The significance of the Ch’eng-Chu doctrine of investigation has been indicated.83 The whole spirit of their doctrine, involving both induction and deduction, is definitely consonant with science. Chu Hsi himself discovered the nature of fossils.84 Early Neo-Confucianists wrote on pharmaceutical botany, the magnetic compass, fossils, mathematics, geography, cartography, and so forth.85 And yet his doctrine in particular and Neo-Confucian in general did not develop natural science in China. Many theories have been advanced, especially those to the effect that Neo-Confucianists were more concerned with moral training than objective study of nature and they depended too much on books.86 In this connection, what Hu Shih has to say is worth repeating. According to him, the Neo-Confucianists had the scientific spirit but not the scientific method. Their methods were observation and reflection. Without a scientific tradition such as the Greeks and the medieval doctors bequeathed to modern Europe, these Chinese philosophers were greatly handicapped. The result was that to “investigate things” came to mean understanding right and wrong and handling human affairs. In the seventeenth century, the Ch’eng-Chu scientific spirit brought on an age of scientific scholarship in the critical study of classical and historical literature, an age ushered in by Chu Hsi himself. This new critical scholarship reached its maturity in the seventeenth century under the leadership of Ku Yen-wu (1613-1682), founder of the science of Chinese phonology, and Yen Jo-ch’ü (1636-1704), founder of the science of higher criticism of the classics. Ku once offered 160 cases as evidence to prove the ancient pronunciation of a single word. The similarity in the scientific spirit and the methods used by these masters is striking. But even then they were working with books, words, and documents, when their contemporaries in Europe were working with natural phenomena. Nevertheless, the tradition of the scientific spirit since their day has never been broken. Because of this tradition, the modern Chinese have not found themselves at sea in the scientific age.87
2. The Relation between the Nature of Man and Things and Their Destiny
31. Question: About the distinction between Heaven (Nature), destiny (ming, fate), nature, and principle. Heaven refers to what is self-existent; destiny refers to that which operates and is endowed in all things; nature refers to the total substance and that by which all things attain their being; and principle refers to the laws underlying all things and events. Taken together, Heaven is principle, destiny is nature, and nature is principle. Is this correct?
Answer: Yes. Nowadays, it is maintained that Heaven does not refer to the blue sky. In my view it cannot be left out of account. (42: 1a-b)
32. Principle is the substance of Heaven, while destiny is the function of principle. One’s nature is what is endowed in man. And one’s feelings are the function of one’s nature. (42:1b)
33. I-ch’uan (Ch’eng I) said that destiny is that which is endowed by Heaven and nature is what things have received from Heaven.88 Principle is one. As endowed by Heaven in all things it is called destiny. As received by creatures from Heaven, it is called nature. The difference lies really in the different points of view. (42:2b)
34. On being asked about (Chang Tsai’s) section on moral character failing to overcome material force,89 (Chu Hsi) said: Master Chang Tsai merely said that both man’s nature and material force flow down from above. If my moral character is not adequate to overcome material force, then there is nothing to do but to submit to material force as endowed by Heaven. If my moral character is adequate to overcome material force, however, then what I receive from the endowment is all moral character. Therefore if I investigate principle to the utmost and fully develop my nature, then what I have received is wholly Heaven’s moral character, and what Heaven has endowed in me is wholly Heaven’s principle. The cases in which material force cannot be altered are life, death, longevity and brevity of life, for these, and poverty and wealth, and honor and humble station, all depend on material force. On the other hand, the practice of righteousness between the ruler and his ministers and the exercise of humanity between father and son, are what we call matters of fate. But there is also man’s nature. The superior man does not say they are matters of fate.”90 They must proceed from myself, not from fate. (42:3a-b)
35. Question: [Chang Tsai said,] “If one investigates principle to the utmost and fully develops his nature, then his nature will be in accord with the character of Heaven and his destiny will be in accord with the Principle of Heaven.”91 How are nature and destiny to be distinguished?
Answer: Nature refers to what is stabilized whereas destiny refers to what is operating. Destiny, for example, refers to water flowing, while nature refers to water contained in a bowl. A big bowl contains more water, whereas a small one contains less. The water in a clean bowl will be clear, whereas that in a dirty bowl will be turbid. (42:3b)
36. Question: Destiny is what Heaven endows in man and things and nature is what they receive from Heaven. But nature and destiny each has two aspects. From the point of view of their principle, the principle that is destined in man and things by Heaven is called destiny, and the principle received by them from Heaven is called their nature. From the point of view of material force, the material force that is destined in man and things by Heaven is also called destiny and the material force received by them from Heaven is also called their nature. Is this correct?
Answer: Material force cannot be called the nature or destiny. They exist because of it, that is all. When the nature of Heaven and Earth are spoken of, it refers to principle only; when the physical nature is spoken of, it refers to principle and material force combined. Material force is not to be referred to as nature or destiny. (42:4b)
37. “Heaven produces the teeming multitude. As there are things, there are their specific principles.”92 This means that at the very time when a person is born, Heaven has already given him his nature. Man’s nature is nothing but principle. It is called nature because it is endowed in man. It is not a concrete entity by itself which is to be destined as nature and which neither comes into nor goes out of existence. As I once illustrated, destiny (mandate) is like an appointment to office by the throne, and nature is like the office retained by the officer. This is why Master I-ch’uan (Ch’eng I) said, “Destiny is what is endowed by Heaven and nature is what things receive.”93 The reason is very clear. Therefore when ancient sages and worthies spoke of nature and destiny, they always spoke of them in relation to actual living. For example, when they spoke of the full development of human nature, they mean the complete realization of the moral principles of the Three Bonds (between ruler and minister, father and son, and husband and wife) and the Five Constant Virtues (that is, righteousness on the part of the father, love on the part of the mother, brotherliness on the part of the elder brother, respect on the part of the younger brother, and filial piety on the part of the son),94 covering the relationships between the ruler and ministers and between father and son. When they spoke of nourishing our nature, they mean that we should nourish these moral principles without doing them any harm. This central truth runs through the most subtle principles and the most obvious facts, with nothing left uncovered. These are not empty words. (42:5a)
3. The Nature of Man and Things
38. The Way (Tao, Moral Law) is identical with the nature of man and things and the nature is identical with the Way. They are one and the same but we must understand in what connection it is called the nature and in what connection it is called the Way. (42:6a)
39. [Ch’eng I said,] “The nature is the same as principle.”95 In relation to the mind, it is called the nature. In relation to events, it is called principle. (42:6a)
40. The principle of life is called the nature. (42:6b)
41. The nature consists of innumerable principles created by Heaven. (42:6b)
42. The nature consists of concrete principle, complete with humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. (42:6b)
Comment. Chu Hsi liked to quote Ch’eng I’s statement that nature is the same as pri
nciple. This does not mean that he was merely repeating Ch’eng. As a matter of fact, the Neo-Confucian doctrine of nature was not quite clear until Chu Hsi made it so. With him, the relationships between nature and the Way, between nature and the feelings, and between basic nature and physical nature became well defined. In his system it is quite clear that nature refers to what is endowed in man and things, whereas the Way (principle) refers to that which is inherent in all existence. That is to say, generally and objectively speaking, it is the Way, while particularly and subjectively speaking it is nature. Likewise, the distinction between nature and the feelings is unmistakable, for nature is the substance, the form, the state before activity takes place, whereas the feelings are the function, the phenomena, the state after activity has started. Through the doctrine that principle is one but its manifestations are many, any conflict or bifurcation is eliminated.96
43. After reading some essays by Hsün97 and others on nature, the Teacher said that in discussing nature it is important to know first of all what kind of entity it really is. (At bottom nature has neither physical form nor shadow. It is merely the moral principle possessed by the mind.)98 Master Ch’eng I put it best when he said that “nature is the same as principle.” Now if we regard it as principle, then surely it has neither physical form nor shadow. It is nothing but this very principle. In man, humanity, righteousness, propriety and wisdom are his nature, but what physical form or shape have they? All they have are the principles of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. As they possess these principles, many deeds are carried out, and man is enabled to have the feelings of commiseration, shame, deference and compliance, and right and wrong. Take for example the nature of drugs, such as their property of increasing or decreasing heat (vigor, strength, vitality). There is no external form of this nature to be found in the drugs. Only after the drug is taken, heat or cold is produced—this is their nature. In man, nature is merely humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. According to Mencius, humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are rooted in the mind.99 When, for example, he speaks of the mind of commiseration, he attributes feeling to the mind.
The Teacher further said: Shao Yao-fu (Shao Yung, 1011-1077) said that “nature is the concrete embodiment of the Way and the mind is the enclosure of the nature.”100 This theory is very good. For the Way itself has no physical form or body; it finds it only in man’s nature. But if there were no mind, where could nature be? There must be mind before nature can be gotten hold of and put forth into operation, for the principles contained in man’s nature are humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom, and these are concrete principles. We Confucianists regard nature as real, whereas Buddhists regard it as unreal. However, it is incorrect to equate mind with nature. Nowadays people often explain nature in terms of mind. They should first understand before they talk. (If they consider consciousness as nature, they are only talking about the mind.)101 For example, wherever there is the nature as endowed by Heaven, there is also the physical nature. If we regard the nature endowed by Heaven as rooted in the mind, then where will you place the physical nature? When, for example, it is said that “the human mind is precarious (liable to make mistakes), the moral mind is subtle (the mind that follows Tao, the Moral Law),”102 the word “mind” is used in both cases. It is incorrect to say that the mind following the Moral Law is mind whereas the mind of the natural man is not mind. (42:6b-7a)
44. The Teacher asked how the nature is concrete embodiment of the Way. Ch’un103 replied: The Way is principle inherent in the nature. The Teacher said: The term Way is used with reference to a universal order, whereas the term nature is used with reference to an individual self. How do we know that the Way operates in the world? Simply by putting it into operation in one’s own experience.104 Wherever nature is, there is the Way. The Way is the principle inherent in things, whereas nature is the principle inherent in the self. But the principle in all things is also in the principle inherent in the self. One’s nature is the framework of the Way. (42:9b)
45. Chi-sui,105 adhering to the doctrine of his family, said that nature cannot be spoken of as good, for the goodness that is originally so has no opposite. As soon as you describe nature as good, you are already contrasting it with evil, and when you speak of it in terms of the opposites of good and evil, it is no longer the original nature you are talking about. Original nature is transcendent, absolute, and beyond comparison, whereas goodness applies to the mundane world. The moment you say it is good, you are contrasting it with evil and you are no longer talking about original nature. When Mencius said that nature is good, he did not mean that nature is morally good, but simply used the language of admiration, like saying “How fine the nature!” just as the Buddha exclaimed, “Excellent is the Path!”106
I have criticized this theory and said that it is true that original nature is an all-pervading perfection not contrasted with evil. This is true of what Heaven has endowed in the self. But when it operates in man, there is the differentiation between good and evil. When man acts in accord with it, there is goodness. When man acts out of accord with it, there is evil. How can it be said that the good is not the original nature? It is in its operation in man that the distinction between good and evil arises, but conduct in accord with the original nature is due to the original nature. If, as they say, there is the goodness that is originally so and there is another goodness contrasted with evil, there must be two natures. Now what is received from Heaven is the same nature as that in accordance with which goodness ensues, except that as soon as good appears, evil, by implication, also appears. Therefore good and evil must be spoken of as contrast. But it is not true that there is originally an evil existing out there, waiting for the appearance of good to oppose it. We fall into evil only when our actions are not in accordance with the original nature. (42:9b-10a)
46. Again, referring to Master Shao’s saying, “Man’s nature is the concrete embodiment of the Way,” the Teacher said: The Way exists everywhere, but how are we to find it? Simply by returning to the self and discovering it within one’s nature and function. From the fact that we possess the principles of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom, we know that others also possess them. Of the thousands and tens of thousands of human beings and of all things, there is none independent of these moral principles. Even if extended to include all existence, you will find none to be independent of them. He put it very well when he said that “The nature is the concrete embodiment of the Way.” (42:13a-b)
47. It is said that the word “good” in the expression “Nature is good” is different from the good as contrasted with evil. On that theory I hold that the good traced to the source of our being and the good in the process of life involving both good and evil are not two different things. They merely refer to two different states before and after it has emanated into activity. But it is the same good whether before it has emanated or afterward when it becomes contrasted with evil. Only after its emanation is it intermingled with evil. But the good in this state is the same good that emanates from the source of our being. (42:13b-14a)
48. In your (Ho Shu-ching’s) letter you say that you do not know whence comes human desire. This is a very important question. In my opinion, what is called human desire is the exact opposite of the Principle of Nature. It is permissible to say that human desire exists because of the Principle of Nature, but it is wrong to say that human desire is the same as the Principle of Nature. For in its original state the Principle of Nature is free from human desire. It is from the deviation in the operation of the Principle of Nature that human desire arises. Master Ch’eng Hao says that “Good and evil in the world are both the Principle of Nature. What is called evil is not originally evil. It becomes evil only because of deviation from the mean.”107 Your quotation, “But it cannot be said that evil is not nature,”108 expresses the same idea. (42:14b-15a)
49. Before material force exists, there is already nature. There is a time when material force d
oes not exist, but nature is eternal. Although it is implanted in material force, yet material force is still material force and nature is still nature, the two not being confused. As to nature being inherent in all things and existing everywhere, there is no material force, whether refined or coarse, without principle. It is incorrect to regard the more refined part of material force as nature and the coarser part of nature as material force. (42:18b)
50. It is true that nature cannot be without activity, but its all-inclusiveness is not due to its inevitable activity. Even if it were without activity, is there anything wanting in its all-inclusiveness? The fallacy of the Buddhists lies in their erroneously regarding the heavenly and earthly aspects of the soul (hun-p’o) as nature and not in their ignorance of the fact that nature does not become all-inclusive through activity. (42:19a)
51. Master Ch’eng I said that nature is the same as principle and Master Shao Yung said that nature is the concrete embodiment of the Way.109 These two sayings explain each other. But in your (Chiang Shu-Ch’üan’s) deliberation you consider one better than the other. In this, you not only have failed to grasp Master Shao’s idea, but I fear you also have not reached the depth of Master Ch’eng’s expression. When Mr. Fang Pin-wang says that “the Way is Heaven as the self-existent and that nature is what Heaven has endowed in all things and what they have received from Heaven,”110 he is transmitting the old doctrines of past scholars. While in reality nature and the Way are not two different things, yet there is a difference in the two terms which must be distinguished. Furthermore, in the passage that [immediately] follows, he says, “Although nature is received from Heaven, it is no more or less as compared with Heaven as such.” This clearly shows that he does not cut them into pieces. However, he says, “The substance of the Way has no activity, whereas the human mind does have activity.”111 This means, that nature (which is the concrete embodiment of the Way) and the mind operate in two different spheres, a theory hardly tenable. Master Shao is nearer to the truth when he says that “The mind is the enclosure of nature.”112 However, the meaning of such an expression is much too unrefined. We must know that the mind is the master of the body, and nature is the moral principle inherent in the mind, and then we will not be wrong. (42:19b-20a)
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 74
