A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  Someone said: According to our explanation, is it not wrong for Master Ch’eng19 to say that love is feeling while jen is nature and that love should not be regarded as jen?20

  Answer: Not so. What Master Ch’eng criticized was the application of the term to the expression of love. What I maintain is that the term should be applied to the principle of love. For although the spheres of man’s nature and feelings are different, their mutual penetration is like the blood system in which each part has its own relationship. When have they become sharply separated and been made to have nothing to do with each other? I was just now worrying about students’ reciting Master Ch’eng’s words without inquiring into their meaning, and thereby coming to talk about jen as clearly apart from love. I have therefore purposely talked about this to reveal the hidden meaning of Master Ch’eng’s words, and you regard my ideas as different from his. Are you not mistaken?

  Someone said: The followers of Master Ch’eng have given many explanations of jen. Some say that love is not jen, and regard the unity of all things and the self as the substance of jen. Others maintain that love is not jen but explain jen in terms of the possession of consciousness by the mind. If what you say is correct, are they all wrong?

  Answer: From what they call the unity of all things and the self,21 it can be seen that jen involves love for all, but unity is not the reality which makes jen a substance. From what they call the mind’s possession of consciousness,22 it can be seen that jen includes wisdom, but that is not the real reason why jen is so called. If you look up Confucius’ answer to (his pupil) Tzu-kung’s question whether conferring extensive benefit on the people and bringing salvation to all (will constitute jen)23 and also Master Ch’eng’s statement that jen is not to be explained in terms of consciousness,24 you will see the point. How can you still explain jen in these terms?

  Furthermore, to talk about jen in general terms of the unity of things and the self will lead people to be vague, confused, neglectful, and make no effort to be alert. The bad effect—and there has been—may be to consider other things as oneself. To talk about love in specific terms of consciousness will lead people to be nervous, irascible, and devoid of any quality of depth. The bad effect—and there has been—may be to consider desire as principle. In one case, (the mind) forgets (its objective). In the other (there is artificial effort to) help (it grow).25 Both are wrong. Furthermore, the explanation in terms of consciousness does not in any way approach the manner of (a man of jen who) “delights in mountains” (while a man of wisdom delights in water)26 or the idea that (jen alone) “can preserve” (what knowledge has attained),27 as taught his pupil by Confucius. How then can you still explain love in those terms? I hereby record what they said and write this treatise on jen. (Chu Tzu wen-chi, or “Collection of Literary Works of Chu Hsi,” cttc, 67:20a-21b)

  Comment. This short treatise is both a criticism of certain theories and the incorporation of others into a harmonious whole. In addition, as Sun Ch’i-feng (1584-1675) has said, it expresses what the Ch’eng brothers had not expressed.28 As can readily be seen, the central point is the synthesis of substance and function. In a way Chang Heng-ch’ü had implied it,29 but the relationship between substance and function of jen was not clear until Chu.

  In ignoring the nature of jen and confining his teachings only to its practice, Confucius taught only the function of jen. In a sense Mencius was the first to stress both substance and function when he laid equal emphasis on jen and righteousness. In interpreting jen as love, Han Confucianists viewed it almost exclusively from the point of view of function. Early Neo-Confucianists, on the other hand, whether in their doctrines of jen as impartiality, as forming one body with Heaven and Earth, or as consciousness, viewed jen almost exclusively from the point of view of substance. Here Chu Hsi gives substance and function equal importance, as they are synthesized neatly in the saying that jen is “the character of the mind” and “the principle of love.”30 This has become a Neo-Confucian idiom. It means that, as substance, jen is the character of man’s mind, and, as function, it is the principle of love.

  Since jen is the character of the mind, it is the nature of every man, and as such, universal nature. Thus it includes wisdom, propriety, and righteousness. The reason for this is the generative character of jen, which he got from the Ch’eng brothers.31

  2. A Treatise on Ch’eng Ming-tao’s Discourse on the Nature

  [Master Ch’eng Hao also said,] “What is inborn is called nature. . . . They (nature and material force, ch’i) are both inborn.”32 [His meaning is this]: What is imparted by Heaven (Nature) to all things is called destiny (ming, mandate, fate). What is received by them from Heaven is called nature. But in the carrying out of the Mandate of Heaven, there must first be the interaction, mutual influence, consolidation, and integration of the two material forces (yin and yang) and the Five Agents (of Metal, Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth) before things can be produced. Man’s nature and destiny exist before physical form [and are without it], while material force exists after physical form [and is with it]. What exists before physical form is the one principle harmonious and undifferentiated, and is invariably good. What exists after physical form, however, is confused and mixed, and good and evil are thereby differentiated. Therefore when man and things are produced, they have in them this material force, with the endowment of which they are produced. But the nature endowed by Heaven is therein preserved. This is how Master Ch’eng elucidated the doctrine of Kao Tzu that what is inborn is called nature, and expressed his own thought by saying that “One’s nature is the same as material force and material force is the same as nature.”33

  [Master Ch’eng also said,] “[According to principle, there are both good and evil] in the material force with which man is endowed at birth. . . . [Nature is of course good], but it cannot be said that evil is not nature.”34 It is the principle of nature that the material force with which man is endowed necessarily has the difference of good and evil. For in the operation of material force, nature is the controlling factor. In accordance with its purity or impurity, material force is differentiated into good and evil. Therefore there are not two distinct things in nature opposing each other. Even the nature of evil material force is good, and therefore evil may not be said to be not a part of nature. The Master further said, “Good and evil in the world are both the Principle of Nature. What is called evil is not original evil. It becomes evil only because of deviation from the mean.”35 For there is nothing in the world which is outside of one’s nature. All things are originally good but degenerated into evil, that is all.

  [The Master further said,] “For what is inborn is called one’s nature. . . . [The fact that whatever issues from the Way is good may be compared to] water always flowing downward.”36 Nature is simply nature. How can it be described in words? Therefore those who excel in talking about nature only do so in terms of the beginning of its emanation and manifestation, and what is involved in the concept of nature may then be understood in silence, as when Mencius spoke of the Four Beginnings (of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom).37 By observing the fact that water necessarily flows downward, we know the nature of water is to go downward. Similarly, by observing the fact that the emanation of nature is always good, we know that nature involves goodness.

  [The Master further said,] “Water as such is the same in all cases. . . . [Although they differ in being turbid or clear, we cannot say that the turbid water ceases to be water. . . . The original goodness of human nature is like the original clearness of water. Therefore it is not true that two distinct and opposing elements of good and evil exist in human nature and that] each issues from it.” This is again using the clearness and turbidity of water as an analogy. The clearness of water is comparable to the goodness of nature. Water flowing to the sea without getting dirty is similar to one whose material force with which he is endowed is pure and clear and who is good from childhood. In the case of a sage it is his nature to be so and he preserves hi
s Heavenly endowment complete. Water that flows only a short distance and is already turbid is like one whose material endowment is extremely unbalanced and impure and is evil from childhood. Water that flows a long distance before becoming turbid is like one who, as he grows up, changes his character as he sees something novel and attractive to him, and loses his child’s heart. That water may be turbid to a greater or smaller extent is similar to the fact that one’s material force may be dark or clear and pure or impure in varying degrees. “We cannot say that the turbid water ceases to be water” means that it cannot be said that evil is not nature. Thus although man is darkened by material force and degenerates into evil, nature does not cease to be inherent in him. Only, if you call it nature, it is not the original nature, and if you say it is not nature, yet from the beginning it has never departed from it. Because of this, man must increase his effort at purification. If one can overcome material force through learning, he will know that this nature is harmonious and unified and from the beginning has never been destroyed. It is like the original water. Although the water is turbid, the clear water is nevertheless there, and therefore it is not that clear water has been substituted by turbid water. When it is clear, it is originally not turbid, and therefore it is not that turbid water has been taken out and laid in a corner. This being the case, the nature is originally good. How can there be two distinct, opposing, and parallel things existing in nature?

  [Master Ch’eng finally said,] “This principle is the Mandate of Heaven. [To obey and follow it is the Way. . . . One can neither augment nor diminish this function which corresponds to the Way.] Such is the case of Shun38 who, [obeying and following the Way], possessed the empire as if it were nothing to him.39 The sentence “This principle is the Mandate of Heaven” includes the beginning and ending, and the fundament and the secondary. Although the cultivation of the Way is spoken of with reference to human affairs, what is cultivated is after all nothing but the Mandate of Heaven as it originally is and is nothing man’s selfishness or cunning can do about it. However, only the sage can completely fulfill it. Therefore the example of Shun is used to make the meaning clear. (Chu Tzu wen-chi, 67:16b-18a)

  Comment. In this essay, Chu Hsi not only removes the ambiguity in Ch’eng Hao’s original treatise, which uses the same term, “nature,” for basic nature—which is perfectly good—in the first part, and for physical nature—which involves both good and evil—in the second part. He also harmonizes all theories of human nature before him, whether Mencius’ theory of original goodness, Hsün Tzu’s (fl. 298–238 b.c.) theory of original evil, or Chang Tsai’s theory of physical nature.40 Evil can now be explained, while the key Confucian teaching that evil can be overcome is reaffirmed. In addition, the ambiguity in Ch’eng Hao’s statement that there are both good and evil in man’s nature, which led to severe criticism of him, is now removed.41

  3. First Letter to the Gentlemen of Hunan42 on Equilibrium and Harmony

  Concerning the meaning in the Doctrine of the Mean that equilibrium (chung, centrality, the Mean) is the state before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused and that harmony is that state after they are aroused,43 because formerly I realized the substance of the operation of the mind, and, furthermore, because Master Ch’eng I had said that “whenever we talk about the mind, we refer to the state after the feelings are aroused,”44 I looked upon the mind as the state after the feelings are aroused and upon nature as the state before the feelings are aroused. However, I have observed that there are many incorrect points in Master Ch’eng’s works. I have therefore thought the matter over, and consequently realized that in my previous theory not only are the [contrasting] terms “mind” and “nature” improper but the efforts in my daily task also completely lack a great foundation. Therefore the loss has not been confined to the meanings of words.

  The various theories in Master Ch’eng’s Wen-chi (Collection of Literary Works) and I-shu (Surviving Works) seem to hold that before there is any sign of thought or deliberation and prior to the arrival of [stimulus] of external things, there is the state before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused. At this time, the state is identical with the substance of the mind, which is absolutely quiet and inactive, and the nature endowed by Heaven should be completely embodied in it. Because it is neither excessive nor insufficient, and is neither unbalanced nor one-sided, it is called equilibrium. When it is acted upon and immediately penetrates all things, the feelings are then aroused.45 In this state the functioning of the mind can be seen. Because it never fails to attain the proper measure and degree and has nowhere deviated from the right, it is called harmony. This is true because of the correctness of the human mind and the moral character of the feelings and nature.

  However, the state before the feelings are aroused cannot be sought and the state after they are aroused permits no manipulation. So long as in one’s daily life the effort at seriousness and cultivation is fully extended and there are no selfish human desires to disturb it, then before the feelings are aroused it will be as clear as a mirror and as calm as still water, and after the feelings are aroused it will attain due measure and degree without exception. This is the essential task in everyday life. As to self-examination when things occur and seeking understanding through inference when we come into contact with things, this must also serve as the foundation. If we observe the state after the feelings are aroused, what is contained in the state before the feelings are aroused can surely be understood in silence. This is why in his answers to Su Chi-ming, Master Ch’eng discussed and argued back and forth in the greatest detail and with extreme care, but in the final analysis what he said was no more than the word “seriousness” (ching).46 This is the reason why he said, “Seriousness without fail is the way to attain equilibrium,”47 and “For entering the Way there is nothing better than seriousness. No one can48 ever extend knowledge to the utmost without depending on seriousness,”49 and again, “Self-cultivation requires seriousness; the pursuit of learning depends on the extension of knowledge.”50

  Right along, in my discussions and thinking, I have simply considered the mind to be the state after the feelings are aroused, and in my daily efforts I have also merely considered examining and recognizing the clues [of activities of feelings] as the starting points. Consequently I have neglected the effort of daily self-cultivation, so that the mind is disturbed in many ways and lacks the quality of depth or purity. Also, when it is expressed in speech or action, it is always characterized by a sense of urgency and an absence of reserve, and there is no longer any disposition of ease or profoundness. For a single mistake in one’s viewpoint can lead to as much harm as this. This is something we must not overlook.

  When Master Ch’eng said that “whenever we talk about the mind, we refer to the state after the feelings are aroused,” he referred [only] to the mind of an infant [whose feelings have already been aroused]. When he said “whenever we talk about the mind,” he was mistaken in the way he expressed it and therefore admitted the incorrectness and corrected himself [by saying, “This is of course incorrect, for the mind is one. Sometimes we refer to its substance (namely, the state of absolute quietness and inactivity) and sometimes we refer to its function (namely, its being acted on and immediately penetrating all things). It depends on one’s point of view”].51 We should not hold on to his saying which he had already corrected and on that basis doubt the correctness of his various theories, or simply dismiss it as incorrect without examining the fact that he was referring to something else. What do you gentlemen think about this? (Chu Tzu wen-chi, 64:28b-29b)

  Comment. As Liu Tsung-chou (Liu Ch’i-shan, 1578-1645) has pointed out, this letter represents Chu Hsi’s final doctrine on moral efforts.52 Chou Lien-hsi had taught tranquillity. Chu Hsi’s own teacher, Li T’ung (Li yen-p’ing, 1088-1163) had taught sitting in meditation. Chu Hsi was at first much convinced. But after he learned the doctrine of seriousness from the Ch’eng brothers, he felt, as the Ch�
�engs did, that tranquillity was an extreme, and in seriousness one maintains the balance of internal and external life. In this letter, Chu Hsi emphasizes the point that the key to moral cultivation is to have a great foundation. Once the foundation is firm, tranquillity, sitting in meditation, and seriousness are all helpful. This is not only a synthesis of the teachings of his predecessors but a new approach.

  4. A Treatise on the Examination of the Mind

  Someone asked whether it is true that the Buddhists have a doctrine of the examination of the mind.

  Answer: The mind is that with which man rules his body. It is one and not a duality, is subject and not object, and controls the external world instead of being controlled by it. Therefore, if we examine external objects with the mind, their principles will be apprehended. Now (in the Buddhist view), there is another thing to examine the mind. If this is true, then outside this mind there is another one which is capable of controlling it. But is what we call the mind a unity or a duality? Is it subject or object? Does it control the external world or is it controlled by the external world? We do not need to be taught to see the fallacy of the Buddhist doctrine.

  Someone may say: In the light of what you have said, how are we to understand such expressions by sages and worthies as “absolute refinement and singleness (of mind),”53 “Hold it fast and you preserve it. Let it go and you lose it,”54 “Exert the mind to the utmost and know one’s nature. . . . Preserve one’s mind and nourish one’s nature,”55 and “(Standing) let a man see (truthful words and serious action) in front of him, and (riding in a carriage), let him see them attached to the yoke.”56