If one sincerely loves the good known by the innate faculty but does not in reality do the good as we come into contact with the thing to which the will is directed, it means that the thing has not been investigated and that the will to love the good is not yet sincere. If one sincerely hates the evil known by the innate faculty but does not in reality get rid of the evil as he comes into contact with the thing to which the will is directed, it means that the thing has not been investigated and that the will to hate evil is not sincere. If as we come into contact with the thing to which the will is directed, we really do the good and get rid of the evil to the utmost which is known by the innate faculty, then everything will be investigated and what is known by our innate faculty will not be deficient or obscured but will be extended to the utmost. Then the mind will be joyous in itself, happy and without regret, the functioning of the will will carry with it no self-deception, and sincerity may be said to have been attained. Therefore it is said, “When things are investigated, knowledge is extended; when knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, the mind is rectified; and when the mind is rectified, the personal life is cultivated.”39 While the order of the tasks involves a sequence of first and last, in substance they are one and cannot be so separated. At the same time, while the order and the tasks cannot be separated into first and last, their function must be so refined as not to be wanting in the slightest degree. This is why the doctrine of investigation, extension, being sincere, and rectification is a correct exposition of the true heritage of the Sage-Emperors Yao and Shun and why it coincides with Confucius’ own ideas. (Wang Wen-ch’eng Kung ch’üan-shu, or Complete Works of Wang Yang-ming, sptk, 26:1b-5a)
Comment. This is the most important of Wang’s works, for it contains all of his fundamental doctrines—that the man of humanity forms one body with all things and extends his love to all, that the mind is principle, that the highest good is inherent in the mind, that to investigate things is to rectify the mind, and that the extension of innate knowledge is the way to discover the highest good and to perfect the moral life. The theory of the unity of knowledge and action is not mentioned, but since he refuses to separate the internal and the external or substance and function, the theory is clearly implied. In fact, he explicitly says that manifesting the clear character, which may be equated with knowledge, and loving the people, which is action, are identical.
B.--INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRACTICAL LIVING
3. I40 said, “If the highest good is to be sought only in the mind, I am afraid not all principles of things in the world will be covered.”
The Teacher said, “The mind is principle. Is there any affair in the world outside of the mind? Is there any principle outside of the mind?”
I said, “In filial piety in serving one’s parents, in loyalty in serving one’s ruler, in faithfulness in intercourse with friends, or in humanity in governing the people, there are many principles which I believe should not be left unexamined.”
The Teacher said with a sigh, “This idea has been obscuring the understanding of people for a long time. Can they be awakened by one word? However, I shall comment along the line of your question. For instance, in the matter of serving one’s parents, one cannot seek for the principle of filial piety in the parent. In serving one’s ruler, one cannot seek for the principle of loyalty in the ruler. In the intercourse with friends and in governing the people, one cannot seek for the principles of faithfulness and humanity in friends and the people. They are all in the mind, that is all, for the mind and principle are identical. When the mind is free from the obscuration of selfish desires, it is the embodiment of the Principle of Nature, which requires not an iota added from the outside. When this mind, which has become completely identical with the Principle of Nature, is applied and arises to serve parents, there is filial piety; when it arises to serve the ruler, there is loyalty; when it rises to deal with friends or to govern the people, there are faithfulness and humanity. The main thing is for the mind to make an effort to get rid of selfish human desires and preserve the Principle of Nature.”
I said, “Having heard what you said, sir, I begin to understand. However, the old theory still lingers in my mind, from which I cannot entirely get away. Take, for example, the matter of serving one’s parents. The filial son is to care for their comfort both in winter and summer, and to inquire after their health every morning and evening.41 These things involve many actual details. Should we not endeavor to investigate them?”
The Teacher said, “Why not endeavor to investigate them? The main thing is to have a basis. The main thing is to endeavor to investigate them by ridding the mind of selfish human desires and preserving the Principle of Nature. For instance, to investigate the provision of warmth for parents in the winter is none other than the extension of the filial piety of this mind to the utmost, for fear that a trifle of human selfish desires might creep in, and to investigate the provision of coolness for parents in the summer is none other than the extension of the filial piety of this mind to the utmost, for fear that a trifle of selfish human desires might creep in. It is merely to investigate this mind. If the mind is free from selfish human desires and has become completely identical with the Principle of Nature, and if it is the mind that is sincere in its filial piety to parents, then in the winter it will naturally think of the cold of parents and seek a way to provide warmth for them, and in the summer it will naturally think of the heat of parents and seek a way to provide coolness for them. These are all offshoots of the mind that is sincere in its filial piety. Nevertheless, there must first be such a mind before there can be these offshoots. Compared to the tree, the mind with sincere filial piety is the root, whereas the offshoots are the leaves and branches. There must first be roots before there can be leaves and branches. One does not seek to find leaves and branches and then cultivate the root. The Book of Rites says, ‘A filial son who loves his parents deeply is sure to have a peaceful disposition. Having a peaceful disposition, he will surely have a happy expression. And having a happy expression, he will surely have a pleasant countenance.’42 There must be deep love as the root and then the rest will naturally follow like this.” (1:3a-4b)
5. I did not understand the Teacher’s doctrine of the unity of knowledge and action and debated it back and forth with Huang Tsung-hsien43 and Ku Wei-hsien44 without coming to any conclusion. Therefore I took the matter to the Teacher. The Teacher said, “Give an example and let me see.” I said, “For example, there are people who know that parents should be served with filial piety and elder brothers with respect but cannot put these things into practice. This shows that knowledge and action are clearly two different things.”
The Teacher said, “The knowledge and action you refer to are already separated by selfish desires and are no longer knowledge and action in their original substance. There have never been people who know but do not act. Those who are supposed to know but do not act simply do not yet know. When sages and worthies taught people about knowledge and action, it was precisely because they wanted them to restore the original substance, and not simply to do this or that and be satisfied. Therefore the Great Learning points to true knowledge and action for people to see, saying, they are ‘like loving beautiful colors and hating bad odors.’45 Seeing beautiful colors appertains to knowledge, while loving beautiful colors appertains to action. However, as soon as one sees that beautiful color, he has already loved it. It is not that he sees it first and then makes up his mind to love it. Smelling a bad odor appertains to knowledge, while hating a bad odor appertains to action. However, as soon as one smells a bad odor, he has already hated it. It is not that he smells it first and then makes up his mind to hate it. A person with his nose stuffed up does not smell the bad odor even if he sees a malodorous object before him, and so he does not hate it. This amounts to not knowing bad odor. Suppose we say that so-and-so knows filial piety and so-and-so knows brotherly respect. They must have actually practiced filial piety and brotherly
respect before they can be said to know them. It will not do to say that they know filial piety and brotherly respect simply because they show them in words. Or take one’s knowledge of pain. Only after one has experienced pain can one know pain. The same is true of cold or hunger. How can knowledge and action be separated? This is the original substance of knowledge and action, which have not been separated by selfish desires. In teaching people, the Sage insisted that only this can be called knowledge. Otherwise, this is not yet knowledge. This is serious and practical business. What is the objective of desperately insisting on knowledge and action being two different things? And what is the objective of my insisting that they are one? What is the use of insisting on their being one or two unless one knows the basic purpose of the doctrine?”
I said, “In saying that knowledge and action are two different things, the ancients intended to have people distinguish and understand them, so that on the one hand they make an effort to know and, on the other, make an effort to act, and only then can the effort find any solution.”
The teacher said, “This is to lose sight of the basic purpose of the ancients. I have said that knowledge is the direction for action and action the effort of knowledge, and that knowledge is the beginning of action and action the completion of knowledge. If this is understood, then when only knowledge is mentioned, action is included, and when only action is mentioned, knowledge is included. The reason why the ancients talked about knowledge and action separately is that there are people in the world who are confused and act on impulse without any sense of deliberation or self-examination, and who thus behave only blindly and erroneously. Therefore it is necessary to talk about knowledge to them before their action becomes correct. There are also those who are intellectually vague and undisciplined and think in a vacuum. They are not willing at all to try to practice concretely. They only pursue shadows and echoes, as it were. It is therefore necessary to talk about action to them before their knowledge becomes true. The ancient teachers could not help talking this way in order to restore balance and avoid any defect. If we understand this motive, then a single word [either knowledge or action] will do.
“But people today distinguish between knowledge and action and pursue them separately, believing that one must know before he can act. They will discuss and learn the business of knowledge first, they say, and wait till they truly know before they put their knowledge into practice. Consequently, to the last day of life, they will never act and also will never know. This doctrine of knowledge first and action later is not a minor disease and it did not come about only yesterday. My present advocacy of the unity of knowledge and action is precisely the medicine for that disease. The doctrine is not my baseless imagination, for it is the original substance of knowledge and action that they are one. Now that we know this basic purpose, it will do no harm to talk about them separately, for they are only one. If the basic purpose is not understood, however, even if we say they are one, what is the use? It is just idle talk.” (1:5b-8a)
Comment. The relation between knowledge and action has been a perennial subject among Confucianists. Both Confucius46 and the Doctrine of the Mean47 insist that words and action should correspond. The whole doctrine of the rectification of names in ancient Chinese philosophy as well as the whole extensive discussion of the correspondence between names and actuality in ancient China48 reinforced this tradition. In the entire Neo-Confucian movement, the equal emphasis on words and action was faithfully maintained.49 The stress so far, however, had been on the correspondence and equal importance of knowledge and action but not their identity. Ch’eng I came nearest to it when he said that the extension of knowledge and actual demonstration should proceed simultaneously,50 but he still thought of them as two. Wang’s theory definitely struck a new note.
In spite of this identification, however, the Confucian tradition has always emphasized action. This tradition goes back to the Book of History where it is said that “it is not difficult to know but difficult to act.”51 Chu Hsi considered action more important than knowledge.52 When Sun Yat-sen turned the ancient doctrine around and said that “it is difficult to know but easy to act,”53 he was really upholding the ancient tradition of emphasizing action.
6. I said, “Yesterday when I heard your teaching about abiding in the highest good, I realized I had some grasp of this task. But I still feel that your teaching does not agree with Chu Hsi’s doctrine of the investigation of things.”
The Teacher said, “The investigation of things is the work of abiding in the highest good. Once we know what the highest good is, we know how to investigate things.”
I said, “Yesterday when I examined Chu Hsi’s doctrine of the investigation of things in the light of your teaching, I seemed to understand it in general. But I am still not clear in my mind, because Chu Hsi’s doctrine, after all, has the support of what is called ‘refinement and singleness of mind’ in the Book of History, ‘extensive study of literature and self-restraint by the rules of propriety’ in the Analects, and ‘exerting one’s mind to the utmost and knowing one’s nature’ in the Book of Mencius.”54
The Teacher said, “Tzu-hsia (507–420 b.c.) had strong faith in the Sage whereas Tseng Tzu (505–c.436 b.c.) turned to seek the highest good in himself.55 It is good to have strong faith, of course, but it is not as real and concrete as seeking in oneself. Since you have not understood this idea, why should you cling to Chu Hsi’s old tradition and not seek what is right? Even with Chu Hsi, while he respected and believed in Master Ch’eng I, he would not carelessly follow him whenever he came to something he could not understand.56 The teachings of refinement and singleness, extensive study and self-restraint, and exerting the mind to the utmost are basically harmonious with my doctrine. Only you have not thought about it.
“Chu Hsi’s teaching on the investigation of things is not free from being forced, arbitrary, and far-fetched, and is not what the investigation of things originally meant. Refinement is the work of achieving singleness and extensive study the work of achieving restraint. Since you already understand the principle of the unity of knowledge and action, this can be explained in one word. As to exerting one’s mind to the utmost, knowing one’s nature, and knowing Heaven, these are the acts of those who are born with such knowledge and practice it naturally and easily. Preserving the mind, nourishing one’s nature, and serving Heaven are the acts of those who learn them through study and practice them for their advantage. To maintain one’s single-mindedness regardless of longevity or brevity of life, and to cultivate one’s personal life while waiting for fate to take its own course, are the acts of those who learn through hard work and practice them with effort and difficulty.57 But Chu Hsi wrongly interpreted the doctrine of the investigation of things. Because he reversed the above order, and thought that the higher attainments of exerting one’s mind to the utmost and knowing one’s nature are equivalent to the investigation of things and the extension of knowledge, he required the beginner to perform the acts of those who are born to know and who practice naturally and easily. How can that be done?”
I asked, “Why are exerting the mind to the utmost and knowing one’s nature the acts of those who are born to know and who practice naturally and easily?”
The Teacher said, “Our nature is the substance of the mind and Heaven is the source of our nature. To exert one’s mind to the utmost is the same as fully developing one’s nature. Only those who are absolutely sincere can fully develop their nature and ‘know the transforming and nourishing process of Heaven and Earth.’58 Those who merely preserve their minds, on the other hand, have not yet exerted them to the utmost. Knowing Heaven is the same as knowing the affairs of a district or a county, which is what the titles prefect and magistrate mean. It is a matter within one’s own function, and it means that one in his moral character has already become one with Heaven. Serving Heaven, on the other hand, is like the serving of the parents by the son and the serving of the ruler by the minister. It must be done seriousl
y and reverently to please them if it is to be perfect. Even then, one is still separated from Heaven. This is the difference between a sage [who exerts the mind to the utmost and knows Heaven] and the worthies [who preserve their minds and serve Heaven].
“As to allowing no double-mindedness regardless of longevity or brevity of life, it is to teach the student to do good with single-mindedness, and not to allow success or failure, longevity or brevity of life, to shake his determination to do good, but instead to cultivate his personal life and wait for fate to take its own course, realizing that success and failure, or longevity and brevity of life, are matters of fate and one need not unnecessarily allow them to disturb his mind. Although those who serve Heaven are separated from Heaven, they nevertheless already see Heaven right in front of them. Waiting for fate to take its own course, however, means that one has not yet seen Heaven but is still waiting for it, so to speak. It is the beginner’s first step in making up his mind, involving a certain amount of effort and difficulty. But Chu Hsi reversed the order, so that the student has no place to start.”
I said, “Yesterday when I heard your teaching, I vaguely realized that one’s effort must follow this procedure. Now that I have heard what you said, I have no further doubt. Last night I came to the conclusion that the word ‘thing’ (wu) in the phrase ‘the investigation of things’ (ko-wu) has the same meaning as the word ‘event’ (shih), both referring to the mind.”
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 81
