by Ying-shih Yü
the compartmentalizing rhe toric of his syncretic pre de ces sors” (120). However,
the author obviously does not consider such diffi
culties to be so insurmount-
able as to prevent him from arguing for the “originality” and “systematicity” of
Jiao Hong’s “Neo- Confucian synthesis.”
It is true that the syncretist movement of Sanjiao heyi reached its peak during
the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries at all levels of Chinese philosophi-
cal and religious imagination.21 There is no evidence, however, that suggests a
discernible trend from “compartmentalization” to “noncompartmentalization.”
At the level of popu lar religion, millenarian sects continued to follow the age- old
logic of compartmentalization. The Hongyang jiao
, for example, re-
garded Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi as the three sons of the Nonultimate
Progenitor ( Wuji Laozu
) and the Eternal Mother ( Wusheng Laomu
), each having established a reputation in his own area. This is clearly
a vulgarized version of the traditional idea of “Three Teachings— One Source”
( Sanjiao yiyuan
).22 In the case of Luo jiao
, an early text entitled
Wuwei zhengzong liaoyi baojuan
distinguishes the Three
Teachings from one another in two diff er ent compartmentalized ways. The fi rst
one is to see each teaching being based on a princi ple uniquely its own. Thus,
Confucianism is identifi ed with the princi ple of “uprightness” ( zheng
), Dao-
ism with that of “honor” ( zun ), and Buddhism with that of “greatness” ( da ).
Here it is clear that the text follows the distinction fi rst suggested by the Yuan
syncretist Liu Mi.23 With regard to the second one, the text says: “Buddhism can
be compared to the sun, Confucianism to the moon, and Daoism to the fi ve
stars. Like the three lights in heaven, the world cannot aff ord to dispense with
any [of the Three Teachings].”24 As anyone familiar with the history of Chinese
syncretism knows, this is the famous compartmentalizing meta phor of Li Shiq-
ian
(523–588) with the positions of Confucianism versus Daoism in the
original formulation reversed. Thus, we see that at the popu lar level, the princi-
ple of compartmentalization continued to reign supreme in late Ming religious
syncretism.
Since the author deals with the prob lem of Sanjiao heyi primarily at the phil-
osophical level, we must now turn to Neo- Confucianism in the late Ming to see
330 t h e in t e l le c t ua l wor l d of j i ao hong r e v isi t ed
whether Jiao Hong’s syncretism was something signifi cantly new. To begin
with, it may be noted that the author’s lack of interest in historical reconstruc-
tion is nowhere more clearly shown than in his treatment of this prob lem. He
has cited several pre- Ming religious syncretists, including the above- mentioned
Li Shiqian and Liu Mi (5–14). His sole purpose, however, seems to be to estab-
lish a case of “compartmentalization” as a sharp contrast to what he takes to be
Jiao Hong’s new syncretic logic of “noncompartmentalization.” He has made
no attempt to trace Jiao Hong’s syncretism to its Ming Neo- Confucian origins.
Thus, Wang Yangming
is lightly dismissed as still being on the oppo-
site side of “the left- wing Neo- Confucians of the late Ming who tried, rather
self- consciously, to unite The Three Teachings into one doctrine,” (17) and the
tremendous impact of Wang Ji’s
(1498–1583) philosophical views of Sanjiao
heyi on the so- called “left- wing Neo- Confucians of the late Ming” is nowhere
even mentioned. It is common knowledge that the prob lem of Sanjiao heyi in
Ming Neo- Confucianism began with Wang Yangming and received its most
systematic, elaborate treatment in the hands of Wang Ji. When left- wing Neo-
Confucians of the Taizhou school such as Li Zhi and Jiao Hong argued for the
oneness of the Three Teachings at the philosophical level, they all followed
Wang Yangming and, particularly, Wang Ji, in one way or another.
In 1524, when Wang Yangming was asked whether there was something to
be learned from Daoism and Buddhism since each of the two teachings also
enunciated the Dao in terms of xing
(Nature) and ming
(Destiny), he re-
plied that both the Daoist and the Buddhist teachings in this par tic u lar re spect
originally had been integral parts of the Confucian learning. It was due to the
fact that latter- day Confucians had failed to see the sagely learning holistically
that both teachings were misunderstood as diff er ent from Confucianism. At
the same time, however, Wang Yangming also admitted that since the primor-
dial unity had been lost, the Dao was split into three parts, very much like a
great hall partitioned into three chambers. Latter- day Confucians, he observed,
vacated the right and left chambers to accommodate the Daoists and the Bud-
dhists, respectively, while being content with reserving the central chamber for
themselves.25 Wang Yangming’s emphasis on the original oneness of the Three
Teachings with regard to the ultimate real ity of the Dao was undoubtedly an
impor tant source of inspiration for the left- wing Neo- Confucians’ advocacy of
the idea of Sanjiao heyi. On the other hand, however, this new meta phor of the
Three Chambers also exerted a lasting infl uence on the thinking of Neo-
Confucian syncretists in the next one and a half centuries. In Lin Zhao- en’s
temple, we even see the Three- Chamber meta phor translated into real ity.26
Hence, compartmentalization and noncompartmentalization, if we are to use
such terms at all, can only be understood as a pair of Siamese twins grown out
of Ming Neo- Confucian syncretism from the very outset.
The most impor tant single philosophical infl uence on Sanjiao heyi in the
sixteenth century was, undoubtedly, Wang Ji, who developed his teacher’s idea
t h e in t e l le c t ua l wor l d of j i ao hong r e v isi t ed 331
to its logical extremes. His famous essay written in commemoration of the
founding of the Hall of Three Teachings begins by saying that Confucian learn-
ing cannot be clearly distinguished from Daoism or from Buddhism because
it also speaks of the Dao in terms of “vacuity” ( xu
) or “stillness” ( ji
) . The
essay further questions the validity of the conventional view taking Daoism and
Buddhism as “heresies” ( yiduan
) . As long as students of Daoism and Bud-
dhism set the “restoration of nature” ( fuxing
) as their central purpose, it
argues, they ought to be regarded as “Daoist- or Buddhist- oriented Confucians”
( Dao- Shi zhi Ru
) . According to Wang Ji, with liangzhi
(original-
good- knowing) as the “axis,” integration of the Three Teachings at the philo-
sophical level is rather a matter of course.27 By grounding his syncretism
squarely in the doctrine of liangzhi, Wang Ji actually introduced a new strategy
into the late Ming Sanjiao heyi movement, which was to be known as the “Three
Teachin
gs returning to Confucianism” ( Sanjiao gui Ru
). Lin Zhao-en
and Li Zhi, for example, each used this strategy to promote a syncretism uniquely
his own.28
Wang Ji was more responsible than anyone else for the wide circulation of
Wang Yangming’s three- chamber meta phor in late Ming syncretist circles. He
made constant references to it in his writings, as well as public lectures. What
is even more signifi cant is his translation of his teacher’s meta phorical lan-
guage into a kind of pseudo- historical language. He argued that “vacuity,” “still-
ness,” or “emptiness” constituted the “essence” of Confucian learning from the
very beginning. It was unfortunate that in later ages, the Confucians ceded this
“essence” to the Buddhists. In the time of Yao and Shun, when Buddhism no-
where existed, there were sages such as Chao Fu
and Xu You
who
held the type of otherworldly teaching comparable to Buddhism. Thus, in high
antiquity, it was the likes of Chao Fu and Xu You who guarded the left and right
chambers for sagely learning. He deplored very much that, as sagely learning
declined over the centuries, the Confucians not only lost the two side chambers
to Buddhism and Daoism but could not even hold their position fi rmly in the
central chamber.29
Wang Ji also developed a “stage- of- life” argument for Sanjiao heyi. The Three
Teachings are all centrally concerned with the “Mind” ( xin ), but each looks
at the same “mind” from a diff er ent stage of life. Buddhism refers to the “mind”
at the very moment of conception, and therefore speaks of “knowing the Mind and
seeing the Nature” ( mingxin jianxing
) . Daoism refers to the Mind of
the child, and therefore speaks of “preserving the Mind and Nurturing the
Nature” ( cunxin yangxing
) . As a disciple of Wang Yangming, however,
he identifi ed the Mind with liangzhi, which, he argues, provides a focus of inte-
gration for all of the three stages.30 This “stage- of- life” theory of Sanjiao heyi
proved to be very infl uential. For example, Li Zhi’s view on the fundamental
oneness of the Three Teachings is established entirely on the basis of the stage-
of- life argument.31
332 t h e in t e l le c t ua l wor l d of j i ao hong r e v isi t ed
Scholars today generally associate late Ming Sanjiao heyi at the philosophical
level with the Taizhou school. As the author rightly points out, however, Wang
Gen, the founder of the school, “was not an advocate” of this syncretism (79).32
In this connection, we must examine briefl y Wang Ji’s relationship with some
of the leading members of the Taizhou school. Wang Bi
(1511–1187), Wang
Gen’s second son and Li Zhi’s teacher, studied with Wang Ji for two de cades
beginning when he was a child.33 According to Li Zhi, Wang Bi’s thought was
shaped more by Wang Ji than by his father.34 Geng Dingxiang
(1524–
1596), Jiao Hong’s teacher, was also intellectually indebted to Wang Ji.35 For
example, one of his basic views that liangzhi is always “pres ent” ( xianzai
)
and “already realized” ( xiancheng
) was obviously taken from Wang Ji.36
Thus, in the debate between Wang Ji and the Jiangyou school concerning
whether liangzhi is universally pres ent in all men, therefore requiring no special
eff ort of “cultivation,” Geng Dingxiang clearly sided with the former.37
There can be no question that the rise of Sanjiao heyi as a type of syncretism
within the Taizhou school was due largely to the infl uence of Wang Ji. In sev-
eral of his essays and letters, Li Zhi expressed his unbounded admiration for
Wang Ji on the one hand, and was critical of Wang Gen and Luo Rufang
(1515–1588) on the other.38 He was particularly overwhelmed by Wang Ji’s philo-
sophical synthesis of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism and referred to
him by the honorifi c title of “The Venerable Master of The Three Teachings”
( Sanjiao zongshi
).39 There is also evidence that Jiao Hong shared Li
Zhi’s enthusiasm for Wang Ji. It was Jiao Hong who provided Li Zhi with the
original edition of the Complete Works of Wang Ji.40 Gu Yanwu
(1613–
1682) is certainly well grounded when he identifi ed Li Zhi as a “second-
generation disciple” of Wang Ji instead of Wang Gen.41
Once it is established that Wang Ji was a major source for Sanjiao heyi at the
philosophical level in the late Ming, we can readily see that there is nothing origi-
nal in Jiao Hong’s syncretism. The author’s theory of an “altered structure of
the syncretic logic” in Jiao Hong’s “noncompartmentalization” is nowhere sup-
ported by evidence. When both Wang Yangming and Wang Ji spoke of the one-
ness of the Three Teachings, they referred only to that part in each of the Three
Teachings that deals with the Dao as ultimate real ity defi nable in terms of Nature,
Mind, or Destiny. However, they continued to regard the Three Teachings in
their totalities as diff er ent and, therefore, proposed that each be accommodated
in a separate “chamber.”
This was precisely the view followed by Jiao Hong. Thus, when he was asked
to compare Confucianism and Buddhism, Jiao Hong said: “As far as the princi-
ples of Mind and Nature enunciated in the Buddhist sutras are concerned, how
can Confucius and Mencius add anything to them? Buddhism as a teaching
( jiao
), however, consists of customs of a foreign land which must not be
practiced in China.” 42 Elsewhere, he also quoted with approval a con temporary
statement that “the teachings [of Confucianism and Buddhism] are diff er ent,
t h e in t e l le c t ua l wor l d of j i ao hong r e v isi t ed 333
but their princi ples are the same” ( jiaoyi er litong
) . By “princi ples,”
he again referred to the “princi ples of Nature” ( xingli
).43
The author ascribes the following view to Jiao Hong: “As the Way is always
one, the Three Teachings must also be always one” (121). This is not only highly
misleading but also directly contradicted by Jiao Hong’s own words, as quoted
by the author two pages earlier: “The teachings of the sages are diff er ent, but
they are one in regard to the cultivation of the Way for the purpose of restoring
Nature. The sages in ancient times had diff er ent paths [which, however, all
tended toward] the same ending” (119). Obviously, in adopting this “compart-
mentalizing logic” of “diff er ent path same ending” here, Jiao Hong must have
had the “three- chamber” meta phor in mind.
To explain away the diffi
culty of Jiao Hong’s continuing use of “the compart-
mentalizing logic,” the author argues that Jiao Hong developed a new notion of
“complementarity” of the Three Teachings that was no longer compartmental-
izing as had been the case prior to Ming times. In his own words, “For [Jiao
Hong], the Three Teachings were complementary not because they each expli-
cated a part of the Way as the other two did not, but because they could be under-
; stood in terms of one another and were mutually explanatory and illuminating
the Way as truth” (120). Unfortunately, the idea of “complementarity” so de-
fi ned was, again, not original with Jiao Hong. When the lay Buddhist Zhang
Shangying
(1043–1121) of the Northern Song stated, “I began to under-
stand Confucianism only after I had studied Buddhism,” 44 what he meant to say
is exactly that the two teachings “could be understood in terms of each other and
were mutually explanatory and illuminating.” As a matter of fact, Jiao Hong
twice quoted Zhang Shangying’s statement to support this syncretism.45 In the
late Ming, it was Wang Ji who advocated most vigorously this notion of comple-
mentarity. He emphatically pointed out, “the truths of the other two teachings
can be fully confi rmed only if Confucianism is clearly understood.” 46 This is
obviously the other side of the same coin.
By the twelfth century at the latest, the idea that the Three Teachings, though
articulated diff erently, nevertheless shared the same Way as a whole, already
enjoyed considerable popularity among syncretists. According to one Buddhist
source, Emperor Xiaozong of the Southern Song had a discussion with the
Chan Master Baoyin
on the prob lem of the Three Teachings in 1180.
The Chan Master emphasized the point that Confucius’s Lunyu (Analects) must
be read, essentially, in the light of Chan Buddhist ideas. The emperor, on the
other hand, reportedly replied, “This has been my understanding all along.” 47
Whether this conversation actually took place is beside the point. It is neverthe-
less true that some Song scholars did begin to understand passages in the Ana-
lects in Chan Buddhist terms. According to one source, the poet Huang Tingjian
(1045–1105) failed to grasp the meaning of the sentence “ There is noth-
ing that I hide from you” ( Analects, 7.24) until he was enlightened by the famous
monk Huitang
(1025–1100) in a typical Chan Buddhist way.48 In his Hu-fa
334 t h e in t e l le c t ua l wor l d of j i ao hong r e v isi t ed
lun
(Discourse on protecting the Dharma), Zhang Shangying also inter-
preted “hearing the way in the morning” ( Analects, 4.8) as “the way of Bodhi.” 49
It is little won der, then, that Zhu Xi
