New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness (World Thought in Translation) - Hardcover

Xiong, Shili

Hardcover

ISBN 10: 030019157X ISBN 13: 9780300191578

Publisher: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2015

Synopsis

This book the first English translation of what many consider to be the most original work of Chinese philosophy produced in the twentieth century draws from Buddhist and Confucian philosophy to develop a critical inquiry into the relation between the ontological and the phenomenal. This annotated edition examines Xiong Shili's complex engagement with Buddhist thought and the legacy of Xiong's thought in New Confucian philosophy. It will be an indispensable resource for students of Eastern philosophy and Chinese intellectual history as well as for philosophers who may not be familiar with the Chinese tradition.

About this title

About the Author

Xiong Shili (1885–1968) was a luminary in Modern New Confucianism and Buddhist philosophy, especially Yogacara. He shaped modern Chinese philosophy by developing new syncretic approaches to the interpretation of traditional Chinese philosophy. John Makeham teaches Chinese philosophy and classical Chinese at the Australian National University.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness

By Xiong Shili, John Makeham

Yale UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copyright © 1932 Xiong Shili
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-300-19157-8

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, ix, 
TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION, xi, 
New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 1, 
Foreword by Cai Yuanpei, 3, 
Foreword by Ma Fu, 9, 
Introduction, 15, 
Part A. On Cognitive Objects ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 19, 
ONE. Explanation of the Thesis ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 21, 
TWO. Weishi ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 28, 
THREE. Transformation ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 94, 
FOUR. Productive Power ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 124, 
FIVE. Demonstration of Material [Dharmas], A ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 161, 
SIX. Demonstration of Material [Dharmas], B ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 166, 
SEVEN. Explaining the Mind, A ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 176, 
EIGHT. Explaining the Mind, B ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), 232, 
WORKS CITED, 319, 
INDEX, 331, 

CHAPTER 1

Explanation of the Thesis ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])

My aim in writing this treatise is to awaken those who study the learning that is concerned with fundamental wisdom ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) to understand that Reality ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [tattva]) is not a perceptual field ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) detached from one's own mind, nor is it a cognitive object of knowledge. This is because it is only by seeking within that there is correspondence with true realization. True realization is the self 's recognizing the self, with absolutely nothing concealed. Correspondence with true realization is called wisdom ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [jñana]) because it differs from the mundane world, which is established on the basis of discernment ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [prajña]).

How are wisdom and discernment distinguished? On the one hand, it is because the meaning of wisdom is that self-nature ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [svabhava]) is awareness, and because it is inherently without a basis. When we reflect within, brilliantly, in a thought-moment, there is clear awareness. This precisely is the awareness of self-nature; hence it is said "self-nature is awareness." In fact, awareness is self-nature. It is simply that by joining [words] together, this word ["self-nature"] is formed. Moreover, the word "self-nature" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is but a different term for [Fundamental] Reality. If one includes all things in the cosmos, and refers to their origin, it is called Reality. If one refers strictly to one's own origin, it is called self-nature. This is because although verbally they are different, what they refer to is the same. "Without a basis": this is because this awareness does not rely on sensory experience, nor does it rely on logical inference. On the other hand, it is because the goal of discernment is "to distinguish things," and because this distinction arises from experience, wisdom and discernment Here, "discernment" equates to what is commonly called lizhi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (reason) or zhishi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (knowledge). should be distinguished. The details of this are to be found in my On Epistemology ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Now, for the sake of convenience, because here all I want to do is to provide an outline of Reality ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), students should please take note.

When Reality is discussed in the mundane world, generally it is something pursued externally. Each person employs his knowledge, engaging in empty speculation, and in doing so, fabrications are securely established — this is great delusion! One who truly sees Reality returns to the inner mind. [When one sees real existence] nothing separates self and other, and one can realize that things and self share the same source. Here the "inner" of "inner mind" is not a term contrasting with outer. It is only nominally said to be inner. Here "mind" is what was earlier referred to as self-nature. This is because the term "mind" can refer to Fundamental Reality ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and also accord with [the sense of] functioning — they must not be confused. Students should make a determination according to the context. There is a saying: "If one person faces a corner, all the other people present will commiserate and be unhappy." What is the reason for this? It is because the minds of all the people present

[p. 11]

are the mind of that one person. This is because there simply was never a separation of self and other. This suffices for us to understand that this mind [reveals] that things and self are of the same source — this is what is meant by Reality.

Whether moving or at rest, it is as one, dissolving the divisions of time and space. This mind does indeed flow incessantly, yet it is also profoundly tranquil and undisturbed. In regard to its incessant flow, it is nominally termed "moving." In regard to its undisturbed, profound tranquility, it is nominally termed "at rest." Being both in motion and at rest, it is devoid of the characteristic ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) of continuously arising ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and so time cannot be securely established. Being both in motion and at rest, yet lacking a domain, space cannot be securely established either. Extremely subtle yet manifest; extremely close at hand yet god-like. Empty and devoid of characteristics, yet replete with myriad phenomena. Hence it says "Extremely subtle yet manifest." Without arising from its seat, yet extending all over the dharmarealm ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). A verse from the Flower Ornament Sutra says: "According to conditions, one follows one's feelings and nothing is out of place, yet all the while one constantly occupies the seat of enlightenment."? This is a metaphor for the situation whereby near at hand the mind rules the body, yet in fact there is nowhere in the whole of the cosmos it does not reach. Hence this verse is borrowed to explain the meaning of "extremely close at hand yet god-like." Accordingly, it is this mind alone that embodies the myriad things, omitting nothing. "Seeing the mind" amounts to saying "seeing Reality." "To embody the myriad things" is saying that everywhere this mind is the Reality of everything and that there is no single thing that can be what it is without it; hence what is said. Here, however, the direct identification of the mind as Reality is a provisional teaching ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Refer to the chapters "Explaining the Mind" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) [chapters 7 and 8]. It should, moreover, also be understood that the reference to "seeing the mind" is because the mind sees itself. This does not mean that a separate mind is used to discern the mind. That which the Doctrine of the Mean calls "genuineness completing itself," or what the Book of Change calls "the self-illuminating illustrious virtue," or the Analects calls "silently taking note" all mean that the mind sees itself. The mind is not transformed by things. If what is at issue here is perfunctorily explained away, then the import of what is being said will become irrelevant. The reason the mind can be said to be Reality is precisely because it is not transformed by things. Now, if we understand this in terms of our life, whereby it is only by dint of robust vitality that we are able to control things and not be led by them, then it may be said that this alone is the mind, and also that this alone is Reality. If one's person becomes mired in the selfish desire for things such that one cannot extricate oneself — that is, one becomes completely transformed by material qualities — and one's life ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) disappears such that [it seems that one] never possessed a mind and has lost one's intrinsic Fundamental Reality, then one is merely a heap of dead matter. Hence this illuminating Reality stands by itself and can be called wisdom ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [jñana]). Because the mind is not transformed by material qualities, it is an aware, illuminating, pure, and clear Reality that stands by itself, relying on nothing. Accordingly, it is called "wisdom." If one is able constantly to maintain this wisdom and not lose it, then one's self will recognize one's self without any impediments involved.

What does it mean to say that "one's self recognizes one's self"? It means that this recognition is detached from such discriminative markers as subject ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and object ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), inner and outer, and sameness and difference, and is in fact bright and clear because it recognizes itself from within. Hence it is not empty and nothing; nor is it an undifferentiated state of primal chaos. Hence nominally it is said that one's self recognizes one's self. "One's self" is also a term of nominal postulation. Understood in this sense, one may speak of "seeing one's mind" and also "seeing Reality." "Understood in this sense" refers to

[p. 12]

the meaning of "the self's recognizing the self" above.

In these times, those who practice philosophy reject wisdom in favor of employing knowledge. Wisdom is something that everyone inherently possesses, but they do not know how to maintain it; hence it is said to be rejected. Having rejected it, they then fail to understand that they were originally in possession of it. What here is meant by rejecting zhi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is something absolutely different from what Laozi meant by rejecting zhi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. The zhi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] that Laozi rejected is called "knowledge" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), what I term hui [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Hence when they talk about Reality, they immediately assume that it pertains to the sphere of activity of conceptual fields. Si [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is to construct mentally; yi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is to deliberate. In deliberation there are boundaries, and in mental construction there are images. As for Reality, however, it cannot be sought using images or measured using boundaries. Those who employ knowledge, however, are unaware of this and so regard Reality as pertaining to the sphere of activity of conceptual fields. They take it to be an external conceptual field detached from one's own mind. Since they assume that it pertains to the sphere of activity of conceptual fields, they regard it as an external conceptual field detached from one's own mind. In other words, they consistently seek principles ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) externally, just as one might observe things ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). From "Hence when they talk about Reality" up to here elucidates how the use of knowledge is as such. As for what is termed "knowledge," it has always been developed on the basis of looking outward at things. In the universe that constitutes our everyday lives, because we regard that which our senses detect to be real cognitive objects ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) external to our mind, so we distinguish and deal with them accordingly. This is how knowledge has been developed. Hence knowledge is merely a tool by which to seek principles externally. If this tool is used only in the universe that constitutes our everyday lives — that is, within the world of physical principles — of course it cannot be deemed inappropriate. If this tool is used carelessly, however, when one wants to solve metaphysical problems with this tool, and one posits Reality as a cognitive object of the external realm in order to trace its principles, one will be greatly mistaken. Ming dynasty Confucians Wang Yangming and Huang Lizhou criticized vulgar Confucians for "seeking principles externally," and in their philosophy they indeed developed some unique insights. It is, moreover, a great pity that, hitherto, scholars have generally not understood that Wang and Huang set themselves limits beyond which they would not venture in their speech. A detailed consideration of this matter, however, should properly be undertaken in On Epistemology. They fail to understand that these principles can be sought only within. Returning to one's inherent mind ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), they are obvious and cannot be concealed. [The mind] simply does not allow even an iota of self-interest to be hidden within. From the mind's grief [caused by selfishness,] we know what is not permissible. Thus we know that this mind is utterly genuine and true, indistinguishably forming one body with heaven, earth, and the myriad things. As for self-interest, it happens to be a delusion that occurs after we are constituted with form-and-vital-stuff ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and so of course it has absolutely no connection with Fundamental Reality. Thus by returning to one's inherent mind, one will already discern Reality. Only this can be deemed "self-recognition." "Self-recognition" refers to the statement above about "the self 's recognizing the self," what is called "inner realization detached from words." [Those who pursue Reality externally] engage in empty speculation, and in doing so, fabrications are firmly established. Such as monism, dualism, pluralism, and so forth. On the strength of this, they eagerly flaunt their conceptual elaborations, not turning back even at the end of their lives. Since the cosmos amounts to nothing ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), The "real" world, constructed by means of conceptualization and discussion, is just the same as the floral images [eidetic images] generated when you knead your eyes with your fingers.

[p. 13]

human life is utterly devoid of any basis. If Reality is not perceived, then human life is but a bubble. Is this not greatly lamentable! If, however, one understands that the application of discernment ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is limited, then it would seem to be the eradication of knowing ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Discernment ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) pertains to the physical world. Because its application is limited, it cannot be used to perceive Reality. Hence, in philosophy, although one must eradicate knowledge ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), in fact it is not a case of completely eliminating knowing; thus is said "seem."

To reveal the home of the mysterious mirror ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), one should revere fundamental wisdom. "Mysterious mirror" is a term from Laozi. Here it is borrowed to serve as the ultimate meaning of fundamental wisdom ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and does not necessarily match its original meaning. "Fundamental wisdom" is so named because wisdom is fundamental. If one is skilled at "returning" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), then immediately [fundamental wisdom] will be there. There is no need for endless searching. The meaning of "returning" is well worth profoundly savoring. Only the dual application of calming ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and cultivation of insight ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) warrants being termed "returning to seek" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). If one follows one's nature, then what appears before one will be genuine. There is no need to have a fondness for quiescence.

This perhaps is the full scope of the teachings in this Treatise. As for indicating the aims of this Treatise, this has been briefly accounted for in the foregoing. As to the matter of elucidating weishi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], it is appropriate to do so in detail after this. Hence, following next after this "Explanation of the Thesis," I talk about weishi.

CHAPTER 2

Weishi ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])

In the preface to his [Cheng] weishi [lun shuji] [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII][TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII][TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Commentary on the Treatise on Demonstrating Nothing but Consciousness), Tang dynasty Buddhist master Kuiji [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] states: "Wei [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (only; merely) is to refute [the view that] cognitive objects exist. Attachment to their existence misses what is true. Shi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (consciousness) is to be differentiated from the [false] view that the mind is empty. This says that consciousness is established so that it will be differentiated from the view that "the mind is empty." Since Kuiji allows that consciousness is not empty, the mind is [therefore] also another name for consciousness. Being mired in emptiness is counter to reality." See the preface to Cheng weishi lun shuji. The meaning here is not definitive.

Deluded attachment [to the view that] there are real external cognitive objects certainly misses what is true, and must be refuted. Yet, because consciousness that grasps cognitive objects is precisely the mind that attaches, then it is deluded and not real, so how then could [consciousness] be said not to be empty? If one were to take deluded consciousness to be one's real mind, presuming that it is not empty, this would be just like mistaking a thief for one's own son. There is no greater error than this. Now, I say that cognitive objects falsely construed as real exist only because of deluded consciousness, and in fact are not cognitive objects at all. By observing consciousness one will know that cognitive objects do not exist, and hence that there is nothing wrong in rejecting cognitive objects [as real]. Here, all the references to "cognitive objects" are to the external cognitive objects one attaches to. Deluded consciousness also exists by virtue of relying on the real mind, yet is actually at odds with what is real. "Consciousness" gets its name from its function.? Because it gains illusory appearance through its function, yet lacks self-nature, and also because it is intermixed with habitual defilements ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), it is said to be deluded. Function ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) relies on Reality ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) to arise. Thus it is said it is by relying upon real mind that deluded consciousness exists. For function to be able to arise, however, since it must be intermixed with habitual defilements, it is utterly at odds with what is real, and so there is the error of deluded attachment to external objects.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness by Xiong Shili, John Makeham. Copyright © 1932 Xiong Shili. Excerpted by permission of Yale UNIVERSITY PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
• Publication date: 2015
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 030019157X
• ISBN 13: 9780300191578
• Binding: Hardcover
• Number of pages: 409