The focus of this study is on Hsiung Shih-li's criticism and assimilation of the doctrine of emptiness. First，I point out the similarities and differences in their interpretations of the concept of "unity of substance and function" (t'i yung iju). The doctrine of emptiness posite a broad, 'horizontal' interpretation of the unity of substance and function which differs from the 'vertical' model of creation maintained by Confucian thinkers. In general，Hsiung Shih-li characterized the doctrine of emptiness as "revealing nature through the destruction of marks" (p'o hsiang hsien hsing)，thereby transcending "attachment" (chih-chuo hsing) and "conditioned being" (tui hsiang hua ti ts'un-yu)，and consisting instead of "non- attachment" and "non-conditioned being". Hsiung held that the 'being' posited by this position was itself empty (k'ung-wu)，a view that he felt tended towards a denial of objective reality (wu shih-chieh lun), or a position which "discusses substance at the expense of function" (t'an t'i erh i yung). In Hsiung's view，even if this approach reveals nature throuth the destruction of marks, it does not recognize the positive significance of a correct interpretation of what makes a "mark" a mark. In Hsiung's vision，thuseness is none other than the absolute (pen-t'i). But this 'absolute' is without substance; it is an outward form of shell，and hence does not function produce or create. For this reason，Hsiung was dissatisfied with 'being' as defined by the doctrine of emptiness. From this understanding of 'revealing nature through the destruction of marks" we see Hsiung's demand for an absolute. Therefore he could not appreciate the central thrust of the emptiness doctrine to "dissipate marks and find release from attachment"--a doctrine unrelated to the absolute. Hsiung's philosophy of substance and function assimilated from the doctrine of emptiness, consisted of his notion of "mastering the marks and returning to nature" (she hsiang kuei hsing). In this way，on the one hand he transcended "attachment and conditioned being"，while on the other hand he recognized that "attachment and conditioned being" is ultimately no different from "non-attachment and non-conditioned being" in that both are based on the "thing in itself"--the foundation of being. Hsiung's proposal to "Master marks and return to nature" in this way revealed problems in the notion of being proposed by the doctrine of emptiness, and brought emptiness theory into his own system. This is precisely the area in which the New Treatise on Consciousness Only (Hsin wei-shih lun) moved beyond the Sung-Ming Neo-Confucians.
