Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century

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