Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:58:42.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Intellectual Context of Neo-Confucian Syncretism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

John Winthrop Haeger
Get access

Abstract

Because the so-called “three teachings” (Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism) lost much of their separate identity and exclusivist appeal during the 300 years between mid-T'ang and Southern Sung, the syncretism developed by Chu Hsi and others in the 13th century represented not an explicit fusion of these three teachings, but an integration of several 11th and 12th century interpreters, of proliferated early Confucian canonical literature, and a revival of the tao, which served to confirm the legitimate position of the “contemporary” Sung with respect to their classical heritage. This new syncretism, called tao-hsüeh, was immediately vulnerable as the vain, unnecessary and fundamentally unacceptable effort of a few men to monopolize the true tao, both to solidify their own philosophical position and to gain political advantages. As the attack on tao-hsüeh turned to an attack on wei-hsüeh (“false learning”) in the 1190's, it became associated with a wave of anti-intellectualism generated in part by the exclusivism of serious (i.e., tao-hsüeh) philosophers, the simultaneous commonization of general learning, and the pretention of would-be intellectuals. Tao-hsüeh then became orthodox in the early 14th century primarily in an effort to reverse this anti-intellectual trend.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , May 1972 , pp. 499 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Reischauer, Edwin O., Ennin's Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law (New York, 1955) p. 341Google Scholar.

2 Reischauer, op. cit., 347–48.

3 JCSP, III, 14 (p. 125).

4 CTYY 12. 13b–14a (p. 153). There are obvious inconsistencies between the initial description of the picture and the encomium. These are apparently deliberate, and the confusion part of the humor of the encomium.

5 On the intellectual and institutional status of Buddhism during the Sung, see Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, Buddhism in China: An Historical Survey, p. 394ff. For Chu Hsi's comments on the durability of Buddhism, see Chu-tzu yü-lei 126–34. Jao Tsung-i has recently discussed another aspect of san-chiao syncretism, the theory of common origin, by which Confucius and Lao-tzu are both considered Bodhisatvas, and their doctrines are blended because “the myriad good points of the three teachings return similarly [to a common source].” Jao's article (Tung-hsi wen-hua [Eastern and Western Culture] 11 [May 1968], pp. 24–32) demonstrates that this theory is at least as old as Sung, and had some proponents under the Chin as well, but the relative obscurity of the men associated with it tends to indicate that it did not belong in the mainstream of lively philosophy until much later, if ever.

6 For Chu Hsi's comments on Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, see Mu, Ch'ien, Chu-tzu hsin hsüeh-an (5 vols., Taipei, 1971) III: 610–612Google Scholar ; on Ch'an Buddhism, III: 489–549. Chu's analysis that contemporary scholarship had been damaged by an indiscriminate interest in elements of Buddhism and Taoism is found in III: 243.

7 Ssu-micn, Lü, Li-Asüeh kang-yao (Shanghai, 1931) p. 94Google Scholar.

8 Ch'eng I in Chin-ssu lu, see Wing-tsit Chan (tr.), Reflections on Things at Hand, p. 207.

9 SYHA, p. 512.

10 Chang Chia-chü, Liang-Sung ching-chi chung-hsin te nan-i (Hupei jen-min ch'u-pan she, 1957) p. 137.

11 SS 427. 1a–2b.

12 Ch'ing scholars found the earliest reference to tao-t'ung in 1172, but Professor James T. C. Liu has found it in historical documents as early as 1136. See Ch'ien Ta-hsing, Shih-chia chai-yang hsin-lu (Kuo-hsüeh chi-pen ts'ung-shu ed.) 18 (p. 426); Li Hsin-ch'uan, Chien-yen i-lai hsi-nien yao-lu (Kuo-hsüeh chi-pen ts'ung-shu ed. [Peking reprint 1956]) 101 (p. 1660).

13 SYHA, p. 502.

14 CSPM, p. 678.

15 For details on the T'ang Chung-yu affair see Schirokaucr, Conrad, “Chu Hsi's Political Career” in Wright, Arthur F. and Twitchett, Denis, eds., Confucian Personalities (Stanford, 1962) pp. 173–75Google Scholar.

16 CSPM, p. 679.

17 ibid.

18 CSPM, p. 680. Translation by Schirokauer, Conrad in unpublished doctoral dissertation, “The Political Thought and Behaviour of Chu Hsi” (Stanford University, Department of History, 1960) p. 121Google Scholar.

19 CSPM, p. 680.

20 CSPM, p. 680–81.

21 HTCTC 154 (pp. 4132–33).

22 HTCTC 154 (pp. 4141–42); CSPM, p. 684; SS 429.19a.

23 CSPM, p. 683.

24 HTCTC 154 (pp. 4153–54).

25 See Lu Hsiang-shan ch'üan-chi 35 (p. 295) SPTK ed. (Shanghai, 1929); Huang, Siu-chi, Lu Hsiang-shan: A Twelfth Century Chinese Idealist Philosopher (New Haven 1944)Google Scholar.

26 CSPM, p. 678.

27 Ibid.

28 CTYY 11. I2a–13a (p. 139). Translation modified from Schirokaucr, “Thought and Behaviour,” p. 150.

29 HTCTC 158 (p. 4291).

30 CSPM, p. 686; HTCTC 159 (p. 4309).

31 HTCTC 159 (p. 4309).

32 HTCTC 161 (pp. 4359–60).

33 HTCTC 164 (p. 4458).

34 HTCTC 170 (p. 4630).

35 CSPM, p. 701.

36 Ibid.

37 CTYY 16. 11b–12a (p.208).