s. Huang Tsung-hsi (1610-1695) et al., Sung-Yüan hsüeh-an (Anthology and Critical Accounts of the Neo-Confucianists of the Sung and Yüan Dynasties, 960-1368).
40--According to Yeh Ts’ai (fl. 1248), function here means what is correct according to principle. See Djin-sï lu, trans, by Graf, vol. 2, p. 58.
41--The Mean, ch. 33.
42--ibid., ch. 1.
43--ibid., ch. 25.
44--A saying by Kao Tzu (c.420–c.350 b.c.). Mencius, 6A:3.
45--According to Sun Ch’i-feng, Li-hsüeh ts’ung-ch’uan, 1880 ed., 2:11b, the word “principle” should read “nature.”
46--“Such as Hou-chi having an outstanding appearance and when Tzu-yüeh-chiao was born, people knew that he would destroy his own clan,” says Ch’eng Hao’s own note. Hou-chi was Emperor Shun’s (3rd millennium b.c.) minister, who is described in the Book of Odes, ode no. 245, as having an outstanding appearance at birth, thus indicating his inborn virtue. The reference to Tzu-yüeh-chiao is found in the Tso chuan, Duke Hsüan, 4th year.
47--Book of Rites, “Record of Music.” Cf. Legge, trans., Li Ki, vol. 1, p. 96.
48--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 5. Cf. translation by Legge, Yi King, p. 353.
49--Paraphrasing Analects, 8:18.
50--Chu Tzu yü-lei, 95:11a-18a.
51--ibid., 95:11a-b.
52--See above, ch. 3, Mencius, Additional Selections, 3A:5, 3B:9.
53--This is Chu Hsi’s understanding. See Chu Tzu yü-lei, 96:1b.
54--Su-wen (Question on the Original Simplicity), sec. 42, Erh-shih-erh tzu (Twenty-two Philosophers) ed., 12:2a. The meaning of the title is not clear, but according to the commentary in the book (1:1a), su refers to the original substance, and therefore does not mean purity or plainness.
55--Analects, 6:28.
56--See above, ch. 30, comment on sec. 1, and below, ch. 32, comment on sec. 42.
57--Chu Tzu yü-lei, 95:10a. For further comment on jen, see sec. 1; also see above, ch. 30, sec. 1; and see below, ch. 32, comment on sec. 42; ch. 34, comment on treatise 1; and ch. 40, Introduction.
58--Interpretation according to Sun Ch’i-feng, Li-hsüeh tsung-ch’uan, 2:20b.
59--For Chou Tun-i, see above, ch. 28.
60--Confucius’ most virtuous pupil (521-490 b.c.). The reference is to Analects, 6:9.
61--For Chu Hsi’s various interpretations, see Chiang Yung (1681-1762), Chin-ssu lu chi-chu (Collected Commentaries on the Reflections on Things at Hand), sppy, 2:8b.
62--Mencius, 3A:4.
63--Analects, 11:11.
64--The Mean, ch. 20.
65--Cf. Legge, Yi King, p. 420.
66--ibid.
67--Quoting Mencius, 2A: 2.
68--Analects, 2:2.
69--Book of Rites, “Summary of Ceremonies,” pt. 1. Cf. Legge, Li Ki, vol. 1, p. 61.
70--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 5. Cf. Legge, Yi King, p. 356.
71--ibid.
72--See comment on sec. 11, and below, ch. 32, comments on secs. 22 and 42.
73--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 5. Cf. Legge, Yi King, p. 356.
74--According to Chiang Yung, Chin-ssu lu chi-chu, 13:3a, ta-hsiao-ta is a Sung period (960-1279) colloquial meaning “so much.”
75--Mencius, 7A:4.
76--Legendary ruler (3rd millennium b.c.).
77--Legendary ruler, Yao’s successor.
78--The Mean, ch. 29. The Three Kings were founders of the three dynasties (Hsia, 2183–1752 b.c.?; Shang, 1751–1112 b.c.; and Chou, 1111–249 b.c.).
79--Analects, 4:5.
80--ibid., 5:5.
81--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 10. Cf. Legge, p. 370.
82--The last king of Hsia (r. 1802–1752 b.c.), who caused the downfall of the dynasty.
83--This sentence in parentheses is Ch’eng Hao’s own.
84--This additional saying is Ch’eng Hao’s own.
85--Sung-Yüan hsüeh-an, sppy. 14:5b.
86--For Chou’s additional influence on the personality of the Ch’eng brothers, see above, ch. 28, Introduction.
87--One version has “reverence” instead.
88--The Mean, ch. 1.
89--Analects, 4:10.
90--Another version: That is the Principle of Nature.
91--Ch’eng’s own note.
92--It is not explicitly stated in the I-shu whether this is Ch’eng Hao’s or Ch’eng I’s saying. It is attributed to Ch’eng I in Chu Tzu yü-lei, 95:12a but to Ch’eng Hao in ibid., 62:14b and Chu Tzu wen-chi, 44:19b. In his Meng Tzu chi-chu, ch. 11, comment on Mencius, 6B:6, Chu Hsi quotes this saying and another from I-shu, 18:17b as those of “Master Ch’eng.” Since the latter saying is definitely Ch’eng I’s, this saying must also be his. In Chin-ssu lu, ch. 2, sec. 30, it seems to belong to Ch’eng I.
93--Ch’eng’s own note.
94--I-shu, 22A:5b, 9a.
95--Li Yen-p’ing chi (Collected Works of Li T’ung), Cheng-i-t’ang Ch’üan-shu ed., 2:16a-b.
96--Chu Tzu yü-lei, 96:17b-18a.
97--The text has “faithfulness” instead of “nature.” Obviously a misprint.
98--Referring to the Four Beginnings discussed in Mencius, 2A:6.
99--Ch’eng’s own note.
100--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 12. Cf. Legge, p. 377.
101--ibid., ch. 7. Cf. Legge, p. 360.
102--ibid., ch. 12. Cf. Legge, p. 377.
103--“Remarks on Certain Trigrams,” ch. 2. Cf. Legge, p. 423.
104--“Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 5. Cf. Legge, p. 355.
105--Quoting The Mean, ch. 16.
106--ibid., ch. 25.
107--Ode no. 267. King Wen (r. 1171–1122 b.c.) was founder of the Chou dynasty.
108--The Mean, ch. 26, commenting on the ode.
109--Ch’eng’s own note. The quotation is from Changes, commentary on hexagram no. 2, k’un (Earth). Cf. Legge, p. 426.
110--Mencius, 7B:16.
111--Ch. 1.
112--Changes, commenting on hexagram no. 2, k’un. Cf. Legge, p. 420.
113--Mencius, 2A:2.
114--Changes, ibid.
115--ibid., “Appended Remarks,” pt. 2, ch. 1. Cf. Legge, p. 381.
116--ibid., ch. 5. Cf. Legge, p. 393.
117--Changes, commentary on hexagram no. 1, ch’ien (Heaven). Cf. Legge, p. 408.
118--In Chu Tzu yü-lei, 95:19a, Chu Hsi’s pupil mistakenly ascribed this saying to Ch’eng I.
119--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 10. Cf. Legge, p. 370.
120--ibid., ch. 4. Cf. Legge, 354.
121--ibid., pt. 2, ch. 5. Cf. Legge, p. 390.
122--“Remarks on Certain Trigrams,” ch. 1. Cf. Legge, p. 422.
123--See Chang’s Cheng-meng (Correcting Youthful Ignorance), ch. 6, in Chang Heng-ch’ü chi (Collected Works of Chang Tsai), Cheng-i-t’ang Ch’üan-shu ed., 3:5a.
124--See I-shu, 10:5a.
125--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 7. Cf. Legge, p. 360.
126--The text has “virtue” but one version has “principle.” It is used here for the contrast between human desires and the Principle of Nature that was to play a great role in the controversy among Neo-Confucianists.
127--Ch’eng’s own note.
128--Mencius, 7A:4.
129--Analects, 7:22.
130--ibid., 9:5.
131--The Mean, ch. 1.
132--Analects, 6:17.
133--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 5. Cf. Legge, p. 356.
134--See above, Introduction.
135--Hsia, Shang, and Chou.
136--Tokiwa Daijō, Shina ni okeru bukkyō to jukyō dōkyō (Buddhism in Relation to Confucianism and Taoism in China), 1930. Here Ch’eng’s doctrine of calming one’s nature is considered to be a result of his understanding, though not experience, of Buddhism, and his doctrine of “there is nothing outside the Way and there is no Way outside of things” (sec. 32) as similar to the Bud
dhist doctrine that matter and emptiness are identical! (pp. 277, 297)
137--I-shu, 13: 1a-b.
THE RATIONALISTIC TENDENCY IN CH’ENG I
1--See secs. 2 and 75; also Ts’ui-yen (Pure Words), 1:23b-24a, in eccs.
2--For the application of the theory to Chinese ethics, see above, ch. 30, comment on sec. 1.
3--See above, ch. 25, Introduction; A, 7; B, 1; B, 2, (1).
4--See above, ch. 31, sec. 58.
5--See sec. 36.
6--ibid.
7--ibid.
8--History of Chinese Philosophy, vol. 2, pp. 507-508.
9--Development of Neo-Confucian Thought, pp. 192-194.
10--For Chang, see above, ch. 30, secs. 2-9, 16, 30, 36, 42, and 43.
11--See above, ch. 31, sec. 11, and ch. 32, sec. 42. See also comment on the latter For comments on the term jen, see Appendix.
12--For a discussion on this term, see Appendix.
13--Wai-shu (Additional Works), 11:5b, 12:3b, 5b, 6b, in eccs; I-Lo yüan-yüan lu (Record of the Origin of the School of the Two Ch’engs), Cheng-i-t’ang Ch’üan-shu (Complete Library of the Hall of Rectifying the Way) ed., 2:15a, 4:15a.
14--Ch’eng I’s courtesy name was Cheng-shu. Because he and his brother lived in the I River area in Honan, he was called Master I-ch’uan (I River). In 1056 he and his brother entered the national university where he was so outstanding that a schoolmate treated him as a teacher. At twenty-five (1057) he memorialized the emperor to practice the Confucian kingly way. Two years later he obtained the “presented scholar” degree. He lived and taught in Lo-yang, and repeatedly declined high offices, including a professorship at the directorate of education in 1085. In 1086 he was appointed expositor in waiting, and he lectured in great seriousness on Confucian principles to the emperor. He did this for twenty months and attracted many followers. But his uncompromising attitude, his critical opinions, and his attack on many things created bitter enemies, particularly Su Shih (Su Tung-po, 1036-1101), leader of the Szechuan group. This led to the bitter factional struggle between it and the Lo-yang group led by Ch’eng I. In 1087 he was appointed director of the directorate of education in the western capital but resigned a few months later. When he was supervisor of the directorate in 1092, censors repeatedly petitioned for his impeachment. He finally resigned and returned to Lo-yang. In 1097 his teachings were prohibited, his land was confiscated, and he was banished to Fu-chou in modern Szechuan. He was pardoned three years later and resumed his position at the directorate. By that time, government persecution of factions had become severe. Both he and Su Shih, along with several hundred scholars, were blacklisted. His followers left him. In 1103 his books were destroyed and teachings prohibited. He was pardoned again in 1106, a year before he died. See Sung shih (History of the Sung Dynasty, 960-1279), pnp, 427:10a-15b, Yao Ming-ta, Ch’eng I-ch’uan nien-p’u (Chronological Biography of Ch’eng I), 1937, and Bruce, Chu Hsi and His Masters, pp. 45-47.
15--Yao Ming-ta, Ch’eng I-ch’uan nien-p’u, pp. 262, 273-283.
16--All the sayings are from eccs.
17--For this work, see above, ch. 31, n.21.
18--Yen Hui, Confucius’ favorite pupil. Confucius once remarked that the pupil loved learning more than anyone else. See Analects, 6:2.
19--Chu Hsi said that this was written when Ch’eng I was eighteen, that is, in 1060. See Chu Tzu yü-lei (Classified Conversations of Chu Hsi), 1880 ed., 93:9a. Yao Ming-ta, however, in his Ch’eng I-ch’uan nien-p’u, p. 16, contends with convincing evidence that the date was 1056.
20--This note is in the text.
21--One version has “what to nourish.”
22--The Mean, ch. 21.
23--History, “Great Norm.” Cf. translation by Legge, Shoo King, p. 327.
24--Analects, 4:5.
25--ibid., 12:1.
26--The Mean, ch. 8.
27--Analects, 6:2.
28--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 2, ch. 5. Cf. translation by Legge, Yi King, p. 392.
29--The Mean, ch. 20.
30--This is probably Ch’eng I’s own statement. In Ch’eng I-ch’uan nien-p’u, p. 17, this saying is not in quotation marks while actual quotations are.
31--Mencius, 7B:25.
32--He died at thirty-two.
33--Analects, 6:2.
34--Analects, 2:4.
35--Legendary rulers (3rd millennium b.c.).
36--Founders of the Shang (1751–1112 b.c.) and Chou (1111–249 b.c.) dynasties, respectively.
37--Mencius, 7A:30.
38--Probably referring to Mencius, 2A:2. It is not a quotation from any work. In his translation of the treatise, P. C. Hsü omitted the phrase “It is also said” (Ethical Realism in Neo-Confucian Thought, p. xviii).
39--Yang Kuei-shan (1053-1135) was one of the outstanding pupils of the Ch’eng brothers and a prominent Neo-Confucianist. For an account of him and his thought, see Forke, Geschichte der neueren chinesischen Philosophie, pp. 104-110; also Huang Tsung-hsi (1610-1695) et al., Sung-Yüan hsüeh-an (Anthology and Critical Accounts of the Neo-Confucianists of the Sung and Yüan Dynasties, 960-1368), ch. 25. Yang’s letter to Ch’eng is found in the Yang Kuei-shan Hsien-sheng chi (Collected Works of Master Yang Shih), 1707 ed., 16:6a-b. For the “Western Inscription,” see above, ch. 30, A.
40--See above, ch. 30, B.
41--Mencius, 6A:2, 2A:2.
42--This and the following sentence in parentheses are Ch’eng’s own insertions.
43--This is Mencius’ criticism of Mo Tzu’s doctrine of universal love. See Mencius, 3B:9.
44--Unless otherwise indicated, all sayings are from the I-slu. See above, ch. 31, nn.21 and 39. Here the letters indicate that the sayings have been taken to be Ch’eng I’s in the anthologies represented by the letters.
45--One version has t’i (substance) instead of “mind.”
46--Ch’eng I said virtually the same thing in I-shu 15:4a. For an explanation of the asterisk, see above, ch. 31, n.39.
47--For an explanation of this and other letters, see above, ch. 31, n.39.
48--The Mean, ch. 1.
49--It is not clear whether this saying is assigned to Ch’eng I or Ch’eng Hao in Chu Hsi’s Chin-ssu lu (Reflections on Things at Hand), ch. 4, but Chu Hsi in his Chu Tzu wen-chi (Collection of Literary Works by Chu Tzu), cttc, 64:29a, quotes part of this as Ch’eng I’s.
50--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 5. Cf. Legge, Yi King, p. 355.
51--Ch’eng’s own note. See above, ch. 31, n.92.
52--Quoting the text of the Great Learning.
53--See above, ch. 31, comment on sec. 19.
54--“Appended Remarks,” pt. 2, ch. 1. Cf. trans, by Legge, p. 381.
55--See above, ch. 23, comment on sec. 3.
56--For a more lengthy discussion of the idea, see Chan, “The Neo-Confucian Solution of the Problem of Evil,” Studies Presented to Hu Shih on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, pp. 787-791.
57--This appears in one version.
58--Lao Tzu, ch. 36.
59--Many Japanese historians of Chinese philosophy have asserted that this saying is of Buddhist origin but none has given any direct reference. Yamazaki Ansai (1618-1682), in his essay on the saying (Zoku Yamazaki Ansai zenshū, or Supplement to the Complete Works of Yamazaki Ansai, pt. 2, pp. 78-86), has listed all quotations of this saying and discussions of it by Neo-Confucianists but did not say a word about its Buddhist origin. The Daikanwa jiten (Great Chinese-Japanese Dictionary), the fullest dictionary of its kind so far, gives Ch’eng I as its author and not any Buddhist.
60--Interpretation according to Chu Hsi, Chu Tzu yü-lei, 95:22a.
61--Chu Hsi thought that possibly the recorder of the saying missed some words, but he was not sure. ibid., 95:22b.
62--This is Chu Hsi’s interpretation, ibid., 95:22a.
63--ibid., 95:22b. For Chou’s dictum, see above, ch. 28, sec. 1.
64--Analects, 12:2.
65--Quoting Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1,
ch. 10. Cf. Legge, Yi King, p. 370.
66--ibid.
67--Analects, 6:1.
68--Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 5. Cf. Legge, p. 355.
69--Sung-Yüan hsüeh-an, sppy, 15:10a.
70--Li-hsüeh tsung-ch’uan (Orthodox Transmission of Neo-Confucianism), 1880 ed., 3:17a.
71--See below, ch. 35.
72--See below, ch. 35, comment on sec. 5.
73--See sec. 67 .
74--See above, ch. 30, secs. 20 and 59.
75--See sec. 4.
76--Mencius, 6A:6.
77--ibid.
78--Yüan-tao (Inquiry on the Way), Han Ch’ang-li Ch’üan-chi (Collected Works of Han Yu), sppy, 11:1a. See above, ch. 27, sec. 2.
79--Analects, 1:2.
80--One edition has “the root” instead of “the nature.”
81--In the Chao edition, “Where do all these miscellaneous items come in?”
82--See sec. 71.
83--Chu Tzu yü-lei, 6:8b-9a.
84--See sec. 22. See also above, ch. 30, sec. 1; ch. 31, comment on secs. 1 and 11; ch. 34, comment on treatise 1; and, ch. 40, Introduction.
85--History, “I and Chi.” Cf. Legge, Shoo King, p. 87.
86--When he knew one part, he knew all about the subject. See Analects, 5:8.
87--See below, ch. 34, comment on sec. 30.
88--See his “A Treatise on the Extension of Things Consisting in the Investigation of Things,” in the Ssu-ma Wen Kung wen-chi (Collection of Literary Works by Ssu-ma Kuang), sppy, 13:66-72.
89--The text.
90--Ching-i ts’ung-ch’ou (Excerpts on the Meaning of the Classics), in Huang-Ch’ing ching-chieh (Explanations of Classics by Scholars of the Ch’ing Dynasty, 1644-1912), vol. 1388, p. 25a.
91--In his commentary on the text of the Great Learning.
92--Ssu-ma Wen Kung wen-chi, 13:72. This interpretation was followed by Yen Yüan (1635-1704). See below, ch. 37.
93--Analects, 2:3.
94--Mencius, 4A:20.
95--Yü-p’ien (Book of Jade), sppy, 2:13a.
96--“Religion and Philosophy in Chinese Philosophy,” in Sophia Zen, ed., Symposium on Chinese Culture, p. 57.
97--See the next section.
98--Sung-Yüan hsüeh-an, sppy, 16:10a.
99--Mencius, 2A:2.
100--Paraphrasing Odes, ode no. 260.
101--Fa-yen (Model Sayings), ch. 12, sppy, 12:4b-5a. For Yang Hsiung, see above, ch. 15.
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 111
