A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  “Seekers of the Way, if you want to achieve the understanding according to the Law, don’t be deceived by others and turn to [your thoughts] internally or [objects] externally. Kill anything that you happen on. Kill the Buddha if you happen to meet him. Kill a patriarch or an arhat if you happen to meet him. Kill your parents or relatives if you happen to meet them. Only then can you be free, not bound by material things, and absolutely free and at ease. . . . I have no trick to give people. I merely cure disease and set people free. . . . My views are few. I merely put on clothing and eat meals as usual, and pass my time without doing anything. You people coming from the various directions have all made up your minds to seek the Buddha, seek the Law, seek emancipation, and seek to leave the Three Worlds. Crazy people! If you want to leave the Three Worlds, where can you go? ‘Buddha’ and ‘patriarchs’ are terms of praise and also bondage. Do you want to know where the Three Worlds are? They are right in your mind which is now listening to the Law.” (tsd, 47:499-500)

  Comment. This “doing nothing” philosophy means more than the Taoist philosophy of leaving things alone and being absolutely spontaneous. It assumes that Ultimate Reality is everywhere and can be discovered without any special searching. Eating, sweeping the floor, simply walking, or anything will do.

  7.--Ma-ku90 came to participate in a session. As he arranged his seating cushion, he asked, “Which face of the twelve-face Kuan-yin91 faces the proper direction?”

  The Master got down from the rope chair. With one hand he took away Ma-ku’s cushion and with the other he held Ma-ku, saying, “Which direction does the twelve-face Kuan-yin face?”

  Ma-ku turned around and was about to sit in the rope chair. The Master picked up the staff and beat him. Ma-ku having grasped the staff, the two dragged each other into the room.

  8.--The Master asked a monk: “Sometimes a shout is like the sacred sword of the Diamond King.92 Sometimes a shout is like a golden-haired lion squatting on the ground. Sometimes a shout is like a rod or a piece of grass [used to attract fish]. And sometimes a shout is like one which does not function as a shout at all. How do you know which one to use?”

  As the monk was deliberating what to say, the Master shouted, (tsd, 47:504)

  9.--When the Master was among Huang-po’s congregation, his conduct was very pure. The senior monk93 said with a sigh, “Although he is young, he is different from the rest!” He then asked, “Sir, how long have you been here?”

  The Master said, “Three years.”

  The senior monk said, “Have you ever gone to the head monk (Huang-po) and asked him questions?”

  The Master said, “I have not. I wouldn’t know what to ask.”

  The senior monk said, “Why don’t you go and ask the head monk what the basic idea of the Law preached by the Buddha clearly is?”

  The Master went and asked the question. But before he finished, Huang-po beat him. When he came back, the senior monk asked him how the conversation went. The Master said, “Before I finished my question, he already had beaten me. I don’t understand.” The senior monk told him to go and ask again.

  The Master did and Huang-po beat him again. In this way he asked three times and got beaten three times. . . . Huang-po said, “If you go to Ta-yü’s94 place, he will tell you why.”

  The Master went to Ta-yü, who asked him, “Where have you come from?”

  The Master said, “I am from Huang-po’s place.”

  Ta-yü said, “What did Huang-po have to say?”

  The Master said, “I asked three times about the basic idea of the Law preached by the Buddha and I was beaten three times. I don’t know if I was mistaken.”

  Ta-yü said, “Old kindly Huang-po has been so earnest with you and you still came here to ask if you were mistaken!”

  As soon as the Master heard this, he understood and said, “After all, there is not much in Huang-po’s Buddhism.” (tsd, 47:504)

  Comment. Not only is there not much in Huang-po’s Buddhism; there is not much in Buddhism itself!95 This saying has been repeated time and again by Zen Buddhists. It expresses not only a spirit of revolt, but also the determination to wipe out anything in the way of the mind’s direct and immediate intuition of truth, including Buddhism itself. Fung Yu-lan is right in considering this point as one of the five most important in Zen.96

  ▪ ▪ ▪--27--▪ ▪ ▪

  THE REVIVAL OF CONFUCIANISM: HAN YÜ AND LI AO

  Han Yü (768-824) and Li Ao (fl. 798) are usually considered as forerunners of the Neo-Confucianism that developed in the eleventh century. Actually, they were more than that. For they were not merely precursors of a movement; they did much to determine its direction.

  As philosophers they are quite negligible. There is nothing new in their theories of human nature, and their dualism of good nature and evil feelings is but a continuation of a worn-out theory some eight hundred years old. Han Yü’s discussion of the Way is superficial and, unlike that of the Taoists and Buddhists, does not touch upon its deeper aspects. And yet they were key figures in the transition from the Confucianism of medieval China to Neo-Confucianism. Han Yü, especially, stood out like a giant in the history of Confucianism from the second century b.c. to the tenth. He was of course one of the greatest literary masters China ever produced. So far as Chinese thought is concerned, his greatness and that of Li Ao lie in the fact that they saved Confucianism from its possible annihilation by Taoism and Buddhism and that they defined the direction and nature of its resurgence.

  They accomplished this remarkable task in several ways. First of all, attacking Taoism and Buddhism, which were then at their height, Han Yü reversed the tide of Confucian decline. Second, both he and Li Ao concentrated on the central problem in the history of Confucianism, namely, human nature, and thus kept it central in later Confucianism. Significantly, Neo-Confucianism is called the study of human nature and destiny. Their study was specifically urged by Li Ao.1 Third, by quoting from the Great Learning, the Doctrine of the Mean, and the Book of Changes, they discovered their importance and laid the foundation for Neo-Confucianists whose ideas were largely based on these Classics. Fourth, both of them singled out Mencius as the person through whom the true doctrines of Confucius were transmitted to later ages. Han Yü was particularly vehement about this “correct transmission.” He rejected Hsün Tzu (fl. 298–238 b.c.) and Yang Hsiung (53 b.c.–a.d. 18) as unworthy of it. However dogmatic he may have been, this “correct transmission” as fixed by Han Yü has been accepted by Confucianists ever since.

  Last, and perhaps the most important, by attacking Taoist inaction and Buddhist silence and annihilation instead of their metaphysics, Han Yü prevented Confucianism from developing along the line of speculative philosophy in order to compete with them, and helped confine Confucian objectives to the traditional goal of a moral being and a moral society. This may have been a misfortune for Confucianism, for although Neo-Confucianists did base their whole movement on the metaphysical concept of principle (li), metaphysics is not one of their distinctions. But in emphasizing the Confucian Way of having action and of sustaining and supporting the life of one another, as Han Yü did, and in reiterating the ancient Confucian ideal of the sincerity of the will, the rectification of the mind, the cultivation of the personal life, the regulation of the family, ordering the state, and bringing peace to the world, as both Han and Li did, they did much to retain the real strength of the Confucian system.

  Han was an orphan at three and grew up in difficult circumstances, but he eventually rose to be a vice-minister in the ministry of civil personnel. In 819 he protested against welcoming a Buddhist relic, supposed to be a bone of the Buddha, to the palace and almost lost his life because of it. Li Ao was his friend, or, according to some, his pupil.2 The following selections are from their collected works.

  1. AN INQUIRY ON HUMAN NATURE, BY HAN YÜ

  The nature of man comes into existence with birth,3 whereas the feelings are produced when there is contact with external things.
There are three grades of human nature, and what constitute that nature are five. There are three grades of feelings, and what constitute feelings are seven. What are these? I say: The three grades of nature are: superior, the medium, and the inferior. The superior is good, and good only. The medium may be led to be either superior or inferior. The inferior is evil, and evil only. Human nature consists in five virtues, namely, humanity (jen), propriety (li), faithfulness, righteousness (i), and wisdom.4 In the superior grade, one5 of these five is the ruling factor while the other four also are practiced. In the medium grade, there is more or less of one of the five while the other four are not pure.6 In the inferior grade, one rebels against one of these and is out of accord with the other four. The relation of nature to feelings depends on its grade.

  Similarly, there are three grades of feelings: the superior, the medium, and the inferior, and what constitute the feelings are seven: pleasure, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hate, and desire. In the superior grade, when any of these seven becomes active, it abides by the Mean. In the medium grade, some of the seven are excessive and some are deficient but there is an effort to be in accord with the Mean. In the inferior grade, whether they are excessive or deficient, action is directed by whichever feeling happens to be predominant. The relation between feelings and nature depends on their grade.

  In discussing human nature, Mencius said, “Man’s nature is good.” Hsün Tzu said, “Man’s nature is evil.” And Yang Hsiung said, “Man’s nature is a mixture of good and evil.”7 Now to say that nature is good at first but subsequently becomes evil, or bad at first and subsequently becomes good, or mixed at first and is now either good or evil, is to mention only the medium grade and leave the superior and inferior grades out of account and to take care of one case but to lose sight of the other two.

  When Shu-yü was born, his mother knew, as soon as she looked at him, that he would die of love of bribes.8 When Yang I-wo9 was born, Shu-hsiang’s mother knew, as soon as she heard him cry, that he would cause the destruction of all his kindred.10 When Yüeh-chiao was born, Tzu-wen considered it a great calamity, knowing that because of him the ghosts of the Jo-ao family would be famished.11 [With all these evidences] can we say that human nature is good?

  When Hou-chi was born, his mother did not suffer. As soon as he began to creep, he displayed understanding and intelligence.12 When King Wen was in his mother’s womb, she had no trouble.13 After he was born, those who assisted him did not have to work hard, and those who taught him did not have to labor. [With all these evidences] can we say that human nature is evil?

  Emperor Yao’s son Chu, Emperor Shun’s son Chün,14 and King Wen’s sons Kuan and Ts’ai were not without good in their practice, but they eventually became wicked. Ku-sou’s son Shun and Kun’s son Yü15 were not without evil in their practice but they eventually became sages. [With all these evidences,] can we say that human nature is a mixture of good and evil?

  I therefore say that the three philosophers, in their theories on human nature, mentioned the medium grade and left the superior and inferior grades out of account. They took care of one case but lost sight of the other two.

  It may be asked: In that case, does it mean that the nature of the superior and inferior grades can never be changed?

  I reply: The nature of the superior grade becomes more intelligent through education. The nature of the inferior grade comes to have few faults through an awe of power. Therefore the superior nature can be taught and the inferior nature can be controlled. But their grades have been pronounced by Confucius to be unchangeable.16

  It may be asked, Why are those who talk about human nature today different from this?

  I reply: Those who talk about human nature today have confused their theories with Buddhism and Taoism. Since they have confused their theories with Buddhism and Taoism, how can they speak without being different from me? (Yüan-hsing or an Inquiry on Human nature, Han Ch’ang-li ch’üan-chi, or Collected Works of Han Yü, sppy, 11:5b-7b)

  Comment. Han Yü has often been credited with originating the theory of the three grades of human nature. It is true that he was the first to use the term “three grades” in connection with man’s nature, but the term is found in several places in the Classics, and Hsün Yüeh (148-209) six hundred years before him had propounded the theory of three grades of human destiny.17 The theory of three grades of human nature itself had been taught in Buddhism, specifically in the Ch’eng-wei-shih lun (Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, or Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only), which was translated into Chinese by Hsüan-tsang (596-664) about a hundred and fifty years before.18 The actual source of Han Yü’s theory may have been Wang Ch’ung (27-100?)19 whom he admired. In any case, the originality of Han Yü has been overrated.

  2. AN INQUIRY ON THE WAY (TAO), BY HAN YÜ

  Universal love is called humanity. To practice this in the proper manner is called righteousness. To proceed according to these is called the Way. To be sufficient in oneself without depending on anything outside is called virtue. Humanity and righteousness are definite values, whereas the Way and virtue have no substance in themselves [but depend on humanity and righteousness for it]. Thus we have the Way of the superior man [as in Confucianism] and the Way of the inferior man [as in Taoism] and there are the inauspicious virtue [as in Taoism] and auspicious virtue [as in Confucianism]. Lao Tzu belittled humanity and righteousness not because he destroyed them but because his viewpoint was small. If a man sits at the bottom of a well, looks up at the sky, and says, “The sky is small,” it does not mean that the sky is really small. Lao Tzu considered little acts [of kindness] as humanity and isolated deeds [of good] as righteousness. It is no wonder that he belittled them. What he called the Way was only the Way as he understood it and not what I call the Way. What he called virtue was only the virtue as he understood it and not what I call virtue. What I call the Way and virtue always involve both humanity and righteousness, which is the opinion shared by the whole world. What Lao Tzu called the Way and virtue was devoid of humanity and righteousness, which was the private opinion of one man. . . .

  Comment. In declaring that “universal love is called humanity,” was Han Yü under the influence of the Moist doctrine of universal love or the Buddhist gospel of compassion for all? One would think that the Confucian teaching of love with distinctions was not altruistic enough to compete with Buddhism and that Han Yü had to yield to the doctrine of a system which he strongly attacked. It is significant, however, that he avoided the Moist term “mutual love” (chien-ai) and the Buddhist term “compassion” but used po-ai (universal love) instead. The term first appeared in the commentary on the Kuo-yü20 of the third century and then in the Book of Filial Piety21 and was used by Hsü Kan (171-218) to describe humanity.22 The idea of po had been well understood all along, and the very word appears in Analects 6:28. Thus Han Yü was merely reiterating a Confucian tradition.23

  Now the method [of the Taoists and Buddhists] is to insist on discarding the relationship between ruler and ministers, doing away with the relationship between father and son, and stopping the process of sustaining and supporting the life of one another, in order to seek for what they call silence and annihilation.. . . The Record says, “The ancients who wished to manifest their clear character to the world would first bring order to their states. Those who wished to bring order to their states would first regulate their families. Those who wished to regulate their families would first cultivate their personal lives. Those who wished to cultivate their personal lives would first rectify their minds. Those who wished to rectify their minds would first make their wills sincere.”24 Thus what the ancients meant by rectifying the mind and making the will sincere was to engage in activity [as against the inaction of the Taoists and Buddhists], But now [the Taoists and Buddhists] seek to govern their hearts by escaping from the world, the state, and the family. They destroy the natural principles of human relations so that the son does not regard his father as a father, the
minister does not regard his ruler as a ruler, and the people do not attend to their work. . . . Now, they take the ways of barbarism and elevate them above the teachings of our ancient kings. Does this not almost make all of us barbarians?

  What were the teachings of our ancient kings? Universal love is called humanity. To practice this in the proper manner is called righteousness. To proceed according to these is called the Way. To be sufficient in oneself without depending on anything outside is called virtue. Their literature comprised the Books of Odes, History, Changes, and the Spring and Autumn Annals. Their methods consisted of rules of propriety, music, laws, and governmental measures. Their people were the four classes of scholars, farmers, artisans, and merchants. Their relationships were those between ruler and minister, father and son, teacher and friend, guest and host, elder and younger brother, and husband and wife. Their clothing was hemp and silk. Their dwellings were halls and houses. Their food consisted of grain and rice, fruit and vegetables, fish and meat. As methods theirs were easy to understand and as teachings theirs were easy to practice. Employed to conduct oneself, they brought harmony and blessing, and employed to deal with others, love and impartiality. Employed to cultivate the mind, they gave peace and harmony, and employed to deal with the world, the state, and the family, they were always fitting no matter where they were applied. Consequently, in life people were able to express their feelings, and at death the eternal relations between them and their descendants were fulfilled [by the latter]. They offered sacrifices to Heaven and the gods came to receive them. They offered sacrifices to their ancestors and the ancestors enjoyed them. What Way is this? I say: This is what I call the Way, and not what the Taoists and the Buddhists called the Way. . . . (Yüan-tao or Inquiry on the Way, sppy, 11:1a-4b)