Chinese Philosophy
Chinese Philosophy
Confucianism and Taoism have been the dual basis of Chinese thought, with Buddhism presenting a strong challenge in medieval times. The former two, the priority of either of which is still controversial, rivaled each other from the very beginning to the present day. Taoism (tao chia) opposed nature to man, glorifying Tao or the Way, spontaneity (tzu jan), “inaction” (wu wei) in the sense of non-artificiality or following nature, simplicity (p’u), “emptiness,” tranquillity and enlightenment, all dedicated to the search for “long life and lasting vision” (in the case of Lao Tzu, 570 B.C.?), for “preserving life and keeping the essence of our being intact” (in the case of Yang Chu, c. 440-360 B.C.), and for “companionship with nature” (in the case of Chuang Tzu, between 399 and 295 B.C.). The notes of the “equality of things and opinions” (ch’i wu) and the “spontaneous and unceasing transformation of things” (tzu hua) were particularly stressed in Chuang Tzu.
Confucianism (ju chia), on the other hand, advocated true manhood (jen) as the highest good, the superior man (chun tzu) as the ideal being, and cultivation of life (hsiu shen) as the supreme duty of man. It was toward this moralism and humanism that Confucius (551-479 B.C.) taught the doctrines of “chung,” or being true to the principles of one’s nature, and “shu,” or the application of those principles in relation to others, as well as the doctrine of the Golden Mean (chung yung), i.e., “to find the central clue of our moral being and to be harmonious with the universe.” Humanism was further strengthened by Mencius (371-289 B.C.) who insisted that man must develop his nature fully because benevolence (jen) and righteousness (i) are natural to his nature which is originally good, and again reinforced by Hsun Tzu (c. 335-286 BC) who, contending that human nature is evil, advocated the control of nature. Amid this antagonism between naturalism and humanism, however, both schools conceived reality as unceasing change (i) and incessant transformation, perpetually in progress due to the interaction of the active (yang) and passive (yin) cosmic principles.
Taoism, however, became too mystical, and Confucianism too formalistic. “Hundred schools” grew and flourished, many in direct opposition to Taoism and Confucianism. There was Mohism (Mo, founded by Mo Tzu, between 500 and 396 B.C.) which rejected formalism in favor of “benefit” and “utility” which are to be promoted through universal love (chien ai), practical observation and application, and obedience to the will of Heaven. There was Neo-Mohism (Mo che, 300 B.C.) which, in trying to prove the thesis of Mohism, developed an intricate system of logic. There was Sophism (ming chia, 400 B.C.) which displayed much sophistry about terms and concepts, particularly about the relationship between substance and quality (chien pai). There was Legalism (fa chia, 500-200 B.C.) which advocated law, statecraft, and authority as effective instruments of government. finally, there was the Yin Yang school (400-200 B.C.) which emphasized yin and yang as the two fundamental principles, always contrasting but complementary, and underlying all conceivable objects, qualities, situations, and relationships. It was this school that provided a common ground for the fusion of ancient divergent philosophical tendencies in medieval China.
Medieval Chinese philosophy was essentially a story of the synthesis of indigenous philosophies and the development of Buddhism. In the second century B.C., the Yin Yang movement identified itself with the common and powerful movement under the names of the Yellow Emperor and Lao Tzu (Huang Lao). This, in turn, became interfused with Confucianism and produced the mixture which was the Eclectic Sinisticism lasting till the tenth century A.D. In both Huai-nan Tzu (d. 122 B.C.), the semi-Taoist, and Tung Chung-shu (177-104- B.C.), the Confucian, Taoist metaphysics and Confucian ethics mingled with each other, with yin and yang as the connecting links. As the cosmic order results from the harmony of yin and yang in nature, namely, Heaven and Earth, so the moral order results from the harmony of yang and yin in man, such as husband and wife, human nature and passions, and love and hate. The Five Agents (wu hsing), through which the yin yang principles operate, have direct correspondence not only with the five directions, the five metals, etc., in nature, but also with the five Constant Virtues, the five senses, etc., in man, thus binding nature and man in a neat macrocosm-microcosm relationship. Ultimately this led to superstition, which Wang Ch’ung (27-c. 100 A.D.) vigorously attacked. He reinstated naturalism on a rational ground by accepting only reason and experience, and thus promoted the critical spirit to such an extent that it gave rise to a strong movement of textual criticism and an equally strong movement of free political thought in the few centuries after him.
In the meantime, Taoism degenerated and identified itself with the lowest forms of religious worship. Its naturalistic philosophy was carried to the point of fatalistic mechanism in Lieh Tzu (c. 300 A.D.) and was made the theoretical basis for alchemy and the search for longevity in Ko Hung (c. 268-c. 334 A.D.). In Kuo Hsiang (c. 312 A.D.), however, the true spirit of Taoism revived. He restored and developed the Taoist doctrines of naturalism and spontaneous transformation to a position of dignity.
Parallel with these developments was the growth of Buddhism in China, a story too long to relate here. Many Buddhist doctrines, latent in India, were developed in China. The nihilism of Madhyamika (Sun-lan, c. 450-c. 1000) to the effect that reality is Void in the sense of being “devoid” of any specific character, was brought to fullness, while the idealism of Vijnaptimatravada (Yogacara, Fahsiang, 563-c. 1000), which claimed that reality in its imaginary, dependent and absolute aspects is “representation-only,” was pushed to the extreme. But these philosophies failed because their extreme positions were not consonant with the Chinese Ideal of the golden mean. In the meantime, China developed her own Buddhist philosophy consistent with her general philosophical outlook. We need only mention the Hua-yen school (Avatamisaka, 508) which offered a totalistic philosophy of “all in one” and “one in all,” the T’ien-t’ai school (c. 550) which believes in the identity of the Void, Transitoriness, and the Mean, and in the “immanence of 3,000 worlds in one moment of thought,” and the Chin-t’u school (Pure Land, c. 500) which bases its doctrine of salvation by faith and salvation for all on the philosophy of the universality of Buddha-nature. These schools have persisted because they accepted both noumenon and phenomenon, both ens and non-ens, and this “both-and” spirit is predominantly characteristic of Chinese philosophy.
The most strange development was Ch’an (Meditation, Zen, c. 500). It is basically a method of “direct intuition into the heart to find Buddha-nature,” a method based, on the one hand, on the eightfold negation of production and extinction, annihilation and permanence, unity and diversity, and coming and departing, and, on the other hand, on the affirmation of the reality of the Buddha-nature in all things. Its sole reliance on meditation was most un-Chinese, but it imposed on the Chinese mind a severe mental and spiritual discipline which was invigorating as well as fascinating. For this reason, it exerted tremendous influence not only on Taoism which had much in common with it and imitated it in every way, but also on Neo-Confucianism, which stood in diametrical opposition to it.
Neo-Confucianism developed in three phases, namely the Reason school in the Sung period (960-1279), the Mind school in the Ming period (1388-1644) and the Moral-Law school in the Ch-ing period (1644-1911). The central idea of the movement is focused on the Great Ultimate (T’ai Chi) and Reason (li). The Great Ultimate moves and generates the active principle, yang, when its activity reaches its limit, and engenders the passive principle, yin, when it becomes tranquil. The eternal oscillation of yin and yang gives rise to the material universe through their Five Agents of Water, Fire, Wood, Metal and Earth. Thus, reality is a progressively evolved and a well-coordinated system.
This dynamic and orderly character of the universe is due to Reason and the vital force. As the Ch’eng brothers (I-ch’uan, 1033-1077, and Min-tao, 1032-1086) said, “All things have the same Reason in them.” Thus, Reason combines the Many into One, while the vital force differentiates the One into the Many, each with its own “determinate nature.” The two principles, however, are not to be sharply contrasted, for neither is independent of the other. Reason operates through, and is embodied in, the vital force. It is this cooperative functioning of theirs that makes the universe a cosmos, a harmonious system of order and sequence. “Centrality is the order of the universe and harmony is its unalterable law.” As such the cosmos is a moral order. This is the main reason why the greatest of the Neo-Confucians, Chu Hsi (1130-1200) said that “the Great Ultimate is nothing but the Reason of ultimate goodness.”
Furthermore, the universe is a social order, and nothing can stand by itself. At the same time, everything has its opposite. “No two of the productions of creation are alike,” and the Taoist doctrine of the equality of things must be rejected. In the eternal sequence of appearance and disappearance every creation is new, and the Buddhist doctrine of transmigration must be rejected.
In order to appreciate fully the meaning of the universe, man must comprehend Reason. This can be done by “investigating things to the utmost” (ko wu), that is, by “investigating the Reason of things to the utmost (ch’iung li).” When sufficient effort is made, and understanding naturally comes, one’s nature will be realized and his destiny will be fulfilled, since “the exhaustive investigation of Reason, the full realization of one’s nature, and the fulfillment of destiny are simultaneous.” When one understands Reason, he will find that “All people are brothers and sisters, and all things are my companions,” because all men have the same Reason in them. Consequently one should not entertain any distinction between things and the ego. This is the foundation of the Neo-Confucian ethics of jen, true manhood, benevolence or love. Both the understanding of Reason and the practice of jen require sincerity (ch’eng) and seriousness (ching) which to the Neo-Confucians almost assumed religious significance. As a matter of fact these have a certain correspondence with the Buddhist dhyana and prajna or meditation and insight. Gradually the Neo-Confucian movement became an inward movement, the mind assuming more and more importance.
When it came to the Ming period especially in Wang Yang-ming (1473-1529), Reason became identified with Mind. Mencius’ doctrine of intuitive knowledge (liang chih) was revived and made the basis of his theory of the identity of knowledge and conduct and the sacred duty of man to “fully exercise his mind” and to “manifest his illustrious virtues.”
Wang Yang-ming considered desire as an obstacle to the mind. The Neo-Confucians of the Ch’ing period, especially Tai Tung-yuan (1723-1777), however, argued that since desire is part of our nature, it has its rightful place, just as the vital force has its rightful place beside Reason. The main problem then would be to attain the harmony of human passion (ch’ing) and the originally good human nature (hsing). Thus Neo-Confucianism reasserted the principle of central harmony (chung yung), and central harmony is the Moral Law (tao). This Law finds expression in constant and orderly transformation, the realization of which is Reason. It will be seen that Neo-Confucianism is essentially compatible with western philosophy and science. It is to be expected, therefore, that both Neo-Confucianism and western thought will play a great role in any future philosophy in China. — W.T.C
References
Alfred Forke,
Geschichte der neueren chinesischen Philosophie, De Gruyter & Co., Hamburg, 1938;
Fung Yu-lan,
A History of Chinese Philosophy (ancient period), tr. by D. Bodde, Henri Vetch, Peiping, 1937;
Hu Shih,
The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China, The Oriental Book Co., Shanghai, 1922.