5. In your (Chu Hsi’s) second letter [to my brother Lu Tzu-mi] you also said that the Ultimate of Non-being is the same as the absence of physical form and the Great Ultimate is the same as the presence of principle, and that Master Chou Tun-i (Chou Lien-hsi, 1017-1073)24 for fear that students might misunderstand the Great Ultimate to be a separate entity and therefore applied the name Ultimate of Non-being to clarify the matter.25 In the “Appended Remarks” of the Book of Changes, it is said, “What exists before physical form [and is without it] is the Way.”26 It is also said, “The successive movement of yin and yang (passive and active cosmic forces) constitutes the Way.”27 The successive movement of yin and yang already exists before physical forms. How much more is the Great Ultimate!. . .
The Explanation of the Diagram of the Great Ultimate begins with the term “ultimate of non-being,” but the entire T’ung-shu (Penetrating the Book of Changes)28 makes not a single mention of the term. The two Ch’engs (Ch’eng Hao and Ch’eng I) both said and wrote much, but never used the term “ultimate of non-being.” Even if Master Chou at first really had such a diagram, from the fact that later he never mentioned the ultimate of non-being, it is clear that he had advanced in his thought and no longer considered his earlier position correct. (2:6a-b)
6. In your (Chu Hsi) letter [to me] you maintained that the term “ultimate of non-being” (in Chou Tun-i’s Explanation of the Diagram of the Great Ultimate) is intended to clarify principle. In essence, you said that “it clearly shows the true substance of the Great Ultimate.”29 I am afraid that you do not really know the Great Ultimate. If you did, you would realize that it is entirely unnecessary to precede the term “great ultimate” with “ultimate of non-being” or follow it with “true substance.” To add “ultimate of non-being” is really, [as you said], to “put a bed above a bed” and to follow it with “true substance” is really, [as you said], to “build a house under a house.”30. . . . Lao Tzu regarded non-being as the beginning of Heaven and Earth and being as the mother of all things, and tried to see the subtlety of things through eternal non-being and to see the outcome of things through eternal being.31 To add “non-being” to “ultimate” is precisely to follow the teaching of Lao Tzu. How can this be denied? Primarily because the Taoists were beclouded in this way that they have degenerated into indulging in divination and magic and have become unscrupulous. Principle exists in the universe from the very beginning. How can it be said to be non-being? If it is considered non-being, then the ruler [since there is no principle of the ruler] would not be the true ruler, the minister not the true minister, the father not the true father, and the son not the true son. (2:9a-b)
7. Of course study should not be without thought. But the way to think should emphasize reflection on things at hand, and should be done in a free, easy, and leisurely manner. With reflection on things at hand, the self will not be at a loss, and with free and leisurely thinking one will not be impeded by material things. (3:1b-2a)
8. This principle existing throughout the universe is hidden from nothing and nothing can escape from it. Heaven and Earth are what they are because they follow this principle without partiality. Man coexists with Heaven and Earth as the three ultimates. How can man be selfish and disobey principle? Mencius said, “First build up the nobler part of your nature and then the inferior part cannot overcome it.”32 It is because people fail to build up the nobler part of their nature that it is overcome by the inferior part. In consequence they violate principle and become different from Heaven and Earth. (11:1a)
Comment. Lu Hsiang-shan quoted Mencius even more than Confucius. The quotation here is his favorite one. And it is also the keynote of his philosophy.
9. This principle fills the universe. Even Heaven and Earth and spiritual beings cannot deviate from it. How much less can man? (11:-4a)
10. Mencius said, “That whereby man differs from the lower animals is but small. The ordinary people cast it away, while the superior man preserves it.”33 What is cast away is the mind. That is why Mencius said that some people “cast their original mind away.”34 What is preserved is this mind. That is why Mencius said that “The great man is one who does not lose his child’s heart.”35 (What Mencius referred to as) the Four Beginnings (of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom, that is, the sense of commiseration, the sense of shame, the sense of deference and compliance, and the sense of right and wrong)36 are this mind. It is what Heaven has endowed in us. All men have this mind, and all minds are endowed with this principle. The mind is principle. (11:-5b-6a)
11. There is of course concrete principle in the universe. The value of study lies in understanding this principle. If it is understood, concrete action and concrete accomplishments will naturally result. (14:1a)
12. This principle fills the universe. Who can escape from it? Those who follow it will enjoy good fortune and those who violate it will encounter calamities. People (whose minds) are obscure and beclouded are darkened and stupid, and those (whose minds) are penetrative and discerning are intelligent and wise. The darkened and stupid do not see this principle and therefore they often violate it and suffer calamity. The intelligent and wise understand this principle and are therefore able to follow it and achieve good fortune. Commentators of the Book of Changes say that yang is honorable while yin is lowly, and the element of strength is bright while the element of weakness is dark. It is quite true. (21:1a)
13. The four directions plus upward and downward constitute the spatial continuum (yü). What has gone by in the past and what is to come in the future constitute the temporal continuum (chou). The universe (these continua) is my mind, and my mind is the universe. Sages appeared tens of thousands of generations ago. They shared this mind; they shared this principle. Sages will appear tens of thousands of generations to come. They will share this mind; they will share this principle. Over the four seas sages appear. They share this mind; they share this principle. (22:5a)
Comment. This is Lu’s philosophy in a word. Chu Hsi is correct in saying that all Lu talked about was the one mind.37 Unfortunately, Lu has never explained the mind fully beyond saying that it is the mind of everyone, that it is the original mind, that it is equivalent to jen (humanity),38 and that it consists of the Four Beginnings of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom taught by Mencius. In short, he added nothing to what Mencius had taught. His importance in the history of Chinese philosophy does not lie in his philosophical originality but in the fact that he made the mind the center of a philosophical movement.
14. The affairs in the universe (yü-chou) are my own affairs. My own affairs are affairs of the universe. (22:5a)
15. The human mind is most intelligent and principle is most clear. All people have this mind and all minds contain this principle in full. (22:5a)
16. Moral principles inherent in the human mind are endowed by Heaven and cannot be wiped out. Those who are beclouded by material desires so as to pervert principles and violate righteousness, do so because they do not think, that is all. If they can truly examine themselves and think, their sense of right and wrong and their choice between right and wrong will have the qualities of quiet alertness, clear-cut intelligence, and firm conviction. (32:4a)
17. The Teacher always said that outside of the Way there are no events and outside of events there is no Way. (34:1a)
18. When has the Way existing in the universe any defect? Only men themselves have defects. Sages and worthies of all ages merely remove the defects of man. How can the Way be augmented or diminished? (34:1a)
19. Moral principles are nothing but those moral principles right before our eyes. Even when our understanding reaches the level of sages, they are nothing but moral principles right before our eyes. (34:-1a)
20. If in our study we know the fundamentals, then all the Six Classics39 are my footnotes. (34:1b)
Comment. A most daring statement by a Confucianist! This revolt against the heavy weight of literature has nothing to do with the Zen doctrine of h
aving no use for words or literature. He rejected commentaries, but he still read the original. This is in line with his philosophy of ignoring details and concentrating on fundamentals. It is true, however, that, generally speaking, he did not care for reading or writing. Among Neo-Confucianists only he and Ch’eng Hao did not write anything except letters, prefaces, and the like. As in the case of Ch’eng, his philosophy was expressed chiefly in letters and conversations. If they lack systematic presentation and logical arguments, they are products of actual living and are meant not for academic debate but for the guidance of everyday life.
21. The theory that principle is due to Nature (T’ien, Heaven) whereas desire is due to man is, without saying, not the best doctrine. If principle is due to Nature and desire due to man, then Nature and man must be different. This theory can be traced to Lao Tzu. In the “Record of Music” it is said, “By nature man is tranquil at birth. When, influenced by external things, he begins to be active, that is desire arising from his nature. As one becomes conscious of things resulting from this impact, one begins to have likes and dislikes. . . . When [as a result of these likes and dislikes] one is unable to return to his original mind, the Principle of Nature is destroyed.”40 Here is the origin of the theory that principle is from Nature whereas desire is from man. And the words of the “Record of Music” are based on the Taoists.41 If it is said that only tranquillity is inborn nature, is activity not inborn nature also? It is said in the Book of History that “the human mind is precarious, the moral mind is subtle.”42 Most interpreters have explained the human mind (which is liable to make mistakes) as equivalent to [selfish] human desires and the moral mind (which follows the Way, the Moral Law) as equivalent to the Principle of Nature. This interpretation is wrong. The mind is one. How can man have two minds? (34:1b)
22. Someone asked, “In learning your doctrines, where should one begin?” The Teacher answered, “Genuine and personal concern, self-examination, correcting one’s mistakes, reforming to do good. That is all.” (34:4b)
23. Chu Yüan-hui (Chu Hsi) once wrote to one of his students saying, “Lu Tzu-ching (Lu Hsiang-shan) taught people only the doctrine of ‘honoring the moral nature.’43 Therefore those who have studied under him are mostly scholars who put their beliefs into practice. But he neglected to follow the path of study and inquiry.44 In my teaching is it not true that I have put somewhat more emphasis on ‘following the path of study and inquiry’? As a consequence, my pupils often do not approach his in putting beliefs into practice.” From this it is clear that Yüan-hui wanted to avoid two defects (failure to honor the moral nature and failure to practice) and combine the two merits (following the path of study and inquiry and practicing one’s beliefs). I do not believe this to be possible. If one does not know how to honor his moral nature, how can he talk about following the path of study and inquiry? (34:4b-5a)
24. My learning is different from that of others in the fact that with me every word comes spontaneously. Although I have uttered tens of thousands of words, they all are expressions of what is within me, and nothing more has been added. Recently someone has commented of me that aside from [Mencius’] saying, “First build up the nobler part of your nature,”45 I had nothing clever. When I heard this, I said, “Very true indeed.” (34:5a)
25. My brother Fu-chai one day asked me, “Where do you devote your efforts now?” I answered: “I devote my efforts to the area of human feelings and human affairs, practical situations, and principles of things.” He nodded, that was all. When a person knows whether the prices of goods are high or low and can discriminate whether a thing is beautiful or ugly and genuine or false, I cannot say that he is not an able man. However, what I call making effort does not refer to these. (34:5a)
26. Men living in the world all share the same material force. It is in accordance with moral principles that they should support each other in doing good and stop each other from doing evil. Why should there be any idea to divide one another? And why should there be any idea of imposing one’s own will? (34:5a)
27. The universe has never separated itself from man. Man separates himself from the universe. (34:5b)
28. When the Teacher resided in the Hsiang-shan, he often said to his pupils, “Your hearing is by nature distinct and your vision is by nature clear. By natural endowment you are capable of serving your father with filial piety and your elder brother with respect. Fundamentally there is nothing wanting in you. There is no need to seek elsewhere. All depends on your establishing yourself in life.” (34:10b)
29. Someone said that the Teacher’s doctrines concern morality, human nature and destiny, and what exists before physical form, whereas the doctrines of Chu Hsi concern the names, varieties, and systems of things and what exist after physical form, and that a student should learn the doctrines of both teachers. The Teacher said, “Chu Hsi would not be satisfied with what you have said about him. He himself said that there is one thread running through his doctrines. However, he has not understood the Way clearly and in the end there is no thread running through them. I once wrote him and said, ‘When imagination and imitation are skillful and copying and borrowing are close, their particulars are enough to make one self-confident, and their details enough to give him self-comfort.’46 These words cut into the very heart of his doctrines.” (34:18b)
30. The Teacher said that all things are luxuriantly present in the mind. What permeates the mind, emanates from it, and extends to fill the universe is nothing but principle. (34:21a)
31. Lü Po-kung (Lü Tsu-ch’ien, 1137-1181)47 arranged a meeting at the Goose Lake Temple.48 My late elder brother Fu-chai said to me, “Po-kung has invited Yüan-hui (Chu Hsi) to meet us particularly because we differ from him in doctrines.”. . . [Chu Hsi] was debating with my brother. I said, “On the way I wrote a poem. . .:
Work that is easy and simple will in the end be lasting and great,
Understanding that is devoted to isolated details will end up in aimless drifting. . . .”
When I recited my poem up to these lines, Yüan-hui’s face turned pale. (34:24a-b)
Comment. This meeting in 1175 was one of the most celebrated in Chinese history. It was a dramatic meeting of the three leading scholars of the time. More important, it was an encounter of two sharply different ways of life—one for “honoring the moral nature” and the other for “following the path of inquiry and study.” As Huang Tsung-hsi (1610-1695) has said, these two ways are, respectively, the foundations of Lu Hsiang-shan’s and Chu Hsi’s systems.49 This diametrical opposition is not the only one between the two, as already pointed out in the introduction. They also debated over metaphysics (sec. 6). That debate, which took place in 1188, is equally famous, although it was not as dramatic because it was conducted through correspondence.
32. A student must make up his mind. To read books and merely understand their literal meanings means not to have made up one’s mind. (35:1b)
33. The Way in the universe cannot be augmented or diminished. Neither can it be taken or be given away. Man must find this out for himself. (35:3a)
34. Li Po-mien50 asked how to investigate things. The Teacher said, “Study the principles of things.” Po-mien said, “There are so many things in the world. How can one study all of them?” The Teacher said, “ ‘All things are already complete in oneself.’51 It is only necessary to understand principle. . . . In the past I did not read the writings of the I-Lo School of Ch’eng Hao and Ch’eng I.52 Only recently have I read them. I find there are incorrect ideas in them. Nowadays when people read, they pay no attention to what is simple and easy, but devote their vigorous efforts to study what can arouse people’s admiration. When did ancient sages aim to arouse people’s admiration? It is because the Way has not prevailed that when people see something unusual, their admiration is aroused. . . . When I read, I merely look at ancient annotations, and the words of the sages are clear of themselves. Take the saying, ‘Young men should be filial when at home and respectful to their elders when away
from home.’53 This clearly means that when at home you are to be filial and when away from home you are to be respectful. What is the need for commentaries? Students have exhausted their energies in them and therefore their burden has become even heavier. When they come to me, I simply reduce the burden for them. This alone means the investigation of things.” (35:7b-8a)
Comment. It is correct to say that Ch’eng I and Chu Hsi represented the rationalistic wing of Neo-Confucianism while Ch’eng Hao, Lu Hsiang-shan, and Wang Yang-ming represented the idealistic wing. But we must not say that Lu’s philosophy is an offshoot of that of Ch’eng Hao. There was little historical connection between Lu and Ch’eng Hao. Ch’üan Tsu-wang (1705-1755) said that Lu represented the full development of the Ch’eng Hao School through Hsieh Liang-tso (Hsieh Shang-ts’ai, 1050-1103)54 but he offered no evidence.55 Chu Hsi confessed that he did not know who Lu’s teachers were.56 And Lu Hsiang-shan himself said that he conceived his ideas from reading the Book of Mencius,57 As in the case of Ch’eng Hao, any realization was achieved through his own effort. This is the very foundation for the spirit of independence in his thought.
In a way, Lu went too far in his independent thinking. As was to be expected, Lu had little to say about the investigation of things. His theory that it is nothing but understanding principle, which is identical with mind, is surely an extreme. For this he had no support from Mencius and offered no logical justification.
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 70
