On the Origin and Conceptual Development of ‘Essence-Function’ (ti-yong)

Abstract

‘Essence-function’ (ti-yong 體用), also called ‘substance-function,’ has been a constant topic of debate in monastic and academic communities in China. One group of scholars insists that the concept is derived from the Confucian tradition, while the other maintains that it originates with the Buddhist tradition. These opposing opinions are not merely the arguments of antiquity, but have persisted to our present time. This paper investigates the concept of ‘essence-function,’ focusing on its origin and conceptual development in the Buddhist and the Confucian traditions. This concept has become a basic framework of Chinese religions. Its root appears already in ancient Confucian and Daoist works such as the Xunzi and the Zhouyi cantong qi. It is, however, through the influence of Buddhism that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ became a paradigm used as an exegetical, hermeneutical and syncretic tool for interpreting Chinese philosophical works. This dual concept played a central role not only in the assimilation of Indian Buddhism in China during its earlier phases but also in the formation of Neo-Confucianism in medieval times. This paper shows that the paradigm constituted by ‘essence’ and ‘function’ resulted not from the doctrinal conflicts between Confucianism and Buddhism but from the interactions between them.

1. Introduction

The ‘essence-function’ (ti-yong 體用)1 is a core concept in Chinese philosophy. It serves as the basic philosophical framework for all major Chinese religions. This dual concept became the foundation of the ‘principle and vital force’ (li-qi 理氣) which is the defining characteristic of Neo-Confucianism. It was also the primary paradigm for the development of Buddhism in China, which distinguishes Chinese Buddhism from Indian Buddhism. Since the concept of ‘essence-function’ played a central role in the thought systems of both Confucianism and Chinese Buddhism, an issue has been debated concerning whether it is an exclusively Sinitic element or not. The disagreement among scholars was over its exact origin. Confucianists regarded this concept as intrinsic to Chinese indigenous religions, while Buddhists asserted that it owes its essential features to the influence of Buddhism.

The argument on the origin of ‘essence-function’ emerged in the Southern Song dynasty (1127–1279) and came to a head during the period of transition between the Ming 明 (1368–1644) and the Qing 淸 (1636–1912) dynasties. Two important philosophers, Li Yong 李顒 (1613–1682) and Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 (1627–1705), extensively debated on the concept of ‘essence-function.’ Gu Yanwu insisted that it was already an element of pre-Chin Confucianism. To demonstrate this, he attributed its origin to the Zhouyi cantong qi 周易參同契 by Wei Boyang 魏伯陽,2 which contains the concepts of both ‘essence’ and ‘function.’ On the other hand, Li Yong argued that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ in that text denote something other than the commonly understood ‘essence-function.’ He maintained that the dual concept was first formulated by the eminent Chan master, Huineng 慧能 (638–713). It is clear that the debate between Gu Yanwu and Li Yong over this concept reverberated throughout since then, suggesting important implications regarding its origin.

The debate on the concept of ‘essence-function’ continues in modern East Asian scholarship. In modern scholarship, however, the heated debate surrounding its origin has shifted, as the focus is now on investigating how this concept was employed in the doctrinal structures of various strands of Buddhism and Confucianism when it was theoretically developed in each religious tradition. This scholarly controversy is closely related to its key role in their thought systems. Our inquiry emphasizes Confucian-Buddhist interactions over their individual facets when dealing with the origin and conceptual development of ‘essence and function.’ This dual concept has been the most widely used hermeneutic framework employed in the interpretation of religious and philosophical works in China up to premodern times.3 For this reason, the present investigation will demonstrate that the conceptual development of ‘essence-function’ was based on the interreligious dialogues between Confucianism and Buddhism.

2. The Origin in Chinese Indigenous Religions

‘Essence’ (ti 體) is the fundamental basis or origin of something, whereas ‘function’ (yong 用) refers to phenomena that are concretely manifested by ‘essence.’ These terms appear in Chinese literature as early as the pre-Qin period (770–221 BCE).4 It is worth noting, however, that the concepts of ‘essence’ and ‘function’ are barely recorded in the literature of this period. The appearance of the concepts was first advanced in the Xunzi 荀子, which argued as follows:

Although many things co-exist in the same space, they are composed of different ‘essences’ and have no predetermined ‘functions.’ However, each human has many potential ‘functions.’5

The Xunzi describes entities in the phenomenal world using the terms ‘essence’ and ‘function,’ and proposes that ‘essence’ is a compositional principle of a thing and ‘function’ is a quality that is potentially possessed by a human being. Even though both terms appear together in the text, it is not clear whether or not there is a mutual relationship between them.6

Gu Yanwu observes that the concepts of ‘essence’ and ‘function’ originally appeared in the Zhouyi cantong qi by Wei Boyang in the Lianghan 兩漢 period (206 BCE–220). This text contains the following observation:

Spring and summer are based on inner ‘essence,’ and autumn and winter are based on outer ‘function.’7

There is an ongoing argument about whether the ‘essence’ and the ‘function’ alluded to in this text are mere philosophical abstractions or just refer to concrete particularities in the physical world. Yet, Wei Boyang’s use of the terms reflects a simple tenet of Confucianism, as exemplified by the concept of yin-yang 陰陽, which represents the principle of complementarity in ancient Chinese philosophy describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces interrelate to each other.

The concept of ‘essence-function’ was first used as a philosophical paradigm during the Weijin Nanbeichao 魏晉南北朝 dynasty (220–589)—the period in which Wang Bi 王弼 (226–249) engaged his academic pursuits. Today, many researchers consider his thought on Xuanxue 玄學, a branch of Daoism, as a forerunner of the concept of ‘essence and function’ in Neo-Confucianism. They maintain that Wang Bi’s use of the notion of ‘root and stem’ was a paradigmatic shift in the evolution of this dual concept. According to Wang Bi, ‘existence’ (you 有) stems from ‘nonexistence’ (wu 無).8 This nonexistence can be understood as the predecessor of the concept of ‘essence.’ In his theory, each phenomenon has a ‘function’ caused by this essential root.9

Wang Bi’s idea of nonexistence is analogous to the Buddhist notion of emptiness (kong 空) proposed by the Prajñā school, in the sense that both concepts refer to the intrinsic nature of all things. As a matter of fact, Wang Bi’s concept of nonexistence cannot be explained without the notion of emptiness. This is why Wang Xiaoyi 王曉毅 and Lu Cheng 呂澂 considered that Wang Bi was influenced by Buddhism.10 It is sufficiently clear that Wang Bi lived before the emergence of Chinese Buddhism in the 4^th to 5^th century; yet, this fact notwithstanding, there is a possibility that he encountered a certain type of Buddhism because his academic activities coincided with the period of the transmission and assimilation of Indian Buddhism in China during its earliest phases.11 Moreover, Wang Bi’s ontology includes drastic changes that are not found in the Laozi 老子 and the Book of Changes (周易).12

3. The Origin in Buddhism

As discussed above, Li Yong maintained that the concept of ‘essence-function’ was first framed by Huineng in the 7^th century. However, Sengzhao 僧肇 (384–414), a disciple of the eminent Buddhist translator Kumārajīva, had already employed it in the 4^th century. One of the most notable achievements of Sengzhao was to re-envision the theory of twofold truth (erdishuo 二諦說) through the prism of Chinese philosophy.13 He understood the twofold truth, comprised of ‘ultimate truth’ (zhendi 眞諦) and ‘conventional truth’ (sudi 俗諦), in terms of the concepts of ‘essence’ and ‘function,’ asserting that the two are inseparable. He compared ‘essence and function’ to ‘stillness and movement.’ This can be found in the following description:

Even though it goes, it doesn’t move; it is always still. Even though it is still, it is not stationary; it is always moving. It is still, but it always goes. Because of this, it doesn’t move as it goes. Even though it is moving, it is always still. It is still, but it isn’t stationary.14

This passage explains that a body moves while being still and is static as it moves. Such a state of stillness and movement is called xiangji 相卽, a concept which denotes that two phenomena are mutually identical. From the perspective of ‘conventional truth,’ stillness is different from movement. From the perspective of ‘ultimate truth,’ on the other hand, stillness is identical to movement. They are simply different names for the same phenomenon.15 Sengzhao demonstrated that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ are also in the relationship of mutual identity (xiangji), arguing that ‘essence’ is in fact ‘function,’ and ‘function’ is ‘essence.’ In this way, this thought of mutual identity supersedes extreme views such as that “there is only ‘function,’ and no ‘essence,’” and conversely that “there is only ‘essence,’ and no ‘function.’”

4. The Conceptual Development in Buddhism

Sengzhao’s thought that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ are mutually identical was further developed in the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith (大乘起信論, hereafter referred to as AMF). This text configures ‘essence’ and ‘function’ in the following dialectic: There is ‘one mind,’ and there are the two aspects of this ‘one mind.’16 The mind in terms of ‘suchness’ (zhenru 眞如) is explained as ‘essence;’ the mind in terms of ‘phenomena’ (shengmie 生滅) is described as ‘function.’ AMF indicates that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ have an identical origin, i.e., ‘one mind.’ Thus, they are by nature the same, but differ only in their aspect.17 This idea was advanced through Sengzhao’s proposal that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ are identical.

The focus of what is now called Huayan 華嚴 emphasized the identity of ‘essence’ and ‘function.’ Fazang 法藏 (643–712), who was in fact the progenitor of Huayan,18 systematized his thoughts on the basis of the concept of ‘essence-function.’ According to him, ‘essence,’ which manifests itself independently, is nothing other than ‘function.’19 Therefore, ‘essence’ and ‘function’ in themselves are the world of truth (fajie 法界). Fazang further conceptualized ‘essence’ and ‘function’ in the context of the relationship between ‘principle’ (li 理) and ‘phenomena’ (shi 事), which later became one of the core terms of Neo-Confucianism. ‘Principle’ is the fundamental law, general pattern, or innate quality that governs reality. On the other hand, ‘phenomena’ are events or entities as they are experienced in the empirical world. ‘Phenomena’ are always changing and merging together, and as a totality form a ‘principle,’ as if hundreds of streams were running into the sea. According to Fazang, ‘principle’ is ‘essence’ and ‘phenomena’ are ‘function.’ To be sure, ‘essence’ as ‘principle’ has the same flavor (yiwei 一味), but it is always associated with ‘function’ as ‘phenomena.’20 Each and every individual ‘phenomenon’ is pervaded by ‘principle.’ Thus, all the various discrete ‘phenomena’ in the universe are in interaction with every other ‘phenomena’ on the basis of ‘essence.’

Chengguan 澄觀 (738–839), the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school, developed Fazang’s idea of ‘essence-function’ as ‘principle-phenomena’ one step further. According to him, the world of truth embraces ‘principle’ and ‘phenomena’ as a collective whole; so they cannot impede one another. The concept of ‘dependent origination’ (yuanqi 緣起), a key principle in Buddhism which stipulates that all phenomena arise in dependence upon other phenomena, refers to the myriad ‘functions’ of ‘essence.’21 In his commentary on the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Chengguan suggested as follows:

Movement and stillness are inseparable and originate from one and the same root.22

In this passage, Chengguan clarifies that movement and stillness derive from one and the same root (yiyuan 一源). Elaboration of this idea can be found in his other work, Dafangguangfo huayanjing suishu yanyi chao 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔. In this text, Chengguan explained that the relationship between movement and stillness is identical to that between ‘phenomena’ and ‘principle.’ Just as movement and stillness originate from one and the same root, so too do ‘phenomena’ and ‘principle.’ Chengguan maintained that this one and the same root is the ‘essence’ of the world of truth.23 Since this world empirically unfolds through the diverse ‘functions’ of ‘essence,’ the mind of living beings is able to perceive ‘principle’ within ‘phenomena,’ just as it can perceive stillness within movement. This relationship between stillness and movement is a forerunner of the Neo-Confucian conception that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ originate from one and the same root.

5. The Conceptual Development in Neo-Confucianism

The Neo-Confucian philosopher Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033–1107) highlighted the following crucial notion in Neo-Confucianism: “‘Essence’ and ‘function’ originate from one and the same root, and manifestation and latency do not interfere with each other.”24 According to Yisue 易學, the universe can be explained through trigrams (gua 卦), the symbols used to represent the fundamental ‘principle’ of reality. In dialectical terms, trigrams reveal ‘principle,’ which is already latent in the trigrams; and as a corollary, these trigrams can be identical. Cheng Yi explained the relationship between ‘phenomena’ and ‘principle’ in the following way: “Nothing is more vivid than ‘phenomena’ and nothing is more subtle than ‘principle.’ However, ‘phenomena’ and ‘principle’ are identical by nature, and they have one and the same origin. A gentleman (junzi 君子) can thoroughly cultivate himself. This is because he is able to master both ‘phenomena’ and ‘principle.’”25 This is the same as saying that ‘principle’ is ‘essence’ and a ‘phenomenon’ is ‘function.’

In his book, The Confucianism in Song and Ming, Chen argued that Cheng Yi’s conception of ‘essence’ and ‘function’ originating from one and the same root is a way of advancing Confucian philosophy.26 However, it is implausible to claim that this idea came exclusively from the Confucian tradition. This derivation is difficult to detect in most strands of ancient Chinese philosophy other than in Buddhist schools of thought like Huayan. It is clear that Cheng Yi was profoundly influenced by the Buddhism of his time.

The monistic interpretation of ‘principle’ and ‘vital force’ (qi 氣)27 of Cheng Hao 程顥 (1032–1085), who is Cheng Yi’s brother, was also related to Buddhist thought.28 His metaphysical ‘principle’ and physical ‘vital force’ correspond, respectively, to ‘unconditioned factors’ (wuweifa 無爲法) and ‘conditioned factors’ (youweifa 有爲法), the dual concepts which are of fundamental importance in Buddhist ontology.29 The ‘unconditioned factors’ are those which are not subject to impermanence (wuchang 無常). The ‘conditioned factors’ are, on the other hand, those which are produced by causes and conditions (yinyuan 因緣). They are governed by four modes of event: arising (sheng 生), abiding (zhu 住), changing (yi 異), and ceasing (mie 滅). ‘Principle’ is permanent and does not change, while ‘vital force’ changes in accordance with conditions.

Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) further developed the Cheng brothers’ concept of ‘essence-function,’ based on the complementary framework of ‘principle’ and ‘vital force.’ He elaborated a taxonomy of forms of metaphysical and physical flux in Yisue 易學.30 All things possess ‘principle,’ but they manifest it differently due to the different qualities of their ‘vital force.’ Zhu Xi argued that metaphysical ‘principle’ provides the basis for ‘phenomena,’ whereas physical entities are simply vectors of their metaphysical counterpart.31 Here, the ‘principle’ is ‘essence’ and the ‘vital force’ that manifests empirical things in the world is ‘function.’ According to Zhu Xi, ‘principle’ and ‘vital force’ are fundamentally synchronic, but in the conventional sense the former exists prior to the latter. It is assumed that things take on their form through the operation of their ‘vital force’ after the appropriation of ‘principle.’32 Zhu Xi’s ‘principle’-centered proposition is supported by his assertions that ‘principle’ is transcendent in character; it exists independently; and it acts separately from the physical world. In this light, if we follow the logic of Zhu Xi’s thought, ‘essence’ is given primacy over ‘function.’

6. Concluding Remarks

This paper has examined the concept of ‘essence-function’ in the context of the Buddhist and the Confucian traditions. Discussion thus far leads us the following main points:

(1)

The terms ‘essence’ (ti) and ‘function’ (yong) appear already in Confucian and Daoist works such as the Xunzi and the Zhouyi cantong qi. At the same time, however, they did not constitute a hermeneutical framework for interpreting the status of things in the physical world.

(2)

The paradigm of ‘essence’ and ‘function’ was first employed in a philosophical context by Wang Bi who argued that the ‘function’ of myriad things stems from nonexistence. This nonexistence was the predecessor of the concept of ‘essence,’ which was formed under the influence of the Buddhist notion of emptiness.

(3)

Subsequently, this paradigm was appreciated by the Buddhists who came after Wang Bi. Sengzhao understood ‘essence’ and ‘function’ in terms of the twofold truth. From the perspective of conventional truth, ‘essence’ and ‘function’ are different. From the perspective of ultimate truth, on the other hand, they are of mutual identity (xiangji 相卽).

(4)

Post-Sengzhao Buddhists discussed the reason for the mutual identity of ‘essence’ and ‘function’ in terms of the concept of ‘one mind’ in the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith. The ‘essence’ and the ‘function’ originate from ‘one mind.’ They are by nature identical, but differ only in their aspect.

(5)

Huayan studies further developed the idea that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ share the same origin. Fazang interpreted the dual concept in terms of the relationship between ‘principle’ and ‘phenomena.’ ‘Essence’ as ‘principle’ has the same flavor (yiwei 一味) with ‘function’ as ‘phenomena.’ By employing the comparison of movement and stillness, Chengguan clarified that the world of truth embraces ‘principle’ and ‘phenomena’ as a collective whole in which they do not impede one another.

(6)

Huayan conception of ‘essence’ and ‘function’ exerted profound influence upon Neo-Confucianism. The Cheng brothers confirmed that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ originate from one and the same root. This idea served as a basic tool for interpreting the universe in Chinese philosophy. The Cheng brothers understood the Huayan concepts of ‘principle’ and ‘phenomena’ as ‘principle’ and ‘vital force.’ ‘Principle’ corresponds to the ‘essence’ that is permanent and does not change; ‘vital force’ corresponds to the ‘function’ that changes in accordance with conditions.

(7)

Zhu Xi focused on illustrating the status of ‘essence’ and ‘function’ through the framework of ‘principle’ and ‘vital force.’ While accepting that ‘essence’ and ‘function’ originate from one and the same root, he held an ‘essence’-centered position. Zhu Xi emphasized the priority of ‘essence’ over ‘function’.