The Comparison And Research
of Aristotle's "Theory of Four
Causes" And Master Chi-Yi's "Three Causes of the Buddha Nature"
By Lee Chi-fu
Summary
According to the metaphysics of Greek
philosopher Aristotle, 384-322 B.C. the formation of the universe was due to
Four Causes, i.e., Eidos, the Formal cause; Hule, the Material Cause; Arkhe,
the Efficient Cause; Telos, the Final Cause (1).
Chinese Master Chi-yi, 538
Despite the above-mentioned theories of
Four Causes and the Three Causes of the Buddha Nature can all be applied to
metaphysics, cosmology, even to the activities of daily life; however, the
Master put much emphasis on the sense of Buddhism practice. The Theory of Four
Causes and the Theory of Three Causes, when compared, are not found to be identical, even though their basic lay-out seems to be of
the same type.
There is a difference of 981 years between
the philosopher’s birth and the master’s death. During this time,
I.
Aristotle’s Theory of Four
Causes (4)
According to Aristotle: The blueprint of a
house in an architect’s mind is the Formal Cause; bricks, tiles …. are the
Material Cause; the bricklayers are the Efficient Cause; the house built having
living value is the Final Cause (5). In chapter I of his “Metaphysics”,
Aristotle spoke of the reality of both form and material. The reason that an
architect’s blueprints in mind can set up houses combined with bricks, tiles ….
lies in “Immanent Finality” (6).
Aristotle in his “Metaphysics” chapter IV
inferred that the changing cosmos must have a nonalterable and still entity,
possessing divinity (7). God is every form’s form, and “form” is to feel the
Immanent Essence among objects (8). For instance, “Socrates (469- 399 B.C.) was
a being”, the “being” was the inner form of Socrates who would not have been
able to exist if without the form of a being (9).
To further what has been
mentioned, like, “the whole universe is formed by the form of God” (10),
supposedly God’s form to be ridded, the whole universe would fail to exist. Shortening
the statement, like, “the snake is egg-born animals”, if there were no class of
animals on earth, neither were the category of snakes. Basing on the belief of
Aristotle, thereby, God, human beings, and animals are all different levels of
the Formal Cause; besides, the universe, Socrates and snakes are naturally the
Material Cause. Aristotle believed that original materials can relate to every
single Particular whose lowest level can touch on the class or universal that
every single Particular formed, also its largest material can be traced back to
the entire cosmos, and its highest form can be dated from God.
As for the Efficient Cause, Aristotle
reckoned that God initially had created the orbit movement, all the universal
variation was set forth afterwards (11). Therefore, not only is God the first
Formal Cause or the ultimate Final Cause, but also is the first Efficient Cause
(12). So far as the power of each level’s generating and changing within the
universe is concerned, apart from the Final Cause, there is also the
“Mechanical Cause” which triggers “Fortuitous” movement (13). Hypothetically,
however, if there lacks God’s first Efficient Cause, the whole universe would
remain still.
II. Master Chi-yi’s Three Causes of The
Buddha Nature
The Master in the Saddharma Pundharika
Sutra Xuan2 Yi4 法華經玄義discussing
“Three Relative Buddha Nature” 類通三佛性 of ‘Three Profound Dharma’ 三妙法 asserted: “The True Rule
is Zheng4 Yin Xing4 正因性; the Meditating Rule is Liao3 Yin
Xing3 了因性; the Effectuating Rule is Yuan2 Yin Xiang4 緣因性” (14). Then, how
to explain the Three Rules? In his explanatory ‘Three Profound Dharmas’,
the Master mentioned, “Three Dharmas denote Three Rules 15.” So to speak,
the ‘rule’ is a rail, the rail is a tenet, a principle, also can be thought as
a method. The Master categorized Three Rules into different levels. In his
‘Three Separate Understandable Dharmas’ 歷別明三法, it can be divided into Zang4 藏, Tong 通, Bie2 別, Yuan2 圓 four
doctrines (16).
According to Zang4 Doctrine if followers
practise True Rule, their knots 惑 would be untied and reals would be unveiled; through the
practice of Meditating Rule one can observe that nothing is permanent; via the
practice of Effectuating Rule one can fulfill virtue (17).
According to Tong Doctrine if believers
practise True Rule, their essence would be made void, that is, reason and real;
Meditating Rule is wisdom composed of emptiness; Effectuating Rule is to pursue
all the sacred deeds (18).
Bie2 Doctrine regards wisdom as True Rule;
emptiness as Meditating Rule; all deeds as Effectuating Rule (19).
Yuan2 Doctrine’s True Rule is motionless
essence, which is the substance with permanent Zheng4 Yin, namely body;
Meditating Rule is emptiness with great functions, which is the first esoteric
one, namely phenomenon; Effectuating Rule, which conceals all deeds, is the
Tathata Womb, namely function. The substance, phenomenon, and function are three in one which is non-one, non-dual, beyond thoughts.
Chi-Yi’s Three Rules of Yuan2 Doctrine is too
in short the Three Rules that he claimed, to sum them up, which are Incredible
Real Profound Dharma, its chart is displayed in the followings (20):
Real Rule
Zheng4 Yin is permanent i.e.
oneness
Meditating Rule the First profound
emptiness i.e.
non-oneness
incredible
Effectuating Rule Tathata Womb
i.e. non-oneness, not
non-oneness
The Master in Understanding Beginning And
Ending (明始終) categorized Such Embodiment (如是體) of Ten Such So (十如是), and Middle
Path (中道) of Inevitability of Them All (如是本末等) as True Rule; categorized
Suchness, Phenomenon, Power, Function, Primary Cause, Environmental Cause,
Effect, Karmic Reward (如是性, 相,力, 作, 因, 緣, 果, 報,) as well as Emptiness (空) and Falsehood (假) of
Inevitability of Them All (如是本末等) as Meditating Rule and Effectuating Rule,
below is given (21):
Three Rules of Beginning and End:
Realm of Such Ten
Three Rules
1. Such Embodiment
True Rule
2. Such Nature
Nature Within
Meditating Rule
3. Such Phenomenon
Phenomenon Without
Effectuating Rule
4. Such Power
Liao3 Yin
Meditating Rule
5. Such Function Ceaseless
Struggle
Effectuating Rule
6. Such Primary Cause
Acquired Cause
Meditating Rule
7. Such Environmental Cause Karmic
Reward
Effectuating Rule
8. Such Effect
Acquired Effect
Meditating Rule
9. Such Karmic Reward
Acquired Karmic Reward Effectuating Rule
Emptiness
Meditating Rule
10. Inevitability of Them All
Falsehood
Effectuating Rule
Middle
True Rule
By carefully reading the above-mentioned
Three Separate Understandable Dharmas and Understanding Beginning And Ending
two passages, the so-called Three Rules are nothing but three relative concepts;
just like Three Causes of the Buddha Nature is namely Three Rules, so that
Three Causes of the Buddha Nature is merely three relative concepts. Again, as
for its Three Relative Wisdom 類通三般若, Real Wisdom is the objective, also
True Rule; Meditation Wisdom is intelligence, also Meditating Rule; sign wisdom
is action, also Effectuating Rule (22). If we relatively regard Saddharma
Pundharika Sutra as the objective, True Rule, and Zheng4 Yin; regard understanding
the sutra as wisdom, Meditating Rule, and Liao3 Yin; regard analyzing sign
structures and grammar of the sutra as action, Effectuating Rule, and Yuan2
Yin, in such a way, they are to be concluded in relative cases and events. It
therefore can be seen that Three Causes of the Buddha Nature can be modeled as the highest pale of cultivating
practice, can be brought into daily life’s routines as well.
III.
The Comparison And Analysis of Both Theory of Four Causes And Three Causes
1.
The Accordance of Both:
Aristotle considered every objects all
having form and material as two realities, Efficient Cause and Final Cause
exist only attaching to the Formal Cause (23). The highest form is God, God is
nothing but a pondering embodiment, and only ponders himself (24). Form is the
goal of generating, God is the highest form, that is, the ultimate goal. All
the Efficient Cause, as a result, returns to the Final Cause; the Final Cause
is back to the Formal Cause (25), after all, they all go back to the highest
Formal Cause-God.
So far as cosmology is concerned, every
phenomenon and all manifestations of the
universe
are achieved owing to the Formal Cause and Material Cause; as for metaphysics,
they
have one last common intention, that is to say, trending to the unified highest
form
of the cosmos, also knowing the thinking embodiment itself, i.e.,God.
The Master’s Three Causes of
the Buddha Nature whose Zheng4 Yin is True Rule, namely Empty Quality,
Tatathata, in other words, One Reason. If following the above- mentioned
statement, Aristotle’s God-the first Formal Cause can be regarded as One Reason,
then the Master’s Zheng4 Yin Buddha Nature and Aristotle’s God, in terms
of essence, all appertain to One Reason, both can be taken as completely
agreeing.
Once again, the Master’s Meditating Rule
and Liao3 Yin Buddha Nature are similar to Aristotle’s Efficient Cause in the
hope of attaining Zheng4 Yin Buddha Nature. As for the matter of phenomena,
Aristotle’s example of bricklayers constructing houses is in order to reach the
blueprints in architects’ mind, which is also the Master's Zheng4 Yin.
The Master’s Effectuating Rule and
Yuan2 Yin Buddha Nature possess something which resembles the Final Cause and
Material Cause of Aristotle. It too may be expounded with Aristotle’s instance
of setting up houses. Aristotle held beliefs that due to bricks, tiles and some
other materials having the inner Final Cause, so that constructing workers can basing on
architects’ blueprints build up houses. To the Master, it is what principal and
subsidiary causes form, Yuan2 Yin Buddha Nature, which is applied to effectuate
the establishing of a house.
The comparative relation between Three
Causes of the Buddha Nature and the Theory of Four Causes is as followings:
Three Causes of Buddha Nature
(Three Rules) Theory of
Four Causes
Zheng4 Yin Buddha Nature (True
Rule)
God (the First Formal Cause)
Liao3 Yin Buddha Nature
(Meditating Rule)
Efficient Cause
Yuan2 Yin Buddha Nature (Effectuating
Rule)
Final Cause
Material Cause
Furthermore, as far as the Master taking
Yuan2 Doctrine to discuss Three Causes
of
Buddha Nature as non-one and non-dual is concerned, Aristotle’s Efficient Cause
could
bring back to the Final Cause, the Final Cause again can be restored to the
Formal
Cause,
insofar, the three ones are neither one nor dual.
It can be realized from the above, the
Master’s Three Causes of the Buddha Nature
harmonizes
Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes; in nature, they are tantamount.
2. The
Differentiation and Reconciliation of Both:
Aristotle considered the form as well as
the substance (material) as two major root principles, also known as the
ultimate real (26); the Master regarded True Rule and Zheng4 Yin Buddha Nature
as Empty Quality, Reality too. Except both of them said having great
dissimilarity toward substance, the real of Formal Cause parallels much the
theory of Reality and Emptiness of Zheng4 Yin Buddha Nature. In the sense of
logic, they all are Real Concept, absolutely not like the airy lotus of False
Concept. Insomuch, the real is to be partaken with the Formal Cause and Zheng4
Yin Buddha Nature.
There is, nevertheless, one Material Cause
affirmed by Aristotle, the form and material are combined to constitute all
objects of reality. The Master ensconced material problems within Yuan2 Yin,
since what can be formed as Yuan2 Yin, and can be constituted as Zheng4 Yin
Dharma Body, is the potency of self-deeds along with all external forces, in
which the Material Cause is naturally embraced. If extending it to entire
Buddhism, various universal manifestations are made of earth, water, fire and wind
(27), the Master’s thoughts were propped by general theoretic bases of
Buddhism,
through which the Material Cause of Aristotle can be more closely
approached. Aristotle ascertained that the linkage of original materials and
coldness, hotness, dryness, and wetness of Material Cause engenders the Four
Elements-earth, water, fire, and air (i.e., wind), namely, Four Elements; then
the inorganism and organism are to be created out of which, mankind as well
(28).
IV. The Mutual Extension of Thoughts of
Both Theory of Four Causes and Three
Causes of Buddha Nature
Though Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes is
a type of metaphysics, the Master’s Theory of Three Causes is from the point of
view of practice. The highest pale that Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes
pursued was, yet, striving after the Efficient Cause to return to the Final
Cause, and the Final Cause returning to the Formal Cause; its last form is also
recognized as “the form’s form”, a.k.a. God. If people relying on it exercise
religious practice, his Theory of Four Causes can turn into a certain kind of
formula for practice. Even though Aristotle’s God is only a thinking body, not
a creator or a personified god that people can worship; however, would not such
a thinking body get even closer to the Master’s Zheng4 Yin Buddha Nature?
Consequently, Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes can amplify, extend and analyze
the Master’s Three Causes of the Buddha Nature.
Relatively, the Master’s Three
Causes of Buddha Nature can too depend on Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes to
form a set of metaphysics and cosmology, yet merely omitting the practice of
religion, and expanding the method of analyzing and deducing. This, to Three
Causes of Buddha Nature, has a great deal of value of supplementing and
availing.
Regardless of Aristotle or the Master, they
both possess own series of complete theoretic system to support either theory,
interacting, and never existing alone. This text only tries to make some simple
comparison and discussion of both theories, it would be hard to pass a fully
explicit condensation, thus, if any suspicion rises that the author garbled any
statement or context , please condone. Nonetheless, this text merely intents to
provide a standpoint, bear some information, and help interested scholars who
would like to take on further research on the topic obtain several hints.
V. Conclusion
It would be so difficult to strictly
distinguish philosophy from religion, but both are one kind of thought.
Thoughts form beliefs, if one puts them into practice, religions are usually
formed, such as Buddhism, Jainism , Taoism …. etc.. Religions’ development through
rational thinking and learning, as a result, forms philosophy, e.g. academic philosophy,
Islamic philosophy, Buddhist Studies …. etc.
So Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes
although is philosophy, if endowed with beliefs and practice, which would be a
religion. But Aristotle’s intention was not religions but philosophy, his
Theory of Four Causes stayed with philosophy only. At the outset, if Aristotle
had done what the Master did, or Aristotle’s students could do it for him, we
would
customarily witness a religion formed out of Aristotle’s philosophy.
And the Master’s Three Causes of the Buddha
Nature is religious, moreover fulfilling. For the sake of making the most of
his religion and school, he evolved its teachings as well as thoughts, seeing
his Three Causes of the Buddha Nature can serve as a school of philosophy and
metaphysics.
As far as philosophy and metaphysics are
concerned, there are, by all means, interactive portions between Aristotle’s
Theory of Four Causes and Master Chi-yi’s Three Causes of the Buddha Nature.
This text solely suggests some probing paths with directions over this
interaction.
Footnotes
1. As the author is not well-versed in Greek, the following works have been
consulted:
(1) “A History of
Philosophy”, Volume I, by Frederick Copleston, S.J.,
The
Newman
Press,
(2) “Western History of Philosophy”, by Fu4
Wei3-xun, the first edition was done
in July of
1965, issued by San Ming2 Bookstore.
(3) “Western History of Philosophy”, Volume
I, by Frank Thilly, translated by
Chen2 Zheng4-mo2, issued by San
Wu4 Bookstore in 1936.
2.
Self-written “A Research on Saddharma Pundharika Sutra Xuan2 Yi
3. The 36th chapter, Nian2 Pu2 of “Lu4 Xiang4 San’s Complete Series”.
4. Same as footnote 1. (1), ‘The Metaphysics of Aristotle’ PP. 287-319, P.
306;
Same as footnote 2. (2), P.
127-137;
Same as footnote 3. (3), P.
94-97.
5. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 313-314;
Same as footnote 1. (2), P.
129.
6. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 313;
Same as footnote 1. (2), P.
134.
7. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 291;
Same as footnote 1. (2), P.
129-130;
Same as footnote 1. (3), P.
97.
8. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 294;
Same as footnote 1. (2), P.
133, 131.
9. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 295;
Same as footnote 1. (2), P.
131.
10.
Aristotle once took oaks, marbles, paintings …. etc. for examples, the
reason that oaks can grow as oaks, marbles can be carved into different
statues, and a painter can paint a picture is because of their Formal Causes
and Final Causes. Each object has its own Formal and Final Causes. God is, is
to be, the ultimate Formal Cause and Final Cause, for God himself is
“goodness”, the utmost end, God is self-centered. Same as footnote 1. (1), P.
314; Same as footnote 1. (2), P. 133: “God himself is motionless, also the most
impeccable and perfect Entelecheia …. and Aristotle’s concept of “God” may also
be named as Plato’s "Form of Goodness." Same as footnote 1. (3), P.
97.
11. Same as footnote 1. (1), PP. 310-315;
Same as footnote 1.
(2), P. 134.
12. Same as footnote 1. (1), PP. 314-315;
Same as footnote 1.
(2), P. 133;
Same as footnote 1. (3),
P. 97.
13. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 314;
Same as footnote 1.
(2), P. 136.
14. Same as footnote 2. P. 699.
15. Same as footnote 2. P. 667.
16. Same as footnote 2. P. 672.
17. Same as footnote 2. PP. 673-674.
18. Same as footnote 2. P. 674.
19. Same as footnote 2. PP. 675-677.
20. Same as footnote 2. PP. 668-671.
21. Same as footnote 2. PP.689-693.
22. Same as footnote 2. PP. 700-701.
23. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 314;
Same as footnote 1.
(2), P. 132.
24. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 316;
Same as footnote 1.
(2), P. 136.
25. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 313;
Same as footnote 1.
(2), PP. 134-135.
26. Same as footnote 1. (1), P. 314;
Same as footnote 1. (2), P. 132.
27.
“Theory of Four Elements “ by and large exists within all the Buddhist
Sutras. Like “Complexing Agama” mentions: “The venomous snake is similar to
Four Elements- earth, water, fire, and wind”. ( “Buddhist Enlightenment Canon.
Agama. Complexing Agama I” , P. 435).
28. Same as footnote 1. (1), 307;
Same as footnote 1.
(2), P. 133.