A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  Someone asked: In investigating things, is it necessary to investigate every thing or can one know all principles by investigating only one thing? Answer: How can one understand everything like this? Even Yen Tzu86 would not dare say he could readily understand all principles by investigating only one thing. One must investigate one item today and another item tomorrow. When one has accumulated much knowledge he will naturally achieve a thorough understanding like a sudden release. (18:5b)

  Comment. The doctrine of the investigation of things is a cardinal one in the Ch’eng-Chu system. More will be said about it when we come to Chu Hsi.87 At least three important observations can now be made. First, just as the Ch’eng brothers were the first ones in the history of Chinese philosophy to make principle the basis of their philosophy, so were they the first ones to employ the investigation of things as the method. Before the Sung dynasty (960-1279), no one had ever written an essay on the subject of the investigation of things. The first one to do so was Ssu-ma Kuang (1019-1086),88 but the Ch’eng brothers were the first ones to use the investigation of things as an important means for moral cultivation.

  Secondly, he and Chu gave a new interpretation to the term ko. The term ko-wu of course comes from the Great Learning.89 According to one source, from Han times (206 b.c.–a.d. 220) there have been seventy-two explanations of the term ko-wu.90 Four of these have become prominent. The first is the interpretation by Cheng Hsüan (127-200), who took ko to mean to come, the idea being that when one’s knowledge of the good is perfect, good things will come.91 His interpretation became standard. The second interpretation was given by Ssu-ma Kuang, who asserted that ko meant to ward off or to resist. “Only when external things are warded off can ultimate truth be known,” he said.92 The third interpretation is that of rectification or cheng as used in the Analects93 and the Book of Mencius.94 The fourth interpretation is that of ko as a model or measure, as given in the Yü-p’ien (Book of Jade), a dictionary of a.d. 1386.95 The important thing to note in these interpretations is that they are all ethical. Furthermore, they all have one thing in common, namely, they stressed the point that knowledge is to be achieved by the mind without the aid of external things. Ch’eng I and Chu Hsi, however, took a completely new approach. They understood ko as to arrive, but to arrive means to investigate to the utmost the principles of all things we come into contact with. The third observation is that the doctrine of the investigation of things has become a major tenet in all Neo-Confucian schools, although each interpreted it differently. As to whether it is scientific, the matter will be taken up when we comment on Chu Hsi.

  45. Self-cultivation requires seriousness; the pursuit of learning depends on the extension of knowledge. (18:5b)

  Comment. This represents the basic formula of Ch’eng’s method of cultivation and is often quoted as a summary statement of his teachings. It bears a striking resemblance to the Buddhist twofold formula of meditation (dhyāna) and wisdom (prajñā). Perhaps Hu Shih has gone too far in calling it a new version of the Buddhist method.96 But the similarity is unmistakable. It must be quickly added, however, that this formula has the rationalistic flavor totally absent in its Buddhist counterpart. Besides, even seriousness is to acquire meaning in the world of human affairs, quite different from the Buddhist inward, personal meditation.97

  Huang Tsung-hsi said that Ch’eng Hao substituted seriousness for Chou Tun-i’s tranquillity because he felt tranquillity was an extreme. Likewise, Ch’eng I felt that seriousness alone was not enough and therefore he supplemented it with the extension of knowledge.98 This is a keen observation. It may be added that with regard to seriousness, while Ch’eng Hao is primarily concerned with the mental state of seriousness, Ch’eng I pays attention to its external aspect also, such as orderliness of dress. Even regarding the mental state, Ch’eng I offers more ideas, like guarding against depravity, concentration on one thing, and so forth.

  46. Someone asked: Is it necessary to exert the will in order to be serious? Answer: In the beginning, how can one not exert the will? If it is possible not to exert the will, then there will be nothing. Further question: Is seriousness not tranquillity? Answer: As soon as you speak of tranquillity, you fall into the doctrine of Buddhism. Don’t use the word “tranquillity.” Only use the word “seriousness.” As soon as you use the word “tranquillity,” you imply forgetfulness. Mencius said, “Always be doing something without expectation. Let the mind not forget its objective, but let there be no artificial effort to help it grow.”99 Always be doing something means [presence of] mind. Not to forget and not to expect means not to help it grow. (18:6b)

  47. Question: Do observation of things and self examination mean returning to the self and seeing [principles] after [some principles] have been discovered in things? Answer: You do not have to say it in this way. Things and the self are governed by the same principle. If you understand one, you understand the other, for the truth within and the truth without are identical. In its magnitude it reaches the height of heaven and the depth of earth, but in its refinement it constitutes the reason of being in every single thing. The student should appreciate both. Further question: In the extension of knowledge, how about seeking first of all in the Four Beginnings (of our nature, namely, humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom)? Answer: To seek in our own nature and feelings is indeed to be concerned with our own moral life. But every blade of grass and every tree possesses principle and should be examined. (18:8b-9a)

  48. All things under heaven can be understood in the light of their principle. As there are things, there must be their specific principles.100 One thing necessarily has one principle. (18:9a)

  49. The investigation of principle to the utmost, the full development of the nature, and the fulfillment of destiny are only one thing. As principle is investigated to the utmost, one’s nature is fully developed, and as one’s nature is fully developed, destiny is fulfilled. (18:9a)

  50. Question: About the theory of immortals—are there such beings? Answer: I don’t know. If you mean such things as people ascending to heaven in clear daylight, there is none. But if you mean people living in mountain forests to preserve their physical form and to imbibe energy to prolong life, then there are. It is like fire in a stove. If it is placed in the wind, it will be easily blown out. But if it is placed in a tightly closed room, it will not be easily blown out. This is in accordance with principle. Further question: Yang Hsiung (53 b.c.–a.d. 18) said that “the sage does not learn from immortals, for their art is not a normal one.”101 Can sages practice the art of immortals? Answer: An immortal is a thief in the world. If he does not steal the secret of creation, how can he extend life forever? If sages cared to do it, Duke Chou102 and Confucius would have done it. (18:10a)

  51. Question: How about hating external things? Answer: This is due to ignorance of the Way. How can things be hated? That is the doctrine of the Buddhists. They want to cast aside affairs, and do not ask whether according to [principle] they exist or not. If they exist, how can you cast them aside? If they do not exist, they naturally are not there. What is there to be cast aside? Those who live outside the mundane world carelessly devote themselves to tranquillity and set their feet far away in mountains and forests. They don’t understand principle. And yet the world thinks they are lofty. The world is fooled. (18:10b)

  52. The Buddhists have the doctrine of renunciation of the family and the world. Fundamentally the family cannot be renounced. It is of course possible for them to run away inasmuch as they do not treat their fathers as fathers and their mothers as mothers. But as to the world, how can they escape from it? As they have already claimed to have renounced it, that is possible only when they no longer stand under heaven or upon the earth. But they still drink when thirsty and eat when hungry, and still stand under heaven and set their feet on the earth. (18:10b)

  53. The Buddhists talk about formation, remaining in the same state, deterioration, and extinction. This indicates that they are ignorant of the Way. There ar
e only formation and deterioration but no remaining or extinction. Take plants, for example. When they are first produced, they are already formed. As they approach the highest point of growth, they immediately begin to decay. The Buddhists think that in the life of plants, they grow until they reach maturity, remain in that state for some time, and then gradually deteriorate. But nothing in the world remains in the same state. Any day added to the life of an infant means a day spent. Since when can one stay in the same state? (18:10b-11a)

  54. Someone asked about the Buddhist doctrine of obstruction by principle. Answer: The Buddhists do have such a doctrine. By this they mean that when one understands principle and is attached to it, principle becomes an obstruction. This shows they have misunderstood principle. There is only one principle in the universe. If it is understood, what is there to obstruct? If principle is understood as an obstruction, there would be a dichotomy of principle and the self (which principle obstructs). (18:11a)

  55. Followers of Zen Buddhism always talk about the realms of human nature and human destiny in high-sounding words. As to human affairs, very often some of them are just totally ignorant. This is simply because they really achieve nothing by their talk. (18:11a)

  Comment. Ch’eng criticized Buddhism on many grounds, but mostly on ethical ones. In this he differs from Chang Tsai, who attacked Buddhism more on philosophical grounds.103

  56. Su Chi-ming104 asked: Is the principle of equilibrium the same as the equilibrium before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused?105 Answer: No. Before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused, equilibrium is in that state. The same word “equilibrium” is used but differently. Someone asked: Is it all right to seek equilibrium before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused? Answer: No. Thinking of seeking it before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused is already thought, and thought is an aroused state (like the four feelings). The aroused state may be described as harmony but not as equilibrium. Further question: Academician Lü106 said that one should seek in the state before the feelings are aroused. If we follow his words, I am afraid there will be nothing to hold on. What can we do? Answer: We must understand the basic meaning of the saying. If it means to preserve and nourish oneself before his feelings are aroused, that will be all right. But if it means to seek equilibrium in the state before feelings are aroused, that is incorrect. Further question: A student should of course exert effort to discipline himself as his feelings are aroused. How should he apply his effort before feelings are aroused? Answer: How can we seek anything before our feelings are aroused? The only thing to do is to cultivate oneself every day. After a sufficient period of time, feelings will naturally attain due measure and degree when they are aroused. Someone said: Then there is an equilibrium before the feelings are aroused and another equilibrium after they are aroused. Answer: No. The state after the feelings are aroused is harmony. It is of course equilibrium when feelings are aroused and attain due measure and degree (such as equilibrium at all times), but when we speak of equilibrium and harmony separately, the state after feelings are aroused is harmony. (18:14b-15a)

  57. Su Chi-ming asked: You said that in the sentence, “Before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused, it is called equilibrium,”107 equilibrium means being in the center. I do not know what that means. Answer: Equilibrium is simply the state in which the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy have not been aroused. Question: Does that mean that equilibrium has no physical form or body but only a subject in the discussion about the Way? Answer: No. What physical form has equilibrium? However, since it is called equilibrium it must possess some feature. Question: At the moment of equilibrium, is it true that the ear hears nothing and the eye sees nothing? Answer: Although the ear hears nothing and the eye sees nothing, nevertheless the principle of hearing and seeing must be already there before hearing and seeing are possible. . . . Suppose you describe the condition of tranquillity. Chi-ming said: One cannot say that there is anything.108 But one is naturally conscious of something. The Teacher said: Since there is consciousness, there is activity. How can it be said to be tranquillity? When people explain the sentence “In the fu (to return) hexagram we see the mind of Heaven and Earth,” they all say that in the state of perfect tranquillity we can see the mind of Heaven and Earth.109 This is wrong. The line at the bottom of the hexagram fu indicates activity. How can we say that it is tranquillity? From ancient times scholars all have said that the mind of Heaven and Earth can be seen in a state of tranquillity, but I say that the mind of Heaven and Earth can be seen in a state of activity. (18:15a)

  58. Question: Are there good and evil in the mind? Answer: What is received by man and things from Heaven are called destiny. What is inherent in things110 is called principle. What is endowed in man is called nature. And as the master of the body it is called the mind. In reality they are all one. The mind is originally good. As it is aroused and expresses itself in thoughts and ideas, there is good and evil. When the mind has been aroused, it should be described in terms of feelings, and not as the mind in itself. For instance, water is water. But as it flows and branches off, some to the east and some to the west, it is called streams and branches. (18:17a)

  59. Question: Do joy and anger come from one’s nature? Answer: Yes, of course. As soon as there is consciousness, there is nature. As there is nature, there must be feelings. Without nature, how can there be feelings? Further question: [Suppose you say that] joy and anger come from the outside. How is that? Answer: They do not come from the outside. They arise from within under external influence. Question: Are joy and anger to man’s nature as waves are to water? Answer: Yes. It is the nature of water to be clear, level, and tranquil like a mirror. But when it strikes sand and stone, or when the ground underlying it is not level, it immediately begins to move violently. Or perhaps wind moves over it, and it immediately gives rise to waves and currents. But are these the nature of water? In man’s nature there are only the Four Beginnings and not the various forms of evil. But without water, how can there be waves? Without man’s nature, how can there be feelings? (18:17b)

  60. Question: Since man’s nature is originally clear, why is there obscuration? Answer: This must be investigated and understood. Mencius was correct in saying that man’s nature is good.111 Even Hsün Tzu (fl. 298–238 b.c.) and Yang Hsiung failed to understand man’s nature. Mencius was superior to other Confucianists because he understood man’s nature. There is no nature that is not good. Evil is due to capacity. Man’s nature is the same as principle, and principle is the same from the sage-emperors Yao and Shun112 to the common man in the street. Capacity is an endowment from material force. Material force may be clear or turbid. Men endowed with clear material force are wise, while those endowed with turbid material force are stupid. Further question: Can stupidity be changed? Answer: Yes. Confucius said, “The most intelligent and the most stupid do not change.”113 But in principle they can. Only those who ruin themselves and cast themselves away do not change. Question: Is it due to their capacity that the most stupid ruin and throw themselves away? Answer: Certainly. But it cannot be said that they cannot be changed. Since all have the same basic nature, who cannot be changed? Because they ruin and cast themselves away and are not willing to learn, people are unable to change. If they are willing to learn, in principle they can change. (18:17b)

  61. [Someone asked: Confucius said,] “By nature men are alike. Through practice they have become far apart.”114 Nature is one. Why should it be said to be alike? Answer: This refers to physical nature, as in popular phrases, “quick by nature,” “slow by nature,” and so forth. How can nature itself be slow or quick? The word “nature” used here is the same as the one used in “What is inborn is called nature.”115

  Further question: [Confucius said,] “The most intelligent and the most stupid do not change.”116 Is this due to the nature? Answer: This is due to capacity. We must understand the di
fference between the nature and capacity. Further question: [Confucius said,] “To those who are above average, one may talk of the higher things, but may not do so to those who are below the average.”117 Is this due to capacity? Answer: Of course it is, but this is only speaking generally. It means that it is all right to talk with men above the average on things near the high level but not all right to talk with men below the average on things near the high level. As to the saying, “What is inborn is the nature,” whenever the nature is talked about, we must see what the objective of the speaker is. When, for example, [Mencius] said that human nature is good,118 he was referring to the fundamental character of nature. But when [Kao Tzu (c.420–c.350 b.c.) said] that what is inborn is nature, he meant what is endowed in man. Confucius said that man’s nature is alike. How can one say so if he is thinking of the fundamental character of nature? Confucius only referred to man’s endowment. What Kao Tzu said is of course in answer to Mencius’ question. But what he said is wrong. (18:19b)

  62. Question: In the investigation of things, should these be external things or things within our nature and function? Answer: It does not matter. All that is before our eyes is nothing but things, and all things have principle. For example, from that by which fire is hot or water is cold to the relations between ruler and minister, and father and son, are all principle. Further question: If one investigates only one thing, does he understand only one thing or does he understand the various principles? Answer: We must seek to understand all. However, even Yen Tzu could understand only ten points when he heard one.119 When one finally understands principle, even millions of things can be understood. (19:1a)

  63. Nature comes from Heaven, whereas capacity comes from material force. When material force is clear, capacity is clear. When material force is turbid, capacity is turbid. Take, for instance, wood. Whether it is straight or crooked is due to its nature. But whether it can be used as a beam or as a truss is determined by its capacity. Capacity may be good or evil, but the nature is always good. (19:4b)