There will really be non-being only when there is nothing which can be described as non-being. Since non-being is so-called, it follows that it is merely a denial of being. Because the eye cannot see a thing or the ear cannot hear it, people hastily say that it does not exist. They are obscured because they follow their inferior faculties (eye and ear). Good and evil can be seen and heard but that which produces good and evil cannot be seen or heard. Therefore people hastily say that there is neither good nor evil. (ibid., p. 9b)
Those who speak of non-self do so from the point of view of the self. If there were no self, who is going to deny the self? It is obvious that to speak of non-self is to utter extravagant and evasive words. (ibid., p. 11a)
4. PRINCIPLE AND MATERIAL FORCE
Principle depends on material force. When material force is strong, principle prevails. When Heaven accumulates strong and powerful material force, there will be order, and transformations will be refined and daily renewed. This is why on the day of religious fasting an emperor presents an ox [to Heaven] so that the material force will fill the universe and sincerity will penetrate everything. All products in the world are results of refined and beautiful material force. Man takes the best of it to nourish his life, but it is all from Heaven. Material force naturally becomes strong. Sincerity naturally becomes solidified. And principle naturally becomes self-sufficient. If we investigate into the source of these phenomena, we shall find that it is the refined and beautiful transformation of Heaven and Earth. (ibid., p. 12b)
At bottom principle is not a finished product that can be grasped. It is invisible. The details and order of material force is principle that is visible. Therefore the first time there is any principle is when it is seen in material force. After principles have thus been found, they of course appear to become tendencies. We see principle only in the necessary aspects of tendencies. (Tu Ssu-shu ta-ch’üan shuo or Discussions After Reading the Great Collection of Commentaries on the Four Books, 9:5a, in Ch’uan-shan i-shu)
Let us investigate principle as we come into contact with things but never set up principle to restrict things. What I dislike about the heterodoxical schools is not that they cannot do anything with principle, but that because they clearly have scarcely understood principle they set it up as a generalization for the whole world. . . . The heterodoxical schools say, “None of the myriad transformations can go beyond our basis.” The basis is clearly what they have scarcely understood. But inasmuch as they say it is their basis, can it produce all the myriad transformations? If it cannot produce these transformations, then it is they who cannot go beyond their basis and not the myriad transformations. . . . They (natural phenomena) all follow principle to accomplish their work. It is permissible to say that their principle is identical with the order of their basis. But if they say that all that work is the construction and operation of their basis, who will believe them unless one is the most boastful talker in the world? (Hsü Ch’un-ch’iu Tso-shih chuan po-i, or Extensive Discussion to Supplement Tso’s Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals, pt. 2, p. 4a, in Ch’uan-shan i-shu)
5. UNCEASING GROWTH AND MAN’S NATURE AND DESTINY
The fact that the things of the world, whether rivers or mountains, plants or animals, those with or without intelligence, and those yielding blossoms or bearing fruits, provide beneficial support for all things is the result of the natural influence of the moving power of material force. It fills the universe. And as it completely provides for the flourish and transformation of all things, it is all the more spatially unrestricted. As it is not spatially restricted, it operates in time and proceeds with time. From morning to evening, from spring to summer, and from the present tracing back to the past, there is no time at which it does not operate, and there is no time at which it does not produce. Consequently, as one sprout bursts forth it becomes a tree with a thousand big branches, and as one egg evolves, it progressively becomes a fish capable of swallowing a ship. . . . (Chou-i nei chuan, or Inner Commentary on the Book of Changes, 3:36a, in Ch’uan-shan i-shu)
Comment. The power to change lies within material force itself. In the passage below, Wang seems to say that daily growth is due to the Mandate of Heaven. Actually, he is emphasizing that even the Mandate of Heaven grows every day.
By nature is meant the principle of growth. As one daily grows, one daily achieves completion. Thus by the Mandate of Heaven is not meant that Heaven gives the decree (ming, mandate) only at the moment of one’s birth. . . . In the production of things by Heaven, the process of transformation never ceases. It is not that at the moment of birth there is no decree. How do we know that there is a decree? Without it, humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom would be without any foundation. Similarly, when one grows from infancy to youth, from youth to maturity, and from maturity to old age, it is not that there are no [continual] decrees. How do we know that there are such decrees? For without further decrees, then as the years pass by, one’s nature would be forgotten. A change in physical form is a change leading to excellence. A change through material force, however, is a change leading to growth. The evolution of the two material forces (yin and yang or passive and active cosmic forces) and the substance of the Five Agents (Water, Fire, Wood, Metal, and Earth) are first used to become an embryo and later for growth and support. In either case, there is no difference in the acquisition of the vital essence and the utilization of things, for they all come from the excellence of production by Heaven and Earth. The physical form gets its support every day, every day the material force enjoys its flourish, and principle attains completion every day. These things are received as one is born, but as one continues to live for a day, one keeps receiving them for a day. What one receives has a source. Is this not Heaven? Thus Heaven gives decrees to man every day and man receives decrees from Heaven every day. Therefore we say that by nature is meant the principle of growth. As one daily grows, one daily achieves completion. . . .
Since the mandate is never exhausted and is not constant, therefore nature repeatedly changes and is perpetually different. At the same time, as principle is fundamentally correct and is without any inherent defect, therefore it can return to its own principle without difficulty. What is not completed can be completed, and what has been completed can be changed. Does nature mean that once one has received a physical form, there cannot be any alteration? Therefore in nourishing his nature, the superior man acts naturally as if nothing happens, but that does not mean that he lets things take their own course. Instead, he acts so as to make the best choices and remain firm in holding to the Mean, and dares not go wild or make careless mistakes. (Shang-shu yin-i, or Elaboration on the Meanings of the Book of History, 3:6a-7b, in Ch’uan-shan i-shu)
6. THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURE AND HUMAN DESIRES
Although rules of propriety are purely detailed expressions of the Principle of Nature, they must be embodied in human desires to be seen. Principle is a latent principle for activities, but its function will become prominent if it varies and conforms to them. It is precisely for this reason that there can never be a Heaven distinct from man or a principle distinct from desires. It is only with the Buddhists that principle and desires can be separated. . . . Take fondness for wealth and for sex. Heaven, working unseen, has provided all creatures with it, and with it man puts the great virtue of Heaven and Earth into operation. They all regard wealth and sex as preserved resources. Therefore the Book of Changes says, “The great characteristic of Heaven and Earth is to produce. The most precious thing for the sage is [the highest] position. To keep his position depends on humanity. How to collect a large population depends on wealth.”12 Thus in sound, color, flavor, and fragrance we can broadly see the open desires of all creatures, and at the same time they also constitute the impartial principle for all of them. Let us be broad and greatly impartial, respond to things as they come, look at them, and listen to them, and follow this way in words and action without seeking anything outside. And let us be unlike Lao Tzu, who said
that the five colors blind one’s eyes and the five tones deafen one’s ears,13 or the Buddha, who despised them as dust and hated them as robbers. . . . If we do not understand the Principle of Nature from human desires that go with it, then although there may be a principle that can be a basis,14 nevertheless, it will not have anything to do with the correct activities of our seeing, hearing, speech, and action. They thereupon cut off the universal operation of human life, and wipe it out completely. Aside from one meal a day, they would have nothing to do with material wealth and aside from one sleep under a tree, they would have nothing to do with sex. They exterminate the great character of Heaven and Earth and ruin the great treasure of the sage. They destroy institutions and eliminate culture. Their selfishness is ablaze while principles of humanity are destroyed. It is like the fire of thunder or a dragon. The more one tries to overcome it, the more it goes on. Mencius continued the teaching of Confucius which is that wherever human desires are found, the Principle of Nature is found. (Tu Ssu-shu ta-ch’üan shuo, 8:10b-11a)
7. HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT
For the best way of government, there is nothing better than to examine the Book of History and modify it with the words of Confucius. But the central point is whether the ruler’s heart is serious or dissolute. The danger lies in being too lax or too harsh. Those who are deficient are lazy, and those who are excessive are impatient. The great function of government is to make use of worthy men and promote education. In dealing with people, it should bestow humanity and love to the highest degree. Whether in the government of Yao and Shun, or in the Three Dynasties,15 or from the Ch’in (221–206 b.c.) and Han down to the present, in no case can these principles not be extended and applied. Whether the administration or the selection of officials, the equalization of taxes and the conscription for service, the management of the army and weapons, the regulation of punishment, or the institution of law and ceremonies, they all depend on these principles to attain their appropriateness. As to setting up schemes or arranging for details, neither the Book of History nor Confucius said anything about them. Is it because they ignored substance and overlooked details? Probably because the ancient institutions were meant to govern the ancient world and cannot be generally followed today, the superior man does not base his activities on them, and because what is suitable today can govern the world of today but will not necessarily be suitable for the future, the superior man does not hand it down to posterity as a model. Therefore neither the Book of History nor Confucius talked about the regulations for the feudal system, the “well-field” system,16 feudal lords’ meetings and audience with the emperor, punitive expeditions, the establishment of offices, or the bestowing of emolument. How then dare anyone who is not equal in virtue to sage-emperors Shun and Yü17 or Confucius determine the fundamental standards for ten thousand generations with what they have memorized and recited in books? There is a section entitled “The Tribute to Yü” in the “Book of Hsia” (of the Book of History) but the section is confined to Yü (founder of Hsia). Thus the systems of the Hsia dynasty did not operate in the Shang or Chou. There is also a section entitled “Institutes of Chou” in the “Book of Chou,” but this section is confined to the Chou dynasty. Thus the regulations of the Chou did not follow those of Shang or Hsia. . . . (Tu T’ung-chien lun, or Discussions After Reading the Mirror of Universal History, last chapter, p. 42-b, in Ch’uan-shan i-shu)
▪ ▪ ▪--37--▪ ▪ ▪
PRACTICAL CONFUCIANISM IN YEN YÜAN
In reaction to the speculative Neo-Confucianism of Sung (960-1279) and Ming (1368-1644) times and to some extent under the influence of Western knowledge introduced by Jesuits, Confucianists in the seventeenth century turned to practical learning and objective truth. Both Ku Yen-wu (1613-1682) and Yen Jo-ch’ü (1636-1704), the two leading Confucianists of the century, attacked Sung-Ming Neo-Confucianism and demanded practical and objective study. We have already seen Wang Fu-chih’s (Wang Ch’uan-shan, 1619-1692) radical departure from earlier Neo-Confucianism. Yen Yüan (Yen Hsi-chai, 1635-1704)1 went much further than all of them. In spite of the new spirit, the general tendency at the time was to compromise between the rationalistic Neo-Confucianism of Chu Hsi (1130-1200) and the idealistic Neo-Confucianism of Wang Yang-ming (Wang Shou-jen, 1472-1529). Yen, however, turned away from them completely and went directly back to Confucius and Mencius.
Yen Yüan considered the Neo-Confucian sitting in meditation and book learning as a waste of time and a sure cause for social degeneration. To him, principle (li), nature, destiny, and the sincerity of the will, and similar subjects close to the hearts of Sung-Ming Neo-Confucianists can be found only in practical arts like music, ceremony, agriculture, and military craft. He himself practiced medicine while he taught, and later he farmed with his students. He taught them mathematics, archery, weight-lifting, singing, dancing, and so forth. In his school, there were four halls for classics and history, literary matters, military craft, and practical arts. Like Wang Fu-chih, he believed that there is no principle apart from material force (ch’i). Opposed to Sung-Ming Neo-Confucianists, he insisted that physical nature is just as good as human nature itself. The investigation of things is to him not a study of principle, as in Chu Hsi, nor an examination of the mind, as in Wang Yang-ming, but learning from actual experience and solving practical problems. No one had so uncompromisingly opposed the several centuries of thought before him, and none had stressed practical experience so forcefully. Nevertheless, as in the case of Wang Fu-chih, he was not free from the pattern of thought of his own day. He looked back to Confucius and Mencius. He advocated the return to the “well-field” system supposedly in practice in ancient times, in which land was equally divided into nine squares, thus resembling the Chinese character for a well, and in which eight families would cultivate a square each for its own support and jointly cultivate the central square for the government. What he called the practical affairs were the “six departments” dealing with water, fire, metal, wood, soil, and grains, the “six virtues” of wisdom, humanity, sageliness, righteousness, loyalty, and peace, the “six arts” of ceremonies, music, archery, carriage driving, writing, and mathematics, and the like taught in the ancient Classics. Tempered by this conservativism, his teachings, however dynamic, did not develop into a strong movement. He had few followers, although his pupil Li Kung (1659-1733), who reiterated his teachings, became as well known as he. But his school did not last, for all his targets of attack, like the doctrines of Chu Hsi, book learning, and literary composition, were still popular among Confucian scholars. And his attack on Chu Hsi was intolerable. Nevertheless his new ideas prepared for Tai Chen (Tai Tung-yüan, 1723-1777) and greatly strengthened the growing tendency toward practical learning.
Yen Yüan’s philosophical ideas are quite naїve and superficial; he was really not much of a philosopher. The following selections are intended to bring out his most philosophical points.
1. IN DEFENSE OF PHYSICAL NATURE
Master Ch’eng [Hao (Ch’eng Ming-tao, 1032-1085)] said that in discussing human nature and material force, “It would be wrong to consider them as two.”2 But he also said, “Due to the material force with which men are endowed, some become good from childhood and others become evil.”3 Chu Hsi said, “As soon as there is the endowment by Heaven, there is the physical nature. They cannot be separated,”4 but he also said, “Since there is this principle, why is there evil? What is called evil is due to material force.”5 It is regrettable that although they were highly intelligent, they were unwittingly influenced and confused by the Buddhist doctrine of the “Six Robbers” (the six senses, which avoid perception or give wrong perception), and said two different things in the same breath without realizing it. If we say that material force is evil, then principle is also evil, and if we say that principle is good, then material force is also good, for material force is that of principle and principle is that of material force. How can we say that principle is purely and simply good whereas material force is inclin
ed to be evil?
Take the eye, for example. Its socket, lid, and ball are its physical nature, whereas that which possesses vision and can perceive things is its nature. Shall we say that principle of vision sees only proper colors whereas the socket, lid, and ball see improper colors? I say that while this principle of vision is of course endowed by Heaven, the socket, lid, and ball are all endowed by Heaven. There is no need any more to distinguish which is the nature endowed by Heaven and which is physical nature. We should only say that Heaven endows man with the nature of his eyes. The fact that one can see through vision means that the nature of the eye is good. The act of seeing is due to the goodness of its feeling [which is the external expression of the nature]. Whether one sees distinctly or not and whether one sees far or not depends on the strength or weakness of its capacity. None of these can be spoken of as evil, for it is of course good to see distinctly and far, but to see near and indistinctly merely means that the goodness is not refined. How can we attribute any evil to them? It is only when vision is attracted and agitated by improper and evil colors which obstruct or becloud its clearness that there is evil vision, and only then can the term “evil” be applied. But is human nature to be blamed for the attraction and agitation? Or shall physical nature be blamed? If we blame physical nature, it surely means that the nature of the eye can be preserved only when the eye is eliminated. If this is not the Buddhist doctrine of “Six Robbers,” what is it?. . .
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 85
