For this reason, there are the Li for things already before the concrete things themselves exist. In a letter answering Liu Shu-wen, Chu Hsi writes: "There are Li, even if there are no things. In that case there are only such-and-such Li, but not such-and-such things." (Chu Wen-hung Wen-chi or Collected Literary Writings of Chu Hsi, chiian 46.) For instance, even prior to the human invention of ships and carts, the Li of ships and carts are al-ready present. What is called the invention of ships and carts, therefore, is nothing more than the discovery by mankind of the Li of ships and carts, and the construction of these objects accordingly. All Li are present even be-fore the formation of the physical universe. In the Recorded Sayings one pas-sage reads: (Question:) Before heaven and earth had yet come into exis-tence, were all the things of later times already there? (Answer:) ' Only the Li were there. (Chiian I.) The Li are always there; that is to say, they are eternal.
T'ai Chi or the Supreme Ultimate
For every kind of thing there is the Li, which makes it what it ought to be. The Li is the chi of that thing, i.e., it is its ultimate standard. (The word chi originally was a name for the ridge pole at the peak of the roof of a building. As used in Neo -Confucianism, it means the highest ideal prototype of things.) For the universe as a whole, there must also be an ultimate standard, which is supreme and all embracing. It embraces the multitude of Li for all
486 NEO-C0NFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF PLATONIC IDEAS
things and is the highest summation of all of them. Therefore it is called the Supreme Ultimate or T ai Chi. As Chu Hsi says: Everything has an ulti-mate, which is the ultimate Li. That which unites and embraces the Li of heaven, earth, and all things is the Supreme Ultimate." (Recorded Sayings, chtian 94.)
He also says: "The Supreme Ultimate is simply what is highest of all, be-yond which nothing can be. It is the most high, most mystical, and most ab-struse, surpassing everything. Lest anyone should imagine that the Supreme Ultimate has bodily form, Lien-hsi [i.e., Chou Tun-yi] has said of it: 'The Ultimateless, and yet also the Supreme Ultimate. That is, it is in the realm of no things that there is to be found the highest Li.' (Chu-tzu Ch' uan-shu, or Complete Works of the Master Chu, chiian 49-) From these statements we see that the position of the Supreme Ultimate in Chu Hsi s system corre-sponds to the Idea of the Good or to God in the systems of Plato and Aristo-tle respectively.
There is one point in Chu Hsi s system, however, that makes his Supreme Ultimate more mystical than Plato's Idea of the Good or Aristotle's God. This is the fact that, according to Chu Hsi, the Supreme Ultimate is not only the summation of the Li of the universe as a whole, but is at the same time immanent in the individual examples of each category of things. Every partic-ular thing has inherent in it the Li of its particular category of things, but at the same time the Supreme Ultimate in its entirety is inherent in it too. Chu Hsi says: "With regard to heaven and earth in general, the Supreme Ultimate is in heaven and earth. And with regard to the myriad things in particular, the Supreme Ultimate is in every one of them too. (Recorded Sayings, chiian 94.)
But if this is so, does not the Supreme Ultimate lose its unily? Chu Hsi's answer is no. In the Recorded Sayings he says: There is but one Supreme Ultimate, which is received by the individuals of all things. This one Supreme Ultimate is received by each individual in its entirety and undivid-ed. It is like the moon shining in the heavens, ol which, though it is reflect-ed in rivers and lakes and thus is everywhere visible, we would not therefore say that it is divided." (Ibid.)
We know that in Plato s philosophy there is a difficulty in explaining the relation between the intellectual and sensible worlds, and between the one and the many. Chu Hsi, too, has this difficulty, which he meets with an il-lustration which is really a metaphor of constant use in Buddhism. The ques-tion as to how the Li of a whole class of things is related to the individual things within that class, and as to whether this relationship may also involve a division of the Li, is not raised. If it were, I think Chu Hsi would meet it with the same illustration.
NEO-CONFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF PLATONIC IDEAS
.
Ch' i or Matter
If there were nothing but Li, there could be nothing more than a world that is "above shapes. Our own concrete physical world, however, is made possible by the presence of Ch i upon which is imposed the pattern of the Li. "In the universe," says Chu Hsi, "there are Li and Ch'i. The Li is the Too that pertains to what is above shapes, and is the source from which all things are produced. The Ch i is the material Lliterally, instrumentJ that pertains to 'what is within shapes,' and is the means whereby things are produced. Hence men or things, at the moment of their production, must re-ceive this Li in order that they may have a nature of their own. They must receive this Ch'i in order that they may have their bodily form." ("Reply to Huang Tao-fu," Collected Literary Writings, chtian 58.)
Again he says: It seems to me that the Ch i depends upon the Li for its operation. Thus when there is an agglomeration of Ch'i, the Li is also pre-sent within it. It is so, because the Ch'i has the capacity to condense and thus form things; but the Li lacks volition or plan, and has no creative pow-er....The Li constitutes only a pure, empty, and vasl world, without shapes or traces, and so incapable of producing anything. But the Ch' i has the capaci-ty to undergo fermentation and condensation, and thus bring things into ex-istence. And yet, whenever the Ch'i exists, the Li is present within it." {Recorded Sayings, chtian 1.) Here we see how Chu Hsi says what Chang Tsai should have said but did not. Any individual thing is a condensation of Ch'i, but it is not only an individual thing; it is at the same time a member of some category of objects. As such, it is not merely a condensation of the Ch i, but is a condensation that takes place in accordance with the Li for that category of objects as a whole. That is why, whenever there is a conden-sation of the Ch i, Li must always necessarily be present within it.
The question as to the relative priority of Li and Ch i is one much dis-cussed by Chu Hsi and his disciples. On one occasion he says: "Before the instances of it exist, there is the Li. For example, before there exist any sovereign and subject, there is the Li of the relationship between sovereign and subject. Before there exist any father and son, there is the Li of the re-lationship between father and son. (Recorded Sayings, chtian 95) That there is a Li prior to the instances of it in our physical universe, is certainly clear from Chu Hsi' s statement. But is Li in general also prior to Ch' i in general? Chu Hsi says: "Li is never separable from Ch'i. Nevertheless, Li pertains to 'what is above shapes, whereas Ch'i pertains to what is within shapes. Hence if we speak of ' what is above shapes' and ' what is within shapes,' how can there not be priority and posteriority? (Ibid., chiian 1. )
Elsewhere there is a passage: "(Question:) 'When there is Li, there is then Ch' i. It seems that we cannot say that either one is prior to the other.' (Answer:) In reality, Li is prior. We cannot say, however, that there is Li today and Ch' i tomorrow. Yet there must be a priority of the one to the
490 NEO-CONFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF PLATONIC IDEAS
other'. (Complete Works, chiian 49-)From these passages we can see that what Chu Hsi has in mind is that as a matter of fact "there is no Li without Ch i and no Ch i without Li. (Recorded Sayings, chiian I.) There is no time when there is no Ch i. And since Li is eternal, it is absurd to speak about il as having a beginning. Hence the question as to whether it is Li or Ch i that comes into being first is really nonsensical. Nevertheless, to speak about the beginning of Ch i is only a factual absurdity, while to speak about the be-ginning of Li is a logical one. In this sense it is not incorrect, as between Li and Ch i, to say that there is priority and posteriority.
Another question is this: As between Li and Ch'i, which is it that Plato and Aristotle would have called the First Mover ? Li cannot be so, because it lacks volition or plan, and has no creative power. But though Li itself does not move, yet in the "pure, empty, and wide world" of Li there are the Li of movement and the Li of quiescence. The Li of movement does not itself move, nor does the Li of quiescence itself rest, but as soon as the Ch' i "re-ceives" them, the latter begins to move or rest. The Ch'i that moves is called the Yang; the Ch i that rests is called the Yin. Thus, according to Chu Hsi, the dualistic elements that are the fundamentals of the universe in Chinese cosmology are produced. He says: "Whereas the Yang is in move-ment and the Yin in quiescence, the Supreme Ultimate is neither in move-ment nor in quiescence. But there are the Li of movement and of quiescence. These Li are invisible, and become manifest to us only when there are the movement of the Yang and the quiescence of the Yin. The Li rests upon the Yin and Yang just as a man rides on a horse. (Complete Works, chiian 49.) Thus the Supreme Ultimate, like God in the philosophy of Aristotle, is not moved, yet at the same time is the mover of all.
The interaction of the Yin and Yang results in the production of the Five Elements, and from these the physical universe as we know it is produced. In his cosmological theory, Chu Hsi endorses most of the theories of Chou Tun-yi and Shao Yung.
Nature and Mind
From the above we see that, according to Chu Hsi, when an individual thing comes into existence, a certain Li is inherent in it, which makes it what it is and constitutes its nature. And a man, like other things, is a con-crete particular produced in the concrete world. Hence what we call human nature is simply the Li of humanity that is inherent in the individual. The saying of Ch eng Yi that the nature is Li is endorsed and commented on by Chu Hsi in many places. The Li here spoken of is not Li in its universal form; it is simply the Li that is inherent in the individual. This explains the rather paradoxical saying of Ch eng Hao: "When something is said about the nature, it is then already not the nature. "By this he simply means that it is then the individualized Li, and not Li in its universal form.
492 NEO-CONFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF PLATONIC IDEAS
A man, in order to have concrete existence, must be the embodiment of Ch'i. The Li for all men is the same, and it is the Ch'i that makes them different. Chu Hsi says: Whenever there is Li, then there is Ch i. Whenev-er there is Ch i there must be Li. Those who receive a Ch i that is clear, are the sages in whom the nature is like a pearl lying in clear cold water. But those who receive a Ch i, that is turbid, are the foolish and degenerate in whom the nature is like a pearl lying in muddy water." (Recorded Sayings, chilan 4-) Thus any individual, besides what he receives from Li, also has what he receives from Ch i, and this is what Chu Hsi calls the physical en-dowment.
Such is Chu Hsi's theory of the origin of evil. As pointed out by Plato long ago, every individual, in order to have concreteness, must be an embod-iment of matter, by which, consequently, he is implicated, so that he neces-sarily falls short of the ideal. A concrete circle, for example, can only be rel-atively and not absolutely round. That is the irony of the concrete world, in which man is no exception. Chu Hsi says: "Everything depends on its physi-cal endowment. Li, on the other hand, is nothing but good, for since it is Li, how can it be evil? What is evil lies in the physical endowment. Mencius' doctrine asserts absolutely that the nature is good. In this he apparently takes account only of the nature per se but not of the Ch'i, and thus in this respect his statement is incomplete. The Ch eng school, however, supple-ments this with the doctrine of the physical nature, and so in it we get a complete and all-round view of the problem." (Complete Works, chiian 43.)
The term physical nature' here means the nature as it is found actually inherent in the physical endowment of an individual. As thus found, it al-ways strives for the ideal, as Plato would say, but always falls short of it and cannot attain it. Li in its originally universal form, however, Chu Hsi calls the nature of Heaven and Earth," by way of distinction. This distinction was already made by Chang Tsai and is followed by Ch eng Yi and Chu Hsi. Ac-cording to them, the use of this distinction completely solves the old contro-versy as to whether human nature is good and bad.
In Chu Hsi s system, nature is different from mind. In the Recorded Say-ings, one passage reads: "(Question:) Is the mental faculty in man the mind or the nature?' (Answer:) 'The mental faculty is the mind but not the na-ture. The nature is nothing but Li. (Chiian 5-) Another passage reads: "(Question:) 'With regard to consciousness: is it the mental faculty of the mind that is thus conscious, or is it the action of the Ch'i?' (Answer:) 'it is not wholly Ch i. There is firsl the Li of consciousness; but by itself it cannot exercise consciousness. There can be consciousness only when the Ch i has agglomerated to form physical shapes, and the Li has united with the Ch i. The case is similar to that of the flame of this candle. It is because the latter receives this rich fat that we have so much light." (Ibid.)
Thus the mind, just as all other individual things, is the embodiment of Li with Ch'i. The distinction between mind and nature is that mind is concrete
494 NEO-CONFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF PLATONIC IDEAS
and nature is abstract. Mind can have activities, such as thinking and feel-ing, but nature cannot. But whenever such an activity takes place in our mind, we can deduce that there is a corresponding Li in our nature. Chu Hsi says: "In discussing the nature, it is important first of all to know what kind of entity the nature is. Master Ch eng put it well when he said: ' Nature is Li.' Now if we regard it as Li, then surely it is without shapes and features. It is nothing but principle. In man the principles of human—heartedness, righ-teousness, propriety, and wisdom belong to the nature. They are principles only. It is because of them that we are capable of having commiseration, that we can be ashamed of wrongdoing, that we can be courteous, and that we can distinguish between what is right and wrong. Take as an illustration the nature of drugs: some have cooling and some heating properties. But in the drugs themselves you cannot see the shapes of these properties. It is only by the result that follows upon taking the drug that we know what its property is; and this constitutes its nature." (Complete Works,chiian 4^-)
