wakefulness! Through so many mouths and years well had he considered the passing, changing world, with its alternating adversity and prosperity, its bloom and decay. Are they all dreams and visions, "the clouds that float above the earth"? Fortune and misfortune are twisted together like the strands of a rope.

Among it all only the "Way" of the Sages stands with Heaven and Earth. Past and present it only changes not. Men should wonder at it and praise. But the world knows it not. Men are in darkness as to righteousness, though wise in gain and lust. The " Way" is forsaken and customs deteriorate. Alas! Alas! but my low rank and feeble powers could not reform the customs or restore the doctrine; as well might a gnat move a tree or one dip out the ocean with a shell. Yet is it our duty as scholars to grieve over the world and reform the people. We cannot give this task to others. Why should aged teachers and men who are accounted scholars desire false doctrines, mix them with the truth and thus transform the "Way" of righteousness and virtue ?

66

I cannot agree to that. They work and argue, please the vulgar and go with the times. Deplorable! As has been said of old," A corrupt learning that flatters the world." Let it be so ! Let customs change! I alone will follow the way" of benevolence and righteousness nor lose the pattern I have learned ! This is the sign of the scholar who honours the "Way." In the New Year when men bless themselves with good wishes for a thousand worlds, I will set my heart on the " Way" of the five virtues only and will change not. This I think the rightful cause for congraSo I write,

tulations.

This spring too I go unchanged

Five times more than seventy seeking the "Way."

This year I have been busy, from spring to autumn, collecting and writing my various talks with my disciples. I finished it in the autumn, and though it is as worthless as the refuse gathered by fishermen, yet if transmitted

to our company it may be one-ten-thousandth help to those who study themselves. So at the end I wrote my New Year's verse, ending yet beginning, and thus reveal an endless heart.

Kyō-hō Jin-shi no Toshi, Fuyu Jugatsu (Winter, December 1729). (sigued) Kyusō.

NOTE ON JAPANESE SCHOOLS OF
PHILOSOPHY.

BY T. HAGA.

[Read 9th March, 1892.]

In the introduction to his paper, entitled A Japanese Philosopher, and read before the Society, January 20th, Dr. Knox states that with the exception of a small school which follows Ōyōmei, Japanese Philosophy is that of Shushi. The correctness of this view of the matter is quite inadmissible. Of the opponents of the Tei-Shu philosophy I will mention a few, just as they come to mind: Jinsai, Sorai, Tōgai, Shuntai, Kinjō, Riken, Nammei. I cannot remember them all. In the writings of these men he will find the fundamental ideas, sei, jin, and michi (way), to be different from those held by Shushi.

Of the four writers selected by Dr. Knox as followers of the orthodox philosophy in this country, only the first and last can be said to belong to it, and of these the first is certainly not one of its best representatives. Hakuseki, like Kyusō, the subject of Dr. Knox's paper, was a pupil of Kinoshita Junnan, whose views, though they inclined him to the Teishu school, were still quite liberal and somewhat affected by the older learning, and Hakuseki became even more liberal than his master.

Yamazaki Ansai was indeed an orthodoxist,' narrowminded and violent in his opposition to those who did not accept Shushi's doctrin es.

The other two names in Dr. Knox's list, have just been mentioned by me as among the opponents of the 'orthodox' philosophy, and so far were they from adopting Shushi's views, that they became the founders of the Kogaku school, or school of Ancient Learning. Jinsai was the first who systematically opposed the teaching of the Teishu school. His followers, including his distinguished son, Tōgai, exercised great influence. Sorai came a little later, and was equally opposed to Shushi, whom he wrote against very strongly and described as being a Buddhist. He spoke of Shurenki, Teishi, Shushi, and others as founders of the ri school, rigakusha, and also referred to them as Sō-ju (So dynasty school men). His particular school surpassed that of Jinsai in the production of well-known men, Shuntai, Nankwaku, and many others.

It would be a task beyond my powers to discuss fully and clearly the philosophy of the Teishu, Öyōmei, and other schools. Indeed, it seems impossible to find English words at all equivalent to many of those in use in Chinese and Japanese philosophy. A word which to some degree seems to suit in one case, is found to be wrong when fitted to another. I can therefore only attempt to indicate some of the radical differences between the Teishu and Kogaku Schools, the latter as represented by Jinsai and Sorai, although these two differ among themselves.

Throughout the philosophy of Shushi there are the conceptions ri and ki. They are themselves self-existences, and are concerned in the formation of all things and are present in all things. It may perhaps be nearly correct to say that ri is the source of law and order, and ki is the source of natural existence. Ri we are told is the perfection of Heaven. It is in inanimate things as well as in man, and pervades all space. Ki, from its twofold character, is also called in-yo, and from its fivefold character, go-gyō. The conception of in and yo is that of duality, involving complementary or equivalent opposition of parts of one thing. It

may be, and has been, compared with many states of such opposition between similars, and among others therefore, with opposition of sex, but this has been brought out more strongly in translations than it usually exists in the original. Association of positive and negative (polarity), as used so largely in certain sciences, is all that is meant by in-yo. As go-gyō, the five divisions of ki are manifested in the categories, wood, fire, earth, metal, water.

Animals and things get only portions of ri, but man receives ri in full amount, and this becomes in him, sei, his real nature. He has thus within him the perfect mirror of Heaven and perfect understanding. There is no difference in this respect between a seijin or a perfect man and an ordinary person. To both, ri is given uniformly. But ki, from which is derived his form and material existence, and which constitutes his kishitsu, is different in quality in different men, and is sometimes clear and sometimes dull. He has thus a certain capacity due to ki or kishitsu, such as being intelligent or stupid, weak or strong; this is called kirin. Sei or man's real nature, although originally ri itself when it comes to reside in man, that is, in his kishitsu, becomes affected or modified by his kirin, or capacity through ki. Thus a second nature is formed out of ri or the original sei, modified or affected by kishitsu, and this second nature is called kishitsu no sei. He has thus his second nature called kishitsu no sei through which he acts well or ill. When a man does evil, that is the result of his kirin covering or interfering with sei, his original nature, and this action of his kirin is called kishitsu no hei (cover) or kirin no kakawari (interference or hindrance by kirin with the original sei, honnen no sei, or tenchi no sei). By this interference of kirin, sei or the original nature of man becomes clouded, as a mirror. Remove this corruption (kishitsu no hei) and the honnen no sei recovers its brightness, and man is perfect and can understand all nature.

Thus it will be seen that although the Teishu school