本論文分三大部份：第一部份討論中國的陰陽學說；筆者在這裡提出了易經的生命作為所有事物的原理。進一步，筆者同時亦指出：中國二大哲學流派，儒家和道家，皆淵源於易經；二者皆針對生命以及生生不息的功能，來詮釋宇宙和人生的原理。雖然老子與孔子所開創的道家和儒家，所走的思想進路有所不同，但基於對生命的尊重，以及對生命的目標相同，尤其對生命的來源，都有深沉的體驗，則二者對定位宇宙，以及在宇宙中安排人生，都有共識。 第二部份探討亞里士多德的形質說。筆者強調，亞氏所主張的因果原則，實可解決宇宙的現象和本質的課題。形質說特別針對形式因與質料因，二者的交互運作，使事物能從無到有，完成四因說中內在因的探討。在此因果原則的提案中，亞氏創設了「發展」(內在目的性)概念，指出所有事物都趨向目的。 第三部份作者提出一些比較，特別在通俗的、基督宗教文明的、中華文化中的「因果」問題。作者在這裡，再次提出「生」概念，原本在十八年前在美國華府召開的第十三屆「科學統一國際會議」中所提。在這裡，筆者提出更多的証据，不但從聖經中，或是教父學說中，都傾向於把「創造」解讀成「流出」。不過，作者無意於等同「創造」、「流出」、「生」三概念；而是強調，原本在「創造」的概 念中，就隱含了「生」的意義。筆者具體提出聖多瑪斯和波拿文都辣的原文，作為佐証。 最後，筆者提出了一些見解，在解讀文鮮明牧師在這方面的理論。

　　　　　This article is divided into three main parts. The first part deals with the Chinese Yin-Yang Theory, through which the author reminds us of the vital and generative principle for all things, especially in the Book of I-king (The Book of Change). Furthermore, the author mentains about the two main trends of Chinese Philosophy: namly Confucianism and Taoism, both of which have their origin from I-king, emphasizing their option towards the same vital and generative function in order to explain about the cosmic and human principle. Though Lao-tzu and Confucius went through quite different ways to attain their life purpose, yet the fact that a human person participates in heaven's life remains the same. In the second part, the Aristotelian Hylomorphism would be discussed. The author maintains that the causal principle established by Aristotle can successfully explain both the phenomenon and essence of the changing world. Hylomorphism stresses of the material and formal causes, which at the same time lead different things from non-being into being, and completes the theory of the inner causes by putting forward the four causes. In his study of the causal principle, however, Aristotle created the term"entelecheia", which enables us to make use of the final cause to explain about the finality of all things. In the third part, some comparisons would be raised between the causal principle, popular within the Christian culture and the principle of life in the Chinese culture. The author highligts again his doctrine of generation which he has delivered eighteen years ago in the thirteen International Conference on the Unity of Sciences (ICUS). He adds here more arguments from both the Holy Bible and the Church Fathers, who seem to prefer the theory of generation to cosmogony. But by this time the author would not like to substitute the term "creation" with that of "generation", but in the definition of creation he specially points out the term emanation which appears both in the work of Thomas Aquinas and that of n3onaventura, who were the two most distinguished scholars in the Middle Ages. Finally the author gives some comments on Reverend Moon's theory about this theme.