Zhang, Zhaowei 張昭煒, The Tacit Dimension of Chinese Confucianism 中國儒學緘默維度 Beijing 北京: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社, 2020, 496 pages
Gensheng FAN
Studies of Confucianism have centered around such explicit dimensions as decrees, regulations, rites, music, and philosophical ideas. ZHANG Zhaowei’s 張昭煒 book, The Tacit Dimension of Chinese Confucianism 中國儒學緘默維度, however, focuses on the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Zhang systematically discusses the long-neglected Confucian ideas of “practicing in tacitness” (moshi gongxing 默識躬行) and “experiencing in tranquility” (shenjing tizhi 深靜體知), and probes into the “mysterious land”(mijing 密境) of Confucianism. With a reexamination of the overall development of Chinese Confucianism, he constructs an orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism, which takes the tacit understanding of YAN Hui 顔回 and Confucius as its core and self-cultivation theory as guidance. This orthodox lineage, in Zhang’s view, is an open continuum that differs from traditional ones in that it incorporates two non-Confucians, ZHUANG Zi 莊子 and QU Yuan 屈原, and revitalizes the tacit dimension, while Neo-Confucianism (lixue 理學) and heart-mind Confucianism (xinxue 心學) are grounded in moral ontology.
The book consists of three parts. The first part introduces its main ideas. In this part, Zhang argues that the tacit dimension of Confucianism should be interpreted from two perspectives, namely “being tacit” and “tacit understanding,” with “being tacit” as the means and “tacit understanding” the end. That is, we should experience deep silence by being tacit and understand tacitly the moral ontology in deep silence so as to achieve the “final pass” (touguan 透關) by “resorting to tranquility” (zhujing 主靜). The second part is a case study and includes thirteen chapters. The first chapter discusses the origin of the tacit dimension in Confucianism. Zhang holds that the tacit dimension of Confucianism originates from the tradition of Confucius’ teaching of YAN Hui. In the second chapter, Zhang maintains that after Confucius and Yan, the tacit dimension of pre-Qin 秦 Confucianism developed into four schools: Mencius, Yi Zhuan 易傳 (Commentary on the Book of Changes), ZHUANG Zi, and QU Yuan. Chapter 3 to Chapter 13 discuss the development of the tacit dimension from the Han 漢 dynasty to the late Ming 明 dynasty. The last part is the conclusion, which is a summary of the twenty-five characteristics and rules of the tacit dimension in Confucianism. Thus, this book constructs a Confucian ontological lineage established by Confucius and YAN Hui and further developed by Mencius, Yi Zhuan, ZHUANG Zi, and QU Yuan.
According to Zhang, for more than two thousand years the tacit dimension has been a developing continuum. In the course of exploring the orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Chinese Confucianism, Zhang admits that he is deeply inspired by the ontology and self-cultivation theory of the tacit dimension in Chinese Confucianism, and is also influenced by the orthodox lineage constructed by YANG Xiong 揚雄 and WAN Tingyan 萬廷言. For many years, Zhang has been engaged in the study of the post-Yangming 陽明 scholars of Jiangyou 江右, like HU Zhi 胡直, WAN Tingyan, and ZOU Yuanbiao 鄒元標. According to Zhang, the most fundamental feature of the selfcultivation theory of the Jiangyou Yangming School is “collecting oneself to retain the mind (shoushe baoju 收攝保聚) and retreating into one’s nature through tranquility (zhujing yi tuicang yu mi 主靜以退藏於密).” Zhang believes that WAN Tingyan studies in great depth Yi-ology (yixue 易學), integrating the thoughts of both Jiangyou Yangming scholars and Zhezhong 浙中 Yangming scholars and unifying the two opposite ideas of Jiangyou’s “consummate tranquility” (jingji 靜極) and Zhezhong’s “consummate vitality” (shengsheng 生生). The reason why Zhang identifies “consummate tranquility” and “consummate vitality” as the two core aspects of the tacit dimension in Chinese Confucianism is profoundly related to WAN Tingyan. In Zhang’s view, WAN Tingyan frequently uses such imagery words as “early spring” (chuchun 初春), “spring scenery” (chunguang 春光), and “spring wind” (chunfeng 春風) to express the rich experience and pleasant state of mind achieved after resorting to tranquility and retreating into one’s nature. This kind of experience and state of mind, in Zhang’s opinion, is an explicit expression of the fundamental feature of the tacit dimension in Confucianism. This underlies why he takes the line “Dense Qi is like the early spring” (yinyun yiqi si chuchun 氤氳一氣似初春) as a poetic expression of the fundamental feature of the tacit dimension of Confucianism and cites and stresses the line repeatedly in the book. To Zhang, WAN Tingyan interprets the states of mind of King Wen 文, Confucius, YAN Hui, and Mencius from the perspective of the “consummate vitality of spring” (shengsheng chunyi 生生春意) and constructs an orthodox lineage. All these, from Zhang’s point of view, provide important resources for the establishment of the Confucian ontological lineage of the tacit dimension in the book.
Also in this book, Zhang holds that YANG Xiong is key to the orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism, connecting the past and the future, though Yang is traditionally considered unimportant in the development of Confucianism because he is neither recognized by the Neo-Confucians nor by the heart-mind Confucians. To Zhang, Yang’s idea, on the one hand, revives the pre-Qin tradition of tacit understanding like that between Confucius and YAN Hui, and, on the other hand, prompts ZHOU Dunyi 周敦頤 to attach importance to the ideas of Confucius and YAN Hui, the corollary of which is the once-again revival of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Zhang’s view, different from the traditional ones, is related to how Yang is viewed by Jiangyou Yangming scholars. Zhang finds that HU Zhi, WAN Tingyan, ZOU Yuanbiao, and other Jiangyou Yangming scholars have all discussed Yang’s idea, and in the views of Jiangyou Yangming scholars, Yang’s idea of “hiding thy heart in the deep valley, and praise thy nature” (cangxin yu yuan, mei jue linggen 藏心於淵,美厥靈根) can best express the essence of their self-cultivation theory—“collecting oneself to retain the mind and retreating into one’s nature through tranquility.” As a result, Zhang comes to believe that Yang’s “hiding thy heart in the deep valley, and praise thy nature” is the guiding principle of the self-cultivation theory of Neo-Confucianism in the Song 宋 and Ming dynasties and can best express the essential meaning of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Moreover, Zhang believes that Yang inherited the ideas of Confucius and YAN Hui, and rejuvenated the Confucius–YAN Hui teaching approach. Based on this, Zhang believes Yang is the earliest pioneer of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties, much earlier than HAN Yu 韓愈 who is generally believed to be the earliest in academic circles.
What is more, many of Zhang’s views and arguments are directly related to FANG Yizhi 方以智. Zhang for the first time comes up with the idea that the study of Fang should be a part of WANG Yangming 王陽明 Studies, because Fang, Zhang argues, manages to save the seed of WANG Yangming Studies at a time when the postYangming scholars encountered unprecedented difficulties in the late Ming dynasty. It is in this sense that Zhang regards Fang as the true follower of Yangming and a great master of Confucianism. Zhang also accepts and borrows Fang’s idea of Three Masters Being of the Same School (sanzi yitang 三子一堂), which says that Mencius, ZHUANG Zi, and QU Yuan are in the same lineage of thought. Zhang then extends this idea of Fang’s to the discussion of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. Zhang claims that the three masters converge at the tacit dimension, and they are all “letting the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection” (zhi zhonghe 致中和). In fact, “equilibrium and harmony” (zhonghe 中和) is the explicit expression of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. This explains why after Confucius and YAN Hui the pre-Qin tacit dimension discussed in the second chapter of the book develops into four schools: Mencius, Yi Zhuan, ZHUANG Zi, and QU Yuan.
In a way, Zhang has preliminarily constructed an orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism. However, the research in this field has just started, so there are still many problems with the book, mainly as follows.
First, this book presents an orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension of Confucianism, which is established by Confucius and YAN Hui and has been developed by Mencius, Yi Zhuan, ZHUANG Zi, and Qu Yuan. The reason why the author believes the lineage has developed into the above-mentioned four schools is inspired by Fang. However, Zhang’s inclusion of QU Yuan and ZHUANG Zi as Confucians is not supported by sound evidence. As to why QU Yuan should be regarded as a Confucian, Zhang only says that Qu exerted a far-reaching influence on later Confucians. This obviously does not suffice to support such an assertion. Also, it is unjustifiable for Zhang to simply adopt Fang’s view and consider ZHUANG Zi to be a true follower of Confucius. Just a look at the texts of the ZHUANG Zi will show that ZHUANG Zi thinks highly of YAN Hui, but he does not have a good opinion of Confucius, and worse still, he even abuses and slanders Confucius. Under such circumstances, how can we conclude that ZHUANG Zi attaches importance to the tacit dimension embodied in Confucius’ teaching of YAN Hui? If Zhang cannot provide sound evidence to support such a conclusion, the so-constructed orthodox lineage of the tacit dimension cannot speak for itself.
Second, some of the selected figures are not representative, and hence unconvincing. The selected figures under discussion include not only some recognized Confucians but also some non-Confucians such as QU Yuan and ZHUANG Zi. As a history of Confucianism from the perspective of the tacit dimension, it is unreasonable that the selected figures are not considered to be important in traditional Confucianism while some accepted Confucian masters are ignored. What is even worse, we find hardly any trace of the tacit dimension in the thoughts of the majority of Confucians. Against this background, we cannot help but wonder if there really exists such a tradition of the tacit dimension. If there does, why can’t we find the tacit dimension in the seminal works of those Confucian masters and why do we have to look for evidence in those unimportant works that people hardly know?
Third, Zhang claims that Confucianism and Taoism share the same roots and are similar and interlinked with regard to the tacit dimension, and that they are both in the same world of Qi 氣, with their ultimate goals both being to accumulate and generate primordial Qi (Yuan Qi 元氣). Why does the primordial Qi bred in the Taoist tacit dimension only lead to “natural adherence” (yang zi ran 養自然), while the Yuan Qi bred in the Confucian tacit dimension leads to humanity which has moral connotations and can be extended to the explicit dimension of the humanistic world? Can the primordial Qi be regarded as the transcendent moral noumenon? All these need to be further expounded.
Finally, in some places, Zhang chooses the viewpoints that meet the needs of this book and uses them as the premises or bases of his arguments, which will inevitably be accused of arbitrariness and overinterpretation. For instance, the book traces the origin of the tacit dimension to Confucius and holds that Confucius has two approaches to teaching: one of the Confucius–YAN Hui approach and one of the Confucius–YAN Yan 言偃 approach. According to Zhang, these two approaches have developed in two directions: “rarely speaking” (hanyan 罕言) and “elegantly speaking” (yayan 雅言). “Rarely speaking” comes from a quote in The Analects of Confucius: “What the Master rarely speaks about is profitableness, the will of Heaven, and humanity” (zi hanyan liyu ming yu ren 子罕言利與命與仁). “Rarely speaking” refers to the subtle principles and the broad road to humanity that one cannot have access to simply with the help of language and that should be verified through tacit understanding. As far as this book is concerned, “rarely speaking” is directed mainly at humanity (ren 仁) and the will of Heaven (ming命). This quote from The Analects of Confucius can be interpreted in many ways. If we simply look at its literal meaning for a moment, we find that Zhang’s claim that “rarely speaking” is mainly targeted at “humanity” and “the will of Heaven” is untenable. Zhang purposely turns a blind eye to the word “profitability” (li 利) in the quote and pronounces that “rarely speaking” is concerned just with humanity and the will of Heaven. This is obviously an act of bending the quote to fit his own interpretation. There are additional similar subjective interpretations. True, the core of the tacit dimension of Chinese Confucianism may not be told but be tacitly understood, but if we ground the system of such a dimension entirely on those poetic wordings whose meanings are subject to personal interpretations, it can hardly become a topic for serious research.
Despite these existing problems, this book is the first bold attempt to systematically discuss the development of the Confucian self-cultivation theory. It focuses on the tacit dimension rather than on the explicit dimension of Confucianism. Due to such a change in its research paradigm, this book brings into view many figures and problems that have long been neglected in traditional Confucian studies, and comes up with many innovative and inspiring viewpoints which are conducive to the in-depth development of China’s Confucian studies.