A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  ▪ ▪ ▪--19--▪ ▪ ▪

  NEO-TAOISM

  Too often the intellectual movement in the Wei-Chin period (220-420) is described as purely an escape from reality. Political conditions at the time certainly tend to support such a conclusion. During the last four decades of the Han dynasty (206 b.c.–a.d. 220), China was divided into three states. In addition to continuous warfare, there were repeated floods and droughts. Population was reduced to perhaps the lowest point in twenty-five centuries. Eunuchs and royal relatives controlled the court, which was marked by intrigue and murders. The founder of the Wei (220-265) came to power through usurpation, and his court repeated the ugly drama of the Han. Many scholars of integrity refused to serve such corrupt governments, and others, looking for freedom and security, preferred to withdraw in search of transcendental values. Consequently, the whole intellectual movement was marked by a transcendental quality, with emphasis on non-being, vacuity, and the noumenal world.

  But the movement was negative only on the surface, for there were positive forces at work. One of these was the sharp reaction against the intellectual trends of the Han. For several hundred years Confucian teachings on ranks, functions, and various social and moral dogmas had been accumulating weight. The minute and endless studies of Confucian Classics had turned the study of Confucian thought into sheer scholasticism. The belief in mutual influence of Nature and man, dominant since the time of Tung Chung-shu (c. 179–c. 104 b.c.), was no longer satisfactory as an explanation of events. At the same time, the popular religious movement under the name of Huang-Lao—the legendary Yellow Emperor Huang-ti and Lao Tzu—in combination with the Yin Yang philosophy, astrology, and divination, had been so influential that philosophy was degenerating into occultism. All of these deteriorating developments called for revolt, and for some years after a.d. 190 several thousand scholars, gathered in Ching-chou,1 turned away from scholasticism in their study of Classics.

  The other positive force at work was perhaps even more significant, for it pointed not to the past but to the future, and it grew from within the intellectual movement itself. In the first and second centuries, a bitter controversy between the Ancient Script School and Modern Script School centered on the two versions of Confucian Classics. The Modern Script School insisted that Confucius was destined as a savior of the world and a throneless king whose subtle doctrines lay behind his written words. The Ancient Script School, on the other hand, maintained that Confucius was essentially an ancient teacher who transmitted the wisdom of the past, and rejected the position of the Modern Script School as subjective, unhistorical, and corrupted by the belief in prodigies. Regardless of the issues of the controversy, it had created a spirit of free inquiry, critical study, and independent thinking. It was impossible for this new spirit not to seek new frontiers.

  Furthermore, after two hundred years of Confucian supremacy, the revival of a study of ancient philosophers was long overdue. It was no accident, therefore, that scholars were now attracted to Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Mo Tzu (fl. 479–438 b.c.), and the Logicians. Since Moists and the Logicians distinguished themselves as debaters, they exerted considerable influence on Wei-Chin scholars who loved nothing better than a debate and obviously enjoyed demolishing “objections,” whether from others or from themselves. But they went a step further than the ancient debaters, for instead of being satisfied with argumentation they looked for a universal ground on which to base their arguments, and they found this in principle (li, reason) which eventually became a central concept of Chinese thought.

  The study of the Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu was of course an aid to escape, and Taoism was a natural reaction to Confucianism. But here again the Wei-Chin scholars discovered something positive: non-being (wu), as no longer simply a contrast to being but as the ultimate of all, or pure being, the one and the undifferentiated. Thus the whole movement was charged with tremendous possibilities for the future.

  The movement expressed itself in two facets, the Light Conversation or Pure Conversation (Ch’ing-t’an) and the Metaphysical Schools (hsüan-hsüeh),2 one involving the other. Most of the members were the younger generation. In their conversations they avoided the vulgarism of politics or traditional mores and concentrated on the pure or light aspect of matters, whether sex or poetry, in such a way as to free the spirit and sharpen the imagination, and to display a lofty ideal and a philosophical wit. Many of them acted in a most unconventional and carefree manner. The whole outlook was a romantic wandering over the universe, as Chuang Tzu would put it, and an intimate union with ultimate reality. The most famous group of the Light Conversationists were the Seven Worthies of the Bamboo Grove, including Jüan Chi (210-263), who in his Ta-jen hsien-sheng chuan (Biography of Mr. Great Man) advocated becoming one with the universe and transcending all distinctions between right and wrong, wealth and poverty, high and humble stations, and Hsi K’ang (223-262), who in his essays expressed similar sentiments. These men often met in bamboo groves to drink, write poems, and talk and behave with utter disregard for social conventions or worldly values.

  The more important facet, however, was the metaphysical. As already indicated, Han thought was strongly characterized by the doctrine of the correspondence of Nature and man and their mutual influence. It was therefore greatly concerned with natural phenomena. The Metaphysical Schools of Wei-Chin, on the contrary, went beyond phenomena to find reality beyond space and time. They found this in the non-being of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu but gave it a new meaning. Hence these schools are called by modern scholars Neo-Taoism. But these philosophers are not exclusively Taoistic. Like philosophers of the Han, they are syncretic. While they are Taoistic in their metaphysics, they are Confucian in their social and political philosophy.

  The most outstanding Neo-Taoists were Wang Pi (226-249), Ho Yen (d. 249), and Kuo Hsiang (d. 312). Wang Pi traced his intellectual heritage to Ching-chou. He was once a minister in the Wei government and wrote commentaries on both the Book of Changes and the Lao Tzu, that on the latter being the oldest in existence. Before he died at the early age of twenty-four, he had already inaugurated a new movement, for he raised the level of Chinese thought to that of metaphysics. Han thought was primarily concerned with cosmology and cosmogony, but Wang Pi went beyond the realms of names and forms to ultimate reality, namely, original non-being (pen-wu). According to his theory, which is developed in his commentary on the Lao Tzu, original non-being transcends all distinctions and descriptions. It is the pure being, original substance (pen-t’i), and the one in which substance and function are identified. It is whole and strong. And it is always correct because it is in accord with principle. This emphasis on principle is very conspicuous in his commentaries. Where Lao Tzu had destiny (ming, fate), Wang Pi would substitute principle, thus anticipating the Neo-Confucianists, who preferred to speak of the Principle of Nature (T’ien-li) instead of destiny decreed by Heaven (T’ien-ming).

  The idea that there is the one underlying and uniting all phenomena is also vigorously stressed in his essay on the Book of Changes,3 This book, consisting of hexagrams made up of six broken lines (representing yin or passive cosmic force) and unbroken lines (representing yang or active cosmic force), was used in ancient times for divination but later used by Confucianists to discern principles underlying events. It had been the custom to equate each of the sixty-four hexagrams with a particular object, but Wang argues that this is unnecessary because there is a general principle behind all particular objects. This principle is discoverable in one of the six lines, so that the other five become secondary. In short, he stresses the over-all principle which unites and commands all particular concepts and events. It is remarkable that in a time of disunity and confusion he should insist on a united system based on one fundamental reality, original non-being.

  Like Wang Pi, Ho Yen was known as a brilliant young man, was once a minister, and was fond of Taoism. While he never developed the concept of non-being to the level of Wang Pi, he brought out more strongly the idea tha
t non-being is nameless and is beyond words and forms. In their social and political thought, both he and Wang Pi were Confucian. Confucius, rather than Lao Tzu, was the sage, for in their view, he and not Lao Tzu was the one who demonstrated the highest truth within human society.

  Kuo Hsiang was also a high government official and an enthusiast for Taoism. Unlike Wang Pi who commented on the Lao Tzu, however, he commented on the Chuang Tzu. Evidences show that he incorporated much of Hsiang Hsiu’s (fl. 250) commentary into his own—thus indicating plagiarism, of which he was not at all incapable. Some scholars speak of Hsiang-Kuo instead of Kuo Hsiang alone. However, their ideas are not different, and all texts still name Kuo Hsiang as the commentator.

  Just as Wang Pi went beyond Lao Tzu, so Kuo Hsiang went beyond Chuang Tzu. The major concept is no longer Tao, as in Chuang Tzu, but Nature (Tzu-jan). Things exist and transform themselves spontaneously and there is no other reality or agent to cause them. Heaven is not something behind this process of Nature but is merely its general name. Things exist and transform according to principle, but each and every thing has its own principle. Everything is therefore self-sufficient and there is no need of an over-all original reality to combine or govern them, as in the case of Wang Pi. In other words, while Wang Pi emphasizes non-being, Kuo emphasizes being, and while Wang Pi emphasizes the one, Kuo emphasizes the many. To Wang Pi, principle transcends things, but to Kuo, it is immanent in them.

  However, Kuo Hsiang and Wang Pi are similar in that both consider that the sage rises above all distinctions and contradictions. He remains in the midst of human affairs although he accomplishes things by taking no unnatural action. But he is not someone who “folds his arms and sits in silence in the midst of some mountain forest.” To such a sage, all transformations are the same and in dealing with things he has “no deliberate mind of his own” (wu-hsin) but responds to them spontane ously without any discrimination. Confucius, and not Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu, was such a sage.

  In their philosophy of life, Kuo Hsiang differed greatly from Wang Pi in one respect. Kuo was a fatalist while Wang was not. Since according to Kuo everything has its own nature and ultimate principle, everything is determined and correct. Therefore he taught contentment in whatever situation one may find himself. Neither free will nor choice has meaning in his system.

  How much influence did Neo-Taoism have in the development of Chinese thought? This is not an easy question to answer. Neither Chinese Buddhism nor Neo-Confucianism can be said to have owed their development to Neo-Taoism. Nevertheless, as we shall see, its influence on early Chinese Buddhist schools is definite and clear.4 Besides, such concepts as principle, original reality, substance, and function may well be considered to have set the pattern for later Buddhists and Neo-Confucianists. The following selections are designed to show their influence as well as their own thoughts.

  1. WANG PI’S

  SIMPLE EXEMPLIFICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BOOK OF CHANGES

  An Explanation of The Explanations of Hexagrams5

  What is an explanation of a hexagram as a whole? It discusses generally the substance of a hexagram and makes clear the controlling principle out of which it is developed. Now, the many cannot be regulated by the many. They are regulated by the smallest in number (the one). Activity cannot be controlled by activity. They are controlled by that which is firmly rooted in the one.6 The reason why the many can exist is that their ruling principle returns always to the one and all activities can function because they have all come from the same source. Things never err; they always follow their principle. There is the chief to unite them, and there is the leader to group them together. Therefore, though complex, they are not chaotic, and though many, they are not confused. Hence the intermingling of the six lines in a hexagram can be understood by taking up one [of them, for one is always the ruling factor of the six] and the interaction of weakness (yin) and strength (yang) can be determined by having the basic controlling principle well established. Therefore, “for gathering things together, enumerating qualities, and distinguishing right and wrong, there would be insufficiency if there were not one line among [the six as the ruling factor].”7 Therefore if we investigate things by approaching them as a united system, although they are many, we know we can handle them by adhering to the one, and if we view them from the point of view of the fundamental, although their concepts are broad, we know we can cover all of them under a single name. If we view the great heavenly movements through an astronomical instrument, we shall not wonder at the movements of heaven and earth, and if we occupy the central point to view whatever may come, then all things coming in from the six directions will not be beyond control. Therefore when the name of the hexagram is mentioned, we have the ruling factor of all its concepts, and as soon as we read the explanation of a hexagram, we understand more than half of the ideas involved.

  Although past and present are not the same and armies and states appear different, we must not neglect the application of the central principle [in considering them]. Differences vary in a thousand ways, but the leading, ruling principle remains. This is the thing most highly valued in the explanation of a hexagram.

  The little is valued by the plentiful, and the few are the leaders of the many. If there are five yang (undivided lines) and one yin (undivided), the yin is the ruling factor. If there are five yin and one yang, the one yang is the ruling factor. For yin seeks after yang and yang seeks after yin. If yang is one and unified, how can all the five yin help returning to it? If yin is singular, how can all the five yang help following it? Thus although the yin is lowly, yet it is the controlling principle of the hexagram because it occupies the position of the least. Some people discard the lines and split the substance of a hexagram, but does the substance of the hexagram not depend on the lines? Although things are complex, there is no worry about their becoming chaotic, and although they change, there is no worry about their being confused. That which broadens is preserved by that which restricts, and the many is helped by the simple. The explanation of hexagrams alone can [show this]. Unless the explanation represents the most subtle and profound [principle] in the world, how can it avoid confusion in chaos and alteration in the process of change? If we view an explanation of a hexagram in this way, its concepts will become readily clear.

  2. WANG PI’S

  COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF CHANGES

  Only because there is ultimate principle in the world is it possible to employ strength and uprightness completely and to drive far away those who ingratiate by flattery. . . . If we understand the activities of things, we shall know all the principles which make them what they are. (Commentary on hexagram no. 1, ch’ien or Heaven in the Book of Changes)

  Taking the position of the superior and contending with the subordinate are things that can be changed. Therefore they are not great faults. If one can return to obey the fundamental principle and alter the command [to violate moral principles], rest with the firm and correct, refrain from drifting away from the Way, and practice humanity beginning with oneself,8 good fortune will follow him. (Commentary on hexagram no. 6, sung or contention)

  If one is agreeable but does not follow indiscriminately and is joyful without deviating from the Mean, one will be able to associate with superiors without flattery and with subordinates without disrespect. As he understands the causes of fortune and misfortune, he will not speak carelessly, and as he understands the necessary principles, he will not change his good conduct. (Commentary on hexagram no. 16, yü or happiness)

  [A superior man sees] similarity in general principles but diversity in functions and facts. (Commentary on hexagram no. 38, k’uei or to part)

  Comment. Note the contrast between principle and facts. Later, in Chinese Buddhism, the realm of principles and the realm of facts constitute the two realms of existence. They are, however, not to be sharply contrasted, for they involve each other and are ultimately identical. This one-is-all and all-is-one philosophy is a common heritage of all Chinese ph
ilosophical systems—Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist.

  If a thing has any fault, it will not be [in accord with] its principle. A concept is the same as principle. (Commentary on hexagram no. 40, chieh or to remove)

  To return is to revert to the original [substance]. The original [substance] is the mind of Heaven and Earth. Whenever activity ceases, there is tranquillity, but tranquillity is not opposed to activity. Whenever speech ceases, there is silence, but silence is not opposed to speech. Thus although Heaven and Earth are vast, possessing the myriad things in abundance, where thunder moves and winds circulate, and while there is an infinite variety of changes and transformations, yet its original [substance] is absolutely quiet and perfect non-being. Therefore only with the cessation of activities within Earth can the mind of Heaven and Earth be revealed. If being were to be the mind [of Heaven and Earth], things of different categories will not be able to exist together. (Commentary on hexagram no. 24, fu or to return)

  Comment. Wang Pi is characteristically Taoistic in saying that only in a state of tranquillity can the mind of Heaven and Earth be seen. Like Wang Pi, Neo-Confucianists paid a great deal of attention to this hexagram in the Book of Changes. But they maintained that the mind of Heaven and Earth is to be seen in a state of activity instead of tranquillity. As Ch’eng I (Ch’eng I-ch’uan, 1033-1107) said, “Former scholars all said that only in a state of tranquillity can the mind of Heaven and Earth be seen. They did not realize that the mind of Heaven and Earth is found in the beginning of activity.”9

  3. WANG PI’S

  COMMENTARY ON THE LAO TZU

  All being originated from non-being. The time before physical forms and names appeared was the beginning of the myriad things. After forms and names appear, Tao (the Way) develops them, nourishes them, and places them in peace and order; that is, becomes their Mother. This means that Tao produces and completes things with the formless and nameless. Thus they are produced and completed but do not know why. Indeed it is the mystery of mysteries. (Lao Tzu chu, or Commentary on the Lao Tzu, ch. 1)