A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  Fung Yu-lan has asserted that to Ch’eng I, principle is comparable to the “idea” or “form” in ancient Greek philosophy, whereas to Ch’eng Hao, it is “nothing more than the natural tendency or force inherent in any concrete object.”8 In view of their common ideas of principle, it is difficult to understand this diametric opposition. Carsun Chang is right in taking Fung to task.9 As Chang has pointed out, both brothers maintained that the Way cannot be found outside of material force. A thing involves both the corporeal (material force) and incorporeal (principle) aspects. This is what Ch’eng I meant by one manifesting as many.

  It should be apparent that while the Ch’eng brothers resemble Chang Tsai (Chang Heng-ch’ü, 1020-1077) in emphasizing material force, with them it is no longer the basis of existence as with Chang10 but only the corporeal aspect. Also, while Chang conceived material force to be perpetual contraction and expansion, to the Ch’eng brothers each operation is new. This is a new note in Chinese philosophy, a note more strongly struck by Ch’eng I than by his brother. Again and again he underlines the fact that in each new production fresh material force is used. Thus as the universe is a perpetual process of production and reproduction, new material force is perpetually generated by Origination. But exactly how this process works has never been explained.

  To both brothers this creative process is jen. To Ch’eng Hao, jen is a matter of feeling, but Ch’eng I conceives it to be a seed that grows.11 This obviously reflects his idea of the universe as production and reproduction. It also indicates that while Ch’eng Hao is more subjective and tends toward the internal, Ch’eng I tends to the external as well and is more objective. In his emphasis on seriousness (ching),12 he seems to stress the internal as does Ch’eng Hao, although for both of them “Seriousness to straighten the internal life and righteousness to square the external life” must go hand in hand. However, while Ch’eng Hao more or less concentrates on self-cultivation, Ch’eng I insists that self-cultivation and the extension of knowledge must be pursued at the same time. Here lies perhaps the greatest divergence between the two brothers. Ch’eng Hao said very little about the investigation of things. Ch’eng I, on the contrary, makes the investigation of things a cardinal concept in his system. Besides, for Ch’eng Hao, the investigation of things means to correct the mind of bad habits, but for Ch’eng I it means inductive and deductive study and handling human affairs, for, according to him, everything, however small, contains principle and is to be investigated. This is the rationalistic spirit that characterizes his whole philosophy and later that of his follower, Chu Hsi (1130-1200), so that their school, called the Ch’eng-Chu School, may properly be called the Rationalistic School.

  The two brothers are as widely different in temperament as can be imagined. Ch’eng Hao was warm, always at ease, tolerant, agreeable, understanding, amiable, and never angry for as long as twenty years. Ch’eng I, on the other hand, was stern, grave, straight, not hesitating to shout at people, and so strong in self control that when the boat in which he was riding was about to sink, he was not disturbed at all. Perhaps the most dramatic event that shows the differences between the two brothers is that once when they entered a hall, all people followed Ch’eng Hao on one side but none followed Ch’eng I on the other.13

  Both brothers exerted a tremendous influence on the philosophical and political thinking of their time, having, as they did, prominent official scholars as their followers. Ch’eng I’s influence was comparatively greater because he enjoyed a long life. Although he declined high official positions, he openly and freely criticized those in power and in this way was to no small degree responsible for the rise of bitter struggle between his and opposing parties.14 His teachings were prohibited most of the time from 1103, five years before his death, to 1155. The antagonism of the rulers against his moralistic lectures was so strong that only four people were courageous enough to attend his funeral.15 However, his philosophy contained too many sound ideas to be suppressed forever. By 1155, Chu Hsi was already twenty-five years old. Within a decade, he was already expounding a philosophy that made him Ch’eng I’s greatest follower. The Ch’eng-Chu School developed rapidly.

  Below are selections of Ch’eng I’s sayings covering various subjects as follows:16

  Buddhism and Taoism: 23, 25, 50-55

  Good and Evil: 58, 63, 66, 71

  Investigation of things: 14, 16, 17, 31, 44, 47, 62

  Jen (humanity): 6, 7, 28, 40-42, 71, 74

  Knowledge: 4, 11, 38, 67, 68

  Material force (ch’i): 12, 13, 21, 33, 35-37, 39, 63

  Mind: 3, 58, 64

  Moral cultivation: 1, 15, 18, 20, 24, 45, 56

  Nature and Destiny: 8, 12, 49, 58-61, 63, 66, 67, 72

  Principle (li): 2, 17, 18, 24, 31, 34, 47, 48, 58, 62, 66, 75-77

  Production and reproduction: 21, 22, 39, 64, 70

  Seriousness (ching): 5, 9, 15, 29, 32, 43, 45, 46

  Spiritual forces: 65, 70, 73, 78

  Way (Tao): 10, 13, 22, 26, 30, 33, 36, 57, 69, 73, 78

  THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THE TWO CH’ENGS17

  1. A Treatise on What Yen Tzu18 Loved to Learn

  When Master Ch’eng studied at the national university as a young man [1056],19 Hu An-ting (Hu Yüan, 993-1059) examined his students on this subject. When he read this treatise, he was greatly amazed. He immediately asked to meet him and forthwith appointed him to an academic position.20

  In the school of Confucius, there were three thousand pupils. Yen Tzu alone was praised as loving to learn. It is not that the three thousand scholars had not studied and mastered the Six Classics such as the Book of Odes and the Book of History. Then what was it that Yen Tzu alone loved to learn? Answer: It was to learn the way of becoming a sage.

  Can one become a sage through learning? Answer: Yes. What is the way to learn? Answer: From the essence of life accumulated in Heaven and Earth, man receives the Five Agents (Water, Fire, Wood, Metal, and Earth) in their highest excellence. His original nature is pure and tranquil. Before it is aroused, the five moral principles of his nature, called humanity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness, are complete. As his physical form appears, it comes into contact with external things and is aroused from within. As it is aroused from within, the seven feelings, called pleasure, anger, sorrow, joy, love, hate, and desire, ensue. As feelings become strong and increasingly reckless, his nature becomes damaged. For this reason the enlightened person controls his feelings so that they will be in accord with the Mean. He rectifies his mind and nourishes his nature. This is therefore called turning the feelings into the [original] nature. The stupid person does not know how to control them. He lets them loose until they are depraved, fetter his nature, and destroy it. This is therefore called turning one’s nature into feelings.

  The way to learn is none other than rectifying one’s mind and nourishing one’s nature. When one abides by the Mean and correctness and becomes sincere, he is a sage. In the learning of the superior man, the first thing is to be clear in one’s mind and to know where to go21 and then act vigorously in order that one may arrive at sagehood. This is what is meant by “sincerity resulting from enlightenment.”22

  Therefore the student must exert his own mind to the utmost. If he does so, he will know his own nature. And if he knows his own nature, examines his own self and makes it sincere, he becomes a sage. Therefore the “Great Norm” says, “The virtue of thinking is penetration and profundity. . . . Penetration and profundity lead to sageness.”23 The way to make the self sincere lies in having firm faith in the Way. As there is firm faith in the Way, one will put it into practice with determination. When one puts it into practice with determination, he will keep it securely. Then humanity, righteousness, loyalty, and faithfulness will never depart from his heart. In moments of haste, he acts according to them. In times of difficulty or confusion, he acts according to them.24 And whether he is at home or outside, speaking or silent, he acts according to them. As he holds on to them for a long tim
e without fail, he will then be at home with them and in his movements and expressions, he will always be acting in a proper manner, and no depraved thought will arise in him. This is the reason why Yen Tzu, in his behavior, “did not see what was contrary to propriety, did not listen to what was contrary to propriety, did not speak what was contrary to propriety, and did not make any movement which was contrary to propriety.”25 Confucius praised him, saying, “When he got hold of one thing that was good, he clasped it firmly, as if wearing it on his breast, and never lost it.”26 He also said, “[Hui] did not transfer his anger; he did not repeat a mistake.”27 “Whenever he did anything wrong, he never failed to realize it. Having realized it, he never did it again.”28 This is the way he earnestly loved and learned.

  All [Yen Hui’s] seeing, listening, speaking, and movement were in accord with propriety. Therein he differed from a sage in that whereas a sage “apprehends without thinking, hits upon what is right without effort, and is easily and naturally in harmony with the Way,”29 Yen Tzu had to think before apprehending, and had to make an effort before hitting upon what was right. Hence it has been said, “The difference between Yen Tzu and the sage is as little as a moment of breathing.”30

  Mencius said, “He [whose goodness] is abundant and is brilliantly displayed is called a great man. When one is great and is completely transformed [to be goodness itself], he is called a sage. When a sage is beyond our knowledge, he is called a man of the spirit.”31 The virtue of Yen Tzu may be said to be abundant and brilliantly displayed. What was lacking in him was that he held on to [goodness] but was not yet completely transformed [into goodness itself]. Since he loved to learn, had he lived longer,32 he would have achieved transformation in a short time. Therefore Confucius said, “[Hui] unfortunately lived a short life.”33 Confucius was lamenting the fact that he did not reach the state of the sage.

  What is meant by being transformed [to be goodness itself] is to enter into the spirit and be natural with it, so that one can apprehend without thinking and hit upon what is right without effort. When Confucius said, “At seventy I could follow my heart’s desire without transgressing moral principles,” he meant this.34

  Someone asks: A sage is one who is born with knowledge. Now you say that sagehood can be achieved through learning. Is there any basis for this contention? Answer: Yes, Mencius said, “Sage-emperors Yao and Shun35 [practiced humanity and righteousness] because of their nature, and Kings T’ang and Wu36 [practiced them] because of their effort to return (to their nature).”37 Those who do so by nature are those born with the knowledge (of the good), and those who return to their nature are those who obtain knowledge (of the good) through learning. It is also said, “Confucius was born with such knowledge but Mencius obtained it through learning.”38 Not understanding the true meaning of this, in later years people thought that sagehood was basically due to inborn knowledge (of the good) and could not be achieved through learning. Consequently the way to learn has been lost to us. Men do not seek within themselves but outside themselves and engage in extensive learning, effortful memorization, clever style, and elegant diction, making their words elaborate and beautiful. Thus few have arrived at the Way. This being the case, the learning of today and the learning that Yen Tzu loved are quite different. (I-ch’uan wen-chi, 4:1a-2a)

  2. Letter in Reply to Yang Shih’s39 Letter on the Western Inscription

  The opinions expressed in the ten essays on history which you sent me are quite correct. Soon after I looked at them, they were borrowed from me. I shall have to read them again carefully. Your opinions on the “Western Inscription,” however, are incorrect. It is true that Chang Tsai has sometimes gone too far in what he says, notably in his Cheng-meng (Correcting Youthful Ignorance).40 As a written work, however, the “Western Inscription” extends principle to cover all in order to preserve righteousness (what is correct and proper in specific social relations), thus expounding on something that previous sages has not expressed. In this his contribution is equal to that of Mencius’ doctrines on the original goodness of human nature and on nourishing the strong moving power.41 (Both of these had also not been expressed by previous sages.)42 How can there be any comparison with Mo Tzu (fl. 479–438 b.c.)? The “Western Inscription” makes it clear that principle is one but its manifestations are many, but Mo Tzu’s teachings involve two bases without differentiation. (To treat the elders in one’s own family with respect and the young with tenderness and then extend that respect and tenderness to include the elders and young in other families shows that principle is one, whereas Mo Tzu’s doctrine of universal love without distinction means that there are two bases [one’s own parents as the source of life and also other people’s parents]). The fault of having [only] the many manifestations [that is, distinctions in human relations but no universal principle underlying them] is that selfishness will dominate and humanity (jen) will be lost. On the other hand, the sin of having no manifestations is that there will be universal love for all without righteousness. To establish the many manifestations and to extend the one principle in order to check the tendency of being dominated by selfishness, is the method of jen. To make no distinction in human relations and to be deluded in universal love to the extreme of recognizing no special relationship with the father,43 is to do violent injury to rightousness. You are mistaken in comparing and equating them. Furthermore, you said that the “Western Inscription” speaks of substance [jen] without including function [its specific application in various human relations according to righteousness]. But its intention is to enable people to extend [principle] and put it into practice. The purpose is primarily for its function (practice). And yet you said that it does not include function. How strange! (ibid., 5:12b)

  SELECTED SAYINGS44

  3. The mind of one man is one with the mind45 of Heaven and Earth. The principle of one thing is one with the principle of all things. The course of one day is one with the course of a year. (2A:1a)

  4. True knowledge and ordinary knowledge are different. I once saw a farmer who had been wounded by a tiger. When someone said that a tiger was hurting people, everyone was startled. But in his facial expression the farmer reacted differently from the rest. Even a young boy knows that tigers can hurt people, but his is not true knowledge. It is true knowledge only if it is like the farmer’s. Therefore when men know evil and still do it, this also is not true knowledge. If it were, they would surely not do it. (2A:2b-3a) *46

  To devote oneself to investigate principle to the utmost does not mean that it is necessary to investigate the principle of all things in the world to the utmost nor does it mean that principle can be understood merely by investigating one particular principle. It is necessary to accumulate much and then one will naturally come to understand principle. (2A:22b)* ch47

  5. Seriousness without fail is the state of equilibrium before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused.48 Seriousness is not equilibrium itself. But seriousness without fail is the way to attain equilibrium. (2A:23b)* s ch m49

  6. With jen (humanity) there will be unity. Without jen, there will be duality. (3:3b)

  7. The way of jen is difficult to describe. Impartiality alone is close to it. But impartiality is not identical with jen. (3:3b)

  8. One’s nature cannot be spoken of as internal or external. (3:4a)

  9. Only after one forgets seriousness can he be serious at all times. (3:5b)

  10. “The successive movement of yin and yang (passive and active cosmic forces) constitutes the Way (Tao).”50 The Way is not the same as yin and yang but that by which yin and yang succeed each other. It is like Change, which is the succession of closing (contracting) and opening (expanding). (3:6a)

  11. The source of learning is thought. (6:1a)* c

  12. It would be incomplete to talk about the nature of man and things without including material force and unintelligible to talk about material force without including nature. (It would be wrong to consider them as two.)51 (6:2a)* c s
<
br />   13. All that has physical form is identical with material force. Only the Way is formless. (6:2b)* m

  14. The extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things.52 As things approach, knowledge will arise. Leave things as they are and do not labor your knowledge of them. Then you will be sincere and not disturbed. As the will is sincere, it will naturally be calm and the mind will be rectified. This is the task of beginning to learn. (6:3b)* s

  15. If one concentrates on one thing and does not get away from it and be serious in order to straighten the internal life, he will possess strong, moving power. (15:1a)

  16. If one extends knowledge to the utmost, one will have wisdom. Having wisdom, one can then make choices. (15:1a)

  17. A thing is an event. If the principles underlying the event are investigated to the utmost, there all principles will be understood. (15:-1a)

  18. If one does not look, listen, speak, or move in violation of principle, that is propriety, for propriety is none other than principle. What is not of the Principle of Nature (T’ien, Heaven) is of human (selfish) desire. In that case, even if one has the intention to do good, it will still be contrary to propriety. When there is no human (selfish) desire, then all will be the Principle of Nature. (15:1b)

  19. Where there is impartiality, there is unity, and where there is partiality, there is multiplicity. The highest truth is always revolved into a unity, and an essential principle is never a duality. If people’s minds are as different as their faces are, it is solely due to partiality. (15:1b)

  20. In nourishing the mind there is nothing better than having few desires. Without desires, there will be no delusion. One does not need to be submerged in desires. Merely to have the intention is already desire. (15:2b)