Kitabı oku: «Handbook of the History of Religions in China II», sayfa 9

(F) Qisong, Zhiyuan and the growing fusion of Buddhism and Confucianism

Overall, Song was a feudal dynasty that embraced highly centralized political, economic and military systems. Correspondingly, the nature of Song culture was being increasingly unified rather than remaining pluralistic. In the case of Buddhism, which was introduced to China in Han dynasty, it incessantly attempted to blend in with the traditional Chinese culture and finally was completely Sinicized in Tang. As the reign of Song commenced, Buddhism tried to intellectually integrate itself into Confucianism. In the Song dynasties the fusion of Confucianism and Buddhism, and the Confucian complementarity to Buddhism, had already been the general trend. At that time there were many Confucianism- and Buddhism-drenched eminent monks, among whom Qisong and Zhiyuan were among the most reputable ones.

Qisong 契嵩, whose secular surname was Li and courtesy name Zhongling, was born in 1007 in Xinjin of Teng Prefecture (present-day Teng County of Guangxi). He attained the monkhood at a very early age. Qisong received the complete ordination when he was 14 years old. He studied Buddhism under the instruction of Xiaocong, a Yunmen patriarch living in Rui Prefecture (present-day Gao’an of Jiangxi). Qisong grasped his master’s teaching. In the Qingli reign, he “went to the region of Wu and visited Qiantang, where he enjoyed greatly the beautiful lakes and mountains.” He decided to stay there and devote himself to writing. Qisong was the author of numerous books such as: Fujiao bian辅教编 (Compilations in support of orthodox teaching); Chuanfa zhengzong lun传法正宗论 (Treatise on disseminating the dharma and orthodoxizing the sect); and Chuanfa dingzu tu传法定祖图 (Diagram in the service of disseminating the dharma and positioning the patriarchs). “[He] wrote more than 100 volumes and the number of words in his works were more than 600,000 in total.”51 In order to have his works recognized by the Imperial court and consequently included into Dazang, or the entire collection of Buddhist writings, Qisong visited the Imperial city with his books in the sixth year of Jiayou (1067). Thanks very much to the help from Wang Su, who was the Imperial capital’s leading officer, Qisong received the Emperor Ren’s compliments. “[The Emperor] asked the Academy of Disseminating [Buddhist] Teachings to categorize [Qisong’s] works into the Great Collection. In doing so, the Emperor showed his appreciation of Qisong’s effort.” Additionally, Qisong even received the prestigious title of “Illuminating Teaching.” As a result, Qisong became very famous in the country. Despite his growing reputation, Qisong declined the Emperor’s sincere invitation and chose to live in seclusion in the Temple of Lingyin (Secluded Soul), where he spent his remaining years. Qisong passed away in Hangzhou in 1072.

From the perspective of Buddhist development Qisong made three significant contributions. First, he textually (re-)examined and ascertained the lineage that consisted of “28 [Zen] patriarchs in the West” by means of writing the Chuanfa zhengzong lun and Chuanfa dingzu tu. His works were widely regarded as the final conclusion with regards to the succession of Zen patriarchs. The “28 patriarchs in the West” were, however, created by Chinese Zen monks with an eye on mythologizing their own teachings. What Qisong did was merely to create a more convincing unity of mythology and history. Second, Qisong adapted the Platform Sutra so well that the number of words in the scripture increased sharply from 14,000 or so to more than 20,000. As a result, the look of the most significant Zen sutra was completely changed. In Qisong’s reconstruction work, many annotations were tuned into “original” texts. The adapted edition was precisely Liuzu dashi fabao Tan Jing caoxi yuanben六祖大师法宝坛经曹溪原本 (The original Caoxi edition of Platform Sutra, or the precious dharma of Sixth Patriarch). At that time many applauded his reconstruction effort. But at present many in the academia criticized what he did to the original Platform Sutra. Third, Qisong greatly promoted the syncretism of Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism. It is particularly worth mentioning that he theoretically proved the consistency between Buddhism and Confucianism.

In spite of the lack of substantive large-scale anti-Buddhist movements, the majority of Chinese scholar-officials in Song dynasties were always theoretically against Buddhism. In Qisong’s time, leading intellectuals such as Fan Zhongyan, Fu Bi, Wen Yanbo, Han Qi and Ouyang Xiu, all of whom played very significant roles in the politics, were more or less anti-Buddhist. Chen Shunyu, who wrote the biography dedicated to Qisong, describes the true situation at the time:

Then, the scholar-officials all over the country indulged in ancient texts, embodying in their adoration of Han Tuizhi (i.e. Han Yu 韩愈), a rejecter of Buddha and admirer of Confucius. … [Under the circumstances,] Zhongling [i.e. Qisong] lived in seclusion and devotedly wrote a dozen of treatises such as “Yuanjiao” (Exploring the most primordial teaching) and “Xiaolun” (On the filial piety), in which he shed light on the penetrating unity applicable to both Confucianism and Buddhism. In doing so, Qisong counterpunched against the prevalent intellectual disparagement of Buddhism. Being exposed to Qisong’s treatises, the scholar-officials loved his writings so much; but meanwhile, they also feared that he was too theoretically powerful to be contended. Therefore, they chose to be friends with Qisong.52

Other historical records attested to the authenticity of Chen’s assertion. It was true that the towering Confucians such as Han Qi, Ouyang Xiu and Su Shi softened, to some degree, their anti-Buddhist stance and befriended Qisong after reading thoroughly the monk’s works.

Qisong upscaled the fusion of Confucianism and Buddhism. Unlike past Buddhists, who simplistically attempted to verify the consistency of the two teachings by means of finding textual similarities, he resorted to the nature-mind discourses and created a theoretical tie binding together Confucianism and Buddhism. As a Zen master, Qisong held fast to the principle that “the mind produces the myriad dharmas.” He said,

How great and extensive the mind is! It is more profound than all supernatural beings and more bright than the sun and the moon. It is so extensive that it can embrace entire Heaven and earth and so subtle that it can penetrate the slightest dust.”53

As an explanation, the mind is the origin of entire universe; moreover, it is of “originally enlightening” nature and serves as the ultimate criterion by which the Buddhist and secular moralities were created. Qisong writes, “The mind in the context of Platform Sutra refers to both the awakening doctrine and the enlightenment of true thusness.”54 In this sense, the sages of the three great teachings and various intellectual schools created their theories from the mind. “In ancient times there were sages such as Buddha, Confucius and intellectual gurus, among whom they were identical with each other in terms of the mind and meanwhile they differed from each other in the light of the actual practice,” explains Qisong in “Guang yuanjiao” of Fujiao bian. In view of this, the differences among sages lie merely in their varying interpretations of the same mind. To put it another way, they all arrive at the same end by different means. On the basis of such theoretical elaborations, Qisong launched an overall fusion of Buddhist precepts and Confucian principles:

[According to Buddhist precepts,] there are five “do-nots.” Please do not kill; please do not steal; please do not commit sexual misconduct; please do not speak falsely; and please do not drink [alcohol]. [Putting the five do-nots in the Confucian context,] the abstinence from killing is precisely an act of benevolence; from stealing, an act of righteousness; from committing sexual misconduct, an act of propriety; from drinking alcohol, an act of wisdom; and from speaking falsely, an act of trust.55

Thanks to Qisong’s intellectual efforts, the Buddhist Five Precepts were turned into the worldly cardinal principles and the Confucian Five Virtues reconstructed into prime commandments restricting the mundane. Consequently, the transient and eternal worlds were perfectly integrated.

Qisong also laid stress on filial piety. In “Mingxiao zhang 明孝章” (Expounding the filial piety) of Fujiao bian, he writes, “The filial piety is of the greatest importance among principal precepts.” The filial piety is the nucleus of Confucian ethics. It demonstrates most intensively the patriarchal nature and characteristics of Chinese society. In past contentions between Confucianism and Buddhism, filial piety was usually the battlefield where both sides argued most fiercely. In Qisong’s intellectual reconstruction, the superiority of filial piety is actually acknowledged. Buddhism in such a context made great concessions in order to cuddle up the dominant Confucian ideology. Defending his stand, Qisong argues:

The Five Precepts contain indeed the filial piety. If [the ruler] really wants to extend blessings to all under Heaven, it will be better for him to promote the most intensive filial piety. The observance of [Buddhist] precepts will be even better than the filial piety.56

Here, giving up the secular life and observing the precepts were the best methods of fulfilling filial piety. In this way, Qisong reformulated the Confucian filial piety by means of Buddhist thought. In order to show that Buddhism could play a great role in making filial piety more sacred, he tells the story of Yuan Dexiu, who transcribed the Buddhist sutra and drew Buddha’s image with his own blood in exchange of blessings that would be applied to his deceased mother:

Buddha is of ultimate nature. With the help of Confucius, people preserve the propriety and make themselves more humane; and with the help of Buddha, people broaden their vision and make their practice sacred. As a consequence, the filial piety will be much greater and more extensive.57

In the eyes of Qisong, Confucians interpreted the filial piety from the secular perspective while Buddhists were sacralizing such a Confucian morality from the perspective of perpetual deliverance. “In spite of differing from each other in terms of their origins, both will arrive at the same end,” he writes.58 Therefore, Qisong directly appeals to Emperor Ren: “sincerely [I] hope that [Your Majesty] would not interfere in the work of Confucians and Buddhists, all of whom do their job in their own ways and contribute constructively and substantially to [Your Majestic’s] rule.59” Due to Qisong’s intellectual reformulation, Confucianism and Buddhism finally join hands in the work of consolidating the order of patriarchal Chinese society.

In addition to Qisong, Gushan Zhiyuan 孤山智圆, a Tiantai patriarch, was also a great promoter of the syncretism of Confucianism and Buddhism. Zhiyuan was born in 976 A.D. in Qiantang and passed away at the age of 46. His secular surname was Xu and courtesy name was Wuchu. He called himself Master of Golden Mean. Zhiyuan became a monk at a very early age. He received full ordination when he was only eight years old. At the age of 21 he became one of the disciples of Yuanqing, and began studying the Tiantai teachings. After his Master’s death, Zhiyuan lived in Gushan (Lonely Hill) of the beautiful West Lake, where he cut himself off from the society and spent all his time and energy studying Buddhist sutras and history in the hope that the orthodoxy of Tiantai School could be reconstructed. Zhiyuan was regarded as one of “shanwai” (outside the School) Masters on the grounds that he intellectually ran counter to Zhili, who was the most popular Tiantai monk at that time. According to the “Biography of Zhiyuan” in Fozu tongji, Zhiyuan never made friends with people in power, but instead chose to lead an ascetic life. He was a diligent and productive writer, demonstrated by his 24 books that embraced 119 volumes in total.

In his works the “Confucianism-oriented” idea was the most remarkable. In the “Preface” that was written by Zhiyuan himself in Xianju bian闲居编 (Leisure writings), the Master writes, “Apart from lecturing Buddhist sutras, I like reading works of the Duke Zhou, Confucius, Master Yang and Mencius. The purpose of exposing myself to the ancient texts is to understand the orthodoxy [of various intellectual schools].” It is safe to say that Zhiyuan interprets Confucianism on the basis of his mastery of Buddhist knowledge. Teaching himself very intensely for a certain period of time, Zhiyuan theoretically discoursed the “Confucianism-oriented” idea in his twilight years. He writes:

In no way could a state be well-governed, nor could the family be peaceful, nor could the individual be safe, if there were not the teachings of Confucius. … In case the state was poorly-governed, the family was quarrelsome, and the individual was unsafe, how could the Buddhist practice be carried out?60

In the long history of conflicts between Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism, the “root-branch” contention was frequently staged. In the perspective of Buddhism and Daoism the supernatural beings are the root of human beings; but in the Confucian perspective man plays the fundamental role in the creation of supernatural beings. Obviously, Zhiyuan had the religion (Buddhism) premised on the safety of the individual, the peace of the family and good governance of the state; that is to say, the roots had already been Confucianized. Zhiyuan goes further in elaborating the relation between Confucianism and Buddhism:

The two teachings differ from each other merely in words while they are identical with each other in the light of fundamental principles. Both endeavor to moralize the people and help them make the distinction between good and evil. Inasmuch as Confucianism plays a great role in moralizing one’s own self, it shall be called the external canon; Buddhism, meanwhile, is the teaching in the service of cultivating the mind, so that it is the internal canon.61

In this sense, the two teachings were methodologically different from each other; but on the other hand, they were functionally identical with each other. The moralization of the self depends on Confucianism and the cultivation of the mind relies on Buddhism. Both are attached to the same importance and the elevation of one teaching at the cost of the other is by no means possible in Zhiyuan’s discourses. His title—Master of Golden Mean—reveals the monk’s resolution to syncretize Confucianism and Buddhism.

The syncretic efforts that had been done by Qisong and Zhiyuan embodies the general trend of Sinicizing Buddhism in Song. Since the Han dynasties, when Buddhism was brought to China, the religion embraced first the socio-functional coordination with the Chinese society; then it doctrinally intertwined itself with Confucianism and Daoism; finally, in Song the religion achieved a philosophical accommodation with the indigenous teachings. By this time Buddhism was entirely free from any cultural rejection and became an integral part of traditional Chinese culture and thought.

(G) Buddhism and Song civilization

Extending deeply and broadly to every corner of the society, Buddhism significantly influenced the growth of Song civilization.

Regarding the influence of Buddhism on Chinese literature in Song, Zen Buddhism played the leading role in Song. Some Zen methods of practice—sudden enlightenment, game of words of sharpness and so on—became the favorites of Chinese scholar-officials. As a result, the practice of writing poetry through the lens of Zen doctrine or incorporating Zen principles into poetry was even more prevalent than it was in Tang. Renowned literary figures such as Wang Anshi王安石, Su Shi苏轼, Huang Tingjian黄庭坚, Lu You 陆游and Yang Wanli 杨万里all befriended eminent monks and wrote many poems that contained Buddhist doctrines or were even directly based on Zen quotations. For example, Ti Xilin bi题西林壁 (Inscriptions on the wall of Xilin (Western Forest) Temple), one of Su Shi’s masterpieces, was a Zen poem. The poem is as follows:

Horizontally [Mount Lu] looks like a ridge; but vertically, a peak.

Far and near, high and low, it takes on different look.

The true appearance of the Mount disappears in front of us,

Because it is precisely in the Mount that we dwell.

Watching Mount Lu in the Mount is a thought-provoking metaphor, which reveals the truth that differences between the myriad things are merely the result of differing subjective observations. To put it in a Zen way, the myriad dharmas and varying causations are nothing but the Zen inspirations generated by the mind. Huai Zhongshan怀钟山, one of Wang Anshi’s poems that were written when his political reform was utterly defeated by the conservatives and he was deeply demoralized, is also a Zen poem:

I retired from the Imperial court, as I am being aged.

Mount Zhong is indiscernible because dust has had it covered.

Why should I wait until the golden millets were cooked?

I already realized the entire world is but something dreamed.

The fiasco in politics drove Wang Anshi to want to escape the world. In his eyes, life was but a dream. Everything had been emptied for the disillusioned politician.

In comparison with the Zen inspirations for poetry, the Buddhist “bianwen变文” (transformed prose) and “baojuan 宝卷” (precious roll) were strong players in the development of Chinese literature. Overall, such two types of writing provided great impetus to the shift of center of Chinese literature from the well-educated scholar-officials to the poorly-educated commoners. Bianwen is a combination of prose and verse. It refers to the recreated Buddhist stories that could either be narrated or sung. At first it was used to disseminate basic Buddhist doctrines. Later, it incorporated stories related to Chinese history as well as folk tales into its inventory. For example, there were bianwen that centered on tales of Wu Zixu, Zhang Yichao, Dong Yong, Wang Zhaojun and Mengjiangnü. Due to the simple and flowing writing and complex plots, bianwen were widespread and well-accepted in the lower echelons of the society. When the Song dynasty commenced, the rulers held that such a style of writing was vulgar and indecent. Emperor Zhen even had bianwen prohibited by an Imperial order. Against the backdrop of the Imperial court’s strict ban, bianwen, a literature combining narration and song, protectively transformed itself into baojuan, which was primarily sung by the narrators. Baojuan was principally seven- or ten-character composition in rhyme. Occasionally, it was written in the style of prose. Originally baojuan focused exclusively on stories in Buddhist sutras. For example, there were “precious rolls” devoted to the Fish-Basket Bodhisattva and the third-generation Maudgalyayana (one of the first ten disciples of Sakyamuni). As the popularity of baojuan grew, it extended to the commoners and incorporated many historical legends and folk tales. The writing of precious rolls pioneered in the work of creating drama, “tanci” (storytelling accompanied with stringed instruments) and “guci” (storytelling accompanied by drums).

Buddhism was quite influential on the arts of Song dynasty. Where sculpture and painting are concerned, the Song sculptors and painters were very good at realism. Not only were the beauty and decency displayed in their works but the character of the figure was also depicted. For example, there are colored statues that were discovered in the Grotto of Mount Maiji, the arhat sculptures in the Temple of Lingyan in Changqing, carved stones in the Flying Peak of Temple of Lingyin, and statues inscribed on Baoding Cliff of Dazu County. All of these are beautiful and display a vivid realism. The Buddhist paintings were greatly inspired by Song realism. Bodhisattvas, arhats and eminent monks in these paintings are lifelike and exquisite. Lay painters such as Li Song, Liang Kai and Jia Shigu and Buddhist artists like Muxi, Yujian and Zhongren were all renowned for their great Buddha paintings.

In Song the most remarkable demonstration of the Buddhist influence on Chinese civilization was the role that the religion played in the creation of Lixue, or the Learning of Principle, which later became the official philosophy/ideology in late feudal China. Centering on loyalty and filial piety, Confucians created a political and ethical system suitable for patriarchal Chinese society. Nevertheless, from the very start there was a lack of theoretical exploration of principle of value while the pragmatism was attached too much importance in the Confucian system. It was a conspicuous weak point of Confucian thinking. As a result, Confucianism, from time to time, had to face the metaphysical challenges from Buddhism and Daoism. The socio-cultural favorites were “xuanxue,” or the mysterious learning, in Wei and Jin dynasties. Buddhism became more popular in the periods after the Southern and Northern Dynasties, as a great number of leading philosophers came to the fore. As a result, the deep and inspiring learning emerged from either in Buddhism Daoism rather than from Confucianism. In view of this, Han Yu, the leading Confucian in Tang Empire, cried out in alarm that the great teachings of Confucius and Mencius were in the danger of a sharp decline. He even rose to rehabilitate the atrophied Confucianism. In Song, many scholar-officials realized by degree that Han Yu’s radical ideas—“Forcing monks to resume their secular life, burning Buddhist sutras, and remolding monasteries into residences”—were, however, totally unable to exterminate the religion, a social and ideological force. In order to revive Confucianism, Confucians must follow Ouyang Xiu’s more practical suggestion—“Outshining [Buddhism] by means of improving substantially Confucianism itself.” Therefore, the gurus of lixue in Song and Ming dynasties were all open-minded and pragmatic in absorbing quintessence of Buddhism and Daoism in exchange for a more theoretically completed and powerful Confucianism. In particular, they availed themselves of the Buddhist speculative philosophy to perfect Confucian ethics and moralities.

In the Song-Ming period lixue was dichotomized into the Cheng-Zhu learning of principle and the Lu-Wang learning of the heart (mind). Absorbing the “four dharma realms” of Avatamsaka School, the Cheng brothers (i.e. Cheng Yi 程颐and Cheng Hao 程颢) and Zhu Xi 朱熹 created the ontology centered on the Heavenly Principle. Before the introduction of Buddhism to China, the concept of “li” (principle) had already existed in Chinese philosophy. The pre-Buddhist “li” referred exclusively to concrete principles and laws that were applied to matters. “Li” itself never denoted arche (origin or primordiality). In the teaching of Avatamsaka School, “li” is completely free from concreteness and placed in the “realm” that is opposite to phenomena. Dengguan writes, “In the dharma realm of one reality, the realm and nature are entirely identical with each other; that is to say, the countless phenomena and eternal principles share the same nature.”62 Contextually, “li” (principle) assumes an existence that was independent of all phenomena; moreover, it gives expression to the grand unity of phenomena. The Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi absorbed such an idea. Cheng Yi asserts, “In spite of intrinsically differing from each other in the fact that animals are intelligent and plants unintelligent both are the same in the light of most fundamental principle.”63 Zhu Xi also says, “In front of us there are so many matters; even so, each matter is subject to the ultimate principle.”64

In the eyes of leading Song Confucians, the Heavenly Principle is the unique noumenon in entire universe and varying phenomena were merely concrete embodiments of the Principle. Zhu Xi’s elaboration is as follows:

The myriad things are all in possession of the Principle. The origin of principle does not vary at all. Nevertheless, the role that Principle plays varies inasmuch as the realm where it functions differs. For example, if the Principle is applied to sovereigns, it requires that they be benevolent; to ministers, they be respectful; and to parents, they be loving. The principle manifests in the myriad things; and the role that it plays in the myriad things differs from each other. But as a whole all differences derive from the all-embracing prevalence of the Principle.65

The cardinal ethics and constant values in the eyes of these Confucian gurus were definitely the embodiments of the Heavenly Principle in the mundane. Employing the supreme and universal Heavenly Principle, they perfected the alleged universality and inevitability of feudal ethics and values. In addition, they used Buddhist methodology, which was metaphorically represented by the saying that “the moon has ten thousand rivers sealed,” to corroborate the interconnection of unity and multiplicity in relation to Confucian ethics/virtues and the Heavenly Principle. According to Zhu Xi,

although the [embodied] principles are independent of each other, they are all created by the [ultimate] Principle. … Buddhists say, “The Moon appears in all rivers, while moons in rivers are all subject to the Moon.” The Buddhists are, so to speak, cognizant of the truth of the Principle.66

The last job of the Cheng brothers and Zhu Xi was to fight against the criticism from Confucians who laid stress on the role of “qi” (vital breath). The Cheng-Zhu group emphasized that the Principle lay precisely in the “qi” as well as in phenomena. In this way, they successfully positioned the Heavenly Principle, the unique noumenon, in the real world. “Phenomena are the most manifest. The Principle is the subtlest. Phenomena and the Principle are ultimately identical with each other. So are the manifestation and subtleness.”67 It is evident that here Confucians draw support from the Avatamsaka School again. One piece of discourse by Dengguan, an Avatamsaka guru, explains:

There is the dharma realm, in which the Principle and phenomena can by no means obstruct each other. Such a realm is the unity of universality and diversity. The Principle and phenomena in the realm are all freed from hindrance. The self-nature of difference existing between dharmas consequently assumes an unobstructed existence.68

Ontologically the Lu-Wang group inherited the Zen idea that there is the mind there are the myriad dharmas and there is not the mind there are not the myriad dharmas at all. The Zen idea is, however, a representation of subjective idealism. Lu Jiuyuan 陆九渊, one of the founding figures of School of the Mind in Song, innovatively turned the Zen rhetoric into such a philosophical saying—“The universe is my heart (mind) and vice versa.” Availing himself of the metaphor of “watching flowers in the mirror,” Lu corroborated his assertion that “the Principle depends solely upon the mind.” Such a metaphorical corroboration was, however, inspired by the well-known Zen wisdom—The body is merely a bodhi while the mind is as clean as a mirror.

Where the practice of lixue was concerned, Zhengjue’s “mozhao chan” (the Zen practice of being enlightened by means of pure meditation) exerted a quite significant influence on Song Confucians. Zhengjue, a Zen master, instructed his disciples to sit meditatively while completely emptying the mind. “Only when man frees himself from all external forms, extricates himself from all secular causations, and identifies himself with the ultimate emptiness of dharma realm will he (re)assume the most primordial existence.”69 To put it another way, the devotees could religiously achieve absolute spiritual freedom and complete emptiness of dharma by means of meditation, seclusion and exclusion of subjective thinking. In the same vein, the gurus of lixue were almost all proponents of meditation. Zhou Dunyi, an early towering figure of lixue, held that the principle of “maintaining tranquility” would play a great role in moral cultivation. He said, “The sage resorts to the Golden Mean, impartiality, benevolence and harmony [in determining the excellence and intelligence of man] and enshrines the tranquility. Therefore, he establishes himself as the “supreme standard of human beings.”70 Even Cheng Yichuan [i.e. Cheng Yi] echoed such an idea. According to Luo Dajing, “whenever Master Yichuan saw a scholar sitting meditatively, he would say the man was doing something virtuous.”71 The great thinker sincerely hoped that human beings would free themselves from all secular desires. The Cheng brothers worked out a “trilogy of practice”—mental meditation, behavioral respect and epistemic investigation. Such a practical methodology was, however, a refurbished version of three most basic Buddhist practices—[observance of] precepts, concentration and wisdom. Their requirement that disciples should experience the mental status prior to the birth of feelings such as joy, anger, sorrow and pleasure was almost an exact duplicate of the Zen-styled intellectual sharpness shedding light on the original look of a man prior to his birth. In fact, the two Cheng’s methodology was criticized by some conservative Confucians, so that they tried their best to draw a clear line between their Confucian thinking and Buddhism. They emphasized instead that moral practice could not be separated from everyday life. In their words, “even watering, sweeping and conversing are of metaphysical nature.” Even so, taking into consideration such a Zen saying—“Buddhist practice embodies in collecting firewood and fetching water,” it is safe to say that the Cheng’s method was still highly Zen-styled,