The Philosophy of Qi: The Record of Great Doubts

On the Transmission of Confucian Thought

Although in great antiquity there were people who received Heaven’s will and established the basis of moral principles, the method of instruction regarding the Way of the sages was not made known. From the time of Yao and Shun,⁷ people were urged to “be refined and single-minded, holding fast to the Mean”⁸ and to “reverently spread the teachings of the five constant virtues.”⁹ This may be considered the beginning of the establishment of education. The three periods of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou¹⁰ followed and gradually this educational method was refined. However, it was not yet clearly articulated. Confucius greatly clarified it. The Way of Confucius was accurately transmitted to Mencius, who expounded it with clarity.

From ancient times the revolving energies of Heaven and Earth have gradually changed over time. The unfolding of human civilization has also followed these changes unceasingly. Even in the enlightened period of Yao and Shun and the three early dynasties civilization was unable to flower fully, and thus it is natural that further developments awaited later generations. Indeed, for the many generations to come, civilization will gradually yet ceaselessly unfold with each age.

After Mencius, from the Han through the Tang periods,¹¹ the transmission of the Way was nearly cut off. Indeed, it shrank to a slender thread. However, in the Song dynasty several exemplary teachers appeared who resuscitated the Way and it again became prominent.¹² Particularly noteworthy were the commentaries and the explanations of the Confucian classics by the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi. Since Mencius there have been many remarkable scholars, but the Cheng brothers were the most illustrious among those who knew the Way and explicated the teachings. After them was Zhu Xi. However, neither their virtue nor their learning were comparable to that attained by the earlier sages. Later generations naturally respected and trusted the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi, but in their teachings there may be various points that are not in agreement with Confucius and Mencius. Therefore, we must not regard the Song Confucians as equal to Confucius and Mencius. Scholars should have an open mind and be discerning with regard to the similarities and differences, and the correctness and mistakes of their teachings. Moreover, they should reflect deeply, select carefully, and then believe what they should believe and doubt what they should doubt. If they do this, everything will be fine.

An ancient scholar said, “To learn is to understand; it is to realize what we don’t know [ fully].”¹³ Accordingly, the way of learning is to resolve doubts and dispel misgivings. In learning we regard the ability to doubt as brilliance; the inability to doubt as dullness. In this spirit, Zhu Xi said, “If our doubt is great, our progress will be significant; if our doubt is small, our progress will be insignificant. If we don’t have doubts we won’t progress.”¹⁴

However, even in doubting there is a right and a wrong way. Our doubt is correct when, upon careful reflection, it is unavoidable. To doubt indiscriminately is to diffuse one’s efforts into unimportant things, and this should not be considered appropriate.

In their teachings, the Song Confucians regarded the basis of the Supreme Ultimate [taiji] to be the infinite or nonfinite [wuji].¹⁵ Thus nonfinite was regarded as the root of being. They divided principle (li) and material force (qi)¹⁶ and regarded them as two things. They did not consider yin and yang as the Way but as physical entities.¹⁷ They divided the nature of Heaven and Earth from physical nature,¹⁸ and they viewed human nature and principle as being without birth and death.¹⁹ These are ideas derived from Buddhism and Daoism; the teachings of the early Confucian sages are different. Scholars must distinguish this precisely and clearly.

In discussing the method of preserving the mind-and-heart [shin] the Song Confucians spoke of making tranquility central,²⁰ of quiet sitting²¹ and of understanding the principle of Heaven through silent sitting to purify the mind-and-heart. They regarded quiet sitting to be a daily method for preserving the heart. This all tends toward quietism and implies that activity and tranquility are not in proper accord with circumstances [in balance].²² In other words, these practices are the same as the techniques of Chan meditation. True Confucians should not promote these views. Song Confucians also spoke of the original mind-and-heart as being unobstructed and clear,²³ and they regarded Heavenly principle as being vast and without traces.²⁴ These are the ideas of the Buddhists or Daoists; the teachings of Confucius and Mencius are different. The teachings of the Song Confucians generally elaborated on Confucius and Mencius. There are also aspects of their teachings, however, that emerged from Buddhist and Daoist thought and which do not originate with Confucius and Mencius. Scholars must be selective. Song Confucians were definitely forceful in their rejection of Buddhist and Daoist thought, but nonetheless, why did they use paths outside the orthodox way to explain their teachings? The foregoing comments arise from doubts I have been unable to resolve.

I do not know how many books have arisen since the Qin²⁵ and Han, but among them there are certainly too many good books to enumerate. However, the works of Zhu Xi are incomparable in their vast benefit to scholars. This is because the moral principles in them are pure and uncorrupted, and there is a range of knowledge with clarity and breadth. It is rare not to be able to discern the principles of Heaven and Earth in these works. It is like entering a large shop to look for something one needs and finding it easily. We are fortunate to be born after Zhu Xi. We can examine his writings and we should acknowledge that this is a supreme blessing and boundless good fortune. Because of this, I also respect these writings like gods, and I rely on them like oracles.

After Confucius the only person who attained the highest level in transmitting the teachings of the sages was Mencius. This is due to three fortunate conditions. First, Mencius was very talented; second, he lived close to the time of Confucius; and third, he lived his life in places near where Confucius resided. After Mencius, Zhou Dunyi, the Cheng brothers, Zhang Zai, and Sima Guang were all wise men who contributed to the Way of the sages. But among these, what was transmitted by the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi was the soundest. Their learning, compared to that of other Confucian scholars, was especially broad and refined and naturally became a model for subsequent scholarship. Consequently, after Mencius the accomplishments of the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi were significant and, in particular, the achievements of Zhu Xi were of the highest order. Therefore, since the time of Confucius and Mencius, only the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi can be regarded as truly knowing the Way, and they should be seen as models of learning.

In his epilogue to Zhu Xi’s Original Meaning of the Classic of Changes, ²⁶ Lu Fangweng wrote: “The Way [of Heaven and Earth] spoken of in the Classic of Changes is vast and no one person can exhaust it. Thus it is not advisable to adhere stubbornly to a single school of thought.”²⁷ These words of Lu can be said to have clearly explained the attitude of the ancients toward learning.

Those who study should not believe only in their own opinions; they should ardently trust their teacher. This is most appropriate. Most people are not sages, and, no matter how intelligent they may be, they are rarely without faults, such as being biased or lacking discrimination. Even the brightness of the sun and the moon can be hidden by clouds; even pearls with the greatest luster may have flaws. In the same way, even among wide-ranging explanations by intelligent people, inevitably some are biased and not completely correct. Therefore, we must be discriminating and believe what we think we should believe and doubt what we think we should doubt. In this way we can select what is good.²⁸ After we choose the good and have no more doubts, we should hold fast to it. If we wish to hold on to something but do not choose the good, inevitably we cannot avoid being opinionated or biased.

Between Heaven and Earth principle alone is vast and boundless. Thus, one person, no matter how brilliant, cannot comprehend it completely. Therefore, ancient scholars even listened to street gossip or adopted the words of madmen and conversed with woodcutters. They sought knowledge widely in the hope of abiding in the highest good.²⁹ Because of that even such a wise man as Shun loved to question and investigate everyday expressions. He abandoned his own egotistical views and followed others, questioning and observing widely.³⁰ The sage had an unselfish and impartial mind but feared that learning could be impeded by relying solely on his own wisdom.

In the Art of Rulership it says, “With similar viewpoints, things will not be complete. By approaching things from different perspectives, inevitably people can complete something.”³¹ Liu Liang, a scholar of the later Han period, said: “There are cases where, although one transgresses, one attains the Way, and there are cases where, even though one is compliant, one loses moral principles.”³² That is the reason that the true person loves honest speech. That is quite different from saying, “Since our paths are different, we don’t discuss things together.”³³ What I call different is the saying “Although the path to proceed is different, one arrives at the same place.”³⁴ Thus, it is not the same as heretical learning, which reaches a different conclusion.

From my youth I have read Zhu Xi’s writings. I respected his way, followed his model, and devoted myself to his teachings. However, with regard to unclear points, I have analyzed them thoroughly, but I have never followed the fashion of the times. Nonetheless, I hope for a resolution at some future time.

The sages composed the Six Classics.³⁵ Their writings have been a model throughout the ages; they were trusted and not doubted. The Classic of Changes, in particular, is a book that is the pinnacle of refinement. It contains the inner mysteries of the Six Classics and has been a guide for numerous generations. If it is not to be trusted, what can be trusted?

“The Way and yin and yang are the same.”³⁶ Before both yin and yang, there is the Chinese character for “one,” which refers to the movement and tranquility of the original material force; one is yin and one is yang and there is continual alternation. This alternating flow of yin and yang is ceaseless and mysterious. In my view, the fact that the sages inserted the character for “one” before both yin and yang certainly must have a special significance. Although they didn’t add the two characters for “source” [causality],³⁷ the meaning was sufficient as it was. The words of the sages have been relied on throughout the ages; they should not be doubted. This one phrase in the Classic of Changes outlines the foundation for the moral principles of all things. It is improbable that there could be even a single missing character. Why did the later Confucians think some characters were missing and add two characters meaning “source” [causality]? No doubt this was rash; the characters were superfluous (like drawing legs on a snake).

The Way constitutes the flow of yin and yang, which is pure and correct; it is the nature of yin and yang, which is not obscured or disordered. As for principle, it is inherent in material force; principle and material force should not be divided into two things.³⁸ There is no temporal connection of before and after between them.³⁹ There is no spatial relationship of separation or combination. Thus I think that principle and material force are definitely one entity. Zhu Xi regarded these as two things; this is why I am puzzled and unconvinced.

The sages said in another passage in the Classic of Changes that yin and yang are the Way.⁴⁰ The words of the sages referring to oneness should be trusted throughout the ages and ought not to be doubted. How much more so when the sages repeatedly instruct us on this?

On Human Nature

Zhu Xi observed, “The physical body has life and death; but human nature does not.”⁴¹ Yi T’oegye, in his Record of Self-Reflections, states, “Material force has life and death, but principle has no life and death.”⁴² With the wisdom of Zhu Xi and with the scholarship of Yi T’oegye, one would not expect these teachings to be inaccurate. However, a foolish person like myself still cannot fathom them. Awaiting the clarification of wiser men, I will elaborate my doubts below and set forth my reflections. My only purpose in doing this is that I hope to be guided by those who possess the Way.⁴³

In my view, the body has life if material force is unified; if it disperses, the body dies. Human nature is the principle of life that we receive from Heaven. Principle is inherent in material force; principle and material force are not two separate things. When the body dies, where does the principle of life go? The human body has material force as its basis, and principle is the essence of material force. Thus if one is living, one has principle; if one dies, principle also disappears.⁴⁴ Therefore, it is not logical that when a person dies, human nature lives. If we have a body, there is a human nature; if we don’t have a body, this nature also disappears. It has no place to lodge. For example, water and fire are inherently cold and hot or damp and dry, but if water and fire are already extinguished, those attributes of cold and heat, dampness and dryness are also extinguished. Then how can any such attribute survive separately?

To say, “Human nature is principle”⁴⁵ is not a correct explanation of the character of human nature. The Doctrine of the Mean states, “Human nature is what is mandated from Heaven.”⁴⁶ This means that humans receive a Heavenly destiny, and this is called “human nature.” With regard to the character of human nature, this explanation is correct and sufficient without resorting to another. Mencius says, “Our body and complexion are given to us by Heaven.”⁴⁷ This passage refers to human nature as the physical endowment we have innately received. In the explanations of nature by Confucius, Zisi,⁴⁸ and Mencius the meaning is similar. Namely, they speak of human nature as being innately received, and suggest there is no nature other than what is innately received. When Mencius speaks of human nature as good, his words refer to the original nature we receive. This is a unified principle that runs through everything. Some have argued that “there were extremely evil people such as King Jie⁴⁹ and King Zhou.⁵⁰ There were also people who killed their fathers or their lords, and individuals such as Zi Yue,⁵¹ who was born with the voice of a wild beast. If we evaluate these characteristics from the point of view of physical nature, generally we can’t say they have innate goodness.⁵² How can we say that all human nature is the same?”⁵³

My reply is that “men such as King Jie, King Zhou, and Emperor Yang⁵⁴ of the Sui dynasty undoubtedly had evil natures. However, in the principle of the universe there is constancy and there is change. The good is the constancy of human nature; evil is a deviation of human nature. There are very few who deviate and we don’t call them normal. To have an evil nature means something is amiss. Hence, it is not wrong to assume that human nature is good. People whose nature is bad, such as King Jie and King Zhou, are probably only one in a million. We can’t regard them as the standard.

When we think of the eating and drinking habits of people, it is the usual characteristic of human nature to like sweet things and dislike bitter things. However, among a vast number of people there are a few who will like bitter things and dislike sweet things. We should not regard these people as normal. Those whose natures are evil are similar. Accordingly, human beings in ancient and modern times, whether wise or foolish, should be regarded as good since their natures are similar.

Luo Qinshun set forth the theory “Principle is one; its particularizations are many.”⁵⁵ It is brief, but gets to the point. In it he clearly explained the character of human nature. Therefore, we don’t need to analyze it in great detail. In my opinion, human nature is simply one. We can’t divide nature into the nature of Heaven and Earth and the physical disposition. “Principle is one” means the original nature has one principle and is equally good. The variations of human nature are equivalent to “the particularizations are many.” Anyone can become a Yao or Shun.⁵⁶ “Particularizations are many” refers to the fact that the physical disposition (by which one receives the two material forces of yin and yang) is different in each person.

It is said that “by nature humans are alike, but through practice they differ.”⁵⁷ Thus, “only the wisest and the most ignorant do not change.”⁵⁸ Physical disposition is the root meaning of human nature; it is what one receives from Heaven. The nature of Heaven and Earth is also one’s received innate nature. This does not mean, however, that two natures exist. Therefore, because there were cases where they were called by two names, there were some doubts as to whether two natures existed. No other way of explaining human nature is better than explaining it as: “Principle is one; its particularizations are many,” which is easy to understand and so does not raise doubts. In my opinion, the original state of human nature is the original physical disposition and is decreed from Heaven. There are not two natures. For example, in water the current, the overflow, and the moistness are all characteristics of water. The purity of water is its original form. The characteristics and the original form are not two separate things.

On Bias, Discernment, and Selection

In ancient times to the present there has been only one Confucius in the world. Boyi⁵⁹ and Liuxia Hui ⁶⁰ had exceptional virtue and superior constancy and harmony. Yet they were not without faults such as narrowness and a lack of dignity, respectively.⁶¹ Thus they can’t be compared to Confucius. This is even more true of those who are not equal in virtue to Boyi or Liu. The comparison between the Song Confucians and Confucius is the same. They are said to have followed the sages and opened the way to future learning.⁶² But they were also biased and stubborn and could not always discern appropriate differences of meaning. As a result, it is natural that their explanations sometimes differ from the words of the sages. Although the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi had an insightful philosophy, how can they be ranked with Confucius? Therefore, in reading the Song Confucians, scholars should know what to adopt or reject among their explanations.

People are not sages and, even if they are wise, they often have biases. In both scholarship and disposition certainly they may have discernment or they may be impeded in their understanding. Therefore, they will have strong points and weak points. What is understood will definitely become clear, but what is blocked definitely stagnates. Consequently, in reading books, even those of wise people, we must be discriminating in our selection. If we are biased and credulous, and without any doubts, probably we can’t avoid falling into the errors resulting from obstinacy and confusion. When scholars question the thought of the earlier Confucians, they should believe what is trustworthy and doubt what is suspicious. If they are impartial and not prejudiced in their selections, they can do scholarly work well. Scholars of later ages frequently followed the fashionable school of the day and thus are often guilty of narrowness and obstinacy.

In my opinion, the ideas of the Supreme Ultimate, yin and yang, the Way [ formless] and concrete things [ forms], principle, material force, the mind-and-heart, and human nature have one origin from ages past. Numerous sages have followed this one path and have penetrated to a common understanding of the Five Classics and the Four Books. This is the reason from past to present they had common premises for their ideas that perpetuated the Way. After Mencius, through the Han and Tang and down to recent times,⁶³ people who avidly pursued only the new learning⁶⁴ and lost sight of the classical learning⁶⁵ sometimes had differences with the ancient sage-kings.

Even though they were remarkable scholars, it was inevitable that they would have biases and errors. Students ought to pick and choose carefully [in reading their works]. In my opinion, there are wise people who claim certain ideas to be the Way even though the sages did not mention them. These are the implied meanings of the explanations of the sages, which have continued from past to present. However, teachings different from the essential doctrines of the sages ought to be considered heterodox. Therefore, even though they are the words of wise people, we ought to be selective and investigate them if there are some that are not the same as the sages’ teachings.

When the late Ming Confucians rejected the teachings of the Song Confucians,⁶⁶ they were frequently overbearing and self-confident. They looked down on the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi as if they were inferior. Furthermore, they claimed Song learning was heterodox and not orthodox. Indeed, they saw themselves as superior and lost sight of their own position.

If we compare this [attitude] to [our approach] when we admonish people, we should be restrained and not speak too sharply. If we think it is appropriate to abuse and slander people and reveal their faults,⁶⁷ and if we exaggerate their small mistakes, this is extremely rude. Even though there may be some truth in what we say, those who hear this type of criticism will resent it and not accept it. On the contrary, they will resist it and will not change. This is not knowing the [appropriate] way to admonish people.

The later [Ming] Confucians criticized the Song Confucians in a similar manner. They didn’t know how to speak of these things. How many instances there are where their words are unreasonable! This shows that criticizing is easy but speaking tactfully is difficult.

In general, debating the truth and falsity of scholarship with people is the same as admonishing others. Those who criticize others rashly want to promote their own ideas and humiliate others. Such methods are used by petty individuals who persistently try to outdo other people, thinking they are right and acting in an indiscreet, proud manner. This is not the Way of the true person, which involves sincerity and sympathy. Although there may be some truth in their opinions, if a person is belligerent the listener won’t be persuaded. Those who lead people skillfully place priority on intentions. Since their manner of speaking is tolerant and not aggressive, while their expression is suggestive and composed and their meaning is clear, the listener will be convinced and will heed their words. This is an effective way of giving sincere advice.

When one is discussing differences of opinion with others, there is no need to be vehemently antagonistic. When we are calm and suggestive and when we are sincere and moderate in speech, people will indeed be moved. In my opinion, if people are not honest, the Way will be obscured. However, one should not forcefully disparage others’ faults. We should only hope for truth to prevail. We should not argue, desiring that our own opinions dominate others. Moreover, if our words are indiscreet, and we try to win and outperform others, we won’t convince them. On the contrary, we may cause antagonism. As Confucius said, “To speak with those who cannot be spoken to is to waste one’s words.”⁶⁸ In the words of Xu Weichang,⁶⁹ “The true person doesn’t speak when he doesn’t have a suitable opponent.”⁷⁰ In Conversations of the States it says, “Only the good person is able to receive frank suggestions.”⁷¹ Thus, we should speak only with good people. If we speak with others, it will be a waste of words.

“The sage is a teacher to a hundred generations.”⁷² Mencius was a Confucian of great achievement because he faithfully followed the Way of Confucius without straying. Among the teachings of the Song scholars, those that follow the teachings of Confucius and Mencius faithfully, having the same source and penetrating to a similar truth, those teachings truly illuminate the Way, and, thus, we should rely on them. However, frequently discussions occur that propose a different argument not based on the teachings of Confucius and Mencius and which do not have the same source or school of thought. Even if they are the words of wise people, we should not accept them.

“It is by weighing a thing that its weight can be known and by measuring it that its length can be ascertained.”⁷³ Those who want to know the strong and weak points of scholarship should do exactly this. Between sages and worthies there are fundamental differences. Even if people use the words of earlier Confucians, when they aren’t consistent with shared moral principles, we shouldn’t accept them unconditionally. Having a standard in mind to follow, we should determine the differences between things.

Thus, although the Song Confucians are wise philosophers, they are not in the same category as the sages, and there are bound to be discrepancies. From the end of the Song through the Yuan and Ming, men of inferior scholarship frequently flattered Zhu Xi and differed with the sages. They are said to have had no standard to follow. Why did it become a custom that the Confucians of later ages flatter Zhu Xi and follow him blindly? Can we say they are studying Zhu Xi carefully?

Scholars after the Song respected the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi and naturally that was good, but obstinate ones didn’t know the distinction between the sage and the worthy. Because they were not able to discern the differences, they came to regard the ideas of the Song Confucians as identical with the words of the sages. Although this was contrary to moral principles, they were not troubled by it; they were simply afraid to disagree with Zhu Xi. The group that followed blindly and did inferior scholarship simply fell into a position of catering to their own preferences. Later generations of scholars emulated this and made it a habit.

The Song scholars frequently adhered to what they heard and inclined toward what they liked. They did not take the orthodox teachings of Confucius and Mencius as their basis. Rather, they established their own school of thought freely and they became caught in rigid doctrines. This deepened into a veiled obstinacy. Because of this, their teachings are frequently at variance with those of Confucius and Mencius.

If scholars don’t insist on their own teachings and if they think with an open mind, they will probably realize my words aren’t intended to be boastful, reckless remarks. However, those who adhere to dogmatic teachings of biased people become completely fixated. If we do not wash away old opinions and arrive at new ones,⁷⁴ we will not change bad habits, and it is certain that we will lapse into confusion throughout our lives.

On Learning from What Is Close at Hand

The Way of the true person is inherently easy and simple. Since it is easy, it is readily understood, and since it is so simple, it can be readily followed.⁷⁵ It is easy to know because it isn’t difficult or incomprehensible. When it is easy to follow, it is practiced naturally and it is effective.⁷⁶ Because of these characteristics, there are many people who follow it. In Mencius it says, “The Way is like a wide road. It is not at all difficult to find. The trouble with people is simply that they do not look for it.”⁷⁷ Similarly, in Mencius it says, “One who walks slowly, keeping behind his elders, is considered a well-mannered younger brother…. Walking slowly is surely not beyond the ability of any man. It is simply a matter of his not making the effort.”⁷⁸

In my opinion, the teaching of Confucius and Mencius offers a method to begin learning from what is close at hand. Being intrinsically simple, it is easy to know and to follow. Attaining a high level of learning is merely a natural result of beginning with what is close at hand. This is different from the learning of the Buddhists, who tend to relish abstractions and desire to enter the sphere of Nyorai Buddha all at once.⁷⁹ When Confucians of later ages established their teachings, they talked about things that were often abstract and lofty and thus especially difficult to fathom and to practice. In this they differed from the original teaching of Confucius and Mencius.

Confucius considered filiality, obedience, loyalty, and trustworthiness as fundamental, and he regarded learning as involving both study and practice. His approach is straightforward, like a great pathway. Even for foolish people it is easy to grasp and to practice. If we gradually make an earnest effort and investigate thoroughly the import of this approach, we will exert ourselves to the utmost and eventually master the details. This means we learn from things close at hand and progress to higher levels.

Song Confucian scholars, however, felt it was urgent to make it their first priority to pursue the truth by understanding the Supreme Ultimate [taiji] and the nonfinite [wuji], to pursue practice by quiet sitting and purifying the heart, and to pursue scholarship by detailed analysis. Being both lofty and abstract, and trivial and impractical, this learning of the Song Confucians came to be regarded as difficult to understand and to put into practice. Yet Song Confucian scholars took these useless and unimportant issues as their first priority.

This was different from the teachings established by the sages [e.g., Confucius and Mencius], who saw filiality, obedience, love, reverence, learning, practice, loyalty, and trust as primary. Those teachings established by the Song Confucians were too abstract and detailed, hence they were difficult to learn, to practice, and to embrace. People of later ages who studied those teachings were thus handicapped by the painstaking efforts to comprehend them and became bogged down.

Generally, we should consult with people who are intelligent, broad-minded, and impartial on the doubts recorded here. We shouldn’t argue with people who are obstinate, unintelligent, inferior scholars, or prejudiced. As it is said, “To speak with those who cannot be spoken to is to waste one’s words.”⁸⁰

When we read ancient texts extensively, if we believe in them blindly, it is because we are misled. When we doubt indiscriminately because things are unclear, we become conceited. Believing what we think we should believe and doubting what we think we should doubt is the action of a wise person and is a superior way of learning. People who are intelligent do exactly this, but inferior scholars and foolish people cannot. In my opinion, since human beings are generally not sages, no one is without faults.⁸¹ Even in the scholarship of former worthies, there are some points that do not correlate with Confucius and Mencius, and their words are frequently contrary to the words of the sages. This is why we must choose carefully.

The Analects contains the teachings established by Confucius and his followers. It has set a standard for countless generations and has been a model throughout history. Nothing should be added to or subtracted from the text. The teachings of the later Song Confucians are excessive in their minute analysis and obscure in their arguments. In my opinion, their analysis is needlessly detailed. The more detailed it is, the more disjointed it becomes, and, because we are confused, clear understanding is impossible. Because of this, Song Confucian teachings became unintelligible and deviated from the teachings of Confucius.

The teachings of the sages are originally straightforward and easy, like a great road. They are not like a steep mountain path. When we analyze excessively, we meander down a confused and crooked path and we will not reach the great Way. This is because Song Confucian teachings differ from what Confucius taught.

The Indivisibility of the Nature of Heaven and Earth and One’s Physical Nature

The teachings of the Song Confucians frequently differ from those of the sages [e.g., Confucius and Mencius]. In the Classic of Changes it says, “Yin and yang are the Way.”⁸² It defines the founding of the Way of Heaven as yin and yang.⁸³ We should know that when the movement of yin and yang is normal and undisturbed, it is the Way. When the movement is disordered, it is not the Way. Consequently, the sages never regarded principle and material force as two things. But Zhu Xi did claim that principle and material force were definitely two things.⁸⁴ Confucius taught that, “by their nature, human beings closely resemble each other.”⁸⁵ Zisi said, “We call human nature one’s Heavenly destiny.”⁸⁶ Similarly Mencius said, “Our body and complexion are given to us by Heaven,”⁸⁷ and, “Human nature is good.”⁸⁸ These phrases refer to our original endowment that we all receive. Since we all receive it from Heaven, naturally there aren’t two kinds of natures. Confucius, Zisi, and Mencius all had similar opinions.

Claiming that human nature is all the same refers to the goodness of human nature. Although there are differences of tall or short, fat or thin, wise or foolish in endowment, everyone receives a mind-and-heart that is capable of compassion, shame, modesty, and the discernment of right and wrong.⁸⁹ When human beings are born, each has his or her own Heavenly endowed, original nature, and in this respect we say, “Human nature is good.” In the past and at present human nature is not so different and consequently we say that “human nature is the same.”

All people, in the past and at present, have only one nature. It isn’t necessary to divide the nature of Heaven and Earth and the physical nature. Is not the nature of Heaven and Earth embodied in one’s physical nature? If one’s physical nature is separate, how can one receive Heavenly nature? Isn’t even one’s physical nature derived from Heaven and Earth? Then one’s physical nature is nothing but the nature of Heaven and Earth. We can’t divide the two. Confucius and Mencius never spoke of two natures. The indivisibility of physical nature and Heaven and Earth is self-evident.

Human nature is the name of something that humans receive from Heaven. Dong Zhongshu said, “What we call human nature is the substance of life.”⁹⁰ His definition of human nature is close to that of Confucius and Mencius. When we discuss the origin of human nature, it is uniformly good. This is the common root. When we speak of branches, the good begins to subdivide endlessly. However, it is probably a mistake to regard the nature of Yao and Shun as the same as that of ordinary people.⁹¹ The reason is that Yao and Shun naturally have natures specifically for them, and ordinary people naturally have their own natures specifically for them. Since what each receives is different, we should not mistake it as one’s own. The fact that the universe is not uniform reflects the actual state of affairs of the universe. This is the reason that many variations of human nature exist.

One’s human nature is received at birth. The destiny one receives from Heaven is inherently good; it is without evil. It has a common origin. Indeed, individual human nature actually exists as an embodiment of the good that is one’s Heavenly destiny. Yet when one originally receives material force, we would expect that there would be inconsistencies of purity and impurity, or thickness and thinness. After one receives material force, a person attains an individual, fixed nature. In this way, the human nature of wise or foolish people is not the same from the beginning.

In teaching others, the Song Confucians wanted to be very detailed. They regarded principle and material force as two. Moreover, in their doctrines they separated the nature of Heaven and Earth and physical nature. In doing this, they were excessively analytical. Confucius and Mencius spoke of human nature, but their explanations were clear without having to be analyzed. When Confucius said “similar,” he meant that those of good nature are similar to each other. Therefore, the explanations of human nature by Confucius and Mencius should not be regarded as different. Even without detailed analysis their principles are clear.

A holistic approach is superior to minute analysis, for without [ further] analysis the meaning is clear. If people who teach later generations follow the same line as Confucius and Mencius, they will be correct. If they establish different teachings because they follow lines different from Confucius and Mencius, that is unacceptable. The creation of things by Heaven and Earth begin and evolve gradually. This is the tendency of the movements of material force and the principle of nature.

Likewise, there are things that ancient peoples didn’t discuss, and we must wait for them to emerge in later generations. It was often the case that Yao and Shun did not speak of something Confucius spoke of, that things which Confucius didn’t speak of Mencius did, and that what Confucius and Mencius omitted, the Song Confucians addressed. The discussions of the Song Confucians are derived from the same source as Confucius and Mencius, and they clarify the explanations of Confucius and Mencius. That is why the Song Confucians contributed to spreading the Way of the sages. However, having granted this, there are some of their teachings that diverge from the words of Confucius and Mencius.

The Song Confucians explain the Supreme Ultimate by means of the nonfinite;⁹² they regard principle and material force as two; they see yin and yang as not being the Way but as concrete things;⁹³ they think there is a nature of Heaven and Earth and a physical nature;⁹⁴ they explain innate goodness in terms of “human nature is principle.”⁹⁵ This is not the same as the original intent of Confucius and Mencius, and the lineage of teachings is not the same. If scholars would examine this matter fairly, freed from flattery or bias toward the various Song teachers, they would perceive the differences.

Acknowledging Differences with the Song Confucians

In explaining the classics, it is permissible to have small differences in interpretation if they do not affect the Way. Since the Song Confucians’ explanations of principle and material force, of the nonfinite, of the Way and concrete things, or of human nature and the Way, are all the foundation of moral principles, it is essential that there not be even small divergences from the words of the sages. If there are even slight differences in these areas, even though the concepts underlie the established doctrines of the earlier teachers, we should not accept them merely to indulge in flattery and servility. We should identify the differences by comparing them with the words of the sages. For when the doctrines are not correct, the Way does not become clear.

Zhu Xi said, “If people take an attitude that they don’t rely on only one school and are not partial to only one theory, they will get a hodgepodge of knowledge even though they may be erudite.”⁹⁶ When I consider these words of Zhu Xi, I cannot help but doubt them. Why do I doubt them? If we can depend directly on the sages, as the seventy principal disciples of Confucius did,⁹⁷ it will be all right to have more than one school and more than one theory.

However, even though the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi were highly intelligent men, when we think of devotion to the highest good, impartiality and lack of prejudice, I am afraid they were not the same as the sages. If people rely on only one explanation or incline toward one type of learning, inevitably they won’t be able to comprehend with a broad perspective or open inquiry. Instead they will suffer from a wisdom obstructed by prejudiced and limited information. Prejudiced people, through flattery and servility, create factions and attack others for their personal gain. Such are my doubts, and I am unable to resolve them.

Later scholars should not have contempt for the worthies of the past and they should not thoughtlessly slander those who came before. Rather, they ought to show discretion. However, even the ancients weren’t without some faults. In distinguishing between right and wrong, one shouldn’t be swayed by undue deference.

Even if they are intelligent, those who come forward with their ideas may first offer ideas that are still not complete or detailed. A good example is that the ideas of the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi differ somewhat from those of the sages. When later people discuss earlier people, even if they have only ordinary talents, they can still reflect on things from a different perspective. This is the advantage of those who come later in criticizing what came before. Thus, even criticisms by later people shouldn’t be completely disregarded.

We later scholars⁹⁸ certainly cannot be compared with intelligent scholars of earlier times with regard to the loftiness and depth, or the greatness and smallness, or the breadth and narrowness of our learning. Naturally we should have a deep reverence toward the earlier Confucians.⁹⁹ However, later worthies also differ from the earlier sages¹⁰⁰ in impartiality and bias. Accordingly, even in the teachings of earlier Confucians, we should accept things that are in agreement with the words of the sages and we should believe what we think we should believe and doubt what we think we should doubt. In short, it is important to be selective.

From of old the changes in the spirit of the times continually move toward complexity and ostentation. This is the reason the present frivolous age has lost sight of what is essential. The condition of the world of past and present can’t help but produce this result. Accordingly, in the ways of government and the arts of learning, we have an imperative duty to return to essentials and to avoid minute details. It is not necessary to emulate all the movements and transformations of the world.

Confucius was born in the declining period of the Zhou dynasty. Public opinion of that age regarded excessively cultivated people as gentlemen and simple people as rustics. Confucius wished to follow the ancients; he rejected ostentation and sought a return to simplicity. The age of Confucius was still close to an ancient, simple period, but a more worldly outlook had already developed by his day. Even more frivolous later ages lost simplicity and the spirit of the times degenerated daily toward excess. From the period of the Qin and the Han, times gradually changed and the world became increasingly complicated. Scholars living in today’s world should place priority on simplicity but should gradually adapt to their age. If one rejects contemporary customs, there is no way to live in the world.

Song Confucian scholarship far surpassed that of the Han and the Tang in the explication of issues. However, the discussions of Song Confucians gradually became confused, their exegesis became more and more intricate, and their notes and explanations became extremely lengthy. In time the digressions became profuse and the arguments became increasingly detailed. In later ages this trend became a force like a flood, so that it was no longer possible to consider returning to the teachings of the sages. Because of that trend, simplicity declined daily. When later Confucians faced this way of scholarship, they were simply overwhelmed by the current pressing in from all sides. Even with strenuous effort they couldn’t change embedded practices. Thus, they were not able to penetrate and reinvigorate ancient teachings and realize them personally.

Celebrated scholars appeared, but they only eagerly followed the current of the times. They couldn’t change old customs and seek what was essential. Consequently, the path of later scholarship should be directed toward a change from minute details to essentials and from trivia to holistic integration by making people aware of this and changing old ways of scholarship. In my opinion there must be a suitable way for each age. Confucius followed the ancient sages, and scholars should do likewise. This is only my idea, but how do other scholars of today feel?

Are the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi known as great scholars just because of the high level of their scholarship and insight? Even the greatness of their virtuous deeds is regarded as a model. The heterodox scholars at the end of the Ming¹⁰¹ attacked and despised the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi and, in addition, were contemptuous of their deeds. While they pursued their studies, they didn’t recognize the profound knowledge of the earlier Confucians; they put on airs and slandered them carelessly without respecting their virtue. This is not the way of a true Confucian, but that of a petty person.¹⁰² They know neither others nor themselves. That is extremely foolish.

Zhu Xi, who was a superior person, aimed to transmit the sages’ teachings from the past and to open them up for future scholars. For this reason his explanations and interpretations of the classics were a blessing for later generations in their extremely detailed analysis. These [interpretations] were sufficient without borrowing troublesome explanations of later Confucians. They were also of great benefit for subsequent generations.

Because Zhu Xi’s explanations were very detailed, later Confucians just imitated such detail and analyzed things by blindly following the crowd. This resulted in confusion. Even though there are numerous discussions by the later Confucians, they didn’t add significantly to the great accomplishments of Zhu Xi. They were unable to develop his ideas further. What they added didn’t contribute anything, and when they did not add anything, there was no loss. Furthermore, these people were unable to change old habits in their scholarship. Thus, after the death of Zhu Xi, except for two or three excellent people who made certain things clear, it would be fine if many Confucians had kept silent.

Zhu Xi applied much of his energies toward the rejection of Buddhism. In my view, that was because formerly he had a very close involvement with Buddhism and investigated the Buddhist way intensely. It is understandable that his attacks penetrated deeply into precise and subtle points. However, why in his ordinary discussions are there sometimes things that are similar to the heresies of Buddhism?

This coincidence probably derives from Zhou Dunyi’s “Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate.”¹⁰³ Zhu Xi’s deep respect for Zhou Dunyi¹⁰⁴ was exactly the same reverence he showed to the sages. He accepted even a work that may not have been done by Zhou Dunyi. In my opinion, even assuming that Zhou did write this text, it reflected an earlier opinion that wasn’t held throughout his life.¹⁰⁵ In Zhou’s Penetrating the Classic of Changes there is no explanation concerning the nonfinite;¹⁰⁶ the contents of this text are not similar to “An Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate.” Moreover, in the large collected works of the Cheng brothers, there is no mention of the nonfinite. This should be known.

The Confucian teachers of the Song were all intelligent men. Their scholarship and character far exceeded those of most people. The Confucians from the Han to the Tang didn’t reach their level. However, their doctrines were somewhat close to the teachings of Buddhism and Daoism, and there are many dubious points. Most human beings aren’t sages; they aren’t without bias. To illustrate this, we realize that the light of the sun and the moon is not without shadows. Even a pearl shining like the moon is not without flaws. Shao Yong said: “Although Heaven gives birth to things, it cannot nourish them. Although the Earth can nourish things, it cannot create them. Although fire boils things, it cannot soak them. Although water soaks things, it cannot boil them. Even Heaven and Earth are not complete, and so why should fire and water be complete?”¹⁰⁷

In my opinion, since Heaven and Earth are not perfect, how much more so is that true of wise men? How can they be without bias? Thus even though the scholarship of the Song Neo-Confucians is close to being pure and correct, it doesn’t equal that of the sages. Hence, it is natural that it [betrays] occasional biases. We shouldn’t rely on them completely and regard them as being wholly unbiased.

Surely the Way of the sages is fair and impartial. The sages hold fast to virtue so as to extend its influence widely.¹⁰⁸ In their actions they are skillful. Worthies who rank below the sages, although they are intelligent, probably do not possess virtue completely. The learning of the Song Confucians is genuine, but still it doesn’t match that of the sages. They can’t avoid having prejudicial personal viewpoints. Accordingly, frequently teachings have appeared that are different from the teachings of Confucius and Mencius. These include the following, which are the reasons for my own doubts: (1) taking the nonfinite as the basis of the Supreme Ultimate; (2) seeing principle and material force as two separate things; (3) dividing the nature of Heaven and Earth and human physical nature; (4) regarding yin and yang as not being the Way but as being concrete things below those that have form; (5) considering that which constitutes yin and yang to be the Way; (6) seeing material force and the physical body as having life and death; (7) regarding principle and nature as having no life and death; (8) regarding quiet sitting as a method of daily practice and regarding “holding to tranquility”¹⁰⁹ as a discipline for establishing the highest moral standard for human beings; (9) seeing the theories of Confucius and Mencius concerning nature as distinguished by their emphasis on physical nature and the nature of Heaven and Earth, respectively.¹¹⁰

Su Dongpo [Su Shi]¹¹¹ remarked, “Even a superior person can’t avoid being influenced by heterodoxy.” I think the scholarship of Su was patently incorrect, and he himself, without knowing it, was affected by heterodox thinking.¹¹² However, his statement above has validity. Even if superior people hear the theories of followers of Buddhism and Daoism, occasionally it is difficult for them to avoid becoming biased and obstinate by what they hear. These days obstinate and biased people think the learning of scholars of the Song is equal to that of Confucius and Mencius. They think the Song scholars have no weaknesses and that they are always right. However, I don’t think that attitude is reasonable. The thinkers of the late Ming and early Qing harshly criticized the learning of various Song teachers as antithetical to the transmission of [the teachings of] Confucius and Mencius. They [the Ming and Qing teachers] were also followers of heretical teaching and extremely obstinate and biased. Their views are not reliable.

In the Ming period, Wang Yangming was an exceptionally gifted person. Many of his contemporaries were blindly enveloped by his scholarship as if they were swept away by a current that came rushing forth. In comparison with the Daoist “pure conversation” philosophers of the Jin,¹¹³ Wang’s scholarship did far greater harm.

Luo Qinshun¹¹⁴ was a contemporary of Wang Yangming. He argued with Wang and criticized him. Luo should be regarded as a wise and superior person. In his learning, Luo Qinshun did not flatter the Song Confucians. He said, “Principle is only the principle of material force.”¹¹⁵ “Principle must be identified as an aspect of material force.”¹¹⁶ In my opinion, the Song Confucians improperly separated principle from material force, and later Confucians, flattering the Song Confucians, wouldn’t question them. Only Luo, although he respected the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi, did not flatter them, and his views were eminently sound. However, the various Confucian scholars of the later Song, Yuan, and Ming didn’t say this. We ought to regard Luo as an outstanding scholar. Although both Xue Xuan¹¹⁷ and Hu Juren¹¹⁸ were first-rate Ming Confucians, their views were far inferior to those of Luo.