know that there are people who have dedicated years of their lives to study and write about the Yi and/or its related studies. While one appreciates what they do to extend the knowledge of readers and Yi students, some authors tend to inexplicably hold onto wrong ideas. For them, Junzi can mean sons of nobles and Xiao Ren can mean peasants or illiterates. Junzi according to them can be related to nobility because it was the name used for the sons (zi) of lords (Jun)? As far as one is aware, the reference to Jun (Lord) was made during the Spring and Autumn era for state royalties such as Hsinling Jun and Pingyuan Jun. If Junzi actually mean the sons of lords, one verily doubts Confucius could have chosen such a term or station in life for his students or himself to aspire to. The incorrect meanings ascribed to Xiao Ren depict a lack of knowledge of Chinese culture for even peasants or illiterates can aspire to be a Junzi if they were earnest enough and love to learn. Were all the students of Confucius issued from rich families, nobility, or scholars? Status has nothing to do with who can be considered a Xiao Ren. It is always the words and deeds that count. Did Laozi, Confucius and Buddha not caution on this aspect of cultivation?

Churning out quantities of study material with minimal quality and circumspection is definitely not proper conduct and invariably confuse readers or students. This remark equally applies to prolific translators who could have at least taken the time to fine tune some of their topsy-turvy translations of the Yi and Daoist texts. Yet to me, they are relatively better compared to authors who have written or translated books/texts with a clear intent to mislead Yi or Daoist students for gain. Surely an aspirant Junzi can be considered better than a Xiao Ren? Perhaps something to keep in mind when one discusses a topic; writes or translates a book, in future?

In line with what has been discussed so far, are the fallen and jailed senior executives of WorldCom, considered Da Ren, Junzi or Xiao Ren? After perusal on what is written and from your own experience, you can decide on this issue. (This last question also allows readers to apply ancient thoughts to current events.)

In conclusion, the ancient meanings on these three types of man are clear, simple and easy to understand, yet some translators and experts tend to cloud the meanings with their own idiosyncrasies or other pursuits, thereby confusing students instead of providing objective clarity. Do remember that the Yi represents ancient thoughts, either before or during the times of King Wen and the Duke of Chou, of more than three thousand years ago. Only later sages like Laozi, Confucius, Chuangzi, Mencius and the wise can perhaps have the deep insights on what these thoughts truly mean. And their insights are contained in various translated books, texts and classics, freely available on websites. Hopefully, by now you understand what the terms Da Ren, Junzi and Xiao Ren mean. And where you want to go from here is entirely up to you.

P.S. If only world leaders today can act like the Da Ren of old and rule with benevolence then perhaps the world can be at peace for many a year.