A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy
Page 83
135. Your letter says, “I have heard that you told students that following [Chu Hsi’s] theory of the investigation of the principles of all things that we come into contact with87 is to trifle with things and to lose one’s purpose, and that you have also selected Chu Hsi’s doctrines of rejecting the complex and preferring the simple,88 cultivating the fundamental,89 and so forth, to show students, labeling them as Chu Hsi’s final conclusions arrived at late in life.90 I am afraid this is also wrong.”
What Chu Hsi meant by the investigation of things is “to investigate the principle in things to the utmost as we come in contact with them.”91 To investigate the principles in things to the utmost as we come in contact with them means to look in each individual thing for its so-called definite principles. This means to apply one’s mind to each individual thing and look for the principle in it. This is to divide the mind and principle into two. To seek for the principle in each individual thing is like looking for the principle of filial piety in parents. If the principle of filial piety is to be sought in parents, then is it actually in my own mind or is it in the person of my parents? If it is actually in the person of my parents, is it true that as soon as the parents pass away the mind will lack the principle of filial piety? When I see a child fall into a well [and have a feeling of commiseration], there must be the principle of commiseration. Is this principle of commiseration actually in the person of the child or is it in the innate knowledge of my mind? Perhaps one cannot follow the child into the well to rescue it. Perhaps one can rescue it by seizing it with the hand. All this involves principle. Is it really in the person of the child or does it emanate from the innate knowledge of my mind? What is true here is true of all things and events. From this we know the mistake of dividing the mind and principle into two.
Such division is the doctrine of Kao Tzu who taught that righteousness is external to the mind, a fallacy which Mencius strongly attacked. You know the defects of devoting oneself to external things and neglecting the internal, and becoming broad but lacking essentials. Why are these defects? Is it not permissible to say that to investigate the principle of all things as we come into contact with them, as Chu Hsi has taught, is trifling with things and losing one’s purpose in life? What I mean by the investigation of things and the extension of knowledge is to extend the innate knowledge of my mind to each and every thing. The innate knowledge of my mind is the same as the Principle of Nature. When the Principle of Nature in the innate knowledge of my mind is extended to all things, all things will attain their principle. To extend the innate knowledge of my mind is the matter of the extension of knowledge, and for all things to attain their principle is the matter of the investigation of things. In these the mind and principle are combined into one. As the mind and principle are combined into one, then all my humble opinions which I have just expressed and my theory that Chu Hsi arrived at his final conclusions late in life can be understood without discussion. (2:-8b-10a)
155. Your92 letter says, “Innate knowledge is the original substance of the mind. It is what is called the goodness of human nature, the equilibrium before the feelings are aroused, the substance that is absolutely quiet and inactive, and the state of being broad and extremely impartial. When were ordinary people incapable of it and had to learn? Since equilibrium, absolute quiet, and impartiality are characteristics of the substance of the mind, then it must be innate knowledge. But as I examine the mind, I find that while knowledge is innate and good, it does not really have the characteristics of equilibrium, quiet, and impartiality. Can innate knowledge transcend substance and function?”
There is no human nature that is not good. Therefore there is no innate knowledge that is not good. Innate knowledge is the equilibrium before the feelings are aroused. It is the state of broadness and extreme impartiality. It is the original substance that is absolutely quiet and inactive. And it is possessed by all men. However, people cannot help being darkened and obscured by material desires. Hence they must study in order to get rid of the darkness and obscuration. But they cannot add or subtract even an iota from the original substance of innate knowledge. Innate knowledge is good. The reason why equilibrium, absolute quiet, broadness, and impartiality are not complete in it is that darkness and obscuration have not been entirely eliminated and its state of preservation is not yet complete. The substance and function [you refer to] are the substance and function of innate knowledge. How can it transcend them? (2:38a-39a)
228. I93 asked, “Sir, you once said that good and evil are one thing.94 But good and evil are opposed to each other like ice and burning coals. How can they be said to be only one?”
The Teacher said, “The highest good is the original substance of the mind. When one deviates a little from this original substance, there is evil. It is not that there is a good and there is also an evil to oppose it. Therefore good and evil are one thing.”
Having heard our Teacher’s explanation, I know that we can no longer doubt Master Ch’eng Hao’s sayings, “Man’s nature is of course good, but it cannot be said that evil is not our nature”95 and “Good and evil in the world are both the Principle of Nature. What is called evil is not originally evil. It becomes evil only because of deviation from the Mean.”96 (3:12b-13a)
262. A friend who was engaging in sitting in meditation attained some insight. He ran to make an inquiry of the Teacher. The Teacher said, “Formerly, when I stayed in Ch’u-chou,97 seeing that students were mostly occupied with intellectual explanations and debate on similarities and differences, which did them no good, I therefore taught them sitting in meditation. For a time they realized the situation a little bit (they saw the true Way) and achieved some immediate results. In time, however, they gradually developed the defect of fondness of tranquillity and disgust with activity and degenerated into lifelessness like dry wood. Others purposely advocated abstruse and subtle theories to startle people. For this reason I have recently expounded only the doctrine of the extension of innate knowledge. If one’s innate knowledge is clear, it will be all right either to try to obtain truth through personal realization in a quiet place or to discover it through training and polishing in the actual affairs of life. The original substance of innate knowledge is neither tranquil nor active. Recognition of this fact is the basis of learning. From the time of Ch’u-chou until now, I have tested what I said several times. The point is that the phrase ‘the extension of innate knowledge’ is free from any defect. Only a physician who has broken his own arm can understand the causes of human disease.”98 (3:25a-b)
Comment. Under the influence of Zen Buddhism, most Neo-Confucianists taught sitting in meditation. Wang was no exception. In fact, in the first phase of his teaching, he emphasized it. However, it was soon replaced by an active approach, notably “polishing and training in actual affairs.” This doctrine has exerted great influence on both China and Japan.
274. Chu Pen-ssu99 asked, “Man has innate knowledge because he possesses pure intelligence. Have such things as plants and trees, tiles and stones innate knowledge also?
The Teacher said, “The innate knowledge of man is the same as that of plants and trees, tiles and stones. Without the innate knowledge inherent in man, there cannot be plants and trees, tiles and stones. This is not true of them only. Even Heaven and Earth cannot exist without the innate knowledge that is inherent in man. For at bottom Heaven, Earth, the myriad things, and man form one body. The point at which this unity manifests in its most refined and excellent form is the clear intelligence of the human mind. Wind, rain, dew, thunder, sun and moon, stars, animals and plants, mountains and rivers, earth and stones are essentially of one body with man. It is for this reason that such things as the grains and animals can nourish man and that such things as medicine and minerals can heal diseases. Since they share the same material force, they enter into one another.” (3:29b-30a)
275. The Teacher was roaming in Nan-chen.100 A friend pointed to flowering trees on a cliff and said, “[You say] there is nothing un
der heaven external to the mind.101 These flowering trees on the high mountain blossom and drop their blossoms of themselves. What have they to do with my mind?”
The Teacher said, “Before you look at these flowers, they and your mind are in the state of silent vacancy. As you come to look at them, their colors at once show up clearly. From this you can know that these flowers are not external to your mind.” (3:30a)
277. The Teacher said, “The eye has no substance of its own. Its substance consists of the colors of all things. The ear has no substance of its own. Its substance consists of the sounds of all things. The nose has no substance of its own. Its substance consists of the smells of all things. The mouth has no substance of its own. Its substance consists of the tastes of all things. The mind has no substance of its own. Its substance consists of the right or wrong of the influences and responses of Heaven, Earth, and all things.” (3:31a)
308. I102 asked, “In the discussion on the nature of man and things, the ancients agreed in certain respects but differed in others. Which is the final and accepted conclusion?”
The Teacher said, “One’s nature has no definite form. The discussion of nature also has no definite form. Some discussed it from the point of view of its original substance, some from the point of view of its emanation and functioning, some from the point of view of its source, and some from the point of view of the defects that may develop in the course of its operation. Collectively, they all talked about this one nature, but their depth of understanding it varied, that is all. If one held rigidly to one aspect as they did it would be a mistake. In its original substance, nature is in fact neither good nor evil. In its function it can indeed be made to be good or evil, and in its defects it is indeed definitely good or evil. It may be compared to the eyes. There are eyes when one is joyous and there are eyes when one is angry. When one looks straight ahead, the eyes see openly. When one looks stealthily, the eyes peep. Collectively speaking, they are all eyes. If one sees a person with angry eyes and forthwith declares that he has no joyous eyes, or if one sees a person with peeping eyes and forthwith declares that he has no openly seeing eyes, one is holding onto a fixed viewpoint and from this we know that one is making a mistake. When Mencius talked about nature, he discussed it directly from the point of view of its source and said only that generally speaking [nature is originally good]. Hsün Tzu’s (fl. 298–238 b.c.) doctrine that nature is originally evil103 was arrived at from the point of view of its defects and we should not say that he was entirely wrong, only that he did not understand the matter perfectly. As to ordinary people, they have lost the original substance of the mind.” (3:42a-43a)
315. In the ninth month of the sixth year of Chia-ching (1527), our Teacher had been called from retirement and appointed to subdue once more the rebellion in Ssu-en and T’ien-chou104 [when the earlier expedition under another official had failed]. As he was about to start, Ju-chung (Wang Chi)105 and I (Ch’ien Te-hung) discussed learning. He repeated the words of the Teacher’s instructions as follows:
In the original substance of the mind there is no distinction between good and evil.
When the will becomes active, however, such distinction exists.
The faculty of innate knowledge is to know good and evil.
The investigation of things is to do good and remove evil.
I106 asked, “What do you think this means?”
Ju-chung said, “This is perhaps not the final conclusion. If we say that in the original substance of the mind there is no distinction between good and evil, then there must be no such distinction in the will, in knowledge, and in things. If we say that there is a distinction between good and evil in the will, then in the final analysis there must also be such a distinction in the substance of the mind.”
I said, “The substance of the mind is the nature endowed in us by Heaven, and is originally neither good nor evil. But because we have a mind dominated by habits, we see in our thoughts a distinction between good and evil. The work of the investigation of things, the extension of knowledge, the sincerity of the will, the rectification of the mind, and the cultivation of the personal life is aimed precisely at recovering that original nature and substance. If there were no good or evil to start with, what would be the necessity of such effort?”
That evening we sat down beside the Teacher at the T’ien-ch’üan Bridge. Each stated his view and asked to be corrected. The Teacher said, “I am going to leave now. I wanted to have you come and talk this matter through. You two gentlemen complement each other very well, and should not hold on to one side. Here I deal with two types of people. The man of sharp intelligence apprehends straight from the source. The original substance of the human mind is in fact crystal-clear without any impediment and is the equilibrium before the feelings are aroused. The man of sharp intelligence has accomplished his task as soon as he has apprehended the original substance, penetrating the self, other people, and things internal and things external all at the same time. On the other hand, there are inevitably those whose minds are dominated by habits so that the original substance of the mind is obstructed. I therefore teach them definitely and sincerely to do good and remove evil in their will and thoughts. When they become expert at the task and the impurities of the mind are completely eliminated, the original substance of the mind will become wholly clear. Ju-Chung’s view is the one I use in dealing with the man of sharp intelligence. Te-hung’s view is for the second type. If you two gentlemen use your views interchangeably, you will be able to lead all people—of the highest, average, and lowest intelligence—to the truth. If each of you holds on to one side, right here you will err in handling properly the different type of man and each in his own way will fail to understand fully the substance of the Way.”
After a while he said again, “From now on whenever you discuss learning with friends be sure not to lose sight of my basic purpose.
In the original substance of the mind there is no distinction of good and evil.
When the will becomes active, however, such distinction exists.
The faculty of innate knowledge is to know good and evil.
The investigation of things is to do good and to remove evil.
Just keep to these words of mine and instruct people according to their types, and there will not be any defect. This is indeed a task that penetrates both the higher and the lower levels. It is not easy to find people of sharp intelligence in the world. Even Yen Hui (Confucius’ most virtuous pupil) and Ming-tao (Ch’eng Hao) dared not assume that they could fully realize the original substance of the mind as soon as they apprehended the task. How can we lightly expect this from people? People’s minds are dominated by habits. If we do not teach them concretely and sincerely to devote themselves to the task of doing good and removing evil right in their innate knowledge rather than merely imagining an original substance in a vacuum, all that they do will not be genuine and they will do no more than cultivate a mind of vacuity and quietness [like that of the Buddhists and Taoists]. This defect is not a small matter and must be exposed as early as possible.” On that day both Ju-chung and I attained some enlightenment. (3:45b-47b)
Comment. This conversation concerning the famous “doctrine in four axioms” raises a fundamental issue and led to a bitter controversy both inside and outside the Wang Yang-ming School. The issue is whether the mind in its original substance transcends good and evil, as the Buddhists would say, or is fundamentally good, as the Confucianists insist.
In his teachings Wang Chi interpreted the four axioms to mean the absence of distinction between good and evil and that sagehood comes through a direct intuition of reality in its totality. Ch’ien Te-hung, on the other hand, interpreted them to mean that the distinction exists and that sagehood comes only through moral efforts to do good and overcome evil. Actually Wang Yang-ming taught both, as the conversation clearly shows. It is only because they represented two sharply divergent tendencies within the Wang Yang-ming School, one emphasizing intuitive awakenin
g and the other emphasizing moral endeavor, that they have given the doctrine a one-sided interpretation. Of the two, Ch’ien comes closer to the teacher, for the teacher definitely stated that the original nature of the mind is characterized by the highest good.107 To him the mind is a unity and absolutely good and not divided between good and evil. Moral good and evil come in when our will becomes active, that is, when we begin to make a choice. Even accepting the one-sided views of the two pupils, there should have been no quarrel, for Ch’ien’s understanding is on the moral plane whereas Wang’s is on the religious plane, and the teacher’s doctrine covers both.