SOURCE: “The Great Synthesis in Chu Hsi,” in A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy, translated and compiled by Wing-tsit Chan, Princeton University Press, 1963, pp. 588-604.

[In the essay below, Chan discusses Chu Hsi's contribution to Neo-Confucianism, arguing that Chu Hsi eliminated the remnants of Buddhist and Taoist traditions in Neo-Confucianism, as well as refined and synthesized the six major concepts advocated by various Neo-Confucian philosophers. Chan also introduces several brief essays by Chu Hsi, included here.]

No one has exercised greater influence on Chinese thought than Chu Hsi (Chu Yüan-hui, 1130-1200), except Confucius, Mencius, Lao Tzu, and Chuang Tzu. He gave Confucianism new meaning and for centuries dominated not only Chinese thought but the thought of Korea and Japan as well.

Our philosopher early distinguished himself as a patriot-scholar, having repeatedly petitioned the emperor to practice the Confucian principles of “the investigation of things” and “the extension of knowledge,” to impeach inefficient officials, and not to make peace with the invading enemy. But he preferred a life of peace and poverty. From 1163 to 1178, he declined official positions and devoted his time to scholarship. Eventually he spent nine years in public service, and gave an excellent account of himself in promoting education and agriculture. He revived the intellectual center at the White Deer Grotto in present Kiangsi Province, and his lectures there attracted all prominent scholars of the time. But his philosophical views were too radical for the rulers to accept. He was repeatedly dismissed from office. In 1196, his teachings were prohibited, and someone even demanded his execution. He continued to write after his dismissal from government service, and in so doing made tremendous contributions.¹

His contributions were by no means confined to philosophy, although that is the most important. He synthesized Confucius' concept of jen (humanity), Mencius' doctrines of humanity and righteousness, the idea of the investigation of things in the Great Learning, the teaching of sincerity in the Doctrine of the Mean, the yin yang (passive and active cosmic forces) and the Five Agents (Water, Fire, Wood, Metal, Earth) doctrines of Han times (206 b.c.-a.d. 220), and practically all the important ideas of the Neo-Confucianists of early Sung (960-1279), as we shall point out later on. His breadth of insight and his scholarship are equalled by few men in Chinese history. Rightly or wrongly, he was the one who established the orthodox line of transmission of the Confucian School from Confucius through Mencius, Chou Tun-i (Chou Lien-hsi, 1017-1073), Chang Tsai (Chang Heng-ch’ü, 1020-1077), Ch’eng Hao (Ch’eng Ming-tao, 1032-1085), and his brother Ch’eng I (Ch’eng I-ch’uan, 1033-1107).² He inaugurated new tendencies in textual criticisms. Among other things, he considered the Book of Changes as a book primarily for divination, thus radically differing from other Neo-Confucianists who depended on it for much of their philosophical inspiration. His most radical innovation was to select and group the Analects, the Book of Mencius, the Great Learning, and the Doctrine of the Mean (both of which are chapters of the Book of Rites), as the Four Books, wrote commentaries on them, interpreted them in new lights, and made them the foundation of his social and ethical philosophy. From 1313 to 1905 the Four Books were the basis of the civil service examinations. As a result, they have exercised far greater influence on Chinese life and thought in the last six hundred years than any other Classic. Through his interpretations of the Four Books, he made Neo-Confucianism truly Confucian, stripped of the Buddhist and Taoist influence which had been conspicuous in previous Neo-Confucianists.

Generally speaking, while he reaffirmed the basic doctrines of Confucianism, he brought its development over the centuries, especially during the Sung period, into a harmonious whole and gave it a new complexion.

Up to this time, Neo-Confucianism was characterized by six major concepts advocated by the different philosophers, namely, the Great Ultimate, principle (li), material force (ch’i),³ the nature, the investigation of things, and humanity. All of these were developed, systematized, and synthesized in the greatest of Neo-Confucianists, Master Chu.

Assimilating the concepts of the Great Ultimate advocated by Chou Tun-i and combining it with the concept of principle of Ch’eng Hao and his brother Ch’eng I, Chu Hsi held that the Great Ultimate has no physical form but consists of principle in its totality. All actual and potential principles are contained in the Great Ultimate, which is complete in all things as a whole and in each thing individually. The relationship between the Great Ultimate in the universe and the Great Ultimate in each individual thing is not one of whole and part, but one similar to moonlight shining on objects. Each object has its own moonlight but this moonlight is moonlight as a whole.

It is the principle of things to be actualized, and actualization requires principle as its substance and material force as its actuality. Thus the Great Ultimate involves both principle and material force. The former is necessary to explain the reality and universality of things. It is incorporeal, one, eternal and unchanging, uniform, constituting the essence of things, always good, but it does not contain a dichotomy of good and evil, does not create things. The latter is necessary to explain physical form, individuality, and the transformation of things. It is physical, many, transitory and changeable, unequal in things, constituting their physical substance, involving both good and evil (depending on whether its endowment in things is balanced or partial), and is the agent of creation.

While seemingly dualistic, principle and material force are never separate. Principle needs material force in order to have something to adhere to, and material force needs principle as its own law of being. The fact that they always work together is due to the direction of the mind of the universe, which is the universe itself. In man this mind becomes, on the one hand, the moral mind, which is the principle of his original nature, and on the other, the human mind, which is the principle of original nature mixed with physical endowment and human desires. The principle of a thing or man is his very nature, real and concrete, unlike the nature in Buddhism, which is Emptiness. Original mind is principle in itself, unmoved, and perfectly good, while physical nature, on the other hand, is principle mixed with material force; it is the aroused state, involving both good and evil. The two natures, however, are always interfused, one the substance and the other, function. As substance, it is the nature, and as function, it is the feelings. That which unites and commands both human nature and feelings, according to Chang Tsai, is the mind. By unifying and commanding is meant the mind unifying itself by harmonizing man's nature and his feelings and by transforming the human mind into the moral mind. Hence the possibility of morality. Moreover, all human beings and things have a mind, and this mind is in essence identical with the mind of the universe. Therefore there is the possibility of knowledge and the mutual influence and response among things and human beings, whether living or dead. Hence the investigation of things and religious sacrificial rites.

In his doctrine of the investigation of things, Chu Hsi follows closely Ch’eng I, as he does in the doctrine of principle. Indeed he was a fourth-generation pupil of the two Ch’eng brothers; and of the two, Ch’eng I was his main source of ideas. But he did not merely follow him or elaborate on him. He differs from him at many points. For example, while to Ch’eng I physical nature is outside principle, to Chu Hsi they are intermingled. Like Ch’eng, he taught seriousness (ching)⁴ as the psychological prerequisite for true knowledge and exhaustive investigation as the method. But he was careful to emphasize equally both the deductive and inductive methods and both objective observation and intuitive understanding.

The greatest understanding to be achieved is that of jen,⁵ an idea close to the hearts of all Confucianists. It was one of the most persistent subjects in the history of Chinese philosophy, and its long evaluation finally culminated in Chu Hsi's famous description that it is “the character of man's mind and the principle of love.” The significance and implications of this idea as well as of other ideas of his will be elaborated in the comments. Suffice it to say here that virtually every cardinal Confucian concept was brought to a higher peak by Chu Hsi.

Such a well organized and freshly envigorated philosophy could not but overwhelm the Chinese. Although not without opposition from such outstanding Neo-Confucianists as Lu Hsiang-shan (Lu Chiu-yüan, 1139-1192), his philosophy and that of Ch’eng I, that is, the Ch’eng-Chu School of Principle, dominated the intellectual life of the Southern Sung period (1127-1279). In the Yüan dynasty (1271-1368) that followed, the supremacy of the Ch’eng-Chu School remained unchallenged. With a few exceptions, great scholars were all exponents of Chu Hsi's rationalism. Even those who attempted to reconcile the conflicts between him and Lu Hsiang-shan were essentially faithful disciples of his. In the Ming period (1318-1644), before the idealism of Wang Yang-ming (Wang Shou-jen, 1472-1529) emerged as the leading philosophy, his rationalism was the strongest intellectual current. Even during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries when Wang overshadowed him, it did not entirely disappear. There were philosophers like members of the Tung-lin School who defended it and others like Liu Tsung-chou (1578-1645) who tried to synthesize it with the idealism of Wang. Consequently as opposition against idealism grew in the seventeenth century, Chu's philosophy was revived in strength. This period was one of independent and critical thinking, but some of the most outstanding scholars of the time, notably Ku Yen-wu (1613-1682) and Wang Fu-chih (1619-1692) were greatly influenced by and strongly inclined toward Chu Hsi. While eventually the critical spirit overthrew the speculative philosophies of both Wang and Chu, the latter had left a permanent imprint on the philosophical life of China. From the beginning of the fourteenth century on, his and Ch’eng I's interpretation of the Confucian Classics were officially held as the orthodox doctrines, and as already mentioned they formed the basis of civil service examinations and were therefore the intellectual standards for the Chinese literati until 1905 when the examination system was abolished. His philosophy survived the Intellectual Revolution of 1917 and became in the thirties the foundation of Professor Fung Yu-lan's new rationalism. His influence was not limited to China. It became an orthodoxy in Korea and the outstanding school of thought in the history of Japan.

The following selections include three short essays and a letter from the Chu Tzu wen-chi (Collection of Literary Works by Chu Hsi),⁶ and a number of sayings from the Chu Tzu ch’üan-shu (Complete Works of Chu Hsi).⁷ …

A. TREATISES

1. A TREATISE ON JEN

Original note: In the Chekiang edition, the “Treatise on Jen” by Chang Shih (Chang Nan-hsien, 1133-1180) is erroneously considered to be by Master Chu and Master Chu's treatise is considered to be a preface to Chang's essay. There is also a note saying that this treatise is perhaps a preface to Chang's essay. This is a mistake and is here corrected.

“The mind of Heaven and Earth is to produce things.”⁸ In the production of man and things, they receive the mind of Heaven and Earth as their mind. Therefore, with reference to the character of the mind, although it embraces and penetrates all and leaves nothing to be desired, nevertheless, one word will cover all of it, namely, jen (humanity). Let me try to explain fully.

The moral qualities of the mind of Heaven and Earth are four: origination, flourish, advantages, and firmness.⁹ And the principle of origination unites and controls them all. In their operation they constitute the course of the four seasons, and the vital force of spring permeates all. Therefore in the mind of man there are also four moral qualities—namely, jen, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom—and jen embraces them all. In their emanation and function, they constitute the feeling of love, respect, being right, and discrimination between right and wrong—and the feeling of commiseration pervades them all. Therefore in discussing the mind of Heaven and Earth, it is said, “Great is ch’ien (Heaven), the originator!” and “Great is k’un (Earth), the originator.”¹⁰ Both substance and function of the four moral qualities are thus fully implied without enumerating them. In discussing the excellence of man's mind, it is said, “Jen is man's mind.”¹¹ Both substance and function of the four moral qualities are thus fully presented without mentioning them. For jen as constituting the Way (Tao) consists of the fact that the mind of Heaven and Earth to produce things is present in everything. Before feelings are aroused this substance is already existent in its completeness. After feelings are aroused, its function is infinite. If we can truly practice love and preserve it, then we have in it the spring of all virtues and the root of all good deeds. This is why in the teachings of the Confucian school, the student is always urged to exert anxious and unceasing effort in the pursuit of jen. In the teachings (of Confucius, it is said), “Master oneself and return to propriety.”¹² This means that if we can overcome and eliminate selfishness and return to the Principle of Nature, (T’ien-li, Principle of Heaven), then the substance of this mind (that is, jen) will be present everywhere and its function will always be operative. It is also said, “Be respectful in private life, be serious in handling affairs, and be loyal in dealing with others.”¹³ These are also ways to preserve this mind. Again, it is said, “Be filial in serving parents,” “Be respectful in serving elder brothers.”¹⁴ and “Be loving in dealing with all things.”¹⁵ These are ways to put this mind into practice. It is again said, “They sought jen and found it,”¹⁶ for (Po-i) declined a kingdom and left the country (in favor of his younger brother, Shu-ch’i) and they both remonstrated their superior against a punitive expedition and chose retirement and hunger,¹⁷ and in doing so, they prevented losing this mind. Again it is said, “Sacrifice life in order to realize jen.”¹⁸ This means that we desire something more than life and hate something more than death, so as not to injure this mind. What mind is this? In Heaven and Earth it is the mind to produce things infinitely. In man it is the mind to love people gently and to benefit things. It includes the four virtues (of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom) and penetrates the Four Beginnings (of the sense of commiseration, the sense of shame, the sense of deference and compliance, and the sense of right and wrong).

Someone said: According to our explanation, is it not wrong for Master Ch’eng¹⁹ to say that love is feeling while jen is nature and that love should not be regarded as jen?²⁰

Answer: Not so. What Master Ch’eng criticized was the application of the term to the expression of love. What I maintain is that the term should be applied to the principle of love. For although the spheres of man's nature and feelings are different, their mutual penetration is like the blood system in which each part has its own relationship. When have they become sharply separated and been made to have nothing to do with each other? I was just now worrying about students' reciting Master Ch’eng's words without inquiring into their meaning, and thereby coming to talk about jen as clearly apart from love. I have therefore purposely talked about this to reveal the hidden meaning of Master Ch’eng's words, and you regard my ideas as different from his. Are you not mistaken?

Someone said: The followers of Master Ch’eng have given many explanations of jen. Some say that love is not jen, and regard the unity of all things and the self as the substance of jen. Others maintain that love is not jen but explain jen in terms of the possession of consciousness by the mind. If what you say is correct, are they all wrong?

Answer: From what they call the unity of all things and the self,²¹ it can be seen that jen involves love for all, but unity is not the reality which makes jen a substance. From what they call the mind's possession of consciousness,²² it can be seen that jen includes wisdom, but that is not the real reason why jen is so called. If you look up Confucius' answer to (his pupil) Tzu-kung's question whether conferring extensive benefit on the people and bringing salvation to all (will constitute jen)²³ and also Master Ch’eng's statement that jen is not to be explained in terms of consciousness,²⁴ you will see the point. How can you still explain jen in these terms?

Furthermore, to talk about jen in general terms of the unity of things and the self will lead people to be vague, confused, neglectful, and make no effort to be alert. The bad effect—and there has been—may be to consider other things as oneself. To talk about love in specific terms of consciousness will lead people to be nervous, irascible, and devoid of any quality of depth. The bad effect—and there has been—may be to consider desire as principle. In one case, (the mind) forgets (its objective). In the other (there is artificial effort to) help (it grow).²⁵ Both are wrong. Furthermore, the explanation in terms of consciousness does not in any way approach the manner of (a man of jen who) “delights in mountains” (while a man of wisdom delights in water)²⁶ or the idea that (jen alone) “can preserve” (what knowledge has attained),²⁷ as taught his pupil by Confucius. How then can you still explain love in those terms? I hereby record what they said and write this treatise on jen. (Chu Tzu wen-chi, or Collection of Literary Works of Chu Hsi, cttc, 67:20a-21b)

Comment. This short treatise is both a criticism of certain theories and the incorporation of others into a harmonious whole. In addition, as Sun Ch’i-feng (1584-1675) has said, it expresses what the Ch’eng brothers had not expressed.²⁸ As can readily be seen, the central point is the synthesis of substance and function. In a way Chang Heng-ch’ü had implied it,²⁹ but the relationship between substance and function of jen was not clear until Chu.

In ignoring the nature of jen and confining his teachings only to its practice, Confucius taught only the function of jen. In a sense Mencius was the first to stress both substance and function when he laid equal emphasis on jen and righteousness. In interpreting jen as love, Han Confucianists viewed it almost exclusively from the point of view of function. Early Neo-Confucianists, on the other hand, whether in their doctrines of jen as impartiality, as forming one body with Heaven and Earth, or as consciousness, viewed jen almost exclusively from the point of view of substance. Here Chu Hsi gives substance and function equal importance, as they are synthesized neatly in the saying that jen is “the character of the mind” and “the principle of love.”³⁰ This has become a Neo-Confucian idiom. It means that, as substance, jen is the character of man's mind, and, as function, it is the principle of love.

Since jen is the character of the mind, it is the nature of every man, and as such, universal nature. Thus it includes wisdom, propriety, and righteousness. The reason for this is the generative character of jen, which he got from the Ch’eng brothers.³¹

2. A TREATISE ON CH’ENG MING-TAO'S DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE

[Master Ch’eng Hao also said,] “What is inborn is called nature. … They (nature and material force, ch’i) are both inborn.”³² [His meaning is this]: What is imparted by Heaven (Nature) to all things is called destiny (ming, mandate, fate). What is received by them from Heaven is called nature. But in the carrying out of the Mandate of Heaven, there must first be the interaction, mutual influence, consolidation, and integration of the two material forces (yin and yang) and the Five Agents (of Metal, Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth) before things can be produced. Man's nature and destiny exist before physical form [and are without it], while material force exists after physical form [and is with it]. What exists before physical form is the one principle harmonious and undifferentiated, and is invariably good. What exists after physical form, however, is confused and mixed, and good and evil are thereby differentiated. Therefore when man and things are produced, they have in them this material force, with the endowment of which they are produced. But the nature endowed by Heaven is therein preserved. This is how Master Ch’eng elucidated the doctrine of Kao Tzu that what is inborn is called nature, and expressed his own thought by saying that “One's nature is the same as material force and material force is the same as nature.”³³

[Master Ch’eng also said,] “[According to principle, there are both good and evil] in the material force with which man is endowed at birth. … [Nature is of course good], but it cannot be said that evil is not nature.”³⁴ It is the principle of nature that the material force with which man is endowed necessarily has the difference of good and evil. For in the operation of material force, nature is the controlling factor. In accordance with its purity or impurity, material force is differentiated into good and evil. Therefore there are not two distinct things in nature opposing each other. Even the nature of evil material force is good, and therefore evil may not be said to be not a part of nature. The Master further said, “Good and evil in the world are both the Principle of Nature. What is called evil is not original evil. It becomes evil only because of deviation from the mean.”³⁵ For there is nothing in the world which is outside of one's nature. All things are originally good but degenerated into evil, that is all.

[The Master further said,] “For what is inborn is called one's nature. … [The fact that whatever issues from the Way is good may be compared to] water always flowing downward.”³⁶ Nature is simply nature. How can it be described in words? Therefore those who excel in talking about nature only do so in terms of the beginning of its emanation and manifestation, and what is involved in the concept of nature may then be understood in silence, as when Mencius spoke of the Four Beginnings (of humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom).³⁷ By observing the fact that water necessarily flows downward, we know the nature of water is to go downward. Similarly, by observing the fact that the emanation of nature is always good, we know that nature involves goodness.

[The Master further said,] “Water as such is the same in all cases. … [Although they differ in being turbid or clear, we cannot say that the turbid water ceases to be water. … The original goodness of human nature is like the original clearness of water. Therefore it is not true that two distinct and opposing elements of good and evil exist in human nature and that] each issues from it.” This is again using the clearness and turbidity of water as an analogy. The clearness of water is comparable to the goodness of nature. Water flowing to the sea without getting dirty is similar to one whose material force with which he is endowed is pure and clear and who is good from childhood. In the case of a sage it is his nature to be so and he preserves his Heavenly endowement complete. Water that flows only a short distance and is already turbid is like one whose material endowment is extremely unbalanced and impure and is evil from childhood. Water that flows a long distance before becoming turbid is like one who, as he grows up, changes his character as he sees something novel and attractive to him, and loses his child's heart. That water may be turbid to a greater or smaller extent is similar to the fact that one's material force may be dark or clear and pure or impure in varying degrees. “We cannot say that the turbid water ceases to be water” means that it cannot be said that evil is not nature. Thus although man is darkened by material force and degenerates into evil, nature does not cease to be inherent in him. Only, if you call it nature, it is not the original nature, and if you say it is not nature, yet from the beginning it has never departed from it. Because of this, man must increase his effort at purification. If one can overcome material force through learning, he will know that this nature is harmonious and unified and from the beginning has never been destroyed. It is like the original water. Although the water is turbid, the clear water is nevertheless there, and therefore it is not that clear water has been substituted by turbid water. When it is clear, it is originally not turbid, and therefore it is not that turbid water has been taken out and laid in a corner. This being the case, the nature is originally good. How can there be two distinct, opposing, and parallel things existing in nature?

[Master Ch’eng finally said,] “This principle is the Mandate of Heaven. [To obey and follow it is the Way. … One can neither augment nor diminish this function which corresponds to the Way.] Such is the case of Shun³⁸ who, [obeying and following the Way], possessed the empire as if it were nothing to him.³⁹ The sentence “This principle is the Mandate of Heaven” includes the beginning and ending, and the fundament and the secondary. Although the cultivation of the Way is spoken of with reference to human affairs, what is cultivated is after all nothing but the Mandate of Heaven as it originally is and is nothing man's selfishness or cunning can do about it. However, only the sage can completely fulfill it. Therefore the example of Shun is used to make the meaning clear. (Chu Tzu wen-chi, 67:16b-18a)

Comment. In this essay, Chu Hsi not only removes the ambiguity in Ch’eng Hao's original treatise, which uses the same term, “nature,” for basic nature—which is perfectly good—in the first part, and for physical nature—which involves both good and evil—in the second part. He also harmonizes all theories of human nature before him, whether Mencius' theory of original goodness, Hsün Tzu's (fl. 298-238 b.c.) theory of original evil, or Cheng Tsai's theory of physical nature.⁴⁰ Evil can now be explained, while the key Confucian teaching that evil can be overcome is reaffirmed. In addition, the ambiguity in Ch’eng Hao's statement that there are both good and evil in man's nature, which led to severe criticism of him, is now removed.⁴¹

3. FIRST LETTER TO THE GENTLEMEN OF HUNAN ON EQUILIBRIUM AND HARMONY⁴²

Concerning the meaning in the Doctrine of the Mean that equilibrium (chung, centrality, the Mean) is the state before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused and that harmony is that state after they are aroused,⁴³ because formerly I realized the substance of the operation of the mind, and, furthermore, because Master Ch’eng I had said that “whenever we talk about the mind, we refer to the state after the feelings are aroused,”⁴⁴ I looked upon the mind as the state after the feelings are aroused and upon nature as the state before the feelings are aroused. However, I have observed that there are many incorrect points in Master Ch’eng's works. I have therefore thought the matter over, and consequently realized that in my previous theory not only are the [contrasting] terms “mind” and “nature” improper but the efforts in my daily task also completely lack a great foundation. Therefore the loss has not been confined to the meanings of words.

The various theories in Master Ch’eng's Wen-chi (Collection of Literary Works) and I-shu (Surviving Works) seem to hold that before there is any sign of thought or deliberation and prior to the arrival of [stimulus] of external things, there is the state before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy are aroused. At this time, the state is identical with the substance of the mind, which is absolutely quiet and inactive, and the nature endowed by Heaven should be completely embodied in it. Because it is neither excessive nor insufficient, and is neither unbalanced nor one-sided, it is called equilibrium. When it is acted upon and immediately penetrates all things, the feelings are then aroused.⁴⁵ In this state the functioning of the mind can be seen. Because it never fails to attain the proper measure and degree and has nowhere deviated from the right, it is called harmony. This is true because of the correctness of the human mind and the moral character of the feelings and nature.

However, the state before the feelings are aroused cannot be sought and the state after they are aroused permits no manipulation. So long as in one's daily life the effort at seriousness and cultivation is fully extended and there are no selfish human desires to disturb it, then before the feelings are aroused it will be as clear as a mirror and as calm as still water, and after the feelings are aroused it will attain due measure and degree without exception. This is the essential task in everyday life. As to self-examination when things occur and seeking understanding through inference when we come into contact with things, this must also serve as the foundation. If we observe the state after the feelings are aroused, what is contained in the state before the feelings are aroused can surely be understood in silence. This is why in his answers to Su Chi-ming, Master Ch’eng discussed and argued back and forth in the greatest detail and with extreme care, but in the final analysis what he said was no more than the word “seriousness” (ching).⁴⁶ This is the reason why he said, “Seriousness without fail is the way to attain equilibrium,”⁴⁷ and “For entering the Way there is nothing better than seriousness. No one can⁴⁸ ever extend knowledge to the utmost without depending on seriousness,”⁴⁹ and again, “Self-cultivation requires seriousness; the pursuit of learning depends on the extension of knowledge.”⁵⁰

Right along, in my discussions and thinking, I have simply considered the mind to be the state after the feelings are aroused, and in my daily efforts I have also merely considered examining and recognizing the clues [of activities of feelings] as the starting points. Consequently I have neglected the effort of daily self-cultivation, so that the mind is disturbed in many ways and lacks the quality of depth or purity. Also, when it is expressed in speech or action, it is always characterized by a sense of urgency and an absence of reserve, and there is no longer any disposition of ease or profoundness. For a single mistake in one's viewpoint can lead to as much harm as this. This is something we must not overlook.

When Master Ch’eng said that “whenever we talk about the mind, we refer to the state after the feelings are aroused,” he referred [only] to the mind of an infant [whose feelings have already been aroused]. When he said “whenever we talk about the mind,” he was mistaken in the way he expressed it and therefore admitted the incorrectness and corrected himself [by saying, “This is of course incorrect, for the mind is one. Sometimes we refer to its substance (namely, the state of absolute quietness and inactivity) and sometimes we refer to its function (namely, its being acted on and immediately penetrating all things). It depends on one's point of view”].⁵¹ We should not hold on to his saying which he had already corrected and on that basis doubt the correctness of his various theories, or simply dismiss it as incorrect without examining the fact that he was referring to something else. What do you gentlemen think about this? (Chu Tzu wen-chi, 64:28b-29b)

Comment. As Liu Tsung-chou (Liu Ch’i-shan, 1578-1645) has pointed out, this letter represents Chu Hsi's final doctrine on moral efforts.⁵² Chou Lien-hsi had taught tranquillity. Chu Hsi's own teacher, Li T’ung (Li yen-p’ing, 1088-1158) had taught sitting in meditation. Chu Hsi was at first much convinced. But after he learned the doctrine of seriousness from the Ch’eng brothers, he felt, as the Ch’engs did, that tranquillity was an extreme, and in seriousness one maintains the balance of internal and external life. In this letter, Chu Hsi emphasizes the point that the key to moral cultivation is to have a great foundation. Once the foundation is firm, tranquillity, sitting in meditation, and seriousness are all helpful. This is not only a synthesis of the teachings of his predecessors but a new approach.

4. A TREATISE ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE MIND

Someone asked whether it is true that the Buddhists have a doctrine of the examination of the mind.

Answer: The mind is that with which man rules his body. It is one and not a duality, is subject and not object, and controls the external world instead of being controlled by it. Therefore, if we examine external objects with the mind, their principles will be apprehended. Now (in the Buddhist view), there is another thing to examine the mind. If this is true, then outside this mind there is another one which is capable of controlling it. But is what we call the mind a unity or a duality? Is it subject or object? Does it control the external world or is it controlled by the external world? We do not need to be taught to see the fallacy of the Buddhist doctrine.

Someone may say: In the light of what you have said, how are we to understand such expressions by sages and worthies as “absolute refinement and singleness (of mind),”⁵³ “Hold it fast and you preserve it. Let it go and you lose it,”⁵⁴ “Exert the mind to the utmost and know one's nature. … Preserve one's mind and nourish one's nature,”⁵⁵ and “(Standing) let a man see (truthful words and serious action) in front of him, and (riding in a carriage), let him see them attached to the yoke.”⁵⁶

Answer: These expressions and (the Buddhist doctrine) sound similar but are different, just like the difference between seedlings and weed, or between vermilion and purple, and the student should clearly distinguish them. What is meant by the precariousness of the human mind is the budding of human selfish desires, and what is meant by the subtlety of the moral mind is the all-embracing death of the Principle of Heaven (Nature).⁵⁷ The mind is one; it is called differently depending on whether or not it is rectified. The meaning of the saying, “Have absolute refinement and singleness (of mind)” is to abide by what is right and discern what is wrong, as well as to discard the wrong and restore the right. If we can do this, we shall indeed “hold fast the Mean,”⁵⁸ and avoid the partiality of too much or too little. The saying does not mean that the moral mind is one mind, the human mind another, and then still a third one to make them absolutely refined and single. By “holding it fast and preserving it” is not meant that one mind holds fast to another and so preserves it. Neither does “letting it go and losing it” mean that one mind lets go another and so loses it. It merely means that if the mind holds fast to itself, what might be lost will be saved, and if the mind does not hold fast but lets itself go, then what is preserved will be lost. “Holding it fast” is another way of saying that we should not allow our conduct during the day to fetter and destroy our innate mind characterized by humanity and righteousness.⁵⁹ It does not mean that we should sit in a rigid position to preserve the obviously idle consciousness and declare that “This is holding it fast and preserving it!” As to the exerting of the mind to the utmost, it is to investigate things and study their principles to the utmost, to arrive at broad penetration, and thus to be able fully to realize the principle (li) embodied in the mind. By preserving the mind is meant “seriousness (ching) to straighten the internal life and righteousness to square the external life,”⁶⁰ a way of cultivation similar to what has just been called absolute refinement, singleness, holding fast, and preserving. Therefore one who has fully developed his mind can know his nature and know Heaven,⁶¹ because the substance of the mind is unbeclouded and he is equipped to search into principle in its natural state, and one who has preserved the mind can nourish his nature and serve Heaven,⁶² because the substance of the mind is not lost and he is equipped to follow principle in its natural state. Is this the same as using one mind fully to develop another, or one mind to preserve another, like two things holdings on to each other and refusing to let go?

The expressions “in front of him” and “attached to the yoke” are intended to teach loyalty, faithfulness, earnestness, and seriousness,⁶³ as if saying that if these moral qualities are always borne in mind, we will see them no matter where we may go. But it does not mean that we observe the mind. Furthermore, suppose the body is here while the mind is in the front beholding it, and the body is in the carriage while the mind is attached to its yoke. Is that not absurd? Generally speaking, the doctrine of the sage is to base on one's mind on investigating principle to the utmost and to respond to things by following it. It is like the body using the arm and the arm using the finger. The road will be level and open, the abiding place will be broad and easy, and the principle concrete and its operation natural.

According to the doctrine of the Buddhists, one seeks the mind with the mind, one employs the mind with the mind, like the mouth gnawing the mouth or the eye seeing the eye. Such an operation is precarious and oppressive, the road dangerous and obstructed, and the principle empty and running against its own course. If their doctrine seems to have something similar (to the Confucian), in reality it is different like this. But unless one is a superior man who thinks accurately and sifts clearly, how can be avoid being deluded in this matter? (Chu Tzu wen-chi, 67:18b-20a).

Notes

1. Chu Hsi was a native of Anhui. For several years he studied under his father who was head of various departments but eventually left the capital because he opposed accepting humiliating peace terms from the northern invaders. In 1151, Chu Hsi was a district keeper of records. But he preferred quiet study. From 1160 he studied under Li T’ung (Li Yen-p’ing, 1088-1158) who continued the tradition of the Neo-Confucianism of Ch’eng Hao and Ch’eng I. Most of his life, Chu Hsi was off and on a guardian of some temple, utilizing the peace and quiet to study, write, and talk with the most prominent scholars of the day. His official life, other than the guardianship, was intermittent and turbulent, for he strongly opposed concluding peace and repeatedly memorialized the throne to criticize officials and policies. Time and again he declined official positions. In 1178 he was appointed a magistrate. A year later he was demoted to a minor post because he incurred the anger of the emperor by attacking the incompetency of officials on all levels. In 1188 he was appointed vice minister of the army department, but the minister himself petitioned for his impeachment and he was shifted to a small position. Later in the year he was appointed a junior expositor in waiting to expound the Classics to the emperor, but he declined. In 1189 he became a prefect in Fukien and in 1194 a governor in Hunan for several months. Later that year he became expositor in waiting but because he memorialized to attack the wicked prime minister and other officials he was demoted to the rank of a temple guardian. Two years later a censor accused him of ten crimes, including refusing to serve and spreading false learning, and an official even petitioned for his execution. All his posts were taken away. An imperial order came in 1199, the year before he died, for him to serve again, but he declined. For greater details, see Wang Mou-hung (1668-1741), Chu Tzu nien-p’u (Chronological Biography of Chu Hsi), Kuo-hsüeh chi-pen ts’ung-shu (Basic Sinological Series), ed., Sung shih (History of the Sung Dynasty, 960-1279), ch. 429, and Bruce, Chu Hsi and His Masters, pp. 56-96.

2. In his I-Lo yüan-yüan lu (Record of the Origin of the School of the Two Ch’engs), he placed Chou Tun-i ahead of the two Ch’engs, thus asserting that Chou was the founder of Neo-Confucianism and the two Ch’engs more or less transmitted his doctrines. For comments on this matter, see above, pp. 482, 520.

3. See Appendix for a discussion of these two terms.

4. For comment on this term, see ibid.

5. See ibid. for a discussion of the term.

6. This work, dated 1532, consists of letters, official documents, short essays, poems, and the like in 121 chapters (36 vols.). The sppy edition of 1930, entitled Chu Tzu ta-ch’üan (Complete Literary Works of Chu Hsi), is used.

7. The 1714 edition is used. The title “Complete Works” is misleading, for actually it consists of selected passages from the Chu Tzu wen-chi and sayings from the Chu Tzu yü-lu (Classified Conversations of Chu Hsi) of 1270 which is in 140 chapters (40 vols.). It was compiled by imperial command in 1713 in a topical arrangement in 66 chapters (25 vols.) and published in 1714. It is worth noting that in the arrangement, moral cultivation comes first and metaphysics comes very much later. In practically all anthologies of Chu Hsi's works in Chinese, this characteristic dominates. The best example is the Hsü Chin-ssu-lu (Supplement to the Reflections on Things at Hand) by Chang Po-hsing (1651-1725). Even sayings on metaphysics are selected with moral cultivation in mind, as can be seen by his annotations. In our selections, the original topical arrangement is followed simply to keep the original order.

   Chapters 42-49 of this work have been translated by Bruce into English, called The Philosophy of Human Nature, and ch. 49 has been rendered in European languages several times, the most recent in French by Pang Ching-Jen, in his L’idée de Dieu chez Malebranche et l’idée de Li chez Tchou Hi, pp. 73-119.

8. Wai-shu (Additional Works), 3:1a, in eccs. There is no indication which of the two brothers said this. It is considered to be Ch’eng Hao's in the Ming-tao ch’üan-shu (Complete Works of Ch’eng Hao) by Shen Kuei (of Ming, 1368-1644).

9. Changes, commentary on hexagram no. 1, ch’ien (Heaven). Cf. translation by Legge, Yi King, p. 57.

10. ibid., commenting on hexagram nos. 1 and 2, k’un (Earth). See Legge, pp. 213-214.

11. Mencius, 6A:11.

12. Analects, 12:1.

13. ibid., 13:19.

14. Both quotations from Book of Filial Piety, ch. 14. See Makre, trans., Hsiao Ching p. 31.

15. This is not a quotation from early Confucian texts but Ch’eng I's interpretation of the Confucian concept of altruism. See I-shu (Surviving Works), 11:5b, in eccs.

16. Analects, 7:14.

17. When their father left the throne to Shu-ch’i, he declined in deference to his elder brother Po-i, but Po-i would not violate the order of his father and therefore chose to flee. Later, when King Wu (r. 1121-1116 b.c.) overthrew the Shang dynasty in spite of their remonstration, and founded the Chou dynasty, they would not eat the grains of Chou and starved to death.

18. Analects, 15:8.

19. Presumably Ch’eng I.

20. I-shu, 18:1a.

21. Referring to Yang Kuei-shan (Yang Shih, 1053-1135), in the Kuei-shan yü-lu (Recorded Conversations of Yang Shih), sptk, 2:28a.

22. This is a reference to Hsieh Shang-ts’ai (Hsieh Liang-tso, 1050-1103), who described jen as consciousness. See Shang-ts’ai yü-lu (Recorded Conversations of Hsieh Liang-tso), Cheng-i-t’ang ch’üan-shu (Complete Library of the Hall of Rectifying the Way) ed., pt. 1, 2a-b. See also Forke, Geschichte der neueren chinesischen Philosophie, pp. 110-116.

23. For the answer to Tzu-kung (520-c. 450 b.c.), see Analects, 6:28 (in ch. 2, above).

24. I-shu, 24:3a.

25. Quoting Mencius, 2A:2.

26. Analects, 6:21.

27. ibid., 15:32.

28. Li-hsüeh tsung-ch’uan (Orthodox Transmission of Neo-Confucianism), 1880 ed., 6:17a-b.

29. See above, ch. 30, comment on sec. A.

30. These phrases appear separately in the treatise. However, they form one sentence in his Lun-yü chi-chu (Collected Commentaries on the Analects), ch. 1, commentary on Analects, 1:2. For a refutation of the theory that these phrases were borrowed from a Buddhist, see Yamaguchi Satsujō, Jin no kenkyū (An Investigation on Jên), 1936, pp. 370-372.

31. On jen, see above, ch. 30, sec. 1, ch. 31, comment on secs. 1 and 11, and ch. 32, comment on sec. 42.

32. I-shu, 1:7b. In the beginning sentence, Ch’eng is quoting Kao Tzu (c.420-c.350 b.c.) See Mencius, 6A:3.

33. I-shu, 1:7b.

34. ibid.

35. ibid., 2A:1b.

36. ibid., 1:7b. The same for all the following quotations from Ch’eng Hao.

37. Mencius, 2A:6.

38. Legendary sage-emperor (3rd millennium b.c.)

39. Paraphrasing Analects, 8:18.

40. See above, ch. 30, sec. 41.

41. See above, ch. 31, comments on secs. 7-8.

42. According to Wang Mou-hung, Chu Tzu nien-p’u, p. 37, this letter was written in 1169 when Chu Hsi was forty. The Hunan friends included Chang Nanhsien (Chang Shih, also called Chang Ching-fu and Chang Ch’ien-fu, 1133-1180), with whom Chu Hsi carried on extensive correspondence on equilibrium and harmony and other subjects. (Chu Tzu wen-chi, chs. 31-33). For an account of him, see Forke, Geschichte der neueren chinesischen Philosophie, pp. 260-264 or Sung-Yüan hsüen-an, ch. 50. Chang was a resident of Hunan. According to the Chu Tzu nien-p’u, in 1167 when Chu Hsi was thirty-eight, he and Chang visited Mount Heng in Hunan. The group also included Lin Tse-chih with whom Chu Hsi once visited Chang in Ch’ang-sha, Hunan, and with whom he also corresponded extensively, chiefly on equilibrium and harmony (Chu Tzu wen-chi, 43-17a-32b). In a letter to Lin, Chu Hsi mentioned “Human friends” and also Chang (ibid., 43:30b), who is also mentioned in other letters to Lin.

43. The Mean, ch. 1.

44. I-ch’uan wen-chi (Collection of Literary Works by Ch’eng I), 5:12a, in eccs.

45. Generally stating the ideas in Changes, “Appended Remarks,” pt. 1, ch. 10. Cf. Legge, Yi King, p. 370.

46. The discussions are found in I-shu, 18:14b-16a.

47. ibid., 2A:23b.

48. This word is added according to the I-shu.

49. I-shu, 3:5b.

50. ibid., 18:5b.

51. I-ch’uan wen-chi, 5:12a. The insertions in parentheses are Ch’eng's own.

52. See Liu's comment on this letter in the Sung-Yüan hsüeh-an, (Anthology and Critical Accounts of the Neo-Confucianists of the Sung and Yüan Dynasties, 960-1368), ed. by Huang Tsung-hsi (1610-1695) et al., sppy, 48:9a.

53. History, “Counsels of Great Yü.” Cf. translation by Legge, Shoo King, p. 62.

54. Mencius, 6A:8.

55. ibid., 7A:1.

56. Analects, 15:5.

57. History, ibid. Cf. Legge, p. 62.

58. ibid.

59. Paraphrasing Mencius, 6A:8.

60. Changes, commentary on hexagram no. 2. k’un (Earth). Cf. Legge, Yi King, p. 420.

61. Mencius, 7A:1.

62. ibid.

63. Analects, 15:5.

Abbreviations and Abridgments

cttc Chu Tzu ta-ch’üan (Complete Literary Works of Chu Hsi), sppy

eccs Erh-Ch’eng ch’üan-shu (Complete Works of the Two Ch’engs), sppy

nhcc Nan-hua chen-ching (Pure Classic of Nan-hua, another name for the Chuang Tzu), sptk

pnp Po-na pen (Choice Works Edition)

sppy Ssu-pu pei-yao (Essentials of the Four Libraries) edition

sptk Ssu-pu ts’ung-k’an (Four Libraries Series) edition

tsd Taishō shinshū daizōkyō (Taishō Edition of the Buddhist Canon)

Changes The Book of Changes

History The Book of History

Mencius The Book of Mencius

Odes The Book of Odes

The Mean The Doctrine of the Mean …