Reflection on the Unity of the Three Teachings in the Late Ming Dynasty—Centered on the Concept of “Sanhanjiao Is Non-Orthodox Teaching” in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

Abstract

In his work The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Matteo Ricci not only criticized Buddhism and Taoism but also put forward the viewpoint that “Sanhanjiao is non-orthodox teaching”. The so-called Sanhanjiao actually refers to the three teachings into one established by Lin Zhaoen, so Ricci’s criticism of the three teachings into one, to some extent, is also a criticism of Lin Zhaoen’s “Three-in-One Doctrine”. Ricci used the argument “One Teaching cannot have Three Teachings” to criticize the view of “One Dao, Three Teachings” and also used “it is not possible to forcibly equate the Three Teachings” to criticize the theory of “the Three Teachings are the same”, bringing the perspective of the uniqueness of faith in Western religious culture to China. Ricci’s criticism of the three teachings into one is based on the premise of spreading Catholicism; his argument mainly relies on the logical reasoning of the Western way of thinking, thus ignoring the inherent characteristics of Chinese indigenous culture. However, his viewpoint at least broke the mainstream ideology of “the Unity of the Three Teachings” in the late Ming Dynasty and also provided significant inspiration for the intellectuals of the late Ming Dynasty to reflect on this trend. Ricci’s dialogue with Chinese indigenous religions did not erase the differences between their respective cultures, but actually promoted the integration between Chinese and Western cultures. Therefore, the significance of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven lies not only in the dissemination of Catholic thought but also implies a dialogue and cultural transformation between different civilizations.

1. Introduction

The Ming and Qing dynasties in Chinese history were a crucial period of transition from traditional to modern society. The exchange and dialogue between Western and Chinese thought have always been a hot topic during this time. In this context, the introduction of Western religious culture into China would inevitably lead to dialogue and collision with Chinese indigenous religious culture, thereby causing a certain impact on the original Chinese culture. Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) came to China to preach at the end of the Ming Dynasty and the beginning of the Qing Dynasty. His work, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, is the development of a previous catechism published some twenty years before by his mentor, Alessandro Valignano1. Ricci adopted a combination of scholastic and hermeneutical methods in this work. This adoption of a hermeneutical approach based on Chinese classics helped to integrate academic methods into the Chinese intellectual tradition (Meynard 2014, pp. 303–22), although Ricci’s original intention was not to complete an academic work; under his new perspective of interpretation, this work has become a typical text for the study of cultural exchanges between China and the West, and its academic value is self-evident. In this book, he evaluates the role Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism used to play within Chinese society, presenting the collision between Chinese and Western religious cultures. Young-bae, Song believed that The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven creatively combines traditional Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy, with significant theoretical reference value (Song 2001, pp. 57–99).

Scholars have extensively discussed the reflection of Catholicism, the interaction between Jesuits and Confucianism, and other issues in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. Zheng Lifeng 鄭利峰 explored the dialogue and debate between Buddhism and Catholicism at the end of the Ming Dynasty, centering on Matteo Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven and FeiYin Tongrong’s 費隱通容 Original Dao and the Repudiation of Heresy 原道辟邪說 (L. Zheng 2022, pp. 219–25). Jiang Xin 蔣鑫 interpreted the similarities and differences between Confucianism and Christianity in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven from the perspective of “the unity of the Dao and the diversity of teachings” 道一教殊 (Jiang 2021, pp. 211–40). Kevin N. Cawley analyzed the translation of “God” in Catholicism and “God” in Confucianism in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, suggesting such comparation can facilitate the understanding of how Matteo Ricci used the language of another civilization to express his own faith (Kevin 2013, pp. 293–308). Ambrose Ih-Ren Mong agreed with Matteo Ricci’s borrowing from Confucianism and criticism of Buddhism in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, attempting to reflect on the limitations of Matteo Ricci’s thought (Mong 2015, pp. 385–97).

The above studies concerning Ricci’s dealings with Chinese traditional culture can be summarized as the discussion on the relations between Christianity and Buddhism, the relations between Christianity and Confucianism, and the relations between Christianity and Buddhism and Confucianism. These studies have undoubtedly advanced the relevant study of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, but they fail to notice another important issue. The term “Sanhanjiao” 三凾教 mentioned in Section 5 of the seventh chapter of the Chinese version2 of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven is still ambiguous. Matteo Ricci specifically proposed that “Sanhanjiao is non-orthodox teaching” 三凾教非正教 and made a series of criticisms of it. This section has been relatively overlooked in previous studies. What exactly did Matteo Ricci mean by the “Sanhanjiao”?

In this article, “Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory”3 proposed by Wang Xiaochao 王曉朝, a renowned contemporary Chinese religious studies scholar, will be applied to analyze the interaction and collision between the Catholic culture represented by Matteo Ricci and the Chinese folk religious culture represented by Lin Zhaoen. According to Wang Xiaochao, “The reason why I use the terms ‘interaction’ and ‘transformation’ to identify the cultural theory I want to construct is that this theory takes the cultural communication between different types of cultures as its object, emphasizing the ‘interaction’ and ‘transformation’ between indigenous culture and foreign culture as its main features” (Wang 1999, pp. 104–9). The Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory denies cultural determinism and acknowledges cultural renewal. It believes that cultural transformation is a historical process. Instead of a simple replacement, it argues that reorganization through the conflict and integration between foreign culture and indigenous culture will result in the emergence of a new culture. This theory effectively explains the process of the birth of a new culture, especially providing valuable insights for reinterpreting the “East-West”4 issue. Through a series of literature searches and collections, the author believes that Matteo Ricci’s “Sanhanjiao” refers to the three teachings into one (sanyijiao 三一教5) founded by Lin Zhaoen 林兆恩 (1517–1598). The establishment of this connection provides a new perspective for the study of the interaction between late Ming Catholicism and Chinese folk religions. Then, I will use some basic viewpoints of the “Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory” to examine Matteo Ricci’s specific criticisms of Sanhanjiao in order to shed light on the interaction and dialogue between Western religious culture and Chinese religious culture. Finally, I will attempt to point out the impact and significance of Matteo Ricci’s view of “Sanhanjiao is non-orthodox teaching” during the late Ming period.

2. Sanhanjiao Refers to the Three Teachings into One

The concept of Sanhanjiao is not found in other classical Chinese literature, so it can be reasonably believed that it is not an indigenous concept in China. The Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory posits that “cross-cultural communication is bidirectional rather than unidirectional output or input” (Wang 1999, pp. 104–9). It emphasizes that cultural exchange and dissemination are mutual and interactive, where both sides are constantly changing and influencing themselves and each other. From this basic standpoint, the concept of Sanhanjiao is more likely a result of the interaction between Chinese and Western cultures. By examining the characteristics of the Sanhanjiao as described by Matteo Ricci in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven—“One Body, Three Heads” (yishensanshou 一身三首) and Matteo Ricci’s missionary route in China, it can be concluded that Sanhanjiao indeed refers to the three teachings into one created by Lin Zhaoen. The term “Sanhanjiao” is therefore a new concept resulting from the interaction between Chinese and Western cultures.

During his studying and preaching in China, Matteo Ricci left behind a large number of Chinese writings, with The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven being one of the most famous works. After its publication, this book had a tremendous impact, opening up new prospects for the spread of Catholicism in China, but at the same time, it was also denounced by anti-Christian individuals as the “first demonic book” (diyiyaoshu 第一妖書). In the 21st year of the Wanli era (1593), Alessandro Valignano 範禮安 instructed Matteo Ricci to write a new “Essentials of the Christian Doctrine,”6 and he emphasized the use of Chinese classics while highlighting the philosophical interpretation of these texts. In The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Matteo Ricci provided a distinct and concentrated interpretation and critique of the local religious culture; what was remarkable was his comparisons with Confucianism and his extensive criticism of Buddhism and Taoism. Of course, in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Matteo Ricci also criticized the Sanhanjiao, with the fifth section of the seventh chapter titled “Sanhanjiao is non-orthodox teaching”. However, despite modern scholars having conducted extensive literature searches, the term “Sanhanjiao” remains unclear. Scholar Sun Shangyang 孫尚揚 mentioned in his book The Interaction between Catholicism and Confucianism in the Late Ming Dynasty—A Perspective of Intellectual History that the Sanhanjiao refers to the three teachings into one established by Lin Zhaoen (S. Sun 2013, p. 94). Unfortunately, the author only briefly mentioned it in the book without detailed evidence. He Shanmeng 何善蒙 also suggested that, as a religious form, the Sanhanjiao mentioned by Matteo Ricci may be the three teachings into one established by Lin Zhaoen. Considering the era in which Matteo Ricci lived and his critique of the Sanhanjiao, the only influential movement at that time was the three teachings into one established by Lin Zhaoen (S. He 2011, p. 204). He Shanmeng also did not conduct in-depth research on this. The author of the English translation of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven also mentioned in the translation: “Sanhanjiao 三凾教, literally, the teaching including three. This expression is unusual. Ricci is most probably referring to the three teachings into one (sanyijiao 三一教), a syncretist movement founded by Lin Zhaoen 林兆恩 (1517–1598). Ricci may have developed his argumentation against syncretism while he was in contact with Zhang Huang, who was strongly opposed to it “(Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen 2016, p. 329). Similarly, in his Annotation of the True Meaning of The Lord of Heaven, Thierry Meynard also proposed that “the Three Teachings here should be understood as the Three Teachings into One of Lin Zhaoen, and Matteo Ricci criticized this new synthetic teaching” (Meynard 2014, p. 204). Although the above-mentioned scholars have suggested the possibility that Sanhanjiao refers to the three teachings into one, they have not provided detailed evidence or conducted in-depth research on the relationship between the two. I also believe that Sanhanjiao refers to the three teachings into one, and the following are my reasons for this belief.

2.1. The Unity of the Three Teachings and the Three Teachings into One

Firstly, from the text itself, Matteo Ricci’s The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven discusses Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism as schools of thought, implying that Sanhanjiao and the three teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are at least in a comparable situation. Sun Guozhu 孫國柱 has suggested, “‘Sanhanjiao’ is not a common term. Considering the era in which Matteo Ricci lived, the author infers that ‘Sanhanjiao’ should refer to the flourishing ‘Three Teachings as One’ trend of late Ming China” (G. Sun 2018, pp. 121–28). Sun Guozhu’s speculation that Sanhanjiao refers to the prevalent thoughts of “the Unity of the Three Teachings” in late Ming China may be reasonable, but it is not entirely accurate. Indeed, the thought “the Unity of the Three Teachings” was flourishing in the late Ming period. However, this thought was radically different from the religion of three teachings into one. In the fourth section of the seventh chapter of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Matteo Ricci criticizes Buddhism and Taoism and comments that “Buddhism and Taoism are non-orthodox teachings” (A. Zheng 2003, p. 100). He criticizes Buddhism and Taoism before Sanhanjiao in the fifth section, indicating that the Sanhanjiao recognized by Matteo Ricci is a teaching similar to Buddhism and Taoism, rather than just an ideological trend. Having been vague and general for a long time, the conception of “the Unity of the Three Teachings” in the Ming Dynasty turned precise. The connotation of “unity” (“Heyi” 合一) not only referred to the integration of the doctrines of the three teachings but also included the external ritual integration of the three teachings. The thriving trend of the Unity of the three teachings facilitates the emergence of folk religions, such as the three teachings into one. However, there are still substantial differences between the two. As a proficient sinologist and missionary, Matteo Ricci was unlikely to understand “the Unity of the Three Teachings” trend as a new teaching and label it as “Sanhanjiao”. Matteo Ricci had no need to use the unfamiliar term “Sanhanjiao” to express his position, as this would only lead to misunderstanding. Moreover, the earliest version of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven (translated with the assistance of a scholar from Fujian, where the three teachings into one originated) was published in 1584. Matteo Ricci wrote in his diary, “The priests gained confidence and, with the help of a private tutor (i.e., the scholar from Fujian, translator’s note), completed a Christian doctrine book that could be accepted by the Chinese. This book refutes certain erroneous beliefs of Buddhism” (J. Lin 1996, p. 212). Matteo Ricci arrived in China during the rapid development of the three teachings into one, and the assistance of the scholar from Fujian made the three teachings into one a possible target for refutation. Therefore, the most likely explanation for the term “Sanhanjiao” lies in Matteo Ricci’s translation of the three teachings into one.

2.2. The “One Body, Three Heads” and the Temple of the Three Teachings into One

Secondly, Matteo Ricci’s description of Sanhanjiao completely aligns with the three teachings into one founded by Lin Zhaoen. The most direct interpretation of Sanhanjiao is that one teaching contains three teachings. Just as Matteo Ricci described it as follows: “Formerly, in your esteemed country, each of its three teachings had its own image. In recent times, a monster has appeared from I know not where: it has one body and three heads and is called the Teaching of the Three-in-One. The common people ought to have been frightened of it, and the lofty scholars should have attacked it with all speed; in fact, however, they have prostrated themselves in worship before it and made it their master. Will this not corrupt men’ s minds even further?” (Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen 2016, p. 329). According to this, Matteo Ricci mentioned that Sanhanjiao only appeared in “recent times”. However, the trend of “the Unity of the Three Teachings” had already appeared as early as the Wei and Jin periods, and it was quite popular during the Tang and Song dynasties. As Ren Jiyu 任繼愈 pointed out: “From the coexistence of the Three Teachings, with Buddhism as the leader, to the integration of the Three Teachings where Confucianism dominated and finally the formation of a complete Confucian system, this is the overall development of philosophy in the Tang and Song dynasties” (Ren 2005, p. 103). This indicates that the criticism targeted by Sanhanjiao should have emerged in the late Ming period. In addition, Matteo Ricci described Sanhanjiao as a monster with “One Body, Three Heads”, while the late Ming scholar Huang Zongxi 黃宗羲 observed that the three teachings into one in Lin Zhaoen’s Biography 林三教傳 is “neither a donkey nor a horse, it’s just like a mule” (Cheng 2015, p. 409). It should be said that Huang Zongxi revealed the ideological conflict of Lin Zhaoen’s blending of the three teachings, while Matteo Ricci described the external peculiarity of the three teachings into one. Matteo Ricci’s description of “One Body, Three Heads” is exactly in line with the statue of Lin Zhaoen enshrined in the temple of the three teachings into one. According to the research of Lin Guoping 林國平, the earliest known temple of the three teachings into one appeared in Putian 莆田 in the twelfth year of the Wanli period (1584), and about 19 temples were established between then and the twenty-sixth year of the Wanli (1598) period (G. Lin 1992, p. 115). From the known temples of the three teachings into one, the temple appeared no later than 1584, and it is highly likely that it appeared even earlier. This timeline also aligns with the possibility that Matteo Ricci saw the temple of the three teachings into one after his arrival in China. These temples mainly enshrine Lin Zhaoen, with his seated statue wearing the Sangang 三綱, the attire of the Wuchang 五常, and hands forming the Taiji symbol. However, in slightly larger temples, the enshrined statues are different. The seated statue of Lin Zhaoen in these temples is presented as “three bodies in one” (sanshenheyi 三身合一), wearing Confucian robes and hat, with a Daoist hat on the left shoulder and a Buddhist cap on the right shoulder (S. He 2011, p. 41). This “three bodies in one” image is almost identical to Matteo Ricci’s description of “One Body, Three Heads” of Sanhanjiao. Therefore, it can be indirectly argued that Matteo Ricci’s so-called Sanhanjiao is actually referring to the Three-in-One Church.

2.3. Lin Zhaoen and Matteo Ricci’s Missionary Routes

Thirdly, examining the missionary routes of Matteo Ricci after his arrival in China and the missionary routes of Lin Zhaoen, apart from the difference in time, there is a high degree of overlap in terms of geographical areas. Matteo Ricci’s main purpose after arriving in China was to spread Catholicism, and therefore Buddhism and Taoism became the targets of his criticism. At this time, the merging of the three teachings into one had a high degree of overlap with the locations where Matteo Ricci was carrying out his missionary work, making the three teachings into one an undoubtable target for his refutation. In order to better illustrate the missionary activities of the two individuals, a table is provided below for reference.

According to statistics in

Table 1. Lin Zhaoen and Matteo Ricci missionary timeline.

The Missionary Territory of Lin Zhaoen and His Disciples		Timeline	Matteo Ricci’s Mission Territory
Mainly concentrated in the Putian and Xianyou areas of Fujian 福建莆仙地區		Before 1566
Lin Zhaoen preached in Wannian, Jiangxi 江西萬年		1569
Lin Zhaoen preached in Nanjing, Jiangsu, and his disciple Yu Qin 餘芹 advocated his teaching in Nanjing, Jiangsu 江蘇南京		1570
Lin Zhaoen once again preached in Jiangxi		1573
		1583	The priests set up the first mission in Zhaoqing, Guangdong7 廣東肇慶
Lin Zhaoen’s disciples You Sizhong 遊思忠 and Zhang Hongdu 張洪都 advocated his teaching in Nanjing, Jiangsu		1585
Prominent figures in the Beijing area, such as Yuan Zongdao 袁宗道, Wang Mingshi 王明石, Wang Keshou 汪可受, and Wu Guawo 吳觀我, called Lin Zhaoen their teacher		1589	Matteo Ricci and other priests set up a second mission in Shaozhou, Guangdong 廣東韶州
Lin Zhaoen’s disciple Cai Jingjun 蔡經雋 preached and built a temple of the three teachings into one in front of Guozijian 國子監 in Nanjing, Jiangsu		1594
		1595	Matteo Ricci established a third mission in Nanchang, Jiangxi 江西南昌
		1599	Matteo Ricci established a fourth mission in Nanjing, Jiangsu
		1601–1610	Ricci and Pantoja and other priests went to Beijing to preach

, it can be found that after Matteo Ricci came to China, the missionary areas were largely in regions where the three teachings into one was rapidly developing. Lin Zhaoen founded the three teachings into one in the thirtieth year of the Jiajing reign (1551), and by the thirty-seventh year of Jiajing (1558), the three teachings into one had already gained a certain scale. The Linzi Benxing Shilu 林子本行實錄 records that “people from far and near came to worship him, and a large number of people gathered” (Lu 2019, p. 42). After the forty-fifth year of Jiajing (1566), Lin Zhaoen devoted himself to missionary work, and his missionary activities were not limited to Fujian Province. He also traveled to Nanjing and Jiangxi to preach several times. Therefore, at this time, the development of the three teachings into one was even more successful than before, with about 800 believers being called virtuous. Linzi Benxing Shilu also records that in the fourth Year of Longqing (1570), when Lin Zhaoen went to Jinling, “those who had heard the name of the Lord burned incense and worshipped on the left side of the road. When Lin Zhaoen arrived in Jinling, he lived in the Xishan Monastery of Chaotiangong and received many visitors. Later, he lived in the Puhui Temple outside the city and received more visitors than ever before” (Lu 2019, p. 69). In the sixth year of Longqing (1572), Fujian followers regarded Lin Zhaoen as a god, and everyone worshiped his portrait at home. After Matteo Ricci arrived in China, he first entered Guangdong through Macau. Geographically, Guangdong is close to Fujian, where Lin Zhaoen was located, and it can be considered as an area influenced by the three teachings into one. Later, Matteo Ricci traveled north and preached in the areas of Nanchang and Nanjing, both of which were precisely the main activity areas of Lin Zhaoen and his disciples. Lin Zhaoen’s disciple Cai Jingjun even built a temple in front of the Guozijian in Nanjing in 1594, just a year before Matteo Ricci’s first visit to Nanjing (in 1595). Moreover, Matteo Ricci lived in Nanjing for nearly 2 years, during which the possibility of his contact with the three teachings into one was very high. When Matteo Ricci entered Beijing, many literati in the capital, such as Yuan Zongdao, Wang Mingshi, Wu Guanwo from the Cabinet, and Wang Keshou, an official of the Ministry of Rites, had already become believers of the three teachings into one. It can be observed that the areas where Matteo Ricci preached basically had a great number of followers of the three teachings into one, and the time of Lin Zhaoen and Matteo Ricci’s missionary activities were very close. In this case, it can be speculated that the prevalence of the three teachings into one resulted in Matteo Ricci’s concern about missionary work; hence, in The True Meaning of The Lord of Heaven, he criticized it alongside Buddhism and Taoism.

Based on the above analysis, the author believes that the Sanhanjiao criticized in The True Meaning of The Lord of Heaven is precisely the three teachings into one founded by Lin Zhaoen.

3. “One Teaching Cannot Have Three Teachings” Against “One Dao, Three Teachings”

Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory holds that “cultural conflicts and confrontations are inevitable, but this does not prove that cultural integration is impossible” (Wang 1999, pp. 104–9). Cultural conflicts and confrontations triggered by cultural exchange and dissemination are a common phenomenon. Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory takes a specific analytical attitude towards cultural conflicts, rather than giving them a general positive or negative evaluation. Therefore, the author will objectively analyze the basic viewpoints in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven in this section, demonstrating the collision and differences between Chinese and Western religious cultures observed by Matteo Ricci. Lin Zhaoen’s theoretical basis for integrating the three teachings lies in his “Three-in-One Doctrine”. His theory mainly aims to prove from the perspective of ontology that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are all manifestations of the Dao, and therefore, the three teachings are all encompassed within the Dao. Matteo Ricci, on the other hand, analyzes from the perspective of authenticity that only one teaching can be true, thus logically inferring that “One Teaching cannot have Three Teachings” (Yijiaobukenengsanhan 一教不可能三函), thereby refuting the “One Dao, Three Teachings” (daoyijiaosan 道一教三) theory. The opposition in their thoughts precisely reflects the differences in religious culture and modes of thinking between the East and the West.

3.1. Lin Zhaoen’s “One Dao, Three Teachings”

Lin Zhaoen’s thought of the “Three-in-One Doctrine” took the “sincere heart” (zhenxin 真心) as its core and put forward the ideological system of “the Three Teachings are based on the heart” (sanjiaoyixinweizong 三教以心為宗). As Zheng Zhiming 鄭志明 pointed out, “In terms of its overall conception, it can be regarded as the philosophy of the Lu-Wang school” (Z. Zheng 1988, p. 165). First of all, Lin Zhaoen connected mind (xin 心), Dao, and teaching. He used the Dao to unify the three teachings and argued from an ontological perspective that the three teachings have the same origin. Then, Lin Zhaoen also used “sincere heart” to unify Dao and incorporates the objective Dao into the subjective mind, thus constructing the theory of mind as the core of the three teachings and clarifying the view of “One Dao, Three Teachings”.

According to Lin Zhaoen, the Dao is muddled and unnamed. He emphasizes that there is no name for Confucianism, Buddhism, or Taoism above the Three Dynasties of Tang Yu唐虞三代, but only the Dao, which is all in one. Ma Xisha 馬西沙 thought Lin Zhaoen’s “One Dao, Three Teachings” emphasized that there was an eternal Dao before the emergence of the three teachings, and Dao is the origin of the three teachings (Ma 1996, pp. 25–28). In the Three Dynasties of Tang Yu, Dao prevailed between Heaven and earth, so there is no distinction between Confucianism, Buddhism, or Taoism. He proposed: “The reason why I say that the Three Teachings are one and the same is because there is no Confucianism, no Taoism, and no Buddhism before Dao” (Z. Lin 2016, pp. 17–18). In fact, Lin Zhaoen’s so-called Dao draws on the ontological regulations of Dao in the book of Laozi 老子, and thus the meaning of Dao is the original principle of the generation of all things. Lin Zhaoen believes that Dao is the chaotic Wuji 無極, and after Wuji there is Taiji 太極. Taiji separates and then gives birth to Yin 陰 and Yang 陽, heaven and earth, the five elements (wuxing 五行), and all things. Obviously, Dao is only proposed as the ultimate original principle of all things, the first driving force. So how did Dao give rise to Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism? Following the deductive path of Dao transforming into Heaven, earth, and all things, Lin Zhaoen proposed in The Original Diagram 原宗圖 (See Figure 1 below) that “Taiji divides into the three powers, namely Heaven, earth, and human; humans have Three Teachings, namely the Confucianism, the Taoism, and the Buddhism; Confucianism takes Confucius as the ancestor, Taoism takes Huangdi and Laozi as the ancestors, and Buddhism takes Shakyamuni as the ancestor” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 21).

His theory of “One Dao, Three Teachings” believes that the Dao was the essence of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, so the teachings are the different manifestations of the Dao. The Dao is inseparable, and since the three teachings come from the same source, they are to some extent intertwined. As for the distinction between Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, it was produced in order to meet the practical needs of “setting up subjects to preach people” (shekejiaoren 設科教人). Therefore, he considered that the three teachings differed only in their different methods of edification because of their different social functions:

The Dao is the origin of the teaching; the teaching needs to understand the Dao. However, if the ordinary people do not know the difference between the Dao and the teaching and think that the teaching is the Dao, does it not mean that there are three different Daos and three different teachings (Z. Lin 2016, p. 10).

Lin Zhaoen made a clear distinction between Dao and teaching, and that Dao is the root of the three teachings, while teaching is reflected in the difference of their functions. Since it is clear that the three teachings were all born from the Dao, he believed that the learning of the three teachings is all based on nature and life: “The study of Confucius is the study of mind and nature (xinxingzhixue 心性之學); and study of Huangdi Laozi is also the study of mind and nature; the study of Shakyamuni is also the study of mind and nature” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 1032). Since the three teachings are all based on the Dao and all have mind and nature as the main themes of their learning, they are fundamentally the same. Although Lin Zhaoen covers the origins of the three teachings by saying “One Dao, Three Teaching”, the essence of his theory is still based on the Yangming School of Neo-Confucianism, and his so-called Dao, the essence of the three teachings, is not external to man but equivalent to “sincere heart”. In addition, Lin Zhaoen has clearly stated: “Teaching is based on Dao, and Dao is based on nature. As long as we know that the Dao is generated from the nature of our body, then we can know the Dao of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 3), “One Heart, One Dao, but the teachings are three” 心一道一, 而教則有三 (Z. Lin 2016, p. 18). In general terms, the concepts of “mind” and “nature” are distinguished from each other especially in Song and Ming philosophy. However, Yangming’s mind philosophy proposed that “mind is nature” 心即性, which indicates that the two are synonymous. So, there is a problem of mixing “mind” and “nature” in Lin Zhaoen’s thought. Tang Jingqin 唐經欽 pointed out that Lin Zhaoen uses the Xinti 心體 to refer to the essence of sainthood of the moral subject, although he does not use the essence of nature, he also uses nature and self-nature to express the meaning of the noumenon (J. Tang 2009, pp. 95–138). So, the Dao is actually the “sincere heart”. Regarding the convergence of the three teachings in the late Ming Dynasty, Du Weiming 杜維明 argues that Dao and Mind were originally homogeneous and inseparable, and the correlation between the two is also possible in the intermediate side of the generation of the territory (Du and Zhang 2017, p. 100). Lin Zhaoen’s use of “sincere heart” as Dao is undoubtedly based on the intrinsic connection between the two. The transformation from the Three-in-One Doctrine to the three teachings into one8 was a process in which Lin Zhaoen’s original “Nine Stages of the Heart Method” (jiuxuxinfa 九序心法) played an indispensable role. Lin Zhaoen’s transformation from a commoner to a revered religious leader was inseparable from the “Nine Stages of the Heart Method”. In March of the forty-first year of the Jiajing reign (1562), when the city of Putian was plagued by an epidemic, people sought help from Lin Zhaoen, who used the “Genbei xinfa” 艮背心法 from the “Nine Stages of the Heart Method” to treat the people. According to the record in Lin Zhaoen’s Biography by Huang Zongxi: “Zhaoen used the Genbei xinfa to cure people, and it was proven effective many times” (Huang 2012, p. 215). Therefore, the “Nine Stages of the Heart Method” played a crucial role in the establishment of the three teachings into one. The core belief of the three teachings into one lies in Lin Zhaoen’s “Three-in-One Doctrine” and the Gongfu 工夫 he established. Berling once commented on Lin Zhaoen, saying, “Lin Zhaoen is not a genius thinker or a very creative thinker. He simply adopted concepts that were already widely prevalent in the teachings of the mind philosophy and in the two teachings of Buddhism and Taoism. His contribution lies in transforming these borrowed concepts into a fused religious doctrine and a clear system of learning and practice, which is very easy to understand and follow for himself and others” (Berling 1980, p. 3). As Berling said, Lin Zhaoen was more of a consolidator of the Unity of the three teachings ideology, and therefore the three teachings into one he established can also be seen as a typical representative of the Unity of the three teachings trend in the Ming Dynasty.

3.2. Matteo Ricci’s “One Teaching Cannot Have Three Teachings”

Lin Zhaoen used the “One Dao, Three Teachings” theory to argue that the three teachings have the same origin, and he established the theoretical basis of mixing Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism into one by using the concept of “sincere heart”. Ultimately, he founded the three teachings into one based on his unique “Nine Stages of the Heart method”. On the other hand, Matteo Ricci arrived at the conclusion of “One Teaching cannot have Three Teachings” through rigorous logical analysis and value judgment, which can be said to be completely opposite to Lin’s argument. In his work The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Matteo Ricci proposed:

The Western scholar says: I shall employ four or five solid reasons to provide proof of the fallacies contained within it. First, the three teachings are either all true and complete or they are all false and incomplete; or one of them is true and complete and the other two are false and incomplete. If each of the [Three Teachings] is true and complete, then it is enough to believe one of them; why should one have to practice the other two? If they are all false and incomplete, then they ought all to be rejected. Of what use is it to embrace all three of them? To cause a man to practice one false teaching is a sufficiently grave error; how much greater, then, will the error be if he is made to practice three false teachings? If only one is a true and complete teaching and the two others are false and incomplete, then one ought to follow the one true teaching. Of what use are the false ones? (Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen 2016, p. 329).

Matteo Ricci’s value judgment on the three teachings is marked by distinct logical inferences, which is closely related to his role as a representative of Western culture. In fact, since priests such as Matteo Ricci came to China to preach, they polemicized with Chinese thought using philosophic arguments derived from the scholastic Aristotelian tradition in which they had been trained (Canaris 2019, pp. 198–219). However, his inferences are implicitly based on the logical premise of the Catholic faith that belief can only be singular. As Sun Shangyang commented, “When criticizing the concept of ‘the Unity of the three teachings’, Matteo Ricci naturally does not possess the tolerant spirit of Jiao Hong 焦竑 and Li Zhi 李贄, who believed in the universality of the Dao. He adeptly employed the Western philosophical metaphysical mode of thinking, which is characterized by the principle of ‘either this or that’” (S. Sun 2013, p. 96). According to Matteo Ricci’s criteria for authenticity, the value judgment of the three teachings takes on several forms:

According to the statistics in

Table 2. Matteo Ricci’s judgment on the truth and falsity of the three teachings.

		Confucianism	Buddhism	Taoism	Conclusion
Case one		true	true	true	Focus on one teaching
Case two		false	false	false	Abandon all
Case three		true	false	false	It is appropriate to focus on one teaching
Case four		false	true	false	It is appropriate to focus on one teaching
Case five		false	false	true	It is appropriate to focus on one teaching

, Matteo Ricci judged the authenticity of the three teachings in a formal, logical way. According to his presupposition, each of the three teachings has the possibility of being true or false. Based on this arrangement, several situations can be derived. In the first situation, all three teachings are “all true”, meaning that all three teachings are judged to be true. In Matteo Ricci’s way of thinking, if all three teachings are true, then it is only necessary to choose one of them as a belief. There is no need to believe in all three teachings. This kind of thinking is quite similar to Ockham’s razor (the principle of simplicity and effectiveness), which emphasizes not adding entities unnecessarily. In other words, believing in one teaching is sufficient, and there is no need to waste energy believing in all three teachings. In the second situation, all three teachings are “false”, meaning that all three teachings are judged to be false. In this case, the simplest way to deal with it is to abandon all. Matteo Ricci believed that if all three teachings are false, then believing in one teaching alone would already be very harmful, let alone believing in three false teachings. The third, fourth, and fifth situations represent a basic scenario where “only one is true, the other two are false and incomplete”. This means that one of the teachings is true while the other two are false. In this case, it is only necessary to choose the one true teaching to believe in, while the other false teachings can be completely abandoned. According to Matteo Ricci’s principle of economy of thought, “Third, right teaching will cause the minds of its converts to believe firmly in the one and only truth. If they enter the Teaching of the Three-in-One, this will surely result in the division of their minds so that they follow three different paths. Will this not weaken their faith?” (Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen 2016, p. 331). Even if all three teachings are true, truly believing in all three teachings will divide one’s faith into three, so Matteo Ricci’s conclusion is that at most, only one of the three teachings needs to be chosen for belief. In order to illustrate more vividly the view that “One Teaching cannot have Three Teachings”, Ricci cited the case of Xi Shi 西施 (a beautiful woman) to analyze, as he said:

Second, it is commonly accepted that goodness is the result of wholeness, and evil the result of incompleteness. For example, a beautiful woman who lacks only a nose is considered by everyone to be ugly. I have already clearly explained above how all the teachings of the Buddha and Laozi are faulty. If these are now to be merged, this will inevitably result in a compounding of error (Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen 2016, p. 331).

According to Matteo Ricci’s logic, he first advocated the “common saying” (gonglun 公論) that “goodness is the result of wholeness, and evil the result of incompleteness”, meaning that goodness does not contain any evil; in other words, goodness is completely good. Thierry Meynard believes that “this common saying originates from the philosophical thought of Thomas Aquinas—the goodness or evil of an action and other things depends on whether they are perfect or lacking. The first belongs to the perfection of reality, as it seems that things are classified by it” (Meynard 2014, p. 63). Matteo Ricci’s proposition of the “common saying” aims to illustrate that even the renowned beauty Xi Shi, if tainted with the slightest impurity, would be considered ugly by people. He emphasizes that the theoretical basis for the completeness of goodness lies precisely in the Western concept of the perfect definition of God, which is completely contradictory to the traditional Chinese saying that “a flaw does not hide the beauty”. Furthermore, combining the criticism of Buddhism and Taoism in Chapter 7, Section 4 of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, it can be understood that the statement “I have already clearly explained above how all the teachings of the Buddha and Laozi are faulty” refers to the fact that Buddhism and Taoism are not completely good. With both the major premise and the minor premise being complete, Matteo Ricci is able to conclude that the idea of the common origin of the three teachings and the completeness of goodness are in conflict, and therefore Lin Zhaoen’s view of the Unity of the three teachings is absurd.

Matteo Ricci’s argument presupposes the concept of a perfect goodness and logically deduces that the three teachings cannot become a unity; otherwise, the complete goodness would cease to exist. His position on the criticism of the three teachings into one is very clear. From the perspective of Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory, the conflict between the Western religious culture represented by Matteo Ricci and the indigenous Chinese religious culture is inevitable. The two represent two completely different sets of ideological concepts and religious traditions.

4. “It Is Not Possible to Forcibly Equate the Three Teachings” Against “The Three Teachings Are the Same”

Since Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism ultimately belong to three different religious traditions, Lin Zhaoen attempted to reconcile the differences between the three teachings, especially the conflicts in terms of their doctrines. He took a position of “The Three Teachings are the same” (sanjyizhi 三教一致) to illustrate the similarities in the doctrines of the three teachings. On the other hand, Matteo Ricci emphasized that the three teachings were established by different people and that there were many doctrinal differences among them. Therefore, Matteo Ricci believed that forcibly conflating the doctrines of the three teachings would only lead to confusion in faith. This section will further analyze the differences in their thoughts, demonstrating the differences in the modes of religious and cultural thinking between the East and the West.

4.1. Lin Zhaoen’s “The Three Teachings Are the Same”

Lin Zhaoen’s “One Dao, Three Teachings” theory emphasizes that Dao is the essence of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, while Teachings are the different manifestations and functions of Dao; thus Dao is the common origin of the three teachings. However, on the other hand, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism ultimately represent three different religious traditions. Especially considering Buddhism was introduced from the exotic civilization of India, the differences between the three teachings are undeniable. Therefore, Lin Zhaoen needs to find what the three teachings have in common in order to reconcile their differences. In general, Lin explains the similarities among the three teachings from the following three perspectives.

Firstly, all three teachings are about the study of the human mind and nature. Since it is clear that the essence of the three teachings is Dao, and they all follow the same principles, Lin Zhaoen believes that the teachings of the three are all based on the study of human mind and nature. He states, “The study of Confucius is the study of mind and nature; and study of Huangdi Laozi is also the study of mind and nature; the study of Shakyamuni is also the study of mind and nature” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 1032). Lin Zhaoen argues that the teachings of the three traditions all focus on human mind and nature, and therefore, fundamentally, they are the same. In addition, Lin Zhaoen also points out that the three teachings all emphasize the importance of understanding the mind, nature, and life. He quotes, “The Buddhists emphasize the understanding of the mind and the realization of nature, and the Confucians also emphasize the exhaustion of the mental constitution and the understanding of nature. The Daoists emphasize the cultivation of both mental and physical health, and the Confucians also emphasize exhausting the mental constitution and reaching life. Since they all refer to the mind, nature, and life, the original Dao of the world is one. The Buddhists return to one, the Daoists attain one, and the Confucians penetrate one, which means they are the same”. Therefore, Lin Zhaoen believes that the three teachings all focus on the study of human mind and nature, and thus, fundamentally, they are the same.

Secondly, he believes that the paths of Gongfu in the three teachings are the same. He argues that the methods used by the three teachings to educate people all involve inward introspection to discover one’s true nature. Lin Zhaoen states, “The sages of the Three Teachings nurture the inner self, and the study of mind, body, nature, and life are the same” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 89), Clearly, Lin Zhaoen believes that the paths of Gongfu in the three teachings all involve inward introspection to discover one’s true nature. The concepts of “Zhizhong” 執中, “Shouzhong” 守中, and “Kongzhong” 空中 in the three teachings may seem to be different methods of Gongfu, but in reality, they are just different terms used in different traditions, and their essence is the same—the cultivation of the mind, with the purpose of discovering one’s true nature. He states, “Although it seems that the Jing 靜 of the Confucian school and the meditation of the Buddhist school are different words, their essence is the same. If the Buddhists can understand their original insight, both sit and walk are acceptable; if the Confucians can understand the practice of Zhujing 主敬, they can be tranquil and active” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 826). He also says, “Although the Fan 反 of the Confucian school and the Ni 逆 of the Daoist school are different words, their essence is the same… Therefore, those who are good at Fan in the Confucian school will preserve the nature of heaven and earth, and become Yao and Shun. Those who are good at the Ni in the Daoist school will preserve the nature of heaven and earth, and become immortals” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 826). Therefore, in reality, the cultivation of Jing in Confucianism is consistent with the meditation of Buddhism, and the Fan of the Confucian school is not fundamentally different from the Ni of the Daoist school; ultimately, they are all about discovering one’s true nature.

Thirdly, concerning personal conduct and social awareness, all three teachings emphasize human relationships. Lin Zhaoen believes that the founders of the three teachings did not neglect the issue of human relationships and stated that “The Dao of the Huangdi, Laozi, and Shakyamuni all adhere to the norms of human relationships” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 24). Therefore, the issue of human relationships is one of the practical issues that integrate the three teachings, and it is also Lin Zhaoen’s response to the practical issues of the two teachings of Buddhism and Taoism. He uses the Confucian teachings on human relationships to explain the teachings of Buddhism and Taoism, with the key issue of human relationships being marriage and filial piety. Lin Zhaoen believes:

In the teachings of Taoism, one should take care of parents in one’s youth and then get married and have children to fulfill the great duty of human relationships. Only after reaching the age of forty without being moved by worldly desires can one leave the secular world, practice according to the Taoism law, and complete the study of human nature and life… In the teachings of Buddhism, if one has not attained enlightenment by the age of around forty, they are sent back home to marry and have children. The Buddhist sutras says “According to the Brahmin tradition, if one enters the mountains to cultivate the Dao but has not achieved success, they should return home to marry” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 1013).

So, in Lin Zhaoen’s view, the difference between the teachings of Buddhism and Taoism and the Confucian way of education lies in their approach to leaving the secular world but leaving the secular world does not necessarily contradict marriage. The education in Taoism involves taking care of one’s parents and getting married at a young age, while the education in Buddhism entails those who have not attained enlightenment in middle age being sent back home to marry and have children. Secondly, there is the issue of filial piety, which has been a long-standing concern. For instance, Huiyuan’s 慧遠 ShamenBujingWangzheLun 沙門不敬王者論 is a response to the issue of filial piety in Buddhism. Lin Zhaoen believes that the teachings of Buddhism and Taoism do not neglect the principles of human relationships and also place importance on filial piety. He states, “To know how to care for one’s parents is the essence of benevolence. How can one be benevolent and yet neglect their parents? To know how to show compassion is the essence of righteousness. How can one be righteous and forget their elders and juniors? Therefore, the foundation of the teachings of Buddhism can generally be seen from this perspective” (Z. Lin 2016, p. 224). He explains Buddhism from the perspective of Confucian benevolence and righteousness, believing that Buddhism does not neglect the principles of filial piety.

4.2. Matteo Ricci’s “It Is Not Possible to Forcibly Equate the Three Teachings”

Lin Zhaoen strongly emphasizes the similarities between the three teachings from the above perspectives, hoping to integrate them with each other. However, Matteo Ricci believes that “it is not possible to forcefully equate the Three Teachings” (bukeqiangtongsanjiao 不可強同三教); the original intentions of the three teachings are not the same, so forcibly twisting them into one teaching goes against the original intentions of the three teachings. In the True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, it is stated:

Fourth, the three teachings involved were established by three different men. Confucius refused to accept the teachings of Laozi and therefore set up a Confucian school of thought; the Buddha was dissatisfied with the Daoist and Confucian schools and therefore established Buddhism in China. The views of each of these teachings are different from those of the others; is it not deceitful, then, for someone, two thousand years later, to try to guess their founders’ intentions and to force them into being identical?

Further, among the three teachings, Taoism emphasizes “nothing”, Buddhism “voidness”, and Confucianism “sincerity” and “being”. In the world of opposites, there are no greater distinctions than those between emptiness and fullness and between existence and nonexistence. If existence and nonexistence, emptiness and fullness can be harmonized, then fire and water, squareness and roundness, east and west, and heaven and earth can all be harmonized, and there will be nothing in the world that will not be possible.

Those who believe all three teachings will find themselves without a single teaching to follow, and, deprived of any teaching, they are bound to search elsewhere for the correct path. Those who put their faith in the Teaching of the Three-in-One will think that their faith extends beyond the boundaries of one teaching, whereas, in fact, they are not even putting their faith in one.

Do you wish to follow a teaching that has been dreamed up by some human being before you have learned to recognize the true Way of the Sovereign on High?

There is only one truth, and the Way lies in harmonizing oneself with that truth so one may live a life of abundance. If you fail to find [the true Way], your roots will not go deep, and if your roots do not go deep, your way will prove uncertain; and if your way proves uncertain, your faith will lack sincerity. To have more than one [system of roots], to lack depth, and to be devoid of sincerity can only mean that even should you wish to practice the Way, you are not likely to succeed (Lancashire and Peter Hu Kuo-chen 2016, pp. 331–32).

Firstly, Matteo Ricci believed that the original intentions of the three teachings were not the same. According to Ricci, the three teachings were founded by three different individuals: Confucius, Laozi, and Shakyamuni. Confucius established Confucianism because “Confucius refused to accept the teachings of Laozi”, while Shakyamuni established Buddhism in China because “Buddha was dissatisfied with the Daoist and Confucian schools”. Therefore, the original intentions behind the founding of the three teachings were not the same. The later trend of unity of the three teachings purely distorted the original intentions of the three teachings.

Secondly, Matteo Ricci proposed that the doctrines of the three teachings cannot be integrated. Ricci categorized the doctrines of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism as “sincerity” and “being” (referring to Confucianism), “voidness” (referring to Buddhism), and “nothing” (referring to Taoism). It is evident that his understanding of the three teachings was rather one-sided. Firstly, using “voidness” and “nothing” to encompass the entire doctrines of Taoism and Buddhism is biased, as noted by He Jun 何俊: “Matteo Ricci’s conflation of the Daoist concept of nothing with the Buddhist concept and his criticism of it is a misunderstanding” (J. He 1998, pp. 44–51). Furthermore, his understanding of Confucianism as “sincerity” and “being” clearly does not align with the fundamental doctrine of Confucianism, which seeks “benevolence” (ren 仁). Based on this understanding of the doctrines of the three teachings, Ricci believed that the relationship between the three teachings is like that of water and fire, square and circle, east and west, and heaven and earth, and it is fundamentally impossible to truly integrate the three. To further illustrate this viewpoint, he used the example of killing to contrast Confucianism and Buddhism. It is evident that Buddhism advocates abstaining from killing, while Confucianism advocates the use of animals for sacrifices. If all three teachings were to be followed, there would inevitably be doctrinal conflicts, ultimately leading to chaotic teachings, and therefore it would be better to abandon the three teachings altogether.

Thirdly, Matteo Ricci proposed that there is only one true Way (Dao) in the world. Through the aforementioned refutation, Ricci put forward the viewpoint of “recognizing the true Way of the Sovereign on High”. In his view, truth is the core of faith. If one follows the three teachings, the faith would be shallow, uncertain, and insincere, leading to a hypocritical faith. Therefore, it would be better to have faith in the one and only Sovereign on High. Ricci’s argument here still revolves around the core of faith, and the underlying concept is the singularity of faith.

Through the above analysis, it is clear that Matteo Ricci criticized the concept of the unity of the three teachings, and it is not difficult to see that although his argument has a certain theoretical basis, his understanding of Chinese culture still remains somewhat one-sided9. As an outsider and missionary, we cannot expect him to have a perfect understanding of native Chinese culture. It is true that the Jesuits represented by Matteo Ricci adopted the policy of adaptation as a last resort, but even so, they did open a rare history of dialogue between two great civilizations in human history (Zhang 2020, pp. 119–28). According to the basic viewpoint of Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory, “cultural integration is possible, but the elimination of all differences in cultural integration is impossible” (Wang 1999, pp. 104–9). From this perspective, Lin Zhaoen’s attempt to reconcile the differences between Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism is not aimed at eliminating these differences but rather seeking theoretical support for diversified beliefs. On the other hand, Matteo Ricci mainly stood from the position of Catholicism, using the singularity of faith to negate the pursuit of diversified culture in Chinese culture. Therefore, his criticism of the three teachings into one can only be based on the level of faith, without delving into their social function and philosophical concepts.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the author believes that the term “Sanhanjiao” in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven refers to the three teachings into one created by Lin Zhaoen. Matteo Ricci’s criticism of the three teachings into one actually demonstrates the significant differences between Eastern and Western religious cultures, much like the dialogue between the “Chinese scholar” and the “Western scholar” in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. The “Chinese scholar” represents Chinese culture and concepts, while the “Western scholar” clearly represents Western culture and concepts. Lin Xiaobin 林孝斌 pointed out that the difference in thinking between the two lies in the fact that the Western scholar relies more on “deductive-logical reasoning” and causal rationality, while the Chinese scholar mainly employs an unconscious and consistently integrated “Gantong” 感通 thinking (X. Lin 2021, p. 279). The dialogue between the two sides did not dissolve the differences between their respective cultures but actually promoted the integration of Eastern and Western cultures. Cultural Interaction and Transformation Theory holds that “the ultimate result of cultural integration is not the decline of culture, but the transformation of culture” (Wang 1999, pp. 104–9). Through his criticism of the three teachings into one, Matteo Ricci also participated in the Unity of the three teachings trend that emerged in the late Ming dynasty. Although Ricci’s criticism of the three teachings into one aimed to spread Catholicism, the logic of his argument can be seen to some extent as the impact of Western culture on Chinese culture. In terms of the core points of Lin Zhaoen’s ideology, he took the approach of the Yangming School of Neo-Confucianism and strongly advocated the concept of the “Three-in-One Doctrine”. In this process, his creation of the “Nine Stages of the Heart Method” reflects the dual characteristics of his thinking. On one hand, it represents the inheritance and development of traditional Confucianism, and on the other hand, it transforms Confucianism into a religion, ultimately establishing the three teachings into one. Therefore, Matteo Ricci’s criticism of the three teachings into one did not touch upon the deep core of Lin Zhaoen’s ideology. However, his viewpoint at least broke the mainstream ideology regarding the Unity of the three teachings in the late Ming dynasty and also had a significant enlightening effect on the reflection of this trend for the late Ming literati. Ricci’s argument for the singularity of faith represented a new cognition for the late Ming literati. His rejection of the Unity of the three teachings trend represented by the three teachings into one at least brought about a new way of faith represented by Western Catholicism. As Sun Shangyang pointed out, “Matteo Ricci’s criticism of the ‘Unity of the Three Teachings’ was timely. Regardless of its starting point, it at least attempted to resonate with orthodox literati on this issue, and to some extent, it achieved this purpose. For example, when conversing with Matteo Ricci, Feng Qi 馮琦, a minister of the Ministry of Rites, exclaimed, ‘Starting from Confucius, then from Laozi, and then from Buddhism, are we going to divide the hearts of the people into three paths?’” (S. Sun 2013, p. 95). At the same time, the appearance of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven not only influenced Ming and Qing dynasty intellectuals such as Fang Yizhi 方以智, Huang Zongxi, and Dai Zhen 戴震, but also impacted Ricci’s followers in China.

During the late Ming period, Lin Zhaoen’s the three teachings into one had a significant influence on a large number of literati, such as the Hanlin Academy editors 翰林院編修 Yuan Zongdao, the Hanlin Academy reviser 翰林院檢討 Xiao Yunju, the Minister of Rites 禮部尚書 Wang Tu, and the scholar Wu Yingbin, all of whom claimed to be his disciples. The Linzi Benxing Shilu records: “In the twenty-first year of the Wanli reign (1593), Jiang Yunlong, a member of the three teachings into one in Songjiang, along with Chen Jixian, Xu Guangqi, Lv Kexiao, compiled the two volumes of The First Meaning of Lin Zi and ordered them to be printed” (Lu 2019, p. 177). This account is also clearly documented in the Linzi Nianpu 林子年譜. According to Linzi Nianpu, Xu Guangqi was 32 years old that year, but Xu Guangqi’s own biography before the age of 30 is quite brief, so there is no mention of the Trinity. Based on this record in the Linzi Nianpu, Xu Guangqi may have been a disciple of the three teachings into one. He Shangmeng also suggested in the book Research on the Three Teachings into One that Xu Guangqi may have been a disciple of Lin Zhaoen10. However, there is almost no concrete evidence in existing literature to confirm Xu Guangqi’s relationship with the three teachings into one. Xu Guangqi was later baptized into the Catholic Church. Influenced by Matteo Ricci viewing the three teachings into one as a superstition, it is natural for Xu Guangqi, as a Catholic, to abandon the theory of Lin Zhaoen. Therefore, the transformation of Xu Guangqi’s thinking may also have been influenced by The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. The late Ming period was not only a time of convergence of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, but also a time of dialogue between Chinese and Western cultures. So, in terms of intercultural interaction, the writing of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven reflects the competition and collision between different religions during this period, but more importantly, this work, like Ricci’s world map, creates a space in which dialogue takes place11. It also provides a new way for the exchange and dialogue between Chinese and Western cultures, promoting the renewal and development of Chinese indigenous culture.