Table Of ContentSTUDIES IN ORIENTAL CULTURE
NUMBER 4 Selfa nSdo ciienMt iyn Tgh ought
BLANKPAGE
SELAFN DS OCIETY
INM ING
THOUGHT
byW m.T heoddeBo arrye
anthde Co nferoenMn icneTg h ought
Columbia University Press NEW YORKA NDL ONDON1 910
Copyri1g9h7Ct0o© l umUbniiav ePrrseistsy
SBN2:3 1-03271-4
LibroafCr oyn gCraetsasCl aorNgdu mb7e8r-:1 01229
Manufaicntt huUern eidtS etdao tfAe mse rica
Thibso oiksd edictaott hesede nmieomrb er
oft hCeo nferoenMn icneTg h ought
WING-TSIT CHAN
ina nticiopfha itssie ovne nbtiiretthhd ay
anidn r ecognoifht iimsoa nnc yo ntributions
tot hset uodfCy h intehsoeu ght.
Studies in Oriental Culture
EDITEADT C OLUMBIUAN IVERSITY
BOARDO FE DITORS
Ivan Morris, Professor of Japanese
\Vm. Theodore de Bary, Horace Walpole Carpentier Professor
of Oriental Studies
Ainslie T. Embree, Professor of History, Duke University
Charles P. Issawi, Ragnar Nurkse Professor of Economics
PREFACE
The present volume has been produced through the cooperative efforts of
several institutions concerned with the study of Chinese civilization. The
American Council of Learned Societies, through its Committee on the
Study of Chinese Civilization, planned and conducted a conference on
Ming thought held in June, 1966, at Champaign, Illinois, with the co
operation and support of the University of Illinois. Most of the papers
appearing herein were presented at that conference and subsequently
revised for publication. Several of them were also discussed at an earlier
seminar on Ming thought conducted at Columbia University in the spring
of 1966 through the collaboration of the Department of East Asian Lan
guages and Cultures and the Ming Biographical History Project, an
activity of the Association for Asian Studies. The latter association also
joined in sponsoring the conference.
As it happens, our manuscript goes to press just following the 600th
anniversary of the founding of the Ming dynasty ( 1368-1644). While the
appropriateness of celebrating such an anniversary might be questioned
on several grounds, we take satisfactioh in being able to signalize this
great period of Chinese history, so long neglected within and without the
country. Some of its pomps and works may seem to have been of the very
devil and best left unexhumed. Nevertheless, the Ming has been poorly
understood and badly underestimated in its contributions to Chinese cul-
/
ture and its significance for the development of modem China. In their
own time the Ming vase, jar, and bowl were as much admired abroad as
at home. How fitting then that the rediscovery of Ming thought should
be an international affair-participated in by scholars from many parts of
the world. We celebrate no narrow national achievement or evocation of
China's past, but our own coming of age, our own accession to a common
world inheritance.
The editor wishes to acknowledge the great assistance of Professor
Robert Crawford in arranging the conference on Ming thought at the
University of Illinois; of Professors Robert Ruhlmann and Chao-ying Fang
in reading portions of the final manuscript and proofs; of Lien-che Tu
Fang in drawing up the character lists; and of Miss Joanne Soderman
in compiling the index. From the first planning of the Ming Thought
Vlll PREFACE
seminar and conference to the preparation of the manuscript for the press,
Mrs. Barbara Wichura has been of invaluable help to me, and I am glad
for this opportunity to express my great indebtedness to her. I am grateful
also to Miss Elisabeth L. Shoemaker of Columbia University Press for her
work in editing a book of this length and complexity.
The papers of Professors Okada, Sakai, and Jen have been revised and
in some cases expanded by the editor, partly on the basis of their pub
lished works in Japanese and Chinese. The undersigned bears responsi
bility for any misrepresentation of their views which may have resulted.
New York; January, 1968 Wm.T heodore de Bary
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The style of this book in sinological matters follows in general that of the
Ming Biographical History, now in preparation, which in turn follows
with slight modifications that of the basic reference work Eminent Chi
nese of the Ch'ing Period, edited by Arthur Hummel (Washington,
1943). One difference is that all Chinese characters are gathered in a list
at the end of each paper, with alphabetical reference keys in the style of
the fou rnal of the American Oriental Society. The special nature of a
work on Chinese thought renders it more convenient for the reader to
have the notes and character lists follow immediately after each paper,
and in making each author's contribution thus self-contained it has been
possible to respect certain individual preferences in matters of style and
translation, rather than to insist on rigid standardization in all respects.
It might be considered a prime desideratum for any work on Chinese
philosophy or thought to have a common glossary of terms with standard
renderings in English. In a symposium, however, one encounters special
problems arising from the nature of the Chinese language and the tend
ency in philosophical discussion for basic terms to be used in different
senses by different writers or even by the same writer. For the Chinese
the idea is not so much to analyze and define concepts precisely as to
expand them, to make, them suggestive of the widest possible range of
meaning. Generally speaking, the more crucial or central the concept,
the greater the ambiguity. This is bound to be reflected in translation;
interpretation of a man's thought will often be bound up with one's
rendering of such key concepts. Under these circumstances we must allow
our writers some latitude, though we have discouraged needless diversity.
As an example, our policy has been to avoid excessive use of romanized
terms, which put too great a burden on those unfamiliar with Chinese,
and we have favored translations established in standard works, such as
Professor Chan's "innate knowledge" for Wang Yang-ming's liang-chih.
But the whole point of Professor Tang Chun-i's paper is to raise large
questions as to the meaning and significance of this term, and one cannot
deny him the use of the romanized form if that leaves him free to develop
his argument unencumbered by the preconceptions or preferences of
others.
Fortunately there are glossaries to which the interested reader can turn.
X EXP LANA TOR Y NOTE
Wing-tsit Chan's Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, 1963)
contains a glossary including many terms important in Neo-Confucian
philosophy. Another excellent glossary, in French, is found in Wang
Tch'ang-che's La Philosophie Morale de Wang Yang-ming (Shanghai,
1936), which is more especially concerned with the philosophical vocabu
lary of this influential Ming thinker. A. C. Graham's Two Chinese Phi
losophers (London, 1958), though it deals with the earlier phase of Neo
Confucian philosophy, provides intensive and precise discussion of many
terms used later by Ming thinkers ( though not always in the same way).
Needless to say, the results in each case differ somewhat. They suggest a
range of possibilities, rather than establish a definitive norm. To some
extent also the index to the present volume should serve the... s ame purpose
by providing cross references to different writers' handling of the same
terms.
Against the current trend toward unlimited use of alphabetical abbrevi
ations for sources cited, we have confined this practice either to standard
works familiar to those working in Chinese studies, basic Ming sources,
or works repeatedly cited within a given paper ( and identified on first
appearance in each). It seems an imposition on the reader to make him
learn such an abbreviation for almost every work cited more than once,
and often abbreviated titles will convey the necessary information without
taking up much more space. The common abbreviations appearing herein
are:
KHCPTS Kuo-hsileh chi-pen ts'ung-shu
MJCCTLSY Ming-;en chuan-chi tzu-liao so-yin,
National Central Library. Taipei, 1964
MJHA Ming-ju hsueh-an
MS Ming shih
SPPY Ssu-pu pei-yao
SPTK Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an
TSCC Ts'ung-shu chi-ch'eng
TT Tao tsang
W. T. de B.
