Knowledge, Wisdom, and Realization:

Manifestations and Meanings of zhi in The Analects

by Matthew Varley

In their introduction to the Chinese lexicon in The Analects of Confucius, Ames and Rosemont note that the character zhi is often translated as “’knowledge,’ ‘wisdom,’ and ‘to know.’” Thought the authors declare their intention to “translate it, whenever, possible, as ‘to realize,’” the frequency which zhi appears in one of its alternate forms in the text—including, but not limited to, those previously listed—underscores the great nuance of the character (Ames/Rosemont 55). A comparison of passages in the Analects of Ames and Rosemont as well as translations by David Hinton, James Legge, and Arthur Waley provides for additional consideration of the importance and meaning of zhi in the teachings of Confucius.

Ames and Rosemont’s preferred translation of zhi as “to realize” occurs only a few times in their edition of the Analects. A notable example is in passage 8.9, which states “The common people can be induced to travel along the way, but they cannot be induced to realize it (Ames/Rosemont 122).” The translations of Hinton, Legge, and Waley all use the word “understand” for zhi in this passage, which suggests people can be led to follow the way but cannot be directed to develop a consciousness of their conduct (Hinton 83, Legge 129, Waley 126). If read literally, the Ames and Rosemont translation is a bit stronger and invokes the image of sleepwalkers who follow a path without “realizing” their actions (much less achieving understanding). In the context of the authors’ introductory remarks, however, the use of “realize” for zhi must be understood in light of “the Confucian precept generally described as ‘the continuity between knowledge and action (Ames/Rosemont 55).’” The people must walk the way, therefore, before they can ever truly “realize” their behavior.

The Ames and Rosemont translation of passage 7.20 illuminates the process of attaining zhi: “The Master said, ‘I am not the kind of person who has gained knowledge through some natural propensity for it. Rather, loving antiquity, I am earnest in seeking it out” (Ames/Rosemont 115). According to this reading, the zhi always must be sought and pursued by the individual; no one is simply born with it. In contrast, the Master of the Waley translation (here passage 7.19) says “I am not one of those who have “innate knowledge”, an important distinction in its implication that some may be born with certain realizations within themselves (Legge 119). Similar themes are seen in Legge, which reads “I am not one who was born in possession of knowledge” (Legge 121) and Hinton, which states “I am not one who was born with great wisdom” (Hinton 73). Though the need to actively seek zhi remains consistent in all four translations, therefore, Confucius’ implied perspective on the nature of zhi differs.

In a number of cases, Ames and Rosemont present zhi as a form of wisdom. When Confucius is asked to define wisdom in 6.22, he replies “To devote yourself to what is appropriate for the people, and to show respect for the ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a distance can be called wisdom” (Ames/Rosemont 108). Though both Legge’s translation of 6.22 and Hinton’s translation of 6.21 also employ the term “wisdom”, their definitions differ. The former reads “To give oneself earnestly to the duties due to men…” and the latter “devotion to perfecting your Duties toward the people...” (Legge 113, Hinton 60). The allusions to “duty” in both translations are problematic given the post-Kantian associations with the concept of duty (especially Hinton’s Duty) in the West. The idea of an eternal, unchanging, and absolute standard of behavior or ethical code as a definition of wisdom is incongruous with Confucianism, which emphasizes the relative and oft-changing nature of the human condition and the consequent need for more situational ethics. In either case, zhi is primarily defined by one’s actions to others rather than an internal, contemplative state.

The definition of wisdom presented in 2.17 is different. The Ames and Rosemont translation reads “To know what you know and know what you do not know—this then is wisdom”; in this passage, however, the italicized “know” is zhi (Ames/Rosemont 79). As such, zhi in this context is a means of achieving wisdom but, in contrast to 6.22, not wisdom in and of itself. In David Hinton’s translation, Confucius tells his disciple, “When you understand something, know that you understand it. When you don’t understand something, know that you don’t understand it. That’s understanding” (Hinton 15). Although Hinton’s translation is similar to Ames and Rosemont in structure, he considers “understanding” both a means to an end and an end in itself. This undermines the distinction between knowledge and wisdom implicit in the Ames and Rosemont translation, as does Legge’s rendition of the passage: “When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it, --this is knowledge” and Waley’s translation, which is virtually identical (Legge 75, Waley 83).

If passage 2.17 suggests that wisdom can be achieved, then passage 9.8 clarifies that it can never be truly possessed. Here, the character zhi is once again defined as “wisdom” by Ames and Rosemont. The Master’s declaration in this passage is simple and humble: “Do I possess wisdom? No, I do not. But if a simple peasant puts a question to me, and I come up empty, I attack the question from both ends until I have gotten to the bottom of it” (Ames/Rosemont 128). This statement—and similar passages in Hinton and Waley—reinforces the Confucian understanding of wisdom as an ongoing, interactive journey that cannot be considered independent from circumstance. Given the traditional distinction between knowledge and wisdom in the West, Legge’s translation is less effective: “The Master said, ‘Am I indeed possessed of knowledge? I am not knowing. But if a mean person, who appears quite emptylike, ask anything of me, I set it forth from one end to the other, and exhaust it’” (Legge 137). Though the somewhat awkward structure of this passage suggests it may be a more literal translation of the Chinese, Legge’s definition of zhi as knowledge in this passage is likely to be misinterpreted by Western readers, who tend to view knowledge as more static and concrete than wisdom.

The difference between knowledge and wisdom—often a clear distinction in Western thought—is less obvious in the Analects of Confucius. As the various sayings of Confucius suggest, the meaning of the character zhi fluctuates according to context; moreover, the various translations of Confucius’ words demonstrate a wide variety of possible interpretations. Knowledge, wisdom, and the broader sense of realization are all shades of meaning of zhi in the Analects and their juxtaposition highlights the need to consider the meaning of a single passage only in the context of all others. Moreover, the variety of explicit and implicit meanings in different translations of the Analects serves as a reminder that no English translation of the Chinese lexicon can be considered absolute. Like the journey towards zhi in the teachings of Confucius, the search for meaning in the words of the Master is a nuanced process that must include reflection on various passages within the Analects as well as a comparison of various translations.

Works Cited

Ames, Roger T. and Henry Rosemont, Jr. The Analects of Confucius. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1998. Pages 55, 79, 108, 115, 122,
128.
Hinton, David. The Analects of Confucius. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint, 1998.
Pages 15, 60, 73, 83.
Legge, James. The Chinese/English Four Books. Hunan Publishing House, 1991. Pages
75, 113, 119, 121, 129, 137.
Waley, Arthur. The Analects. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000. Pages 83, 126.