by Ying-shih Yü
questions about this well- established view. Why was it Han Yu rather than
somebody else who started the Neo- Confucian breakthrough? Why did Han Yu
fi nd it necessary to revive the Confucian tradition by way of the Mencius and the
Daxue
( Great Learning), both texts, but particularly the latter, being rela-
tively obscure in the Tang Period? Why were the Confucian Dao and its trans-
mission conceived by Han Yu in such a peculiar way? Needless to say, to answer
these questions fully requires more space than allowed here. What can be at-
tempted below will be no more than an overview.
There are two inseparable and interrelated aspects to Han Yu’s breakthrough,
namely, criticism of Buddhism (and Daoism) on the negative side and revival of
the Confucian Dao on the positive side. In his own day, he was primarily known
for the negative side, especially his anti- Buddhist memorial of 819. Since the
Song dynasty on, however, he has been more appreciated for the positive side,
especially his famous essay on the Dao, written sometime before 805. But para-
doxically, it is generally agreed among scholars today that his criticism of Bud-
dhism is singularly lacking in originality, as all of his arguments can be found
in anti- Buddhist writings of earlier critics, beginning with Fu Yi’s
memo-
rial of 621. On the other hand, it has also been often pointed out that from a
strictly philosophical point of view, Han Yu’s exposition of the Confucian Dao
is unsophisticated and uninteresting. Such being the case, how are we to justify
his historical role as the fi rst precursor in the Neo- Confucian breakthrough?
I would suggest that Han Yu’s importance lies neither in critical originality
nor philosophical profundity, but in his creative synthesis of both the negative
and the positive aspects that laid the ground for Confucianism to carry the
“this- worldly turn” to a new historical stage. Unlike the anti- Buddhist critics
before him who had nothing positive to off er, Han Yu clearly showed a way to
return to this world without abandoning the other world, which all along had
been the main attraction of Buddhism to the Chinese. Citing Confucian texts,
particularly the Great Learning and the Mencius, as his authority, he tried to show,
in his “Yuandao”
(Essentials of the Moral Way) and other essays, that po-
liti cal and social order in this world is ultimately grounded in a transcendent
real ity known as the Heavenly Law (or Heavenly Constancy; Tianchang
) .
172 in t e l le c t ua l b r e a k t h rou gh s in t h e ta ng - song t r a nsi t ion The ancient sages had discovered this great truth long ago and called it the Dao.
This true Confucian Dao, he emphatically pointed out, is to be distinguished from
the Buddhist Dao, known as nirvana, which is the cessation of all existence.
In “Essentials of the Moral Way,” Han Yu says:
Now what is this Dao? I reply that what I call the Dao is not what has hith-
erto been so called by the Daoists and Buddhists. Yao transmitted it to
Shun; Shun transmitted it to Yu; Yu transmitted it to (King) Wen and (King)
Wu, and the Duke of Zhou; Wen and Wu and the Duke of Zhou transmitted
it to Confucius; Confucius transmitted it to Mencius. After Mencius died, it
was no longer transmitted.15
This is his most famous theory of the transmission of the Dao ( daotong
).
But where did he get such an idea? Is it really the case, as has been generally
assumed, that his inspiration came from a reading of the last section in the
Mencius? If we believe with Hans- Georg Gadamer that understanding is always
“the fusion of horizons” of the past and the pres ent, and that “ every encounter
with tradition that takes place within historical consciousness involves the ex-
perience of the tension between the text and the pres ent,” then we must also
take into account the horizon Han Yu acquired in his own pres ent time.16 Notic-
ing that Han Yu had spent two or three years in his early life (from 777 on) in
Shaozhou, the birthplace of the new Chan School, and moreover that it also
happened to be the time when the new Chan movement was at its height, Chen
Yinke suggested that Han Yu’s theory of the transmission of the Dao was actu-
ally modeled on the Chan legend about the transmission of the Dharma, which
had been very much in vogue since the time of Huineng, the Sixth Patriarch.17
There is indeed much in Han Yu’s writings that would lend support to Chen
Yinke’s thesis. In the essay “Essentials of the Moral Way,” he criticized the Bud-
dhist idea of “governing the mind” ( zhixin
) to “escape from the world,” and
countered it with the Confucian theory of “rectifying the mind” ( zhengxin
)
as the spiritual basis for eventually “bringing order to the world.” On the sur-
face, it would seem that he was proposing something diametrically opposite to
the new Chan School in which the exclusive concern was the cultivation of the
mind. In real ity, however, it was no more than an imitation in disguise, for to
do exactly the opposite is also a mode of imitation.
In Han Yu’s essay “Shi shuo”
(On Teachers), traces of the Chan infl u-
ence are no less obvious.18 In his day, the ordinary Confucian teacher was gen-
erally held in contempt, a fact to which the writings of Liu Zongyuan
(773–819) and Lü Wen
(771–781) fully testify. Han Yu, therefore, knew very
well that unless the dignity of the Confucian teacher were reestablished, eff orts
to revive Confucianism would be doomed. By contrast, the Chan master as
teacher commanded tremendous re spect in late Tang society. It is quite clear
in t e l le c t ua l b r e a k t h rou gh s in t h e ta ng - song t r a nsi t ion 173
that Han Yu’s defi nition of an ideal Confucian teacher in terms of “transmis-
sion of the Dao” ( chuan Dao
) and “removal of delusion” ( jiehuo
) was
modeled on the Chan master. The term huo (delusion) may even be identifi ed
as Chan language. As a common Chan saying of the time goes, “Bodhidharma
came to the East with only one purpose in mind: To fi nd someone who was free
from delusions.” Two further points in “On Teachers” also deserve comment.
First, the essay stresses the point that “whoever is in possession of the Dao is a
teacher, irrespective of his social status and age.”19 This is particularly charac-
teristic of a Chan master such as Huineng, who was not only of humble social
background but also had disciples older than he in age. Second, the essay con-
cludes with the notion that a disciple may not necessarily be inferior to his
teacher in wisdom. This idea also smacks of the Chan conception of the teacher–
disciple relationship. As another of Master Lingyou’s mottos goes, “A disciple
worthy of teaching is one who surpasses his teacher in wisdom.”20
Hitherto, the genesis of Han Yu’s thought has been examined mainly in the
Confucian context; its relation to Buddhism is noted only in a general and im-
precise way. Once it is shown that his reformulation of the Confucian Dao was
speci
fi cally linked to the prevailing mode of thinking of the new Chan School,
many puzzles about it dis appear. Given Han Yu’s sensitive mind, it would in-
deed be incomprehensible that he could have remained totally oblivious to the
most power ful religious movement of the time. As a matter of fact, his poetic
and epistolary pieces show that throughout his life he had extensive contact
with Chan monks. He often expressed admiration for their spiritual praxis but
had no sympathy for their renunciation of this world. At any rate, the evidence
clearly suggests that Han Yu was suffi
ciently familiar with the new Chan School
to be able to appropriate its teaching for his own Confucian use. What he appro-
priated from Chan Buddhism, however, was not individual ideas or concepts but
the total paradigm evolved in the pro cess of the Chan breakthrough. To the ex-
tent that Han Yu proposed to rebuild Confucian society, he was pushing to its
logical end the “this- worldly turn” initiated by the Chan movement. To the extent
that he reformulated the Confucian Dao after the model of the new Chan School,
he was seeking to ground this world in a transcendent real ity radically diff er ent
from its Buddhist counterpart. It is true that his actual accomplishments in both
areas are very limited, but as far as the Neo- Confucian breakthrough was con-
cerned, it was he who set the direction as well as the basic guidelines for its
development in the Song Period.
As we all know, the Chinese term for “Neo- Confucianism” is Lixue
, de-
rived from the central concept of li (princi ple) or, better, Tianli
(Heavenly
Princi ple). Hence, the emergence of the idea of Heavenly Princi ple may be taken
as the most characteristic feature of Neo- Confucianism that distinguishes it
from its classical past. Ren
(humanity), the key concept in the Lunyu (Ana-
lects), for example, has to be redefi ned in Zhu Xi’s
(1130–1200) commentary
174 in t e l le c t ua l b r e a k t h rou gh s in t h e ta ng - song t r a nsi t ion as “the princi ple of love.” The Heavenly Princi ple is a fundamental and absolute concept of Neo- Confucianism, central not only to the Cheng- Zhu School
but to the Lu- Wang School as well. Wang Yangming
(1472–1529), there-
fore, unequivocally identifi es his liangzhi
as the Heavenly Princi ple.
Leaving aside the subtle diff erences with regard to its interpretation, we
must ask why the idea of Heavenly Princi ple was central to the Neo- Confucian
breakthrough. Before we can answer this question, it is necessary to say a word
about the Buddhist response to Han Yu’s initial breakthrough prior to Cheng
Hao
(1032–1085) and Cheng Yi
(1033–1107). In this connection, two
Buddhists thoroughly familiar with Han Yu’s work may be mentioned together.
The fi rst is Monk Zhiyuan
(976–1022) of the Tiantai School, a great ad-
mirer of Han Yu. Under the latter’s infl uence, he turned to the study of the
Confucian classics, especially the Mencius and “Zhongyong”
(Doctrine of
the Mean) late in his life. Unlike other Buddhists in late Tang and early Song
who found the “Doctrine of the Mean” close to the Buddhist teachings in a gen-
eral way, he specifi cally compared it to the Doctrine of the Middle Path ( Mâdhy-
amika) of Nâgârjuna. His love of this Confucian text was so profound that he
styled himself “Master of the Zhongyong.” It is very signifi cant that he not only
accepted Han Yu’s line of orthodox transmission of the Confucian Dao as his-
torical fact but was also totally convinced by the latter’s argument concerning
the necessity of po liti cal and social order in this world. Confucianism and Bud-
dhism, he believed, must complement each other. He has the following to say
about the function of the two teachings:
Confucianism is the teaching about governing the body, hence its name
“The External Law,” whereas Buddhism is the teaching about cultivating
the mind, hence its name “The Internal Law.” Alas! Confucianism and
Buddhism— aren’t they the outside and the inside of the same thing? People
whose vision is confi ned only to this world often distort our teaching seri-
ously and say that it ought to be discarded. But on the other hand, people
who are restricted to Buddhism often take Confucianism as no more than
a game. Do they realize that without the teachings of Confucius, neither
can the state be governed, nor the family stabilized, nor the body settled?
Then where is the Buddhist way to be practiced?21
The case of Zhiyuan shows clearly that by early Song times, the “this- worldly
turn” had already spread from the Chan to other Buddhist schools. It is also
impor tant to note that before Han Yu’s breakthrough was rediscovered by later
Neo- Confucians, it had deeply touched the sensitive nerves of some Buddhists.
Our second case is Master Qisong
(1007–1072) of the Yunmen sect,
which dominated Chan Buddhism throughout the Song Period. He was a lead-
ing Buddhist prose writer after the style of Han Yu and a close friend of Ouyang
Xiu
(1007–1072). Like Zhiyuan, he also studied Confucian classics ex-
in t e l le c t ua l b r e a k t h rou gh s in t h e ta ng - song t r a nsi t ion 175
tensively and held a very positive view about the basic Confucian social values,
especially fi lial piety. Unlike Zhiyuan, however, he was best known for his
power ful countercriticism of Han Yu’s criticism of Buddhism. He said: “Alas!
Master Han was nearsightedly concerned with human aff airs and failed to see
the far- reaching princi ples of life. Wasn’t this perhaps a result of the fact that he
only followed the outside but was oblivious to the inside?”22 He also distin-
guished Buddhist teaching from Confucianism in the following way: “Mind is
the basis of the Sage’s (i.e., Buddha’s) Way and its meaning. The worldly way
depends on the Buddhist way for its root.”23 It may be readily observed that al-
though Qisong’s emphasis is somewhat diff er ent from Zhiyuan’s, both of them
nevertheless shared the view that Buddhism and Confucianism must cooper-
ate with each other by each taking care of its own world. From the Buddhist
point of view, however, the Confucian world is only an illusion created by the
mind. It therefore follows that the real, transcendent world of mind is the exclu-
sive concern of Buddhism. Obviously, they were only willing to yield to Han
Yu’s argument about the importance of this world, but remained totally uncon-
vinced with regard to the transcendent nature of the Confucian Dao, a point
that Han Yu merely assumed but did not argue for. It is against the background
of this Buddhist response to Han Yu’s breakthrough that the Neo- Confucian
idea of Heavenly Princi ple must be understood.
Even as late as the eleventh century, the Chinese intellectual world was still
very much under the spell of Chan Buddhism. True, since the beginning of the
Song dynasty, Confucianism had been gradually but steadily gaining ground
with renewed vigor and vitality. Generally speaking, however
, it was viewed by
Buddhists and non- Buddhists alike as a worldly teaching concerned entirely
with po liti cal and social order without the support of any transcendent, meta-
physical princi ples. The following conversation of Cheng Hao (or perhaps Cheng
Yi) may be taken as evidence attesting to the great popularity of Chan Buddhism
at that time:
Yesterday in a gathering, every one pres ent was talking enthusiastically
about Chan Buddhism. But I could not bring myself to do it. Alas! Since
the trend has long been formed, what can we do to rectify it? In earlier
times when Buddhism was at its height, its teaching consisted mainly of
worshipping the Buddha’s image. It was therefore less injurious to soci-
ety. But today when people speak of Buddhism, they all insist that when it
comes to topics such as “ human nature,” “Heavenly decree,” “the Way,”
and “virtue,” we must turn to the study of Buddhism. So it is the intelli-
gent people who are the fi rst to be misguided.24
It is quite clear, then, that the Neo- Confucian breakthrough would not be com-
plete unless and until Neo- Confucians could succeed in developing a meta-
physical vision of the transcendent real ity of their own that took the place of
176 in t e l le c t ua l b r e a k t h rou gh s in t h e ta ng - song t r a nsi t ion Chan Buddhism. In other words, the vital area in which Neo- Confucianism must
compete with Chan Buddhism was not this world but the other world. As we have
seen above, the followers of Chan had been willing all along to cede this world to
the Confucians. It was for this reason, I believe, that the Song Neo- Confucians,
from Zhou Dunyi
(1017–1073) onward, set as their central task the meta-
physical construction of the Confucian other world, culminating in the idea of
Heavenly Princi ple.
There is no need to elaborate on the idea of Tianli and all its ramifi cations
here. Two observations, however, may be made on the nature of the Neo-
Confucian other world in contrast to its Buddhist counterpart. In the fi rst place,
unlike the Buddhist “mind,” which is defi ned in terms of void, annihilation, or
nonbeing, the Neo- Confucian Heavenly Princi ple is real. As Cheng Yi explains:
“Heaven is in possession of this Princi ple, which has been followed and prac-
ticed by the sages. This is the so- called Way ( Dao) . Our sages take Heaven as
