Transcending Individual Traditions: Zhang Taiyan’s Interpretation of Zhuangzi’s Notion of Chengxin

Abstract

This article examines the nuanced interpretations of chengxin 成心 in the Zhuangzi 莊子, a foundational Daoist text, across different philosophical traditions. Historically, Daoist thinkers like Guo Xiang 郭象 and Cheng Xuanying 成玄英, along with Neo-Confucian scholars such as Lü Huiqing 吕惠卿 and Lin Xiyi 林希逸, have provided differing perspectives on the notion of chengxin. They regard it as either a source of subjective bias or an expression of heavenly principle. The core focus of this study is Zhang Taiyan’s 章太炎 innovative interpretation of chengxin as seeds (bijas) within ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness), integrating Yogācāra Buddhist concepts with traditional Daoist philosophy. The study conducts a textual analysis of Zhang’s Qiwulun Shi 齊物論釋, comparing his interpretation with earlier commentaries on the Zhuangzi. It is argued that Zhang’s approach is profoundly influenced by the Buddhist doctrine of non-duality, which underscores the interconnectedness of all phenomena. While Zhang’s interpretation has faced criticism from contemporaries and later philosophers for misunderstandings of Yogācāra theory and Kantian philosophy, it employs the method of geyi 格義 (matching concepts), not to impose one tradition over another, but to foster a dialogical process where the insights from each tradition mutually inform and transform one another. This article highlights the interpretative openness of the Zhuangzi, which invites diverse interpretations, and demonstrates how Zhang’s approach enriches this tradition by synthesizing various philosophical and religious frameworks. Zhang’s methodology remains relevant, fostering cross-cultural and inclusive philosophical dialog.

1. Introduction

The three principal religious and philosophical traditions that have profoundly shaped Chinese culture—Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism—are collectively referred to as the “Three Teachings” (sanjiao 三教). While each tradition possesses its own distinct doctrines and practices, they all share a common concern with self-cultivation. Throughout history, these traditions have interacted with and influenced each other, contributing to the rich and diverse religious landscape of China.1

The Zhuangzi, one of the central texts of the Daoist tradition, is known for its intricate and often ambiguous style, which features parables, allegories, and paradoxical statements. This complexity invites a multitude of interpretations. Rather than seeking propositional truth, its poetic language encourages readers to engage with more open-ended perspectives (for more on this, see Chung 2018; Chong 2006). Consequently, scholars, philosophers, and practitioners have approached the text from various angles, resulting in a wide array of readings on its meanings and implications.2

The term chengxin appears exclusively in the pre-Qin classics within the Qi wu lun 齊物論 chapter of the Zhuangzi. It is mentioned in the following passage:

If we are to follow chengxin as a guide, then who does not have such a guide? Not only those who know the change in nature and adhere to it have them, but stupid people have theirs too. To have opinions as to right or wrong before establishing something in your heart-mind is as mistaken as to say that “one goes to the state of Yue today and arriving there yesterday”.3

The concept of chengxin has garnered significant scholarly interest over generations. Its semantic ambiguity has led to numerous historical interpretations across various intellectual traditions. Daoist, Confucian, and Buddhist thinkers have each engaged with the term, offering varied perspectives. These interpretations not only reflect the evolution of academic thought but also illustrate the dynamic interplay between the three major philosophical and religious traditions, revealing how each tradition has approached the concept within its own cultural context.

In this article, I will embark on an exploration of the concept of chengxin as interpreted by influential Daoist and Confucian scholars. By examining these representative interpretations, I aim to uncover the dual facets of chengxin that emerge when viewed from a broader philosophical perspective. These interpretations reveal an underlying coexistence of two complementary dimensions of chengxin. Subsequently, I will mainly focus on and delve into the interpretation of chengxin by Zhang Taiyan, the modern scholar philosopher whose views bridge traditional Chinese thought and contemporary understanding. Zhang proposes a Buddhist perspective to interpret Zhuangzi’s chengxin. On one hand, I contend that Zhang’s interpretation in fact harmonizes and synthesizes the dual aspects of chengxin proposed by previous scholars, offering a more integrated understanding. On the other hand, I discuss the internal contradictions within Zhang’s interpretation. Despite its contemporary criticisms, Zhang’s interpretation still has its potential to transcend individual traditions and ridge philosophical divides, thus contributing meaningfully to cross-cultural and inclusive dialog.

2. Overview of Previous Interpretations of Zhuangzi’s Chengxin

The scholarly exploration of the Zhuangzi presents a rich tapestry of interpretation and commentary that spans several Chinese dynasties. This tradition reflects the evolving intellectual and cultural contexts through which the text has been studied. Notably, the Wei-Jin 魏晉 periods witnessed a flourishing of Zhuangzi studies. During this era, Neo-Taoism, also referred to as arcane learning (xuanxue 玄學), was prevalent, and the texts Yijing, Laozi, and Zhuangzi were collectively known as the “Three Arcane Classics” (sanxuan 三玄). Guo Xiang 郭象 (252–312) compiled the earliest extant full commentary on the Zhuangzi. His work is considered one of the most significant contributions to xuanxue tradition and beyond. By aligning the text’s philosophy with the metaphysical concerns of the era, Guo’s commentary set a precedent for subsequent interpretations.

During the Tang 唐 Dynasty, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism coexisted in a delicate balance. Daoist scholar Cheng Xuanying 成玄英 further developed the interpretation based on Guo’s foundational work. Cheng’s sub-commentary meticulously examined textual nuances, including specific words and phrases, and integrated Buddhist concepts, thereby reflecting the era’s intellectual syncretism. Cheng expanded the interpretive framework of the Zhuangzi, aiming to reconcile Daoist and Buddhist perspectives and enrich philosophical discourse.4

The rise of Neo-Confucianism in the Song 宋 Dynasty marked a significant intellectual transformation in Chinese thought. Rooted in the teachings of Confucius and Mencius, Neo-Confucianism sought to reframe and address the metaphysical and ethical issues that had previously been the domain of Buddhism and Daoism. As this philosophical movement gained prominence, it began to exert a profound influence on the interpretation of classical texts, including the Zhuangzi. Confucian scholars of this period, represented by Lü Huiqing 吕惠卿 (1032–1111) and Lin Xiyi 林希逸 (1193–1270?), significantly shaped their readings of the Zhuangzi with Neo-Confucian perspectives.

2.1. Daoist Interpretations of Chengxin

The relationship between the Zhuangzi and Guo’s commentary has sparked considerable debate. Some commend Guo’s accurate interpretation, while others argue he distorted Zhuangzi’s original meaning to promote his own ideas. Nevertheless, it is widely agreed that Guo’s commentary significantly advanced arcane learning, creating a new philosophical worldview and facilitating the reception and development of Buddhist concepts in China (Lynn 2022, p. xvii).

Guo’s interpretation of chengxin is intricately linked to his philosophical views. In the Qi wu lun chapter, Zhuangzi emphasizes the theory of non-distinction, especially the non-distinction of right and wrong. Guo expounds this theory with more eloquence in his commentary. He observes that distinctions between right and wrong arise from partiality of view. In Guo’s commentary, chengxin refers to this biased perspective as follows:

A mind that is sufficient to control the activities of a single person is called the “formed mind”. As people make the formed mind their own teachers, everyone has a teacher for himself. Since each person has his own teacher, he trusts in it and so considers himself correct.

To exchange the unformed for the formed is not how knowing works, for the mind gets from itself. Therefore, the stupid also make their formed minds their teachers, never willing to use what they refer to as “shortcomings” [of others] and discard what they refer to as [their own] “strengths”.

If one were to go to Yue today, how could one arrive yesterday? If not first formed in the mind, where could right and wrong come from? It is obvious that right and wrong as such are things that all kinds of people can’t do without. Therefore, the Perfected one [zhiren] follows along the course of both.

(Lynn 2022, p. 26)

According to Guo Xiang, chengxin is the root cause of disputes and conflicts. People tend to use the formed mind as their guide, leading them to consider themselves as right and others as wrong. In contrast, the Perfected one (zhiren 至人) embraces all perspectives without being attached to the notions of right or wrong. This ideal is vividly portrayed in the Xiaoyao You 逍遙遊 chapter, where Guo states the following: “Let the world seek me to deal with disorder, but as I am utterly unself-conscious [wuxin] and not self-consciously mindful, how could I ever fail to respond to the world!” (Lynn 2022, p. 13). Here, the notion of unself-consciousness (wuxin 無心) contrasts with that of the formed mind (chengxin). Understanding the principle of the equality of things and making no distinction between right and wrong, one can live according to the spontaneous nature and inborn allotment, ”disregarding the inducements offered by others“, which means that one is able to get rid of what Guo calls the “trouble of preferring one thing to another”. (Fung 1948, p. 227)

Guo Xiang’s definition of chengxin is relatively neutral, contrasting with the concept of huoxin 惑心 (deluded mind) which appears a few lines later in the commentary: “The minds of the deluded are already formed, and even the sage is unable to make them understand” (Lynn 2022, p. 27). Unlike huoxin, chengxin is not inherently negative but rather constitutes an essential aspect of human interaction with the world. Despite its propensity to lead to the formation of biases and prejudices, chengxin serves as a driving force, governing individual actions and decisions.

Cheng Xuanying offers a more critical interpretation, characterizing chengxin as fundamentally flawed. He describes it as wangxin 妄心 (delusive mind) adopted by ignorant and stupid people, implying that chengxin represents a deviation from true understanding and wisdom. For Cheng, chengxin acts as a detrimental force that clouds judgment and leads individuals astray from the path of enlightenment. His view underscores the potential of chengxin to distort reality and hinder one’s ability to perceive the world clearly and truthfully. The following is Cheng’s sub-commentary:

Those who limit their view to a narrow scope and cling to the biases of one perspective are said to have a formed mind. The mind that follows and adheres to these fixed views considers them as standards; this is how the world operates, so who can claim to be without a teacher?

Those who are foolish and confused stubbornly insist on right and wrong. They do not need to understand others’ strengths to compensate for their own weaknesses; they only seek to criticize others as inferior and assert their own superiority. Such people are found everywhere, and the truly ignorant are often the first among them.

(Guo and Cheng 2011, p. 32)5

In response to Guo’s idea of unself-consciousness, Cheng Xuanying underscores Zhuangzi’s notion of wang 忘 (forgetting), asserting that “to grasp the essence of the Dao, one must forget the mind“ and “intellectual considerations, in contrast, would distance one from the Dao”. (Guo and Cheng 2011, p. 10) Notably, as the most representative Chongxuan 重玄 (twofold arcane) thinker, Cheng employs the terminology and reasoning forms of both Daoist and Buddhist traditions in his exegeses of the Zhuangzi. Following Laozi’s phrase “to decrease and decrease again”, the term Chongxuan connotes the reasoning methodology which requires one to continually discard one’s previous opinions or standpoints. This corresponds to the catuskoti in Madhyamaka philosophy. Cheng’s commentary vividly illustrates the integration of Madhyamaka thought with what he regards as the Zhuangzian form of dual dispelling and twofold forgetfulness (Hong 2022, p. 480) (for more on this, see Zhang and Qian 2019).

2.2. Neo-Confucian Interpretations of Chengxin

Neo-Confucianism emerged as an effort to reinterpret Confucian doctrines by integrating elements from Daoism and Buddhism. Central to this philosophical movement was the concept of li 理, or principle, which was regarded as the fundamental order of the universe and a guiding force for human behavior. This intellectual movement not only revitalized Confucianism but also provided a comprehensive framework for governance, education, and personal conduct, thereby profoundly shaping Chinese society and culture in the subsequent dynastic periods. In the thriving intellectual milieu, new interpretive approaches to classical texts began to flourish. Among the commentators of the Zhuangzi in the Song dynasty, Lü Huiqing and Lin Xiyi stood out as particularly influential figures whose exegeses reflected the evolving philosophical landscape of their time.

Lü Huiqin, a prominent statesman and scholar of the Northern Song, sought to bridge the teachings of Daoism with Confucian principles. His interpretations emphasize the practical applications of Zhuangzi’s philosophy, advocating for a harmonious coexistence of individual spontaneity and social responsibility. He defines chengxin as follows:

The mind of the Perfected one is as tranquil as a mirror, not dependent on external conditions but complete within itself. … I have not achieved this completed mind, hence I am bewildered. Those Perfected one, however, are free from bewilderment. … The completed mind is what I receive from Heaven without deficiency, thus enabling me to clearly distinguish the true from the false.

(Lü 2009, pp. 25–26)

Lin Xiyi, a Neo-Confucian scholar of the Southern Song, prioritized the evaluation of the rhetorical and literary qualities of the Zhuangzi text. Concurrently, he engaged with the Zhuangzi through the lens of his Neo-Confucian worldview, strongly influenced by Buddhism (for more on this, see Machek 2010). His interpretation of chengxin aligns closely with that of Lü, although he specifically defines it as the principle of heaven (tianli 天理), as follows:

Chengxin refers to the heavenly principle inherent in everyone, regarded as complete and universal. All beings are endowed with this inherent principle of heaven. … However, if one’s mind fails to recognize this unified principle and instead clings to rigid distinctions between right and wrong … it is akin to traveling to the state of Yue today but arriving there yesterday. … Such conduct is called pretending to know when one does not truly understand.

(Lin 1997, pp. 21–22)

As revealed in the postscript to Lin’s commentary, his scholarly pursuits are fundamentally rooted in opposition to Guo Xiang, aiming to cleanse the Zhuangzi of the influence of the Xiang-Guo commentary. In contrast to Guo, who argued that there exists no generative principle beyond the immediacy of individual entities that are all “self-so”,6 Neo-Confucianism posits a more integrative worldview. This philosophical tradition emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things through the concept of li (principle) and its relation to qi (vital energy). Neo-Confucians believe that while individual entities appear distinct, they are manifestations of a unified underlying reality. Furthermore, the significance of moral cultivation and self-realization is paramount in Neo-Confucian thought, where individuals seek to align themselves with the transcendent principles that govern the universe. This alignment is essential for achieving harmony within oneself and society at large. Unlike Guo’s perspective, which downplays overarching principles, Neo-Confucianism offers a more holistic understanding of existence, affirming the importance of both individual agency and cosmic unity.

3. Zhang Taiyan’s Yogācāra Interpretation of Chengxin

The intellectual interaction between Buddhist and Zhuangzian thought throughout various periods of Chinese history is noteworthy. Buddhism’s introduction to China saw its assimilation facilitated by Daoist terminology, while concurrently influencing early Daoist thought (for more on this, see Zürcher 1980). The Chongxuanxue (study of twofold arcane) movement during the Sui-Tang 隋唐 Dynasties stood out as a mature integration of the Zhuangzi and Buddhism, deftly blending the reasoning methodologies of both traditions. When Chan Buddhism began to flourish, discourse regarding its relationship with the Daoist Zhuangzi gained remarkable prominence. As Lin Xiyi contends, a profound engagement with Chan Buddhism necessitates an in-depth understanding of the Zhuangzi. He goes as far as suggesting that the entirety of the Tripitaka has its origins in the Zhuangzi (Lin 1997, p. 1). Subsequently, interpretations of the Zhuangzi from a Buddhist perspective became progressively popular. Yogācāra Buddhism, also known as the “Consciousness-Only” school, holds a prominent place in the philosophical discourse of Indian and Chinese Buddhism. Introduced to China during the sixth century, it rose to preeminence in the Tang Dynasty. Yogācāra resonated deeply due to its alignment with existing metaphysical traditions such as Daoism and early Chinese Buddhist thought, which emphasized the transformation of mind. Despite its initial prominence, the Yogācāra school eventually declined in influence. Nevertheless, from the late 1890s to the 1930s, there was a notable revival of Buddhist Yogācāra thought. Zhang’s engagement with Yogācāra thought was particularly influential in his philosophical work. His Qiwulun Shi emerged as a representative work that interpreted the Zhuangzi through a Yogācāra lens.

3.1. Zhang Taiyan and His Qiwulun Shi

Zhang Binglin 章炳麟 (Taiyan 太炎; 1869–1936) was a prominent Chinese scholar, revolutionary, and intellectual whose contributions have had a significant impact on modern Chinese thought, particularly through the revival and establishment of Chinese philosophy as an academic discipline. Born into an era of profound political and cultural turmoil, Zhang’s life and work unfolded against the backdrop of the crumbling Qing 清 Dynasty and the emerging Republic of China. Despite the turbulent times, he remained a steadfast advocate of intellectual independence and cultural renewal. His critical acumen and intellectual breadth have left a lasting legacy, continuing to exert significant influence on both the study of Chinese philosophy and political theory today.

Zhang’s early academic pursuits were deeply rooted in the Confucian classics. By his twenties, he had distinguished himself as a philologist, especially through his studies of ancient texts under the guidance of esteemed scholars like Yu Yue 俞樾. His approach to these classical works was both rigorous and innovative, influenced by figures such as Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 and Dai Zhen 戴震. He was not a passive follower of Confucian orthodoxy; rather, his scholarship was marked by critical thinking and a willingness to challenge prevailing interpretations. In the 1890s, Zhang‘s intellectual development expanded beyond traditional Chinese thought as he began reading European works of philosophy and history. This exposure to Western intellectual currents informed his critical engagement with both Eastern and Western philosophies (Lee 2013). In the early 1900s, Zhang played a key role in the Guocui 國粹 (national quintessence) movement, which sought to affirm and revitalize Chinese cultural heritage in response to Western influence. Although this movement was partly a defense of national identity, Zhang’s intellectual pursuits went beyond mere cultural nationalism. He deeply engaged with non-canonical Chinese thought, particularly Daoism and Mahayana Buddhism. During his imprisonment by the Qing government, his interest in Buddhism intensified, prompting him to study core Mahayana texts. This spiritual exploration further expanded his scholarly pursuits, fundamentally influencing his worldview and intellectual output.

Zhang’s embrace of Mahayana Buddhism, especially Yogācāra, represented not only a personal transformation but also a response to the broader intellectual and cultural crisis in modern China. During the late Qing and early Republican periods, Chinese intellectuals increasingly focused on reevaluating their traditions in response to the influx of Western philosophical and scientific ideas. Zhang regarded Yogācāra as a sophisticated knowledge system that offered a credible alternative to the Western knowledge systems being introduced at the time (Makeham 2012, p. 103). His involvement with Yogācāra was notable for his use of its sophisticated epistemology and logic to critique and reinterpret Chinese classical texts. He identified parallels between Yogācāra theory of consciousness and key concepts in Daoist philosophy, employing this framework to reveal deeper insights and articulate principles overlooked by conventional interpretations. He believed that the insights of Yogācāra provided a way to bridge traditional Chinese thought with the analytical rigor of Western academic traditions. Zhang’s method of concept matching (geyi 格義), which systematically identified parallels between Yogācāra and early Chinese thought, was a hallmark of his philosophical style. The approach allowed him to apply Buddhist principles to Confucian, Daoist, and Mohist texts, drawing out commonalities between these disparate traditions.

In his work Qiwulun Shi 齊物論釋 (An Interpretation of “Discourse on Making All Things Equal”), Zhang “attempts to bring the systematic analysis of Yogācāra philosophy to the cryptic and notoriously unsystematic Qiwulun” (Makeham 2012, p. 119). He highlights a close parallel between the concept of transformation in the Qi Wu Lun and the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), which posits that all phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions, lacking inherent existence. This principle of the illusory nature of the phenomenal world resonates with Zhuangzi’s relativism, wherein the distinctions between beings are not ultimately real but are products of human perception and categorization. Furthermore, Zhang compares Zhuangzi’s notion of the “true self” with the Yogācāra concept of ālaya-vijñāna, or storehouse consciousness7. He explains that the ālaya-vijñāna contains both pure and contaminated seeds that shape human perception and experience. The contaminated seeds contribute to the illusion of the ego and the phenomenal world, while the pure seeds foster enlightenment and the realization of ultimate reality. For Zhang, the process of spiritual awakening in Yogacara, which involves transcending the false ego and recognizing the emptiness of the self, mirrors Zhuangzi’s path of losing the self and returning to the Dao. Thus, in the Qiwulun Shi, Zhang illustrates the philosophical homology between Zhuangzi’s Daoism and Yogācāra Buddhism, endeavoring “to assimilate the former with the latter by way of interpreting the often cryptic, ambiguous ideas of the former in terms of the systematic phenomenological analysis of the latter” (Chang 1987, p. 121).

Zhang’s work reflects the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of his scholarship. While rooted in traditional Chinese academic frameworks, it incorporates diverse methodologies and philosophical perspectives, challenging the boundaries of conventional scholarly categories. As such, Zhang’s contributions demand a nuanced understanding that appreciates both his adherence to and departure from established academic traditions (Jiang 2012, pp. 225–26). By employing the terminology and analytical tools of Buddhism, he provided nuanced explanations for the various metaphorical statements in Zhuangzi’s Qi wu lun, including a distinct interpretation of chengxin through the lens of Yogācāra. Despite extensive research on the Qiwulun Shi (Chen 2003; Su 2007; Murthy 2014; Ishii 2014; Meng 2019; Wang 2022), Zhang’s interpretation of Zhuangzi’s notion of chengxin through the lens of Yogācāra remains relatively underexplored.8

3.2. Zhuangzi’s Chengxin and Seeds in the Ālaya-vijñāna

In the opening paragraph of the Qi wu lun chapter, Zhuangzi references the “pipes of Heaven” in a dialog between Ziqi of Southwall (Nanguo Ziqi 南郭子綦) and his disciple Yan Cheng Ziyou 顔成子游. Ziyou inquires, “Then the pipes of Earth are just all the hollows, and the pipes of Man, are just bamboo panpipes, but may I be so bold as to ask what the pipes of Heaven are?” Ziqi responds, “They blow through the myriad things differently since they allow them all to act on their own” (Lynn 2022, p. 21). Zhang’s interpretation elucidates the following:

The pipes of Heaven producing sounds by blowing through the myriad things metaphorically represent the ālaya-vijñāna (Storehouse Consciousness). “The myriad things” symbolize all the seeds within the ālaya-vijñāna, which are termed “innate ideas” in modern times. Seeds cover not only words/concepts but also the fundamental qualities of attributes; hence the text says: “blow through the myriad things differently”. The phrase “allow them all to act on their own” suggests it is only be virtue of being grounded in the ālaya-vijñāna that the faculty of mind attaches itself to this consciousness and treats it as the “self”.

(Zhang 2014, p. 78)9

The concept of seeds (bijas) in Yogācāra Buddhism is inherently tied to the theory of ālaya-vijñāna, which is central to understanding the relationship between past actions and future experiences.10 Within this framework, seeds (bijas) symbolize latent karmic impressions (vāsanā) stored in the ālaya-vijñāna, serving as the foundation for all conscious experiences. As these seeds mature, they influence the nature and outcomes of future experiences, linking an individual’s past karmas with the present and future conditions.11 The interactions among these seeds can lead to both positive and negative manifestations, reflecting the nuanced and often dualistic nature of human experience. According to Yogācāra Buddhism, everything in the world is considered illusory and unreal, manifested solely by consciousness. Consequently, the origin of all phenomena perceived and cognized by humans lies in the seeds contained within the ālaya-vijñāna, which is the eighth consciousness. At the same time, the faculty of mind that attaches itself to the ālaya-vijñāna is the seventh consciousness, known as Manas-vijñāna. This Manas-vijñāna grasps the illusory and erroneous notion of a self, which is rooted in the eighth consciousness, thus constituting the basis of self-attachment.

Zhang points out that the distinct and varied seeds in the ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) are responsible for producing both names and phenomena.12 In other words, all internal and external phenomena, with their myriad forms and diverse appearances, are encompassed and manifested by these seeds. Furthermore, Zhang draws a parallel between the seeds in the ālaya-vijñāna and the Western concept of innate ideas (yuanxing guannian 原型觀念), which finds its roots in Plato’s theory of “forms” or “ideas”. Plato proposed that beyond the ever-changing material world perceived through our senses exists a realm of perfect, eternal forms. These forms are the ultimate reality and serve as the true essence or archetype of things in the physical world.13 In Kantian philosophy, the twelve a priori categories represent pure concepts of the understanding and are essential for organizing empirical judgments about objects of experience.14 In comparison to Kant’s twelve categories, the traditional Buddhism, both Theravada and Mahayana delineate a total of twenty-four indefinites or unconditioned elements, representing foundational truths about the nature of reality and the mind. While this intricate classification provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the non-material aspects of existence, Zhang perceives it as excessively complex and fragmented. In contrast, within the realms of mind dharmas, mind-associated dharmas, and mind-non-interactive dharmas, Zhang categorizes seven fundamental types of seeds inherent in the storehouse consciousness, temporal, spatial, formal, numerical, functional, causal, and self-related consciousness, the last of which encompasses attachment to self and dharmas.15 Zhang posits that these seven categories function as fundamental seeds, which underpin the emergence of various attributes. These attributes—such as existence and non-existence, right and wrong, individuality and commonality, aggregation and separation, and arising and decaying—are seen as extensions or ramifications of the original seven types of seeds (Zhang 2014, p. 88). Having introduced these categories, Zhang then asserts that Zhuangzi’s chengxin specifically refers to these foundational seeds. He explains the following:

When the six sensory consciousnesses of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are quiescent, chengxin resides latent in the storehouse consciousness and the mental consciousness. Upon their activation, chengxin emerges spontaneously and appropriately, without requiring external instruction. This is what is meant by “following the chengxin as one’s teacher.”

(Zhang 2014, p. 88)

As explicated above, Zhang maintains that chengxin is intrinsic and dormant within the eighth and seventh consciousnesses, becoming apparent upon the engagement of the six sensory consciousnesses. Thus, it can be said that chengxin is the innate, natural mind universal to all individuals, transcending individual differences, intellectual capacities, and cultural backgrounds. Regarding the notion of time, for instance, the Abhidharmamahāvibhāsā-śāstra articulates the following: “Whether foolish or wise, Buddhist or non-Buddhist, those engaged in worldly affairs and individuals of all ages, including children, all comprehend the concept of time, referring to it as past, present, and future”. This passage underscores the universality of temporal consciousness, demonstrating that it is a basic, innate awareness inherent in all beings (Zhang 2014, p. 88).

In Zhang’s view, chengxin serves as a means to awaken both oneself and others. Internally, it involves realizing the emptiness of self and phenomena, while externally, it aids in resolving disputes. Zhang asserts that “adhering to chengxin facilitates the effective resolution of conflicts”, suggesting that through chengxin, one can infer others’ perspectives and gain insights into their motivations and underlying needs. This approach fosters deeper mutual understanding and enables more effective communication in resolving disagreements. Zhang further explains that human emotions and thoughts are fluid and ever-changing, yet constrained by certain limitations that are difficult to transcend. To evaluate various schools of thought meaningfully, adherence to chengxin is essential. He states, “All knowledge and insights, whether shallow or deep, depend on the seeds to manifest temporal, spatial, formal, numerical, functional, causal, and self-related consciousness. These seven types of consciousness define the parameters of emotions and thoughts and serve as barriers to both wisdom and trickery” (Zhang 2014, p. 127). This implies that all cognitive processes inherently rely on chengxin and must align with the principles embedded in the seven types of seeds. Any deviation from these principles would result in what Zhang describes as “disturbances and absurdities inconsistent with rational thought”. Specifically, Zhang warns against certain forms of flawed thinking that violate these principles: First, believing in “results without causes”, which contradicts causal consciousness; second, denying the existence of “substance without forms”, thus rejecting formal consciousness; third, positing that “the future precedes the present”, which ignores temporal consciousness; fourth, asserting that “manifest forms exist outside of space”, disregarding spatial consciousness (Zhang 2014, p. 127). By adhering to chengxin or the principles of the seven types of seeds, Zhang argues, one can avoid these cognitive errors and achieve a more rational and coherent understanding of the world.

3.3. Comparison with Previous Interpretations

Most interpretations of chengxin, apart from Guo Xiang’s definition, tend to adopt either a positive or negative stance, categorizing chengxin into two opposing sides: the first, as articulated by Lin Xiyi, embodies the heavenly principle or inherent true nature possessed by individuals, while the second, as suggested by Cheng Xuanying, reflects preconceived notions and subjective biases. In contrast, Zhang Taiyan’s interpretation, albeit unintentionally, presents a compelling alternative that transcends these binary categories.

3.3.1. Comparison of Zhang’s and Daoist Interpretations

Zhang’s interpretation of chengxin exhibits a certain neutrality, echoing that of Guo Xiang. Both philosophers identify chengxin as a fundamental source of disputes, yet neither condemns it as inherently negative. Instead, they recognize it as an essential element that mediates human interaction with the world. Guo’s commentary on the Zhuangzi transcends mere explanation or development of the text’s ideas, offering a nuanced interpretation distinct from the Zhuangzi’s original meaning (D’Ambrosio 2023). By using the term “control” (zhi 制), Guo suggests that the mind should govern the body, thereby facilitating its functions in a positive manner. He thus differentiates chengxin from mere prejudice, asserting that regardless of one’s wisdom or foolishness, everyone must possess it to govern their body effectively.

A fundamental aspect of Guo’s annotation of the Zhuangzi is his differentiation between sages and ordinary people based on their inherent nature. When sages and superior individuals encounter inevitable disputes of right and wrong among common people, they should adopt an attitude of “accommodating both sides” (liangxing 兩行). As stated in the Qiushui Chapter of the Zhuangzi, “From the point of view of the Dao, there is nothing either noble or base about things. From the point of view of people, one regards oneself as noble and others mean” (Lynn 2022, p. 314). Guo’s idea that “since each person has his own teacher, he trusts in it and so considers himself correct” is directed at the general populace. He acknowledges the reasonableness of the chengxin formed by individuals based on their innate nature and acquired habits, believing that as long as people exist in a state of self-sufficiency and completeness according to their own nature, distinctions between right and wrong become essentially irrelevant. This implies that by following their nature, individuals can experience freedom and unfettered wandering, rendering disputes over right and wrong inconsequential despite external differences.

However, while discussing the nature of things within the limits of inherent nature is acceptable, applying this framework to human nature risks curtailing the mind’s potential for transcendence (Xie 2005, p. 28). Guo contends that altering inherent nature through self-cultivation, even slightly, seems implausible. Therefore, Guo’s framework does not resolve the inherent tension between the formation of subjective biases or prejudice and the possibility of overcoming them. His interpretation leans towards a more static understanding of the mind, failing to account for the dynamic process through which the mind can transform and integrate broader philosophical insights. His view underscores the limitations inherent in human nature, raising critical questions about the feasibility of cultivation and the potential for moral and spiritual growth. Guo’s stance blurs the distinction between human and natural essence, potentially leading individuals to accept their circumstances complacently, thus neglecting the pursuit of a more refined spirit. By emphasizing the sufficiency of one’s inherent nature, Guo’s interpretation may inadvertently discourage individuals from striving for higher moral and spiritual ideals. If inherent nature is seen as immutable, then the very foundation of moral and spiritual cultivation could be questioned. This deterministic view might lead to a fatalistic outlook, where individuals resign themselves to their innate dispositions and circumstances, thereby undermining the transformative potential of self-cultivation practices. Guo’s interpretation can be seen as a response to the socio-political context of his time. During the Six Dynasties period, China experienced significant turmoil and fragmentation, which may have influenced Guo’s emphasis on self-sufficiency and acceptance of one’s inherent nature. By advocating a philosophy that encourages individuals to seek contentment within themselves, Guo’s commentary could be seen as a means to foster inner peace and stability amid external turmoil.

In comparison, with the notion of “transforming chengxin into wisdom” derived from the Yogācāra school of thought, Zhang’s Yogācāra interpretation has its implication for self-cultivation and immanent transcendence. From the Yogācāra perspective, seeds (bijas) can be classified into two main categories based on their nature: contaminated (you lou 有漏) and uncontaminated (wu lou 無漏). Through the practice of cultivation, contaminated seeds can be transformed into uncontaminated seeds, a process commonly referred to as “transforming consciousness into wisdom”. As mentioned above, the seeds within the ālaya-vijñāna form the basis of right and wrong. Zhang specifically asserts that the perception of right and wrong is derived from the seed of self-attachment, with its formation contingent upon two fundamental conditions. One is the presence of an inherent concept, or seed, of right and wrong, which is a subdivision of the seed of self-attachment. He contends, “If the seed of right and wrong do not exist, then the manifestation of right and wrong cannot emerge”. Another is the requirement for subjective judgment: “If one does not determine what is right and what is wrong, then no definitive evidence of right or wrong can be established in specific matters”. (Zhang 2014, p. 89) Zhang attributes this subjective judgment to self-attachment, which generates perceptions of right and wrong shaped by acquired habits. In other words, what aligns with one’s needs or opinions is habitually deemed right, while what opposes them is labeled wrong. Such subjective judgments foster prejudices and biases, corresponding to the preconception discussed by Guo Xiang and Cheng Xuanying. Zhang’s interpretation has the following implication.

Given that the root of right and wrong lies in self-attachment, resolving disputes and conflicts requires the elimination of attachment to the self. Such attachment leads people to hold tightly to their biases, thereby narrowing their own perspectives and impeding effective communication with others. As a result, this narrow-mindedness fosters subjective judgments of right and wrong, leading to disputes. Zhang’s observation that “things arise in relation to each other and have no intrinsic self-nature” highlights that perceptions of right and wrong are inherently relative, uncertain, and subject to change with varying circumstances (Zhang 2014, p. 91). Prejudices and biases arise from the opposition and antagonism between oneself and others. Therefore, broadening one’s perspective and transcending existing biases to cultivate a nuanced understanding of both oneself and others is imperative for mitigating disputes and resolving conflicts.

In this regard, the sage embodies the highest ideal, as one who “has no invariable mind of his own”, but rather “adopts the mind of the people as his mind”. In other words, the sage empathizes and aligns himself to the minds of the people, “illuminating things with the light of Heaven”, thereby transcending personal biases to perceive the world with greater objectivity (Zhang 2014, p. 91).16 Here, the “invariable mind” can be interpreted as chengxin—a fixed or prejudiced mindset.17 By dispelling self-attachment, the sage transforms his own preconceived mind to align with the minds of the common people. This dissolution of the self–other dichotomy leads to a state of mutual harmony, wherein opposition dissipates. Zhuangzi metaphorically describes this state as the “pivot of the Dao”. Zhang further elaborates that this pivot, like a door hinge that rotates within its frame—opening and closing, advancing and retreating—adaptively responds to fluctuating circumstances. In this dynamic state, notions of right and wrong are fluid, and responses are meticulously attuned to the context. As Zhuangzi puts it, this is a process wherein diverse perspectives cast light on each other, thereby cultivating understanding and unity.

3.3.2. Comparison of Zhang’s and Neo-Confucian Interpretations

In Zhang’s interpretation, the objective of self-realization is to attain a state of enlightened awareness or wisdom of reality, characterized by the dissolution of the distinctions between the self and the other. In the practice of Yogācāra, the wisdom of reality arises through the four investigations (paryesanāh) and the four-fold true knowledge of seeing things as they really are (yathābhūtaparijñāna).18 Zhang draws upon the concept articulated by Zhuangzi to describe the process: genuine self-realization initially relies on tian ni 天倪19 as a measure for inference and ultimately transcends into a realm free from thought, a state Zhang refers to as the Supreme tian ni 最勝天倪20. To explain it plainly, the attainment of profound wisdom requires sentient beings to engage in four investigations, wherein tian ni serves as the evaluative standard. Consequently, Zhang asserts that tian ni is the basis of self-realization.

The term tian ni is elaborated upon in the latter sections of the Qi wu lun, wherein it is articulated as “to be in accord with Heaven’s distinctions (tian ni)”. It also appears in the Yuyan 寓言 chapter, “The myriad things all are from the same seed; they succeed one another in different forms. Beginnings and endings go around as if as a single ring, and no one comprehends its principle. It is called the potter’s wheel of Heaven (tian jun 天均), which equates to Heaven’s distinctions (tian ni)”. Guo Xiang interprets this phrase as denoting the “divisions of nature”. Given that the various types of seeds correspond to these divisions of nature, Zhang correlates tian ni with the concept of seeds, thus establishing an approximate equivalence between tian ni and chengxin. The seeds, which underlie the multitude of phenomena—also referred to as tian ni—encompass the material manifestations of cognitive faculties, the natural world, and the three kinds of perfuming influence (vāsanā).21 Meanwhile, chengxin, regarded as innate ideas, mainly concerns these three kinds of perfuming influence (vāsanā). Zhang concluded that by harmonizing oneself with tian ni and embracing the boundless possibilities of transformation, one can transcend the binary opposition of right and wrong, thereby fully realizing the essence of life.

This concept resonates with Lin Xiyi’s notion of “the heavenly principle in everyone, regarded as complete and universal” (Lin 1997, p. 21). Lü Huiqing explicates this idea by stating, “The completed mind is what I receive from Heaven without deficiency, thus enabling me to clearly distinguish the true from the false” (Lü 2009, p. 26). From a Neo-Confucian perspective, if everyone possesses chengxin as the holistic heavenly principle and the innate true mind, distinctions between self and others dissolve, and notions of right and wrong cease to exist. However, when individuals fail to fully perceive this principle, the true mind becomes obscured, leading to disputes over right and wrong. In other words, notions of right and wrong arise from the manifestation of personal biases in the human mind. Once the selfish mind arises, the innate true mind is lost, indicating a deficiency in chengxin. Therefore, Neo-Confucian thought emphasizes moral cultivation and self-realization, as individuals strive to align with the transcendent principles that govern the universe.

However, Neo-Confucian interpretations of chengxin often lack explicit details on how to resolve disputes with the heavenly principle or innate true mind. Zhang offers a perspective that addresses this gap. He posits that tian ni, which embodies the natural order and principle of inference, serves as the fundamental framework within which all phenomena emerge and unfold. According to Zhang, by aligning one’s actions and cognition with the heavenly principle, individuals can navigate and transcend the intricacies of existence without being ensnared by rigid judgment of right and wrong. Since all opinions and viewpoints adhere to tian ni or chengxin, it follows that, whether from Confucians, laypersons, experienced artisans, or spiritual leaders, their discussions may not be entirely accurate but are certainly not devoid of merit. Zhang further argues that extremist views cannot totally negate the correct understanding; rather, they obtain fragments of the truth. Similarly, erroneous views represent distortions of the correct perspective and remain inextricably linked to it. Consequently, “even the views espoused by celestial demons, despite their varying nuances and inherent flaws, ultimately align with the three manifestations of worldly truths” (Zhang 2014, p. 127). This underscores the fact that no single perspective can encapsulate the entirety of truth or be wholly devoid of validity; each viewpoint illuminates the essence of phenomena from a distinct angle. Even misguided interpretations, though they may challenge correct understanding, can serve as catalysts in the pursuit of accurate perspectives. As Zhang’s saying goes, “truth and falsehood share a common origin; the false and the real are inherently interrelated” (Zhang 2014, p. 128).

In essence, the method of “resolving disputes”, as proposed by Zhang, entails adherence to tian ni or chengxin. This involves a meticulous consideration of matters grounded in principle and reason. By adhering to chengxin, one engages in a fair discourse encompassing diverse perspectives. It also involves “observing the interconnections and coherence among varying viewpoints”, acknowledging that, in accordance with tian ni, “all phenomena are not mutually exclusive; rather, they exist in harmonious unity as components of a greater whole”. Thus, the synthesis of diverse perspectives, inherently embedded within mundane truths, ultimately unveils the supreme truth, revealing a deeper understanding of reality. Adopting the metaphor of seeds, Zhang illustrates the following: “Just as one seed among many is mutually inclusive with the others, yet no single seed encapsulates the entirety independently; through understanding one, we can comprehend the whole. These seeds may seem to lean against or even contradict each other, but through a transformative shift in perspective, they integrated into a cohesive and harmonious whole” (Zhang 2014, p. 127).

The reciprocal interplay between the singular and the plural indicates that within the singular lies the manifold, and that individual perspectives contribute to a broader understanding. Just as no single seed contains the essence of all seeds, no single perspective can capture the entirety of truth. It is through the intermingling and interconnection of diverse perspectives that we begin to grasp a more comprehensive understanding. By examining a single seed or exploring a particular perspective, we uncover insights that pave the way for broader comprehension, revealing the interconnectedness that underpins our understanding of reality.

4. Theoretical Underpinning of Zhang’s Interpretation

Zhang adopted the concept of seeds from Yogācāra Buddhism to analogize Zhuangzi’s notion of chengxin. His primary intention is to interpret the Zhuangzi through the lens of Buddhist thought, thereby elucidating his philosophy of Qiwu (making all things equal). This perspective allows Zhang to transcend the traditional dichotomies in the interpretations of chengxin within Daoist and Neo-Confucian discussions, which create a polarization between positive and negative evaluations. While the link between the concept of seeds and the idea of innate knowledge reflects the influence of Western philosophical thought—particularly ancient Greek and German philosophy—Zhang’s methodology remains firmly anchored in traditional philosophical frameworks. Notably, his approach is deeply influenced by the Buddhist doctrine of non-duality, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of all phenomena.

The doctrine of non-duality, also known as non-dualism (or advaita), rejects the conventional view that reality consists of separate, independent entities. Instead, it proposes that at the deepest level, all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, without any fundamental divisions or distinctions between self and other, subject and object, or other dualistic categories. This understanding reveals the essential unity underlying the apparent diversity of existence and is regarded as a pathway to overcoming obstructions and attaining enlightenment. Various Buddhist traditions, including Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Zen, offer profound philosophical and experiential practices that illuminate this non-dual nature of reality. Consider the following three paragraphs from the Treatise on Awakening Mahāyāna Faith as notable examples:

The meaning of “inherent awakening” is spoken of in relation to the meaning of initial awakening since initial awakening is precisely the same as inherent awakening. The meaning of “initial awakening” is this: because of inherent awakening, there is non-awakening; and because of non-awakening, one speaks of there being initial awakening.

(Jorgensen et al. 2019, pp. 72–73)

It is because all the characteristics of the mind and consciousnesses are ignorance and, since the characteristic of ignorance is not separate from the nature of awakening, the mind and consciousnesses are both indestructible and destructible.

(Jorgensen et al. 2019, p. 76)

Its thought-moments lack intrinsic characteristics and are not apart from inherent awakening. This is just like a disoriented person, who becomes disoriented because there are directions. Once apart from directions, there is no becoming disoriented. Sentient beings are also like this: they become disoriented because there is awakening. Once apart from awakening, there is no non-awakening.

(Jorgensen et al. 2019, p. 79)

The preceding discourse elucidates the dichotomy and interdependence between non-awakening and inherent awakening, as well as the characteristics of ignorance juxtaposed with the nature of awakening. From the perspective of Yogācāra Buddhism, the seventh consciousness, known as manas, serves as the basis for both pure and defiled phenomena, implying that all manifestations of purity and impurity arise and transform from this consciousness. When the initial six consciousnesses engender defiled karma, these defiled phenomena are subsequently transferred to the eighth consciousness, becoming contaminated. Conversely, when the six consciousnesses generate pure karma, the ensuing pure phenomena are transferred to the eighth consciousness and remain uncontaminated. As articulated in the Mahayana Method of Cessation and Contemplation, “The essence of the mind is fundamentally equal; it inherently possesses the dual functions of mental states characterized by impurity and purity” (Shi 2014, p. 64). These assertions exemplify Buddhist conceptions of non-duality between awakening and non-awakening, as well as the transformation of defilement into purity.

Zhang demonstrated a profound grasp of this philosophical method, which he articulated through his insightful observations: “Given their shared karmic consciousness, their seeds are identical: the false is contingent upon the true, and the false can evolve into the true. This relationship resembles that of water and waves, or hemp and rope: they are not distinct entities but manifestations of a single nature. Attachment is the hallmark of demons and non-Buddhists, whereas detachment embodies the wisdom of the sages” (Zhang 2011, p. 49). By employing the analogies of water and waves, as well as hemp and rope, Zhang effectively illustrates the relationship between the true and the false.

Zhang’s interpretation of chengxin exemplifies a vivid application of this philosophical approach. On the one hand, chengxin denotes the heavenly principle or the intrinsic natural mind, a concept that parallels what the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana refers to as “inherent awakening”. Nonetheless, through the process of perfuming, subjective biases and prejudices arise, leading to a state of “non-awakening”.22 The sage, however, has the ability to transcend self-attachment, thereby transforming chengxin (which refers to the preconceived mind) into what is termed “initial awakening”. It is crucial to note that initial awakening and inherent awakening are not separate; they are interconnected. Consequently, the preconceived mind and subjective biases, despite their negative connotations, are also inextricably linked to the inherent natural mind. It is in this sense that Zhang integrates and reconciles the distinct and conflicting interpretations of chengxin by Daoist and Confucian scholars.

On the other hand, Zhang metaphorically compares chengxin to seeds, which encompass three kinds of perfuming influences (vāsanā): image, name, and discriminating influence. These are the seeds of contaminated phenomena in the ālaya-vijñāna (here referring to the consciousness that is resultant of maturation). Defiled seeds obstruct the mind by giving rise to discrimination, deluded emotions, and self-attachments. However, just as defiled seeds can be transformed into undefiled seeds, reliance on chengxin enables an individual to realize the emptiness of true nature. Additionally, by using chengxin to impartially evaluate various schools of thought, with tian ni serving as the criterion to reconcile right and wrong, one finds that partial perspectives are subsumed within a broader framework of correctness. In this framework, inverted views are not separated from correct views. Furthermore, the viewpoints of heavenly demons align with the three mundane truths. All of these are reflections of the theory of non-duality.

5. Criticisms and Implications of Zhang’s Interpretation

In the Qiwulun Shi, Zhang Taiyan embarks on an ambitious intellectual endeavor to construct a unique Qiwu philosophy that addresses modern issues by weaving together terminologies and conceptual elements from diverse philosophical traditions. Drawing from Chinese and Indian Buddhism, classical Chinese philosophy—most notably Zhuangzi—and Western philosophy, particularly Kant, Zhang’s Qiwu philosophy is characterized by its innovative synthesis and inherent tensions, which inevitably invites criticisms from his contemporaries and subsequent philosophical commentators. Nevertheless, Zhang’s interpretation of chengxin is not without significant implications. As articulated in the Qiwulun Shi, “Seeds constitute the cognitive obstacles within the mind, while all obstacles reflect the path to Supreme enlightenment. Consequently, the transformation of chengxin leads to the attainment of wisdom.23 Simultaneously, adhering to chengxin facilitates the effective resolution of conflicts” (Zhang 2014, p. 88). Zhang’s methodology shows that philosophical traditions, rather than being isolated or incommensurable, can interact to enrich and expand their insights. This cross-cultural synthesis is particularly relevant in the context of globalization, where intellectual and cultural exchanges are increasingly frequent and intense.

5.1. Criticisms of Zhang’s Interpretation

Zhang’s primary aim in studying Buddhism was to harness its doctrinal and philosophical resources to develop his own ideological system. To this end, he engaged deeply with the Yogācāra school, drawing from its various concepts and frameworks to enrich his own thoughts and articulate his ideas. However, Zhang’s understanding of Buddhism was not without its critics. Xiong Shili 熊十力, for instance, criticized Zhang’s understanding of the Cheng Weishi Lun 成唯識論 (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), asserting that Zhang failed to fully comprehend the core principles and framework of the text, instead focusing only on select elegant phrases. Although Xiong’s criticism may be somewhat harsh, it underscores the fact that Zhang’s interaction with Buddhist Yogācāra was ultimately guided by his desire to express his own ideological insights.

Critics have observed that Zhang conflates the distinct concepts of ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) and tathāgatagarbha, which originate from separate branches of Buddhist thought, potentially leading to interpretative inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Zhang employs the framework and vocabulary of Yogācāra Buddhism to interpret Zhuangzi’s Qi wu lun, while also drawing on insights from the Chinese Buddhist classic, Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana. This text synthesizes tathāgatagarbha and ālaya-vijñāna theories, explaining how the mind serves as the source of both enlightenment and ignorance. It played a crucial role in establishing the Huayan Buddhist school, underscoring its significant influence on Chinese Buddhist thought and the dynamic interaction between indigenous Chinese thought and imported Buddhist doctrines. Therefore, the theoretical roots of the Awakening of Faith are complex, intertwining traditional Chinese philosophical perspectives with early Buddhist teachings. Notably, within the Chinese context, concepts such as tathāgatagarbha evolved significantly, diverging from their Indian origins. In Yogācāra philosophy, the tathāgatagarbha represents purity, whereas the ālaya-vijñāna is associated with defilement. By equating these two concepts, Zhang overlooks their fundamental differences, resulting in an oversimplification that reflects deeper conceptual confusion. It blurs the distinct roles of each concept, creating tension within Zhang’s ontology of true suchness (zhenru 真如) and affecting its coherence and clarity (Cai 2013, pp. 29–30).

While the internal tension in Zhang’s philosophical thought is exemplified by his conflation of two distinct Buddhist traditions, the Chinese framework, notably the Awakening of Faith, and the Indian Yogācāra school, his infusion of Western philosophy, especially Kantian concepts, further adds to this complexity. Zhang’s interpretation of Kant’s philosophy warrants closer examination. He argues that Kant suggests the “twelve a priori categories are empty” and that “space and time are nonexistent”. This interpretation may arise from a misapprehension of the subjective nature of Kant’s constructs and risks overlooking their significant epistemological implications. Zhang’s interpretation of ālaya-vijñāna reflects Kantian influence, as he identifies “twelve categories” with seeds in the storehouse consciousness.24 Zhang draws upon the Yogācāra concept of seeds (bijas) and the Western philosophical concept of innate ideas to create parallels with chengxin.25 In his interpretation, seeds or innate ideas are regarded as fundamental forms of synthetic a priori knowledge, playing a significant role in shaping our understanding of the world.26 This approach allows Zhang to reconcile distinct and conflicting meanings within the dualistic framework, offering a nuanced comprehension of chengxin and its applications both internally and externally.

However, due to his limited understanding of Western philosophy, Zhang misunderstood several aspects of Kantian epistemology. Specifically, he equated space, time, and the twelve categories with the so-called “seven types of seeds”, which contradicts Kant’s description of their roles in cognition. Yogācāra Buddhism portrays the seeds as latent karmic imprints shaped by past experiences and mental activities. These seeds are dynamic, continuously evolving through the process of cultivation and subject to transformation based on karmic conditions. Thus, phenomena like right and wrong are not fixed entities but arise and change according to the seeds planted and the external conditions that influence them. This fluidity reflects the non-dualistic and impermanent nature of consciousness in Yogācāra. In contrast, Kant’s a priori categories—universal and immutable structures of human cognition—are static and operate independently of empirical experience, shaping our understanding of the world from a purely rational, pre-experiential standpoint. Zhang’s attempt to align Yogācāra’s dynamic seeds with Kant’s innate cognitive forms is innovative but philosophically contentious. Critics argue that this synthesis oversimplifies both traditions. In Buddhist thought, the dualistic distinctions between subject and object, right and wrong, and self and other are regarded as illusory, arising from ignorance and the attachment to a false sense of self. However, by aligning this with Kant’s fixed categories, Zhang introduces a level of permanence and essentialism that dilutes the Buddhist rejection of intrinsic distinctions. This misalignment complicates his ontology by integrating innate ideas akin to Kant’s a priori forms without fully grasping their implications (Cai 2013, pp. 49–50). Consequently, critics argue that Zhang’s philosophical framework may appear incoherent from certain perspectives. This highlights the necessity for a deeper engagement with Western philosophical concepts to ensure the integrity and coherence of his system.

5.2. Implications of Zhang’s Interpretation

Through examining Zhang’s elucidation of the theory of seeds and his interpretation of chengxin, it becomes evident that his epistemology is neither a simple presentation of Yogācāra theory nor a direct adoption of Kantian thought. Instead, he creatively integrates Western philosophy to revitalize and enrich the inherent potential of Yogācāra Buddhism, resulting in a comprehensive, robust, and speculative philosophical system. This synthesis reflects the depth and breadth of Zhang’s philosophical scholarship.

Zhang’s interpretation of chengxin, drawing from both Yogācāra Buddhism and Western thought, offers a compelling model for synthesizing diverse philosophical traditions and fostering cross-cultural dialog. His approach demonstrates the potential of integrating seemingly disparate philosophical resources to generate novel insights, making it particularly relevant to contemporary discussions on global philosophy and cultural exchanges. Zhang’s methodology is exemplified through his engagement with both Eastern and Western thought, anticipating a broader trend in contemporary philosophy where scholars draw from multiple traditions to address global issues. Zhang’s work illustrates the productive outcomes of such dialogs, as seen in his comparison between Kant’s categories and Yogācāra’s seeds.

Zhang’s interpretation employs the method of geyi (matching concepts), not to impose one tradition over another, but to facilitate a dialogical process where unique insights from each tradition mutually inform and transform one another. This results in a more nuanced and integrated understanding of chengxin as both an ontological and epistemological concept. Although his interpretation of Yogācāra theory and Kant’s philosophy has faced criticism for certain misapprehensions, Zhang’s effort reflects a pioneering attempt to construct a synthetic philosophical framework. The contemporary relevance of Zhang’s cross-cultural synthesis becomes evident in the context of globalization. As intellectual and cultural exchanges intensify, his work provides a valuable model for meaningful dialog between different traditions without reducing one to the terms of another. This kind of intercultural engagement promotes greater philosophical diversity and encourages mutual respect among different intellectual traditions.

In essence, Zhang’s methodology demonstrates that philosophical traditions are neither isolated nor incommensurable but can interact in ways that enrich and expand their respective insights. By doing so, he sets a precedent for modern scholars to engage with different intellectual traditions not merely as subjects of comparison but as partners in dialog.

Of course, as elucidated in the preceding discussion, Zhang’s ambitious attempt to integrate these diverse philosophies is not without its challenges. The internal tensions within his philosophy highlight the inherent difficulties in such an integrative approach. While he succeeds in bringing Chinese, Indian, and Western traditions into conversation with one another and the integration of diverse traditions yields novel insights, the synthesis is not always seamless. The philosophical systems he engages with have fundamentally different ontological and epistemological assumptions, which can lead to contradictions or unresolved tensions within his framework.

However, these internal tensions do not diminish the value of Zhang’s work; instead, they present opportunities for further philosophical inquiry. They highlight the complex nature of cross-cultural philosophical engagement and the challenges of bridging disparate systems. This underscores the importance of ongoing dialog and refinement. Zhang’s willingness to confront these challenges sets an important example for contemporary scholars. By embracing the difficulties and potential of dialog between different traditions, we can follow Zhang’s lead in cultivating a more inclusive philosophical landscape.

6. Conclusions

The Zhuangzi is a complex and open-ended text in the Daoist tradition, inviting a wide range of interpretations over the centuries. Its rich themes and adaptable nature, combined with its ambiguous language, paradoxes, and allegorical narratives, provide ample opportunity for scholars from Daoist, Confucian, Buddhist, and other backgrounds to explore its philosophical insights. This paper explores how the concept of chengxin in the Zhuangzi has been understood differently throughout Chinese intellectual history. Daoist thinkers like Guo Xiang and Cheng Xuanying, as well as Neo-Confucians such as Lü Huiqing and Lin Xiyi, have each examined chengxin through their philosophical lenses.

As a modern scholar–philosopher, Zhang Taiyan offers an innovative interpretation of chengxin by combining elements of Yogācāra Buddhism with traditional Chinese thought. By introducing the Yogācāra notion of ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) and its metaphor of seeds, Zhang provides a unique view that reconciles the natural, unbiased mind with one shaped by preconceived notions and biases. His approach actually transcends the dichotomies of Daoist and Neo-Confucian interpretations, providing an integrated perspective that aligns with the Buddhist principle of non-duality.

In the modern era, philosophers have focused on examining the conceptual resources found in historical Chinese texts, reconstructing these ideas to address modern philosophical questions, often in dialog with Western thought (Jiang 2016, p. 52). Zhang’s interpretation of the Qi wu lun stands out for its integration of insights from both Chinese and Western thoughts. Despite some criticisms of his understanding of Yogācāra and Kant, Zhang’s cross-cultural approach emphasizes the Zhuangzi as a platform for philosophical exploration beyond cultural and intellectual limits. His engagement with both Eastern and Western philosophies highlights the potential for these traditions to enrich each other, fostering a deeper understanding of universal philosophical questions. This integrative approach not only broadens the scope of philosophical inquiry but also encourages a more inclusive dialog that transcends cultural boundaries, paving the way for innovative interpretations and solutions to contemporary issues.