A Critique of Jiang Qing’s “Political Confucianism”
Chapter 3: The Debate on Ren between Zhu Xi and the Huxiang Scholars Originally published in Chinese Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Interpretation and
Intellectual Change, edited by Ching-I Tu (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2005), 119–132.
Reprinted with permission.
1. See Michael Nylan, ed., Confucius: The Analects, trans. Simon Leys (New York:
W. W. Norton and Company, 2014), xii.
2. Although it is not untrue to consider Plato a systematic philosopher, he pales in comparison to others in the West because of his mode of expression. His dialogue form allows him to be more playful, imaginative, creative, mythic, argumentative, and logical than most others. As George Kimball Plochmann has written about Plato’s writing: “The dia-logue form allows Plato the free ranging between fact and imagination, and between the abstract thought and the concrete embodiment, that would have been denied him had he employed pure history or conventional theater or philosophical treatise or psychological case-study as his mode of expression.” See George Kimball Plochmann, Plato (New York:
Dell Publishing, 1973), 18.
3. See Gregory Vlastos, “The Socratic Elenchus,” in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philoso-phy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), vol. 1, 27–58.
4. See Lee Ming-huei, “Lunyu ‘Zai Wo wen sannian zhi sang’ zhang zhong de lun-lixue wenti” 《論語》「宰我問三年之喪」章中的倫理學問題 (The ethical problems in Lunyu 17.21), in his Ruxue yu xiandai yishi, 213–239.
5. Hegel used the term “notion” (Begriff ) to refer to the essence or nature of the object of thought and the true thought of that nature or essence. His “Doctrine of Notion” is most germane and useful for social or political discourses and for the Confucian context here.
Hegel states in his Logic that “the notion, in short, is what contains all the earlier categories of thought merged in it. It certainly is a form, but an infinite and creative form that includes, but at the same time releases from itself, the fullness of all content. And so too the notion may, if it be wished, be styled abstract, if the name concrete is restricted to the concrete facts of sense or of immediate perception. For the notion is not palpable to the touch, and when we are engaged with it, hearing and seeing must quite fail us. And yet, as it was before remarked, the notion is a true concrete; for the reason that it involves Being and Essence, and the total wealth of these two spheres with them, merged in the unity of thought.” See part 3, section 160, of Hegel’s Logic. Hegel’s Logic: Being Part One of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, trans. William Wallace (Digireads.com., 2013), 121.
6. This term has been variously translated into English as humaneness, benevolence, or humanity. See Analects, trans. Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr., 48–51.
7. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philoso-phie, in G. W. F. Hegel: Werke, Theorie Werkausgabe (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1971), 18:142–143.
8. Cheng Hao 程顥 and Cheng Yi 程頤, “Henan Chengshi yishu” 河南程氏遺書 (Collected records of the Cheng Brothers), juan 2A, in Er Cheng ji 二程集 (Collected works of the Cheng brothers) (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981), vol. 1, 15.
9. Ibid., juan 3, in Er Cheng ji, vol. 1, 63; Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, “Henan Chengshi cuiyan” 河南程氏粹言 (Selected words of the Cheng Brothers), juan 1, in Er Cheng ji, vol.
4, 1171.
10. See Zhu Xi, Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 (Classified conversations of Master Zhu), ed. Li Jingde 黎靖德 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986), juan 95, vol. 6, 2425.
11. Zhang Shi 張栻, Nanxuan ji 南軒集 (Collected works of Zhang Shi), juan 14, in Zhang Shi quanji 張栻全集 (Complete works of Zhang Shi) (Changchun: Changchun chubanshe, 1999), vol. 2, 752–753.
12. For the genesis of Zhu Si yan ren and its related problems, see Cheng Yuanmin 程 元敏, “Zhang Shi ‘Zhu Si yan ren’ bian de yuanwei” 張栻「洙泗言仁」編的源委 (The beginning and development of Zhang Shi’s “Confucius’ sayings about ren”), Kong Meng xue-bao 孔孟學報 11 (September 1966): 61–68.
13. Ibid., 64–65.
14. See “[Ninth] Letter Replying to Zhang Jingfu’s Letter,” in Zhu Xi, Hui’an xian-sheng Zhuwengong wenji 晦庵先生朱文公文集, juan 31, 7b–8a, in Zhuzi daquan 朱子大 全 (The complete works of Master Zhu), SBBY edition (Taipei: Taiwan Zhonghua shuju, 1981), vol. 4.
15. Cheng Yuanmin, “Zhang Shi ‘Zhu Si yan ren’ bian de yuanwei,” 66.
16. Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti 心體與性體 (Heart-mind as reality and human nature as reality), vol. 3, in Mou Zongsan xiansheng quanji 牟宗三先生全集 (Complete works of Mou Zongsan) (Taipei: Linking Publishing Co., 2003), vol. 7, 278.
17. With regard to the date of Zhu Xi’s formulation of his own interpretation of
“equilibrium and harmony,” there are different theses. What is followed generally here is Qian Mu’s and Liu Shu-hsien’s interpretations. However, Chen Lai and Shu Jingnan, fol-lowing Wang Maohong 王懋弘, the author of Zhuzi nianpu 朱子年譜 (A chronological biography of Master Zhu), date it to 1166. The plausibility of this date cannot be totally excluded. For more discussion of this issue, see (1) Qian Mu 錢穆, Zhuzi xin xue’an 朱子 新學案 (New compendium to Master Zhu) (Taipei: Sanmin shuju, 1971), vol. 2, 123–182;
(2) Liu Shu-hsien 劉述先, Zhuzi zhexue sixiang de fazhan yu wancheng 朱子哲學思想的發 展與完成 (The development and completion of Zhu Xi’s philosophical thought) (Taipei:
Taiwan xuesheng shuju, 1984), 79–96; (3) Wing-tsit Chan, “Chu Hsi and Chang Shih,”
in his Chu Hsi: New Studies (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1989), 411–412; (4) Chen Lai 陳來, Zhu Xi zhexue yanjiu 朱熹哲學研究 (Inquiries into Zhu Xi’s philosophy) (Shanghai: Huadong Normal University Press, 2000), 166–170; (5) Shu Jingnan束景南, Zhu Xi nianpu changbian 朱熹年譜長編 (A detailed chronological biography of Zhu Xi) (Shanghai: Huadong Normal University Press, 2001), vol. 1, 358–359.
18. Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti, vol. 3, 71–228.
19. Although Feng Youlan highlighted the difference between the directions of thought each Cheng brother represented, Mou was the first to make a thoroughgoing philo-sophical analysis of their differences. See Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti, vol. 2, 1–13; Feng Youlan, Zhongguo zhexue shi 中國哲學史 (History of Chinese philosophy), in Sansongtang
quanji 三松堂全集 (Complete works of Feng Youlan) (Zhengzhou: Henan renmin chu-banshe, 1985), vol. 3, 294–314.
20. The text of this treatise is included in Zhu Xi, Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenji, juan 67, 20a–21b, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 8.
21. Since Wang Maohong did not make reference to this treatise in his Zhuzi nianpu, we do not know when the text was written. According to Wing-tsit Chan’s analysis, the treatise was probably written in its final form in 1171, when Zhu Xi was forty-two; see “Chu Hsi’s ‘Jen-shuo’ (Treatise on ren),” in his Chu Hsi: New Studies, 155–157. Liu Shu-hsien, however, dates it to 1173. See his Zhuzi zhexue sixiang de fazhan yu wancheng, 139–146.
Liu’s suggestion seems to be more convincing. The discussions between Zhu Xi and Zhang Shi about the text of this treatise are reflected partially in Zhu’s letters to Zhang (included in Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenji, juan 32, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 4).
22. The text of this essay is included in Zhang Shi, Nanxuan ji, juan 18, in Zhang Shi quanji, vol. 2, 803–804.
23. See Zhu Xi, Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenj, juan 67, 20a, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 8.
24. Hitoshi Sato, “Chu Hsi’s ‘Treatise on Jen,’ ” in Wing-tsit Chan, ed., Chu Hsi and Neo-Confucianism (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1986), 218.
25. Liu Shu-hsien, “Zhuzi de renshuo, taiji guannian yu daotong wenti de zai xingcha”
朱子的仁說、太極觀念與道統問題的再省察 (Zhu Xi’s “treatise on ren,” his notion of taiji, and the issue of daotong reconsidered), Shixue pinglun 史學評論 (Historical review) 5 (January 1983): 176–180.
26. Ibid., 179.
27. Wing-tsit Chan, Chu Hsi: New Studies, 176–177.
28. Zhuzi yulei, juan 103, vol. 7, 2606.
29. Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti, vol. 3, 229–354.
30. For translations of these terms, see the discussion below.
31. This paragraph reads: “The Master said, ‘Every man’s faults may be ascribed to his respective kind. If one looks out for faults it is only as a means of recognizing ren.’ ” For the debate about the interpretation of this paragraph between Zhu Xi and the Huxiang scholars, see Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti, vol. 3, 300–354; Lin Yuehui 林月惠, “Songru duiyu ‘ren’
de quanshi—yi Lunyu ‘guan guo si zhi ren yi’ wei li” 宋儒對於「仁」的詮釋―以《論 語》「觀過，斯知仁矣」為例 (The Song Neo-Confucians’ interpretations of ren: From the case of Analects 4.7), Ehu xuezhi 26 (June 2001): 36–66.
32. This English translation is adapted from Wing-tsit Chan, ed., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 593–597.
33. See Zhu Xi’s “Reply to Zhang Jingfu,” in his Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenji, juan 32, 16b, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 4.
34. Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, 593, n. 8.
35. See Zhu Xi’s “Reply to Zhang Jingfu,” in his Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenji, juan 32, 17a, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 4.
36. Zhang Shi, “[Eighth] Letter Replying to Librarian Zhu Yuanhui,” Nanxuan ji, juan 21, in Zhang Shi quanji, vol. 2, 847.
37. Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti, vol. 3, 236–238 and 259–261.
38. The character of li in Zhu’s philosophy is a controversial issue. Here I follow Mou Zongsan’s interpretation.
39. Zhang Shi, Nanxuan ji, juan 18, in Zhang Shi quanji, vol. 2, 803.
40. Ibid.
41. Zhang Shi, Nanxuan ji, juan 14, in Zhang Shi quanji, vol, 2, 752.
42. Zhang Shi, Nanxuan ji, juan 18, in Zhang Shi quanji, vol. 2, 803.
43. Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, 595.
44. Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, “Henan Chengshi yishu,” juan 18, in Er Cheng ji, vol.
1, 182.
45. Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, 595–596.
46. Ch’en Ch’un, Neo-Confucian Terms Explained (The Pei-hsi tzu-i), trans. Wing-tsit Chan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 82–83.
47. Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, “Henan Chengshi yishu,” juan 2A, in Er Cheng ji, vol.
1, 15.
48. Zhu Xi, Zhuzi yulei, juan 6, vol. 1, 118.
49. Zhu Xi’s “Reply to Zhang Qinfu (Further Discussion on the ‘Treatise on ren’),” in his Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenji, juan 32, 20a–b, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 4.
50. “Wufeng xue’an,” in Huang Zongxi 黃宗羲, ed., Song Yuan xue’an 宋元學案 (Compendia to the Neo-Confucians of the Song and Yuan dynasties), SBBY edition (Tai-pei: Taiwan Zhonghua shuju, 1981), vol. 3, juan 42, 13a.
51. Max Scheler, Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik (Bern:
Francke, 1966), 259–270.
52. Zhang Shi, Nanxuan ji, juan 18, in Zhang Shi quanji, vol. 2, 804.
53. Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu xingti, vol. 3, 277.
54. Ibid., vol. 2, 298–302.
55. From Zhu Xi’s “Letter Responding to [Zhang] Qinfu’s ‘Treatise on ren,’ ” in his Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenji, juan 32, 23b–24a, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 4.
56. Zhu Xi, Hui’an xiansheng Zhuwengong wenji, juan 32, 24a, in Zhuzi daquan, vol. 4.
57. Zhang Shi, Nanxuan ji, juan 18, in Zhang Shi quanji, vol. 2, 803–804.
58. Ibid., vol. 2, 803.
59. Ibid.
Chapter 4: The Four-Seven Debate between Yi Toegye and Gi Gobong