The Teacher said, “Correct. The master of the body is the mind. What emanates from the mind is the will. The original substance of the will is knowledge, and wherever the will is directed is a thing. For example, when the will is directed toward serving one’s parents, then serving one’s parents is a ‘thing.’ When the will is directed toward serving one’s ruler, then serving one’s ruler is a ‘thing.’ When the will is directed toward being humane to all people and feeling love toward things, then being humane to all people and feeling love toward things are ‘things,’ and when the will is directed toward seeing, hearing, speaking, and acting, then each of these is a ‘thing.’ Therefore I say that there are neither principles nor things outside the mind. The teaching in the Doctrine of the Mean that ‘without sincerity there would be nothing,’59 and the effort to manifest one’s clear character described in the Great Learning mean nothing more than the effort to make the will sincere. And the work of making the will sincere is none other than the investigation of things.” (1:8a-10a)
7. The Teacher further said, “The word ko in ko-wu is the same as the ko in Mencius’ saying that ‘a great man rectified (ko) the ruler’s mind.’60 It means to eliminate what is incorrect in the mind so as to preserve the correctness of its original substance. Wherever the will is, the incorrectness must be eliminated so correctness may be preserved. In other words, in all places and at all times the Principle of Nature must be preserved. This is the investigation of principles to the utmost. The Principle of Nature is clear character, and to investigate the principle of things to the utmost is to manifest the clear character.” (1:10a)
26. [The Teacher said,] “Knowledge is the beginning of action and action is the completion of knowledge. Learning to be a sage involves only one effort. Knowledge and action should not be separated.” (1:22b)
32. [The Teacher said,] “The original mind is vacuous (devoid of selfish desires), intelligent, and not beclouded. All principles are contained therein and all events proceed from it.61 There is no principle outside the mind; there is no event outside the mind.” (1:24b)
33. Someone asked, “Master Hui-an (Chu Hsi) said that ‘man’s object of learning is simply mind and principles.’62 What do you think of this saying?”
The Teacher said, “The mind is the nature of man and things, and nature is principle. I am afraid the use of the word ‘and’ makes inevitable the interpretation of mind and principle as two different things. It is up to the student to use his good judgment.” (1:25a)
34. Someone said, “All people have this mind, and this mind is identical with principle. Why do some people do good and others do evil?”
The Teacher said, “The mind of the evil man has lost its original substance.” (ibid)
53. T’ang Hsü63 asked, “Does making up the mind mean retaining good thought at all times and wanting to do good and remove evil?”
The Teacher said, “When a good thought is retained, there is the Principle of Nature. The thought itself is goodness. Is there another goodness to be thought about? Since the thought is not evil, what evil is there to be removed? This thought is comparable to the root of a tree. To make up one’s mind means always to build up this good thought, that is all. To be able to follow what one’s heart desires without transgressing moral principles64 merely means that one’s mind has reached full maturity.” (1:31b-32a)
78. I65 asked, “The mind is the master of the body. Knowledge is the intelligence of the mind. The will is knowledge in operation. And a thing is that to which the will is directed. Is this correct?”
The Teacher said, “Generally correct.” (1:39b-40a)
89. [The Teacher said,] “The various steps from the investigation of things and the extension of knowledge to bringing peace to the world66 are nothing but manifesting the clear character. Even loving the people is also a matter of manifesting the clear character. The clear character is the character of the mind; it is humanity. The man of humanity regards Heaven and Earth and all things as one body.67 If a single thing is deprived of its place, it means that my humanity is not yet demonstrated to the fullest extent.” (1:41b)
93. I said, “Master Ch’eng Hao (Ch’eng Ming-tao, 1032-1085) said that ‘the man of humanity regards Heaven, Earth, and all things as one body.’ How is it that Mo Tzu’s [fl. 479-438 b.c.] doctrine of universal love68 is not considered one of humanity?”
The Teacher said, “It is very difficult to say. You gentlemen must find it out through personal realization. Humanity is the principle of unceasing production and reproduction. Although it is prevalent and extensive and there is no place where it does not exist, nevertheless there is an order in its operation and growth. That is why it is unceasing in production and reproduction. For example, at the winter solstice the first (active cosmic force) yang grows. There must be the growth of this first yang before all the six stages of yang (the six months between December and June) gradually grow. If there were not the first yang, could there be all the six? It is the same with the (passive cosmic force) yin. Because there is order, so there is a starting point. Because there is a starting point, so there is growth. And because there is growth, it is unceasing. Take a tree, for example. When in the beginning it puts forth a shoot, there is the starting point of the tree’s spirit of life. After the root appears, the trunk grows. After the trunk grows, branches and leaves come, and then the process of unceasing production and reproduction has begun. If there is no sprout, how can there be the trunk, branches, or leaves? The tree can sprout because there is the root beneath. With the root the plant will grow. Without it, the plant will die, for without the root, how can it sprout?
“The love between father and son and between elder and younger brothers is the starting point of the human mind’s spirit of life, just like the sprout of the tree. From here it is extended to humaneness to all people and love to all things. It is just like the growth of the trunk, branches, and leaves. Mo Tzu’s universal love makes no distinction in human relations and regards one’s own father, son, elder brother, or younger brother as being the same as a passer-by. That means that Mo Tzu’s universal love has no starting point. It does not sprout. We therefore know that it has no root and that it is not a process of unceasing production and reproduction. How can it be called humanity? Filial piety and brotherly respect are the root of humanity.69 This means that the principle of humanity grows from within.” (1:42a-43a)
Comment. The idea that humanity is life-giving is an important development in Neo-Confucianism. It was developed by Ch’eng Hao and his brother Ch’eng I.70 Wang, however, made the idea clearer than ever.
94. I asked, “Yen-p’ing (Li T’ung, 1088-1163) said, ‘Be in accord with principle and have no selfish mind.’71 What is the difference between being in accord with principle and having no selfish mind?”
The Teacher said, “The mind is principle. To have no selfish mind is to be in accord with principle, and not to be in accord with principle is to have a selfish mind. I am afraid it is not good to speak of the mind and principle as separated.”
I asked further, “The Buddhists are [internally] free from all kinds of selfishness of lust in the world and thus appear not to have a selfish mind. But externally they discard human relations and thus do not appear to be in accord with principle.”
The Teacher said, “These are the same kind of things, all building up a mind of selfishness.” (1:43a-b)
101. I72 was pulling weeds out from among the flowers and thereupon said, “How difficult it is in the world to cultivate good and remove evil!”
The Teacher said, “Only because no effort is made to do so.” A little later, he said, “Such a view of good and evil is motivated by personal interest and is therefore easily wrong.” I did not understand. The Teacher said, “The spirit of life of Heaven and Earth is the same in flowers and weeds. Where have they the distinction of good and evil? When you want to enjoy flowers, you will consider flowers good and weeds evil. But when you want to use weeds, you will then consider
them good. Such good and evil are all products of the mind’s likes and dislikes. Therefore I know you are wrong.”
I asked, “In that case, there is neither good nor evil, is that right?” The Teacher said, “The state of having neither good nor evil is that of principle in tranquillity. Good and evil appear when the vital force is perturbed. If the vital force is not perturbed, there is neither good nor evil, and this is called the highest good.”
I asked, “The Buddhists also deny the distinction between good and evil. Are they different from you?”
The Teacher said, “Being attached to the non-distinction of good and evil, the Buddhists neglect everything and therefore are incapable of governing the world. The sage, on the other hand, in his non-distinction of good and evil, merely makes no special effort whatsoever to like or dislike and is not perturbed in his vital force. As he pursues the kingly path and sees the perfect excellence,73 he of course completely follows the Principle of Nature and it becomes possible for him to assist in and complete the universal process of production and reproduction and apply it for the benefit of the people.”74
Comment. Because Wang talked about the state of having neither good nor evil, he has been accused of being a Buddhist in Confucian garment. This passage makes the distinction between Confucianism and Buddhism quite clear. What is more important, Wang not only criticized the Buddhists for their escape from social responsibility, but also for their inability to be free from attachment. In other words, the Buddhists were incapable of handling the mind itself. Although he was not as hostile to Buddhism as many other Neo-Confucianists, he attacked the very foundation of Buddhism.75
“If weeds are not evil, they should not be removed.”
“This, however, is the view of the Buddhists and Taoists. If they are harmful, what is the objection to your removing them?”
“What would be a case of making a special effort to like or to dislike.”
“Not making special effort to like or to dislike does not mean not to like or dislike at all. A person behaving so would be devoid of consciousness. To say ‘not to make a special effort’ merely means that one’s like and dislike completely follow the Principle of Nature and that one does not go on to attach to that situation a bit of selfish thought. This amounts to having neither likes nor dislikes.”
“How can weeding be regarded as completely following the Principle of Nature without any attachment to selfish thought?”
“If weeds are harmful, according to principle they should be removed. Then remove them, that is all. If for a moment they are not removed, one should not be troubled by it. If one attaches to that situation a bit of selfish thought, it will be a burden on the substance of his mind, and his vital force will be much perturbed.”
“In that case, good and evil are not present in things at all.”
“They are only in your mind. Following the Principle of Nature is good, while perturbing the vital force is evil.”
“After all, then, things are devoid of good and evil?”
“This is true of the mind. It is also true of things. Famous but mediocre scholars fail to realize this. They neglect the mind and chase after material things, and consequently get a wrong view of the way to investigate things. All day long they restlessly seek principle in external things. They only succeed in getting at it by incidental deeds of righteousness. All their lives they act in this way without understanding it and act habitually without examination.”76
“How about loving beautiful color and hating bad odor?”
“This is all in accord with principle. We do so by the very nature of the Principle of Nature. From the beginning there is no selfish desire to make special effort to like or dislike.”
“How can the love of beautiful color and the hatred of bad odor not be regarded as one’s own will?”
“The will in this case is sincere, not selfish. A sincere will is in accord with the Principle of Nature. However, while it is in accord with the Principle of Nature, at the same time it is not attached in the least to selfish thought. Therefore when one is affected to any extent by wrath or fondness, the mind will not be correct.77 It must be broad and impartial. Only thus is it in its original substance. Knowing this, you know the state of equilibrium before feelings are aroused.”
Meng Po-sheng78 said, “You said that if weeds are harmful, according to principle they should be removed. Why should the desire to remove them be motivated by personal interest?”
“You must find this out yourself through personal realization. What is your state of mind when you want to remove the weeds? And what was the state of mind of Chou Mao-shu (Chou Tun-i, 1017-1073), when he would not cut down the grass outside his window?”79 (1:47b-49b)
108. I asked, “A former scholar considered the mind in its tranquil state as substance and the mind in its active state as function.80 What about it?”
The Teacher said, “The substance and function of the mind cannot be equated with its tranquil and active states. Tranquillity and activity are matters of time. When we speak of substance as substance, function is already involved in it, and when we speak of function as function, substance is already involved in it. This is what is called ‘Substance and function coming from the same source.’81 However, there is no harm in saying that the substance of the mind is revealed through its tranquillity and its function through its activity.” (1:52a)
132. Your82 letter says, “You teach us that knowledge and action should proceed simultaneously, that no distinction should be made as to which one should precede the other, and that this is the task of ‘honoring the moral nature and following the path of study and inquiry’ as taught in the Doctrine of the Mean,83 in which the two nourish and develop each other and the internal and external, the fundamental and the secondary form one thread running through all. Nevertheless, in the performance of a task there must be a distinction between what is to be done first and what later. For example, one knows the food before he eats it, knows the soup before he drinks it, knows the clothes before he wears them, and knows the road before he travels on it. It is not true that one performs an act without first of all knowing the thing to be acted on. The difference [between knowing first and acting later] is of course a matter of an instant. I do not mean to say that it is comparable to one’s knowing today and then acting tomorrow.”
Since you have said that the two nourish and develop each other, and the internal and the external, the fundamental and the secondary form one thread running through all, the idea that knowledge and action proceed simultaneously should no longer be doubted. You also say that in the performance of a task there must84 be a distinction between what is to be done first and what later. Are you not self-contradictory? This is particularly clear and can easily be seen in your theories that one knows the food before he eats, but your understanding is obscured by recent opinions and you do not realize that it is obscured. A man must have the desire for food before he knows food. This desire to eat is the will; it is already the beginning of action. Whether the taste of the food is good or bad cannot be known until the food enters the mouth. Is there anyone who knows the taste to be good or bad before the food enters his mouth? A man must have the desire to travel before he knows the road. This desire to travel is the will; it is already the beginning of action. Whether the forks of the road are rough or smooth cannot be known until he himself has gone through them. Is there anyone who knows whether the forks of the road are rough or smooth before he has gone through them? The same can be said without a doubt about the theories that one knows the soup before he drinks it and that one knows the clothes before he wears them. The examples you have given are exactly those which show, as you say, that one first of all performs an act without knowing the thing to be acted on. You said also that the difference [between knowing first and acting later] is of course a matter of an instant and that you do not mean to say that it is clearly comparable to one’s knowing today and then acting tomorrow. This shows that you have not examined the matter th
oroughly. But even as you say, the fact that knowledge and action form a unity and proceed simultaneously is as a matter of course absolutely beyond any doubt. (2:3a-4b)
133. Your letter says, “[You say that] true knowledge is what constitutes action, and unless it is acted on it cannot be called knowledge. This idea is all right as an urgent doctrine for the student, meant to enable him to put his learning into actual practice. But if you really mean that knowledge and action are identical, I am afraid a student will only seek his original mind and consequently neglect the principles of things, and there will be points at which his mind will be closed to the outside world and unable to penetrate it. Is this the established method of the Confucian school for the simultaneous advance of knowledge and action?”
Knowledge in its genuine and earnest aspect is action, and action in its intelligent and discriminating aspect is knowledge. At bottom the task of knowledge and action cannot be separated. Only because later scholars have broken their task into two sections and have lost sight of the original substance of knowledge and action have I advocated the idea of their unity and simultaneous advance. My idea that true knowledge is what constitutes action and that unless it is acted on it cannot be called knowledge can be seen in such ideas as those expressed in your letter that one knows the food before he eats it, and so forth. I have already stated this briefly. Although my idea arose as an urgent remedial measure, nevertheless the substance of knowledge and action is originally like this. It is not that I have promoted or suppressed either of them according to my own wishes, and purposely propounded such a doctrine carelessly to effect a temporary remedy. He who only seeks his original mind and consequently neglects the principles of things is one who has lost his original mind. For the principles of things are not external to the mind. If one seeks the principles of things outside the mind, there will not be any to be found. And if one neglects the principles of things and only seeks his mind, what sort of a thing would the mind be? The substance of the mind is nature, and nature is identical with principle. Consequently, as there is the mind of filial piety toward parents, there is the principle of filial piety. If there is no mind of filial piety, there will be no principle of filial piety. As there is the mind of loyalty toward the ruler, there is the principle of loyalty. If there is no mind of loyalty, there will be no principle of loyalty. Are principles external to the mind? Hui-an (Chu Hsi) said, “Man’s object of learning is simply mind and principles. Although the mind is the master of the body. . . actually it controls all principles in the world. And although principles are distributed throughout the ten thousand things. . . actually they are not outside one’s mind.”85 These are but the two aspects of concentration and diversification but [the way Chu Hsi put it] has inevitably opened the way to the defect among scholars of regarding the mind and principles as two separate things. This is the reason why later generations have the trouble of only seeking their original minds and consequently neglecting the principles of things. This is precisely because they do not realize that the mind is identical with principle. The idea that if one seeks the principles of things outside the mind there will be points at which the mind is closed to the outside world and cannot penetrate it is the same as Kao Tzu’s (c.420–c.350 b.c.) doctrine that righteousness is external.86 This is the reason why Mencius said that he did not know the nature of righteousness. The mind is one, that is all. In terms of total commiseration, it is called humanity. In terms of attainment of what is proper, it is called righteousness. And in terms of orderliness, it is called principle. If one should not seek humanity or righteousness outside the mind, should one make an exception and seek principles outside the mind? Knowledge and action have been separated because people seek principles outside the mind. The doctrine of unity of knowledge and action of the Confucian school means seeking principles in the mind. Why do you doubt it? (2:4b-6a)
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 82
