Following the Pei Sung Jen Tsung Ching Li, the academic world of the Sung Dynasty saw a plethora of distinct schools of thought. Among them was the father-son school of Su Hsun, Su Shih, and Su Che which gained renown for its superbly written literary works throughout the Jen Tsung Chia You reign. After developing into the “Su Shih Shu School of Thought,” it held a very important position in the academic world of the Sung Dynasty. However, during the Pei Sung Che Tsung Yuan You Period, many conflicts regarding politics and academics surfaced between the “Luo Pai” led by Cheng Yi and the “Shu Pai” led by the Su brothers. These conflicts were dubbed the “Luo Shu Tang Cheng.” Afterwards, during the period of Che Tsung and Hui Tsung political reign, both the Luo and Shu schools were persecuted politically and banned academically due in large part to actions taken by the Hsin Tang.
“Yuan You Hsueh Shu” was not the only reason that writings of Su Shih Shu Hsueh were burned and prohibited. Another important factor was the dispraise and attacks laid upon the school by students of Cheng Yi during the “Luo Shu Tang Cheng.” Among these students, Chu Hsi of the Southern Sung Dynasty criticized most heavily. Chu Hsi was a very learned scholar and thus had plentiful research and commentary in regards to the writings of every scholar from nearly every dynasty. He was especially harsh though, in his criticism of the Su Shih Shu school of thought. This was noticed by the authors of “Szu Chuan Shu Tsung Mu Yi Yao” who believed that Chu His was extremely dissatisfied with the Su brothers. Why would they believe that Chu Hsi would attack the Su Shih Shu school of thought so violently? What was the main point of Chu Hsi’s criticisms? What kind of effects did these criticisms produce in the academic world of the Sung Dynasty? These questions and many similar to them have brought about the interest of this researcher. The goal of this paper is to deeply analyze the changes of Su Shih Shu Hsueh in the Sung Dynasty, as well as research the relationship existing at the time between Su Shih Shu Hsueh and other schools of thought. Lastly, this research aims to analyze the main point of Chu Hsi’s criticisms of Su Shih Shu Hsueh and the effects they created in the academic environment of the Sung Dynasty.
The research order of this thesis is as follows:
Chapter 1 one of this thesis begins by investigating what kind of academic school the Su Shih Shu Hsueh school of thought, also known as San Su Hsueh, is and in what kind of background it was produced. Furthermore, it attempts to answer the questions: What are its distinguishing characteristics, and what brought Chu Hsi to criticize it so vehemently? This chapter investigates the content of Su thought from the common academic fields that the Su school valued including literature, study of the classics, history, and philosophical thought. In addition, this chapter also provides an in depth analysis of the source of San Su thought including Ju Chia, Fo Chia, Dao Chia, and Tsung Heng Chia.
Chapter 2 provides an in depth look at the rise of the Su Shih Shu Hsueh school of thought. During its development in the Northern Sung Dynasty, Su Hsueh had varying academic conflicts. Among the more evident ones are oppositions with Wang An-Shih’s “Hsin Dang” and confrontations with Cheng Yi’s “Luo Xue.” The chapter’s focus is on the effects the “Luo Shu Tang Cheng” had on Su Shih Shu Hsueh. Through data analysis, it was revealed that following the conflict between the two schools, the direct blow to the Su School came in the form of widespread banning and secondly in the form of was the attacks initiated by students of Cheng Yi. Perhaps an important factor as to what drove Chu Hsi to attack Su Hsueh may be found in this analysis.
Chapter 3 analyzes the various reasons for Chu Hsi attacks on Su Hsueh. At one time, Chu Hsi appreciated literary works from the Su school of thought, but later, this turned into severe criticism. One reason for this shift may stem from past resentments between the Luo and Shu schools. More importantly though, it is likely related to his own academic progression, thought process, and the academic position he later firmly held. Through a close look at his academic progression, we can see that in his early years, his study was very widespread, but later held firm to Ju Chia. This drastic difference between the beginning of his life and his later years reveals a major change in his academic thinking. With this in mind, Chu Hsi began to differentiate academic fields and started to criticize and reflect deeply on fields such as Fo Chia, Dao Chia and many others. Similarly, it was at this time that Chu Hsi began to reconsider the contents of Su thought and engage in a critique of it.
Chapter 4 and the following two chapters discuss the actual content of Chu Hsi’s criticisms of Su Hsueh. Although there were many points to Chu Hsi’s criticism of, there were areas on which he focused, such as Su Shih Shu Hsueh’s “Theories on Human Nature.” Many scholars in the Northern Sung Dynasty had academic practices involving discussions of “Human Nature,” including Su Hsueh. Chu Hsi believed that human nature was one of the main focuses of the Su Shih School, although he criticized it heavily. This chapter first introduces Su Shih’s views of “Human Nature” and afterwards analyzes in detail the reasons for Chu Hsi’s harsh criticism thereof.
The focus of Chapter 5 is Su Hsueh’s interpretation of the classic texts. At one time, the Su family performed in depth research of the classics and developed their own line of thinking, which they personally valued very highly. Chu Hsi also had an opinion regarding these interpretations. Although he believed Su Hsueh’s interpretations were not pure, he did maintain that they had some redeeming characteristics. This chapter begins with a brief introduction of Su Hsueh’s view of the classics and then analyzes Chu Hsi’s point of view and appraisals.
Chapter 6 presents Chu Hsi’s comments on Su Hsueh’s literary works and literary discussions. Beginning in the Jen Tsung Chia You year of the Northern Sung Dynasty, literary works by the Su’s became very popular. Moreover, scholars of the Sung Dynasty especially enjoyed the spirit of debate, and the Su’s were especially talented in this area. Thus, Chu Hsi had many comments on Su Hsueh’s literary works and discussions, displaying differing opinions and comments, which at times were in regard to composition skill and at times in regard ideology. The chapter begins with an account of Su Hsueh’s literary works and discussions and then moves to an analysis of Chu Hsi’s comments and point of view.
Through discussions in the chapters above, the evolution of Su Hsueh extending from the Northern Sung Dynasty to the Southern Sung Dynasty is clearly laid out. In addition, the interaction and opposition between Su Shih Shu Hsueh and other academic factions is also revealed. This in turn shows the unique academic characteristics and academic value of Su Hsueh. In another light, by looking at the entirety of Chu Hsi’s criticisms of San Su, we can see the differing perspectives and differing approaches to criticism of Chu Hsi. He at one time harshly criticized Su Hsueh and prevented its growth, which had a deep impact on the position of Su Hsueh in academic history after the Southern Sung Dynasty. Chu Hsi did however maintain a certain level of acceptance and affirmation of Su Hsueh. Thus, in his academic writings, he preserved some of Su Shih Hsueh’s works, including “Lun Yu Shuo” written by Su Shih. The originals of this work were no longer seen after the Yuan and Ming Dynasties. However, in recent years Mainland China scholars have been actively collecting works. Among these works related to Chu Hsi include large amounts of data dealing with Su Shih’s “Lun Yu Shuo.” Thus, this is a prime example of the work Chu His has rendered for Su Shih Hsueh. In light of this, how should one regard Chu Hsi’s review of the San Su school of thought? To use the words of Chu Hsi, it should involve a careful differentiation, followed by an acceptance of what is appropriate and an abandonment of what is not. This is the very practical approach of Chu Hsi. Through this method, it is also possible to find a logical explanation of the conflict and harmony between the two distinct academic factions of Chu Hsi and San Su.