Asian Traditions of Meditation

by Halvor Eifring

  Gāo Pānlóng and Lù Lǒngqí’s Contrasting Views of Quiet Sitting

  Among later scholars of the Zhū Xī school of Neo-Confucianism, there were differences of opinion regarding quiet sitting. To demonstrate such differences, I will discuss Gāo Pānlóng (1562–1626) and the criticism of Gāo by Lù Lǒngqí (1630–1692). Put simply, Gāo Pānlóng placed importance on quiet sitting as a way to experience the original nature, a position quite similar to what had been advocated by Zhū Xī’s master Lǐ Tóng in the twelfth century, though Gāo presumed to follow Zhū Xī’s philosophy faithfully.30 Lù Lǒngqí criticized Gāo and attempted to limit the importance of quiet sitting to merely function as a means of bringing focus to mind and body in order to pursue the universal principle in external affairs. In this sense, Lù, like Zhū Xī, attached less importance to quiet sitting.

  The idea of directly bringing oneself closer to the true substance of the original nature through quiet sitting was formed during the time of Yáng Shí (1053–1135), so it had existed even before the time of Lǐ Tóng.31 As mentioned, Zhū Xī tried to keep his distance from this approach, while still being influenced by the practice of quiet sitting. In the late Míng dynasty, Gāo Pānlóng proactively accepted Zhū Xī’s theory of investigating things and exploring principles, while placing significant emphasis on quiet sitting. For this reason, like Lǐ Tóng, he also advocated the necessity of quiet sitting. However, Lù Lǒngqí cautioned about the danger that Gāo’s theory of quiet sitting could bring about. The two directions of thought that had not yet been clearly organized and that remained ambiguous in Zhū Xī’s mind were manifested in the opinions of Gāo and Lù, after having been filtered by the passage of time.

  After long years of engaging in a variety of practices, including quiet sitting, Gāo Pānlóng experienced a unique psychological transformation. His experiences are recorded in detail in the Kùnxuéjì.32 Based on personal experience, he emphasized the necessity of reading and claimed that it is indispensable and important to investigate things and explore principles externally. However, he also underlined the importance of quiet sitting. As recorded in Kùnxuéjì, he practiced Zhū Xī’s motto, “Quiet sitting for half a day, and reading for half a day,” and also recommended it to others.33

  Further, the nature of Gāo’s quiet sitting was similar to Lǐ Tóng’s idea of “observing emotions before they have germinated.” Thus, Gāo aimed at grasping his true nature through quiet sitting.34 He did not practice quiet sitting simply to draw the mind away from petty matters and focus on the exploration of principles. At times, Gāo quoted the words of Chén Xiànzhāng, who had made quiet sitting a central part of his theory of self-cultivation.35

  Other scholars were sometimes led to think that Gāo attempted to first grasp the original nature through quiet sitting, and then to explore the principles of things, which were thought to be essentially identical with the original nature, through extensive reading.36 This was how Lù Lǒngqí interpreted Gāo’s approach, and he criticized him for placing excessive importance on quiet sitting as a way of approaching the substance of mind.

  Lù Lǒngqí criticized both Gāo and his close friend Gù Xiànchéng (1550–1612) for distorting Zhū Xī’s Confucianism by focusing too much on “quietude.” According to Lù, both Gāo and Gù claimed that to restore one’s original nature, the principles of things should be pursued externally. In this sense, Lù admitted that both Gāo and Gù were in agreement with Zhū Xī’s Confucianism. However, since they placed too much emphasis on quietude, they were inclined to think that the universal principle could be found directly within one’s mind through contemplation. According to Lù, Gāo and Gù expanded the realm of mind—the subjective realm—to a level of illusory significance. For this reason, Lù claimed that Gāo and Gù’s way of pursuing the universal principle was problematic.37

  Lù traced the long-term process of Gāo’s practice by examining the Kùnxuéjì, concluding that Gāo depended too much on the effects of quietude, and that his approach to quietude sought to manifest the original nature that is inherently in one’s mind. Therefore, Lù characterized Gāo’s approach as the philosophy of Chán Buddhism. Further, Lù said that all of Gāo’s other writings on the practice of quiet sitting centered on the experience of manifesting one’s original nature, and that although Gāo also underlined the importance of reading, he emphasized quiet sitting even more. Lù pointed out that this resulted from Gāo’s misinterpretation of Lǐ Tóng’s philosophy of “observing emotions before they have germinated.”38

  Disagreement with Gāo’s emphasis on quiet sitting is seen in other sections of his text as well, indicating that this was not an issue that Lù Lǒngqí felt he could ignore. In Lù’s opinion, Gāo deviated from the correct path as a result of misinterpreting Zhū Xī’s Neo-Confucianism. Therefore, Lù attempted to correct the deviation and lighten the emphasis on quiet sitting. He also disagreed with the idea of “quiet sitting for half a day, and reading for half a day” that formed the basis for Gāo’s notions. Lù even attempted to devalue Gāo’s text by claiming that the disciple who recorded it was a student of Chán Buddhism.39 Wáng Shǒurén’s school of mind was the direct target of Lù’s criticism and the school he wished to defeat. At the same time, Lù also found elements of “pseudo-Confucianism” in the philosophy of Gāo Pānlóng and others, and tried to defeat them as well.

  Late Míng Manuals for Quiet Sitting

  Starting in the late Míng (sixteenth century), there was a trend toward regulating the practice of quiet sitting by means of comparably clear manuals for Confucian elites. Since early times, Buddhists and Daoists had practiced concentrating on the inner self by sitting quietly and calming the mind. From the twelfth century onward, Neo-Confucian scholars also began to use this method, under the name “quiet sitting,” as an effective way to experience the original nature. However, concrete methods of quiet sitting were not much discussed. Despite all of the discussion of quiet sitting during the late imperial period, the concrete form of practice was never clearly indicated.40 However, beginning in the late Míng, Confucian elites began to provide clear and concise methods of practicing quiet sitting.

  Pioneering this new trend was “the way of regulated breathing” propagated by Wáng Jī (1498–1583), one of the most influential disciples of Wáng Shǒurén.41 Although Wáng Jī asserted that the real state of the original nature is “beyond good and evil” and could be attained only after abandoning all intentional moral efforts, as if being pushed off a cliff,42 he adopted the concrete practice of “regulated breathing” to make up for the lack of guidance in accessing the original nature. In discussing these points, Wáng Jī used mostly Daoist terms of inner alchemy (nèidān). However, in his manual for regulated breathing, he discussed the method based on the four phases of breathing according to the “Gradual Practice of Dhyāna” (Cìdì chánmén) and “A Little Primer of Concentration and Insight” (Xiǎo Zhǐguān) by the founder of Tiāntāi Buddhism, Zhìyǐ (538–597).43

  Like his teacher Wáng Shǒurén, Wáng Jī did not fully support quiet sitting but recognized its effectiveness as an “expedient way” and advocated “regulated breathing” as a concrete method. With him, we can see the implementation of methods taken from Buddhist and Daoist practices, as well as, for the first time, the use of a simple manual for quiet sitting. This represented an important new trend that continued after Wáng. For example, Yán Jūn (1504–1596), who belonged to the most radical school among the followers of Wáng Shǒurén, talked about the method of “seven-day confinement” (qī rì bìguān) as a practice to uncover one’s original nature. This method consists of practices similar to those of Daoism, including swallowing saliva or circulating energy throughout the body while concentrating on the “cinnabar field” (dāntián, the area a little below the navel). The number of days required for this practice is specified as seven, and the practitioner is required to cover his eyes and ears. No matter how painful it might be, the practitioner must look into his inn
er self in complete silence, sitting in the lotus position. When the practice period is completed, the practitioner takes another seven days off to confirm his original nature while listening to his master’s guidance.44 Listening to the teaching of one’s master reminds us of the “mind control” used in modern cult religions. Here, however, I would like to focus on the fact that the technique of quiet sitting to grasp one’s original nature is described in an unprecedentedly concrete manner.

  Another example of a Confucian scholar borrowing from Buddhist and Daoist meditative traditions is Yuán Huáng (best known by his style name Liǎofán, 1533–1606), who is known for his use of ledgers of merit and demerit in a famous pamphlet titled “On Establishing the Mandate” (Lìmìng piān). In this text, he discusses the way of “establishing one’s mandate” and passing the civil service examination by doing good deeds. However, although he succeeded in the civil service examination and became a Confucian official, he also became a disciple of Chán master Yúngǔ, and he even published a short work titled “Critical Points of Quiet Sitting” (Jìngzuò yàojué) based on the Tiāntāi Buddhist text “Gradual Practice of Dhyāna.”45

  In the preface, it is explicitly stated that Yuán wrote his text based on the teachings of the Tiāntāi Buddhism that he learned from Master Yúngǔ. In the twelfth century, Zhū Xī had already been clearly aware that quiet sitting was originally not a Confucian tradition.46 Likewise, Yuán Huáng explicitly asserted that quiet sitting had been adopted from Chán Buddhism by early founders of Neo-Confucianism. Yuán also said that other Confucian scholars had mistakenly thought that their quiet sitting had allowed them to reach the “ultimate level,” when in reality they were still at the elementary level of spiritual realization. As a result, Yuán came to believe that the theories of quiet sitting introduced to him by Master Yúngǔ and his fellow monk, Master Miàofǎ, were the only genuine ones, based on the real highest level of spiritual accomplishment. Yuán Huáng said that he wrote “Critical Points of Quiet Sitting” with reference to the works of Zhìyǐ, while taking the ideas about quiet sitting from the teachings of the above two Chán masters.47

  Yuán’s text consists of six chapters. These chapters merge Buddhist theories of practice with Confucian philosophies of moral virtue. Both the structure and the content of the work are unique. For example, while Zhìyǐ’s “Gradual Practice of Dhyāna” underlies the entire work, Yuán’s text is easier to refer to, because of the chapter divisions, which Zhìyǐ’s text does not have. The highly complex teachings in Zhìyǐ’s “Gradual Practice of Dhyāna” are strongly simplified. Furthermore, the first chapter of Yuán’s work establishes the Confucian idea that “all things are essentially one” (wànwù yì tǐ) and the crucial Confucian notion of “benevolence” (rén) as basic principles of his own theory. But then he links Confucian “benevolence” to the Buddhist concept of the “four immeasurable frames of mind” (sì wúliàngxīn) extracted from the beginning of the “Gradual Practice of Dhyāna” and includes the latter in his last chapter under the heading “On Enlarging One’s Love” (Guǎng’ài piān). In addition, Yuán’s text includes explicit criticism of Daoist theories. Yuán also criticized the theories of quiet sitting by previous Confucian scholars, on the grounds that they were quite shallow—comparable only to the introductory level of Chán Buddhism—even though the scholars in question mistakenly believed that they had attained the ultimate state of mind. Yuán explicitly mentions Chén Xiànzhāng and criticizes him by name.48

  Yuán holds that the state of initial Chán awakening is not a satisfactory level and needs to be overcome in order for a person to attain the second level of Chán awakening, in contrast to what Confucian scholars of the past had mistakenly thought. Thus, experiences of quiet sitting by former Confucian scholars came to occupy a certain place in Yuán’s system of thought. Yuán also criticizes Daoists for mistaking the initial Chán awakening for the ultimate one. He guides his readers toward the route he is advocating, urging them on to a higher level of enlightenment.49

  Yuán Huáng’s text must be considered an important benchmark for the movement toward regulating the method of quiet sitting. It explains the method for quiet sitting in a clear and concise manner, while still exhibiting a certain complexity and massiveness, based on the voluminous and extremely complicated theories of Zhìyǐ.

  Among the series of regulative manuals for quiet sitting, the work of Gāo Pānlóng deserves special attention. Gāo’s manual for quiet sitting, titled “Recovering [the Original State of Mind] in Seven Days” (Fù qī guī), teaches its readers to concentrate their minds in seven days of continuous quiet sitting:

  On the first day, relax and walk slowly. Sleep when you feel tired, and make yourself content. When your tiredness has been swept away, enter your room, burn incense, and sit down with your legs crossed. All methods of quiet sitting simply aim at awakening [the original state of] the mind and making it forever eminently bright, leaving your surface mind with nowhere to go. When your surface mind has nowhere to go, your spirit naturally gains focus and returns to its origin, with no need for you to make particular arrangements. Don’t be concerned with any particular location, and don’t be concerned with any particular effects. When you first enter quietude and don’t yet know how to regulate your mind, just pay attention to the important sayings of past sages, and you will naturally find your way in. After three days of quietude, you will most certainly reach a wonderful realm. But after four or five days, you must take particular care to avoid laxness. Take a brief and slow walk after each meal. Keep your consumption of wine and meat low, to avoid drowsiness. Don’t take off your clothes when you lie down to sleep. Just lie down when you feel tired, and get up as soon as you awake. After seven days, your spirit will be replete, and no afflictions will bother you anymore.50

  As we have seen, this work was later criticized by Lù Lǒngqí. However, its appearance was very important in the development of quiet sitting in the history of Neo-Confucianism. Gāo’s work was the first genuinely Confucian manual of quiet sitting that did not include elements of Buddhism or Daoism.

  Gāo provided a concrete Confucian method of practice, excluding any elements that referred to Buddhist or Daoist practices. In this sense, his attempt marks an important milestone in the tradition of quiet sitting as interpreted by Confucian schools of philosophy. We should also note that, as with Yán Jūn, Gāo too takes seven days as the period of practice, most likely based on the cycles of seven days (qī rì lái-fù) in the Book of Changes.

  In fact, the reason that eminent Confucians of the time, such as Gāo Pānlóng, Chén Lóngzhèng, and Liú Zōngzhōu, accepted Zhū Xī’s “quiet sitting for half a day, and reading for half a day” as a guideline for quiet sitting must have been the need to clearly stress the Confucian way of quiet sitting, since Zhū Xī himself did not intend to emphasize the practice. The tradition of quiet sitting underwent a qualitative change in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when manuals by Confucian elites began to be written and published. For the first time in history, there appeared a unique way of Confucian quiet sitting. This new tradition is probably related to a similar trend taking place in Buddhism and Daoism at that time.51

  Conclusion

  Based on the ideal of “realizing sagehood” that was so central to Confucians of these periods, quiet sitting was often considered to be a practice with assured efficacy, helping practitioners to gain a direct experience of their original nature that is identical to the universal principle, and that inherently exists in the mind. Indeed, Confucian scholars never ceased to practice quiet sitting.

  However, many Confucians also saw a danger in the emphasis on quiet sitting. The concept of original nature might easily merge and become identified with the fundamental existence proclaimed by Buddhism and Daoism. If so, the absolute value of Confucian norms might be undermined. Instead of focusing on correct moral norms as manifested in one’s interactions with society—which was essential to Confucian norms—some Confu
cians became more engaged in the internal observation of the undistinguished essence of mind. In this way, quiet sitting might be identified with the fundamental “emptiness” or “way” advocated by Buddhism and Daoism. Since quiet sitting originated in Buddhism and Daoism, its practitioners, while quietly sitting and contemplating the original human nature that existed before different schools of philosophy were established, could easily be led to the idea of the unity of the three teachings. Indeed, in advocating this syncretist philosophy, Xuē Huì, a Confucian scholar, greatly devalued the efficacy of the Confucian classics and Confucian social norms by claiming that the discourses and nomenclature of Buddhism and Daoism provided a more profound description of the real state of one’s original nature. Confucian scholars were continuously torn between the effectiveness and the dangers of quiet sitting. For those who tried to remain Confucian scholars rather than entirely converting to the philosophies of Buddhism or Daoism, quiet sitting became a problematic approach that was both attractive and innately dangerous.

  In the seventeenth century, more concrete and clear manuals for quiet sitting began to appear, supplementing the earlier ambiguous statements about such practice. They were all relatively short and described the actual practice and knowledge of quiet sitting in a manner that was easy to understand. As part of this trend, Buddhist and Daoist practices began to be incorporated in such manuals more frequently. However, Confucian manuals for quiet sitting also appeared, marking a unique change that took place in seventeenth-century China.