A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  1. The World and Principle

  What makes a thing square is the square. As explained before, the square can be real but not actual. If in fact there are no actual square things, the square is then not actual. But if in fact there are actual square things, they must have four corners. An actual square thing necessarily follows that which makes a square square; it cannot avoid this. From this we know that the square is real. Since the square is real but not actual, it belongs to the realm of pure reality. . . .

  When we say “There is a square,” we are making a formal affirmation about reality. The statement “There is a square” does not imply an actual square thing. Much less does it imply a particular actual square thing. Therefore the statement does not affirm anything about actuality, but merely makes a formal affirmation about reality. From the point of view of our acquisition of knowledge, we must in our experience see an actual square thing before we can say that there is a square. But since we have said that there is square, we see that even if in fact there is no actual square thing, we still can say there is a square, (pp. 27-28)

  Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. A square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be. The Book of Odes says, “Heaven produces the teeming multitude. As there are things, there are their specific principles.”26 This was often quoted by the Neo-Confucianists of the Sung period. Ch’eng I-ch’uan said, “As there are things, there must be their specific principles. One thing necessarily has one principle.”27 The principle of a class of things is the same as the specific principle of that class of things. We often say, “This square thing is more square or less square than the other square thing.” In saying so we are following this standard. Without this standard no criticism is possible. Those who do not accept the existence of principle have overlooked this point, (p. 53)

  Sung Neo-Confucianists also have the theory that the “principle is one but its manifestations are many,” which Chu Hsi also held. But when he talked about principle being one and its manifestations being many, the principle he talked about is already different from the principle when he discussed it [as such]. In commenting on the Western Inscription by Chang Heng-ch’ü (Chang Tsai, 1020-1077), Chu Hsi said, “. . . .There is nothing in the entire realm of creatures that does not regard Heaven as the father and Earth as the mother. This means that the principle is one. . . . Each regards his parents as his own parents and his son as his own son. This being the case, how can principle not be manifested as many?. . .”28 The principle referred to here concerns the realm of that which exists after physical form and is with it (hsing-erh-hsia). It makes an affirmation about actuality. According to this theory, among individual, actual things there are certain internal relations. But this is a question about actuality. To say that there must be relations [among them] is to make an affirmation about actuality.

  In our system we can still say that “the principle is one but its manifestations are many.” But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class. From the point of view of specific classes within a general class, all specific classes belong to the general class but at the same time possess that which makes them specific classes. The relation among the specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many. . . .

  This is our theory that the principle is one but its manifestations are many. This theory is presented in its logical aspect. It only makes an affirmation about reality. It does not imply that there are internal relations among actual things, and therefore does not make any affirmation about actuality, (pp. 60-62)

  Comment. The doctrine of principle being one and its manifestations being many is in Neo-Confucianism precisely taught to harmonize the abstract universal and the concrete particular.29 Instead, Fung applies the doctrine only to the realm of reality, thus leaving multiplicity in the realm of actuality still to be accounted for.

  2. Principle and Material Force

  There are two aspects in every actually existing thing, namely, its “what” and that on which it depends for its existence or to become actually what it is. For example, every round thing has two aspects. One is that “it is round.” The other is that on which it depends for existence, that is, to become actually round. This “what” is the thing’s essential element in the class to which it belongs and the thing’s nature. The reason that it exists is the foundation of the thing’s existence. Its “what” depends on the principle it follows. That on which it depends for existence is the material which actualizes the principle. . . .

  Material is either relative or absolute. Relative material has the two aspects just described. Absolute material, on the other hand, has only one of these aspects, namely, that it can be material simple and pure. Take a building, for example. . . . Bricks and tiles are material for the building, but they are relative and not absolute material. Earth is material for bricks and tiles, but it is still relative and not absolute material, for it still possesses the two aspects described above. . . .

  When the nature of the building is removed, it will cease to be a building but only bricks and tiles. When the nature of bricks and tiles is removed, they will cease to be bricks and tiles but only earth. The nature of earth can also be removed, ad infinitum. At the end there is the absolute material. This material is called matter in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. . . . Matter itself has no nature. Because it has no nature whatsoever, it is indescribable, inexplicable in speech, and unrealizable in thought. . . .

  We call this material ch’i (material force). . . . In our system material force is entirely a logical concept. It is neither a principle nor an actual thing. An actual thing is that which is produced by what we call material force in accordance with principle. Those who hold the theory of principle and material force should talk about material force in this way. But in the history of Chinese philosophy, those who held the theory of principle and material force in the past never had such a clear view of material force. In Chang Tsai’s philosophy, material force is entirely a scientific concept. If there is the material force which he talked about, it is a kind of an actual thing.30 This point will be taken up in detail later. Even what Ch’eng I and Chu Hsi called material force does not seem to be a completely logical concept. For instance, they often described material force as clear or turbid.31 The way we look at the matter, the material force that can be described as clear or turbid is no longer material force [as such] but material force in accordance with the principle of clearness or turbidity. When they talked about material force as clear or turbid, they did not make clear whether they were talking about material force itself or about material force achieving the principle of clearness or turbidity, (pp. 64-68)

  Comment. Only Buddhists characterize the absolute as indescribable or unthinkable. Fung definitely equates material force with the Taoist and Neo-Taoist “unnamable” or non-being.32

  We shall first discuss [Chu Hsi’s statement], “There has never been any material force without principle.”33 This can very easily be proved. When we said that [what Ch’eng I called]34 the material force of the
true source has no nature whatsoever, we spoke entirely from the point of view of logic. From the point of view of fact, however, material force has at least the nature of existence. If not, it fundamentally does not exist. If material force does not exist, then there will not be any actual thing at all. If material force has the nature of existence, it means that it follows the principle of existence. Since it at least has to follow the principle of existence, therefore “There has never been any material force without principle.”

  (Chu Hsi also said), “There has never been any principle without material force.”35 This saying cannot be interpreted to mean that all principles are with material force, for if so, it would mean that all principles are actually exemplified and that there would be no principle which is only real but not actual. This statement merely says, “There must be some principles with material force,” or “There has never been the time when all principles are without material force.” This has been proved above, for at least the principle of existence is always followed by material force, (p. 75)

  3. Tao, Substance and Function, and Universal Operation

  What we call the material force of the true source is the Ultimate of Non-being, and the totality of all principles is the Great Ultimate. The process from the Ultimate of Non-being to the Great Ultimate is our world of actuality. We call this process “The Ultimate of Non-being and also the Great Ultimate.” The Ultimate of Non-being, the Great Ultimate, and the Ultimate of Non-being-and-also-the-Great-Ultimate are, in other words, the material force of the true source, the totality of principle, and the entire process from material force to principle, respectively. Collectively speaking, they are called Tao (the Way). . . .

  Why have Tao in addition to the Great Whole or the universe? Our answer is that when we talk about the Great Whole or the universe, we speak from the aspect of tranquillity of all things, whereas when we talk about Tao, we speak from the aspect of activity of all things. . . .

  The principle followed by “fact” (which includes all facts) is the Great Ultimate in its totality, and the material force depended on by “fact” is the Ultimate of Non-being in its totality. (Actually the Ultimate of Non-being has no totality to speak of. We merely say so.)36 In the first chapter we said that according to the old theory (of Sung Neo-Confucianists), principle is substance while actual things that actualize principle are function. But according to the concept of “the Ultimate of Non-being and also the Great Ultimate,” the Great Ultimate is substance and the “and also” is function. As all functions are included in this function, it is therefore (what Chu Hsi called) the total substance and great functioning. . . .37

  All things (meaning both things and events) go through the four stages of formation, flourish, decline, and destruction. Old things go out of existence this way and new things come into existence this way. This successive coming-into-existence and going-out-of-existence is the universal operation of the great functioning. The universal operation of the great functioning is also called the process of creation and transformation. The formation and flourish of things are creation, while their decline and destruction are transformation. The creation and transformation of all things are collectively called the process of creation and transformation. At the same time each thing or event is a process of creation and transformation. Since all things are each a process of creation and transformation, they are collectively called ten thousand transformations (all things). The term “transformation” may also involve both meanings of creation and transformation. Therefore the process is also called great transformation. The universal operation of the great transformation is the same as the universal operation of the great functioning. Our actual world is a universal operation, (pp. 97-100)

  The Lao Tzu and the “Appended Remarks” of the Book of Changes have a common idea, that is, that when things reach their limit, they return to their origin.38. . . . According to the law of circular movement described above, things in the universe come into existence and go out of existence at all times. They are always in the process of change. This is the daily renewal of the substance of Tao.

  The daily renewal of the substance of Tao can be seen from four points of view. . . . (1) We can, from the point of view of classes, see the production and extinction of their actual members. Looked at this way, the daily renewal of the substance of Tao is cyclical. (2) We can, from the point of view of principle, see whether its actual exemplification tends to be perfect or not. Looked at this way, the daily renewal of the substance of Tao is one of progress and retrogression. (3) We can, from the point of view of the universe, see the increase or decrease of classes which have members in the actual world. Looked at this way, the daily renewal of the substance of Tao is one of increase and decrease. (4) And we can, from the point of view of an individual entity, see the process of its movement from one class to another. Looked at this way, the daily renewal of the substance of Tao is one of transformation and penetration. (pp. 110-111)

  4. Principle and the Nature

  Principle is the moral nature of things. From one point of view, if the moral nature of things is perfectly good, then the physical nature of things is also good, for the physical nature of things is that by which things actually follow their principle. Their following may not be perfect, but since they are following the highest good, they should be good. They may be eighty percent good or seventy percent good or not very good, but we cannot say they are not good. . . .

  If a thing can follow its principle perfectly, it can be said to have “investigated principle to the utmost.” To get to the utmost of the principle which it follows means to develop its own nature fully. Therefore investigating principle to the utmost is the same as fully developing one’s nature. According to the idea of destiny set forth in this chapter, investigating principle to the utmost and full development of one’s nature are the same as getting to the point of fulfilling one’s destiny.39 I-ch’uan (Ch’eng I) said, “The investigation of principle to the utmost, the full development of one’s nature, and the fulfillment of destiny are only one thing. As principle is investigated to the utmost, one’s nature is fully developed, and as soon as one’s nature is fully developed, destiny is fulfilled.”40 We also say the same. We further believe that this does not apply only to man but to things also. (pp. 134-136)

  5. Serving Heaven and Jen (Humanity)

  From the point of view of Heaven (T’ien, Nature), every class of things has its own principle. Its principle is also its ultimate. With reference to the things in this class, their ultimate is the highest good, and their physical nature is that by which they actually follow principle. It is “what issues [from the Way]” and “is good.”41 From the point of view of Heaven, what things in a given class should do in the great process of “the Non-ultimate and also the Great Ultimate” is to follow their principle completely. To be able to do so is to develop their nature fully and to investigate their principle to the utmost. This point has been discussed in chapter four. There the investigation of things means the use of my knowing faculty to know the principle of things. Here the term has a different meaning; it means to direct my conduct to realize fully the principle I am following. To use my knowing faculty to know the principle of things enables me to transcend experience and be free from the restriction of experience. This is transcendence of and freedom from experience. To direct my conduct to realize fully the principle I am following enables me to transcend myself and be free from selfbondage. This is transcendence and freedom from the self.

  From the point of view of Heaven, men are also a class, and what they should do in the process of “the Non-ultimate and also the Great Ultimate” is also to follow their principle completely. Shao K’ang-chieh (Shao Yung, 1011-1077) said, “The sage is the ultimate of man.”42 By the ultimate of man is meant the perfect man, one who can fully develop the nature of man and investigate the principle of man to the utmost.

  Mencius said, “The sage is the ultimate standard of human relations.”43 Human relations means
to carry on the social relations, and to carry out human relations means the social activities of men. We said in chapter four that man’s nature is social and that his social life issues from his nature. Therefore the full development of our nature and our investigation of principle to the utmost must be carried out in society.

  In social life man’s most social conduct is moral conduct. We can approach moral conduct in two different ways, one from the point of view of society and the other from the point of view of Heaven. From the point of view of society, man’s moral conduct consists in fulfilling one’s social duty. From the point of view of Heaven, one’s moral conduct consists in fulfilling his universal duty, that is, fulfilling the way of man. From this point of view, in doing something moral, one is serving Heaven. . . .

  We said previously that viewing things from the point of view of Heaven gives us a sympathetic understanding of them. In the sphere where the self is transcended, sympathy toward things is also increasingly enlarged until the sphere of what Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists called “forming one body with all things” is reached. They call this sphere that of jen.

  The word jen has two meanings. One is moral, the jen (humanity) in the (Five Constant Virtues) of humanity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness discussed in chapter five. The other meaning refers to the sphere we are discussing. Ch’eng Ming-tao (Ch’eng Hao, 1032-1085) said, “The man of jen forms one body with all things without any differentiation. Righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness are all [expressions of] jen.”44 What he meant is this jen. In order to distinguish the two meanings, we shall call this jen “the great jen.” (pp. 300-304)

  Comment. In spite of Fung’s Taoistic tendencies, he remains a true Confucianist after all. His Tao is certainly more that of the Taoists than that of the Confucianists, and his highest sphere of serving Heaven is close to the Taoist identification with Tao. But Fung’s serving Heaven is moral, and instead of rejecting knowledge as a way of reaching Tao, Fung, like all Neo-Confucianists, insists on the investigation of things.