OIO THE SPIRIT OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
worldly philosophy.'
There is another kind of philosophy which emphasizes what is in society, such as human relations and human affairs. This kind of philosophy speaks only about moral values, and is unable to or does not wish to speak of the super-moral ones. This kind of philosophy is generally described as "this— worldly. From the point of view of a this—worldly philosophy, an other — world philosophy is too idealistic, is of no practical use and is negative. From the point of view of an other-worldly philosophy, a this-world philoso-phy is too realistic, too superficial. It may be positive, but it is like the quick walking of a man who has taken the wrong road: the more quickly he walks the further he goes astray.
There are many people who say that Chinese philosophy is a thisworld philosophy. It is difficult to state that these people are entirely right or en-tirely wrong. Taking a merely superficial view, people who hold this opinion cannot be said to be wrong, because according to their view, Chinese philos-ophy, regardless of its different schools of thought, is directly or indirectly concerned with government and ethics. On the surface, therefore, it is con-cerned chiefly with society, and not with the universe; with the daily func-tions of human relations, not hell and heaven; with man's present life, but not his life in a world to come. When he was once asked by a disciple about the meaning of death, Confucius replied:"Not yet understanding life, how can you understand death? (Analects, XI, II.) And Mencius said: The sage is the acme of human relations" (Mencius, IVa, 2.), which, taken literally, means that the sage is the morally perfect man in society. From a surface point of view, with the ideal man being of this world, it seems that what Chinese philosophy calls a sage is a person of a very different order from the Buddha of Buddhism and the saints of the Christian religion. Superficially, this would seem to be especially true of the Confucian sage. That is why, in ancient times, Confucius and the Confucianists were so greatly ridiculed by the Taoists.
This, however, is only a surface view of the matter. Chinese philosophy cannot be understood by oversimplification of this kind. So far as the main tenet of its tradition is concerned, if we understand it aright, it cannot be said to be wholly this-worldly, just as, of course, it cannot be said to be wholly other-worldly. Tt is both of this world and of the other world. Speak-ing about the Neo-Confucianism of the Sung Dynasty, one philosopher de-scribed it this way: It is not divorced from daily ordinary activities, yet it goes straight to what antedated Heaven." This is what Chinese philosophy has striven for. Having this kind of spirit, it is at one and the same time both extremely idealistic and extremely realistic, and very practical, though not in a superficial way.
This-worldliness and other-worldliness stand in contrast to each other as do realism and idealism. The task of Chinese philosophy is to accomplish a synthesis out of these antitheses. That does not mean that they are to be
Oil THE SPIRIT OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
abolished. They are still there, but they have been made into a synthetic whole. How can this be done? This is the problem which Chinese philosophy attempts to solve.
According to Chinese philosophy, the man who accomplishes this synthe-sis, not only in theory but also in deed, is the sage. He is both this-worldly and other-worldly. The spiritual achievement of the Chinese sage corre-sponds to the saint s achievement in Buddhism, and in Western religion. But the Chinese sage is not one who does not concern himself with the busi-ness of the world. His character is described as one of sageliness within and kingliness without.' That is to say, in his inner sageliness, he accom-plishes spiritual cultivation; in his kingliness without, he functions in society. It is not necessary that the sage should be the actual head of the government in his society. From the standpoint of practical politics, for the most part, the sage certainly has no chance of being the head of the state. The saying "sageliness within and kingliness without" means only that he who has the noblest spirit should, theoretically, be king. As to whether he actually has or has not the chance of being king, that is immaterial.
Since the character of the sage is, according to Chinese tradition, one of sageliness within and kingliness without, the task of philosophy is to enable man to develop this kind of character. Therefore, what philosophy discusses is what the Chinese philosophers describe as the Tao (Way, or basic principles) of sageliness within and kingliness without.
This sounds like the Platonic theory of the philosopher-king. According to Plato, in an ideal state, the philosopher should be the king or the king should be a philosopher; and in order to become a philosopher, a man must undergo a long period of philosophical training before his mind can be converted from the world of changing things to the world of eternal ideas. Thus according to Plato, as according to the Chinese philosophers, the task of philosophy is to enable man to have the character of sageliness within and kingliness without. But according to Plato, when a philosopher becomes a king, he does so against his will—in other words, it is something forced on him, and entails a great sacrifice on his part. This is what was also held by the ancient Taoists. There is the story of a sage who, being asked by the people of a certain state to become their king, escaped and hid himself in a mountain cave. But the people found the cave, smoked him out and com-pelled him to assume the difficult task. (Lii shih Ch'un-ch'iu, I, l.) This is one similarity between Plato and the ancient Taoists, and it also shows the character of other-worldliness in Taoist philosophy. Following the main tra-dition of Chinese philosophy, the Neo—Taoist, Kuo Hsiang of the third cen-tury A.D., revised this point.
According to Confucianism, the daily task of dealing with social affairs in human relations is not something alien to the sage. Carrying on this task is the very essence of the development of the perfection of his personality. He performs it not only as a citizen of society, but also as a citizen of the uni-
O14 THE SPIRIT OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
verse, t ien min, as Mencius called it. He must be conscious of his being a citizen of the universe, otherwise his deeds would not have super—moral val-ue. If he had the chance to become a king he would gladly serve the people, thus performing his duty both as a citizen of society, and as a citizen of the universe.
Since what is discussed in philosophy is the Tao (Way) of sageliness with-in and kingliness without, it follows that philosophy must be inseparable from political thought. Regardless of the differences between the schools of Chinese philosophy, the philosophy of every school represents, at the same time, its political thought. This does not mean that in the various schools of philosophy there are no metaphysics, no ethics, no logic. It means only that all these factors are connected with political thought in one way or another, just as Plato s Republic represents his whole philosophy and at the same time is his political thought.
For instance, the School of Names was known to indulge in such argu-ments as a white horse is nol a horse, which seems to have very little connection with politics. Yet the leader of this school, Kung -sun Lung, wished to extend this kind of argument to rectify the relationship between names and facts in order to transform the world. We have seen in our world today how every statesman says his country wants only peace, but in fact, when he is talking about peace, he is often preparing for war. Here, then, there is a wrong relationship between names and facts. According to Kung-sun Lung, this kind of wrong relationship should be rectified. This is really the first step towards the transformation of the world.
Since the subject matter of philosophy is the Tao of sageliness within and kingliness without, the study of philosophy is not simply an attempt to ac-quire this kind of knowledge, but is also an attempt to develop this kind of character. Philosophy is not simply something to be known, but is also some-thing to be experienced. It is not simply a sort of intellectual game, but something far more serious. As my colleague, Professor Y. L. Chin, has pointed out in an unpublished manuscript: "Chinese philosophers were all of them different grades of Socrates. This was so because ethics, politics, reflec-tive thinking, and knowledge were unified in the philosopher; in him, knowl-edge and virtue were one and inseparable. His philosophy required that he live it; he was himself its vehicle. To live in accordance with his philosophi-cal convictions was part of his philosophy. It was his business to school him-self continually and persistently to that pure experience in which selfishness and egocentricity were transcended, so that he would be one with the uni-verse. Obviously this process of schooling could not be stopped, for stopping it would mean llic emergence of his ego and the loss of his universe. Hence cognitively he was eternally groping, and conatively he was eternally behav-ing or trying to behave. Since these could not be separated, in him there was the synthesis of the philosopher in the original sense of that term. Like Socrates, he did not keep office hours with his philosophy. Neither was he a
Ol6 THE SPIRIT OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
dusty, musty philosopher, closeted in his study, sitting in a chair on the pe-riphery of life. With him, philosophy was hardly ever merely a pattern of ideas exhibited for human understanding, but was a system of precepts inter-nal to the conduct of the philosopher; and in extreme cases his philosophy might even be said to be his biography."
The Way in which Chinese Philosophers Expressed Themselves
A Western student beginning the study of Chinese philosophy is instantly confronted with two obstacles. One, of course, is the language barrier; the other is the peculiar way in which the Chinese philosophers have expressed themselves. I will speak about the latter first.
When one begins to read Chinese philosophical works, the first impression one gets is perhaps the briefness and disconnectedness of the sayings and writings of their authors. Open the Confucian Analects and you will see that each paragraph consists of only a few words, and there is hardly any con-nection between one paragraph and the next. Open a book containing the philosophy of Lao Tzu, and you will find that the whole book consists of about five thousand words—no longer than a magazine article; yet in it one will find the whole of his philosophy. A student accustomed to elaborate rea-soning and detailed argument would be at a loss to understand what these Chinese philosophers were saying. He would be inclined to think that there was disconnectedness in the thought itself. If this were so, ihere would be no Chinese philosophy. For disconnected thought is hardly worthy of the name of philosophy.
It may be said that the apparent disconnectedness of the sayings and writ-ings of the Chinese philosophers is due to the fact that ihese sayings and writings are not formal philosophical works. According to Chinese tradition, the study of philosophy is not a profession. Everyone should study philosophy just as in the West every one should go to church. The purpose of the study of philosophy is to enable a man, as a man, to be a man, not some particular kind of man. Other studies—not the study of philosophy—enable a man to be some special kind of man. So there were no professional philosophers; and non-professional philosophers did not have to produce formal philo-sophical writings. In China, there were far more philosophers who produced no formal philosophical writings than those who did. If one wishes to study the philosophy of these men, one has to go to the records of their sayings or the letters they wrote to disciples and friends. These letters did not belong to just one period in the life of the person who wrote them, nor were the records written only by a single person. Disconnectedness or even inconsis-tency between them is, therefore, to be expected.
The foregoing may explain why the writings and saying of some philoso-phers are disconnected; but it does not explain why they are brief. In some philosophic writings, such as those of Mencius and Hstin Tzu, one does find
Ol8 TIIE SPIRIT OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
systematic reasoning and arguments. But in comparison with the philosophic writings of the West, they are still not articulate enough. The fact is that Chinese philosophers were accustomed to express themselves in the form of aphorisms, apothegms, or allusions, and illustrations. The whole book of Lao-tzu consists of aphorisms, and most of the chapters of the Chuang-tzu are full of allusions and illustrations. This is very obvious. But even in writ-ings such as those of Mencius and Hsiin Tzu, mentioned above, when com-pared with the philosophical writings of the West, there are still too many aphorisms, allusions, and illustrations. Aphorisms must be very brief; allu-sions and illustrations must be disconnected.
Aphorisms, allusions, and illustrations are thus not articulate enough. Their insufficiency in articulateness is compensated for, however, by their suggestiveness. Articulateness and suggestiveness are, of course, incompati-ble. The more an expression is articulate, the less it is suggestive—just as ihe more an expression is prosaic, the less it is poetic. The sayings and writ-ings of the Chinese philosophers are so inarticulate that their suggestiveness is almost boundless.
Suggestiveness, not articulateness, is the ideal of all Chinese art, whether it be poetry, painting, or anything else. In poetry, what the poet intends to com-municate is often not what is directly said in the poetry, but what is not said in it. According to Chinese literary tradition, in good poetry the number of words is limited, but the ideas it suggests are limitless. So an intelligent reader of poetry reads what is outside the poem; and a good reader of books reads what is between the lines. Such is the ideal of Chinese art, and this ideal is reflected in the way in which Chinese philosophers have expressed themselves.
The ideal of Chinese art is not without its philosophical background. In the twenty-sixth chapter of the Chuang-tzu it is said: "A basket-trap is for catching fish, but when one has got the fish, one need think no more about the basket. A foot—trap is for catching hares; but when one has got the hare, one need think no more about the trap. Words are for holding ideas, but when one has got the idea, one need no longer think about the words. If only I could find someone who had stopped thinking about words and could have him with me to talk to! " To talk with someone who has stopped thinking about words is not to talk with words. In the Chuang-tzu the statement is made that two sages met without speaking a single word, because "when their eyes met, the Too was there. According to Taoism, the Too (the Way) cannot be told, but only suggested. So when words are used, it is the sugges— tiveness of the words, and not their fixed denotations or connotations, that re-veals the Too. Words are something that should be forgotten when they have achieved their purpose. Why should we trouble ourselves with them any more than is necessary? This is true of the words and rhymes in poetry, and the lines and colors in painting.
