A deeply philosophical debate concerning the relation between Heaven and man took place among the ideological elite early in the ninth century. Han Yu (768-824), a literati and thinker, provoked this debate by advocating the theory of Heavenly Decree (Tian ming). He held that people should be obedient to the Decrees of Heaven and submit themselves to the Will of Heaven (Tian Yi). The development and multiplication of humankind would be against Heaven and Earth since people's productive activity did harm to the primordial material force (Yuanqi) and broke the balance of Yin and Yang. His words warned mankind against immoderate multiplication of population and excessive exploitation of nature. Liu Zongyuan (773-819), another great literati and philosopher, wrote an article criticizing this position of Han Yu. Afterwards, Liu Yuxi (772-842), a poet and philosopher, came to write a treatise to supplement Liu Zongyuan's opinion. However, as Liu Zongyuan did not entirely agree with the supplement, he wrote to Liu Yuxi to express his dissent. Finally, Zong Mi (780-841), a Buddhist scholar belonging to both the Hua Yan and Chan schools, denied all the theories held by Han Yu, Liu Zongyuan and Liu Yuxi. In the chapter commenting upon "Doctrine Concerning Heaven and Man" in his famous work A Treatise on Man, Zong Mi used the Buddhist theory of principal and subsidiary causes to expose the conflict between the theory of Heavenly Decree and that of primordial material force, and enunciated his own solution to the problem of man's origin. Seven documents recording the above argument are extant:
(1) "Tian Shuo" or "A Speech on Heaven," by Liu Zongyuan;
(2) "Da Yuxi Tian Lun Shu" or "A Letter to Reply to Liu Yuxi's `Treatise on Heaven'," by Liu Zongyuan;
(3) "Tian Dui" or "Answers to Questions on Heaven," by Liu Zongyuan;
(4) "Tian Lun" or "A Treatise on Heaven," by Liu Yuxi;
(5) "Yuan Ren" or "On Man," by Han Yu;
(6) "Yuan Dao" or "On Tao," by Han Yu;
(7) "Yuan Ren Lun" or "A Treatise on Man," by Zong Mi.
In our view, Liu Zongyuan and Liu Yuxi's explanations of the relationship between Heaven and man by and large are correct. The following is a commentary upon their conceptions in four parts.
HEAVEN AND MAN NEVER INTERVENE WITH EACH OTHER
Up to the Tang dynasty, the word "Tian" or Heaven in theoretical writings had three main meanings:
(1) A conscious and anthropomorphic God;
(2) The sky in contrast with the earth;
(3) The whole natural world including the earth.
In Liu Zongyuan's works "Heaven" often contrasts with the earth. For instance, he said, "That which is above and dark, people call `Heaven', while that which is below and yellow, people call `Earth'."1 In Liu Yuxi's works, "Heaven" is used as a concept in contrast with man: "Heaven is the largest of those having forms; man is the most perfect of animals."2
Therefore the meaning of Liu Zongyuan's "Heaven" seems not unlike that of Liu Yuxi's considering their common point that Heaven implies, not God, but a physical thing, namely, the object of astronomical study. Speaking precisely, however, the meaning of Heaven in Liu Yuxi's works is wider, for it refers not only to heavenly principles and regulations, but also to man's physical constitution and power.
Liu Zongyuan asserted that "Heaven and man never intervene with each other," saying, "Both the production [of myriad things] and the happening of [natural] disasters are affairs of Heaven, while both [good government according to] laws and regulations and social disorder are affairs of man. They are obviously two kinds of things and go respectively on their own ways without interactions."3 In other words, he emphasized that Heaven and man all have their positive and negative facets and that there is a strict line of demarcation between Heaven and man; hence each goes its own way without interaction. Furthermore, he said, "It is rather by our efforts than by the Decrees of Heaven that the unlucky is changed into the lucky and the unjustifiable transformed into the justifiable."4 According to his point of view, the above-mentioned transformations are decided by the efforts of man and have nothing to do with the Decree of Heaven. His opinion was an objection to the theory of Heavenly Decree advocated by Han Hu, and also a dissent from Liu Yuxi's idea that Heaven and man predominate over each other in their respective spheres."
HEAVEN AND MAN PREDOMINATE OVER EACH OTHER
IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SPHERES
Liu Yuxi was of the opinion that "A Speech on Heaven" by Liu Zongyuan had not yet completely elucidated all aspects of the relationship between Heaven and man; hence he wrote "A Treatise on Heaven" to discuss this relationship more deeply. Drawing for the first time a clear line of demarcation between the two major schools of thought concerning Heaven, he asserted that there were two approaches to Heaven in the world. One insisted on the "Providence" of Heaven (or Heaven as conscious) and on the "true and accurate interactions between Heaven and man"; the other stuck to the unconsciousness of Heaven, to the sharp difference between Heaven and man, and to the spontaneity and "absence of unnatural action" (Wu Wei) on the part of Heaven, which then, of course, had nothing to do with social affairs.
Liu Yuxi himself was against the former approach while in favor of the latter. Based on the recognition of the discrepancy between Heaven and man Liu Yuxi made his statement: "The capability of Heaven is to produce myriad things, while the capability of man is to govern them."5 What Liu Yuxi called the "capability of Heaven" means the natural shift of the four seasons, the natural properties of metal, wood, water, fire, etc., the natural endowment of man--his physical constitution--and the natural change of his physical powers in accordance with his age. In short, "Heaven" means all the natural properties and the non-artificial conditions. What Liu Yuxi called the "capability of man" means the control, recognition and government of both the natural world and human society, namely, the capability of utilizing the four seasons, metal, wood, water, fire, and other natural things, and the capability of establishing various regulations and laws by which to govern society.
Therefore, on one hand, "Heaven always holds what it can do and thus looks down at those beneath: it is not that it has anything to do with [human] order or disorder. Man always holds what he can do and so looks up at Heaven: it is not that he has anything to do with the cold and heat."6 In his opinion, Heaven by no means could change the social laws which determine whether the society is stable or not, nor could man vary the natural course of turn and return between the cold and heat, and the objective order that plants always sprout in the spring, grow in the summer, are harvested in the autumn and are stored in the winter. Therefore, Heaven and man do not intervene with one another.
On the other hand, "what Heaven can do is just what man certainly cannot: what man can do is just what Heaven cannot. Therefore, I (Liu Yuxi) say, `Heaven and man predominate over each other in their respective spheres'."7 Since the property of Heaven is different from that of man, Heaven in some spheres predominates over man, while man in other spheres predominates over Heaven. In this sense, it is not an absolute law that Heaven and man never intervene with each other.
In further explanation, Liu Yuxi said, "the way of Heaven manifests itself in production and generation; it functions through the predominance of the strong over the weak. The way of man manifests itself in laws and regulations; it functions through the discrimination of the right from the wrong (by rewarding the good and punishing the evil)."8
Liu Yuxi gave the following example: When a group of travellers come to a wilderness and want to rest under leafy trees and drink sweet spring water, the strong and powerful certainly will take precedence. When they come to a city and seek shelter under decorated eaves, and eat their fill from the sacrificial feasts, however, the sages and worthies will certainly take precedence. The former case should be called "predomination of Heaven" while the latter "predomination of man." Liu Yuxi opined that physical strength and power are endowed by Heaven, whereas sageness and worthiness are gained through ceremonies and righteousness. If the country which the travellers visit holds ceremonies and righteousness in reverence, he added, even when they come to the wilderness the case will not be unlike that in a city. But if the country which they visit neglects ceremonies and righteousness, even when they come to a city, the case will be the same as that in the wilderness.
This example shows that man can predominate over Heaven in some spheres, while Heaven can predominate over man in other spheres. What Liu Yuxi called "predomination of Heaven" implies the predomination of natural conditions, while "predomination of man" implies predomination of conditions gained through man's efforts. During travel, there are possibilities for the predomination of both Heaven and man in accord with changing circumstances.
By analogy, Liu Yuxi stated that, living in a stable society in which the laws, regulations and discrimination of the right from the wrong are evident, people will have no faith in the Decree of Heaven; this suggests the predomination of man over Heaven. Living in a disorderly society in which laws, regulations, and discrimination all lose their effects, people have to attribute their fate to the Heavenly principle; this suggests the predomination of Heaven over man.
To explain this, Liu Yuxi used another example: When a boat sails on small rivers, the people in the boat can easily grasp the natural regulations pertinent to sailing and hence can have them well in hand: this implies a predominance of man over Heaven. When the boat sails on large rivers where the natural regulations can hardly be recognized, the people in the boat will have to submit themselves to Heaven and its Decrees; this implies a predominance of Heaven over man.
This example suggests that both Heaven and man are restricted by certain stipulations (numbers) and tendencies. In some cases people can grasp them, but in other cases they cannot; this results in alternating the predominance of Heaven and man over one another.
Dissenting from Liu Yuxi's concept that Heaven and man predominate over each other in respective spheres, Liu Zongyuan criticized that Liu Yuxi failed to draw a clear demarcation between Heaven and man. In his opinion, both strength and sageness are within man's sphere, so that it is unacceptable to attribute the strength of man to Heaven. On the contrary, abolition of laws and regulations and the prevalence of disorder are purely human affairs which have nothing to do with Heaven. When people cannot recognize the regulations, the problem lies within themselves and it can not be said that Heaven has predominated over man. If the social disorders and people's ignorance of the natural regulations are regarded as a predomination of Heaven over man it will lead to the misunderstanding that Heaven has certain moral attributes and a mystic ability to reward or punish people.
Thus, Liu Zongyuan's definitions of Heaven and man, as well as his understanding of "predomination," differed from those of Liu Yuxi. Liu Zongyuan's emphasis upon the difference between Heaven and man and between social laws and natural regulations--as well as his emphasis upon the subject of humankind itself which can grasp and make use of the natural laws--was reasonable. His over-emphasis on the contradiction between Heaven and man, however, was rooted in a latent mechanistic factor.
In contrast, Liu Yuxi failed to recognize that man's physical strength also includes his effort, and his relation of social disorder to the predomination of Heaven is liable to misunderstanding. These were the main shortcomings of his theory. His recognition of the correlation and interpenetration between Heaven and man, however, seems more comprehensive and profound than does Liu Zongyuan's concept. His observation that people will turn to the belief that the will of Heaven predominates over man when they cannot foresee their fate during social disorder or when they are subjected to Nature whose regulations they fail to grasp is, in fact, a correct identification of the social and epistemological roots of theism.
Had Liu Yuxi and Liu Zongyuan's theories complemented each other, the theoretical cognition of the relationship between Heaven and man in ancient China would have reached a new stage.
HEAVEN AND MAN MAKE USE OF EACH OTHER
Closely related to the concept that "Heaven and man predominate over each other in respective spheres," another concept, "Heaven and man make use of each other," was stated by Liu Yuxi, indicating that Heaven can make use of man while man can also make use of Heaven. In fact, however, Liu Yuxi laid emphasis on the latter alone, saying people "can use the heavenly advantages to establish the regulations of man"9 and thereby make Heaven benefit humankind. For example, Heaven has both seasons favorable for plants to grow and seasons for withering them, water brings both the advantages of irrigation and the disaster of flooding, and fire contributes illumination but also damage from conflagrations. Through practice people have learned to take the advantages and avoid or gradually regulate the disadvantages--taking advantage of the spring and summer to sow and grow plants, and that of the autumn and winter to harvest and store them; using water for irrigation and fire for illumination.
The concept that "Heaven and man predominate over each other in respective spheres" represents the contradiction and struggle between man and Nature; this is but one aspect of the relationship between the two. The concept "Heaven and man make use of each other" represents the other aspect of the relationship, namely, that man and Nature are united and interdependent. As it kept in view both the contrast and the "correlation" between Heaven and man, Liu Yuxi's theory more comprehensively elucidated the dialectical relationship between humankind and Nature.
MAN'S PREDOMINATION OVER HEAVEN IS CERTAIN
In Liu Yuxi's opinion, though Heaven and man predominate over each other in respective spheres, the situations of the respective predominations are somehow different. He said, "Heaven's predomination over man is uncertain. Why? Because it is only when people cannot dominate their own fate that they attribute it to Heaven. On the contrary, man's predominance over Heaven is certain. Why? Because Heaven has no self-interest [to resist man's predominance], hence it is certain."10 Contrasting with the unconsciousness of Heaven, man "is the most perfect of animals," "his wisdom is supreme." In addition, Liu Yuxi said, "It is the law by which man can predominate over Heaven."11 The main reason for this is that he has established a system of regulations. Furthermore, through an analysis of the three possible social situations--(1) the system of regulations goes well, (2) the system is partly broken, or (3) the system is completely abolished--Liu Yuxi showed that how social regulations are carried out can decide not only whether the society is orderly or not, but also whether the theory of Heavenly Decree prevails or not. The above arguments explain how man necessarily can predominate over Heaven in view of the difference between man and other animals and Heaven.
Liu Zongyuan did not agree with Liu Yuxi's idea, saying, "Now that it (Heaven) does not want to compete with us, how then could we be said to `predominate' over it"?12 Liu Yuxi's statement that man predominates over Heaven gives "too much favor to man, but too much disfavor to Heaven."13 Here Liu Zongyuan feared that an idealist error would result from the use of moral categories to discuss the relationship between Heaven and man.
CONCLUSION
The debate concerning the relationship between Heaven and man, which took place in the Mid-Tang dynasty in China, referred to a series of relations: between the Decree of Heaven and the power of man, between spontaneity and man's effort, between society and Nature, between social and natural properties, and between social laws and natural regulations. Of the very complicated arguments regarding these relations the most important ones were:
What was the real nature of Heaven?
What was the correct attitude of man towards Nature?
What was the reason for social disorder and how would the people's thought be influenced by it?
All of these are significant problems both philosophically and practically.
Insisting on the theory of Heavenly Decree, Han Yu fell into mysticism. In a sense, however, his pointing out that excessive exploitation of Nature deserved punishment was important. Liu Zongyuan objected to Han Yu's theory of Heavenly Decree, and disagreed with Liu Yuxi's concept that Heaven and man predominate over each other in their respective spheres. He emphasized that Heaven and man never intervene with each other. Liu Yuxi also objected to Han Yu's theory, while he praised Liu Zongyuan's concept that Heaven and man predominate in their respective spheres, that Heaven and man can make use of each other, and that man, the most wise, should necessarily predominate over the unconscious Heaven. It can be said with certainty that Liu Yuxi's main point of view is more comprehensive and profound, though he made his own mistakes.
From this concise analysis of the above scholars' theories on the relationship between Heaven and man there emerges the suggestion that there was indeed a basic line of demarcation between the right and the wrong among the ancient scholars whose concepts were sharply contradictory. Nevertheless, none of the contradictory concepts are mere nonsense. In other words, these concepts all have certain reasonable aspects which can be assimilated either simply or after some adjustment.
The sense of the history of this discussion on the relation between man and
Nature is that as Nature supplies resources for human life man should exploit and
make use of it. However, the exploitation cannot be thoughtless and excessive, but
should be done with conservation and moderation. Man ought to transform the
disadvantageous factors of nature into advantageous ones. This must be done in a
scientific way in order that the natural environment be improved, not worsened.
Therefore, the fundamental conclusion regarding the relationship between man and
nature which should be drawn from the history of the question seems to be a
combination of utilization and conservation, of exploitation and improvement.
People's University of China
Beijing, China
1. A Speech on Heaven, in Collected Works of Liu Zongyuan (Beijing: Zhong Hua Book Store, 1979), vol. 16, pp. 441-443.
2. A Treatise on Heaven, Part I, in Collected Works of Liu Yuxi, vol. 12, pp. 6-8.
3. A Letter in Reply to Liu Yuxi's `A Treatise on Heaven', in Collected Works of Liu Zongyuan, vol. 31, pp. 816-817.
4. Collected Works of Liu Zongyuan, vol. 2, pp. 65-67.
5. A treatise on Heaven.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. A Treatise on Heaven, Part III, in Collected Works of Liu Yuxi, vol. 12, pp. 11-12.
10. A Treatise on Heaven, Part. II in Collected Works of Liu Yuxi, vol. 12, pp. 8-11
11. A Treatise on Heaven.
12. A letter in Reply.
13. Ibid.