A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (36 page)

Most important of all, however, is the fact pointed out by me in chapter three, that what is known in the West as the Confucianist school is really the School of Literati. The Literati were not only thinkers but also scholars

350

THE ASCENDANCY OF CONFUCIANISM AND REVIVAL OF TAOISM

versed in the ancient cultural legacy, and this was a combination that the other schools failed to offer.

They taught the literature of the past and carried on the great cultural traditions, giving them the best interpretation they could find. In an agrarian country in which people were unusually respectful of the past, these Literati could not fail to become the most influential group.

As for the Legalist school, though it became the scapegoat for the blunders of the Ch in rulers, it was never wholly discarded. In chapter thirteen, I have pointed out that the Legalists were realistic politicians. They were the ones who could present new methods of government to meet new political conditions. Hence, as the Chinese empire expanded, its rulers could not but rely on the principles and techniques of the Legalists. Consequently, ever since the Han dynasty, orthodox Confucianists have commonly accused the rulers of dynasties of being Confucianists in appearance but Legalists in reality."

As a mater of fact, both Confucianism and Legalism have had their proper sphere of application. The proper sphere for Confucianism is that of social organization, spiritual and moral culture, and learned scholarship. And the proper sphere for Legalism is that of the principles and techniques of practical government.

Taoism, too, has had its opportunities. In Chinese history there have been many periods of political and social confusion and disorder, when people have had little time or interest for classical scholarship, and have been inclined to criticize the existing political and social system. At such times, therefore, Confucianism has naturally tended to weaken and Taoism to become strong. Taoism has then supplied a sharp criticism against the existing political and social system, as well as an escapist system of thought for avoiding harm and danger. These are exactly what meet the desires of a people living in an age of disorder and confusion.

The collapse of the Han dynasty in A.D. T±O was followed by a prolonged period of disunity and confusion which was brought to a close only when the country was finally reunited under the Sui dynasty in A.D. 5^9-These four centuries were marked by frequent warfare and political cleavage between a series of dynasties that ruled in Central and South China, and another series that had control in the North. It was also marked by the rise to prominence of various nomadic non-Chinese groups, some of whom forcibly broke their way through the Great Wall and settled in North China, and others of whom entered through peaceful colonization. A number of the dynasties of the north were ruled by these alien groups, who, however, failed to extend their power as far south as the Yangtze river. Because of these political characteristics, this period of four centuries from the Han to the Sui dynasties is commonly known as that of the Six Dynasties, or again, as that of the Northern and Southern Dynasties.

This, then, was politically and socially a dark age, in which pessimism was rife. In some respects it somewhat resembled the roughly contemporary period of the Middle Ages in Europe, and just as in Europe Christianity was

THE ASCENDANCY OF CONFUCIANISM AND REVIVAL OF TAOISM

L

the dominant force, so in China the new religion of Buddhism made great strides. It is quite wrong to say, however, as some people do, that it was an age of inferior culture. On the contrary, if we take the word culture in a narrower sense, we may say that it was an age in which, in several respects, we reach one of the peaks of Chinese culture. Painting, calligraphy, poetry, and philosophy were at this time all at their best.

In the next two chapters I shall present the leading indigenous philosophy of the age, a philosophy which I call NeoTaoism.

554

THE ASCENDANCY OF CONFUCIANISM AND REVIVAL OF TAOISM

L

CHAPTER 19

NEO-TAOISM: THE RATIONALISTS

IN EO-TAOISM is a new term for the thought which in the third and fourth centuries A.D. was known as the hsttan hstieh, or literally, "dark learning." The word hsiian, meaning dark, abstruse, or mysterious, occurs in the first chapter of the Lao-tzu, for example, in which the Too is described as "hsiian of the hsiian, i.e., mystery of mysteries. Hence the term hsiian hsileh indicates that this school is a continuation nf Taoism.

The Revival of Interest in the School of Names

In chapters eight, nine, and ten, we have seen how the School of Names contributed to Taoism the idea of "transcending shapes and features." In the third and the fourth centuries, with the Taoist revival, there came a revival of interest in the School of Names. The Neo—Taoists studied Hui Shih and Kung-sun Lung, and linked their hsiian hstieh with what they called ming-li, i.e., the "distinguishing of terms [ming] and analysis of principles [ l i ] . " (This phrase is used by Kuo Hsiang in his commentary to the last chapter of the Chuang-tzu). As we have seen in cliapler eight, this is what Kung—sun Lung also did.

In the Shih-shuo Hsin-yu, a book about which we shall read more in the next chapter, it is said: "A visitor asked Yiieh Kuang for the meaning of the statement: A chih does not reach. Yileh Kuang made no comment on the statement, but immediately touched the table with the handle of a fly whisk, saying: Does it reach or does it not? The visitor answered: Tt does. Yiieh then lifted the fly whisk and asked: If it reaches, how can it be taken away?' (Ch. 4-) This statement that a chih does not reach is one of the arguments used by the followers of Kung-sun Lung, as reported in the last chapter of the Chuang-tzu. The word chih literally means a finger, but in

356

NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

chapter eight I translated it as "universal. " Here, however, Yiieh Kuang evidently takes it in its literal sense as finger. The fly whisk cannot reach the table, just as the finger cannot reach the table.

To touch a table with a finger or something else is ordinarily considered as reaching the table.

According to Yiieh Kuang, however, if the reaching is really reaching, then it cannot be taken away.

Since the handle of the fly whisk could be taken away, its apparent reaching was not a real reaching.

Thus by examining the term "reaching," Yiieh Kuang analyzed the principle of reaching. This is an illustration of what was known at that time as "conversation on the ming—li.

A Reinterpreiation of Confucius

It is to be noticed that the NeoTaoists, or at least a large part of them, still considered Confucius to be the greatest sage. This was partly because the place of Confucius as the state teacher was by now firmly established, and partly because some of the important Confucian Classics were accepted by the Neo—Taoists, though in the process they were reinterpreted according to the spirit of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu.

For instance, the A nalects contains a saying of Confucius: Yen Hui was nearly perfect, yet he was often empty. (XI, l8.) By this Confucius probably meant that although Yen Hui, his favorite disciple, was very poor, i.e., "empty,' that is, devoid of worldly goods, he was nevertheless very happy, which showed that his virtue was nearly perfect. In the Chuang—tzu, however, as we have seen in chapter ten, there is an apocryphal story about Yen Hui s sitting in forgetfulness," i.e., engaging in mystic meditation. Hence with this story in mind one commentator on the Analects, T'ai-shih Shu-ming (474-546), said: 'Yen Hui disregarded human -heartedness and righteousness, and forgot ceremonies and music. He gave up his body and discarded his knowledge. He forgot everything and became one with the infinite.

This is the principle of forgetting things. When all things were forgotten, he was thus empty. And yet, compared with the sages, he was still not perfect. The sages forget that they forget, whereas even the great worthies cannot forget that they forget. If Yen Hui could not forget that he forgot, it would seem that something still remained in his mind. That is why he is said to have been often empty. *

Another commentator, Ku Huan (died 453), commenting on the same passage, remarks: "The difference between the sages and the worthies is that

* Quoled by Huang Kan (488-545). in his Sub-Commentary on ike Analects, chilan 6. ■ ■

358 NEO-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

the latter retain a desire to be without desire, while the former do not have that desire for no desire.

Therefore the mind of the sages is perfectly empty, while that of the worthies is only partially so. From the point of view of the world, the worthies lack any desire. But from the point of view of what is not of this world, the worthies do desire to be without desire. The emptiness of Yen Hui s mind was not yet complete. That is why he is said to have been often empty. (Ibul.) The NeoTaoists, despite their Taoism, considered Confucius to be even greater than Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. Confucius, they maintained, did not speak about forgetfulness, because he had already forgotten that he had learned to forget. Nor did he speak about absence of desire, because he had already reached the stage of lacking any desire to be without desire. Thus the Shih-shuo Hsin-yil records a "pure conversation between P'ei Hui and Wang Pi. The latter was one of the great figures of the school of "dark learning, whose Commentaries on the Lao —tzu and Book of Changes have become classics in themselves. The conversation reads:

"Wang Pi [226-249L when young, once went to see P'ei Hui. [ P ' e i J Hui asked him why, since Wu [Non-being] is fundamental for all things, Confucius did not speak about it, whereas Lao Tzu expounded this idea without stopping. To this Wang Pi answered:'The sage LConfucius] identified himself with Wu [Non-being] and realized that it could not be made the subject of instruction, with the result that he felt compelled to deal only with Yu LBeingJ. But Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu had not yet completely left the sphere of Yu [Being], with the result that they constantly spoke of their own deficiencies.'" (Ch. 4.) This explanation reflects the idea expressed by Lao Tzu that he who knows does not speak; he who speaks docs not know. (Lao-tzu, ch. 56.)

Hsiang Hsiu and Kuo Hsiang

One of the greatest, if not the greatest, philosophical works of this period is the Commentary on the Chuang-tzu by Kuo Hsiang (died ca. 312). There has been a historical problem as to whether this work was really his, for he was accused of being a plagiarist by his contemporaries, who asserted that his Commentary was really the work of another slightly earlier scholar, Hsiang Hsiu (ca. 2.2.1-ea. 300). It would seem that both men wrote Commentaries on the Chuang-tzu, and that their ideas were very much the same, so that in the course of time their Commentaries probably became combined to

360.

NE0-TAOISM:THE RATIONALISTS

form a single work. The Shih-shuo Hsin-ytl (ch. 4), for example, speaks of a Hsiang— Kuo interpretation (i.e., an interpretation by Hsiang Hsiu and Kuo Hsiang) made on the Happy Excursion (the first chapter of the Chuang—lzu), as existing in apposition to one by Chih-tun (314-366), a famous Buddhist monk of the time. Hence the present Commentary on the Chuang-tzu, though it bears the name of Kuo Hsiang, seems to represent the joint Hsiang—Kuo interpretation of the Chuang—tzu, and probably was the work of both men. The Chin Shu or History of the Chin Dynasty is probably right, therefore, when in its biography of Hsiang Hsiu it says thai he wrote a Commentary on the Chuang—tzu, and that then Kuo Hsiang extended it. (Ch. 49-)

According to this same History of the Chin Dynasty, both Hsiang Hsiu and Kuo Hsiang were natives of the present Honan province, and were great figures in the school of "dark learning," as well as being "fine or pure conversationalists. In this chapter I shall take these two philosophers as representative of the exponents of the rationalistic group in NeoTaoism, and refer to their Commentary on the Chuang-tzu as the Hsiang-Kuo interpretation, following the usage of the Shih-shuo Hsin-ytl.

The Too is Nothing

The Hsiang-Kuo interpretation made several most important revisions in the original Taoism of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. The first is that the Too is really wu, i.e., "nothing" or "nothingness." Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu also had maintained that the Too is Wu, but by Wu they meant having no name. That is, according to them, the Tao is not a thing; henee it is unnamable. But according to the Hsiang—Kuo interpretation, the Tao is really literally nothing. The Tao is everywhere, but everywhere it is nothing.

{Commentary on the Chuang-tzu, ch. 6.)

The same text says: "in existence, what is prior to things? We say that the Yin and Yang are prior to things. But the Yin and Yang are themselves things; what then, is prior to the Yin and Yang? We may say that Tzu Jan [nature or naturalness] is prior to things. But Tzu Jan is simply the naturalness of things.

Or we may say that the Tao is prior to things. But the Tao is nothing. Since it is nothing, how can it be prior to things? We do not know what is prior to things, yet things are continuously produced. This shows that things are spontaneously what they are; there is no Creator of things. (Ch. ii.) In another passage, it is also stated: "Some people say that the penumbra is produced by the shadow, the shadow by the bodily form, and the bodily form by the Creator. I would like to ask whether the Creator is or is not. If He is not, how can He create things? But if He is, He is simply one of these