While certain internal restraint through philosophy or religion and certain external restraint through law are required in any society and admitted by Chinese philosophy, it does not advocate the frustration of the functioning of the primary instincts. There is as a result something which, for lack of an adequate term, might be described as natural naturalness or contented contentedness. By these terms we do not mean to insinuate that there are fewer instances of cruelty or barbarity in Chinese history than in that of any other nation; evidences of want on destruction, or blood-thirstiness, or of desires running rampant seem to abound in Chinese history as anywhere else. What is meant is rather that there isn’t that unnaturalness which Oscar Wilde saw in the naturalness of a Victorian. The Chinese may have something to say against unnaturalness, but they do not make a fuss over being natural on the one hand, and seem to be quite contented with their contentedness on the other. Perhaps in modern times we are accustomed to regarding contentedness as stagnation, as mental laziness, or as spiritual snuggery. The modern point of view is essentially one that encourages revolts against one’s self, producing as a byproduct such psychological wear and tear that ease and equanimity in life can no longer be maintained. It is a point of view that is opposed to the one we are trying here to describe. The Chinese are contented with their contentedness, exhibiting ideologically the attitude that each to himself is something that is given, and therefore something to be accepted; to borrow a phrase so admirably employed by F. H. Bradley, each has his “station and life,” and in them or it he has his natural dignity. We are not speaking here of the heightened philosophical state attainable only by the few. Although Confucianism allows everybody the possibility to become a saint, failure to do so does not cause any psychological strain. Given this attitude concerning one’s station and life, one is not merely at one with nature, but also at one with society. 哲學(xué)或宗教給人一種內(nèi)在的約束，法律給人一種外在的約束。這類約束是任何社會(huì)都需要的，也都為中國(guó)哲學(xué)所承認(rèn)，但是這并非鼓吹取消各種原始本能的作用。這樣就產(chǎn)生了一種情況，由于缺乏恰當(dāng)?shù)脑~語(yǔ)，可以姑且把它描述為自然的合乎自然，或者滿意的心滿意足。我們的意思并不是用這樣的詞語(yǔ)暗示說，殘酷、野蠻的事例在中國(guó)歷史上比任何其他民族少；殺人如麻、嗜血成性、為所欲為的事情在中國(guó)歷史上跟別處一樣俯拾皆是。我們的意思是說，奧斯卡•王爾德在維多利亞時(shí)代的人身上合乎自然的狀態(tài)里看到的那種不合自然，在中國(guó)人身上是沒有的。中國(guó)人或許反對(duì)不合自然，但是一方面并不吹捧自然的狀態(tài)，另一方面也似乎非常滿意于自己的心滿意足。 在現(xiàn)代，我們大概慣于認(rèn)為心滿意足就是停滯不前、精神松懈、茍且偷安。這種現(xiàn)代觀點(diǎn)本質(zhì)上是鼓勵(lì)向自己造反，其副產(chǎn)品是心理受折磨，再也不能保持生活上平安寧?kù)o。這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)是與我們?cè)谶@里試加描述的觀點(diǎn)背道而馳的。中國(guó)人滿意于自己的心滿意足，表現(xiàn)出一種態(tài)度，認(rèn)為對(duì)他自己來(lái)說，每一件事都是給定的，因而都是要接受的；借用弗朗西斯•赫伯特•布拉德利一句名言來(lái)說，就是人人各有其“位分和生活”，其中有他自己的自然尊嚴(yán)。這里我們談到的并非只有少數(shù)人才能達(dá)到的至高無(wú)上的心理狀態(tài)。 儒家雖然認(rèn)為人人都可以成為圣賢，但是做不到也并不形成心理負(fù)擔(dān)。既然見到人各有其位分和生活，一個(gè)人就不僅與自然融為一體，而且也與社會(huì)融為一體了。