Mike Donovan, Simon Fraser University

download: GoodLife

It must be a near universal truth

that we all desire a good life, so we shouldn’t be surprised at the vast number of individuals throughout the ages with ideas on obtaining this. You will surely live better if only you adopt a particular spiritual outlook, dietary plan or investment strategy: find Jesus; eat your greens; no money down. Someone once wrote that advice is the only commodity on the market where the supply exceeds the demand. With such a quantity to choose from, we would expect only the finest advice to endure the ages. Three ancient counsellors are Mencius, Saint Augustine and Krishna. Their teachings have affected the thinking of billions of people among three different cultures over thousands of years. We will briefly look at their teachings from three different perspectives: their ideas on improving the self, on contributing to their larger societies and on the nature of spirituality. In doing so, we can hope to gain some insights into leading a good life.

Mencius and the Benevolent Heart

At the core of Mencius’s strategy for living a good life is the creation of harmonious relationships among people. The “way” we attain these healthy relationships is through the development of a benevolent heart-mind, and this, in turn, has its origins in the family.

Mencius believed that humans are naturally good; nevertheless, this goodness is such a small part of humanity that it must be carefully identified and nurtured. Therefore, he starts with the most natural love known to humankind, the mutual love between parent and child, and builds from this. Mencius recognizes that the parent’s love is eternal; however, the child’s love can become clouded as he grows and pursues other desires. Mencius, therefore, constantly stresses the necessity for the child to honour and love his parents. The benevolent heart depends on this mutual love.

From here, Mencius instructs us to extend this goodness outwards to the rest of the family, to the person in the next village, and to those in neighbouring states: “What is left to be done is simply the extension of [benevolence and rightness] to the whole empire” (VII.A.15). He also instructs the sovereign to rule with a benevolent heart reminding him he is duty-bound at the risk of rightfully losing his position. The benevolent mind is supremely important to Mencius, but there is more to his formula.

The other three pillars of Mencius’s “faith” are dutifulness, propriety (keeping the rites) and wisdom (capacity to distinguish right from wrong), which make a quartet of interdependent characteristics, each bolstering the others. But we can consider how the latter three nourish the supreme one: benevolence.

Without dutifulness, propriety and the wisdom to choose right from wrong we have chaos because individuals will not have the necessary knowledge to perform righteous acts in the proper manner. And to sympathize with chaos is something akin to loving randomly. This is intolerable to Mencius. Mencius believes that love only makes sense if it has a hierarchy to it. We must love some people more than others.

This is his argument against the Moists who believe in love without favouritism. Mencius states we must not love everyone equally. We need to love our family the greatest since the source of benevolence cannot be diffused. And by embracing order (dutifulness, rites and wisdom) the medium of its propagation will not be muddled.

Another reason for creating this supreme family bond is so the individual will experience shame when neglecting his duty. So not only does duty cultivate a benevolent mind, but the very source of the benevolent mind, the family, promotes the duty. Before we try to understand how all this is supposed to lead to a good life, however, let’s notice that some of Mencius’s contemporaries in another part of the world thought the same way. Phaedrus in Plato’s Symposium talks about a particular love bond (between boyfriends) as “something which gives lifelong guidance to those who are to lead good lives” (178c-d) due to the abhorrence of being shamed in the presence of the loved one.

The consequence of a benevolent mind is an inner peace. But due to its extension over the empire, it also results in a more unruffled society with strong filial and social bonds, good government, law and order, a fair tax system, a well-fed populace and infrequent warfare. And this, Mencius would say, is a good life.

However, suffering is not totally avoided, and Mencius’s philosophy may not prepare us for the inevitable distresses we shall encounter. Most glaringly Mencius doesn’t have a means of dealing with the fear of death. He speaks of an intrinsic goodness to the universe and a possibility of achieving oneness with it. But here, the direction ends.

Saint Augustine and the Grace of God

Both Mencius and Augustine believed the universe is good, but in very different ways. In Mencius’s reality, the universal life force, qi, exists throughout the heavens and within us. This explains the natural goodness of people and why certain events (like the fall of a tyrannical ruler) are for the best. In contrast, Augustine rejects that humans are innately good. Instead he says we are born as sinners, naturally frail and corrupt, devoid of the wisdom to rule ourselves. Humans, left to our own, are destined to pursue gluttony, lust, envy, power, and all the other sins. But luckily God is good; therefore, only through a relationship with Him can we cast off our corruption and live a good life.

Here the meaning of the word “good” is meant as the opposite of “sinful”; it does not mean pleasurable or freed from suffering. But at the core of Christian thought is the idea that because God does not like sin, and because he desires an intimate and loving relationship with us, we do gain a more gratifying earthly existence by leading a good Christian life

Consequently, this relationship with God is more important than all others including those with friends, family, children or parents. Comparing Mencius and Augustine’s reaction to their mothers’ deaths is interesting. Mencius mourned for three years while Augustine wrote: “I closed her eyelids, and sorrow beyond measure filled my heart and would have overflowed in tears. But by a strong effort of will I had no tears” (IX.12.1). There is no reason to believe that Augustine’s grief was any less than Mencius’s, but, simply, Augustine was seeking comfort from Monica’s unification with her Creator.

Augustine demands a God-centric reality and not a Mencian, people-centric one. There is nothing contradictory, for example, with someone living alone, in a cave, deep in the mountains, and simultaneously being a good Christian. The consequences of this view are significant.

The objective of Augustine’s Christianity is not the formation of a better public order. If Christianity happens to benefit our terrestrial societies, the benefits are incidentally realized and not core to the philosophy. Hope for Christians does not depend on any particular political form or societal organization. The goal is not to establish serene relationships with others but to attain one chief relationship with the Supreme Being.

We can understand this more when we consider Augustine’s attitude towards war – the ultimate in human relations gone horrifically wrong. Augustine is often regarded as the main architect of the Just War concept. There are criteria that must be met in order to justify a war, but ultimately it boils down to intention. War can be waged provided the intention is based in Christian good: for example, if we perceive that evil would be lessened by going to war. So not only is there a big question of intention, but also one of goodness. Almost any aggression can be validated with a favourable interpretation of the circumstances and a declaration of intention. For example, Augustine supported the repression of the Donatists because, in his view, it was instructional to them.

Compared to Mencius, Augustine’s criteria are loose, and the proofs more nebulous. Mencius understood the occasional necessity of war, but he clearly states there are no just wars, no good wars; and wars can only be executed for punitive reasons. A particularly tyrannical ruler can be toppled. In typically pragmatic Mencius fashion he even offers a means to prove when a war is necessary in this passage: “[W]hen [Tang] marched on the east, the western barbarians complained, and when he marched on the south, the northern barbarians complained… The people longed for his coming as they longed for a rainbow in times of severe drought” (I.B.11).

The people longed for an invasion of their territory in order to see their despotic rulers ousted. And they desired that the invader be Tang because he was particularly benevolent. Once more we see Mencius’s people-centric view of situations with down-to-earth conceptions of what should be done.

Although Christianity may claim that we can reduce suffering if we follow the path of Jesus Christ, this is not the focus or the strength of the religion. Suffering is unavoidable, but through the power of God, it can be tolerated, combated, or even rejoiced. There is nothing a Christian loves more than a great yarn of personal suffering where the afflicted summons the power of Christ in order to overcome his torments and ultimately prevails. Suffering is seen as a test from God. If the stressed individual cracks, he can take this as a reminder from the Lord that he must strive harder to become a good Christian. If he endures the pain with dignity, he can thank the Lord for giving him the strength. Many Christians claim to lead a good life secure in their mutual love with the Lord and with such a view of suffering.

Krishna and Innate Action

The voice of Krishna as recorded in the Bhagavad-Gita has many parallels with Augustine’s writings. We are witness to the word of God. The individual should surrender himself to Krishna; whatever Krishna wills is right. Each of us possesses an immortal soul. There are also elements of Mencian thought found within. There is a sense of duty to society, of putting others before oneself, and of the proper way to act.

The way Krishna is able to present simultaneously a God-centric and a people-centric reality is in his claim that he intimately orchestrates society’s performance like a celestial musical conductor. Just as it is not the job of a violinist to question the piece selection, the composer’s choice of notes, the time or venue of the performance, it is not our position to question the actions that we must do. The very function of society – of the orchestra – relies on this attitude.

Augustine understands that civilization can flourish or flounder largely independently of God with only the occasional intervention when Sodom becomes particularly wicked. Mencius believes the universe is predisposed to goodness, so there is no need for major heavenly meddling. Water has a predisposition to flow downwards as he would say.

But Arjuna is taught that Krishna is in command of everything intimately. All circumstances someone can encounter, all actions that need performing, and all outcomes, are already predetermined by Krishna. And due to the goodness of Krishna, everything is good even when appearances seem otherwise. Consequently, the individual’s task is to simply perform the actions required of him. Krishna says, “Arjuna, a man should not relinquish action he is born to, even if it is flawed” (18, 48).

Whereas Mencius sees a kind heart as part of human nature, Arjuna is told he possesses “action intrinsic to his being” (18, 47). He must perform his duty (or dharma), with the best of his ability. Of course, in practice, it is more complex than this. The individual must acquire wisdom and good judgement; he must aspire to charity, self-control, honesty, peace, loyalty, compassion, modesty, patience and an “absence of envy and pride” (16, 3).

Some of these qualities such as an absence of envy and pride are in alignment with Christian virtues. They are often difficult for the Christian to attain, but remarkably, Krishna has a useful principle in the quest for these qualities when he says, “Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action” (2, 47). We should be completely dispassionate about the results of our actions. This is what he calls disciplined action or karmayoga.

How can we be lustful if we have no attachment to the gains of our action? How can we have pride in possessions we have renounced? How can we envy when we are indifferent to anything we might acquire let alone what others possess? Isn’t it easier to be charitable, honest, loyal and peaceful when we practice karmayoga? This is the teaching of Krishna, and it is fundamentally different from Augustine.

Clearly much of Augustine’s action was aimed at garnering very specific benefits for his faith. Augustine’s clashes with paganism, Pelagianism, and Donatism were obviously aimed at specific results. Just Wars must be fought in order to achieve definite aims. The Church should measure its successes. There is nothing dispassionate about any of these actions. An Augustinian might say that there is a difference between wanting fruits for your Church and wanting fruit for personal benefit, but the compartmentalizing of desires would have been difficult for Krishna to accept.

For Augustine your duty is to God. For Mencius it is to your morals. But for Krishna the duty is one towards dispassionate action. Krishna has already decided what must be done and what the outcome will be. All that remains is for us to simply do it.

Conclusion

All three counsellors lay out a plan to follow in order to live a good life. Each builds from the basic premise that the universe is good with Mencius’s qi, Augustine’s God, and Krishna himself being the three agents of this goodness.

Mencius is adamant that humans are naturally good and only through mismanagement of this quality have we failed to better our lives and, in extension, our societies. His plan is expounded further with the concepts of duty, propriety and wisdom where the family unit is the crucial relationship that needs honouring from which all benevolence flows.

Augustine states that we must open up ourselves to God in order to fill ourselves with goodness. Cultivating this relationship is the most vital activity we can perform, and as a result our miseries will be alleviated. The concept of original sin is used to assuage our distressing notion that it is difficult to behave well. Consequently, we should be passionate about trying to live according to God’s wishes, and ultimately, His divine love will ensure our well-being.

Krishna’s also asserts that the individual needs to devout himself completely to God (Krishna) and everything will be fine. We please Krishna by developing certain qualities such as self-control, honesty, compassion, modesty, and generosity, and by engaging in disciplined action. Our action is required by Krishna in order to keep the universe progressing as He would have it, but we are also required to be dispassionate about the fruits of the activity. Quite simply we need to stay busy performing the action that Krishna has made innate in us and all will be well.

We may consider the ultimate effect on society from following their advice since we can connect much of our well-being to our social environment. Their views could not be farther apart here. Mencius judges there is no need to live in desperate, frightening or violent times; humankind can build settled, peaceful societies. Augustine deems there is a limit to how well we can organize ourselves, but fortunately we have a means to settle our anxieties and lessen our pains. Krishna’s pitch is that there is nothing at all wrong with our current circumstances no matter how it looks to us at the present.

Cited Sources

Augustine, Confessions. Trans. R.S. Pine-Coffin. Penguin Group, 1961

Mencius, Mencius. Trans. D.C. Lau. Penguin Group, revised edition, 2004

Plato, Symposium. Trans. Christopher John Gill. Penguin Group, 1999

The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time of War. Trans. Barbara Stoler Miller. Bantam Classic reissue, 2004