Zhang Taiyan on Neo-Confucianism: A Review with a Focus on theDifference between the Cheng–Zhu and Lu–Wang Schools

Zhang Tianjie

Abstract： Zhang Taiyans academic career can be divided into two periods. In his early years he seldom discussed the Neo-Confucianism of the Song and Ming dynasties， about which he rarely gave positive comments， owing perhaps to his educational background in Old Text classical studies and the influence of Buddhism and Daoism. In his later years， however， he made a relatively more positive assessment of the Neo-Confucians， including the Cheng brothers， Zhu Xi， and Wang Yangming. Regarding the divergences between the Cheng–Zhu and Lu–Wang schools， he seemed to be in favor of Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming， approving of Wangs Final Conclusions of Zhu Xi in His Twilight Years， endorsing the Old Text of the Great Learning， and criticizing Cheng Yi and Zhu Xis theories of gewu and xinmin in their exegesis. Nonetheless， he never let this factional difference interfere with his academic pursuits. His attempt to reconstruct the “New Four Books” system， his arguments on the difference between Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming， and his own interpretation of the Great Learning， all point to “self-cultivation and personal discipline” during a national crisis.

Keywords： Zhang Taiyan， Zhu Xi studies， Yangming studies， comparison between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan， views on Confucianism

Zhang Taiyan 章太炎 （1869–1936） began his academic career as an Old Text classicist， turned to Buddhism， then to Western learning， and founded his own philosophy of qiwu 齊物 （equality of things） by integrating his previous study with Zhuangzis Daoist doctrines. It was not until after the Revolution of 1911 that he began to accept Confucianism in part. In his later years， he advocated the study of Chinese classics and history， marking his reappraisal of Confucianism， and it was true as well for his acquaintance with Neo-Confucianism. He himself admitted that his scholarly career began with a conversion from embracing the secular to seeking classic elegance， and then turned back from classic elegance to secular concerns.

In his “A Self-Account of Scholastic Sequence” [自述學(xué)術(shù)次第]， Zhang Taiyan said that he was only at the initial phase of rediscovering Confucianism. After some new interpretive efforts with “On the Equality of Things” [齊物論]， he concluded that Buddhism could not address real social and political problems for all its lofty insights， and therefore the Daoism of Laozi and Zhuangzi was in need of explanation in a new light. It was also necessary to “combine it with the Neo-Confucianism of the Song Dynasty，” though it was entirely incompatible with Buddhist ideas. For the most part， he studied Neo-Confucianism from the perspective of Daoism， and using this view he gave fairly positive views of the Cheng brothers， namely， Cheng Hao 程顥 （1032–1085） and Cheng Yi 程頤 （1033–1107）， but hardly any to either Zhu Xi 朱熹 （1130–1200） or Lu Jiuyuan 陸九淵 （1139–1193）. The merits of the two Chengs， in his view， were that their doctrines were applicable to social politics if adopted in combination with the new thought from Dai Zhen 戴震 （1724–1777）， who deemed the personal integrity of Boyi 伯夷 （fl. 1046 BCE） and Liuxia Hui 柳下惠 （720–621 BCE） to be a necessary part of Song Neo-Confucianism.

In his “Germinating Words of Zhang Taiyan” [菿漢微言] of 1916， Zhang Taiyan gave a sketch of his evolving path of thought， which he divided into three stages： At first， he began reading the Buddhist canon after studying the classics in his youth. By comparing them， he believed that “Buddhism dwarfed the philosophies of pre-Qin masters， not to mention the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi.” Next， when he studied Zhuangzi and his doctrine of the “equality of things” while experimenting with the hexagram images in the Book of Changes， he began a stage consisting of the intellectual effort to “prove Confuciuss ideas with those of Zhuangzi，” but he nevertheless insisted on the impression that Neo-Confucians like “the two Chengs， Zhu Xi， Lu Jiuyuan， and Wang Yangming， could hardly be expected to undertake important tasks.” Finally， he managed to build coherence in their philosophies after a profound study of Buddhism and the Zhuangzi， and then he was better prepared to assess， and to adopt for application， Song–Ming Neo-Confucian doctrines. By now he began to view Cheng Hao， Cheng Yi， Zhu Xi， and Wang Yangming 王陽(yáng)明 （1472–1528） as peers to Wei–Jin Dark Learning scholars like Wang Bi 王弼 （226–249） and Cai Mo 蔡謨 （281–356）. Though they were unequal to the latter group in terms of conceptual accuracy or analytical precision， the Neo-Confucian philosophies were as useful as Dark Learning in their times. Moreover， some Confucians were more inclined to Dark Learning while others were practical; some preferred to sit in still meditation while some were actively diligent in reverence. In both ways， nevertheless， they could attain their goal to “clear the heart-mind，” to “benefit external things” and “expel internal distress.” In his opinion， it was not necessary to be entangled in the disputes between Han Learning and Song Learning. He held this scholarly stance throughout his life.

It can be deduced， by aid of the two pieces of his autobiographical sketch， that Zhang Taiyan began to study Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism after establishing his own philosophical system. In the meantime， he had made considerable distinctions between the Cheng–Zhu and Lu–Wang schools before he could offer new ideas to reconstruct Confucianism in his own day.

Zhangs Early Views on Neo-Confucianism

[Refer to page 36 for Chinese. Similarly hereinafter]

There are only a few of his publications on Neo-Confucianism during his early years of scholarship. His article “On the Learning of the Hundred Schools” [論諸子學(xué)] was a representative work that gives a summary account of Confucianism. Zhang Taiyan was vehemently opposed to the exclusive role of Confucianism as orthodoxy during the Han （206 BCE–CE 220） and Ming dynasties， when Confucius and Zhu Xi were respectively assigned the role of state-sanctioned ideology. Owing to obligatory reverence to Confucius and Zhu Xi， intellectuals were inclined to meddle with and stretch the masters， so that scholarship in the later periods fell into confusion and mixed-up conglomerations， which in his view were more problematic than their fragmentation or disjunction. To put it simply， not only was establishing Confucius as the sole idol of worship the root of decay， but the excessive exaltation of Zhu Xi during the Ming and Qing dynasties brought worse consequences. In spite of efforts by Wang Yangming and Sun Qifeng 孫奇逢 （1584–1675） to counteract this trend， the malady of mechanical application was far beyond cure. His views sound somewhat radical， but they proved to have some worth.

In 1910， Zhang Taiyan published a collection of his speeches under the title of “The Fundamental Value of Education should Be Sought in Our Own Country and Our Own Heart” [論教育的根本要從自國(guó)自心發(fā)出來]， a critique of Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism. In contrast to Chen Yinke 陳寅恪 （1890–1969） and other pro-tradition intellectuals， Zhang Taiyan did not give high regard to the culture of the Song dynasty as a whole. When appraising the evidential researchers （textual criticism） and advocates of statecraft （for governing the world）， for example， he gave his highest appraisal to Wang Yinglin 王應(yīng)麟 （1223–1296） from the evidential research school， but said that “he could not grasp the whole body，” for he had not established himself in classical studies. Chen Liang 陳亮 （1143–1194） and Ma Duanlin 馬端臨 （1254–1323） of the statecraft school were more practical， while others more or less succumbed to impracticality. Their vulnerability lies in their lack of true reflection on history and their utterly impractical treatment of real issues. As for historians， he gave a fairly good judgment on Sima Guang 司馬光 （1019–1086）， who knew the art of calligraphy. Within textual criticism， he commended Song Qi 宋祁 （998–1061）， who is credited with pioneering a path for later scholars， but was insufficient in philology to be a great master.

From these observations we can see that Zhang Taiyan assessed scholars based on the criterion of their classical and philological training. If they were not versed in the classics and history， or lacked elementary training in philology， they could not possibly do well in evidential research or statecraft. Therefore， he was basically standing with the Old Text classicist school. With respect to the Neo-Confucian theory of principle， he gave better scores to Song Neo-Confucian scholars than to those of evidential research and statecraft. From his Buddhist and Dark Learning perspective， Zhang Taiyan thought that the Neo-Confucians could “comparably attain to the scholarship” of Wei and Jin （220–420）， but generally not in matters of ritual understanding or observation. This accusation of their failings in ritual learning， actually， was a corollary from his standpoint as an Old Text scholar. Of all the Song philosophers， only Yang Jian 楊簡(jiǎn) （1141–1226） was exempted from this judgment. On the positive side， he gave recognition to Song Neo-Confucians because， fortunately， “their doctrines are derived from Chan Buddhism.” The Cheng brothers， Zhu Xi， and Lu Jiuyuan， who had some background in Buddhist studies， also won his appreciation. In contrast， Shao Yong 邵雍 （1011–1077）， who favored Daoism but kept his distance from Buddhism， was regarded by Zhang as a demonist. Zhang Taiyan gave a much lower rating to Ming Neo-Confucians on the same grounds of their performance in textual criticism and philological approaches. Except Wang Yangming， all the others were rated as dustbins that “received the leftovers of Song Confucians.” And only by the time of Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 （1613–1682） could Ming scholarship draw the attention of the critical eyes of Zhang Taiyan.

In summary， Zhang Taiyan in his early stage of scholarship did not give much discussion to Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism， and his comments were haphazard， pointing in different directions in his different works. By and large he based his judgment on the evidential research of the classics， philological examination， and on his own stance of Buddhism and Dark Learning. He was particularly opposed to the fashion of scholarship for compromise and unscrupulous analogy， which is evident in his disparaging remark on Wang Yangmings Final Conclusions of Zhu Xi in His Twilight Years [朱子晚年定論]， which attempted to reconcile Zhu Xi with Lu Jiuyuans opposition. He appreciated the efforts by Cheng Hao， Cheng Yi， Zhu Xi， and Lu Jiuyuan for their absorption of Buddhist ideas with the aim of transforming them into a Confucian learning of the mind and nature. He rated their scholarship as comparable to that of Wei–Jin Dark Learning scholars but disapproved of Zhu Xis canonization as state orthodoxy.

Zhangs Later Views on Neo-Confucianism [38]

In 1915， Zhang Taiyan revised his Writings under Pressure [訄書] and published it as Selected Reviews [檢論] after making some amendments. In the meantime he revised the Discussions of Chinese National Learning [國(guó)故論衡]， as well as performing the whole task of compiling his Book Series of Zhang Taiyan [章氏叢書]. These works represented his retrospective review and conclusive summing-up of his life-long academic career. And it was a sign that his academic attainment had basically taken shape. Therefore， if we discuss his view of Song–Ming Neo-Confucians during his later period of academic life， we should take a look at his Selected Reviews first of all， and then his correspondence with his students， and many of his speeches in the following years.

The Selected Reviews gave more favorable comments to Wang Yangming as well as Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi. In the article “Understanding the Two Chengs” [通程]， an addition to the book， Zhang Taiyan continued to look into Neo-Confucian learning from the perspective of Wei–Jin Dark Learning approaches. He commended the two Chengs as “being good at reviewing，” remarking that Zhu Xis Min school and Lü Zuqians 呂祖謙 （1137–1181） Wu school， though each holding different tenets， were both grounded in the work of the two Chengs. His favor toward the Cheng brothers was obvious. These views in many ways bear resemblance to He Bingsongs 何炳松 （1890–1946） observation in his Tracing the Academic Origins of the East Zhejiang School [浙東學(xué)派溯源].

Zhang Taiyan regarded the two Chengs as “both excelling and failing” in comparison with Mencius and Xunzi. In other words， they excelled the masters in some ways but fell short of them in other respects. When he criticized the two Chengs for “mixing up Buddhism and Daoism，” he expressed his disappointment in two senses. In the first sense， the Cheng brothers did not have a deep understanding of either Buddhism or Daoism， but only found coincidental agreement with them “in implicit ways.” In the second sense， with their degree of acquaintance with Buddhism and Daoism， the two Chengs were actually more akin to the ideas of Laozi and Zhuangzi， though they did not fathom the profundity of Daoism. In contrast， they were far removed from the essentials of Buddhism.

Zhang Taiyan gave a much higher evaluation to Cheng Haos Book on the Fixation of Nature [定性書]， for it “had an extensive aim but was realistically applicable.” Among its commendable points， the idea of “l(fā)etting the self be so” is closer to Laozi and Zhuangzi than to the Buddhists. Its idea of the “determination of mind both in activity and in tranquility” sounds like the Buddhist ekavyuha samadhi， a samadhi of perfect unity of body and mind in all activities， but it also shows an intimacy with Laozi and Zhuangzis ideas. For instance， Laozi said that， different from seeking learning for knowledge， devotion to the Way “seeks from day to day to diminish” and that “the sage has no invariable mind of his own; he makes the mind of the people his mind.” These were taken to be a major resource in the Book on the Fixation of Nature.

Comparing the “Comments on Wang Yangming” [議王] chapter in his Selected Reviews and the “Learning of Wang Yangming” [王學(xué)]， from which the chapter in the Writings under Pressure was adapted， there was a great difference in his wording in the versions. Although he did not give his full approval to Wang Yangmings military exploits， he recognized that “Wang began learning military affairs in his youth and showed exceptional talent， which contributed to half of his credit in scholarship.” Zhang thought that Wangs practical abilities came from both his talent and learning. By now he began to take a different view of Wangs idea of the unity of knowledge and practice. Though he insisted on the difference between knowing and doing in their temporal sequence， he gave his consent to the “l(fā)ogical justification” of the assertion of the unity of knowledge and practice. It was helpful in guiding people to gain access to true learning. In contrast to the Cheng–Zhu schools theory of the “investigation of the principles of all things that we come into contact with，” which according to him “makes observational perception but not real knowing，” Wangs theory on the unity of knowledge and practice was “keenly practical” and not “remotely metaphysical.”

In fact， Zhang Taiyan already discussed the relationship between Song–Ming Neo-Confucians and the doctrines of Confucianism and Buddhism in his letters to Wu Chengshi 吳承仕 （1884–1939） and Huang Kan 黃侃 （1886–1935）. There are three key points in his views that deserve our attention. First， Zhang Taiyan gave a special commendation to six Song–Ming Neo-Confucians： Cheng Hao， Xie Liangzuo 謝良佐 （1050–1103）， Lu Jiuyuan， Yang Jian， Chen Xianzhang 陳獻(xiàn)章 （1428–1500）， and Wang Yangming， saying that they were distinctive in their respective fields but free from the malady of rigidly interpreting the classics. Among Wang Yangmings disciples， Zhang Taiyan spoke highly of those in Jiangxi， particularly Wang Shihuai 王時(shí)槐 （1522–1605）. Second， the greater masters of Neo-Confucianism， such as Zhu Xi， Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 （1017–1073）， Zhang Zai 張載 （1020–1077）， and Shao Yong， were mostly known for their cultivation of the mind–nature rather than their attainment in Buddhism， and so they were not to be recommended. Third， though Zhang Taiyan believed Confucianism to be inferior to Buddhism in many ways， he was opposed to proposals to “depose the Confucian Learning of Principle in favor of the exclusive worship of Buddhism，” as the Buddhist doctrines were too simplistic in comparison with Confucian solutions that were both specifically and systematically able to address the socio-political problems of China. Therefore， it was necessary to endorse the merits of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan for the moral education they brought to the human world.

In his “Germinating Words of Zhang Taiyan，” Zhang Taiyan added some explanations on the relationship between Buddhist learning at the time and Song–Ming Neo-Confucians. First， Zhang held that Lu Jiuyuan， Yang Jian， and Wang Yangming were more knowledgeable than Cheng Hao and Chen Xianzhang. However， in terms of deriving ideas from Buddhist doctrines， they were less productive than the latter two. As for Zhu Xi， who blended the deva vehicle with the human vehicle and the heretics， he was far inferior in terms of Buddhist understanding. As for the others， like Zhou Dunyi， Shao Yong， and Zhang Zai， their interpretations of Buddhism were all from heretical， non-orthodox sources. Second， from the perspective of Chan Buddhism， Zhang Taiyan held that Zhu Xi， who had been brought up in Fujian under the influence of Lü Huiqing 呂惠卿 （1032–1112）， Cai Jing 蔡京 （1047–1126）， and the New Learning of Wang Anshi 王安石 （1021–1086）， was apt to explain the classics according to his own intentions， in spite of his emphasis on etymological training for the discipline. He also agreed with Jiao Hong 焦竑 （1541–1620）， who thought that Zhu Xi did not gave faithful representations of the general tenets of his predecessors， the credit due to Cheng Hao， Zhang Zai， Yang Shi 楊時(shí) （1053–1135）， and Xie Liangzuo. “When he saw the brilliance of their understanding or their words of ingenuity， he would credit these to Chan Buddhism， but he feared recognizing any of their words as their own insights.” Zhu Xis dichotomy between Heavenly principles and human desires made him incapable of “turning the mind of the common people into his own mind.” This last accusation， however， can hardly stand.

On the Difference between the Cheng–Zhu and Lu–Wang Schools [41]

In his speeches of his later period， Zhang Taiyan often discussed the different characters of Neo-Confucians from the Cheng–Zhu and Lu–Wang schools in order to demonstrate his arguments on the merits and demerits of Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism. One of the focal issues for Zhang Taiyan in the distinction between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan involves Wang Yangmings Final Conclusions of Zhu Xi in His Twilight Years， which became a subject of public debate at the time. Concerning the variation of Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan between their early and later doctrines， Zhang Taiyan was in agreement with Wang Yangming and endorsed the philosophers of the heart-mind. He was critical of Zhu Xis doctrine， however， because of its fragmentation and emphasis on reading and eloquence for argument. Concerning the debates between the Cheng–Zhu and Lu–Wang schools， Zhang Taiyan criticized three aspects of Zhu Xis commentary on the Great Learning. First he criticized Zhu Xis textual modification of the Great Learning. The second criticism of Zhu Xi was targeted at his explanation of gewu 格物 （investigation of things）， and a third target of fire was his explanation of xinmin 新民 （innovation of the people） in his exegesis of the Great Learning.

There had been debates on the Great Learning concerning the ancient version and the reordered version. Though it had been a long-standing controversy， the issue rose to academic prominence when Wang Yangming declared his stance. Wang Yangming chose to restore the ancient version to spread his views about innate moral knowledge in his Annotations on the Ancient Version of the Great Learning [古本大學(xué)旁釋]. Zhang Taiyan， who gave full recognition to the ancient version， endorsed Wangs restoration efforts. He held the view that actually there were no misarranged bamboo slips that bore the text of the Great Learning， and so it should be read as appeared in the original text of the ancient version. Furthermore， the ancient version involves two other problems： with Zhu Xis interpretation of the two terms gewu and xinmin. Zhang Taiyan rejected master Zhus view in his “Supplementary Commentary on Investigating Things and Extending Knowledge” [格物致知補(bǔ)傳]， as well as his exegesis by xinmin instead of qinmin 親民 （care for the people）. Thereafter， he made his own interpretation of the text on the basis of Wang Yangming and later scholars of the Yangming school. Zhang Taiyan supported Wang Yangming mainly because Wang had “broken” the monopoly of Zhu Xis orthodoxy of so many years， but with regard to specific issues his ideas were considerably different from Wangs. In other words， he was attempting to establish his own doctrine by lending support to Wang Yangmings. This was due to his educational background as a classicist.

In his opinion， the concept gewu in the Great Learning， on which the two Chengs and Zhu Xi founded their theory of the “investigation of the principles of all things that we come into contact with，” proposes to study the physical principles of the natural world， and so it is closer to the modern science of physics in the Western countries. Such a reading of the Great Learning was what Zhang Taiyan vehemently opposed. As he later explained， some scholars that embraced the “New Learning” of the West extended Zhu Xis conception of gewu to promote western science， claiming that “moral principles that do not conform to science are not moral.” This interpretation of gewu would undermine traditional values， and that was why he had to criticize Zhu Xis version of gewu. Again， in his “On the Learning of Principle That Fits Todays World” [適宜今日之理學(xué)]， Zhang Taiyan said that the real problem with Zhu Xis doctrine on gewu is that it fails to combine knowing with doing. The neglect of personal practice led him to his erroneous understanding of gewu. According to Zhang Taiyan， the prototypical Confucianism from Confucius and Mencius only talked of human affairs but rarely touched on matters of “illuminating the mind and nature.” They were more like Western disciplines of logic and speculative metaphysics， which seldom attempted at “exhaustive inquiries into the natural world，” such as the natural sciences that “seek the origin of the universe and roots of the myriad things.” Zhang Taiyan was not so much opposed to Western science as to Chinese pseudo-science like Zhu Xis gewu doctrine. Though he agreed that moral requirements for ritual and social custom should abide by rules of science， as a conservative personality who consistently guarded traditional values， Zhang Taiyan did not give much advocacy to a modern science that requires scholars to know “both astrology and geography.” To him， that would lead them to “play with novel ideas at the cost of moral principles.” It would encourage one to seek versatility in multiple domains rather than self-cultivation and the education of others. It would be as futile and harmful as empty talk about nature and heaven， and would put at risk the body of Chinese culture if its ritual system were forsaken altogether.

As to disputes about “renovating the people” or “l(fā)oving the people” in the Great Learning， Zhu Xi in his version gave his annotation as “renovating the people” in place of “l(fā)oving the people” as proposed by Cheng Yi. Though he might have the support of etymological clues， such an interpretation had been rarely made before him or the Song dynasty. With contextual evidence from inside the Great Learning， however， some evidence could be read in support of the former and some in support of the latter interpretation. Zhang Taiyan would not approve of Cheng Yi or Zhu Xis reasoning. The only word that may be understood as “renovating” from the “Basin Inscription of Tang” [湯盤] citation actually means “cleansing ones body， hair， and skin，” and “renewing its mandate of Heaven，” neither of which has any logical relationship to the phrase “l(fā)oving/renovating the people.” Therefore， it could not constitute enough evidence to alter the wording of the classic text. More importantly， if the word was interpreted as “renovating the people，” the corollary would be to make the people into obedient subjects. Could it be thus deduced that the Three Cardinal Guides of the Great Learning should “compel people of other nations to be subjects of ones own country？” This retort was a forceful refutation in addition to his arguments against Zhu Xi. Similar views could found in his “Reading Notes of Zhang Taiyan” [菿漢昌言]. Neither the Cheng brothers nor Zhu Xi would have advocated novel thoughts among the people， and though they proposed the notion of “renovating the people，” they never put it into practice. That fact， from another perspective， shows that the “renovating” version of their Great Learning does not conform to their doctrine of “cultivating oneself and educating others” and hence is irrelevant to the original spirit of the Great Learning. That is why Zhang Taiyan credited Wang Yangming with greatness for posterity because of his “l(fā)oving the people” interpretation of the Great Learning.

Any Factional Bias？ [47]

With respect to his appraisals of the Cheng–Zhu and Lu–Wang schools， Zhang Taiyan appeared to be siding with the latter， but that is not the truth. In the passages cited above we could find many observations from him that contain both approving and disapproving comments on the specific assertions of the two schools. For example， in “Understanding the Two Chengs” and “Comments on Wang Yangming，” in the Selected Reviews， he made mild criticisms of each of them in spite of approving of them for the most part. Concerning their study of Buddhism， he gave more praise to Cheng Hao， Lu Jiuyuan， and Wang Yangming than to Zhu Xi. Evidently he made no distinction between the philosophers of principle and of mind when he examined their doctrines. Except for the three controversies on the Great Learning， Zhang Taiyan showed no sign of siding with the Lu–Wang school of Neo-Confucians， and sectarianism is out of the question. Zhang Taiyan was aware of sectarianism behind the disagreements among Neo-Confucian scholars. Zhang Taiyan noted that there had been countless disagreements among Confucian scholars during both the Song and Ming dynasties. For example， even Zhu Xi had at first found agreement with Lü Zuqian but finally parted with him; the same thing happened to Wang Yangming and Zhan Ruoshui 湛若水 （1466–1560）. They became opposed to each other when understanding concepts like intuitive moral knowledge and principle of Heaven， as a consequence of which they parted ways. The same fate befell Wang Yangmings disciples， as well as Liu Zongzhou 劉宗周 （1578–1645）， Gao Panlong 高攀龍 （1562–1626）， and others. Their differences or disagreements occurred on their metaphysical discussions of heaven and nature only， but on fundamental issues they were pursuing the same Way of Confucian self-establishment pioneered by Confucius and Mencius. In other words， their methods for moral self-cultivation and discipline allowed for an extremely wide disparity， but the goal of their self-cultivation and personal discipline was the same all the while.

Zhang Taiyan went on to say that since Confucianism itself “aimed to cultivate the self and educate others，” and now that we promote education to salvage the nation， we should make clear the goal of cultivating the self and educating others， rather than talking of heaven and nature. Therefore， he found a new meaning in rectifying names： it could be used to remove the biased favoritism left by the Song–Ming Neo-Confucians. Regardless of their academic backgrounds， whether scholars from the Donglin school， or followers of Liu Zongzhou， Zhu Xi or Wang Yangming， they could achieve much better effects in both educational and practical terms if they aimed to enlighten people from the angle of self-cultivation and personal discipline.

Conclusion [48]

The fact is that， throughout his academic life， Zhang Taiyan followed an open path of multiple pursuits without any restraint from specific schools or traditions. He was neither concerned with the debates between Han Learning and Song Learning， nor with that between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan. In many speeches and lectures during his later period he endeavored to find a connection between the essentials of Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism and those of traditional Confucianism. That is why he sought to build a “New Four Books” Confucian system for personal cultivation based on the Great Learning， the Classic of Filial Piety， the Conduct of the Scholar [儒行]， and the Dress of Mourning [喪服]. However， among those Song， Ming， and Qing Confucians he recommended for this lineage of Confucian tradition there was no inclusion of the Cheng brothers， Zhu Xi， Lu Jiuyuan， or Wang Yangming. Instead， he admitted Fan Zhongyan 范仲淹 （989–1052）， Hu Yuan 胡瑗 （993–1059）， Xue Jixuan 薛季宣 （1134–1173）， Chen Fuliang 陳傅良 （1137–1203）， Ye Shi 葉適 （1150–1223）， and Lü Zuqian， among the Song Confucians， together with Wu Yubi 吳與弼 （1391–1469） and Luo Lun 羅倫 （1431–1478） of the Ming dynasty， Gu Yanwu， Lu Shiyi 陸世儀 （1611–1672）， Yan Yuan 顏元 （1635–1704） of the early Qing， and Dai Zhen of the mid–Qing dynasty. After all， their down-to-earth theory of self-cultivation and educating others fulfilled the needs of Zhangs time. In other words， when facing the imminent national crisis before the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression （1931–1945）， it was indeed unfit to air metaphysical discussions of human nature and mind. Therefore， it can be concluded that Zhang Taiyans comments on Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism served the topical interests of his day.

Translated by Wang Keyou