A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (31 page)

3OO WORLD POLITICS AND WORLD PHILOSOPHY

galist school] was blinded by law but did not know [the value ofj talent. Shen Tzu LShen Puhai, another member of the Leyalist school] was blinded by authority but did not know wisdom. Hui Tzu [Hui Shih of the shool of Names] was blinded by words but did not know facts. Chuang Tzu was blinded by what is of nature but did not know what is of man.

From the point oi view of utility, the Tao is nothing more than seeking for profit. From the point of view of L fewness of] desires, the Tao is nothing more than satisfaction. From the point of view of law, the Too is nothing more than regulations. From the point of view of authority, the Tao is nothing more than caprice. From the point of view of what is of nature, the Tao is nothing more than laissez-faire.

From the point of view of words, the Tao is nothing more than argumentation.

These different views are single aspects of the Tao. The essence of the Too is constant and includes all changes. It cannot be grasped by a single corner. Those with perverted knowledge who see only a single aspect of the Tao will not be able to comprehend its totality....Confucius was human — hearted and wise and was not blinded. Therefore he comprehended the Tao and was sufficient to be ranked with the early rulers." (Ch. II.)

In another chapter Hsiin Tzu says: Lao Tzu had vision regarding acquiescence, but did not see exertion. Mo Tzu had vision regarding uniformity, but did not see individuality. Sung Tzu had vision regarding [the fact that the desires of some men are] few, but did not see [the fact that those of other men are] many." (Ch. 17.) According to Hsiin Tzu, the vision and blindness of a philosopher go together. He has vision, yet usually at the same time is blinded by his vision. Hence the excellence of his philosophy is at the same time its shortcoming.

Eclectic Tendency in the Chuang—tzu

The author of the last chapter of the Chuang-tzu, T ien Hsia or "The World," gives the Taoist view of syncretism. This chapter is really a summarized account of ancient Chinese philosophy. We are not sure who the author was, but he was certainly one of the best historians and critics of early Chinese philosophy.

This chapter first makes a distinction between the whole Truth and partial truth. The whole Truth is the Tao of "sageliness within and kingliness without," the study of which is called "the Tao method.'

Partial truth is a particular aspect of the whole Truth, the study of which is called the art method." This chapter says: "In the world there are many who use the art method. Each one considers his own L

thought J as perfect without need of any addition. Where is there then what the ancients called the Tao method?...There is that by which the sage flourishes; there is that through which the king completes his achievement. Both originate in the One."

The One is the "7< without.? kingliness and within sageliness of> 302. WORLD POLITICS AND WORLD PHILOSOPHY

chapter goes on to make a distinction between the fundamental and the branch, the fine and the coarse, in the Tao. It says: How perfect were the men of old....They understood the fundamental principles and connected them with minute regulations reaching to all points of the compass, embracing the great and the small, the fine and the coarse; their influence was everywhere.

"Some of their teachings which were correctly embodied in measures and institutions are still preserved in ancient laws and the records of historians. Those teachings that were recorded in the books of Poetry; History, Rites, and Music were known to most of the gentlemen and teachers of [the states of]

Tsou and Lu [i.e., the Confucianists]. The Book of Poetry describes aims; the Book of History describes events; the Rites direct conduct; Music secures harmony. The Yi [ Book of Changes J shows the principles of the Yin and Yang. The Ch'un Ch'iu [Spring and Autumn Annals] shows names and duties."

Thus the T'ien Hsia chapter maintains that the Confucianists had some connection with the Tao. But what they knew is confined to "measures and institutions. They knew nothing about the underlying principle. That is to say, they knew only the coarser aspects and lesser branches of the Tao, but not what is fine and fundamental in it.

The T ien Hsia chapter continues by saying: Now the world is in great disorder. The virtuous and the sage are obscured. Tao and virtue lose their unity and many in the world get hold of some one aspect of the whole to enjoy for themselves. The case is like the senses of hearing, sight, smell, and taste, which have specific functions, but cannot be interchanged. Or like the skill of the various artisans, which are each excellent in its kind and useful in its turn, yet are not comprehensive. Each is a student of some one aspect....Thus the Tan of sageliness within and kingliness without becomes obscured and loses its clearness; it becomes repressed and loses its development.

Then the same treatise makes a classification of the different schools, granting to each that it has "heard" of some one aspect of the Tao, but at the same time making sharp criticisms of the school s shortcomings. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are greatly admired. Yet, remarkably enough, these two leaders of Taoism, like the other schools, are by implication criticized by the remark that they, too, have merely "heard some one aspect of the Too."

It thus seems to be the implication of the T ien Hsia chapter that the Confucianists knew the concrete "measures and institutions" but not their underlying principle, whereas the Taoisls knew the principle but not the measures and institutions. In other words, the Confucianists knew the "branches" of the Tao, but not its fundamental aspect, while the Taoists knew its fundamental aspect, but not its branches. Only a combination of the two constitutes the whole Truth.

304 WORLD POLITICS AND WOKLD PHILOSOPHY

Eclecticism of Ssu—Ma T an and Liu Hsin

This eclectic tendency was continued in the Han dynasty. The Huai—nan-tzu or Book of the Prince of Huai—nan is a book of the same nature as the Ltt-shih Ch'un-ch'iu, though with a stronger tendency towards Taoism. In addition to this book, the two historians, Ssu-ma Tan (died IIO B.C.) and Liu Hsin (ca. 46 B.C-A.D. 23), who have been quoted in chapter three, also display eclectic tendencies. Of them, Ssu-ma T a n was a Taoist. In the essay quoted in chapter three,"On the Essentials of the Six Schools,"

he says: "In the Great Appendix [_ 'Appendix III J of the Yi, there is the statement: 'In the world there is one purpose, but there are a hundred ideas about it; there is a single goal, but the paths toward it differ.' This is just the case with the different schools of thought,...all of which seek social order but follow widely different paths in their words of explanation, some of which are clear and others not."

(Historical Records, ch. 130.) He then goes on to mention the excellencies and shortcomings of the six philosophic schools, but concludes by considering Taoism as combining all the best points of the other schools, and therefore as being superior to all.

Liu Hsin, on the other hand, was a Confucianist. In his Seven Summaries, as quoted in the chapter on literature contained in the History of the Former Han Dynasty, he lists ten schools of thought, and quotes the same passage from "Appendix 111" of the Book of Changes as does Ssu-ma Tan. Then he concludes: Each of the schools developed its strong points; and each developed knowledge and investigation to the utmost in order to sel forth clearly its main purposes. Although they had prejudices and shortcomings, still a summary of their teachings shows that they were branches and descendants of the Liu Yi (Six Classics)....If one were able to cultivate the Liu Yi and observe the sayings of the nine schools [omitting that of the Story Tellers as of no philosophical importance J, discarding their errors and gathering their good points, it would be possible to master the manifold aspects of thought. (History of the Former Han Dynasty, ch. 30.)

All these statements reflect the strong desire for unity that existed even in the world of thought. The people of the third century B.C., discouraged by centuries of inter -state warfare, longed for a political unification; their philosophers, consequently, also tried to bring about a unification in thought. Electicism was the first attempt. Eclecticism in itself, however, cannot build a unified system. The eclectics believed in the whole Truth, and hoped by selecting from the various schools their "strong points," tn attain to this Truth or Too. What they called the Too, however, was, it is to be feared, simply a patch-work of many disparate elements, unconnected by any underlying organic principle, and hence unworthy of the high title they attached to it.

3Ofj WORLD POLITICS AND WORLD PHILOSOPHY

Note on the Chinese concept of Nationalism(seezp.2.cfj)

Dr. Derk Bodde writes: I would question this statement. The Six Dynasties (third through sixth century), Yuan (12.80-1367) and Ch'ing (1644-1911) periods, for example, were in actual fact of so long duration as to accustom the Chinese to the idea of disunity or foreign domination, even though such a situation was in theory regarded as abnormal. Moreover, even in the normal periods of unity, there was often extensive political maneuvering and military action against a succession of outside peoples, such as the Hsiung-nu, as well as against occasional rebels within the empire. 1 would hardly regard the present conditions as presenting an unfamiliar situation to the Chinese, therefore, even though their effects are accentuated by the fact that they operate on a truly worldwide scale.

The historical facts which Dr. Bodde mention are no doubt correct, but what concerns me in this paragraph is not these historical facts themselves, but what the Chinese people up to the end of the last century, or even the beginning of this century, have felt about them. The emphasis upon the foreign domination of the Yuan and Ch ing dynasties is one made from the point of view of modern nationalism.

It is true that from early limes the Chinese have made a sharp distinction between Chung Kuo or hua hsia (Chinese) and yi ti (barbarian), but the emphasis of this distinction is more cultural than racial. The Chinese have traditionally considered that there are three kinds of living beings: Chinese, barbarians, and beasts. Of these, the Chinese are most cultured, the barbarians come next, and the beasts are completely uncultured.

When the Mongols and Manchus conquered China, they had already to a considerable extent adopted the culture of the Chinese. They dominated the Chinese politically, but the Chinese dominated them culturally. They therefore did not create a marked break or change in the continuity and unity of Chinese culture and civilization, with which the Chinese were most concerned. Hence traditionally the Chinese have considered the Yuan and Ch' ing as simply two of the many dynasties that have followed each other in Chinese history. This can be seen from the official arrangement of the dynastic histories. The Ming dynasty, for instance, in one sense represented a nationalistic revolution against the Yuan; nevertheless, the official History of the Yilan Dynasty, compiled under the Ming, treated the Yuan as the normal successor of the purely Chinese Sung dynasty. Likewise Huang Tsung-hsi ?O8 WORLD POLITICS AND WORLD PHILOSOPHY

(1610-1695), one of the nationalistic scholars who opposed the Manchus, in his Sung Yilan Hsiieh-an or Biographical History of Confucanist Philosophers of the Sung and Yilan Dynasties, found no moral fault in such scholars as HstiHeng (12.09-12.81) and Wu Ch'eng (1249-1333), who though Chinese had served under the Yilan with high official rank.

The Chinese Republic has similarly compiled an official History of the Ch ing Dynasty, in which this dynasty is treated as the normal successor of the Ming. This history was later banned by the present government, because the treatment of certain events connected with the revolution of 1911 was regarded as unsatisfactory. Hence it is possible that the new official History of the Ch'ing Dynasty will eventually be written in a quite different way. What I am here concerned with, however, is the traditional view. So far as tradition is concerned, the Yuan and Ch ing were just as "normal" as other dynasties. One may say that the Chinese lack nationalism, but that is precisely my point. They lack nationalism because they have been accustomed to think in terms of t ien hsia, the world.

As to the fact that the Chinese have had to fight such non-Chinese groups as the Hsiurig—nu, etc., traditionally what the Chinese have felt is that sometimes it was necessary for them to fight the barbarians, just as sometimes it was necessary to fight the beasts. They did not feel that such people as the Hsiung-nu were in a position to divide the world with China, just as the American people do not feel that the red Indians are in a position to divide America with them.

Because the Chinese did not greatly emphasize racial distinctions, it resulted that during the third and fourth centuries A.D. various non-Chinese peoples were allowed to move freely into China. This movement constituted what is called the "inner colonization," and was a primary cause for the political troubles of the Six Dynasties period. Such inner colonization is precisely what Hitler, in his Mein Kampf criticized from a super-nationalistic point of view.

The introduction of Buddhism seems to have given many Chinese the realization that civilized people other than the Chinese existed, but traditionally there have been two kinds of opinion regarding India.

Those Chinese who opposed Buddhism believed that the Indians were simply another tribe of barbarians. Those who believed in Buddhism, on the other hand, regarded India as the "pure land of the West." Their praise of India was that of a realm transcending this world. Hence even the introduction of Buddhism, de—