Answer: Mencius said, “For nourishing the mind there is nothing better than to have few desires.”18 It is clear that men should not be without desires at all but should have only a few. There is no greater pain in man’s life than being unable to preserve and fulfill one’s own life. To desire to preserve and fulfill one’s own life and also to preserve and fulfill the lives of others is humanity (jen). To desire to preserve and fulfill one’s own life to the point of destroying the lives of others without any regard is inhumanity. . . . Therefore it is correct to say that what does not issue from correctness issues from perverseness and what does not issue from perverseness issues from correctness, but not correct to say that what does not issue from principle issues from desire and what does not issue from desire issues from principle. Desire is a fact, whereas li is its specific principle (its measure of right and wrong). . . . Whatever issues from desire is always concerned with life and its support. When desire is wrong, it is the result of selfishness and not of obscuration.19 [The selfish person] thinks that he is in accord with principle but what he adheres to is erroneous. Consequently, he is obscured and unenlightened.
The greatest troubles of people in the world, whether past or present, are the two items of selfishness and obscuration. Selfishness is the product of error in desire, and obscuration is the product of error in knowledge. Desire is produced by blood and vital force (ch’i), while knowledge is produced by the mind. People blame desire because of selfishness, and blame blood and vital force because of desire. Likewise, they blame knowledge because of obscuration and blame the mind because of knowledge!20 This is why Lao Tzu said, “He (the sage) always causes his people to be without knowledge or desire.”21 [The Taoists] neglected their own bodies and honored the True Lord (Creator). Later the Buddhists held theories that seem different but are really the same. Neo-Confucianists of Sung times went in and out of Taoist and Buddhist schools22 and therefore what they had to say is mixed with the words of Taoists and Buddhists. The Book of Odes says, “The people are secured.23 They daily enjoy their drink and food.”24 And the Book of Rites says, “Man’s greatest desires are for drink, food, and sexual pleasure.”25 In governing the world, the sage understands the feelings of the people, satisfies their desires, and the kingly way is thereby completed. . . .
Comment. The theory that selfishness and obscuration are the causes of moral evil is reminiscent of Mencius.26 But central to Tai’s idea is also the Confucian doctrine of the Mean.
Sec. 13. Question: From the Sung dynasty on, scholars have said that principle “is received from Heaven and completely embodied in the mind.”27 Since they considered it to have been received by all people, they have therefore ascribed the inequality of wisdom and stupidity to physical nature, and their doctrines of seriousness and dissoluteness, perverseness and correctness are all directed to give substance to their doctrine of [the contrast of] principle and desire. Lao Tzu’s sayings, “Embracing the One”28 and “Having no desire,”29 and the Buddhist saying, “Be always alert”30 refer to the [Taoist] True Lord and the Buddhist True Emptiness, respectively.31 The Neo-Confucianists replaced them with the word “principle,” and thought that was enough to be considered as the teachings of Confucius. Since they have regarded principle to have been received from Heaven, they therefore further invented the doctrine of principle and material force, and compare them to two things merged one with the other.32 They described principle in a most elaborate manner, calling it “pure and vast.”33 They did no more than describe the principle of Heaven in terms of the Taoist True Lord and the Buddhist True Emptiness, and transfer the words of Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and the Buddha to Confucius and Mencius in the Six Classics.34 How can they be distinguished now so they absolutely cannot confuse or compound each other?
Answer: With respect to heaven, earth, men, things, events and activities, I have never heard of any of these to be without the principle which we can talk about [in contrast to True Emptiness, which is indescribable], “As there are things, there are their specific principles.”35 This is what it means. The term “things” refers to concrete objects or concrete events, while the term “specific principles” refers to their unmixed purity and central correctness. Concrete objects and concrete events are what is natural. When they arrive at the state of what is necessary (according to moral laws) then heaven, earth, men, things, events, and activities will be in accord with principle. Heaven and earth are vast, men and things are numerous, and events and activities are complex and varied. But if they are in accord with principle, and are similar to something as straight as the plumb line, something level as the water-level, something round as the compass, and something square as the measuring square, then they will remain standard even if they are extended to the whole world and to ten thousand generations to come. The Book of Changes says, “He (the great man) may precede Heaven and Heaven will not act in opposition to him. He may follow Heaven but will act only as Heaven at the time would do. If even Heaven does not act in opposition, how much less will men! How much less will spiritual beings!”36 The Doctrine of the Mean says, “It is tested by the experience of the Three Kings and found without error, applied before Heaven and Earth and found to be without contradiction in their operation, laid before spiritual beings without question or fear, and can wait a hundred generations for a sage without a doubt.”37 When men and things are like this, they will be in accord with principle and will be “what is common in our minds.”38 Mencius said, “The compass and the square are the ultimate standards of circles and squares. The sage is the ultimate standard of human relations.”39 When we talk about Heaven and Earth and, as a matter of refinement, we talk about their principle it is just as, in talking about the sage, we say that he can be our model. To exalt principle and say that Heaven and Earth, or yin and yang (passive and active cosmic forces) are not worthy of being its equal necessarily means that it is not the principle of Heaven and Earth or yin and yang. The principle of Heaven or Earth or yin and yang is similar to the sageness of the sage. Is it correct to exalt sageness and say that the sage is not worthy of being its equal? A sage is also a man. Because he completely fulfills the principle of man, all people praise him as sagely and wise. Completely fulfilling the principles of men does not mean anything other than completely fulfilling what is necessary (moral principles) in the daily activities in human relations. When we extend the principles to the ultimate point where they cannot be altered, we call them necessary. We are describing their ultimate character and not investigating their origin. Latter-day scholars have gone too far and have regarded opinions, words, ideas, and theories, which are merely describing the ultimate state, as a thing, and said that it attains its being by being merged with material force. Those who hear this theory keep hearing it habitually without examination, and none realizes that it is different from the teachings of Confucius and Mencius in the Six Classics. If we seek what is necessary and unalterable in heaven, earth, men, things, events, and activities, we shall find principle in them to be perfectly clear and evident. But if we exalt it and glorify it, not only calling it the principle of heaven, earth, men, things, events, and activities, but instead calling it omnipresent principle, regarding it as if it were a thing, the result will be that even until their hair turns white, students will be at a loss and will not be able to find this thing. It is not that the teachings of Confucius and Mencius in the Six Classics are hard to understand. It is rather that commentaries and annotations [of the Classics, such as those by Sung Neo-Confucianists] have followed one another, and people learned them from childhood without giving them any more thought.
Comment. In Tai’s theory, animals know what is natural but man knows what is necessary, that is, what is morally correct. It is the human mind alone that can direct the natural to the necessary. Since he considers blood, vital force, the mind, and intelligence40 as components of human nature, it follows that blood and vital force lead man to error. Since these are physical nature, he virtually subscribes to the Neo-C
onfucian theory that physical nature is responsible for man’s error, a theory he strongly criticized.
2. On Nature
Sec. 20. Nature means an allotment of yin and yang and the Five Agents (Water, Fire, Wood, Metal, Earth) which becomes blood, vital force, the mind, and intelligence, with which the ten thousand things are differentiated. All activities they engage in, all potentialities they possess, and all qualities they preserve from the time of their production are based on this fact. This is why the Book of Changes says, “That which realizes it is the individual nature.”41 It has been a long time since man and things were created through the transformation of material force and each flourishes within its own category, but the distinction of categories have been the same for a thousand ages. They simply follow the same old pattern. The transformation of material force is described in terms of yin and yang and the Five Agents. Their completion and transformation of things involves a great complexity and an infinite variation. Therefore in their changing configurations, not only are the ten thousand things different. Even within a category things are not the same. To receive an allotment of physical form and vital force from one’s parents is the same as receiving an allotment from yin and yang and the Five Agents. The fact that men and things flourish according to their categories is natural in the process of the transformation of material force. The Doctrine of the Mean says, “What Heaven imparts (ming, orders) to man is called human nature.”42 Because life is limited by Heaven, we say “the Mandate of Heaven” (T’ien-ming, Heaven’s order). The Book of Rites of the Elder Tai says, “What gets an allotment of the Way is called destiny (ming). What makes a thing assume one particular form is called nature.”43 To receive an allotment of the Way means to receive an allotment of yin, yang, and the Five Agents. Since assuming one particular form is spoken of as allotment, there is a limitation from the beginning, and things are unequal in their completeness or incompleteness, thickness or thinness, clearness or turbidity, darkness or brightness, each following its allotment and assuming one particular physical form, and each completing its nature. However, although the individual natures are different, they are generally differentiated by their categories. Therefore the Analects says, “By nature men are alike.”44 This is said from the point of view that men are alike. Mencius said, “All things of the same kind are similar to one another. Why should there be any doubt about men? The sage and I are the same in kind.”45 Since it says that things of the same kind are similar to one another, it is clear that things of different kinds are not similar. Therefore Mencius questioned Kao Tzu’s (c.420–c.350 b.c.) theory that “what is inborn is called the nature,”46 saying, “Then is the nature of a dog the same as the nature of an ox, and is the nature of an ox the same as the nature of a man?”47 This was said to make clear that they cannot be confused or identified. The Way of Heaven is none other than yin and yang and the Five Agents. The natures of men and things are all allotments of the Way and each becomes different, that is all.
3. On Capacity
Sec. 29. Through capacity man and creatures assume physical form and solid substance in accordance with their nature, and their intelligence, and ability are thereby differentiated. This is what Mencius called “natural capacity endowed by Heaven.”48 Man and things are produced through the transformation of material force. Destiny is so called on the basis of their limitation of allotment. Man’s nature is so called on the basis of the fact that the transformation of material force is the basic beginning of men and things. Capacity is so called on the basis of their physical substance. Because they each differ in their completed nature, therefore they each also differ in their capacity. Capacity is the manifestation of one’s nature. Without capacity, how can one’s nature be revealed?. . . Latter-day scholars ascribed evil to physical nature. What Mencius called nature and capacity both denote nothing but physical nature. Man’s nature is endowment in its completeness and capacity is the physical substance in its completeness. There is no basis on which to describe endowment in its completeness. For example, the nature of a peach or an apricot is complete in the whiteness of their kernels. Their [potential] physical forms, colors, smells, and flavors are all contained therein, but they cannot be seen. But when the budding sprouts burst forth, the stems, branches, and leaves of the peach and apricot become different. From this to flowers and fruits, their physical forms, colors, smells, and flavors are all differentiated and distinguished. Although they are so because of their natures, they depend on the capacities of the plants to reveal them. As their natures are completed, there is this capacity. Separately, we speak of destiny, nature, and capacity, but totally speaking, it is called Heavenly endowed nature. . . .
4. On Humanity, Righteousness, Propriety, and Wisdom
Sec. 36. Humanity is the character of production and reproduction. “The people are secured. They daily enjoyed their drink and food.”49 All this is none other than how the way of man produces and reproduces. When one person fulfills his life and by extension helps all others to fulfill their lives, that is humanity. . . . If we trace the way of Nature from the way of man and trace the character of Nature from that of man, we shall know that the universal operation of the transformation of material force consists in unceasing production and reproduction. This is humanity. Because in the process of production and reproduction there is a natural order, and as we see in it a regular procedure, we can understand propriety. As we see that the order can never be confused, we can understand righteousness. In Nature the virtue of humanity is the production and reproduction of the transformation of material force, and in man it is the mind to produce and reproduce. In Nature the virtue of wisdom is the order in which the transformation of material force operates, and in man it is the mind’s realization that the order is without any confusion. Only because there is order that there are production and reproduction. Without it, the way of production and reproduction will cease. . . .
Comment. To regard humanity as production and reproduction is a Sung Neo-Confucian contribution.50
5. On the Variety of Circumstances
Sec. 41. Question: The Sung Neo-Confucianists knew also how to seek principle in things, but because they were attracted to Buddhism, they have applied what the Buddhists used to designate spiritual consciousness to designate principle. Therefore they look upon principle as if it were a thing. They not only talk about the principle of things, but also say that principle lies scattered through events and things. Since principle is that of things, it can be discovered only after things have been analyzed to the minutest detail. And since principle lies scattered through events and things, they therefore seek it through deep and quiet concentration of the mind. They said the substance [of principle] is one but [in function] it has ten thousand manifestations, and “Unroll it (extended) and it reaches in all directions. Roll it up (contracted) and it withdraws and lies hidden in minuteness.”51 Actually they got this idea by imitating the Buddhists, who say that “Universally manifested, it includes the whole Realm of Law. Collected and grasped, it is a single speck of dust.”52 Since they seek principle through a deep and quiet [concentration] of the mind, thinking they have understood that the substance of principle is one, they are quite confident that principle means having no desire. Even their partial opinions are regarded as issuing from principle but not from desire. Simply because they regard principle as if it were a thing, they could not help regarding it to be one principle. But since everything necessarily has its own principle, and principles change with things, therefore they also say, “The mind embodies all principles and responds to all things. The mind embodies principle and issues it forth.”53 What could this be if it is not mere opinion? Furthermore, if all principles are contained in the mind, then when one event occurs, the mind issues one principle to respond to it. When another event occurs, it has to issue another principle to respond to it. And so on to hundreds and thousands and millions, there is no end. Since the mind contains all principles, they should be described in terms of numb
er. There must be an explanation whether it is one or innumerable. Therefore they say, “Principle is one but its manifestations are many.” The Analects twice mentions the one thread running through Confucius doctrines.54 In his commentary on the chapter where Confucius told Tseng Tzu55 about this, Chu Hsi said, “The mind of the Sage is one undifferentiated principle, but in its various responses and applications, it functions differently in each case. With respect to its functioning, Tseng Tzu had understood principle clearly as things occurred and had earnestly put it into practice, but he did not understand that its substance is one.”56 This interpretation must be wrong. Will you please tell us the original meanings of the two chapters?
Answer: By one thread running through the doctrines is not meant to run one certain thing through them. In understanding moral principle, efforts may differ in studying things on the lower level or in penetrating the higher level. In learning, people’s objectives may differ in knowing the traces of moral principles or in discriminating the principles themselves. To say that there is a thread running through my doctrines means that the doctrines to be understood by penetrating the higher level are the same as those to be understood by studying the lower level. . . . Mencius said, “Study extensively and discuss thoroughly. This is in order to go back and discuss the most restrained.”57 By being restrained is meant the most correct. He further said, “Moral principles which, when held, are restrained, while their application is extensive, are good principles. . . The way the superior man holds these principles is to cultivate his personal life and peace will thereby prevail throughout the world.”58 To restrain means to cultivate one’s person. When the Six Classics, the books of Confucius and Mencius, talk about restraining action, they aim at nothing more than the cultivation of one’s personal life, and when they talk about restraining knowledge, they aim at nothing more than extending the intelligence of the mind to the utmost. They have never designated a One in a vacuum and tell people to understand and seek it. If one extends his intelligence to the utmost, he can naturally judge situations and does not make the slightest mistake. What is the need for understanding the One and seeking it?
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 87
