To quote Wang Shou—jeii again: The mind of man is Heaven. There is nothing that is not included in the mind of man. All of us are this single Heaven, but because of the obscurings caused by selfishness, the original state of Heaven is not made manifest. Every time we extend our intuitive knowledge, we clear away the obscurings, and when all of them are cleared away, our original nature is restored, and we again become part of this Heaven. The intuitive knowledge of the part is the intuitive knowledge of the whole. The intuitive knowledge of the whole is the intuitive knowledge of the part. Everything is the single whole." (Record of Instructions, pi. I.)
5l6 NEO-CONFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF UNIVERSAL MIND
Attentiveness of the Mind
Thus Wang Shou-jen's system follows the same lines as those of Chou Tun—yi, Ch eng Hao and Lu Chiu—yiian, but he expresses it in more system-atic and precise terms. The fact that the "cords" and "wires" of the Great Learning fit so well into his system brings both conviction to himself and au-thority to others.
The system and its method of spiritual cultivation are simple and direct— qualities which themselves give it a powerful appeal. What we need is first of all the understanding that each and every one of us possesses the original mind, which is one with the universe. This understanding is referred to by Lu Chiu-yilan as "first establishing the most important," a phrase he bor-rows from Mencius. On one occasion he said: Recently there have been people who have criticized me by saying that apart from the single statement in which 1 lay emphasis upon first establishing the most important, I have no other tricks to offer. When I heard this, 1 exclaimed: ' Quite so! '" ( Col-lected Works, chiian 34-)
In chapter twenty-four it was pointed out that, according to the Neo-Con-fucianists, spiritual cultivation requires that one should be attentive; but at-tentive to what? According to the Lu—Wang school,one must firsl establish the most important,' and then be attentive to it. And it is the criticism of this school that the Ch'eng-Chu school, without "first establishing the most important, starts immediately and haphazardly with the task of investigating things. Under these conditions, even attentiveness of mind cannot lead to any results in spiritual cultivation. This procedure is compared by the Lu-Wang school to starting a fire for cooking, without having any rice in the pot.
To this, however, the Ch eng-Chu school would reply that unless one be-gins with the investigation of things, how can anything be definitely estab-lished? If one excludes this investigation of things, the only way left of es-tablishing the most important" is through instantaneous Enlightenment. And this the Ch'eng-Chu school regarded as more Ch'anist than Confucianist.
In chapter twenty-four, we have seen that Ch'eng Hao also says that the student must first understand jen (human—heartedness), which is the unity of all things, and then cultivate it with sincerity and attentiveness. Nothing else requires to be done. We merely need have confidence in ourselves and go straight forward. Lu Chiu-yiian remarks in similar strain: "Be courageous, be zealous, break open the net, burn the thorns in your path, and wash away the mire.' (ftifi.)When so doing, even the authority of Confucius need no longer necessarily be respected. As Lu states again: If in learning one gains a comprehension of what is fundamental, then the Six Classics become but one s footnotes. (Ibid.) In this respect we see clearly that the Lu—Wang school is a continuation of Ch'anism.
5l8 NEO-CONFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF UNIVERSAL MIND
Critic is m of Buddhis m
Yet both the Lu-Wang and Ch'eng-Chu schools strongly criticize Bud-dhism. In this criticism, the difference between the two is again revealed. Thus Chu Hsi says: "When the Buddhists speak of 'emptiness,' this does not mean that they are [entirely] incorrect. But they must know that in this emptiness there are the Li. For if we are merely to say that we are 'empty,' without understanding that there are still the real Li, what is the use [of such a doctrine J? The case is like that of a pool of clear water, the cold clearness of which extends to the very bottom. When it is first seen, it will appear to have no water in it at all, and a person will then say that this pool is only empty. If this person does not put in his hand to feel whether there is coldness or warmth, he will not know that there is water within.And such, precisely, is the view of the Buddhists. ' (Recorded Sayings, chiian 12.6.) Again he says: The Confucianists consider Li as without birth and inde-structible. The Buddhists consider spirituality and consciousness as without birth and indestructible. ' (Ibid.) According to Chu Hsi, the Buddhists are not without justification in saying that the concrete world is empty, because things in the concrete world do change and are impermanent. But there are also the Li, which are eternal and not subiect to change. In this sense, then, the universe is not empty. The Buddhists do not know that the Li are real, because they are abstract, just as some men do not see the water in the pool, because it is colorless.
Wang Shou-jen also criticizes Buddhism, but from quite a different point of view: "When the Taoists [i.e., the religious Taoistsjspeak of hsli[vacuity, unrealnessj, can the Confucian sage add to it a hair of shih Lactualness, re— alness]? And when the Buddhists speak of wu Lnon-being, non-existence], can the Confucian sage add to it a hair of yu [being, existence]? But when the Taoists speak of hsii, their motive is to preserve life, whereas when the Buddhists speak of wu, their motive is to escape the suffering of life and death. When they add these ideas to the original nature of the mind, their original meaning of hsii and wu is somewhat lost, and thereby the original nature of the mind is not free from obstruction. The Confucian sage simply restores the original condition of the intuitive knowledge and adds to it no idea whatsoever....Heaven, Earth, and all things all lie within the function and activity of our intuitive knowledge. How, then, can there be anything outside it to hinder or obstruct it?" (Record of Instructions, pt. 3)
Again he says: "The claim of the Buddhists that they have no attachment to phenomena shows that they do have attachment to them. And the fact that we Confucianists do not claim to have no attachment to phenomena, shows that we do not have attachment to them....The Buddhists are afraid of the troubles involved in human relationships, and therefore escape from them. They are forced to escape because they are already attached to them. But we Confucianists are different. There being the relationship between father and
520 NEO-CONFUCIANISM:THE SCHOOL OF UNIVERSAL MIND
,
son, we respond to it with love. There being the relationship between sovereign and subject, we respond to it with righteousness. And there being the relationship between husband and wife, we respond to it with mutual respect. We have no attachment to phenomena." (Ibid.)
If we follow this argument, we can say that the Neo—Confucianists more consistently adhere to the fundamental ideas of Taoism and Buddhism than do the Taoists and Buddhists themselves. They are more Taoistic than the Taoists, and more Buddhistic than the Buddhists.
522' NEO-CONFUCIANtSM:THE SCHOOL OF UNIVERSAL MIND
CHAPTER 27
THE INTRODUCTION OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
Every system of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood and misused, and so it was with the two schools of Neo-Confucianism.According to Chu Hsi, one must in principle start with the investigation of things in order to under-stand the eternal Li or Laws, but this principle Chu Hsi himself did not strictly cany out. In the record of his sayings, we see that he did make cer-tain observations on natural and social phenomena, but most of his time was devoted to the study of, and comment on, the Classics. He not only believed that there are eternal Li, but also that the utterances of the ancient sages are these eternal Li. So in his system there is an element of authoritarianism and conservatism, which became more and more apparent as the tradition of the Ch eng—Chu school went on. And the fact that this school became the offi-cial state teaching did much to increase this tendency.
Reaction Against Neo-Cunfucirmism
The Lu—Wang school is a revolution against this conservatism, and in the time of Wang Shou-jen, the revolutionary movement was at its highest. In a very simple way, it appealed directly to the intuitive knowledge of every man, which is the inner light of his "original mind. Though never recog-nized by the government, as was the Ch'eng-Chu school, the Lu-Wang school became as influential as the former.
But the philosophy of Wang Shou-jen was also misunderstood and mis-used. According to Wang, what the intuitive knowledge immediately knows is the ethical aspect of our will or thought. It can only tell us what we ought to do, but not how to do it. It lacks what Americans would now call "know-how. In order to know how to do what we ought to do in certain situations, Wang said that we have to study practical methods of action in relation to the existing state of affairs. Later on, however, his followers seemed to come
524 THE INTRODUCTION OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
L
to the belief that the intuitive knowledge can itself tell us everything, includ-ing the know-how." This is absurd, and the followers of the Lu-Wang school have certainly suffered the consequences of this absurdity.
At the end of the last chapter we have seen that Wang Shou—jen used the Ch an method of argument to criticize Buddhism. This is precisely the sort of argument that is most likely to be misused. A satiric story tells us that when a scholar once paid a visit to a certain Buddhist temple, he was treated with only scant respect by the monk in charge. While he was there, however, the temple was also visited by a prominent official, to whom the monk showed the greatest respect. After the official had gone, the scholar asked the monk the reason for this difference. The monk answered: "To respect is not to respect, and not to respect is to respect. The scholar immediately gave him a hearty blow on the face. The monk protested angrily: "Why do you beat me?" To which the scholar replied: "To beat is not to beat, and not to beat is to beat. This story became current after the lime of Wang Shou— jen, and no doubt was intended to criticize him and the Ch anists.
The Ming dynasty (1368-1643), under which Wang Shou-jen lived and had his influence, was a native Chinese dynasty which replaced the Yuan or Mongol dynasty (1280-1368). In due course it in turn was overthrown as a re-sult of internal revolts coupled with invasion from the outside, and was re-placed by the Ch'ing dynasty (1644-1911), under which, for the second time in Chinese history, all of China was ruled by an alien group, this time the Manchus. The Manchus, however, were far more sympathetic to Chinese cul-ture than the Mongols had been, and the first two-thirds of their dynasty was, on the whole, a period of internal peace and prosperity for China, dur-ing which, in certain respects, Chinese culture made important advances, though in other respects it was a period of growing cultural and social con-servatism. Officially, the Ch eng —Chu school was even more firmly en-trenched than before. Unofficially, however, the Ch'ing dynasty witnessed an important reaction against both this school and the Lu-Wang school. The leaders of this reaction accused both schools of having, under the influence of Ch' anism and Taoism, misinterpreted the ideas of Confucius, and of thus having lost the practical aspect of original Confucianism. One of the attack-ers said: "Chu Hsi was a Taoist monk, and Lu Chiu-yiian was a Buddhist monk." This accusation, in a sense, is not entirely unjustified, as we have seen in the last two chapters.
From the point of view of philosophy, however, it is entirely irrelevant. As was pointed out in chapter twenty—three, Neo—Confucianism is a synthesis of Confucianism, Buddhism, philosophical Taoism (through Ch'anism), and re-ligious Taoism. From the point of view of the history of Chinese philosophy, such a synthesis represents a development, and therefore is a virtue rather than a vice.
526 THE INTRODUCTION OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
.
In the Ch ing dynasty, however, when the orthodox position of Confucian-ism was stronger than ever before, to assert that Neo-Confucianism was not the same as pure Confucianism was equal to asserting that Neo—Confucian-ism was false and wrong. According to its opponents, indeed, the harmful ef-fects of Neo—Confucianism were even greater than those of Buddhism and Taoism, because its seeming agreement with original Confucianism could more easdy deceive people and so lead them astray.
For this reason the scholars of the Ch ing dynasty started a back—to— the-Han ' movement, meaning by this a return to the commentaries that the scholars of the Han dynasty had written on the early Classics. They believed that because these Han scholars lived nearer in time to Confucius and before the introduction of Buddhism into China, their interpretations of the Classics must therefore be purer and closer to the genuine ideas of Confucius. Conse-quently, they studied numerous writings of the Han scholars which the Neo-Confucianists had discarded, and termed this study the Hah hsileh or learn-ing of the Han dynasty, ft was so called in contrast to that of the Neo—Con— fucianists, which they termed the Sung hsiieh or learning of the Sung dy-nasty, because the major schools of Neo—Confucianism had flourished in this dynasty. Through the eighteenth century until the beginning of the present century, the controversy between the Ch'ing adherents of the Hah hsileh and Sung hsiieh has been one of the greatest in the history of Chinese thought. From our present point of view, it was really one as between the philosophi-cal and scholarly interpretation of the ancient texts. The scholarly interpreta-tion emphasized what it believed was their actual meaning; the philosophical interpretation emphasized what it believed they ought to have meant.
Because of the emphasis of the Han hsiieh scholars on the scholarly inter-pretation of ancient texts, they made marked developments in such fields as textual criticism, higher criticism, and philology. Indeed, their historical, philological, and other studies became the greatest single cultural achieve-ment of the Ch' ing dynasty.
Philosophically, the contribution of the Han hsileh scholars was less im-portant, but culturally, they did much to open the minds of their time to the wider reaches of Chinese literary achievement. During the Ming dynasty, most educated people, under the influence of Neo—Confucianism, a knowl-edge of which was required for success in the state examinations, devoted their whole attention to the "Four Books ' (the Confucian A nalects, Mencius, Great Learning, and Doctrine of the Mean). As a result, they knew but little about other literature. Once the Ch'ing scholars became interested in 'the scholarly reevaluation of the ancient texts, however, they could not confine themselves simply to the Confucian Classics. These, to be sure, engaged their first attention, but when the work in this field had been done, they be-gan to study all the other ancient texts of the schools other than orthodox
