A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  6. Destiny

  71. Question: You, sir, say that there are two kinds of destiny, one determining wealth and poverty, honor or humble station, life or death, and longevity or brevity of life, the other determining clearness or turbidity, partiality or balance, the wise or the stupid, and the worthy or the unworthy. The former pertains to material force, while the latter pertains to principle. As I (Hsien)130 see it, both seem to pertain to material force, for the wise or the stupid, the worthy or the unworthy, clearness or turbidity, or partiality or balance are all caused by material force.

  Answer: That is of course true. However, nature consists of the principles of destiny (principles underlying wisdom, stupidity and so forth). (43:27a)

  72. Question: (The Confucian pupil) Yen Yüan [because of fate] unfortunately lived a short life.131 When (another pupil) Po Niu died, Confucius said, “Alas! It is fate (ming, also meaning destiny, mandate).132 And in regard to his obtaining office or not, he said, “That depends on fate.”133 Is there no difference between fate (destiny) in these cases and the fate (decree) in the sentence “What Heaven imparts (decrees) to man is called human nature”?134

  Answer: Correct destiny proceeds from principle, whereas modified destiny proceeds from physical nature. Essentially in both cases it is imparted by Heaven. Mencius said, “That which happens without man’s causing it to happen is the Mandate of Heaven.”135 However, man ought to fulfill his duty, and then whatever mandate he meets with is correct mandate.

  Thereupon the question: At present the school of occultism (divination and the use of numbers), such as that of Shao Yung, asserts that all is predetermined and cannot be changed. What do you say?

  Answer: They can only show the general course in which the principle of the prosperity and decline and the augmentation and diminution of yin and yang is revealed. Such theories were not held by sages or worthies. At present people expounding Shao Yung’s [system based on] number assert that he said that everything and every event succeeds or fails at a predetermined point of time. Such exposition is superficial. (43:28b-29a)

  73. Question: Yin and yang should be equal and therefore the number of worthy and unworthy people should be equal. Why is it that there are always fewer superior men and more inferior men?

  Answer: Naturally things and events are confused and mixed. How can they be equal?. . .

  Further question: Although things and events are confused and mixed, nevertheless they are nothing but the successive movement of the material forces of yin and yang. How is it that they are not equal?

  Answer: It is not as you say. If there were only a single yin and a single yang, everything would be equal. But because of the great complexity and infinite transformation of things, it is impossible to have everything just right.

  Further question: If so, then Heaven produces sages and worthies only accidentally and not with any intention.

  Answer: When does Heaven say that it purposely wanted to produce a sage or a worthy? The mere fact is that whenever the courses of material force reach certain point and meet, a sage or a worthy is born. After he is born, it does seem that Heaven had such an intention. (43:30a-b)

  74. In the I-shu (Surviving Works) where destiny is discussed (by Ch’eng I), [his own] note says that “It is not that the sage does not know destiny, but he must do his very best.”136 What do you say of this?

  Answer: It is true that each man has his destiny, but he should not fail to obey the correct destiny. For example, the man who understands destiny will not stand beneath the precipitous wall.137 If he should say that everything depends on the Mandate of Heaven and goes to stand under a precipitous wall, and if by any chance the wall should crumble and crush him, he cannot blame it on destiny. Whenever a man has done his very best, there he has his destiny alone. (43:33a-b)

  7. The Mind

  75. The principle of the mind is the Great Ultimate. The activity and tranquillity of the mind are the yin and yang. (44:1b)

  76. Mind alone has no opposite. (44:1b)

  77. Question: Is consciousness what it is because of the intelligence of the mind or is it because of the activity of material force?

  Answer: Not material force alone. [Before material force existed], there was already the principle of consciousness. But principle at this stage does not give rise to consciousness. Only when it comes into union with material force is consciousness possible. Take, for example, the flame of this candle. It is because it has received this rich fat that there is so much light.

  Question: Is that which emanates from the mind material force?

  Answer: No, that is simply consciousness. (44:2a)

  78. Question: Mind is consciousness and the nature is principle. How do the mind and principle pervade each other and become one?

  Answer: They need not move to pervade each other. From the very start they pervade each other.

  Question: How do they pervade each other from the very start?

  Answer: Without the mind, principle would have nothing in which to inhere. (44:2a)

  79. Question: Mind as an entity embraces all principles. The good that emanates of course proceeds from the mind. But the evil that emanates is all due to selfish material desires endowed by material force. Does it also proceed from the mind?

  Answer: It is certainly not the original substance of the mind, but it also emanates from the mind.

  Further question: Is this what is called the human mind?138

  Answer: Yes.

  Thereupon Ch’ien Tzu-sheng139 asked: Does the human mind include both good and evil?

  Answer: Both are included. (44:2b-3a)

  80. Master Chang Tsai said that “in the unity of the nature and consciousness, there is the mind.”140 I am afraid this idea is not free from error, as though there was a consciousness outside our nature. (44:5a)

  81. Question: The mind is essentially an active thing. It is not clear to me whether before (feelings) are aroused the mind is completely quiet and tranquil or whether its tranquillity contains within it a tendency toward activity.

  Answer: It is not that tranquillity contains within it a tendency toward activity. Master Chou Tun-i said that “when tranquil, it is in the state of non-being. When active, it is in the state of being.”141 Tranquillity is not non-being as such. Because it has not assumed physical form, we call it non-being. It is not because of activity that there is being. Because (activity makes) it visible, we call it being. Heng-ch’ü’s (Chang Tsai’s) theory that “the mind commands man’s nature and feelings”142 is excellent. The nature is tranquil while feelings are active, and the mind involves both tranquillity and activity. Whether these refer to its substance or its function depends on one’s point of view. While it is in the state of tranquillity, the principle of activity is already present. Ch’eng I said that in the state of equilibrium (before the feelings are aroused), “Although the ear hears nothing and the eye sees nothing, nevertheless the principles of hearing and seeing must be already there before hearing and seeing are possible.”143 When activity takes place, it is the same tranquillity that becomes active. (44:6b-7a)

  82. In the passage, “By enlarging one’s mind, one can enter into all things in the world,”144 the expression “enter into” is like saying that humanity enters into all events and is all-pervasive. It means that the operation of the principle of the mind penetrates all as blood circulates and reaches the entire body. If there is a single thing not yet entered, the reaching is not yet complete and there are still things not yet embraced. This shows that the mind still excludes something. For selfishness separates and obstructs, and consequently one and others stand in opposition. This being the case, even those dearest to us may be excluded. “Therefore the mind that leaves something outside is not capable of uniting itself with the mind of Heaven.”145 (44:12b)

  83. Question: How can the mind by means of moral principles (Tao) penetrate all things without any limit?

  Answer: The mind is not like a side door which can be enlarged by forc
e. We must eliminate the obstructions of selfish desires, and then it will be pure and clear and able to know all. When the principles of things and events are investigated to the utmost, penetration will come as a sudden release. Heng-ch’ü (Chang Tsai) said, “Do not allow what is seen or heard to fetter the mind.” “By enlarging one’s mind one can enter into all things in the world.” This means that if penetration is achieved through moral principles, there will be penetration like a sudden release. If we confine (the mind) to what is heard and what is seen, naturally our understanding will be narrow. (44:13a-b)

  84. “The mind is the principle of production. . . . The feeling of commiseration is the principle of production in man.”146 This is because man is born with the mind of Heaven. The mind of Heaven is to produce things. (44:14a)

  Comment. The Ch’eng brothers’ doctrine that the character of Heaven and Earth is to produce is here applied to the character of the mind. This concept underlies all Chu Hsi’s ideas about the mind. It is this creative force of the mind that makes it the master of the universe, unites principle and material force, and enables consciousness to function without end in its activity and tranquillity.

  8. The Mind, the Nature, and the Feelings

  85. The nature is comparable to the Great Ultimate, and the mind to yin and yang. The Great Ultimate exists only in the yin and yang, and cannot be separated from them. In the final analysis, however, the Great Ultimate is the Great Ultimate and yin and yang are yin and yang. So it is with nature and mind. They are one and yet two, two and yet one, so to speak. Philosopher Han Yü (768-824) described nature as humanity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness and the feelings as pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy.147 This is an advance over other philosophers on the problem of human nature. As to his division of human nature into three grades (superior, medium, and inferior),148 he has only explained material force but not nature. (45:1a)

  86. Although nature is a vacuity, it consists of concrete principles. Although the mind is a distinct entity, it is vacuous, and therefore embraces all principles. This truth will be apprehended only when people examine it for themselves. (45:2a)

  87. Nature consists of principles embraced in the mind, and the mind is where these principles are united. (45:2a)

  88. Nature is principle. The mind is its embracement and reservoir, and issues it forth into operation. (45:2a)

  89. Some time ago I read statements by Wu-feng (Hu Hung, 1100-1155) in which he spoke of the mind only in contrast to nature, leaving the feelings unaccounted for.149 Later when I read Heng-ch’ü’s (Chang-tsai’s) doctrine that “the mind commands man’s nature and feelings,”150 I realized that it was a great contribution. Only then did I find a satisfactory account of the feelings. His doctrine agrees with that of Mencius. In the words of Mencius, “the feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity.”151 Now humanity is nature, and commiseration is feeling. In this, the mind can be seen through the feelings. He further said, “Humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are rooted in the mind.”152 In this, the mind is seen through nature. For the mind embraces both nature and the feelings. Nature is substance and feelings are function. (45:3a-b)

  90. Nature is the state before activity begins, the feelings are the state when activity has started, and the mind includes both of these states. For nature is the mind before it is aroused, while feelings are the mind after it is aroused, as is expressed in [Chang Tsai’s] saying, “The mind commands man’s nature and feelings.” Desire emanates from feelings. The mind is comparable to water, nature is comparable to the tranquillity of still water, feeling is comparable to the flow of water, and desire is comparable to its waves. Just as there are good and bad waves, so there are good desires, such as when “I want humanity,”153 and bad desires which rush out like wild and violent waves. When bad desires are substantial, they will destroy the Principle of Heaven, as water bursts a dam and damages everything. When Mencius said that “feelings enable people to do good,”154 he meant that the correct feelings flowing from our nature are originally all good. (45:4a)

  91. The mind means master. It is master whether in the state of activity or in the state of tranquillity. It is not true that in the state of tranquillity there is no need of a master and there is a master only when the state becomes one of activity. By master is meant an all-pervading control and command existing in the mind by itself. The mind unites and apprehends nature and the feelings, but it is not united with them as a vague entity without any distinction. (45:4a-b)

  92. In his reply to Heng-ch’üs dictum that “nature in the state of calmness cannot be without activity,” Ming-tao’s (Ch’eng Hao’s) idea is that we should not hate things and events nor chase after them. Nowadays people who hate things avoid them completely, and who chase after them are continuously lured away by them. The best thing is neither to shun away from things nor to drift with them, but to face and respond to them in various ways. For Heng-ch’ü’s idea was to cut ourselves from the external world and achieve calmness internally, whereas Ming-tao’s idea was that the internal and the external must be harmonized and unified. If (as Ming-tao said) that nature is calm “whether it is in a state of activity or in a state of tranquillity,”155 then in our response to things we will naturally not be bound by them. If nature can be calmed only in a state of tranquillity, I am afraid that in time of activity it will be tempted and carried away by external things. (45:11b-12a)

  93. Question: Is it correct to suppose that sages never show any anger?

  Answer: How can they never show anger? When they ought to be angry, they will show it in their countenances. But if one has to punish someone for his crime and purposely smiles, that would be wrong.

  Question: In that case, does it not show some feeling of wrath?

  Answer: When Heaven is angry, thunder is also aroused. When sage-emperor Shun executed the four cruel criminals,156 he must have been angry at that time. When one becomes angry at the right time, he will be acting in the proper degree. When the matter is over, anger disappears, and none of it will be retained. (45:14b-15a)

  94. Question: “How can desires be checked? Simply by thought. In learning there is nothing more important than thought. Only thought can check desires.”157 Someone said that if thought is not correct, it will not be adequate to check desires. Instead, it will create trouble. How about “having no depraved thoughts”?158

  Answer: Thoughts that are not correct are merely desires. If we think through the right and wrong, and the ought and ought-not of a thing, in accordance with its principle, then our thought will surely be correct. (45:19b)

  9. Jen

  95. Whenever and wherever humanity (jen) flows and operates, righteousness will fully be righteousness and propriety and wisdom will fully be propriety and wisdom. It is like the ten thousand things being stored and preserved. There is not a moment of cessation in such an operation for in all of these things there is the spirit of life. Take for example such things as seeds of grain or the peach and apricot kernels. When sown, they will grow. They are not dead things. For this reason they are called jen (the word jen meaning both kernel and humanity). This shows that jen implies the spirit of life. (47:3a)

  96. Jen is spontaneous, altruism (shu) is cultivated. Jen is natural, altruism is by effort. Jen is uncalculating and has nothing in view, altruism is calculating and has an object in view. (47:6a-b)

  97. Jen is the principle of love, and impartiality is the principle of jen. Therefore, if there is impartiality, there is jen, and if there is jen, there is love. (47:6b)

  98. Question: Master Ch’eng Hao said, “ ‘Seriousness is to straighten the internal life and righteousness is to square the external life.’ This means jen.”159 How can these be sufficient to be regarded as jen?

  Answer: These two are jen. Wherever selfish desires can be entirely eliminated and the Principle of Nature freely operates, there is jen. For example, if one can “study extensively,” be “steadfast in one’s purpose,” “inquire
earnestly,” and “reflect on things at hand (that is, what one can put into practice),” then “humanity (jen) consists in these.”160 “To master oneself and return to propriety”161 is also jen. “When you go abroad, behave to everyone as if you were receiving a great guest. Employ the people as if you were assisting at a great sacrifice”162—this is also jen. To “be respectful in private life, be serious in handling affairs, and be loyal in dealing with others”163—these are also jen. All these depend on what path you follow. Once you have entered that path, exert effort until the limit is reached—all this is jen. (47:14b)

  99. “When one makes impartiality the substance of his person, that is jen.”164 Jen is the principle originally inherent in man’s mind. With impartiality, there is jen. With partiality, there is no jen. But impartiality as such should not be equated with jen. It must be made man’s substance before it becomes jen. Impartiality, altruism, and love are all descriptions of jen. Impartiality is antecedent to jen; altruism and love are subsequent. This is so because impartiality makes jen possible, and jen makes love and altruism possible. (47:19b-20a)

  10. Principle (Li) and Material Force (Ch’i)

  100. In the universe there has never been any material force without principle or principle without material force. (49:1a)

  101. Question: Which exists first, principle or material force?

  Answer: Principle has never been separated from material force. However, principle “exists before physical form [and is therefore without it]” whereas material force “exists after physical form [and is therefore with it].”165 Hence when spoken of as being before or after physical form, is there not the difference of priority and posteriority? Principle has no physical form, but material force is coarse and contains impurities. (49: 1a-b)

  102. Fundamentally principle and material force cannot be spoken of as prior or posterior. But if we must trace their origin, we are obliged to say that principle is prior. However, principle is not a separate entity. It exists right in material force. Without material force, principle would have nothing to adhere to. As material force, there are the Agents (or Elements) of Metal, Wood, Water, and Fire. As principle, there are humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. (49:1b)