Neo-Confucianism branched out into two schools of philosophy. The primary exponent of one school was Chu His, an important thinker. He was second only to Confucius and Mencius who established a new philosophical foundation for the teachings of Confucianism by organizing scholarly opinion into a cohesive system. According to the Neo-Confucianist system Chu Hsi represented, all objects in nature. Nature is composed of li an insignificant universal principle or law, and ch’I the substance of which all material things are made (Chang, 120).
Ch’I may change and dissolve, li, the underlying law of the many things, remains constant and indestructible (Wolf, 38). Chu Hsi further identifies the li in humankind with human nature is the same for all people. The phenomenon of particular differences can be attributed to the varying proportions and densities of the ch’I found among individuals. Those who receive a ch’I that is dirty will find their original nature to restore its purity. Purity can be achieved by extending one’s knowledge of the li in each individual object. One becomes a sage when, one has investigated and comprehended the universal li or natural law inherent in all animate and inanimate objects (Nivision, 218-219).
Opposed to the li (law), school is the hsin (mind) school of Neo Confucianism. The chief exponent of the hsin school was Wang Yangning, who taught the unity of knowledge and practice. His major proposition was that apart from the mind, neither law nor object exists. In the mind are personified all the laws of nature, and nothing exists without the mind. One’s supreme effort should be to develop the intuitive knowledge of the mind, not through intense thought and calm meditation (Wolf, 29).
During the Ch’ing dynasty there was a strong reaction to both the li and hsin schools of Neo Confucian thought. Ch’ing scholars advocated a return to the earlier and supposedly more authentic Confucianism of the Han period, when it was still unmodified by Buddhist and Taoist ideas (Bush, 384). They developed textual criticism of the Confucian Classics based on scientific methodology, using philology, history, and archaeology to reinforce their scholarship. In addition, scholars such as Tai Chen introduced an empiricist point of view into Confucian philosophy (MacInnis, 152).
Toward the end of the nineteenth century the reaction against Neo Confucian metaphysics took a different turn. Instead of confining themselves to textual studies. Confucian scholars took an active interest in politics and formulated reform programs based on Confucian doctrine (Overmyer, 120). K’ang Yuwei, a leader of the Confucian reform movement, made an attempt to exalt the philosophy as a national religion. The reform movements failed because of foreign threats to China and the urgent demand for drastic political measures (DeVous and Slote, 331).
In the intellectual confusion that followed the Chinese revolution of 1911, Confucianism was identified as corrupt and inflexible. Confucianism lost its hold on the nation, with the collapse of the monarchy and the traditional family structure, from which much of its strength and support was derived. In the past, it often had managed to get rid of adversities and to emerge with renewed vigor, but during this period of unprecedented social upheavals it lost its previous ability to adapt to changing circumstances (Twitchett and Wright, 93).
In the view of some scholars, Confucius will be revered in the future as China’s greatest teacher. Confucian classics will be studied, and Confucian virtues, embodied for countless generations in the familiar sayings and common sense wisdom of the Chinese people, will remain the cornerstone of ethics. It is doubtful that Confucianism ever again will play the dominant role in Chinese political life and institutions that it did in past centuries (Bush, 359).
The Chinese Communist victory of 1949 underlined the uncertain future of Confucianism. Many Confucian based traditions were put aside. The family system, for instance, much revered in the past as a central Confucian institution, was de-emphasized. Few Confucian classics were published, and official campaigns against Confucianism were organized in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s (MacInnis, 361).
6f3
Bush Jr., Richard C. Religion in Communist China. New York: Abingdon Press, 1970.
Berling, Judith A. Asian Religions. 1982. http://www.askasia.org/frclasrm/readings/r000004.htm.
De Vos George A and Walter H. Slote ed. Confucianism and the Family. New York: State University, 1998.
MacInnis, Donald E. Religious Policy and Practice in Communist China. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972.
Mungello, David E. Leibniz and Confucianism the Search for Accord. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1977.
Nivison, David S. The Ways of Confucianism. ed. Bryan W. Van Norden. Chicago: Carus Publishing Company, 1996.
Overmyer, Daniel L. Religions of China. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1986.
Twitchett, Denis and Arthur F. Wright ed. Confucian Personalities. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962.
Wolf, Arthur P. ed. Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974.