▪ ▪ ▪--43--▪ ▪ ▪
THE NEW IDEALISTIC CONFUCIANISM: HSIUNG SHIH-LI
Just as Fung Yu-lan has attempted to reconstruct rationalistic Neo-Confucianism, so Hsiung Shih-li (1883-1968) has tried to reconstruct idealistic Neo-Confucianism. He has written eight books on his philosophy.1 The whole system is systematically presented in the Hsin wei-shih lun (New Doctrine of Consciousness-Only, 1944).2
According to its central thesis, reality is perpetual transformation, consisting of “closing” and “opening” which are a process of unceasing production and reproduction. The “original substance” is in perpetual transition at every instant, arising anew again and again, thus resulting in many manifestations. But reality and manifestation, or substance and function, are one. In its “closing” aspect, it is the tendency to integrate—the result of which may “temporarily” be called matter—while in its “opening” aspect it is the tendency to maintain its own nature and be its own master—the result of which may “temporarily” be called mind. This mind itself is one part of the “original mind,” which in its various aspects is mind, will, and consciousness.
It can readily be seen that the ideas of closing and opening and production and reproduction come from the Book of Changes, which, Hsiung said, is the main source of his ideas. The analysis of the mind comes from the Buddhist school of Consciousness-Only, the idea of the unity of substance and function from Neo-Confucianism, and that of the primacy of the original mind from Wang Yang-ming (Wang Shou-jen, 1472-1529). Like all Neo-Confucianists, he characterizes the original mind as jen (humanity) and aims at Heaven (Nature) and man forming one body.
Hsiung at first followed the Buddhist school of Consciousness-Only. Later he became dissatisfied, turned to Neo-Confucianism, criticized, synthesized, and transformed both, and borrowed elements from Western philosophy to constitute his “New Consciousness-Only Doctrine.” As he has emphasized, the word “consciousness” here means not the mind or ālaya (storehouse) as in the Consciousness-Only School which evolves an apparent world but the original mind or the original substance of all existence, and the word “only” means “especially.” He has subjected Buddhism to lengthy, careful, and profound criticism.3 In fact, he is the first one in Chinese history to do so. Nevertheless, he has not been able to be free from one outstanding defect of Buddhism, and that is to consider the external world as “temporary” or chia. In Buddhism the word means tentative, transitory, or even false. Hsiung has not gone as far as the Consciousness-Only School which considers external objects to have only false existence. But since he considers concrete, physical things as a threat to the original nature of the mind, his tendency to subordinate the external world is clear. This weakens his theory of perpetual transformation, for unless concrete, physical things possess the true nature of original substance, transformation with and through them would be on a shaky foundation.
What Hsiung has benefited from Buddhism is not so much idealism as the concept of instantaneous transformation. He applies it to the doctrine of production and reproduction in the Book of Changes and reinforces it. The idea of dynamic change was already prominent in Neo-Confucianism, especially in Wang Yang-ming, but Hsiung provides it with a metaphysical basis. In this he was partly influenced by Western philosophy, notably that of Bergson. But he is more critical than appreciative of Western philosophy. Without knowledge of Western languages, he incorrectly asserts that there is in Western philosophy not enough emphasis on realization of truth through personal experience (t’i-jen), too much pursuit after external things, and no understanding of the unity of substance and function.
In spite of these weaknesses, Hsiung has definitely made an advance in Neo-Confucianism, particularly in the identification of principle (li) and material force (ch’i). The objection of Chu Hsi’s (1130-1200) bifurcation of them and Wang Yang-ming’s idea that material force is only an aspect of the mind is now overcome. It is true that he has not clarified the relationship between the mind and principle, but he has given idealistic Neo-Confucianism a more solid metaphysical basis and a more dynamic character.
Aside from Fung and Hsiung, there were others in the twentieth century who have tried to reconstruct traditional philosophy, especially Ou-yang Ching-wu (1871-1943), Abbot T’ai-hsü (1889-1947), and Liang Sou-ming (1893—). Both Ou-yang and T’ai-hsü only revived the Consciousness-Only philosophy and added nothing new. Liang, in giving the Confucian concept of jen a new interpretation of dynamic intuition, exerted tremendous influence on the New Culture movement in the 1920’s, but he did not evolve a philosophical system of his own. Hsiung has done this. Besides, he has influenced more young Chinese philosophers than any other contemporary Chinese philosopher. Most importantly, he has restated, as no other has done, his whole philosophy in a book since the Communist accession to power in 1949, and he has done so without employing Communist slogans or referring to Marx, Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung. Philosophically, this book, entitled yüan-ju (An Inquiry on Confucianism, 1956)4 has not altered the fundamental thesis of the Hsin wei-shih lun, but it indicates that Confucianism is very much alive in China. The following selections are made from these two books.
1. “CLOSING AND OPENING”
From one point of view transformation is closing and opening (ho-p’i) .5 The two terms in this expression merely indicate a difference in tendencies. Opening is merely a tendency and closing is also merely a tendency. We should not say that each has a substance of its own, nor should we say that closing comes first and then opening. In another respect, transformation means that as soon as there is coming-into-existence, there is going-out-of-existence. In other words, as soon as closing or opening takes place, it disappears, without preserving its former tendency in the slightest degree but at all times destroying the old and producing the new. If we want to understand the nature of transformation, we must carefully analyze and thoroughly understand these two aspects. Otherwise we shall never be able to appreciate transformation.
Let us now talk about closing and opening. What are they? As it has been said before, original substance becomes function when it reveals itself as many manifestations. Thus if we say that original substance is that which can transform, or call it perpetual transformation, we must realize that perpetual transformation is formless and is subtle in its movement. This movement is continuous without cease. This kind of unceasing movement is of course not a simple tendency. In each movement there is always a sort of integration. Without it the movement would be aimless, drifting, and baseless. Therefore when the tendency to act begins, there is at the same time a sort of integration. This tendency to integrate is positive consolidation. Consequently, without anyone’s intention, an infinite number of “physical becoming” come into being from which the physical universe is formed. The tendency from integration to physical becoming is called closing.
We must realize that original substance has neither physical form nor character, is not physically obstructed by anything, is absolute, whole, pure, strong, and vigorous. However, in the functioning of the original substance to become many manifestations, it is inevitable that there is what we called closing. This closing possesses a tendency to become physical forms and concrete stuff. In other words, through the process of closing individual concrete things obtain their physical form. As perpetual transformation manifests itself as a tendency to close, it almost has to be completely materialized as if it were not going to preserve its own nature. This may be said to be a reaction.
However, as the tendency to close arises, there is another tendency arising simultaneously. It rises with perpetual transformation as the basis. It is firm, self-sufficient, and would not change itself to a process of closing. That is to say, this tendency operates in the midst of closing but is its own master, thus showing its absolute firmness and causes the process of closing to follow its own operation. This tendency—strong, vigorous and not materialized—is called opening. . . .
Comment. In the Buddhist school of Consciousness-Only
, perpetual transformation is identified with consciousness (ālaya), whereas here it is identified with original substance. Also, in Consciousness-Only, the energy to transform comes from “seeds,” which “perfume” or influence previous seeds to produce transformation, but Hsiung ascribes the cause of transformation to natural tendencies.6
The tendency to close is integrative and tends to form physical things. On the basis of what it is, we temporarily call closing “matter” or “the operation of matter.” The tendency to open is strong and vigorous, operating in the midst of closing but makes it follow itself. On the basis of what it is, we temporarily call opening “mind,” or “the operation of mind.” (Hsin wei-shih lun, pp. 56-59)
2. THE UNITY OF PRINCIPLE AND MATERIAL FORCE
In my opinion the word ch’i (material force) means the tendency to produce and reproduce, or energy. It operates universally without coming to a standstill. The character of activity falsely appears as if the material force is distributed. For this reason we call it material force. Please understand thoroughly what is called material force here is precisely what I have called function in this treatise. As to the myriad things or material force in physical forms, it is tentatively so called because it is the trace or manifestation of transformation. There is no material force in concrete, physical forms apart from the various tendencies.
The word li (principle) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung (960-1279) and Ming (1368-1644) Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force. Many of them considered material force to be real being, and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. This view was more prevalent among Ming Neo-Confucianists. Even within the [idealistic] Wang Yang-ming School scholars generally held this view. On the one hand, they talked about innate knowledge of the good and necessarily admitted that the mind is the master. On the other hand they said that material force is real being and principle is a form belonging to it. Their theory seems to be a dualism of mind and matter, which violates very much the fundamental teachings of Wang Yang-ming. Here I do not want to criticize them too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word “principle” is a general term for both substance and function, whereas the word “material force” refers only to function. When the meaning of the word ch’i was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is function.
Why is “principle” the general term for both substance and function? Because spoken from the point of view of substance, it is originally absolute quiet and without [distinguishing] character, but it manifests itself as the countless phenomena involved in closing and opening. It means that all principles are brilliantly present. Therefore this substance is also called principle.
Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things, and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially it is neither one nor two. As its meanings as substance and function differ, it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function, it is not two. (ibid., pp. 157-158)
3. THE MIND AND HUMANITY (JEN)
The original mind is an absolute whole. But because of its manifestations it is differentiated and necessarily has many names. First of all, it is called the mind, which means master. It pervades the concrete substance of all things but is not matter itself. It consolidates to become the myriad things, but these are the means to manifest itself and not materialization in which it loses its own nature. Since it is not materialized, it always remains true to its nature. For this reason, it is called master with respect to things.
Secondly it is called the will. The will implies a definite direction. What is called the mind is the universal substance penetrating all things and not just the master of my own body. But my body is part of the myriad things, and the master pervading all things is the same master controlling my body. Things differ but their master is the same. Now, when I search for the master of my own body, I find that in a subtle way it always has a definite direction. Spoken this way, it is the will.
What is meant by a definite direction? It means that it always unfolds itself in accordance with its original nature of unceasing production and reproduction and refuses to be materialized. This definite direction means life, and unique and definite substance, on the basis of which the self is established. In spite of countless transformations, it always remains firm as one, for it is the master.
Thirdly, it is called consciousness. The mind and the will refer to substance, whereas consciousness refers to the function of substance. When the deep and quiet substance is acted on, immediately penetrates everything, and utilizes sense organs to understand sense objects, it is called sense consciousness. When its activity develops further and further and without depending on sense organs can initiate deliberation itself, it is called sense-center consciousness, (ibid., pp. 282-283)
Comment. Instead of dividing the mind into eight categories as the school of Consciousness-Only does, Hsiung divides it into three. The emphasis on the will comes from Wang Yang-ming who traced it back to the Doctrine of the Mean.
Humanity (jen) is the original mind. It is the original substance common to man, Heaven, Earth, and all things. . . . From Confucius and Mencius to teachers of the Sung and Ming periods, all directly pointed to humanity which is the original mind. The substance of humanity is the source of all transformations and the foundation of all things, (ibid., pp. 260-261)
4. THE UNITY OF SUBSTANCE AND FUNCTION
In Chinese studies when discussing substance and function in cosmology, it is considered that they are basically one and yet are different. Some do not understand this. I offer the analogy of water in the big ocean and the many waves so as to lead them to understand this principle. . . . Original substance has physical form but in its function it involves internally the two processes of strong movement and consolidation. Consolidation means concrete stuff, and strong movement means spirit. As the two processes revolve, there is unceasing universal operation. Therefore we say that the universal operation of the original substance is its great functioning. By functioning is meant putting substance into functioning, and by substance is meant the true character of function. Therefore substance and function are basically one. However, although they are one, yet in the final analysis they cannot but be different, for in universal operation there are physical forms which are fathomable, whereas the original substance of the universal operation has no physical form, is most hidden and subtle, and is difficult to know. (Yüan-ju, pt. 2, p. 32b)
Comment. The analogy of the oceans and the many waves for the relationship between substance and function is a favorite Buddhist one. Chu Hsi preferred the use of the moon and its scattered light.7
Substance means the original substance of the universe. By function is meant the universal operation of the original substance, which is absolutely strong and unceasing, arising anew again and again, whose transformation results in many manifestations. This is called function.. . .
What is meant by arising anew again and again? The universal operation of the original substance is in perpetual transition at every instant. As soon as there is production, there is destruction, and as
soon as there is destruction, there is production. There is not a single instant in which the operation comes to a standstill and produces something new without something destroyed. The Book of Changes says, “Change means production and reproduction.”8 We should ponder over the term “production and reproduction” carefully. In every passing instant there is a new production. This is why it is called production and reproduction. Since in every passing instant there is a new production, without saying, it is clear that in no instant does the operation come to a standstill. The universal operation of this great transformation never stops or is obstructed for a moment. This is why we say that it arises anew again and again; by that we mean that the operation does not stand still.
Someone may object and say, “According to you, sir, the universal operation of the original substance is in perpetual transition at every instant, arises anew again and again, without standing still for a moment. It would mean there is a sudden change at every instant, and transformation would seem to be baseless.” I reply: Universal operation is not the operation which suddenly appears out of a vacuum but the universal operation of the original substance. This original substance is the true source of all transformations and changes. It embraces the entire universe and is infinite. The Doctrine of the Mean describes its wonderful functioning as “deep and unceasingly springing. . . coming forth at all times.”9 It is an excellent analogy. Precisely because the original substance is the true source, it is never exhausted. Therefore this great operation changes suddenly at every moment and is perpetually creating something new without being exhausted. Are you not mistaken in saying that it is baseless? We must realize that true source and universal operation cannot be divided into two sections. . . . The original substance and its wonderful operation can be compared only with water in the ocean and the many waves. They are basically one and yet are different. While different, they are really one. (ibid., p. 48a-b)
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 93
