by Ying-shih Yü
their base, whereas the Buddhists take the mind as their base.”25 The Heavenly
Princi ple must be both transcendent and real at the same time to provide the
existence of this world with a permanent basis. The Buddhists, by contrast, be-
lieve that the phenomenal world has no permanent existence, being a “net of
delusion” arising out of “ignorance” ( wuming
or avidyā). In the second
place, in Buddhism, the Chan School included, this world and the other world
may well be envisioned as running in opposite directions. Even after taking a
“this- worldly turn,” a Chan Buddhist would ultimately still have to abandon
“this shore” in order to be able to land in the “other shore.” This is the tenet that
Buddhists of all persuasions must keep. Thus, in contrast to the Buddhist other
world that, so to speak, turns its back against this world, the Neo- Confucian
other world turns its face toward this world. Instead of abandoning this world,
the Neo- Confucians seek to improve this world on the model of the other world.
This is pos si ble because the Confucian other world is conceived as a source of
power with which this world can be transformed through the agency of man.
In the foregoing I have suggested that the Neo- Confucian other world of
Heavenly Princi ple was developed as a direct response to the Buddhist claim of
the day that the function of Confucian teaching is strictly confi ned to this world
while Buddhism assumes full responsibility for the other world. This is tanta-
mount to saying that Buddhism is the ti (substance) and Confucianism is the
yong
(function). In Western terminology, it comes close to a division between
the world of value and the world of fact. Needless to say, such a formulation was
totally unacceptable to the Neo- Confucians.
Earlier in this paper, I also proposed to view the whole development from
the new Chan School to Neo- Confucianism as a spiritual movement taking a
“this- worldly turn.” Seen in this way, the construction of the Neo- Confucian
other world of Heavenly Princi ple must be recognized as an event of singular
importance in the whole movement. Within the Confucian tradition, we may
even say that it constitutes the very essence of the Neo-
Confucian break-
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 177
through. This is the case because the Neo- Confucian other world, with its em-
phasis on life and creativity, provided the this- worldly movement during the
Tang- Song transition with the support of an Archimedean point it very much
needed. By contrast, the Buddhist other world of nirvana was too negative to
serve this purpose. It is true that the Chan School did bring the other world
much closer to this world by identifying nirvana with the original substance of
the Buddha- mind pres ent in all men. Since nothing, however, is ultimately
gained in the attainment of Buddhahood through enlightenment, the Chan
other world still falls short in providing this world with a transcendent power
necessary for its transformation.
On the surface, the emergence of the Confucian other world marks a sharp
break with Buddhism in Chinese intellectual history. There can also be no
doubt that at the explicit level of consciousness, the Neo- Confucians were mak-
ing every eff ort to distinguish themselves from the Buddhists. In a deeper
sense, however, the Neo- Confucian breakthrough may be better understood as
continuous with the this- worldly turn initially taken by the new Chan School in
the eighth century. In fact, during much of the Song Period, the paradigm of
the Chan breakthrough continued to inspire the Neo- Confucians in many as-
pects. A few examples may be proff ered to illustrate this point. Cheng Hao once
said that the Chan Buddhists talk only of “knowing one’s mind and seeing
one’s nature” but have nothing comparable to what the Confucians call “pre-
serving one’s mind and nourishing one’s nature,” a reference to the Confucian
type of moral cultivation.26 But Xie Liangzuo
(1050–1103), a leading dis-
ciple of the two Chengs, is reported to have told the story that Cheng Yi had at
one time studied spiritual exercises with a Chan monk and learned all of his
methods. He then “stole” these methods from the monk and appropriated them
for his own use. Commenting on this story, Zhu Xi remarked:
In the beginning, all Buddhism could off er were words; spiritual practice
of “preserving and nourishing” was lacking. It was the Sixth Patriarch of
the Tang dynasty who began to teach the method of “preserving and
nourishing.” His followers, however, only talked about it but did not actu-
ally apply it to themselves. It was Yichuan (Cheng Yi) who began to teach
people how to apply it to themselves. This is perhaps why it is said that
Yichuan had stolen it from Buddhism for his own use.27
It is truly amazing that Xie Liangzuo could have openly accused his teacher of
“stealing” the method of cultivation from a Chan monk. As we can see, Xie’s
report is directly contradictory to Cheng Hao’s statement. It is even more amaz-
ing, however, that Zhu Xi could have been so honest as to admit without the
slightest hesitation that the method of “preserving and nourishing” was indeed
fi rst developed by Huineng. The only part of Zhu Xi’s conversation that is un-
true is prob ably the suggestion that Huineng’s “followers only talked about it
178 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 but did not actually apply it to themselves.” Moral cultivation, as we all know, is
at the very center of the Neo- Confucian proj ect, and yet, by their own admis-
sion, it was an adaptation from the Chan paradigm.
Our second example concerns the regulations of the Neo- Confucian school
for children. Lu Jiuling
(Lu Xiangshan’s brother) once discussed ways
of establishing such regulations with Zhu Xi. The latter replied: “It would be
better if we could just follow the example of the Chan Yuan qinggui
(Pure Rules of Chan Yuan) . ”28 The Pure Rules of Chan Yuan, it may be noted, is
a revised text of the famous Pure Rules of Baizhang, compiled by Zongze in 1103.
It is revealing that Zhu Xi should consider the monastic regulations and rules
of Chan Buddhism worth following as a model for Neo- Confucian elementary
education. This story also shows how closely the Neo- Confucians in Song times
had followed the development of the Chan School.
Our last example is about the spiritual rather than the technical infl uence of
Chan Buddhism on the Neo- Confucian breakthrough. One of the most obvi-
ous social consequences of the breakthrough was the emergence, among the
shi
(scholar) class, of a high sense of mission and responsibility toward this
world. This new self- consciousness of the shi class, of course, had much to do
with the social changes during the Tang- Song transition. The total disappear-
ance of a hereditary aristocracy in Song China promoted the shi class to the
leading position in society. As a result, there appeared on the scene a number of
Neo-
Confucian reformers who, though of obscure origin, took it as their re-
sponsibility to rebuild society. Among them, Fan Zhongyan
(989–1052)
and Wang Anshi
(1021–1086) are two outstanding examples. Even be-
fore he had passed the civil examinations, Fan Zhongyan already expressed
the view that a Confucian scholar is one who must take the whole world as his
personal responsibility. Later he introduced the new ideal of the Confucian
scholar as “one who is fi rst in worrying about the world’s trou bles and last in
enjoying its pleasures.” There can be little doubt that Neo- Confucians such as
Fan and Wang must have been more or less inspired by the earlier exemplary
personalities in the Confucian tradition, particularly Mencius. Fan’s maxim,
for instance, can be shown to be an adaptation from a sentence in the Mencius,
and Wang also, in a poem, openly expressed his great admiration for the moral
idealism of Mencius. It is also reasonable, however, to assume that Neo- Confucian
idealists such as Fan and Wang may have also been, to varying degrees, infl u-
enced by the new spirit of Chan Buddhism resulting from a this- worldly re-
orientation. The late Arthur F. Wright made an in ter est ing observation that
Fan’s maxim was prob ably the bodhisattva ideal cast in secular Chinese terms.29
I would like to suggest that if Fan’s maxim should indeed prove to be partly of
Buddhist origin, it may not have been the bodhisattva ideal in general but
rather the Yunmen branch of the Chan School in par tic u lar. The Yunmen sect
not only occupied a central and dominant place in Song Buddhism but was
particularly noted for its “love of mankind” ( ai zhongsheng
) and “inner
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 179
worldly asceticism” ( rushi kuxing
). The case of Wang Anshi can lend
support to my contention. According to the famous Chan monk- poet Huihong
(1071–1128), when he lived a quiet, retired life in Jinling (Nanjing) in his
later years, Wang Anshi once reminisced with a friend about his po liti cal career.
He said, “You know, I accepted the appointment of the prime ministership only
because I had been moved by a saying of the Chan master Xuefeng
(822–
908).” The friend then asked him what that saying was. He quoted from
memory the following sentence: “You old fellow, what have you ever done for
mankind?”30
Master Xuefeng (Yicun
), it must be noted, was none other than the
teacher of Master Wenyan (864–949), the founder of the Yunmen sect. This
anecdote is by no means unreliable hearsay. On the contrary, its historical au-
thenticity can be fully established on the basis of Wang Anshi’s poems in which
his compassion to save humankind in the Buddhist sense fi nds deeply touch-
ing expressions.
In concluding, I must make it clear that I am not repeating the outworn
traditional charge against Neo- Confucianism by suggesting that it is no more
than Chan Buddhism in disguise. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind
that Neo- Confucianism is a renewal of the Confucian tradition in its main out-
lines. All I am saying is that the Neo- Confucian breakthrough as a historical
phenomenon cannot be fully understood without also taking the Chan break-
through into account. As a matter of fact, the rise of Neo- Confucianism makes
better sense if viewed in a broader historical perspective as the culmination of
the long- lasting spiritual movement initially activated by the new Chan School
in the eighth century.
not e s
1. Burton
Watson,
The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1968), 364, renders this passage from Zhuangzi jishi, 10B.1069 as follows: “and
‘the art of the Way’ in time comes to be rent and torn apart by the world ( daoshu jiang
wei tianxia lie).”
2.
Liang Su, “Tiantai famen yi”
, QTW, juan 517, ce 22 (Taipei: Huiwen, 1961
[reprint]).
3. Philip B.
Yampolsky,
The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (The Text of the Tun-
Huang Manuscript with Translation, Introduction, and Notes) (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1967), 159.
4. Ibid.,
161.
5.
Chuandeng lu
, juan 8: 263, CBETA, vol. 51, no. 2076; cited with a somewhat dif-
fer ent translation in Fung Yu- lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy, trans. Derk Bodde
(Prince ton: Prince ton University Press, 1953), 2:403.
6. Pu
Ji , Wudeng huiyuan
, juan 3 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1984).
180 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 7. Zecangzhu
, ed., Guzun suyu lu
, juan 1 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1994).
8. Daoxuan
, Xu gaosengzhuan
, in Gaosengzhuan
, ji 2, juan 21, “Seng
Shan zhuan fu Seng Xi zhuan”
, ce 3 (Taipei: Yinjingchu
, 1961).
9. Wudeng huiyuan, juan 9.
10.
Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 158.
11. Zecangzhu, Guzun suyu lu, juan 16.
12.
Ibid., juan 4. See also Chan, SB, 446.
13. Wudeng huiyuan, juan 15.
14. See Max Weber, Essays in Economic Sociology (Prince ton: Prince ton University Press,
1999), 165, and his General Economic History, trans. Frank H. Knight (Glencoe, Ill.: Free
Press, 1927).
15. Changli xiansheng ji
, SBCK, juan 11. See also Wm. Theodore de Bary and
Irene Bloom, eds., Sources of the Chinese Tradition from Earliest Times to 1600, 2nd ed.
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 1:569–573; this passage is on p. 573.
16.
Hans- Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1989, 317,
or New York: Continuum Books, 1997, 306).
17. Chen Yinke
, “Lun Han Yu”
, in Jinmingguan conggao chubian
(Shanghai: Guji, 1980), 286.
18.
Changli xiansheng ji, SBCK, juan 12.
19.
Ibid.
20. Zecangzhu, Guzun suyu lu, juan 5, “Linji chanshi yulu zhiyu”
; the
phrase “zhihui guoshi”
is also in Jingde chuandeng lu
, juan 16,
“Quanhuo zhuan”
, SBCK.
21.
“Zhongyongzi zhuan”
, in Xianju bian
, juan 19, Xuzangjing
.
22. “Fei Han shang diyi”
, Tanjin wenji
, juan 14, SBCK.
23. “Quanxue diyi”
, ibid., juan 1; “Wanyan shu shang Renzong huangdi”
, ibid., juan 9.
24. “Lunxue pian”
, Er Cheng ji
, Chengshi cuiyan
, juan 1 (Beijing:
Zhonghua, 1981).
25. Er Cheng ji
, Chengshi yishu
, juan 21B.
26. See Mencius, 7A.1, translated in De Bary and B
loom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 1:155.
27. ZYL (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1986), juan 126.
28. Ibid., juan 7.
29. Arthur F. Wright, Buddhism in Chinese History (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1959), p. 93.
30. Hui Hong
, “Shengren duo sheng Ru Fo zhong”
, Lengzhai yehua
, juan 10, SKQS edition.
9. Morality and Knowledge in Zhu Xi ’s
Philosophical System
M O R A L N AT U R E V E R S U S I N Q U I R Y A N D S T U D Y
In a letter to Xiang Anshi
(Xiang Pingfu
, 1153–1208), Zhu Xi
(1130–1200) wrote:
Generally speaking, since the time of Zisi
“honoring the moral na-
ture” ( zun dexing
) and “following the path of inquiry and study”
( dao wenxue
) have been the two basic methods of instruction
according to which people are taught to exert themselves.1 Now, what Zijing
[Lu Xiangshan
, 1139–1193] talks about are matters pertaining
exclusively to “honoring the moral nature,” whereas in my daily discussions
I have placed a greater emphasis on “inquiry and study.” . . . From now on, I
ought to turn my attention inwardly to self- cultivation. Thus, by removing
weakness on the one hand and gathering strength on the other, I prob ably
would be able to prevent myself from falling into one- sidedness.2
This letter was written in 1183 in response to a criticism made by Lu Xiangshan.
However, when Lu later learned about the letter, he remarked pointedly, saying:
“Zhu Yuanhui
[Zhu Xi] wanted to get rid of the defects and combine the
merits of both sides. But I do not think this is pos si ble. If one does not know
182 z h u x i ’ s ph ilosoph ic a l s y s t e m
anything about honoring the moral nature, how can there be inquiry and study
in the fi rst place?”3 These exchanges have led later scholars to believe that the
basic diff erence between Zhu and Lu lies in the fact that the former stressed
the importance of “inquiry and study” ( dao wenxue), whereas the latter stressed
that of “moral nature” ( zun dexing). Wu Cheng
(1249–1333) was prob ably
more responsible than anybody else for the initial dissemination of this view.4
By the time of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), this view had become so fi rmly
established that even Wang Yangming
