SOURCE: "Chinese and Western Interpretations of Jen (Humanity)," in Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 2, March, 1975, pp. 107-128.

[In the following essay, Chan compares Chinese and Western interpretations of jen, the idea of humanity or humaneness, which is a central concept in Confucian thought.]

The concept of jen (humanity, love, humaneness; pronounced ren) is a central concept of Confucian thought and has gone through a long evolution of more than 2000 years. The story of that evolution has been told elsewhere.¹ The purpose here is to see how the Chinese have understood the concept and how the West has interpreted it. We shall discuss the Chinese understanding under seven headings.

(1) Confucius (551-479 B.C.) the First to Conceive of Jen as the General Virtue. The word jen is not prominent in pre-Confucian Classics. It does not appear in the 'Book of Yü' or the 'Book of Hsia' in the Book of History and only twice in its 'Book of Shang' where the word was originally JEN (man) and three times in its 'Book of Chou'. It is not found in the three 'Eulogies' of the Book of Odes and only twice elsewhere in the book besides once written Jen.² It is found in eight passages in the Book of Changes, all in the Appendixes which are generally regarded as post-Confucian and none in the text itself which is believed to be pre-Confucian. In sharp contrast to these pre-Confucian Classics, the Confucian Analects mentions jen 105 times in 58 out of 499 chapters. Thus more than ten percent of the Analects is devoted to the discussion of jen, more than those on filial piety, Heaven, or rules of propriety.³

What is more important, Confucius looked at jen in a new light. In pre-Confucian Classics, whether the word is written jen or JEN, it means benevolence, a particular virtue, along with other particular virtues like wisdom, liberality, etc. Until the time of Confucius, the Chinese had not developed a concept of the general virtue which is universal and fundamental from which all particular virtues ensue. But Confucius was propagating a comprehensive ethical doctrine which must have a basic virtue on which all particular virtues are rooted. In this respect Confucius not only took a great step forward but also built Chinese ethics on a solid foundation. It is true that in a number of cases Confucius still treated jen as a particular virtue. When he said, "The man of jen is naturally at ease with jen: the man of wisdom cultivates jen for its advantage" (Analects, 4:2) and "The man of wisdom delights in water; the man of jen delights in mountains," (6:12), jen is coupled with wisdom. When he said, "A man of jen necessarily possesses courage but a man of courage does not necessarily have jen", (14:5) jen and courage are considered as two separate virtues. In his famous saying. "The man of wisdom has no perplexity; the man of jen has no worry; the man of courage has no fear", (9:28, 14:30) jen is one of three 'great virtues'. And in talking about the six virtues and six obscurations, (17:8) jen is one of the six. In all these cases, Confucius was following tradition in understanding jen as a specific virtue. In this sense, jen may be translated as 'benevolence', 'kindness', or even 'love' or 'humanity' so long as it is understood as a particular virtue.

The great majority of Confucius' sayings on jen in the Analects, however, goes beyond this idea of particularity. When he said, "A man who is strong, resolute, simple, and slow to speak is near to jen", (13:27) he obviously meant that jen involves many moral qualities. The same is true of his utterance, "One who can practice five things wherever he may be is a man of jen—earnestness, liberality, truthfulness, diligence, and generosity", (17:6) or "When one has avoided aggresiveness, pride, resentment, and greed, he may be called a man of jen", (14:2) or "To study extensively, to be steadfast in one's purpose, to inquire earnestly, and to reflect on what is at hand—jen consists in these". (19:6) In saying that "A man of jen is respectful in private life, is serious in handling affairs, and is loyal in dealing with orders" (13:19) he clearly thought of jen as the moral standard governing one's entire life. He also said, "If a man is not jen, what has he to do with ceremonies? If he is not jen, what has he to do with music?" (3:3) Thus jen even embraces ceremonies and music. The most important sayings on jen, however, are these: When a pupil asked about jen, Confucius answered, "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you". (12:2) When another pupil asked about jen, he said, "To master oneself and to return to propriety is jen". (12:1) And when a third pupil asked him about jen, he replied, "A man of jen, wishing to establish his own character, also establishes the character of others, and wishing to be prominent himself, also helps others to be prominent". (6:28) To master oneself and to establish one's character means self-perfection, and to return to (or restore) propriety and to establish the character of others mean to bring about a perfect society. Undoubtedly the virtue of jen involves the perfection of others as well of oneself. Significantly the word jen is written in two parts, one a figure of a human being, meaning oneself, and the other with two horizontal strokes, meaning human relations. Jen is therefore the moral ideal whether the self or society is concerned. In fact, one involves the other. In short, jen is the general virtue which is basic, universal, and the source of all specific virtues. "If you set your mind on jen", Confucius said, "you will be free from evil". (4:4) "Only the man of jen knows how to love people and hate people", (4:3) for he has reached the highest level of morality. Needless to say that 'hate' here does not mean ill will but the refusal to tolerate evil. With the general virtue established, Chinese ethics entered upon a higher stage, for virtue as a whole can now be understood and particular virtues can now have a foundation.

(2) Jen as Love. Although Confucius' concept of jen as the general virtue is unmistakable, he never defined it. This responsibility fell upon his followers. In the Doctrine of the Mean traditionally attributed to his grandson Tzu-ssu (492-431 B.C.), it is said, "Jen is JEN", (Ch. 20) that is, jen is simply man, or rather the distinguishing characteristic of man. Mencius (372-289 B.C.?) expanded it by saying, "Jen is JEN. When embodied in man's conduct, it is the Way (Tao)." (Mencius, 7B:16) He also said, "Jen is man's mind". (6A:11) Commentators generally agree that by the mind of man he meant man's feeling of love.

The idea that jen means love began with Confucius. When a pupil asked him about jen. Confucius answered by saying that "It is to love men". (Analects, 12:22) This line of thought was continued by Mencius who said, "The man jen loves others". (Mencius, 4B:28) He said further, "A man of jen extends his love from those he loves to those he does not love". (7B:1) Again, "The man of jen loves all". (7A:46) Generally speaking, from the time of Confucius through the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), jen was understood in the sense of love. According to Mo Tzu (468-376 B.C.?) "Jen is to love" and to "embody love".⁴ To Chuang Tzu (c. 369-286 B.C.), "To love people and benefit things is called jen".⁵ According to Hsün Tzu (313-238 B.C.?), "Jen is love".⁶ In the words of Han Fei Tzu (d. 233 B.C.), "Jen means that in one's heart one joyously loves others".⁷ In the Book of Rites, it is said, "Jen is to love".⁸ In the Kuo-yü (Conservations of the states), it is said, "To love people is to be able to be jen".⁹ Tung Chung-shu (176-104 B.C.) was more explicit when he said, "Jen is the name for loving people" and "Jen is to love mankind".¹⁰ A little later, Yang Hsiung (53 B.C.-18 A.D.) said, "Jen is to see and love" and "To love universally is called jen.¹¹ From all these it is clear that the interpretation of jen as love was a consistent tradition in ancient Confucianism. It is for this reason, no doubt, that the Shuo-wen (Explanation of words) of 100 A.D. equated jen with ch'in (affection, endearing).

The above quotations show that not only the Confucian School understood jen as love but the Moist, Taoist, and Legalist Schools as well. However, love to Mo Tzu was universal love, whereas love in the Confucian School meant love with distinctions, degree, or grades. On this score the two schools stood diametrically opposed and engaged in one of the most bitter debates in the history of Chinese thought. In Mencius' eyes, the Moist doctrine was "a great flood and ferocious animals". He cried, "Mo Tzu advocated universal love, which means a denial of the special relationship with the father". (3B:9) To the Confucianists, jen must rest on the foundation of affection to relatives. According to a Confucian pupil, "Filial piety and brotherly respect are roots of jen". (Analects, 1:20) After the Doctrine of the Mean describes jen as the distinguishing characteristic of man, it immediately continues to say that "The greatest application of it is in being affectionate toward relatives". (Ch. 20) This is why Mencius said, "The actuality (or substance) of jen consists in serving one's parents". (4A:27) The result is his well-known formula:

In regard to [inferior] creatures, the superior man loves them but is not humane (jen) to them (that is, showing them the feeling due human beings). In regard to people generally, he is humane to them but not affectionate. He is affectionate to his parents and humane to all people. He is humane to all people and feels love for all.

(7A:45)

Put briefly, this is the Confucian doctrine of love with distinctions or grades. From Mencius' point of view, when the Moists regarded people's parents as their own parents, they had two foundations, (3A:45) for he believed that "Heaven produced creatures" in such a way as to provide them with one foundation (such as parents being the foundation of men) but the Moists would have two foundations, that is, parents and other people. He argued that "It is the nature of things to be unequal". (3A:4) Applied to human relations, some are close and others are remote, and therefore the intensity of feeling varies. From the one foundation, that is, one's parents, one's love extends to other relatives, other people, and finally to all creatures. The point is that love is the same for all but its application varies with different relations. Confucianists start with parents because the relationship with parents is the first relationship in human life and the indispensable one, for one could be without other relations. From the practical point of view, it is also the nearest. As a matter of common practice, although one should have good will toward all, one greets first of all those nearest to him. It is the application that has degrees or grades, not love itself, for it is unthinkable to have half love or quarter love. The repeated sayings by the Confucianists that jen is to love all should make the all-embracing character of jen perfectly clear.

Partly because Mencius had to clarify why application must vary while love is the same, he advocated the doctrine of righteousness (i), or what is correct and proper, along with jen. He spoke of jen and i together many times.¹² He said, "Humanity is man's mind and righteousness is man's path". (6A:11) He also said, "Humanity is the peaceful abode of man and righteousness is his straight path". (4A:10) In other words, the general virtue of humanity has to be carried out in a proper way. This does not mean that humanity is internal whereas righteousness is external, an issue on which Mencius debated vigorously with Kao Tzu. (6A:4) Rather, humanity is the substance while righteousness is the function. In the functioning of anything, there is necessarily priority in time or degree in intensity. The substance does not vary but its operations differ in different situations. The major conflict between Moist universal love and Confucian love for all does not lie in the substance of love but in whether or not there should be differences in application. For the Moists there should be none but the Confucianists insisted that there should and must be. This has been a persistent theme in the Confucian tradition. The upshot of Moist universal love is universalism in which no distinction is made between one's own parents and other people's parents, thus denying any special relationship with one's own parents. When Mencius attacked Mo Tzu and his followers as having no parents he was not merely rhetorical. Instead, he was defending a central Confucian doctrine on human relations.

(3) Jen as Universal Love. As a result of the Burning of Books by the Ch'in rulers in 213 B.C., the Moist School virtually disappeared. After Buddhism entered China, its doctrine of universal salvation for all eventually became prevalent. It reached its climax in the T'ang Dynasty (618-907). Scholars who talked about Tao, virtue, humanity, and righteousness followed either the Taoists or the Buddhists. Being greatly alarmed, the most outstanding Confucianist of the dynasty, Han Yü (768-824), took it upon himself to "clarify the Way of ancient kings". In his Inquiry on the Way he loudly declared, "Universal love is called humanity". And he advocated 'burning the books' of the Taoists and Buddhists and "made their lodgings (monasteries) human abodes again".¹³ Some writers have claimed that Han Yü's doctrine of universal love is the same as the universal love of the Moists and the doctrine of universal salvation of the Buddhists. If so, what is the difference and why did Han Yü feel he had to attack them?

It should be made clear that the translation of 'universal love' in the case of Han Yü is from the Chinese term po-ai. The Moist term is chien-ai, literally 'mutual love'. Since the Moist concept is intended to cover all mankind, the translation 'universal love' is perfectly proper. However, although the translation 'universal love' has been used by practically all translators for both Han Yü's po-ai and Mo Tzu's chien-ai, Mo Tzu repeatedly emphasized the idea of "mutual love and mutual benefit".¹⁴ There is no question that for Mo Tzu the practical benefit is a key factor in mutual love. This utilitarian motive is utterly different from that of Confucianism where humanity is the natural unfolding of man's nature.

The term po-ai comes from the Kuo-yü where a note to the 'Conversations of Chou' says, "Jen is universal love for men".¹⁵ It also appears in the Classic of Filial Piety (Ch. 7). It is also found in the Chung-lun (Treatise on the Mean) by Hsü Kan (170-217), where it is said, "By the exercise of humanity the superior man loves universally".¹⁶ Thus the concept of universal love is originally Confucian and there was no need to borrow from the outside. Han Yü did not attack the Buddhists and Taoists only but also Mo Tzu and Yang Chu (440-360 B.C.?). The reason he attacked them is that while they taught humanity, they neglected righteousness. This is why he began his Inquiry on the Way by saying, "Universal love is called humanity. To practice this in the proper manner is called righteousness". What is proper involves the question of method, a sense of propriety, and a relative degree of intensity. Han Yü granted the Taoists and the Buddhists the feeling of love but he insisted that the lack of righteousness led to the neglect of specific human relations and culminated in neglecting society in favor of a life of quietude and inactivity with the result that economic production was undermined and life itself was endangered. In his view, the Buddhist doctrine of universal salvation is empty and therefore negative whereas the Confucian doctrine is concrete and therefore positive. Actually Han Yü did not contribute much to the development of the Confucian concept of jen, but in affirming both the universal and particular aspects of jen and in stressing its solid and active character, he did much to strengthen the tradition.

(4) The Identification of Jen with Nature and Principle and the Doctrine of 'Principle is One but Its Manifestations are Many' (li-i fen-shu). Both Mencius and Han Yü spoke of humanity and righteousness together because they wanted it to be clear that while humanity is universal in nature, being extended to the entire human race, its applications in different relations and circumstances require specific expressions. However, they did not provide a philosophical basis for this doctrine. For this we have to wait for the Neo-Confucian philosopher Chang Tsai (1020-1077). The philosophical basis of jen may be traced to the saying in the Doctrine of the Mean, "Humanity is [the distinguishing characteristic of] man" (20) and Mencius' saying, "Humanity is the mind of man". (6A:11) Mencius also described humanity as the "The mind that cannot bear [to see the suffering of] others, that is, "the feeling of commiseration" which is "the beginning of humanity"". (2A:6) Here humanity is identified with the nature of man. Han Dynasty Confucianists generally considered humanity to belong to the nature of man and love to belong to man's feeling. For example, in the Po-hu t'ung (The comprehensive discussion in the White Tiger Hall), it is said that "In man's nature there is humanity", but love is considered as one of six feelings.¹⁷ In his Inquiry on Human Nature, Han Yü also considers humanity as nature and love as feeling.¹⁸ To Neo-Confucianists of the Sung Dynasty (960-1279), Humanity, principle, and nature are three in one.

The relationship among these three as well as between them and the doctrine of principle being one but its manifestations being many is best expressed, though only implicitly, in Chang Tsai's Western Inscription. It reads:

Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother.… Therefore that which fills the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I consider as my nature. All people are my brothers and sisters and all things are my companions.… The sage identifies his character with that of Heaven and Earth.… He who disobeys [the Principle of Nature] violates virtue. He who destroys humanity is a robber.… One who knows the principle of transformation will skillfully carry forward the undertakings [of Heaven and Earth].… ¹⁹

Though a short essay, the Western Inscription is one of the most important writings in Neo-Confucianism. As Yang Shih (1053-1135) told us, Chang Tsai's purpose in writing the essay was to urge us to seek humanity.²⁰ Yang Shih said,

The meaning of the Western Inscription is that principle is one but its manifestations are many. If we know that principle is one, we understand why there is humanity and if we know manifestations are many, we understand why there is righteousness. By manifestations being many is meant, as Mencius has said, to extend affection for relatives to humaneness for people and love for all creatures. Since functions are different, the application [of humanity] cannot be without distinctions. Some may say that in this case substance (one principle) and function (many manifestations) are two different things. My answer is that function is never separate from substance. Take the case of the body. When all members of the body are complete, that is substance. In its operation, shoes cannot be put on the head and a hat cannot be worn by the feet. Thus when we speak of substance, functions are already involved in it.²¹

Chu Hsi (1130-1200) made it clearer. He said:

There is nothing in the entire realm of creatures that does not regard Heaven as the father and Earth as the mother. This means that the principle is one. … Each regards his parents as his own parents and his son as his own son. This being the case, how can the principle not be manifested as the many? When the intense affection for parents is extended to broaden the impartiality that knows no ego, and when sincerity in serving one's parents leads to the understanding of the way to serve Heaven, then everywhere there is the operation that the principle is one but its manifestations are many.²²

(5) The Man of Humanity Regards Heaven and Earth and the Ten Thousand Things as One Body. Chang Tsai said in his Western Inscription, "That which fills the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I consider as my nature". The meaning of this is that one extends his affection for parents and relatives to all things until one, Heaven, Earth, and all things form one body. In his essay On Understanding the Nature of Jen, Ch'eng Hao (1032-1085) said, "The student must first of all understand the nature of jen. The man of jen forms one body with all things without any differentiation".²³ Elsewhere he said,

A book on medicine describes paralysis of the four limbs as absence of jen.²⁴ This is an excellent description. The man of jen regards Heaven and Earth and all things as one body. To him there is nothing that is not himself. Since he has recognized all things as himself, can there be any limit to his humanity? If things are not parts of the self, naturally they have nothing to do with it. As in the case of paralysis of the four limbs, the vital force no longer penetrates them, and therefore they are no longer parts of the self.… Therefore, to be charitable and to assist all things is the function of the sage. It is most difficult to describe jen. Hence Confucius merely said that the man of jen, "wishing to establish his own character, also establishes the character of others, and wishing to be prominent himself, also helps others to be prominent."²⁵

This doctrine of forming one body with all things is a cardinal one in the Neo-Confucianism of the Sung and Ming (1368-1644) Dynasties. From Ch'eng Hao, his brother Ch'eng I (1033-1107), to Chu Hsi, Lu Hsiang-shan (1139-1193) and Wang Yang-ming (1472-1529), they all advocated it. In Wang Yang-ming, the relationship between the concept of jen and this doctrine is the most direct. He said,

The great man regards Heaven and Earth and the myriad things as one body.… That the great man can regard Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body is not because he deliberately wants to do so, but because it is natural to the humane nature of his mind that he does so.… Therefore when he sees a child about to fall into a well, he cannot help a feeling of alarm and commiseration.²⁶ This shows that his humanity forms one body with the child.… Even when he sees tiles and stones shattered and crushed, he cannot help a feeling of regret. This shows that his humanity forms one body with tiles and stones. This means that even the mind of the small man necessarily has the humanity that forms one body with all. Such a mind is rooted in his Heaven-endowed nature and is naturally intelligent, clear, and not beclouded.²⁷

In Ch'eng Hao's thinking, jen is similar to the vital power of the body which penetrates the entire body while in the thinking of Wang Yang-ming, in the clear character of jen there is neither division nor obstruction. In both cases, there is in jen the natural power of spontaneous flowing to the point of filling the entire universe. Implicit in this idea is that jen is a creative force, a power to grow and to give life.

(6) Jen and the Process of Production and Reproduction (Recreation and Re-creation, sheng-sheng). The principle of production and reproduction is a long tradition in the history of Chinese thought. The idea of production goes back to the Book of Changes where it is said, "The great virtue of Heaven and Earth is production".²⁸ In the Comprehensive Discussion on the White Tiger Hall, productivity is ascribed to jen. "The man of jen loves productions", it says.²⁹ Chou Tun-i said, "To grow things is jen".³⁰ However, the Ch'eng brothers were the ones who definitely interpreted jen as the power to produce. To Ch'eng Hao, "The will to grow in all things is most impressive.… This is jen"³¹ And according to his brother Ch'eng I, "The mind is like seeds. Their characteristic of growth is jen".³² Here the interpretation of yew is based on its common meaning as seeds. It is not to be taken as merely a pun. Rather, it is an extension of the meaning of jen as love or commiseration to include the characteristic of growth, for only with the creative force of growth can one gradually embrace all things and form one body with the universe. Hence their pupil Hsieh Liang-tso (1050-1103) said, "The seeds of peaches and apricots that can grow are called jen. It means that there is the will to grow. If we infer from this, we will understand what jen is."³³ For this reason, Ch'eng I said,

Origination in the Four Characters (of Origination, Flourishing, Advantage, and Firmness in the process of Change) is comparable to humanity in the Five Constant Virtues (of humanity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness). Separately speaking, it is one of the several, but collectively speaking, it embraces all the four.³⁴

Jen naturally gives rise to the other Constant Virtues just as Origination in the spring naturally leads to the successive stages of Flourishing in the summer, Advantage in the autumn, and Firmness in the winter. Hence philosopher Ch'eng said, "Jen is the whole body whereas the other four Constant Virtues are the four limbs".³⁵ Because of the characteristic to grow and to produce, there is the sense of commiseration that cannot bear the suffering of others, the desire to establish the character of others as well as that of oneself, the extension of affection for parents to the love of all creatures, and the goal to form one body with Heaven, Earth, and all things. This is why Wang Yang-ming said that the man of jen does not deliberately form one body but it is because of the nature of his jen that he does so. From this, it is clear that jen is creative and as such is active.

Jen was interpreted as impartiality by Chou Tun-i (1017-1073)³⁶ but impartiality is merely an attitude; its nature is passive. For this reason, Ch'eng I said,

Essentially speaking, the way of jen may be expressed in one word, namely, impartiality. However, impartiality is but the principle of jen; it should not be equated with jen itself. When one makes impartiality the substance of his person, that is jen. Because of his impartiality, there will be no distinction between him and others.³⁷

Hsieh Liang-tso understood jen as consciousness or awareness. He said, "When there is the consciousness of pain in the case of illness, we call it jen".³⁸ This theory sounds like that of Ch'eng Hao who considered the paralysis of the four limbs as an absence of jen. However, Hsieh's emphasis is on the state of mind. This can be seen from his saying, "Jen is the awareness of pain (in case of illness). The Confucianists call it jen while the Buddhists call it consciousness."³⁹ By equating jen with Buddhist consciousness, it is obvious that Hsieh's emphasis is on tranquillity. Such a Buddhistic doctrine can hardly be attractive to Neo-Confucianists. In criticism of it, Ch'eng I said, "One who is not jen is not conscious of anything. But it is incorrect to consider consciousness as jen."⁴⁰ Later Chu Hsi frankly stated, "In over-emphasizing the concept of consciousness, Heieh Liang-tso seems to be expounding the doctrine of the Buddhist Meditation School".⁴¹ The main defect of the interpretation of jen as impartiality or consciousness is that it lacks the creative character of jen as the process of production and reproduction.

(7) Jen as 'the Character of the Mind and the Principle of Love'. As to how jen can produce and reproduce, the answer has been provided by Chu Hsi. This is what he said:

The mind of Heaven and Earth is to produce things.⁴² In the production of man and things, they receive the mind of Heaven and Earth as their mind.⁴³ 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, namely, jen.… In discussing the excellence of man's mind, it is said, "Jen is man's mind".⁴⁴ … 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.… In my theory, jen is described as the principle of love.⁴⁵

What Chu Hsi meant by the 'character of the mind' and 'principle of love' is that the human mind is endowed with the principle of production and reproduction. That is its nature and its substance. When that principle is expressed in love, respect, etc., these are the feelings and the function of the mind. When the mind to produce things is extended throughout the universe, one will form one body with Heaven, Earth, and all things. The various concepts of jen are here synthesized and the Neo-Confucian doctrine of jen reaches its climax.

From the survey above, it can readily be seen that the concept of jen is very profound and extensive. Western studies of it may be said to have begun in 1662 when the Great Learning was translated. The Doctrine of the Mean was translated in 1667 and the Analects in 1687, all in Latin. The three Classics were rendered into English in 1688 and into French three years later. When in 1711 the Book of Mencius was translated into Latin, the Four Books began to attract the attention of Western intellectuals. In 1881, the English missionary James Legge translated the Four Books into English and published them in Hong Kong. He secured the help of Confucian scholar Wang T'ao (1828-1897) and consulted the commentaries of Chu Hsi. Inevitably Chu Hsi's interpretation of the Confucian Classics dominated the translation. Legge's work is scholarly and generally accurate and after a hundred years is still considered as a standard work. Its influence in England and America has been great. In other words, the West has been reading and studying to some extent the Confucian doctrine of jen for some three hundred years. What has been its understanding? What has been its appraisal? And what is its tendency? From the survey above, we may roughly draw these conclusions: (1) Although jen as the general virtue was understood from the very early days, the fact that jen is a central concept in Confucianism is beginning to be appreciated only recently. (2) The West had always considered the Confucian Golden Rule as negative, contrasted with that of Christianity which is considered to be positive. There has been a turn around but not quite complete. (3) The West has been favorable to the Moist doctrine of universal love and critical of the Confucian doctrine of love with distinctions. The reason for this is that the West has not studied the Neo-Confucian doctrine of principle being one and manifestations being many. (4) In the last thirty years, Western scholars have gradually analyzed the concept of jen in its various meanings. This is a most encouraging development. Nevertheless, because Western study of Neo-Confucianism developed only after World War II, there are still misunderstandings that need to be corrected and important aspects of jen that need to be expounded. These may be discussed as follows:

(1) Jen and the General Virtue. From the very early days, Catholic fathers had translated jen as 'humanitas', probably based on the saying in the Doctrine of the Mean and in the Book of Mencius that "Jen is [the distinguishing characteristic of] man". In his translation, Legge took great care to distinguish jen as a special virtue and jen as the general, basic virtue, rendering the former as 'benevolence' and the latter as 'perfect virtue', 'true virtue', and 'the good'. Clearly the Catholic fathers and Legge knew that jen denoted a universal virtue. However, in the last hundred years, few Western scholars understood jen in this sense but mostly as a particular virtue in the sense of benevolence or kindness. Consequently 'benevolence' has been almost the standard translation. Even as late as 1958, in his excellent work on the Ch'eng brothers entitled Two Chinese Philosophers: Ch'eng Ming-tao [Ch'eng Hao] and Ch'eng Yi-ch'uan [Ch'eng I], A.C. Graham chose to translate jen as 'benevolence'.⁴⁶ There are two reasons for the failure to understand jen as the general virtue. On the one hand, the West has not yet recognized that jen is a center, or rather the center, of Confucian ethics and has regarded Legge's translation of jen as 'perfect virtue', etc. as merely general descriptions. The upshot is that jen as a particular virtue has been prominent whereas jen as the universal virtue has remained in the background at best. Another reason is that Neo-Confucian discussions and debates on the concept have not been well known in the West. Graham's discussion of the basic concepts of the Ch'eng brothers is penetrating. He may have had in mind benevolence as a general virtue, but to him benevolence "covers those virtues which distinguish first the gentleman from the peasant, later the civilized man from savages and beasts".⁴⁷ This is good as far as Mencius' doctrine of jen is concerned but Neo-Confucian discussions on jen as production and reproduction and jen as seeds have been overlooked. In his translation of the Analects in 1938, Arthur Waley translated jen as 'Goodness' with a capital letter and carefully noted that "Jen in the Analects means 'good' in an extremely wide and general sense."⁴⁸ Undoubtedly he meant that jen is the general virtue embracing all other particular virtues. However, he also said that jen in the sense of humanity is totally absent from the Analects. What happened was that Waley opposed Chu Hsi's interpretation of Confucianism and refused to accept Chu Hsi's interpretation of jen as the character of the mind and the principle of love. Thus Waley's understanding of jen is still onesided.

In the last ten years or so the most popular translations of jen have been 'human-heartedness' and 'love'. No doubt the former is based on Mencius' dictum that "Jen is man's mind (or heart)" and the latter on pre-Neo-Confucian interpretations. To the extent that both 'human heartedness' and 'love' indicate the general character of jen, they are acceptable. However, the description of jen as human heartedness represents only the interpretation of Mencius and ignores later interpretations. What is more important, human-heartedness is merely a state of mind, whereas the Confucian tradition emphasizes jen as an activity. As to the rendering of 'love', the word should be reserved for the Chinese word ai which means love. Besides, as the Ch'eng brothers said, "Love is feeling while jen is nature",⁴⁹ and the the two should not be confused. This, I believe, was why Chu Hsi said that jen is "the principle of love" but not love itself. From all these considerations, I believe if we have the entire history of Confucian thought in mind and take care of all important ideas involved in the concept of jen, the best translation for it is 'humanity' of 'humaneness'. That is to say, use 'benevolence' for jen as a particular virtue and 'humanity' for jen as the general virtue. In this way the homonym of jen as virtue and JEN as man, both in pronunciation and in meaning, will be preserved. This will take in the idea that jen is both nature and principle as taught by Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists. When Lin Yutang rendered jen in the Analects as 'true manhood',⁵⁰ and when Peter Boodberg, noting that the word jen consists of two parts, one meaning an individual man and the other meaning two (human relations), rendered it as 'co-humanity',⁵¹ they expressed the essential meaning.

(2) The Golden Rule and the Silver Rule. Before the twentieth century, the introduction of Confucianism into the West and its study were almost completely done by Christian missionaries. They liked to contrast Confucianism and Christianity, naturally in favor of the latter. Again and again they declared that the Confucian Silver Rule was not as good as the Christian Golden Rule because, they contended, the Confucian rule was negative. When a pupil asked about jen, Confucius replied, "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you". (Analects, 12:2, 15:23) When another pupil said, "What I do not want others to do to men, I do not want to do to them", Confucius remarked that it was beyond him. (5:11) In the Doctrine of the Mean it is said, "What you do not wish others to do to you, do not do to them". (Ch. 13) And in the Great Learning, it is said, "what a man dislikes in his superiors let him not show it in dealing with his inferiors". (Sec. 10) All these sayings are in negative expressions. Hence the Confucian rule was called a negative Golden Rule or simply Silver Rule to show that it is inferior to the Christian Golden Rule of loving all others as oneself. Before World War II, this interpretation was virtually standard.

No one doubts the positive character of the Christian teaching, but to think that the Confucian teaching is negative is to overlook several things. The first is that negative expressions such as 'infinite' are often most positive. Secondly, Chinese commentators on the Confucian Classic have never taken the saying to be negative in content. No one understood the Confucian saying, "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" better than Mencius. He said, "And there is a way to win their (people's) hearts. It is to collect for them what they want and do not do to them what they do not like, that is all." (4A:10) There is no question that 'want' and 'not like' are direct borrowings from the Confucian saying. The significant point here is Mencius expressed the doctrine in both positive and negative terms. In commenting on the Confucian saying, the Han-shih wai-chuan (Han's commentary on human events with quotations from the Book of Odes) says, "If one hates cold and hunger, one knows that the world wants clothing and food. If one hates toil and pain, one knows that the world wants comfort and ease. If one hates poverty, one knows that the world wants riches."⁵² A modern commentator, Liu Pao-nan (1791-1855), perhaps the most authoritative on the Analects since Chu Hsi, elaborated on the Confucian saying by remarking that "Since one does not do to others what he does not want others to do to him, this means that he will surely do to others what he wants others to do to him".⁵³ Throughout Chinese history no one has understood the Confucian saying in the negative sense.

In the third place, those who have regarded the Confucian doctrine as negative have failed to understand the real meaning of the word jen. In discussing the meaning of jen, we have quoted the Confucian saying that "To master oneself and to return to propriety is humanity" (12:1) and that "A man of humanity, wishing to establish his own character, also establishes the character of others, and wishing to be prominent himself, also helps others to be prominent". (6:28) Restoring propriety means restoring social order. In both sayings, the idea is that both the self and society are to be perfected. There is nothing negative in this teaching. When Confucius taught his pupil not to do to others what he does not want others to do to him, it merely means to apply to others the standard one sets for oneself. That is why wishing to establish one's own character, one also helps others to establish their character. It is significant that following the utterance on this, Confucius continued to say, "To be able to judge others by what is near to oneself may be called the method of realizing humanity". In the Doctrine of the Mean, preceding the sentence "What you do not wish others to do to you, do not do to them", it says, "Conscientiousness (chung loyalty) and altruism (shu reciprocity) are not far from the Way". (Ch. 13) Traditionally, these two moral qualities, conscientiousness and altruism, have been considered as the two inseparable aspects of jen. As Chu Hsi described them, "Conscientiousness means exercising one's mind to the utmost and altruism means to extend to others what one holds for oneself'.⁵⁴ The mind of course refers to the moral mind. This saying, which has served as the standard description of jen in the last six or seven hundred years, is derived from Ch'eng Hao. This is what Ch'eng Hao said:

Jen means to devote oneself to the benefit of other people and things. Altruism means putting oneself in their place. Conscientiousness and altruism form the central thread running through all conduct. Conscientiousness is the Principle of Nature whereas altruism is the way of man. Conscientiousness is unerring and altruism is the way to practice that conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is substance while altruism is function. They are the great foundation and universal way of life.⁵⁵

It is clear that the Confucian doctrine of jen covers both the self and others and aims at both complete self-realization and full development of society. Only with this understanding can we get the full meaning of such Confucian sayings as "He (the ruler) cultivates himself so as to give the common people security and peace" in the Analects, (14:45) "To serve my father as I would expect my son to serve me" in the Doctrine of the Mean (Ch. 13), and "Treat with respect the elders in my family, and then extend that respect to include the elders in other families" in the Book of Mencius. (1A:7) Jen is indeed the one principle that penetrates through Confucian teachings.

Many Western writers have also been bothered with the Confucian saying, "Repay hatred with uprightness". (Analects, 14:36) Surely, they say, this is negative ethics, especially contrasted with the Christian teaching of treating enemies as friends. It has been suggested that the saying was a response to the Taoist theory. The person who asked Confucius, "What do you think of repaying hatred with virtue?" may have been a Taoist or at least had in mind Lao Tzu's saying, "Repay hatred with virtue".⁵⁶ In reply to that question, Confucius said, "In that case what are you going to repay virtue with? Rather, repay hatred with uprightness and repay virtue with virtue". The key to the understanding of the Confucian teaching lies in the word chih. It is generally understood to mean reciprocity or severity, but these interpretations are wrong. The word has always been understood by Chinese commentators to mean uprightness, the same sense as in the Confucian saying, "Man is born with uprightness". (6:17) It means that in response to evil, one should be morally correct and not be swayed by emotion or to return evil with evil. In dealing with people, for example, the ruler should seek to educate those who did wrong rather than punish them. (2:2) Fortunately, the negative interpretation of the Confucian Golden Rule has been declining since World War II. The chief reason for this is that more and more interpreters of Confucian thought are scholars who know the Confucian texts. Still, while conceding that "Confucius formulated a law of human relationship identical with the Golden Rule of the New Testament", one writer said that Confucius "limited the operation of the law of reciprocity, in its complete sense, to the circle of the good, because evil persons were judged unworthy of the mutual consideration prompted by fellow-feeling".⁵⁷ Where this writer could have found such teaching in Confucianism is beyong one's imagination.

(3) Universal Love and Love with Distinctions. Because Mo Tzu advocated universal love, many Western scholars have regarded Moist ethics as more progressive than the Confucian which insists on distinctions in love. It was argued that this Confucian teaching is ethically deficient and contributed to the downfall of dynasties. According to the argument, it was for the purpose of amending this deficiency that Han Yü taught universal love. In this, it was said, Han Yü was influenced by Buddhism and Mo Tzu. It was further claimed that when several hundred years later Chou Tun-i advocated impartiality and Chang Tsai taught that "All people are my brothers", their goal was to remove the deficiency of the Confucian doctrine.⁵⁸ Since Han Yü strongly attacked Mo Tzu along with Buddhism and Taoism, it is difficult to see how he could have accepted a Moist doctrine. In regard to Chang Tsai, we have pointed out that implicit in his Western Inscription is the doctrine that principle is one but its manifestations are many. If this doctrine is understood, there won't be any difficulty to see why Mencius, then Han Yü, and later all Neo-Confucianists criticized Mo Tzu and Yang Chu at the same time. According to the Neo-Confucianists, Mo Tzu was sound in teaching universal love for all but he neglected specific human relations such as one's special relation to one's own parents. Similarly, Yang Chu was justified in teaching self-preservation but he ignored society. In either case, the teaching is one-sided. Mo Tzu was right in concentrating on the many, that is, society, but he neglected the one or the particular, that is, one's particular relation with parents, whereas Yang Chu concentrated on the one or the self at the expense of the many. In Confucianism, both the self and society are equally emphasized. This is what jen means, whether in its etymological sense of 'man' plus 'two' or in its elaborate sense as conscientiousness with oneself and altruism toward others. It turns out that the doctrines of Mo Tzu and Yang Chu are deficient rather than the Confucian. To understand the Confucian doctrine of love with distinctions, we need to appreciate the teaching of principle being one while its manifestations are many.

(4) Jen as the Principle of Production and Reproduction. Only in recent years has the Neo-Confucian doctrine of jen as production and reproduction been brought into the discussion of jen in the West. In an article on the Neo-Confucian solution of the problem of evil, the present writer devoted a special section to the Ch'eng brothers and their concepts of jen and sheng (production, creation) and another section to the sources of the idea of sheng. The question was asked whether the Neo-Confucian idea of jen as seeds could have been borrowed from Buddhism. According to the Consciousness-Only School of Buddhism, consciousness consists of 'seeds'. The 'seeds' or effects of good and evil deeds are stored in the 'store-consciousness'. These seeds have existed from time immemorial and become the energy to produce manifestations. This Buddhist school was very active in Loyang where the Ch'eng brothers lived. Both of them had studied Buddhism. Moreover, their pupil Hsieh Liang-tso came very close to Buddhism in his ideas and actually equated the Confucian jen with Buddhist consciousness.⁵⁹ Ch'eng I himself said, "The mind is like seeds. Their characteristic of growth is jen."⁶⁰ However, these Neo-Confucianists were very critical of Buddhism. Besides, the Buddhist idea of seeds, working in a circular way as seeds perfuming or influencing manifestations and manifestations in turn perfuming seeds, leads ultimately to emptiness, whereas the Confucian jen as seeds is a progressively creative force that leads to development and fulfillment. The source of the idea of sheng has been traced earlier in the discussion of jen as production and reproduction. It was pointed out that the idea of production, growth, etc., has been a long tradition in Confucianism. An additional factor that influenced the Ch'eng brothers was probably the influence of their teacher Chou Tun-i. After studying with him, they gave up hunting.⁶¹ Master Chou did not cut the grass outside his window. When Ch'eng Hao was asked about it, he replied, "He felt toward the grass as he felt toward himself".⁶² Ch'eng Hao also said, "Feeling the pulse is the best way to embody jen" and "Observe the chickens. One can see jen this way."⁶³ With this feeling for life, the sense of production and growth is inevitable.

As a creative force, jen is definitely active in character. However, some Western scholars have chosen to see jen as a quality of weakness. Waley, for example, who understood jen correctly as the general virtue, regarded jen as passive in character. He based his contention on the Confucian saying that "The man of humanity delights in mountains". (Analects, 6:21) As Waley put it, jen "is passive and therefore eternal as the hills". No wonder he concluded that "Jen is a mystic entity not merely analogous to but in certain sayings practically identical with the Tao of the Quietists (Taoists)".⁶⁴ One is at a loss to find another Confucian saying to support this conclusion. On the contrary, one reads in the Analects: The man of jen, "after having performed his moral duties, employs his time and energy in cultural studies" (1:6); he "applies his strength to jen" (4:6); he "confers benefits upon and assist all" (6:28); he "devotes his strength to jen for as long as a single day" (4:6); and he helps others to establish their character and be prominent. Also, "A man who is strong, resolute, simple and slow to speak is near to jen". (13:29) All these sayings indicate an active character. Of course an element of tranquillity is present in jen but that means calmness and is not to be equated with passivity or weakness.

In a penetrating study, Peter Boodberg pointed out that in ancient Chinese pronunciation, forty or fifty of those words beginning with j have the quality of weakness, notably words like jao (weak), jang (to yield), juan (soft), jo (weak), ju (weakling, scholar). He therefore concluded that jen also possesses the meaning of weakness or softness.⁶⁵ Boodberg has statistics on his side. However, there are words beginning with j that mean strength such as jan (to burn) and jui (sharp). If statistics is the only guide, then in the Analects at least, it is on the side of jen as strength.

Along with the supposed element of passivity, some writers have asserted that jen is mystical, citing the Confucian saying, "Is jen far away? As soon as I want it, there it is right by me." (7:29) They have asserted that this is mysticism. Confucius once praised his most favorite pupil Yen Hui (521-490 B.C.), saying, "About Hui, for three months there would be nothing in his mind contrary to jen". (6:5) On the basis of this, some writers, both Chinese and Western, have concluded that Yen Hui was a mystic and that Confucius praised mysticism. To me all this is far-fetched. In the last ten years Western studies have been less speculative and far more analytical as well as comprehensive. In 1966, Takeuchi Teruo traced the evolution of the meaning of jen as external beauty to internal morality in ancient times,⁶⁶ and Hwa Yol Jung discussed jen as practical activity, as sociality, and as love or the feeling of commiseration which is also relational.⁶⁷ Two years later, Wei-ming Tu examined the dynamic process between jen and li (propriety, ceremonies) with li as an externalization of jen, its concrete manifestation. Thus jen is actualization of inner strength and self cultivation in social context.⁶⁸ Antonia S. Cua expounded on the same theme in 1971 but considered jen as an internal criterion of morality whereas li as external, the two being interdependent.⁶⁹ A year later, Timothy Tian-min Liu, based on the Analects, compared the Confucian concept of jen with the Christian concept of love.⁷⁰ In 1973, Lik Kuen Tong undertook a comparative study of Confucian jen and Platonic eros, regarding both as rational love but thought that Plato emphasized the object of love whereas Confucius stressed the subject.⁷¹ In 1974, Thaddeus T'ui-chieh Hang discussed the choice of jen, jen as existential actualization, and the cosmic and metaphysical meanings of jen, including a comparison with Western interpretations.⁷² By far, the most important and most extensive contribution to the subject is that of Father Olaf Graf who in rendering Chu Hsi's Chin-ssu lu (Reflections on things at hand) into German in 1953 had greatly advanced Western studies of Neo-Confucianism.⁷³ In his Tao und Jen, Sein und Sollen im sungchinesischen Monismus of 1970⁷⁴, he surveys the concepts of jen from ancient Confucianism to Neo-Confucianism, especially Chu Hsi. He examines the various aspects of Confucian ethics and Neo-Confucian philosophy in relation to jen. And he compares jen with the ethics of Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza, and the New Testament, among others. With all this informative and instructive material, Western studies of jen should develop at a rapid pace.

Notes

1. Wing-tsit Chan, 'The Evolution of the Confucian Concept Jen,' Philosophy East and West 4 (1955), 295-319; reprinted in Neo-Confucianism, Etc., pp. 1-4.
2. Book of Odes, odes Nos. 77, 103, 204.
3. On whether Confucius really "seldom talked about jen," see my discussion in work cited in Note 2, pp. 296-297.
4. Mo Tzu, Ch. 40 and 42, Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an (Four Libraries series), ed., 10:1a, 6b.
5. Chuang Tzu, Ch. 12, Ssu-pu pei-yao (Essentials of the Four Libraries series) ed. entitled Nan-hua chen-ching (True classic of Nan-hua), 5:2b.
6. Hsün Tzu, Ch. 27, Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 19:5a.
7. Han Fei-Tzu, Ch. 20, Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 6:1a.
8. Book of Rites, Ch. 19.
9. Kuo-yü 'Conversations of Chou' Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 3:3b.
10. Tung Chung-shu, Ch'un-ch'iu fan-lu (Luxuriant gems of the Spring and Autumn), Ch. 29 and 30, Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 8:9a, 12b.
11. Yang Hsiung, T'ai-hsüan ching (Classic of the supremely profound principle), Ch. 9, Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed., 7:8b, 9a.
12. In the Analects, jen and i are not spoken together. However, Confucius is quoted in many ancient works as speaking of jen and i together.
13. Han Yü, Yüuan tao (Inquiry on the Way), in Han Ch'ang-li ch'üan-chi (Complete works of Han Yü), Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 11:1a, 5a. For a translation of the essay, see Wing-tsit Chan. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1973, pp. 454-456.
14. Mo Tsu, Ch. 15.
15. Kuo-yü, Ch. 3 (3:3b).
16. Hsü Kan, Chung-lun, Ch. 9, Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed., 1:34a.
17. Pan Ku (32-92), Po-hu t'ung, Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed., 8:la-b.
18. Han Yü, op. cit., 11:6a. For a translation, see Chan, Source Book, pp. 451-453.
19. Chang Tzu ch'üan-shu (Complete works of Master Chang), Ch. 1. For a translation, see Chan, Source Book, pp. 497-498.
20. Kuei-shan yü-lu (Recorded sayings of Yang Shih), Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed., 2:18a, 3:28a.
21. Ibid.
22. Commentary on the Western Inscription in the Chang Tzu ch'üan-shu.
23. I-shu (Surviving works), 2A:3a, in Ch'eng Hao and Ch'eng I, Erh-Ch'eng ch'üan-shu (Complete works of the two Ch'engs), Ssu pu pei-yao ed.
24. Su-wen (Questions on original simplicity), Sec. 42.
25. I-shu, 2A:2a-b.
26. Referring to the Book of Mencius, 2A:6.
27. Wang Wen-ch'eng Kung ch'üan-shu. (Complete works of Wang Yang-ming), Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed., 26:1b-3a.
28. Hsi-tz'u (Appended remarks), Pt. 2, Ch. 1.
29. Po-hu t'ung, 8:2a.
30. T'ung-shu (Penetrating the Book of Changes), Ch. 11.
31. I-shu, 11:3a-b.
32. Ts'ui-yen (Pure words), 1:4b, in the Erh-Ch'eng ch'üan-shu.
33. Shang-ts'ai yü-lu (Recorded sayings of Hsieh Liang-tso), Pt. 1, p. 2b.
34. I chuan (Commentary on the Book of Changes), 1:2b, in the Erh-Ch'eng ch'üan-shu.
35. I-shu, 2A:2a. It is not known which brother said this. The two brothers shared many ideas in common.
36. T'ung-shu, Ch. 21 and 37.
37. I-shu, 15:8b.
38. Shang-ts'ai yü-lu, Pt. 1, 11a.
39. Ibid., Pt. 2, p. 1a.
40. Ts'ui-yen, 1:4a.
41. Chu Tzu yü-lei (Recorded conversations of Master Chu), 1880 edn., 6:19b.
42. Quoting the Ch'eng brothers, Wai-shu (Additional works), 3:1a, in the Erh-Ch'eng ch'üan-shu.
43. Chu Tzu yü-lei, 1:4a.
44. Book of Mencius, 6A:11.
45. Chu Tzu wen-chi (Collection of literary works by Master Chu), Ssu-pu pei-yao ed. entitled Chu Tzu tach'üan (Complete works of Master Chu), 67:20a-21a.
46. Lund Humphries, London, 1958, Pt. 2, Sec. 1.
47. Two Chinese Philosophers, p. 96.
48. The Analects of Confucius, Allen and Unwin, London, 1938, p.28.
49. I-shu, 18:1a.
50. Lin Yutang, The Wisdom of Confucius, Joseph, London, 1948, p. 184ff.
51. 'The Semaisiology of Some Primary Confucian Concepts'. Philosophy East and West 2 (1953), 330.
52. Han Ying (fl. 160-130 B.C.), Han-shih wai-ch'uan, Ssu-pu pei-yao ed., 3:24a-b.
53. Lun-yü cheng-i (Correct meanings of the Analects), 12:2.
54. Chung-yung chang-chü (Commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean), Ch. 13.
55. I-shu, 11:5b.
56. Lao Tzu, Ch. 63.
57. John B. Noss, Man's Religion, Macmillan, New York, 4th edn., 1969, p. 285.
58. Homer H. Dubs, 'The development of Altruism in Confucianism'. Philosophy East and West 1 (1951), 48-55.
59. Shang-ts'ai yü-lu, Pt. 2, p. 1a.
60. I-shu, 18:2a.
61. Ibid., 7:1a.
62. Ibid, 3:2a.
63. Ibid., 3:1a.
64. The Analects of Confucius, pp. 28-29.
65. Boodberg, op cit. pp. 328-330. (Note 52)
66. 'A Study of the Meaning of Jen Advocated by Confucius', Acta Asiatic 9 (1966) 57-77.
67. 'Jen: an Existential and Phenomenological Problem of Inter-subjectivity', Philosophy East and West 16 (1966), 169-188.
68. 'The Creative Tension between Jen and Li', ibid., 18 (1968), 29-39.
69. 'Reflections on the Structure of Confucian Ethics', ibid, 21 (1971), 125-140.
70. 'The Confucian Concept of Jen and the Christian Concept of Love', Ching Feng 15 (1973), 162-172.
71. 'Confucian Jen and Platonic Eros: a Comparative Study', Chinese Culture 14 No. 3 (September, 1973), 1-8.
72. 'Jen Experience and Jen Philosophy', Journal of the American Academy of Religion 17 (1974), 53-65.
73. Chu Hsi, Djin-sï lu 3 vols., Sophia University Press, Tokyo, 1953.
74. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1970, 429 pp. xx