A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  Comment. This is a simple saying but the doctrine became a major one in Neo-Confucianism because it not only restores feeling to a position of equality with nature; it also makes the mind the master of a person’s total being. What is more, Neo-Confucianists were very insistent that reality and function, and in this theory substance (nature) and function (feelings), are harmonized by the mind.

  ▪ ▪ ▪--31--▪ ▪ ▪

  THE IDEALISTIC TENDENCY IN CH’ENG HAO

  The two Ch’eng brothers (Ch’eng Hao, also called Ch’eng Ming-tao, 1032-1085, and Ch’eng I, also called Ch’eng I-ch’uan, 1033-1107) represent a unique and an extremely interesting case in the history of Chinese philosophy. Both brothers became outstanding philosophers, reminding one of the two brothers, Asaṅga (c.410–c.500) and Vasubandhu (c.420–c.500) in the history of Indian philosophy. They were students of Chou Tun-i (Chou Lien-hsi, 1017-1073), friends of Shao Yung (1011-1077), and nephews of Chang Tsai (Chang Heng-ch’ü, 1020-1077).1 These five are often called the Five Masters of eleventh-century Chinese philosophy. As noted before, the two brothers set the pattern for Neo-Confucianism. They were of utterly different temperament, and yet they agreed essentially in their philosophies. Many of the sayings in the I-shu (Surviving Works) and Wai-shu (Additional Works) of the Erh-Ch’eng ch’üan-shu (Complete Works of the Two Ch’engs) are assigned to both, and in most cases scholars do not agree to which brother they should be ascribed. When Chu Hsi (1130-1200) referred to “Master Ch’eng,” most of the time he meant Ch’eng I, oftentimes Ch’eng Hao, but sometimes both.

  This does not mean that there are no differences between them. In fact, Ch’eng I is so much more rationalistic than Ch’eng Hao and Ch’eng Hao is so much more idealistic than Ch’eng I that it is permissible to say that Ch’eng Hao inaugurated the idealistic wing of Neo-Confucianism while his brother inaugurated the rationalistic wing, although their differences have been exaggerated in recent years. Their similarities and dissimilarities will be brought out in the comments and in the next chapter.2 But their fundamental agreement, which forms the keynote to their philosophy in particular and to Neo-Confucianism in general, namely, the concept of principle (li), must be pointed out right away.

  The concept of principle is found in ancient Chinese philosophy, in Neo-Taoism, and in Buddhism,3 but the Ch’eng brothers were the first ones to build their philosophy primarily on it. More especially for Ch’eng Hao, principle is the Principle of Nature (T’ien-li, Principle of Heaven). As conceived and understood by the brothers, principle is self-evident and self-sufficient, extending everywhere and governing all things. It cannot be augmented or diminished. It is many but it is essentially one, for all specific principles are but principle. It is possessed by all people and all things. Even a very small thing has principle. It is laid before our very eyes. Man and all things form one body because all of them share this principle. To be sincere is to be sincere to it, and to be serious is to be serious about it. In short, it is one and all. It is identical with the mind and it is identical with the nature. All things exist because of it and can be understood through it. It is universal truth, universal order, universal law. Most important of all, it is a universal process of creation and production. It is dynamic and vital.

  It can easily be seen that to the Ch’eng brothers this principle means both natural principles and moral principles, and both general principles and specific principles. They were not much concerned with abstract reality, for they were primarily interested in the meaning of principle for man. Thus they turned Neo-Confucianism from speculation on cosmology to concentrate on the problems of principle and human nature, thereby making Neo-Confucianism truly a School of Nature and Principle (Hsing-li hsüeh).

  What is equally even more significant is that Ch’eng Hao (and also his brother) used the term T’ien-li. As Hu Shih has pointed out, it stands for the Natural Law.4 Where did the Ch’engs get their ideas? Much of their philosophy may be traced to ancient Confucian Classics. As Ch’eng I said of his brother, “From the time when, at fifteen or sixteen, he heard Chou Tun-i discourse on the Way, he got tired of preparing for civil service examinations and arduously made up his mind to seek the Way. Not knowing the essential steps, he drifted among the various schools of thought and went in and out of the Taoist and Buddhist schools for almost ten years. Finally he returned to the Six Classics5 and only then did he find the Way.”6 Of these Classics, the Book of Changes and the Doctrine of the Mean, which is part of the Book of Rites, are the ones to which he often turned. But so far as the concept of the Principle of Nature is concerned, he got no help from them. The term T’ien-li appears in the Book of Rites.7 However, there it means the principle endowed in man by Heaven and does not have the connotation of universal truth or natural law. As related by his follower Hsieh Liang-tso (Hsieh Shang-ts’ai, 1050-1103), Ch’eng himself once said, “Although I have learned some of my doctrines from others, the concept of the Principle of Nature, however, has been realized by myself.”8 What is said of Ch’eng Hao could have been said of Ch’eng I.

  This does not mean that they developed their philosophy in a vacuum. Chou Tun-i’s influence on their ideas and personality has already been pointed out.9 Some people have denied this influence. Ch’üan Tsu-wang (1705-1755), for example, said that “while the two Ch’engs studied with Chou in their youth, what they achieved did not come from him. . . . Throughout their life the two Masters Ch’eng never praised Chou very much. . . . Chu Hsi was the first one to decide definitely that the philosophy of the two Ch’engs came from Chou and later generations followed him. . . . But the two Ch’engs never transmitted the doctrines of Chou.”10 In his I-Lo yüan-yüan lu (Record of the Origin of the School of the Two Ch’engs)11 Chu Hsi places Chou first, then the two brothers, and then Shao Yung and Chang Tsai, and others, thus implying that the Ch’eng philosophy originated with Chou and was transmitted through Shao and Chang. This line of transmission is too simple and direct to be true and Ch’üan was correct in rejecting it. But to deny Chou’s influence on the Ch’engs12 is to ignore certain indisputable facts. The two brothers certainly did study with Chou.13 It has been suggested that their relationship was not that of teacher and pupil, because the Ch’engs always referred to his courtesy name, Mao-shu,14 and once even called him “poor Zen fellow,”15 not very respectful ways to refer to a teacher. However, it is not entirely unknown, though unusual, for pupils to call their teachers by courtesy names. For example, Hu Yüan (993-1059), Ch’eng I’s teacher, was referred to by his courtesy name An-ting.16 It is also argued that the Ch’engs never mentioned the Great Ultimate,17 perhaps the central concept in Chou’s philosophy. This is certainly a puzzle. But their failure to mention the term does not necessarily mean that Chou had had no influence on them, any more than it meant that the Book of Changes did not have any influence on them. It had enough influence on Ch’eng I for him to write a commentary on it, although he never mentioned the Great Ultimate, which is one of the basic concepts in the book. They did not mention the Great Ultimate perhaps because they wanted to avoid Taoist influence, since Chou’s “Diagram of the Great Ultimate” came from the Taoist tradition. Ch’üan Tsu-wang is correct in contending that the Ch’engs did not transmit the philosophy of Chou, but it is still true that the basic problems and the general direction of their philosophy were within the broad outline of Chou’s philosophy, including the concept of principle.

  All this does not remove the fact that it was the Ch’eng brothers’ own idea to make principle the central focus of their philosophy. While the two brothers shared common ideas about it, they also had different emphases. As will be shown, Ch’eng I stressed the doctrine that principle is one but its manifestations are many. Compared with his brother, Ch’eng Hao has emphasized more strongly the idea of production and reproduction as the chief characteristic of the universe. He saw the spirit of life in all things. To him, this creative quality is jen (humanity),18 which removes all distinctions between the self and the other a
nd combines Heaven, Earth, and man as one.

  As the great virtue of Heaven and Earth is to produce, whatever is produced in man, that is, whatever is inborn in him, is his nature. To him this is identical with material force (ch’i). In its original, tranquil state, human nature is neither good nor evil. The distinction arises when human nature is aroused and is manifested in feelings and actions, and when these feelings and actions abide by or deviate from the mean. The chief task of moral and spiritual cultivation is to calm one’s nature, through absolute impartiality and the identification of internal and external life. Any opposition between the internal and the external, he said, must be forgotten. In fact, he rejects dichotomy of any kind, whether between the human mind and the moral mind, between the Principle of Nature and human desires, or between human nature and feelings. To achieve unity, he advocated sincerity and seriousness (ching),19 that is, concentrating on one thing and not getting away from it.

  There can be no denial that in advocating such a method of moral cultivation he tended to quietism. Whether he was influenced by Chou Tun-i or by Zen Buddhists or both is a moot point. We must not forget, however, that he looked upon Chou Tun-i’s doctrine of tranquillity as unbalanced and substituted for it seriousness. Moreover, to him the universe is a great current of production. Whatever quietism there is in him, then, is not Buddhist emptiness and silence but a vital, if gentle and quiet, process. Like the Buddhists, however, he almost exclusively emphasizes the mind. To him, “Principle and the mind are one,”20 and he stresses holding on to the mind with seriousness and preserving the mind as fundamental steps to moral perfection. In thus stressing the mind, he and his brother, who stressed more strongly the extension of knowledge, moved in different directions, he the idealistic, later developed by Lu Hsiang-shan (Lu Chiu-yüan, 1139-1193) and Wang Yang-ming (Wang Shou-jen, 1472-1529), the other the rationalistic, later culminated in Chu Hsi.

  Following the list of major topics and references are selections from the Erh-Ch’eng ch’üan-shu (Complete Works of the Two Ch’engs).

  Buddhism: 21, 32, 46, 76, 77

  Goodness; Good and Evil: 7, 8, 15, 19, 64

  Human Nature; Destiny: 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 36, 51, 56, 67

  Jen (Humanity): 1, 11, 13, 23, 27, 28, 40, 50, 51, 65

  Life, Spirit of; Origination; Production: 19, 21, 27-29, 38, 39, 51

  Material force (ch’i) and Physical form: 5, 7, 36, 37, 42, 58, 75

  Mean, Equilibrium, and Centrality: 4, 8, 34, 61, 69, 73, 74

  Nature and man forming one body: 1, 4, 11, 18, 21, 35, 48, 51, 54

  Principle of Nature (Heaven): 3, 8, 15, 16, 18, 20-24, 26, 33, 34, 37, 53, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70-72, 75

  Seriousness (ching): 1, 10, 18, 20, 23, 30, 32, 45, 46, 49, 50, 66, 69

  Sincerity: 1, 5, 6, 17, 20, 41, 45, 66, 68

  Way, the: 1, 5, 19, 32, 41, 42, 44, 50

  THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THE TWO CH’ENGS21

  1. On Understanding the Nature of Jen (Humanity)

  The student must first of all understand the nature of jen. The man of jen forms one body with all things without any differentiation. Righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness are all [expressions of] jen.

  [One’s duty] is to understand this principle (li) and preserve jen with sincerity and seriousness (ching), that is all. There is no need for caution and control. Nor is there any need for exhaustive search. Caution is necessary when one is mentally negligent, but if one is not negligent, what is the necessity for caution? Exhaustive search is necessary when one has not understood principle, but if one preserves jen long enough, it will automatically dawn on him. Why should he have to depend on exhaustive search?

  Nothing can be equal to this Way (Tao, that is, jen). It is so vast that nothing can adequately explain it. All operations of the universe are our operations. Mencius said that “all things are already complete in oneself” and that one must “examine oneself and be sincere (or absolutely real)” and only then will there be great joy.22 If one examines himself and finds himself not yet sincere, it means there is still an opposition between the two (the self and the non-self). Even if one tries to identify the self with the non-self, one still does not achieve unity. How can one have joy?

  The purpose of (Chang Tsai’s) “Western Inscription”23 is to explain this substance (of complete unity) fully. If one preserves it (jen) with this idea, what more is to be done? “Always be doing something without expectation. Let the mind not forget its objective, but let there be no artificial effort to help it grow.”24 Not the slightest effort is exerted! This is the way to preserve jen. As jen is preserved, the self and the other are then identified.

  For our innate knowledge of good and innate ability to do good are originally not lost. However, because we have not gotten rid of the mind dominated by habits, we must preserve and exercise our original mind, and in time old habits will be overcome. This principle25 is extremely simple; the only danger is that people will not be able to hold on to it. But if we practice it and enjoy it, there need be no worry of our being unable to hold to it. (I-shu, 2A:3a-b)

  Comment. As has been pointed out, in Chang Tsai’s “Western Inscription,” jen is universalized to include the whole universe.26 It was in the Ch’eng brothers, however, that the Neo-Confucian doctrine of man and the universe forming one body took root and became a cardinal concept. In this little essay, which has been a vade mecum for many a Chinese scholar, unity of man and Nature (T’ien, Heaven) is affirmed on the basis of the elimination of all opposition between the self and the other. In section 11 of Selected Sayings, below, unity is also argued on the basis of the all-loving character of jen. His brother also said that “The man of jen regards Heaven and Earth and all things as one body.”27 And the doctrine is later fully developed in Wang Yang-ming.28

  Strangely enough, Chu Hsi left this essay out of his Chin-ssu lu (Reflections on Things at Hand)29 because it is “too broad” and “may easily be misunderstood.”30 Evidently the teaching that there is no need for caution, control, or exhaustive search sounds dangerous. But in defense of Ch’eng, Liu Tsung-chou (1578-1645) has pointed out that Ch’eng did not teach people to meditate out of a vacuum but merely stressed the fundamental as the first step.31 Nevertheless, as Ch’ien Mu has noted, Ch’eng did not tell in detail how to know the substance of jen except to advise us to preserve it according to the idea in the “Western Inscription.” This task was left to his brother.32

  2. Reply to Master Heng-ch’ü’s Letter on Calming Human Nature33

  I have received your letter in which you said that nature in the state of calmness cannot be without activity and must still suffer from the influence of external things. This problem has been ardently pondered by a worthy [like you]. What need is there for a humble person like myself to say anything? However, I have gone over the matter in my mind, and dare present my ideas to you. By calmness of nature we mean that one’s nature is calm whether it is in a state of activity or in a state of tranquillity. One does not lean forward or backward to accommodate things, nor does he make any distinction between the internal and external.34 To regard things outside the self as external, and force oneself to conform to them, is to regard one’s nature as divided into the internal and the external. Furthermore, if one’s nature is conceived to be following external things, then, while it is outside what is it that is within the self? To conceive one’s nature thus is to have the intention of getting rid of external temptations, but to fail to realize that human nature does not possess the two aspects of internal and external. Since one holds that things internal and things external form two different bases, how can one hastily speak of the calmness of human nature?

  The constant principle of Heaven and Earth is that their mind is in all things, and yet they have no mind of their own. The constant principle of the sage is that his feelings are in accord with all creation, and yet he has no feelings of his own. Therefore, for the training of the superior man there is nothing better than to become broad and extreme
ly impartial and to respond spontaneously to all things as they come. The Book of Changes says, “Firm correctness brings good fortune and prevents all occasions for repentance. If he is hesitant in his movements, only his friends will follow his purpose.”35 If one merely attempts to remove external temptations, then no sooner do some disappear in the east than others will arise in the west. Not only is one’s time limited, but the source of temptation is inexhaustible and therefore cannot be removed.

  Everyone’s nature is obscured in some way and as a consequence he cannot follow the Way. In general the trouble lies in resorting to selfishness and the exercise of cunning. Being selfish, one cannot take purposive action to respond to things, and being cunning, one cannot be at home with enlightenment. For a mind that hates external things to seek illumination in a mind where nothing exists, is to look for a reflection on the back of a mirror. The Book of Changes says, “Stop in the back of a thing. See not the person. Walk in the hall and do not see the people in it.”36 Mencius also said,“ What I dislike in your wise men is their forced reasoning.”37 Instead of looking upon the internal as right and the external as wrong, it is better to forget the distinction. When such a distinction is forgotten, the state of quietness and peace is attained. Peace leads to calmness and calmness leads to enlightenment. When one is enlightened, how can the response to things become an impediment? The sage is joyous because according to the nature of things before him he should be joyous, and he is angry because according to the nature of things before him he should be angry. Thus the joy and anger of the sage do not depend on his own mind but on things. Does not the sage in this way respond to things? Why should it be regarded wrong to follow external things and right to seek what is within? Compare the joy and anger of the selfish and cunning man to the correctness of joy and anger of the sage. What a difference! Among human emotions the easiest to arouse but the most difficult to control is anger. But if in time of anger one can immediately forget his anger and look at the right and wrong of the matter according to principle, he will see that external temptations need not be hated, and he has gone more than halfway toward the Way. My subtle ideas cannot be expressed in words. On top of my usual lack of skill in writing, my official duties have kept me busy, so that I have not given the finest thought to this matter. Whether I am correct or not, I pray you to let me know. However, I believe I am not far from the truth in essential points. The ancients considered it wrong to seek afar when the truth lies nearby. Will you, a man of wisdom and intelligence, draw your own conclusions. (Ming-tao wen-chi, 3:1a-b)