Cheng Yi engaged in an extensive dialogue with Su Jiming (蘇季明 or 蘇迨, 1070–1126 CE) on interpreting the verses of Zhong Yong in the context of the contemplative practice of quiet-sitting. This dialogue is documented in volume 18 of The Posthumous Works of Cheng Family from Henan (河南程氏遺書) and has become one of the most challenging texts for later interpreters of Cheng Yi’s thought.[97] As it is crucial for understanding the intellectual history of Daoxue Ruism, I will provide a translation of the entire dialogue accompanied by my own commentary. To improve the accessibility of the translation and my commentary, I have divided the original conversation into numbered sections, which did not exist in the original text:

1) Su Jiming asked, “Is the Dao of centrality (中之道) the same as the state before pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise, which is also called centrality (中)?” Cheng Yi replied, “No, they are not the same. The state before happiness, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise refers to the state of ‘being within centrality’ (在中之義). It is just one character, centrality (中), but used in different contexts.”[98]

In general, three forces have shaped Cheng Yi’s words during his conversation with Su Jiming on centrality: his metaphysics, the semantics of the original text of Zhong Yong, and his experiences with quiet-sitting and other contemplative practices.

Regarding the metaphysical aspect, as particularly indicated by our previous discussions on Cheng Yi’s practice of beholding, reflecting on dreams, and nourishing the genuine origin, Cheng Yi’s general mindset in his investigation of things is to ask the question “why a thing comes to be so” and, furthermore, to clarify the “norm” of each thing. Rooted in the metaphysical tradition of the Classic of Change, while answering these two crucial questions, Cheng Yi has a distinctive ontological tendency to delve into the synchronistic and essentially nontemporal generic traits of realities, which he termed as pattern-principle. Therefore, if one has felt “being centered” in the practice of quiet-sitting, there must be a corresponding pattern-principle or Dao of “centrality” that explains why such a feeling comes to be so. This ontological method was immediately manifest in his answer to Jiming’s question.

In Cheng Yi’s view, the psychological state of feeling centered during quiet-sitting (which takes place before the rising of any particular emotion) is different from the ontological and normative state of “centrality” that characterizes the fundamental nature of the human heartmind, which is rooted in the all-encompassing, constantly creative Tian. Consequently, to the extent that one feels centered in the practice of quiet-sitting, the actual state of one’s heartmind can be characterized as being under the normative regulation of the ontological state of centrality (viz., “being within centrality”). However, the feeling itself is still an empirical psychological state distinct from its ontological root.

2) Jiming asked again, “Can we seek centrality (求中) before happiness, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise?” Cheng Yi replied, “No, we cannot. If you think about seeking it before these emotions arise, it is still a thought (思). As soon as you think, the heartmind has already been aroused. Once it is aroused, its state is called harmony (和), not centrality (中).” Jiming asked again, “The scholar Lv Dalin once said, ‘We should seek it before pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise.’ Although this statement may be true, I find it difficult to grasp. How can this be possible?” He replied, “Consider the context of this statement. If it means to preserve and nourish (存養) during the time before pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise, then it is possible; if it means to seek centrality before these emotions arise, then it is not possible.” Jiming asked again, “When pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise, as scholars, we should certainly make an effort to restrain and regulate them. However, how should we strive before they arise?” He replied, “Before pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise, how can you actively seek it? Simply nourish (涵養) it in your daily life. If you nourish it consistently over time, pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness will consequently arise within their appropriate bounds.”[99]

Similar to his remarks that breathing outside air results in nourishing rather than generating the genuine origin of human life, Cheng Yi emphasizes here that the practice of quiet-sitting during the time when no particular emotions arise aims to nourish rather than “seek” the original state of centrality that belongs to the ontological nature of the human heartmind. Because of its ontological priority over all concrete psychological states of heartmind, the original state of centrality is not exclusively manifested by and limited to any particular moment of psychological activities, even including the practice of quiet-sitting. The original state cannot be “sought” as a result.

Notably, Cheng Yi stresses that even when no particular emotions arise during the time of quiet-sitting, humans still “think” at this moment, and as long as one thinks, the corresponding psychological state already falls into the empirical and immanent aspect of heartmind and hence does not belong to the ontological and transcendent aspect that is integral to the Tian-endowed human nature.

Cheng Yi, therefore, suggests a more concrete method of self-cultivation regarding how to regulate one’s emotions: when emotions arise, one shall adjust them to their due measures; when emotions do not arise, one shall practice quiet-sitting and nourish the original state of centrality so that one has a better chance of experiencing appropriate emotions when his or her heart starts to engage with outside things.

3) Jiming said, “Then, there is centrality before arousal (未發之中) and centrality after arousal” (既發之中). Cheng Yi replied, “No, that’s not correct. When the emotions arise, the state of heartmind is harmony. If they arise and remain within their appropriate bounds, the heartmind is indeed achieving centrality (得中). However, since we differentiate centrality and harmony, it is harmony.” Jiming asked, “You said that the state before pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise refers to the state of ‘being within centrality.’ What does that mean?” He replied, “If there is no arising (不發) of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness at all, the state of the heartmind is centrality.” Jiming asked, “Does this mean that centrality does not attach to any shaped body and is, therefore, just a linguistic term depicting the Dao?” He replied, “No, that’s not correct. What shaped body does centrality have? Nevertheless, since it is called centrality, there must be some corresponding image.” Jiming asked, “When in the state of centrality, do the ears not hear and the eyes not see?” He replied, “Even if the ears do not hear and the eyes do not see, the pattern-principle of hearing and seeing is still present.”[100]

Here, we encounter the intense complexity of Cheng Yi’s thoughts on centrality due to the joint impact of the three shaping forces discussed earlier. For Cheng Yi, on the empirical level, “centrality before arousal” refers to the concrete psychological state of feeling centered during quiet-sitting, and “harmony after arousal” refers to the appropriately arising emotions. Both of these empirical states manifest the ontologically original state of centrality, and hence Cheng Yi says that the harmonious state of appropriate emotions “achieves centrality.”

However, since the empirical state of centrality during quiet-sitting is different from the original state of centrality, Cheng Yi has to invent another term, “no arising” (不發), different from “not arising yet” (未發), to refer to this original state. In other words, when the heartmind has not been aroused with emotions yet, it is in an empirical state of centrality that one can feel during quiet-sitting. However, because of its nonempirical and ontologically prior nature, the original state of centrality is different from any concrete psychological state, and hence we cannot even talk about either the “arising” or “not-arising-yet” of emotions here. Simply, the empirical language of the “arising or not” of emotions cannot fully depict the nature of the ontologically original centrality.

What is even more intriguing is that Cheng Yi does not consequently think that “centrality” in the verse of Zhong Yong has an exclusively ontological reference. Instead, Cheng Yi is loyal to the literal sense of the verse and thinks that, empirically, we can indeed feel centered when we practice quiet-sitting. However, what Cheng Yi stresses on top of this literal and empirical sense of centrality is that the empirical state of centrality is just an “image” of its ontological state. Hence, In Cheng Yi’s view, what Zhong Yong really intends is to point to the ontological state of centrality using the image of the empirically felt state of centrality during the time of quiet-sitting.

Given this analysis, the last answer of Cheng Yi in this round of conversation also becomes understandable: even if one chooses not to particularly hear or see anything in his or her practice of quiet-sitting, the original state of centrality, which characterizes the pattern-principle of all psychological states, still functions. And one’s practice of quiet-sitting can therefore nourish such an original state of centrality as the pattern-principle of hearing, seeing, and other concrete psychological activities.

4) Su Jiming asked, “Is the attainment of centrality subject to timing?” Cheng Yi replied, “When is it not attained? If we discuss specific events (事), then there are moments when centrality is achieved. However, when speaking of the Dao, when is centrality not attained?” Jiming inquired, “Indeed, all our actions should strive for centrality, but when observing the state before emotions arise, I perceive a unique atmosphere during moments of stillness. Yet when confronted with events, I feel different again. Why is that?” Cheng Yi responded, “An astute beholder would not experience this. Instead, they should behold their inner state just as pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness are about to arise. Can you, sir, elaborate on your experience during stillness?” Jiming said, “To call it a state of nothingness would be inaccurate, but one’s perceptions do persist.” Cheng Yi replied, “Since there is perception, the heartmind is active. How can you call it stillness? Regarding the saying ‘one perceives the essence of heaven and earth through the hexagram of Fu (Restoration),’[101] many people believe that stillness allows one to see the essence of heaven and earth, but this is not true. In the Fu hexagram, the bottom line signifies activity. How can one consider it stillness? Throughout history, Ruists have claimed that stillness enables one to see the essence of heaven and earth, but I alone assert that it is through activity that one can perceive the essence of heaven and earth.”

Jiming asked, “Is it about seeking quietude within activity?” Cheng Yi replied, “Indeed, but it is the most challenging. Buddhists often talk about ‘being settled’ (定), while sages discuss ‘stopping’ (止). For example, when something is good, one must acknowledge its goodness; when something is bad, one must recognize its badness. What do the inherent qualities of things have to do with my ego? If I claim to be only settled and have nothing else to do, the goodness or badness of things still exists in the world. Therefore, sages focus on stopping, as when a ruler stops at benevolence, or a minister stops at respect. The Classic of Change’s hexagram Gen refers to the meaning of stopping, stating, ‘Gen means stopping. It implies stopping in one’s due place.’[102] It suggests stopping where one should, but many people struggle to do so. After all, humans can handle various situations, and things distinguish themselves from one another based on the differing levels of significance perceived by the heartmind. When something is deemed more significant, it suddenly stands out. If we can address things as they truly are (物各付物), they would not stand out abruptly, allowing our heartmind to remain at ease and in its proper place.”

Jiming asked, “Teacher, do you use the terms ‘active’ or ‘still’ to describe the state before the emergence of emotions?” Cheng Yi replied, “Referring to it as ‘still’ is appropriate, but there must be something within stillness to be achieved. This is where the challenge lies. Scholars ought to first comprehend reverence. If they can practice reverence, they will naturally understand this.” Someone asked, “How can one cultivate reverence?” Cheng Yi responded, “There is no better approach than taking One as the master.”[103]

As mentioned above, Cheng Yi introduced the term “no-arising” (不發) to distinguish the empirical from the ontological state of centrality, building upon the concepts of “arising” (發) and “not-arising-yet” (未發). Since the human heartmind is consistently active across moments of “arising” and “not-arising-yet,” its actual operations can be characterized as “having already arisen” (已發), even during quiet-sitting practice. In this round of conversation, Cheng Yi also explained another important pair of concepts: “motion or activity” (動) and “stillness or quietude” (靜) within the context of contemplative practice.

When practicing quiet-sitting, an individual’s body remains still without particular emotions arising, yet his or her heartmind continues perceiving with no possibility of ceasing thought. In this sense, both physically still and moving moments of human life can be viewed as empirically active. However, ontologically, one can grasp the abstract pattern-principles of things in the world and their extensive interconnection as a singular, universal heavenly pattern-principle (Tianli) by contemplating how each activity contributes to an overall cosmic harmony through appropriate measures. Achieving this necessitates responding to things according to their genuine values, and once one treats things as they truly are, he or she will experience an inner sense of peace and quietude while actively pursuing duties and handling various situations. In an interreligious/interspiritual context, Cheng Yi characterizes the Buddhist method of meditation as aiming for a settled state without specific attitudes or judgments regarding the value of things in the world. In contrast, the Ru method of “stopping” seeks to proactively engage with the world while maintaining inner spiritual peace and quietude.

In summary, Cheng Yi identified three connotations of the term 靜 (jing) relevant to quiet-sitting practice: 1) physical stillness in contrast with physical motion, 2) the spiritual inner peace underlying both physically still and moving moments of everyday life, and 3) the ontological quietude characterizing the nontemporal and all-encompassing nature of the heavenly pattern-principle. According to Cheng Yi’s view, the goal of quiet-sitting practice is to experience inner peace during a physically still yet empirically active moment, and more importantly, to anchor that sense of inner peace in the ontologically fundamental and serene heavenly pattern-principle, which encompasses all empirically changing things in the world.

However, as our previous discussion on the relationship between reverence and quietude in 3.4 suggests, quiet-sitting is just one of many practices that can lead to inner spiritual peace and realization of the ontological quietude of Tianli. In other words, quiet-sitting is one of many paths to cultivate the attitude of reverence. Therefore, in his last reply in this conversation, Cheng Yi emphasizes that only when one consistently practices reverence in everyday life can he or she understand why he or she should aim for “something” deeper and broader during the physically still moments of quiet-sitting. According to our analysis, this “something” refers to Tianli and its broad manifestations in concrete human interactions with the world.

5) Jiming asked, “I once suffered from unsettled thoughts. When I was thinking about one thing, another thing would emerge, tangled like hemp. What can I do?” Cheng Yi replied, “This is not ideal. It’s due to a lack of authenticity. You need to practice. When your mind becomes focused, the practice reaches its goal. Whether you are thinking or dealing with matters, you should always strive for taking One as the master.”

Jiming asked, “When I practice quiet-sitting, should I see things that pass in front of me or not?” Cheng Yi replied, “It depends on the situation. If it’s a significant event, like a sacrificial ritual, headdress streamers in front blur the view and silk tassels cover the ears, so you neither see nor hear any distracting things passing by. However, when there’s no event, your eyes should see and your ears should hear.” Jiming asked, “During times of reverence, even if we see and hear, should we not retain things in mind when they pass by” (莫過焉而不留否)? Cheng Yi replied, “Isn’t it said that we should not look or listen to anything that is not in accordance with ritual propriety? The word ‘not’ is just a term of prohibition. However, [you should still see and hear things appropriately, and] it is not right to take ‘not’ as a general rule” (才說弗字便不得也).

Jiming asked, “Some people say that the heartmind of a newborn baby has already arisen (已發). Is that true?” Cheng Yi replied, “It arises, but it has not yet strayed far from the Dao.” Jiming asked, “How can an exemplary person (大人) maintain the heartmind of a newborn baby?” Cheng Yi replied, “By preserving its pure Oneness and proximity to the Dao.” Jiming asked, “What is the difference between the heartmind of a newborn baby and the heartmind of a sage?” Cheng Yi replied, “The heartmind of a sage is like a mirror, like still water.”[104]

Since the conversation between Cheng Yi and Su Jiming had turned to the topic of reverence, Jiming began asking about concrete methods for maintaining reverence, taking quiet-sitting as an example. The opening paragraphs of this section remind us of Cheng Yi’s method of “calming the mind.” As discussed previously, one needs to focus on doing things properly to calm the mind and then nurture a consistent attitude of reverence toward all pattern-principles of things in the world. So, when significant events are at hand, one’s reverence is demonstrated by his or her laser focus on them, not being distracted by any irrelevant sights or sounds. However, when one does not have urgent matters to attend to and practices quiet-sitting, he or she still needs to choose to hear, see, or use any of his or her senses to perceive things, such as contemplating one’s breath to grasp the Tianli behind it.

Cheng Yi’s answer to Jiming’s question about whether to retain things when they pass by is distinctively Ruist in the sense that it teaches a way different from the Buddhist method of dealing with passing thoughts in one’s mind or passing events in reality. The Buddhist method, as interpreted through Cheng Yi’s thought that we have analyzed, does not advocate the cultivation of any specific attitude or judgment to engage with those transient thoughts or occurrences. However, Cheng Yi teaches that one cannot consider “no engagement” as a general rule, and hence, in his view, focusing on the process of thinking and performing the right actions in the appropriate manner will consistently calm one’s mind.

The final question regarding the heartmind of a newborn baby reaffirms the ontological mindset of Cheng Yi’s contemplative practice. Just as he views the empirical state of centrality during quiet-sitting as an image of the ontological state of centrality, Cheng Yi believes that the pure and attentive psychological state of a newborn baby is distinct from the ontological state of quietude cultivated by a sage.

Another significant discussion of Cheng Yi on centrality is with his student Lv Dalin, as indicated by Su Jiming’s mention of Lv’s name in the above conversation. In the letter exchange with Lv Dalin, Cheng Yi explicitly presents, in relation to the text of Zhong Yong and his contemplative practice, that the human heartmind has two levels in its constitution: one is its fundamental state[105] (體, ti), and the other is its functions (用, yong). Since some of the major thoughts have been expressed by Cheng Yi in his discussion with Su Jiming, I will summarize the major disagreements between Cheng and Lv and focus on an analysis of the quotations that represent Cheng Yi’s distinctive understanding of the nature of the human heartmind:

The first disagreement lies in how to interpret the meaning of each major term in the opening paragraph of Zhong Yong. Lv tended to merge every concept together, arguing that “centrality is equivalent to [human] nature” (中即性). However, Cheng Yi strictly adhered to the analytical structure of the text, asserting that “nature is embedded in humans. Following nature is called the Dao. Nature, Mandate (of Tian), and Dao, all these terms have their distinctive designations. The great foundation refers to the fundamental state (體), whereas the universal path refers to the function (用). The fundamental state is distinct from the function, and how can we not treat them as two different things?” Specifically, Cheng Yi emphasized that the basic literal meaning of centrality is “not unbalanced” (不偏). He states, “The view that ‘centrality is equivalent to [human] nature’ is incorrect. Centrality is by which to depict the nature as if it has a depictable imagery (狀性之體段).”[106]

Based on this exegetical analysis of Zhong Yong’s terms, the second point of disagreement between Cheng and Lv concerns the understanding of the ontological status of the human heartmind when no emotions arise. The translation of their conversation on this topic is as follows:

Dalin says, “Before pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness arise, the heartmind of a newborn child is present. In this not-yet-arisen moment, the heartmind is utterly void, without bias or leaning, and thus it is referred to as ‘centrality.’ With this heartmind, one responds to the myriad changes in the world, and in all situations, the heartmind remains centered.”

Cheng Yi replies, “[Zhong Yong says,] when pleasure, anger, sorrow, and happiness have not yet arisen, it is called ‘centrality.’ The heartmind of a newborn child, having arisen, is not far from centrality. If we consider the heartmind of a newborn body as equivalent to the original state of centrality, it indicates that we do not understand the great foundation.”[107]

Cheng Yi’s response to Dalin’s view maintains remarkable consistency with his discussion with Su Jiming. In Cheng’s view, the psychological state of the heartmind of a newborn child is similar to the one experienced during quiet-sitting. At the empirical level, both of these states pertain to a functioning heartmind, which has already arisen. Dalin, failing to distinguish between the empirical and ontological states of centrality, directly identified the psychological state of purity and balance in a newborn child’s heartmind as what Zhong Yong’s term “centrality” refers to. When Cheng Yi referred to this state of a newborn as also “having arisen” (已發), Dalin felt greatly confused because he could not then identify a state of the heartmind that could be considered “not having arisen.” So, the conversation continues:

Dalin says: “Teacher, you claim that when we discuss the heartmind, we always refer to its arisen states. In that case, can we say there is no heartmind at all before arousal? I believe that even before arousal, the fundamental state of the heartmind (心體) is already present and clear. Once aroused, the heartmind begins to function.” Cheng Yi replies: “You previously misidentified the arisen states as unarisen; however, what you just said concerns exclusively those arisen states. The lack of clarity in the words is due to imprecision in their selection. It is certainly not appropriate to always refer to the heartmind as being in an arisen state. The heartmind is one, but there are those who discuss its fundamental state (which is silent and unmoving) and those who discuss its function (which is resonating and connected to all things in the world). It all depends on the perspective from which it is being viewed.”[108]

Just as Cheng Yi coined the term “no arising” (不發) to distinguish the ontological state of centrality from both the empirical states of the heartmind, which include the “not-arising-yet” (未發)[109] and “arising” (發) moments, he now employs the term “fundamental state” (體) to refer to the ontological state and “function” (用) to refer to the varying empirical states. Based on his previous discussions, Cheng Yi consistently situates the practice of quiet-sitting within the “not-arising-yet” moment of the empirical state of the heartmind. Only when guided by the unifying practice of reverence can quiet-sitting attain the “no arising” nature of the heartmind’s fundamental state. By applying the terms Cheng discusses with Lv, we can further expound that quiet-sitting and all concrete contemplative practices aim to fulfill the “functions” of the heartmind while being grounded in its “fundamental state.” “Reverence,” along with the most refined method of “jointly preserving reverence and righteousness,” acts as a bridge between the two realms of the human heartmind: the ontological and the empirical.

We can then draw a diagram (Figure 1) to illustrate the system of moral psychology constructed by Cheng Yi according to his discussions on centrality with Su Jiming and Lv Dalin: 

Figure 1: The Nature of Heartmind according to Cheng Yi 

After construing each major term in this diagram of “The Nature of Heartmind according to Cheng Yi” in my previous commentary of Cheng’s conversations with his students, I need to add a few words to explain its structural nature and the position of quiet-sitting and other contemplative practices within it.

Two levels of the human heartmind are manifest in the diagram: one is ontological, termed as “fundamental state” or “pattern-principle” by Cheng Yi, and the other is empirical, termed as “function” or “vital-energy.” The psychological state achieved by quiet-sitting (i.e., a specific kind of “thought” or “perception” described as remaining centered before emotions arise) is situated in the “not-arising-yet” or “before arising” moment of the empirical level of the heartmind. However, only under the guidance of the unifying contemplative method of reverence can the practice of quiet-sitting reach the ontologically quiet level of the heartmind’s fundamental state. Through another practice called “jointly preserving reverence and righteousness,” such an ontological state of quietude and centrality is further realized in the mundane moments of human life, embodied by varying affective responses to things in the world, such as emotions of pleasure, anger, sorrow, happiness, and others. I connect “quiet-sitting” and “emotions” using a two-way arrow to indicate that the still and moving moments of human life alternate with each other in a continuum, like the ceaseless alternation and interaction of yin/yang vital-energies in the universe. The crucial method for grounding the empirical activities of the human heartmind in their ontological fundamental substance and, furthermore, fulfilling the mandate of Tian that endows humans with a unique nature is reverence as well as jointly preserving reverence and righteousness. These represent, as analyzed before, the transcendent and immanent aspects of Ru contemplative practice.