SOURCE: “Chu Hsi's Reading of the Ta-hsueh: A Neo-Confucian's Quest for Truth,” in Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1983, pp. 183-204.

[In the following essay, Gardner investigates Chu Hsi's fascination with the shortest text in Confucian canon, the Ta-hsueh, reviewing the evidence of Chu Hsi's “endless” revision of his commentary on it. He argues that Chu Hsi's intensive study of the text resulted in an understanding of it that challenged the traditional reading of the Ta-hsueh.]

The Ta-hsüeh^a is the shortest text in the Confucian canon. With its scant 1747 characters it can be read, even memorized, in a matter of days. Yet Chu Hsi^b spent more than forty years engaged in the study of the text, producing by the end of his life a commentary on it that would soon become authoritative.

Prior to the Sung dynasty (960-1279) classical studies tended to be principally exegetical. The aim of the classical scholar was to gloss, phonetically and philologically, characters and phrases whose sound or meaning was in need of elucidation. The assumption of the scholar was that once the characters and phrases had become intelligible the text itself would be immediately clear and meaningful to him. Understanding of the words equalled an understanding of the text.

Neo-Confucian scholars of the Sung did not align themselves with the exegetical tradition. Believing fervently that the sages of the past had manifested truth in the Confucian classics, they regarded the canon as revelatory and felt a religious commitment to it. Yet the truth contained in the texts was not easy to get at, for no words could ever fully express the profound intentions of the sages. In reading a classic, the individual had to do more than run his eyes over the characters, apprehending their superficial meaning. As Chu Hsi was fond of saying, the reader should not simply read the text, he should “experience” it.¹ He had to carry on a dialogue with the text, struggling to reach an understanding with it. Without the active participation of the reader, the text had little meaning; by rediscovering the truth through serious dialogue with the text, the reader gave significance to the text. Repeated encounters of this sort with the work led the reader over time to an ever-deepening appreciation of the imbedded truth.

The devotion of the Sung Neo-Confucians to the classical texts resulted in a flurry of studies on them. There was hardly a Neo-Confucian thinker of any significance who did not write commentary or interpretive essays on the canon. But of all the work done on the Confucian texts Chu Hsi's was surely the most influential, raising crucial philosophical issues that would continue to preoccupy the Chinese intellectual tradition until the present century. Particularly important were his commentaries on the Four Books, which in the early fourteenth century became the officially-sanctioned interpretations of the texts. Chu spent many years of his life writing and rewriting these commentaries and in them developed much of his Neo-Confucian vision.

Two years before his death Chu Hsi casually remarked that of the Four Books the text that most exhausted him was the Ta-hsüeh.² Indeed, a reading of his memorials, letters, and recorded conversations with friends and disciples reveals his profound commitment to the brief text; from 1162, when he discusses it in a memorial to the throne, until the end of his life nearly forty years later it never seems to have been far from his thoughts. His painstaking work on his commentary to the Ta-hsüeh most clearly demonstrates his dedication to the text. Having written a draft of the commentary no later than 1174, Chu was forever revising it, as we shall see in the first part of this article; for as he read and reread the text, its meaning became clearer and clearer to him. Chu Hsi's endless struggle to come to an understanding of the Ta-hsüeh was a Neo-Confucian's quest for truth. Not surprisingly, his intense search for the truth led him to an understanding of the text that differed dramatically from pre-Sung interpretations of it. The second part of this article will suggest what in particular was new in Chu Hsi's interpretation of the Ta-hsüeh.

I.

In 1189, at the age of sixty,³ Chu Hsi completed prefaces to the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü^c and the Chung-yung chang-chü^d. We know from his nien-p’u^e, written by Wang Mou-hung^f (1668-1741) in the early Ch’ing period,⁴ that Chu Hsi had labored long over both of these works before finally appending the prefaces:

He had done the drafts for these two books long ago but kept altering them from time to time. Being satisfied now in his own mind he wrote prefaces to them for the first time. For each he also wrote a Huo-wen^g.⁵

Evidence of a deep interest in the Ta-hsüeh goes back at least twenty-seven years, to 1162, when Hsiao-tsung succeeded to the throne and invited memorials from scholars and officials.⁶ In response the thirty-three year-old Chu Hsi submitted a sealed memorial (feng-shih^h),⁷ his first memorial ever, in which he emphasized the importance of ideas found in the Ta-hsüeh for cultivating the ruler's person and for bringing order to the empire:

In the learning of the sage emperors and wise kings of antiquity one apprehended the principle in things and extended knowledge in order to probe the transformation of affairs and things. If the meaning and principle of affairs and things that one encounters are illumined in every detail and are clear to one's mind without the slightest obscurity then naturally one's thoughts will become true and the mind will become set in the right;⁸ hence, dealing with the affairs of the empire will be as [simple as] counting one and two and discriminating between black and white. … It would seem that ‘apprehending the principle in things’ and ‘extension of knowledge’ is what Yao and Shun called ‘be discriminating and undivided,’ and that ‘setting the mind in the right’ and ‘making the thoughts true’ is what Yao and Shun called ‘holding fast the Mean.’⁹ From antiquity on, what was transmitted by the sages and what was manifested in their conduct was nothing more than these things. As for Confucius, he gathered together all that was good but in advancing did not acquire the right position and thus did not practice it [i.e., all that was good] in the empire. Therefore, he withdrew and wrote it down in the form of the Six Classics in order to make it known to those of later generations who would rule the empire, the state, and the household. In these [works] he discussed the order of the roots and branches, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. The portion that is particularly detailed and clear may now be found in the book of Tai [Sheng], in the so-called ‘Ta-hsüeh’ chapter. Therefore, the Ch’eng-i dignitary (Ch’eng-i langⁱ) Ch’eng Hao^j (1032-1085) together with his younger brother the Lecturer of the Ch’ung-cheng Pavilion (Ch’ung-cheng tien shuo-shuk) Ch’eng I^l (1033-1107), great Confucians of recent times who truly got at that learning that had not been transmitted since Confucius and Mencius, both considered this chapter to be a work handed down from Confucius and a text that scholars should devote themselves to first; indeed, this is an examplary view. I humbly hope that your majesty will renounce old practices, and useless and frivolous writings; put aside those ideas that seem right but are wrong and those that are heterodox; and give your attention to this classic which has been handed down, search for a true Confucian who profoundly understands its meaning, and place him beside you at court in order to provide advice.¹⁰

This is the first historical account given by Chu Hsi of the Ta-hsüeh text; the esteem in which he already holds the work at this early age is quite apparent.

In the following year at the age of thirty-four Chu Hsi was summoned to the temporary capital, Lin-an (modern Hangchow), for an audience with the emperor. At that time he presented three memorials, one of which continues the theme introduced in the sealed memorial:¹¹

I have heard that in the way of greater learning ‘the Son of Heaven on down to the commoners, all without exception regard the cultivation of the person as the root.’¹² The way in which harmony is established in the household, the way in which the state becomes well-governed, and the way in which the empire becomes tranquil all derive from this root.¹³ Thus one's person cannot be cultivated aimlessly; thorough inquiry into the root depends simply upon apprehending the principle in things in order that one's knowledge may be extended to the utmost.¹⁴ ‘Apprehending the principle in things’ is a term meaning ‘probing principle’ (ch’iung li^m).¹⁵ If there is a thing there must be its particular manifestation of principle. But principle is without physical form and difficult to understand; things have physical traces and so are easy to observe. Therefore, follow a thing in seeking its manifestation of principle; if the manifestation of principle becomes perfectly clear to one's mind then naturally in dealing with affairs there will not be the slightest mistake. Hence, the thoughts being true and the mind being set in the right one's person becomes cultivated; and as for establishing harmony in the household, governing the state well, and bringing tranquility to the empire, they too rely upon this [process of apprehending the principle in things and extending knowledge]. This is the so-called ‘way of greater learning.’ Although the great sages of antiquity were born knowing it, there is not a case of one who did not [continue to] study it. Yao and Shun handed it down—such is the so-called ‘be discriminating, be undivided, that you may sincerely hold fast the Mean.’¹⁶ From that time on sage passed it on to sage, and each thereby got possession of the empire. When Confucius did not acquire the right position he committed it to writing in order to make it known to those of later generations who would govern the empire, the state, and the house-hold. Moreover, his disciples together transmitted it and elucidated it further; the way of greater learning indeed can be said to have been well-studied. However, since the Ch’in and Han dynasties this learning has ceased.¹⁷

As in the earlier memorial Chu briefly outlines the history of the Ta-hsüeh text. He argues that the “way of greater learning” described there by Confucius had been the foundation of the sage-emperor's learning in the golden age of antiquity. Since the days of the Ch’in dynasty, however, the “way” had been neglected. Chu Hsi's message in these memorials to the emperor is clear: the ruler who once again follows that “way” and makes it the basis of his learning will become a true sage-king and bring complete tranquility to the empire.

In a lecture given in Yü-shanⁿ district in the province of Chiang-nan in 1194,¹⁸ thirty-one years later, Chu Hsi continues to stress the central importance of the “way of greater learning” in the education of the ancients:

I have heard that in antiquity scholars followed their own standards; contemporary scholars follow the standards of others. Therefore, sages and worthies in teaching others did not have them link together phrases or write literary compositions simply that they might be successful in the examination or acquire rank and emolument.¹⁹ Rather it was necessary that they apprehend the principle in things, extend their knowledge, make their thoughts true, set their minds in the right, cultivate their persons, and then by extension establish harmony in their households and govern their states well in order to bring tranquility to the empire. Only then was their learning what it should be.²⁰

Here, it is the scholar, not the emperor, who is admonished to follow the “way of greater learning.” In olden times scholars, together with sage-rulers, had followed the “way” and thereby brought about the golden age; implied here, of course, is the idea that by following the principles set forth in the Ta-hsüeh, scholars as well as rulers of the Sung could help to bring about another golden age in Chinese history.

Clearly, Chu Hsi had already done much thinking about the Ta-hsüeh as early as 1162. But it is not clear when exactly he began to commit his reading and interpretation of the text to writing. In a letter from 1167²¹ to Hsü Shun-chih^o (12th c.),²² a young follower of his, Chu Hsi declares:

Recently my explanation of the Ta-hsüeh has been revised in a number of places. There were many extremely vulgar points in my earlier work. In general my ability was not up to it; I just wrote without care. I myself was confused and so confused others—how terribly dreadful!²³

This remark indicates that Chu Hsi had been writing down his thoughts on the Ta-hsüeh for some time prior to 1167. It seems likely that these writings had circulated, although it is possible that they were simply Chu's notes on the text for use in lecturing. Whether these writings might have constituted a manuscript, in very preliminary form, of the Chang-chü remains a question.

We do know definitely, however, that by 1174, at the age of forty-five, he had completed or nearly completed a draft of the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü; and this he circulated among trusted friends, seeking suggestions for its improvement. In a letter to Lü Tsu-ch’ien^p (1137-1181)²⁴ from 1174²⁵ he writes:

I am forwarding to you a copy of the Chung-yung chang-chü. (This is a draft so I trust that you will show it to no one.) There is also a Hsiang-shuo^q;²⁶ it is lengthy so I have not had the time [to complete it]. I will send it to you later. If you see questionable passages I would be grateful if you would point them out to me. I am also sending the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü; it too has a Hsiang-shuo, which I will send later.²⁷

Fifteen years passed from the writing of this letter to the completion of the preface of the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü in 1189. It is conceivable too, as already noted, that the manuscript mentioned here had been begun much earlier than the year of the letter, possibly earlier than 1167. Thus, prior to 1189 Chu Hsi had already worked on the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü a minimum of fifteen years.

In 1176 we find Chu already engaged in a revision of his Chang-chü manuscript. In a letter²⁸ to Chang Nan-hsüan^r (1133-1180)²⁹ he comments:

As for the Chung-yung chang-chü and the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü I have … revised both of them once through; I will make copies and forward them to you. I am aware, however, that they still contain passages that should be deleted.³⁰

There can be little doubt that during the fifteen-year period from the first mention of a draft to the prefacing of the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü in 1189 Chu Hsi devoted much of his time and mental energy to improving his understanding of the Ta-hsüeh text; during this period it would appear that he made numerous revisions of his Chang-chü and solicited suggestions for improvements from his most respected colleagues.

The completion of the preface in 1189, however, by no means marked the end of Chu Hsi's work on the Chang-chü. Indeed it is recorded in his nien-p’u that he was still revising chapter six on “making the thoughts true” three days before his death on April 23, 1200.³¹ Comments in the Chu-tzu yü-lei^S32 and letters in the Hui-an hsien-sheng Chu Wen-kung wen-chi^t, many datable to years after 1189, allow us to observe Chu Hsi's continued openness to revision and doubts about his own interpretation of the Ta-hsüeh.³³ When asked, for example, just a year after writing the preface to the Chang-chü, whether his explanation of the Ta-hsüeh was final or not, Chu responded:

At the moment I myself would say that it is reliable. I only fear that in a few years I might again deem it unreliable. This is something out of my control.³⁴

According to such comments it would seem that Chu Hsi was not as “satisfied in his own mind” about his interpretation of the Ta-hsüeh in the Chang-chü as the nien-p’u statement cited above might suggest.³⁵

In fact, even years after he wrote the preface, Chu's interest in the Ta-hsüeh never ceased, and doubts about his own understanding of the text never completely disappeared. In a remark made sometime after his sixty-fifth year:

When I read through my explanation of the Chung-yung I have no serios doubts. But when I read the Ta-hsüeh I do have doubts; I am not very satisfied with it and therefore continue to revise it.³⁶

And even on those few occasions when he does show some degree of satisfaction with his understanding of the text he is quick to admit that with reconsideration and the passing of time satisfaction may easily turn to dissatisfaction. In a letter to P’an Tuan-shu^u37 he writes:

This year I have revised various texts of mine once through; the revisions in the Ta-hsüeh have been particularly numerous. Compared to my earlier work on the Ta-hsüeh the revised work is extremely detailed and comprehensive, yet I do not know how I will view it in the future.³⁸

Such comments reveal Chu Hsi's commitment to further inquiry on the text and his lack of inhibition about revising earlier held opinions. That the truth is in the text, he seems never to doubt; he doubts only his ability to appreciate the truth fully and thus always is willing to reconsider his understanding of the text. In a letter to his most prominent disciple Huang Kan^v (1152-1221)³⁹ sometime after the prefacing in 1189, Chu argues that only a sage or an idiot is unwilling to revise:

I myself believed that the Ta-hsüeh I had previously written was the final edition. Recently, I have discussed it with several people and feel that the section on ‘having the proper measure in one's own mind to measure the minds of others’⁴⁰ still contains unrefined passages. The writing basically is extremely difficult to understand—one who arrives at an interpretation and sticks to it for one's whole life, if not a sage is an idiot.⁴¹

It is apparent then that even after writing the preface for the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü in 1189, which would seem to signal the completion of his work on the text, Chu Hsi never left the Ta-hsüeh for long. In a comment made near the end of his life at the age of sixty-nine Chu speaks poignantly of his untiring devotion to the brief work:⁴²

I have expended tremendous effort on the Ta-hsüeh. [Ssu-ma] Wen-kung^w wrote the [Tzu-chih] t’ung-chien^x and said that the strength and spirit of his whole life were exhausted on that work. The same may be said of my work on the Ta-hsüeh; I did not expend the same strength on the Lun-yu, the Meng-tzu, or the Chung-yung^y.⁴³

II.

In his life-long quest for the truth then, Chu Hsi demonstrated an ‘openness’ to the Ta-hsüeh text, a willingness to modify or abandon earlier views as the truth imbedded in the text became increasingly apparent to him. Chu felt keenly that he had to discover for himself—no matter how much time it took—the truth manifested in the work. As might be expected, this sort of personal, religious approach to the Ta-hsüeh led to an understanding of the text that was quite new, an understanding that broke significantly with the traditional Han through T’ang readings of the text in at least three important respects.

First, the general orientation of Chu's interpretation of the Ta-hsüeh is fundamentally different from that of the standard pre-Sung interpretations of Cheng Hsüan^z (127-200) and K’ung Ying-ta^aa (574-648) found in the Li chi chu^ab and the Li chi cheng-i^ac. Cheng and K’ung viewed the text primarily as a political handbook for the use of the ruler alone. According to them, the book was entitled “Ta-hsüeh,” “because it recorded extensive learning which could be used in the administration of government.”⁴⁴ Chu, in rather sharp contrast, sees the Ta-hsüeh as a guide for self-cultivation and the ordering of society, for the use of all men, not only the ruler; he interprets the title to mean “learning for adults.” Chu briefly proposes this gloss for the title in his Chang-chü commentary and Ta-hsüeh huo-wen^ad, but in his lecture on the Ta-hsüeh to Emperor Ning-tsung in 1194⁴⁵ he explains the significance of the book's title in some detail:

‘Ta-hsüeh^a, refers to ta-jen chih hsüeh^ae. In the education of antiquity there was learning for children (hsiao-tzu chih hsüeh^af) and learning for adults. Learning for children consisted in the chores of cleaning and sweeping, in the formalities of polite conversation and good manners, and in the refinements of ritual, music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, and mathematics. Learning for adults consisted in the Way of probing principle, of cultivating the person, of establishing harmony in the household, of governing the state well, and of bringing tranquility to the empire. What this work treats is the learning for adults; hence it is named ‘Ta-hsüeh.’⁴⁶

Chu Hsi thus greatly enlarges the Ta-hsüeh's readership, for he finds in the text a Way of cultivating the self and governing others that is to be studied by everyone, not just by political leaders. According to Chu, the Ta-hsüeh's message begins with the premise that all men are capable of perfecting themselves morally and, indeed, must perfect themselves morally.

Second, Chu finds in the Ta-hsüeh a declaration of the ontological assumption and aim behind the self-cultivation process. The opening line of the text reads: “Ta-hsüeh chih tao tsai ming ming-te^ag” and is understood by Chu to mean: “The way of greater learning lies in keeping the inborn luminous Virtue unobscured.”⁴⁷ This reading of the line differs dramatically from the pre-Sung interpretation. “The way of great learning lies in manifesting luminous virtue.”⁴⁸ This earlier interpretation of the phrase ming ming-te—“to manifest luminous virtue”—is addressed primarily to the ruler: he is to teach his subjects morality by manifesting outwardly his own virtue throughout the land; following his example, the people too will act virtuously. By contrast, Chu Hsi takes ming ming-te—“to keep the inborn luminous Virtue unobscured”—to be a process of inner self-perfection applicable to every man, not only to the ruler. Just as he believes the term ta-hsüeh to refer to learning for all, so too he sees ming ming-te as a process relevant to all.

For Chu Hsi, ming-te is not outwardly-expressed virtue or virtuous conduct, but rather the originally virtuous mind and nature with which every man is endowed at birth, and which may become obscured by material endowment or human desires. “To keep unobscured” or to ming the ming-te is the goal of the self-cultivation process; each individual is to strive to maintain or to regain contact with his originally good mind and nature. And by keeping his ming-te unobscured he may then cause others, through his grace and good example, to renew their ming-te; this is what is meant by “renewing the people” (hsin min^ah).⁴⁹ In his commentary on the Ta-hsüeh passage Chu explains ming-te in some detail:

‘Ming-te^ai, is what man acquires from heaven; it is unprejudiced, spiritual, and completely unmuddled and thereby embodies the multitudinous manifestations of principle and responds to the myriad affairs. But it may be restrained by the endowment of ch’i or concealed by human desire, so at times it will become obscured. Never, however, does its original luminosity cease. Therefore the student should look to the light that emanates from it and seek to keep it unobscured, thereby restoring its original condition.⁵⁰

This explanation caused considerable controversy among Chu Hsi's disciples⁵¹ and later Confucians of the Sung and Yüan periods.⁵² They were anxious to determine whether Chu identified ming-te with the mind or with the nature. In fact, the explanation here seems to refer to an entity that includes both the mind and the nature. Terms such as “unprejudiced” (hsü^aj) and “spiritual” (ling^ak) clearly refer to the mind. For example, in chapter five of the Yü-lei, Chu says, “The unprejudiced and the spiritual are by nature the original essence of the mind.”⁵³ Furthermore, it is the mind, not the nature, that embodies the multitudinous manifestations of principle according to Chu Hsi's teachings.⁵⁴ On the other hand, his discussion of human nature in chapter twelve of the Yü-lei is remarkably similar in terminology and spirit to parts of his explanation of ming-te. This similarity leads one to believe that ming-te is to be identified with the nature:

Man's nature is originally luminous, but it is like a precious pearl immersed in dirty water where its luminosity cannot be seen. Remove the dirty water and the precious pearl is luminous of itself as before. If the individual could appreciate that it is human desire that conceals [the luminosity] this would bring enlightenment.⁵⁵

Also, Chu implies in the Yü-lei that the nature and ming-te are the same by identifying each with the virtues of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom.⁵⁶

It would appear, then, that Chu Hsi does not understand ming-te in terms of either mind or nature exclusively. To appreciate his understanding of the term we must remember that for him the mind embraces both the nature and the emotions, as it had earlier in Chang Tsai's^al (1020-1077) philosophy.⁵⁷ For Chu, the heaven-given Virtue (ming-te) refers to an entity including both the original mind, that is, the mind that shares in the mind of heaven and is thus unprejudiced, spiritual, and unobscured, and the perfectible luminous nature within the mind. From his point of view to keep the ming-te unobscured is to preserve the integrity of the original mind, a process that naturally implies the realization of the luminous nature.⁵⁸

According to Chu, the Ta-hsüeh prescribes the precise means of cultivating oneself: ko wu^am. This is the third respect in which Chu's understaning of the text differs from earlier interpretations. In the opening lines of the work we read:

Those [of antiquity] who wished to cultivate themselves first set their minds in the right; wishing to set their minds in the right, they first made their thoughts true; wishing to make their thoughts true, they first extended their knowledge to the utmost

(chih ch’i chih^an).⁵⁹

The line that immediately follows is: “chih chih tsai tsai ko wu^ao.” Ko wu, the final two characters of the line, is a philologically ambiguous term which has been interpreted in a variety of ways since the Han. Cheng Hsuan glossed it in this way:

‘Ko’ means lai^ap, ‘to come.’ ‘Wu’ is the same as shih^aq, ‘affair.’

And he explained the line:

When one's knowledge of the good is profound, one attracts (lai) good things. When one's knowledge of evil is profound, one attracts evil things. In other words, things come to a man according to what he is fond of.⁶⁰

In this explanation, ko wu—the sort of thing attracted—is a consequence of chih chih—the sort of knowledge that is extended. K’ung Ying-ta, in his Li chi cheng-i, concurred in Cheng's reading of the line. Chu Hsi, however, following his spiritual master, Ch’eng I, understands ko wu differently:

‘Ko’ means chih^ar, ‘to arrive at,’ ‘to reach.’ ‘Wu’ is the same as shih, ‘affair.’ ‘ko wu’ is ‘to reach to the utmost the principle in affairs and things.’⁶¹

And his explanation of the line “chih chih tsai ko wu” is startlingly different from the explanations of Cheng and K’ung, because he takes ko wu to be the means of chih chih rather than its consequence:

we wish to extend our knowledge to the utmost we must probe thoroughly the principle in those things that we encounter.⁶²

In Chu's reading of the text then, ko wu becomes the first step, the foundation of the self-cultivation process. That is to to say, only through the apprehension of the principle in things may an individual gradually perfect himself, thereby “keeping his inborn luminous Virtue unobscured.” Implicit in this method of self-cultivation is the belief that all things in the universe share a common principle.⁶³ Thus understanding of the priniciple in external things leads ultimately to an understanding of the principle within oneself. And since principal in man is identical to his nature,⁶⁴ understanding of that principle leads to complete self-realization.

Chu's most eloquent statement of ko wu and chih chih is found in the so-called “supplementary chapter” that he inserted into the Ta-hsüeh text. According to Chu, originally there had been a chapter in the Ta-hsüeh elucidating these two critical terms, but it has been lost. He therefore “reconstructed” the chapter in 134 characters, drawing on ideas previously suggested by Ch'eng I. He introduces the chapter:

It would appear that the … fifth chapter of commentary [by Tseng Tzu] elucidated the meaning of ‘fully apprehending the principle in things’ and ‘the extension of knowledge,’ but it is now lost. Recently, I made bold to use the ideas of Ch'eng-tzu to supplement it as follows.

The chapter reads:

What is meant by the ‘extension of knowledge lies in fully apprehending the principle in things’ is, that if we wish to extend out knowledge to the utmost we must probe thoroughly the principle in those things that we encounter. It would seem that every man's intellect is possessed of the capacity for knowing and that everything in the world is possessed of principle. But, to the extent that principle is not yet thoroughly probed, man's knowledge is not yet fully realized. Hence, the first step of instruction in greater learning must teach the student, whenever he encounters anything at all in the world, to build upon what is already known to him about principle and to probe still further, so that he seeks to reach the limit. After exerting himself in this way for a long time, he will one day become enlightened and thoroughly understand [principle]; then, the manifest and the hidden, the subtle and the obvious qualities of all things will all be known, and the mind, in its whole sbstance and vast operations, will be completely illuminated. This is called ‘fully apprehending the principle in things.’ This is called ‘the completion of knowledge.’⁶⁵

As might be expected, from the moment the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü began to circulate until the present day serious questions have been raised about the authority of the supplementary chapter. But the authority of the chapter is not an issue here. What must be asked is why Chu Hsi, to use his own words, “took the liberty … of filling in the lacunae”⁶⁶ in the Ta-hsüeh text. After all, the Ta-hsüeh was a canonical texrt. How could he, a mere scholar, meddle with it?

Chu must have been convinced that after years of struggling with the text he had come to an apprecaiation of its profound meaning. He had grasped the truth manifested there by the ancient sages. But, the truth had been difficult to understand since some of the sages' words had been lost. He dared to “fill the lacunae” only because doing so, he thought, would help to make the truth as evident as it once had been. He was not violating tthe text; he carefully noted what were his additions. Chu composed the supplementary chapter in his own words and those of Ch'eng I, but the truth he exressed was that of the sages of the past.

Notes

1. For example, see Chu-tzu yü-lei^s Ch'uan-ching t'ang^as ed., 1880, (hereafter Yü-lei), 10.4b.

2. Yü-lei 14.10a.

3. Throughout this article ages are given in Chinese sui; the Western equivalent may be obtained by subtracting one from the number of sui.

4. On the Chu-tzu nien-p'u^at (“Chronological Record of Master Chu's Life”) see Conrad Schirokauer, “Chu Hsi's Political Career: A Study in Ambivalence,” in Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett, eds., Confucian Personalities, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1962, pp. 354–355, footnote 8.

5. Chu-tzu nien-p’u, Ts’ung-shu chi-ch’eng ed., (hereafter Nien-p’u), p. 168. For each of the Four Books Chu wrote a Huo-wen; together they are known as the Ssu-shu huo-wen^au.

6. Actually there is evidence indicating that Chu was familiar with the text much earlier. According to the Nien-p’u (p. 3) Chu was first instructed in the Ta-hsüeh by his father Chu Sung^av (1097-1143) in 1140 at the age of eleven. (See Chu Sung's short biographical notice together with a listing of relevant biographical material in Ch’ang Pi-te^aw et al., comps., Sung-jen chuan-chi tzu-liao so-yin^ax, Taipei, Ting wen shu-chü, 1974-1976—as … SJCC-pp. 569-570.)

   And in 1156, as a subprefectural registrar in T’ung-an^ay, Fukien, Chu Hsi wrote:

   Learning begins with knowledge. Only the apprehension of the principle in things is sufficient to extend that knowledge, and when knowledge is extended the thoughts become true and the mind set in the right; in this way the order described in the Ta-hsüeh is carried out thoroughly and without difficulty.

   (Hui-an hsien-sheng Chu Wen-kung wen-chi^t, Ssu-pu ts’ung-k’an ed.—hereafter Wen-chi—77.4b-5a.

   But neither the Nien-p’u entry nor the Wen-chi comment reveals a particularly strong commitment to the text yet.

7. Nien-p’u, pp. 18-19. Schirokauer, “Chu Hsi's Political Career,” p. 166, mentions this memorial.

8. The terms that appear here, “the apprehension of the principle in things,” “the extension of knowledge,” “the thoughts will become true,” and “the mind will become set in the right” are all concepts important to the Ta-hsüeh.

9. “Be discriminating and undivided” and “holding fast the Mean” are allusions to Shang shu^az, Shih-san ching chu-shu^ba, 1815, 4.8b. I follow James Legge's translation, The Chinese Classics, 5 vols., 3rd ed., Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, 1960, vol. III, 61-62 (3.61-62). Here Chu Hsi paraphrases the Shang shu; I have modified Legge's translation to accord with Chu's changes.

10. Wen-chi 11.3a-4a.

11. Nien-p’u, pp. 19-20. These three memorials of 1163 are briefly described in Schirokauer, “Chu Hsi's Political Career,” pp. 166-167.

12. Ta-hsüeh, “The Classic of Confucius,” par. 6.

13. “Harmony is established in the household,” “the state becomes well-governed,” and “the empire becomes tranquil” are all important terms from the Ta-hsüeh.

14. The idea expressed in the memorial up to this point is straight from Ta-hsüeh, “The Classic of Confucius,” pars. 4-5.

15. This is a definition of ko wu^am suggested first by Ch’eng I; see, for example, Ho-nan Ch’eng-shih i-shu^bb, Kuo-hsüeh chi-pen ts’ung-shu ed., p. 347 and p. 209.

16. A direct quote from Shang shu 4.8b; Legge 3.61-62.

17. Wen-chi 13.1a-b.

18. In Nien-p’u, p. 218, it is recorded that in December of 1194 Chu Hsi went to Yu-shan to give a lecture at the district school; the district magistrate, a certain Ssu-ma Mai^bc, then published the lecture notes (chiang-i^bd) to make them known to all. Po Shou-i^be, Ts’ung-cheng chi chiang-hsueh chung te Chu Hsi^bf, Peking, Kuo-li Pei-’ing yen-chiu yuan, 1931, p. 37, cites this Nien-p’u entry.

19. This is criticism of the circumstances prevailing during Chu Hsi's lifetime.

20. “Yü-shan chiang-i^bg” in Wen-chi 74. 19b.

21. This letter is cited in Nien-p’u, p. 169.

22. See a short biographical notice in SJCC, pp. 2152-2153.

23. Wen-chi 39.17b.

24. A biographical notice may be found in SJCC, pp. 1212-1215.

25. This letter is cited in Nien-p’u, p. 169.

26. Nothing of this title survives. However, in Nien-p’u, p. 169, Wang Mou-hung suggests that the Hsiang-shuo is a draft version of the Huo-wen.

27. Wen-chi 33.26a.

28. This letter appears in Nien-p’u, p. 169.

29. See his biography in SJCC, pp. 2268-2271.

30. Wen-chi 31. 16b.

31. Nien-p’u, p. 226.

32. The Yü-lei in one hundred and forty chüan was compiled in 1270 by Li Ching-te^bh (fl. 1263) from five already existing collections of conversations between Chu and his disciples; these collections were based on the notes recorded by the disciples. Ichikawa Yasuji's^bi “Shushi gorui zakki^bj,” Jinbun kagakuka kiyo^-bk, 21 (1959), 137-184, discusses the background of the Yü-lei and its compilation and provides a chart (based on the preface to the Yü-lei) for dating the conversations recorded in the text.

33. Comments about revision of the Ta-hsüeh appear, for example, in letters dating from 1190 and 1196 (Wen-chi 62.1a and 63.23a); these letters are referred to in Nien-p’u, p. 66.

34. Yü-lei 14.9a. This comment is recorded by Chu's pupil, Ch’en Ch’un^bl (1159-1223) (SJCC, pp. 2471-2472), whose notes according to the Yü-lei preface date from the years 1190 and 1199. Given the tone of the question, I would say that this comment was made rather soon after the completion of the Chang-chü in 1189. Ch’ien Mu^bm, in his Chu-tzu hsin hsüeh-an^bn, 5 vols., Taipei, San-min shu-chu, 1971, vol. IV, 214-215, also dates it to 1190 rather than 1199.

35. In a letter to Ying Jen-chung^bo (SJCC, p. 4092) Chu Hsi comments:

    I have repeatedly revised the Ta-hsüeh and the Chung-yung; still they are not perfect. And only now does the Ta-hsüeh seem to have somewhat fewer defects. The principles of the work are explained best when discussed orally; when I put them on paper I am able to get at only a very small percentage of them

    (Wen-chi 54.11a-b).

    There is no way to date this letter precisely, for it is extremely brief and provides absolutely no internal evidence. Ch’ien Mu, however, on completely unconvincing grounds, argues that it must have been written sometime after Chu left his prefectural post in Chang-chou^bp in Fukien in 1191; see Chu-tzu hsin hsüen-an, vol. IV, 216. Although I do not agree with Ch’ien's line of reasoning in the Hsin hsüeh-an, because of the reference to repeated revisions, I too would date the letter rather imprecisely to Chu's later years.

36. Yü-lei 19.9b. This comment is from the record of Wang Kuo^bq (SJCC, pp. 194-195); according to the Yü-lei preface his record contains remarks made during the period from 1194 until Chu's death.

37. SJCC, p. 3636.

38. Wen-chi 50.4a. This letter cannot be dated precisely; the only clue we have to its date is in Nien-p’u, p. 67, where Wang Mou-hung states that it was written sometime after 1183.

39. His biography may be found in SJCC, pp. 2865-2866.

40. Ta-hsüeh, “The Commentary of Tseng Tzu,” X. 2.

41. Hui-an hsien-sheng Chu Wen-kung hsü-chi^br, Ssu-pu ts’ung-k’an ed., 1.3b. This last line derives from Lun-yü 17/3; Legge, 1.318.

42. From the notes taken in 1198 by Kuo Yu-jen^bs.

43. Yü-lei 14.10a. Cf. also Yü-lei 14.9b-10a.

44. Li chi chu-shu^bt, Shih-san ching chu-shu, 1815, 60.1a; this is a modification of a translation found in the notes on the “Title of the Work” in Legge, 1.355.

45. When Kuang-tsung abdicated and Ning-tsung became emperor, Chu received an imperial decree requesting that he present a lecture on the Ta-hsüeh to the new ruler. For a brief account of Chu's forty-day lectureship at court see Schirokauer, “Chu Hsi's Political Career,” pp. 182-183. The complete record of this lecture on the Ta-hsüeh is preserved in Wen-chi 15.1a-20b.

46. Wen-chi 15.1a. In setting down his views on the educational system of the ancients in his eloquent preface to the Ta-hsüeh chang-chü, Chu again explains ta-hsüeh as learning for adults. Thus I choose to render hsiao-hsüeh^bu as “lesser learning,” that is, the more basic curriculum for children and ta-hsüeh as “greater learning,” the more advanced curriculum for adults.

47. Ta-hsüeh, “The Classic of Confucius,” par. 1.

48. Li chi chu-shu 60.1a.

49. See Ta-hsüeh, “The Classic of Confucius,” par. 1 and Chu Hsi's commentary on it.

50. This is from the Chang-chü commentary to Ta-hsüeh, “The Classic of Confucius,” par. 1.

51. See, for example, questions put to Chu Hsi in Yü-lei 14.11b-18a.

52. See their discussions about the nature of ming-te in Ssu-shu ta-ch’üan^bv, Japanese ed. of 1626 (based on Yung-lo ed. of 1415), 1.1b-3a.

53. Yü-lei 5.5b. Also, in Yü-lei 5.3b, when asked whether the seat of the spiritual is the mind or the nature, Chu responds: “The seat of the spiritual is the mind alone; it is not the nature. Nature is simply principle.” Again in Yü-lei 5.6b we read: “Although the mind is a distinct entity, it is unprejudiced and therefore able to embody the multitudinous manifestations of principle.”

54. For example, see Yü-lei 5.6b (cited in the previous footnote).

55. Yü-lei 12.8a; Fung Yu-lan, History of Chinese Philosophy (tr. by Derk Bodde), 2 vols., Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1953, vol. II, 560 (with modification). And in Yü-lei 4.17b we encounter a similar passage:

    Once there is such-and-such a manifestation of principle there is such-and-such a ch’i^bw. Once there is such-and-such a ch’i there is necessarily such-and-such a manifestation of principle. It’s just that he who receives clear ch’i is a sage or worthy—he is like a precious pearl lying in crystal clear water. And he who receives turbid ch’i is an idiot or a degenerate—he is like a pearl lying in turbid water. What is called ‘keeping the inborn luminous Virtue unobscured’ is the process of reaching into the turbid water and wiping clean this pearl.

    In this way, the principle or the nature becomes luminous as before.

56. The Sung Neo-Confucians, in accord with the Mencian view of the original goodness of human nature, believed that human nature is comprised of the four virtues (e.g., Yü-lei 5.2a and 6.9a). In 14.13b ming-te too is said to be comprised of these four virtues:

    Men all originally embody ming-te. Within the te there exist the four virtues, benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. It is only that they are confused by external things and thus become obscured, and so they all decay. Therefore, in the way of greater learning it is necessary first to keep the ming-te unobscured.

    And again, in 14.12a, Chu Hsi is asked whether ming-te is the nature of benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom (jen i li chih chih hsing^bx), to which he responds, “Yes, it is.” See also Yü-lei 14.22a-b.

57. See Chang-tzu ch’üan-shu^by, Kuo-hsüch chi-pen ts’ung-shu ed., p. 290.

58. The hitherto ignored importance of the mind in Chu Hsi's thought is discussed at great length in Ch’ien Mu's Chu-tzu hsin hsüeh-an and in Tu Wei-ming's review of Ch’ien's book in The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. XXXIII, no. 3 (May, 1974), 441-454. Tu, in commenting upon Chu's understanding of the mind, says (p. 446).

    In his discussion of the human mind (jen-hsin^bz) and ontological mind (tao-hsin^ca), he signified that the human mind, conditioned by the ‘self-centeredness of the material being’ (hsing-ch’i chih ssu^cb), can be transformed through moral cultivation to become identified with the ontological mind. Such an identification enables the ontological mind, which is the true basis of humanity, to manifest the ‘heavenly principle’ in human affairs. It is therefore important for one to cultivate the mind so that, despite the inherent limitation of the physical self, it can ‘embody’ principle, which is the ultimate ground of human nature.

    This explanation of the mind is helpful in understanding Chu's interpretation of ming-te.

59. Ta-hsüeh, “The Classic of Confucius,” par. 4.

60. Li chi chu-shu 60.1b; cf. D. C. Lau, “A Note on Ke Wu,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 30 (1967), 353.

61. From the Chang-chü commentary on Ta-hsüeh, “The Classic of Confucius,” par. 4.

62. Ta-hsüeh, “The Commentary of Tseng Tzu,” V (the supplementary chapter of Chu Hsi).

63. Indeed, such a belief was central to the Ch’eng-Chu philosophical system. See, for example, Ch’eng I’s comments in Ho-nan Ch’eng-shih i-shu, p. 214 and p. 3, and in I-ch’uan I-chuan^cc, Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 3.3b. In Yü-lei 1.2a Chu praises Ch’eng I’s view.

64. Man's nature as principle is discussed in Yü-lei chapters 4 and 5, passim.

65. Ta-hsüeh, “The Commentary of Tseng Tzu,” V.

66. “Ta-hsüeh chang-chü hsü^cd” in Ssu-shu chi-chu^ce, Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 2b-3a.