For a hundred years outsiders, on the basis of Wang Chi’s interpretation, attacked Wang Yang-ming’s doctrine as a surrender to Buddhist indifference to good and evil. The attack kept the Confucian mind alert about the distinction between good and evil but only at the expense of a great injustice to Wang Yang-ming.
319. The Teacher said, “People merely say that in the investigation of things we must follow Chu Hsi, but when have they carried it out in practice? I have carried it out earnestly and definitely. In my earlier years108 my friend Ch’ien109 and I discussed the idea that to become a sage or a worthy one must investigate all things in the world. But how can a person have such tremendous energy? .I therefore pointed to the bamboos in front of the pavilion and told him to investigate them and see. Day and night Mr. Ch’ien went ahead to try to investigate to the utmost the principles in the bamboos. He exhausted his mind and thoughts and on the third day he was tired out and took sick. At first I said that it was because his energy and strength were insufficient. Therefore I myself went to try to investigate to the utmost. From morning till night, I was unable to find the principles of the bamboos. On the seventh day I also became sick because I thought too hard. In consequence we sighed to each other and said that it was impossible to be a sage or a worthy, for we do not have the tremendous energy to investigate things as they have. After I had lived among the barbarians for [almost] three years,110 I understood what all this meant and realized that there is really nothing in the things in the world to investigate, that the effort to investigate things is only to be carried out in and with reference to one’s body and mind, and that if one firmly believes that everyone can become a sage, one will naturally be able to take up the task of investigating things. This idea, gentlemen, I must convey to you.” (3:50b-51b)
331. I said, “A former scholar said that the flying of the hawk, the leaping of fishes,111 and the feeling that one must always be doing something112 are all very lively and dynamic in the same way.”113
The Teacher said, “Correct. The whole universe is very lively and dynamic because of the same principle. It is the unceasing universal operation of one’s innate knowledge. To extend innate knowledge is the task of always doing something. Not only should this principle not be departed from, in reality it cannot be. The Way is everywhere, and so is our task.” (3:56a)
337. I said, “The human mind and things form the same body.114 In the case of one’s body, blood and the vital force in fact circulate through it and therefore we can say they form the same body. In the case of men, their bodies are different and differ even more from those of animals and plants. How can they be said to form the same body?”
The Teacher said, “Just look at the matter from the point of view of the subtle incipient activating force of their mutual influence and response. Not only animals and plants, but heaven and earth also, form the same body with me. Spiritual beings also form the same body with me.
I asked the Teacher kindly to explain.
The Teacher said, “Among the things under heaven and on earth, which do you consider to be the mind of Heaven and Earth?”
“I have heard that ‘Man is the mind of Heaven and Earth.’ ”115
“How does man become mind?”
“Clear intelligence and clear intelligence alone.”
“We know, then, in all that fills heaven and earth there is but this clear intelligence. It is only because of their physical forms and bodies that men are separated. My clear intelligence is the master of heaven and earth and spiritual beings. If heaven is deprived of my clear intelligence, who is going to look into its height? If earth is deprived of my clear intelligence, who is going to look into its height? If earth is deprived of my clear intelligence, who is going to look into its depth? If spiritual beings are deprived of my clear intelligence, who is going to distinguish their good and evil fortune or the calamities and blessings that they will bring? Separated from my clear intelligence, there will be no heaven, earth, spiritual beings, or myriad things, and separated from these, there will not be my clear intelligence. Thus they are all permeated with one material force. How can they be separated?”
I asked further, “Heaven, earth, spiritual beings, and the myriad things have existed from great antiquity. Why should it be that if my clear intelligence is gone, they will all cease to exist?”
“Consider the dead man. His spirit has drifted away and dispersed. Where are his heaven and earth and myriad things?” (3:57a-58b)
▪ ▪ ▪--36--▪ ▪ ▪
THE MATERIALISM OF WANG FU-CHIH
It has taken two hundred years to appreciate the philosophical significance of Wang Fu-chih (Wang Ch’uan-shan, 1619-1692). Son of a scholar, he passed the civil service examination and obtained the first degree in 1642. By that time, the Manchus were already overrunning China. In 1648, as the Manchus oppressed his native province of Hunan, he raised a small army to fight them and to save the Ming dynasty (1368-1644). After his inevitable defeat, he retired at the age of thirty-three to the mountains near his home, and for forty years dedicated his life to writing, covering both ancient and modern periods, and Taoist and Buddhist as well as Confucian schools.1 But he was practically forgotten until almost a century later, and his many works, of which seventy-seven have survived, were not published until the middle of the nineteenth century. Even then attention was attracted only to his bold political theory and unorthodox interpretation of history. It was not until our own time that his unique philosophy was appreciated. Because of his materialism, he has been praised in Communist China as one of the greatest philosophers in Chinese history.2
Aside from ideological considerations, his philosophy is significant in more senses than one. He was an independent thinker, attacking both the rationalistic Neo-Confucianism of Sung (960-1279) and the idealistic Neo-Confucianism of Ming and moving in a new direction. In so doing, he anticipated, though did not directly influence, Chinese thought in the following two centuries. One may even say that he inaugurated the modern era of Chinese philosophy.
Wang rejected the central thesis of both rationalistic and idealistic schools, namely, that principle (li) is a universal transcending and prior to material force (ch’i). Instead, he contended that principle is identical with the material force, not a finished product that can be grasped, but the order and arrangement of things. There are no such transcendental and abstract things as the Great Ultimate or the Principle of Nature (T’ien-li). They, along with the mind and the nature of things, are all within material force.
This philosophy is essentially similar to that of Chang Tsai (Chang Heng-ch’ü, 1020-1077), and Wang has been correctly described as Chang’s successor. But he actually went beyond Chang. What he wanted was not only materiality, but concreteness of materiality. To him, Chang’s Great Vacuity is not an abstract entity but concrete. Because the Taoist idea of non-being was too abstract for him, he vigorously attacked it. Consequently, his most famous dictum is: “The world consists only of concrete things (ch’i).” This word ch’i is to be differentiated from the ch’i that means material force. The two words are represented by two different Chinese characters. Ch’i as material force means the general stuff of which things are made, but ch’i as concrete things means specific and tangible objects or systems. Literally implement, it means more than individual concrete objects but systems and institutions as well, so long as they are understood as being concrete.3 A concrete thing is not just simple stuff; it possesses an order and exhibits definite principles inherent in it. Thus the Way or principle and ch’i are two aspects of an entity. As there is a concrete thing, there is always its principle in it, and there has never been a principle independent of a concrete thing.
Since he relegated principle to a secondary position, it is not surprising that he overthrew another major concept of Sung-Ming Neo-Confucianism, namely, the contrast between principle and human desires and the subordination of the latter. He refused to accept their opposition, although he conceded that desires should be
correct. As to how the principle of correctness is to be obtained, he had to assume that concrete things have in them the tendency toward correctness.
In one respect he perpetuated the Sung-Ming Neo-Confucian tradition and pushed it further, notably the doctrine that things are daily renewed. Like Neo-Confucianists before him, he conceived of the universe as a process of continuous production and reproduction. In this process, the yin and yang elements (passive and active cosmic forces) of material force are in constant fusion and intermingling, so that both material force and principle are daily renewed.
Applied to government and history, this philosophy leads to some unorthodox and bold conclusions. Since principle is found only in concrete objects and systems, there is no Principle of Nature which Sung-Ming Neo-Confucianists employed as the model for history and society. Furthermore, since concrete things at present are different from those in the past, the past cannot be a pattern for today. This is the reason why he rejected feudalism. He also believed that the later the period, the more civilized society becomes. The ideas of progress and evolution are unmistakable. But he also felt that inasmuch as concrete things are never isolated but are always related and change from time to time, they follow certain principles in them. This being their tendency, it is wise for us to follow them. Here we have a conservative note in an essentially radical philosophy.
From the above, it is clear that while Wang clearly departed from Neo-Confucianism, he nevertheless continued its heritage to some extent. He is still close to Chu Hsi (1130-1200), though he is definitely opposed to Wang Yang-ming (Wang Shou-jen, 1472-1529). He was not the only one at his time, nor the first in Chinese history, to hold that principle is identical with material force. Liu Tsung-chou (1578-1645) had taught it4 and Wang’s contemporary, Huang Tsung-hsi (1610-1695) had said the same thing.5 But none had built up a whole philosophical system on the basis of this concept. His revolt against principle in favor of concrete things and against the Principle of Nature in favor of human desires anticipated Yen Yüan (Yen Hsi-chai, 1635-1704) and Tai Chen (Tai Tung-yüan, 1723-1777). He also exerted considerable influence on T’an Ssu-t’ung (1865-1898).
Wang’s ideas spread over many works. The following selections are from the Ch’uan-shan i-shu (Surviving Works of Wang Fu-chih).
1. THE WORLD OF CONCRETE THINGS
The world consists only of concrete things. The Way (Tao) is the Way of concrete things, but concrete things may not be called concrete things of the Way. People generally are capable of saying that without its Way there cannot be the concrete thing. However, if there is the concrete thing, there need be no worry about there not being its Way. A sage knows what a superior man does not know, but an ordinary man or woman can do what a sage cannot do. A person may be ignorant of the Way of a thing, and the concrete thing therefore cannot be completed. But not being completed does not mean that there is no concrete thing. Few people are capable of saying that without a concrete thing there cannot be its Way, but it is certainly true.
Comment. Ch’eng Hao (Ch’eng Ming-tao, 1032-1085) also equated the Way with concrete things.6 However, Ch’eng’s emphasis is on the Way, while Wang’s emphasis is on concrete things.
In the period of wilderness and chaos, there was no Way to bow and yield a throne. At the time of Yao and Shun,7 there was no Way to pity the suffering people and punish the sinful rulers. During the Han (206 b.c.–a.d. 220) and T’ang (618-907) dynasties there were no Ways as we have today, and there will be many in future years which we do not have now. Before bows and arrows existed, there was no Way of archery. Before chariots and horses existed, there was no Way to drive them. Before sacrificing oxen and wine, presents of jade and silk, or bells, chimes, flutes, and strings existed, there were no Ways of ceremonies and music. Thus there is no Way of the father before there is a son, there is no Way of the elder brother before there is a younger brother, and there are many potential Ways which are not existent. Therefore without a concrete thing, there cannot be its Way. This is indeed a true statement. Only people have not understood it.
Sages of antiquity could manage concrete things but could not manage the Way. What is meant by the Way is the management of concrete things. When the Way is fulfilled, we call it virtue. When the concrete thing is completed, we call it operation. When concrete things function extensively, we call it transformation and penetration. When its effect becomes prominent, we call it achievement. . . .
By “what exists before physical form” [and is therefore without it]8 does not mean there is no physical form. There is already physical form. As there is physical form, there is that which exists before it. Even if we span past and present, go through all the myriad transformations, and investigate Heaven, Earth, man, and things to the utmost, we will not find any thing existing before physical form [and is without it]. Therefore it is said, “It is only the sage who can put his physical form into full use.”9 He puts into full use what is within a physical form, not what is above it. Quickness of apprehension and intelligence are matters of the ear and the eye, insight and wisdom those of the mind and thought, humanity that of men, righteousness that of events, equilibrium and harmony those of ceremonies and music, great impartiality and perfect correctness those of reward and punishment, advantage and utility those of water, fire, metal, and wood, welfare that of grains, fruits, silk, and hemp, and correct virtue that of the relationship between ruler and minister and between father and son. If one discarded these and sought for that which existed before concrete things, even if he spanned past and present, went through all the myriad transformations, and investigated Heaven, Earth, man, and things to the utmost, he would not be able to give it a name. How much less could he find its reality! Lao Tzu was blind to this and said that the Way existed in vacuity. But vacuity is the vacuity of concrete things. The Buddha was blind to this and said that the Way existed in silence. But silence is the silence of concrete things. One may keep on uttering such extravagant words to no end, but one can never escape from concrete things. Thus if one plays up some name that is separated from concrete things as though he were a divine being, whom could he deceive? (Chou-i wai-chuan, or Outer Commentary on the Book of Changes, 5:25a-b, in Ch’uan-shan i-shu, 1933 ed.)
2. SUBSTANCE AND FUNCTION
All functions in the world are those of existing things. From their functions I know they possess substance. Why should we entertain any doubt? Function exists to become effect, and substance exists to become nature and feelings. Both substance and function exist, and each depends on the other to be concrete. Therefore all that fills the universe demonstrates the principle of mutual dependence. Therefore it is said, “Sincerity (realness) is the beginning and end of things. Without sincerity there will be nothing.”10
What is the test for this? We believe in what exists but doubt what does not exist. I live from the time I was born to the time I die. As there were ancestors before, so there will be descendants later. From observing the transformations throughout heaven and earth, we see the productive process. Is any of these facts doubtful?. . . . Hold on to the concrete things and its Way will be preserved. Cast aside the concrete things and its Way will be destroyed. . . . Therefore those who are expert in speaking of the Way arrive at substance from function but those who are not expert in speaking of the Way erroneously set up substance and dismiss function in order to conform to it.
Comment. That substance and function come from the same source is a persistent tradition in both Chinese Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism. Wang, however, obviously gives priority to function. Nowhere else in the history of Chinese philosophy is function stressed so strongly.
The state preceding man’s birth when his nature is tranquil is beyond their knowledge. Sometimes when they happen to exercise their intelligence abnormally, they paint a picture out of the void, and perforce call it substance. Their intelligence gives them what they are looking for, surveys all things and gets an echo of them, and is therefore able to dismiss all functions completely. From this
point on, they can indulge in their perverse doctrines. But how much better it is to seek in the realm where [the process of Change] is acted on and immediately penetrates all things,11 daily observe its transformations and gradually discover their origin? Therefore if we get hold of descendants and ask for their ancestors, their genealogical lines will not be confused. But how can one correctly imagine the names of descendants when he passes by the ancestral temples and graves? (ibid., 2: 1a-1b)
3. BEING AND NON-BEING
Those who talk about non-being do so because they are roused by speakers of being and want to demolish it, and on the basis of what the speakers call being, they say that being does not exist. Is there really anything in the world that can be called non-being? To say that a tortoise has no hair is to talk about a dog [for example, which has hair] and not a tortoise. To say that a rabbit has no horn is to talk about a deer and not a rabbit. A speaker must have a basis before his theory can be established. Suppose a speaker wants to establish non-being in front of him as the basis. Even if he extensively searches for it throughout the universe and throughout history, there will be no end. (Ssu-wen lu, or Record of Thoughts and Questionings, “inner chapter,” p. 7a, in Ch’uan-shan i-shu)
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 84
