The Chuanshan’s Criticisms Of Heterodox Classical Chinese Thought

A major part of the evolution and progression of traditional Chinese thought has been the development of Confucianism,with the study of the Confucians classics becoming the official orthodoxy after the Han Emperor Wudi’s promotion of the Six Classics and establishment of court erudites specialising in each of the Five Classics.The flourishing of xuanxue and Buddhism in the Wei-Jin and Sui-Tang periods respectively presented a challenge to Confucianism’s position of orthodoxy,and in order to maintain the spirit and ideals of Confucianism,Song period Confucianss launched a movement of counterreaction against Buddhist-and Daoist-influenced heterodoxies.In the process of making exegeses of the Five Classics and the Four Books,commentating upon historical events,and expounding upon various other pre-imperial texts,Wang Chuanshan reflected persistently upon the question of discrimination of sagely wisdom from heterodoxy,designating the ideas of the Buddha,Laozi,Shen Buhai and Han Fei as the foremost among such heterodoxies.This propensity of Chuanshan’s was a continuance of Song period Confucianss’ denunciation of heterodoxy in their writings,but arose also from the particular concrete circumstances wherein heavy punishments were applied and an intellectual fashion marked by vacuous arcana thrived.It is worth noting that Chuanshan’s criticisms of heterodoxy was not limited to the thought of the aforementioned figures,but extended also to the identification of heterodox behaviours and thought to be found within Confucianism itself,thereby deepening the reflections on those particular contents of Neo-Confucianism which “in ever more closely approaching cosmic principle nevertheless put the truth in disarray”.Although his criticisms of heterodoxy are to be found scattered throughout his classics exegeses,historical writings and other collected papers,they nevertheless all follow a certain logic as exemplified in the maxim “originating with the Heavenly mandate,culminating in sagely efficacy and following the way of kingliness”.With respect to his explication of “the Heavenly way,nature and the mandate”:Chuanshan repudiated the vacuity of Buddhist and Daoist teachings and in so doing developed a theory of the relationship between the Heavenly and the human based centred around the fundamental principles of “the tangible and the ultimately sincere”.Firstly,Chuanshan criticised the Buddhist and Daoist thought exemplified in the notions “pure emptiness is fundamental to nature” and “being is generated by non-being”;specifically,he asserted that taking the first “Diagram of Supreme Polarity”to be the outlines of the heartmind in its emptiness,and taking yin and yang to be resultant from a more fundamental movement and stillness,were ideas that had been influenced by “vacuity”.By way of the doctrines of “co-occurrent non-identity of Supreme Void and qi” and the “concurrent construction of Qian and Kun”,Chuanshan transmuted the “being and non-being” dyad into the “hidden and clear” dyad,thereby providing an ontological warrant for the origin of supreme good and the distinction between the good and the odious.Secondly,with respect to the Laozian doctrine of“non-being as fundamental”,the Zen Buddhism of the Hongzhou school’s doctrine of“becoming a Bodhisattva through acquaintance with fundamental nature” and the Huayan Buddhist doctrine that “the three realms are mind alone”,Chuanshan made his criticisms based on the notion of “dao and its instruments”.He asserted the inseparability of “non-being” and “being” – the idea that dao could never exist in isolation from its instruments was a way of emphasising the essential unity of metaphysical dao with its physical instruments.Finally,Chuanshan asserted that,historically,the three prominent types of theorising with respect to human nature were unable to address the question of nature at its very origin;Chuanshan was supportive of the Mencian “tracing back to the origins of good” line of thought with respect to human nature.It was this line of thought through which Chuanshan understood the Changes maxim that “that which ensues [from the dao of yin and yang] is goodness”,and in tandem with his understanding of “daily generation and daily completion” as perfecting “that which in its completion is nature”,these understandings constituted a form of thought on “the Heavenly way,nature and the mandate” which could take the Appended Sentences as its underpinning.With respect to his discussions of “learning and self-cultivation”: Chuanshan rejected heretical notions of “rapid attainment” via shortcuts as well as vacuous quietude and attempts to attain to Heavenly principle via a type of self-cultivation qua desire-suppression,emphasising rather the need in Confucianism to be “drawn together in one strand”,for both scholarly learning and reflection to occur in tandem,and for the preservation of principle and rectification of the heartmind qua positive gongfu.As to learning,Chuanshan made a subtle distinction between being “drawn together in one strand” and being “drawn together in the strand of Oneness” – this underwrote his denunciation of Buddhist and Daoist doctrine by which “the myriad dharmas return to Oneness” and his further criticism of the “rapid attainment and shortcuts” style of learning.Mistakenly externalised understandings of gewu and attainment of original knowledge of liangzhi were to be corrected,on Chuanshan’s view,by prosecution of the two in tandem in a mutually-reinforcing and mutually-reliant process of “being drawn together in one strand” via learning and reflection.With respect to self-cultivation,the targets of Chuanshan’s criticism were views internal to Confucianism itself wherein “Heavenly principle can go forth freely only when carnal desire has been completely suppressed”.As Chuanshan points out,such views seem to imply a causal logic whereby the suppression of carnal desire ipso facto results in increasing alignment with Heavenly principle.In point of fact,this issue is reflective of the twin effects of both the subtractive gongfu of desire-suppression and the additive gongfu of preserving Heavenly principle upon the cultivation of one’s virtuous nature.Chuanshan’s theory of gongfu upheld the notion that “increasing alignment with Heavenly principle is the priority,suppressing carnal desires is auxiliary”,only this could result in a state wherein “Heavenly principle grows ever clearer”.With respect to self-cultivation gongfu,Chuanshan’s criticisms were directed at doctrines respectively Buddhist,Daoist and Confucians such as “illuminating and stilling the heartmind”,“sitting in forgetfulness with a heart like dead ashes”,“having a heartmind like the Supreme Ultimate,reflecting the balance of vacuity”,declaring them mistaken in that they all confused the human heartmind for the mind of the dao.His own theories of gongfu,rather,took the “heartmind rules both nature and emotion”of previous Confucianss as its theoretical framework,establishing the notion of“accumulating sincerity and maintaining one’s convictions”.With respect to “virtuous nature and the way of governance”,Chuanshan sternly criticised the Laozian “veneration of wit and abandonment of virtue”,the use of draconian laws and bureaucratic performance incentives associated with the thought of Shen Buhai and Han Fei,and also Confucians emulation of the ideas of Shen and Han;he hoped for a return to the way of governance of the sage-kings who “dwelt in reverence and esteemed simplicity”.At the first level,Chuanshan held that “valuing flexibility and maintaining silence”,“saying one thing but meaning another” and other such power-wielding techniques were classic examples of Laozi having “known techniques but not the dao”.He exposed the doctrines of Laozi and the behaviour of those who acted upon his ideas as covertly harbouring a deceitful craftiness in which“dao is an ornament to cunning techniques,and virtue is feigned and insincere”.He contrasted this with the intrinsic motive force of virtuous nature as embodied in the way of kingly governance embraced by Confucianss.At a second level,Chuanshan strictly repudiated both the “severe functionary” and also some Confucianss who emulated Shen and Han in promoting strict punitive measures as a warrant for governance,exposing some Confucianss as appearing to pay lip service to specific circumstance and their underlying principles in word and conduct but in fact actually using this as cover for a concealed severity.By contrast,Confucianism advocates for“choosing nominees judiciously and training them in law” as a governance strategy.At the third level,having observed “hypocritical virtue”,officious and draconian use of the law and other such perversions of governance,Chuanshan by contrast advocated a“habitual posture of respect and simplicity” in politics and governance.He emphasised the importance of the cultivation of virtue,with the salutary effects of good teachings in the person of the king thereby becoming the prerequisite for the functioning of the entire judicial and punitive system.For Chuanshan,his thought on governance was constructed upon the foundations of ritual,music,moral cultivation,virtue,human-heartedness and righteousness.Chuanshan inherited and continued the Song Confucians tradition of denunciation of heterodoxy,but also integrated middle-late Ming period intellectual concerns and changes to the prevailing political and social order into this tradition.This informed his attempted integration of Heavenly virtue with the way of kingliness into a single system of thought.Based on the logic of his “Heavenly dao—accumulated virtue—kingly dao” theoretical construct,he provided an answer to the question of“the necessity of intrinsic virtue”,showing the reasons for the realisation of “virtue cultivation and dao” in learning and self-cultivation gongfu.This effected a return to the Confucians tradition’s emphasis on virtue as the prerequisite for effective governance,making possible a method of governance based on the realisation of a kingly dao.Chuanshan’s criticisms of heterodox classical Chinese thought,in fact,included a process of “identifying imperfections”,because he held that imperfections in Confucians behaviour and thought were the result of having been sullied by such heterodox influences.Precisely in the process of criticising and identifying such imperfections was “virtuous nature” and “the way of governance” to be integrated and unified,resulting finally in the construction of a theoretical system with inner sageliness as its root and outer kingliness as its manifest form.