Neo-Confucianism of the Song Dynasty: continuity and philosophical differences with the Analects

Neo-Confucianism

Transmission Received:

Tracing the Confucian Roots of Neo-Confucianism

In the Analects, Confucius says "One who reanimates the old so as to understand the new may become a teacher" (47). Over fifteen hundred years after Confucius died, Zhu Xi took up the call of this statement, and turned to the sages of the past in an effort to forge a philosophy relevant to his own times. The result was not a new philosophy, but an unpacking and retooling of wisdom from a by-gone millennium. If one looks at the Analects and Zhu Xi's Mean by Chapter and Phrase side by side, the heritage is clear.

Perhaps the most fundamental tenet that Confucius and Zhu Xi share is the very belief that prompted Zhu Xi to turn to his predecessors for wisdom: the idea of the Way as a transmission, not an invention. Confucius puts this in no uncertain terms: "I transmit but do not create" (50). Zhu Xi is not as direct, but his use of the term "transmission" in his discussion of the history of the Way makes it clear that he too regards the Way as an eternal constant that has been accessed and translated at various times in the past, but not reinvented or fundamentally changed. He labels this tradition as "the transmission of the Succession of the Way" (732).

This is not to say that Zhu Xi regards this transmission that he has inherited as pure or unchanged. He acknowledges that, though the Succession of the Way was painstakingly preserved and edified by Zisi and Mencius, the practice of the tradition fell away, briefly resurrected by the Cheng brothers before sinking again into obscurity. His task of resurrecting these principles, then, involves much interpretation and perhaps even guesswork on his part. Some may say that the enormous expanse of time that Zhu Xi is attempting to bridge, combined with the broken and wayward path of the transmission itself, dooms Zhu Xi to essentially inventing a new philosophy despite his sincere intentions of resurrecting an old one. A more thorough comparison of the principles, however, proves that Zhu Xi did in fact receive the transmission in relatively intact form, despite the difficulties.

In the Mean, Zhu Xi breaks in mind into two parts, the human mind and the mind of the Way. A consciousness rooted in the human mind "springs from the self-centeredness of one's individual physical form," while consciousness rooted in the mind of the Way "[has] its source in the correctness of one's innate nature and moral imperative" (733). While Confucius did not make this split in human consciousness as explicit as Zhu Xi does, it is often implied in his discussions of humaneness.

It is possible in Confucian philosophy to be "human yet not humane" (48), indicating that, like Zhu Xi after him, Confucius saw two elements at work in human nature, one focused on the self and one focused on others. Confucius's prescription for becoming humane involves turning away from the human self-interest, putting the needs of others above himself and devoting himself to service and love (50). Though Confucius admits that this process is difficult, and that very few have managed to practice humaneness wholeheartedly for more than a day (50), every human being has the capacity for humaneness in him as a part of his very nature. Confucius reiterates this when he asks "Is humaneness far away? If I want to be humane, then humaneness is here" (52).

Zhu Xi also attributes this duality to every human being, from the wisest to the least intelligent (733). In fact, he takes the intrinsic presence of the mind of the Way even further than Confucius did in his idea of humaneness. In Confucianism, the capacity for humaneness in everyone does not mean that humaneness is actually present in everyone. But for Zhu Xi, the mind of the Way exists concretely in every human being, and its apparent lack is only an internal imbalance between the human mind and the mind of the Way.

This difference sheds light on the centrality of achieving the Mean in Neo-Confucianism -- a centrality that seems to be missing in Confucianism itself. It could be argued that this distinction qualifies Neo-Confucianism as a separate philosophy altogether, but the difference is merely an extension of principle, not a break in principle. The shared root of both traditions is clear if one looks at the manner in which the Way is achieved and practiced by both Confucius and Zhu Xi.

For Confucius, the presence of humaneness can be identified by a person's approach to ritual, learning, and governing. The humane man carries out ritual according to the spirit of the rite more than the form: "In mourning, it is better to express grief than to emphasize formalities" (48). He approaches learning with humility, acknowledging what is unknown, turning to past sages for wisdom, and carefully adding his own thoughts to what has been learned (47). In governing, he organizes those beneath him simply by applying the standards of humaneness, loyalty and reciprocity, to himself and his ministers (49).