Chuanxi lu, books I–III
Chuanxi lu, books I–III
「致吾心之良知於事事物物也」 (“Extending the innate knowing of my heart to each and every affair and thing.”)
「良知者，心之本體」 (“Innate knowing is the original substance of the heart.”)
「知是行之始，行是知之成」 (“Knowing is the beginning of acting; acting is the completion of knowing.”)
Note: the marks are all taken from the E evidence cards below; for their sources and levels see the corresponding cards. The overall structure is not inferred from isolated sentences here.
Wang Yangming explains that the ground is originally present through innate knowing being Heavenly principle and the substance of the heart being constantly illuminating, and stipulates the investigation of things and the realization of knowing and acting through “extending innate knowing to each and every affair and thing—each and every affair and thing obtains its principle”;
the “Reply to Lu Yuanjing” says at the same time that innate knowing is never unclear yet one must preserve and examine it and remove obscuration, showing that the original substance not being newly produced and effort being non-deletable can hold at the same time. The four-sentence teaching of the late “Verification of the Way at Tianquan” is a disciples’ record at T2, supplementary evidence for the double track of substance and effort. Currently ② (B), with the systematic reading toward ① kept at C.
Current placement｜②｜“Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B); a systematic C-grade competing interpretation toward ① is kept
Central question｜When the whole thought is complete, what structure, relation and function cannot be deleted? For figures at ③ / ④, first judge their main task; for ② candidates, then test whether right cognition of the ground is a necessary relation of the complete ultimate structure.
This archive separates “how reliable a text is as evidence of thought” from “how certain a structural judgment drawn from the evidence is”. T1 = core, relatively early texts or texts with relatively strong authorial attribution;
T2 = reliable texts with limitations of recording, transmission or editing; T3 = late texts, single transmissions, or texts with marked disputes over attribution or chapter layers; T4 = later commentary, biography or school development. The specific T-level definitions for each author are given in Section 3.
A = a fact stated directly in the text; B = a strong structural inference supported by several original passages; C = grounded in the sources, with an equally reasonable alternative reading; D = an opposing stress test / a hypothesis awaiting verification. An A-grade quotation does not by itself make its philosophical interpretation A.
Direction: supports = supports the current six-position placement; limits = reveals a functional mediation or a boundary of analysis; disputed = two opposing readings must still be weighed; neutral = the text is meaningful but does not directly decide the main class. The direction label does not replace interpretation.
The letters “Reply to Gu Dongqiao”, “Reply to Lu Yuanjing” and “Reply to Ouyang Chongyi” are taken as T1 (relatively strong attribution);
the disciples’ notes in Book I of the Chuanxi lu and the record of the “four-sentence teaching” at Tianquan in Book III are treated as T2, strictly distinguishing Wang Yangming’s own letters from disciples’ later records. The four-sentence teaching is included as supplementary evidence, but not automatically given equal weight with the letters in his own hand; differences in versions and accounts are kept as they are.
All classical texts are located by the online received texts listed in “Sources and Edition Notes”; some quotations keep traditional character forms. The online base text is used for searchable checking and is not a word-by-word collation against images of manuscripts, stone inscriptions or old printed editions. If a reliable critical edition reveals substantive variants, they should be listed explicitly and the affected structural judgments re-examined.
Treated separately: ① the relation of the ground to the world / humans; ② the final load-bearing point and the counterfactual of deletion; ③ whether the thought’s own propounding, debating and being understood are included in its structure; ④ the decisive effect of the most delicate point on the six positions.
1｜Heart, nature and principle are no longer set up as external, mutually separate objects (E-01, 07—09, 11, 14)
2｜Innate knowing is an inherent clear awareness, not made from nothing (E-04—06, 15—17)
3｜The unity of knowing and acting rejects “empty knowing” detached from action (E-02, 03, 13)
4｜The author’s letters positively define extending innate knowing to each and every affair and thing; investigating things is the corresponding obtaining of principle (E-10—12)
5｜Thinking, emotion and deluded illumination are also returned into the self-inclusion and self-reflexivity of innate knowing (E-18—21)
The chain only states this archive’s current reconstruction; if the material across chapters admits other, equally reasonable organizations, the dispute should be kept open, and fluent narration should not replace textual evidence.
This evidence bank again distinguishes two sets of grades: T1 is core evidence that is relatively early, has relatively strong authorial attribution or is stable across texts;
T2 is reliable evidence limited in transmission, authorship or recording; T3 is late, singly transmitted, or evidence with marked disputes over attribution or edition; T4 is later commentary, biography and school development. The T-level limits for specific chapters are given in Section 3.
A = the original text says it directly (proving only that the text says so); B = a strong structural inference supported by several original passages; C = grounded, but with an equally reasonable alternative reading; D = an opposing stress test or a hypothesis awaiting verification. An A-grade quotation does not automatically give its interpretation A. Supports = supports the current six-position judgment; limits = shows that a functional mediation or boundary remains; disputed = the direction of the text is not unique; neutral = the quotation exists but does not for now constitute a core limit in the deletion test.
The E cards list the original text, edition, level, direction, structural role and limits of interpretation; any excerpt must be read together with its context and the thought of the whole text, and a single sentence cannot replace the overall structure.
Original excerpt: 「心即理也。」“The heart is principle.”
Role in this archive: Heart and principle are not split externally; this is the entrance into the ground layer.
What it does not prove: The sayings were recorded by disciples and must be read against Wang Shouren’s letters; a single sentence does not prove ①.
Original excerpt: 「未有知而不行者；知而不行，只是未知。」“There has never been anyone who knows and does not act; to know and not act is simply not yet to know.”
Role in this archive: It refuses to divide true knowing and action into two independent steps of completion.
What it does not prove: One cannot infer from this that the cognitive function disappears: on the contrary, it redefines “true knowing”.
Original excerpt: 「知是行之始，行是知之成。」“Knowing is the beginning of acting; acting is the completion of knowing.”
Role in this archive: It regards right cognition and practice as one relation, supporting ② but not a static knower.
What it does not prove: This sentence cannot alone prove another event of seeing the ground.
Original excerpt: 「知是心之本體，心自然會知。」“Knowing is the original substance of the heart; the heart naturally knows.”
Role in this archive: Innate knowing is not a thing implanted from outside, but an inner function of the heart.
What it does not prove: That the original substance is self-possessed does not mean that the complete practice of extending innate knowing can be deleted.
Original excerpt: 「見父，自然知孝；見兄，自然知弟。」“Seeing one’s father, one naturally knows filial piety; seeing one’s elder brother, one naturally knows brotherly respect.”
Role in this archive: Innate knowing is always oriented toward concrete ethical situations rather than leaving the world of action.
What it does not prove: The existence of ethical intuition does not automatically mean it has actually been carried out.
Original excerpt: 「此便是「良知」，不假外求。」“This is ‘innate knowing’; it need not be sought outside.”
Role in this archive: Not establishing the source of cognition by seeking outside is important limiting material for the ① direction.
What it does not prove: Not needing to seek outside does not mean there is no need to “extend” it or to remove obscuration.
Original excerpt: 「這心體即所謂道，心體明即是道明，更無二。」“This substance of the heart is what is called the Way; when the substance of the heart is clear, the Way is clear — there are not two.”
Role in this archive: It explicitly links the Way with the substance of the heart, highlighting the status of rightly clarifying the heart.
What it does not prove: Speaking in terms of the human heart does not automatically make individual human cognition a condition of cosmic generation.
Original excerpt: 「虛靈不眛，眾理具而萬事出。心外無理，心外無事。」“Empty, numinous and unobscured, the many principles are complete in it and the myriad affairs come forth from it. Outside the heart there is no principle; outside the heart there are no affairs.”
Role in this archive: “Outside the heart there is no principle, outside the heart there are no affairs”, together with “empty, numinous and unobscured, the many principles are complete in it and the myriad affairs come forth from it”, positively incorporates cognition, principle and affairs into the structure of the heart; it is an important candidate for the self-inclusion required by ①, and can also support ②’s stipulation of innate knowing as the highest illuminating awareness.
What it does not prove: One cannot, merely from “outside the heart there are no affairs”, conclude that the propounding of this thought, the speech of the letters and readers’ understanding have been positively and thoroughly placed within the whole; still less does it mean that the function of rightly exercising innate knowing can already be deleted.
Original excerpt: 「心即性，性即理。」“The heart is nature, and nature is principle.”
Role in this archive: Heart, nature and principle interpenetrate rather than stand side by side externally.
What it does not prove: One cannot declare from equation-like statements alone that the thought itself is already self-included.
Original excerpt: 「致吾心之良知於事事物物也。」“… extending the innate knowing of my heart to each and every affair and thing.”
Role in this archive: The author directly defines the investigation of things as “extending the innate knowing of my heart to each and every affair and thing”, and further says that affairs each obtain their principle; “extending” can be the manifesting of the original substance and at the same time a function truly accomplished in concrete affairs;
manifesting and realization should not be set up as mutually exclusive options.
What it does not prove: “Extending” is not a substantial maker outside innate knowing, nor merely a renamed entrance for teaching. Whether it bears load depends on whether, once this function is withdrawn, the relations of investigating things, knowing and acting, and affairs obtaining principle in the “Reply to Gu Dongqiao” remain complete.
Original excerpt: 「吾心之良知，即所謂「天理」也。」“The innate knowing of my heart is what is called ‘Heavenly principle’.”
Role in this archive: The highest principle and the cognitive-ethical capacity are positively linked.
What it does not prove: That Heavenly principle is inherent cannot alone show that final practice does not need “extending”.
Original excerpt: 「事事物物皆得其理者，格物也。」“That each and every affair and thing obtains its principle is the investigation of things.”
Role in this archive: “Each and every affair and thing obtains its principle” forms, with E-10, a positive stipulation in the same passage: what the investigation of things refers to is that innate knowing and Heavenly principle are fittingly carried out in actual affairs, not that a reader merely grasps a correct definition.
What it does not prove: “Obtaining principle” does not require a permanently fixed independent knower; but if the actual realization of extending knowing and acting in affairs is deleted, one cannot keep only the constant illumination of the original substance and declare the effort complete.
Original excerpt: 「未有學而不行者也。」“There has never been learning without acting.”
Role in this archive: “Knowing and acting advancing together” is written into the author’s own letter, not merely a disciples’ summary.
What it does not prove: One should not infer directly from the unity of knowing and acting that the function of knowing can be deleted.
Original excerpt: 「合心與理而為一者也。」“… uniting heart and principle into one.”
Role in this archive: Heart and principle are integrated; running parallel with extending innate knowing, this forms the focus of the ① / ② boundary.
What it does not prove: Integration is a removal of externality, not the functional deletion of the conditions of completion.
Original excerpt: 「良知者，心之本體，即前所謂「恆照」者也。」“Innate knowing is the original substance of the heart, what was earlier called ‘constant illumination’.”
Role in this archive: That innate knowing is the constant illumination of the substance of the heart, neither arising nor not arising, is a real stipulation of the highest structure in the author’s T1 letter, and cannot be downgraded to an incidental occurrence of the word “illumination”; it also shows that the highest structure itself has the character of clear awareness, and does not hold by virtue of an external, newly made knower.
What it does not prove: That the original substance is stipulated by clear awareness does not allow inferring ①: it provides systematic evidence for self-inclusion, and also gives right examination / preservation substantive significance at the completion layer; the constant clarity of the original substance and practical completion may not be equated without condition.
Original excerpt: 「心之本體，無起無不起。」“The original substance of the heart neither arises nor does not arise.”
Role in this archive: The same passage goes straight on to “even when deluded thoughts arise, innate knowing is never absent” and “even at the extreme of darkness and blockage, innate knowing is never unclear”, and also requires “preserving it” and “examining it”; the original substance not being newly produced and the preserving and examining that remove obscuration are positively placed together.
What it does not prove: “Neither arises nor does not arise” excludes the original substance of innate knowing as a newly added object, but does not exclude that those who are obscured still need actual preserving and examining in order to form a complete practice of innate knowing; the latter is not a static substantial cognizer.
Original excerpt: 「良知即是未發之中，即是廓然大公、寂然不動之本體。」“Innate knowing is the equilibrium before arousal; it is the original substance that is broadly impartial and quiet and unmoving.”
Role in this archive: Innate knowing is the original substance of the equilibrium before arousal, broadly impartial and quiet and unmoving; the same passage also says “it cannot but be darkened and obscured by the desires for things, therefore one must learn in order to remove its darkness and obscuration”, and “since the substance is the substance of innate knowing, the function is the function of innate knowing”. This is strong T1 evidence linking original substance and effort in the same passage.
What it does not prove: One cannot, because the original substance is not increased or diminished, assert that learning, removing obscuration and actual functioning can be deleted from the complete ultimate structure; nor can the constant illumination of the original substance be misunderstood as an independently persisting empirical observer.
Original excerpt: 「良知雖不滯於喜、怒、憂、懼，而喜、怒、憂、懼亦不外於良知也。」“Although innate knowing is not stuck in joy, anger, sorrow and fear, joy, anger, sorrow and fear are not outside innate knowing either.”
Role in this archive: Concrete emotions enter the structure explained by innate knowing; strong positive evidence of self-inclusion.
What it does not prove: That emotions are within the structure does not automatically prove that extending innate knowing can be deleted.
Original excerpt: 「無妄、無照則不貳，不貳則不息矣。」“Without delusion and without illumination, there is no duality; without duality, there is no ceasing.”
Role in this archive: Even the two names of delusion and illumination are withdrawn, providing strong material for self-reflexivity.
What it does not prove: Withdrawing the names does not automatically withdraw the function of removing delusion and extending knowing.
Original excerpt: 「良知是天理之昭明靈覺處。」“Innate knowing is where Heavenly principle is bright, clear, numinous and aware.”
Role in this archive: “Bright, clear, numinous and aware” is a positive functional stipulation of innate knowing.
What it does not prove: It must be read together with the relation of thought and action, rather than establishing an independent transcendent observer.
Original excerpt: 「思是良知之發用。」“Thinking is the functioning of innate knowing.”
Role in this archive: Even thinking itself is explained as the functioning of innate knowing, supporting the self-inclusion of the thought.
What it does not prove: It still needs to be explained whether the text’s debating and readers’ understanding hold by the same structure.
Original excerpt: 「無善無惡是心之體，有善有惡是意之動，知善知惡是良知，為善去惡是格物。」“Neither good nor evil is the substance of the heart; having good and evil is the movement of intention; knowing good and evil is innate knowing; doing good and removing evil is the investigation of things.”
Role in this archive: The disciples’ record of the late Verification of the Way at Tianquan sets side by side the original substance not falling into good and evil, innate knowing able to discriminate good and evil, and the investigation of things requiring doing good and removing evil;
it also records “people of sharp faculties enter by awakening directly from the source” and “once one awakens to the original substance, that is the effort”, as well as the practical effort of doing good and removing evil for those who are obscured. It forces the researcher to explain both sudden awakening and practice, and neither side may be deleted.
What it does not prove: This is a later record, not the author’s own writing, and there are differences between the Chronological Biography and the records of different disciples; it cannot be raised to T1, nor can the single phrase “neither good nor evil” prove that the cognitive function has been deleted, nor can “doing good and removing evil” be taken to mean that the original substance of innate knowing is created by humans.
Innate knowing (liangzhi)｜the heart’s inner capacity for knowing right and wrong and for ethical awareness; neither an abstract store of knowledge nor a static external thing
Extending innate knowing｜actually carrying the inherent innate knowing through into concrete affairs, things and conduct
The heart is principle｜no longer seeking an external principle outside the heart, but to be explained together with human relations and action
Unity of knowing and acting｜true knowing and action include each other; not two completely independent steps of knowledge first and execution afterwards
Investigation of things｜making each and every affair and thing obtain its principle; to be understood within the whole context of the “Reply to Gu Dongqiao”
Constant illumination｜the positive stipulation that the original substance of innate knowing is not newly produced
Original substance / functioning｜explains the relation between persisting clear awareness and the activity of emotion and thought; does not necessarily set up two entities
Positive evidence｜the author’s T1 letters E-10—17 explicitly connect innate knowing, Heavenly principle, the substance of the heart, and each and every affair and thing;
E-18—21 make emotion, thinking and illumination phenomena within the same relation, with strong self-inclusion.
Limiting evidence｜“extending” in E-10, “each obtains its principle” in E-12, and “learning and acting not separated” in E-13 all keep a relation of completion; these efforts cannot be deleted merely because the original substance is inherent.
Disputed reading｜① can propose: innate knowing as constant illumination itself, and thinking, emotion and affairs, are all within the functioning of a more basic substance of the heart, and “extending” is only a name for this flowing. But T1 also states explicitly that what is obscured must be preserved, examined and removed, and that principle is extended in affairs; “manifesting” does not mean having no function in the complete relation of completion.
Safest conclusion at present｜② (B). The original-substance—self-inclusion direction has substantive strong T1 evidence; but what ① requires is that positive self-inclusion and the deletability of cognitive completion hold together. The inherence of innate knowing does not make the latter pass automatically.
Already withdrawn / de-substantialized｜a principle set up outside the heart that can be independently obtained; the mechanical two-stage theory of knowing first and acting later; treating the substance of the heart as a separate sensory object; two final entities of delusion and illumination.
Core structural load-bearing point｜innate knowing is Heavenly principle, innate knowing is inherent and constantly illuminating, the unity of knowing and acting, preserving and examining to remove obscuration, and the fitting functioning / realization of innate knowing in each and every affair and thing. These belong to the functional structure of one complete practice of life, and do not require setting up a cognitive entity outside the original substance.
Disputed functional load-bearing point｜whether “extending” is manifesting or realization is not an exclusive dichotomy; the dispute is whether the inherence of the original substance / the flowing of clear awareness is enough to remove the necessity, for completion, of the obscured actually preserving and examining, knowing good and removing evil, and extending innate knowing. The necessary practical relation in T1 is B; if there were contrary whole-book proof of conditions, it would be re-examined.
Nature of the load-bearing point｜the interpenetration of clear awareness—virtue—knowing and acting—ethical life; the text uses clear awareness to define the highest structure, but one cannot judge, merely from the word “awareness”, de-substantialization or the deletability of cognitive completion.
What still holds after deletion｜delete an independent empirical knower and a separately added “object of clear awareness”, and the original substance of innate knowing is still constantly illuminating, and “outside the heart there is no principle” can still explain the interpenetration of the heart with principle and affairs; but mere existence at the level of the original substance does not mean that the complete practice of becoming a sage has been realized.
Where it breaks after deletion｜delete the actual function of “extending innate knowing in concrete affairs, knowing good and removing evil, preserving and examining to remove obscuration”, and the definition of the investigation of things and of affairs obtaining principle in E-10—12 cannot fully hold; the stipulation in E-15—17 that the obscured must preserve and examine and must learn to remove obscuration is also broken; and the late four-sentence teaching at T2 reinforces the completion layer with “doing good and removing evil is the investigation of things”.
Level of the break｜the constant illumination of the original substance, as a definition of existence, is not newly added by effort;
but the complete conditions of completion — actual preserving and examining, removing obscuration, investigating things, knowing and acting — belong to the structural level (B). Whether after completion a static act of “knowing” continues need not be presupposed.
Complete ultimate structure and mode of existence after completion｜no obtainable entity of innate knowing is newly produced, nor is concrete ethical affairs left behind; innate knowing must be preserved and examined out of obscuration and truly function in affairs. Sudden awakening for those of sharp faculties and gradual cultivation for others may be different paths, but one cannot, merely on the strength of the word “manifesting”, delete all right cognition and the function of investigating things.
Position of the thought itself｜self-reflexivity: opposing the solidification of deluded illumination and true illumination into two substances. Self-inclusion: the interpenetration of heart with principle / affairs in E-08, thinking as the functioning of innate knowing in E-21, and the constant illumination of innate knowing and the single source of substance and function in E-15—17 constitute a fairly strong positive internal placement of cognition and thinking; but reaching ① directly from his own letters’ debating and readers’ understanding still requires an overall argument.
Return｜extending innate knowing must return to serving parents, concrete affairs, learning and practice; it is not an escape from experience (E-05, 10—13).
Another reasonable reading｜① can hold that “extending” is only the functioning of inherent innate knowing, that original substance and effort are not set up as two things, and that the highest illuminating awareness needs no additional completer. This is a systematic C-grade counter-reading; but the author’s T1 also states explicitly that because of darkness and obscuration one must preserve, examine, learn and remove obscuration, and extend innate knowing in affairs, so it cannot be judged that the functional deletion succeeds.
Safest boundary at present｜② (B), with a systematic C-grade competing interpretation toward ①. To change the main class one would have to prove that, in the complete relation of innate knowing, Heavenly principle, investigating things and removing obscuration, the actual cognitive-moral function of realization can be withdrawn, not merely that the original substance was constantly clear from the start.
Grade of judgment｜core textual assertions A; the main cross-chapter structure is at present a working inference at B; alternative interpretations that cannot yet be excluded by equal evidence are C.
Positive evidence｜“outside the heart there is no principle” and “the myriad affairs come forth” in E-08, constant illumination / the single source of substance and function in E-15—17, thinking as the functioning of innate knowing in E-21, and innate knowing as where Heavenly principle is bright, clear, numinous and aware in E-20 positively place cognition and the thinking of the thought within the structure of heart—principle—affairs; the self-inclusion direction has B-grade strong evidence.
Limiting evidence｜“outside the heart there is no principle” neither means that the intentions of an empirical individual create the myriad things, nor alone explains the concrete way each of his own sentences and its being understood occur; fairly strong self-inclusion is not the same as successful deletion for ①.
Disputed reading｜an author’s account of speech, reflection, names or the heart can be read as a structure in which the thought is internally placed in the whole, or merely as a self-limitation of explanation / teaching; one must see whether it runs through the core relations.
Safest conclusion at present｜self-inclusion at the level of original substance and functioning is fairly strong (B);
fully incorporating its own speech / understanding into the highest structure still has C-grade room. The B-grade condition of completion for ② comes from reading together in T1 “extending knowing and investigating things—each and every affair and thing obtains its principle” and “one must learn in order to remove its darkness and obscuration”.
Most delicate point｜“innate knowing is the original substance of the heart, constant illumination, neither arising nor not arising” stipulates an original substance that needs no addition; “extending the innate knowing of my heart to each and every affair and thing” and “one must learn in order to remove darkness and obscuration” stipulate real realization. The key is not choosing between “manifesting or realization”, but whether the real occurrence of manifesting belongs to the non-deletable cognitive-ethical function of ultimate completion stipulated by the author. Current evidence supports that it cannot be deleted (B); ① still has a systematic C counter-reading.
Positive evidence｜the “disputed” E cards marked in this archive and their surrounding text are the core; word frequency itself cannot be taken as a necessary condition.
Limiting evidence｜the normative, practical and cognitive vocabulary of the same author may cut across the layers of expression, teaching, path, structure and ending.
Disputed reading｜the same word can be a naming permission, a mode of entry, a functional completion or a definition of the structure of existence; this must still be discriminated within the text.
Safest conclusion at present｜② (B), with a systematic C competition from ①; both ends, “constant illumination of the original substance” and “extending knowing and removing obscuration”, must be kept at once.
Current conclusion｜②｜“Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B); ① has T1 positive evidence for original substance and self-inclusion; reasonable competing interpretation C
Derived from the chain of argument｜the author’s T1 states explicitly that the original substance is constantly illuminating, yet also states explicitly that the obscured must preserve, examine and remove obscuration, and that innate knowing must be extended in each and every affair and thing to accomplish its principle; deleting the cognitive-moral function of “rightly exercising / preserving and examining innate knowing” would change his structure of investigating things and of completion.
Manifesting does not mean deletable, and does not require an independent substantial knower; hence the current judgment is ② (B).
Limits and grade｜This is the current research placement, not a ranking of the six positions, still less a judgment of the value of human thought. A local C does not automatically change the main class to C; if the core deciding condition itself is only C, the boundary must be declared open.
He rewrote “cognizing rightly” from the possession of independent ideas into an ethical practice in which knowing and acting establish each other, connected Heavenly principle, innate knowing, thinking, emotion and concrete affairs in one relation, and refused to cut off the awareness of the original substance from action.
The “highest achievement” here is this figure’s structural contribution on the path of his own thought, not a ranking of status; nor can later systems be used to supply all the premises the original text does not state explicitly.
Counter-question: Innate knowing is constantly illuminating and inherent, so ① has already passed the deletion test
Current reply: The constant illumination and the neither arising nor not arising in E-15—17 prove that the original substance of innate knowing is not created by effort, and incorporate thinking, emotion and awareness into the substance of the heart; but the same or adjacent passages of E-15—17 state explicitly that one must preserve and examine, and must learn to remove darkness. ① requires not only that the original substance existed from the start, but that the complete structure still holds once the function of “right knowing—examining—extending” in realization is deleted; this has not yet been proven.
Counter-question: Extending innate knowing has only teaching significance; ultimate completion needs no “extending”
Current reply: E-10—12 do not merely give the investigation of things another name, but require that each and every affair and thing “obtains its principle”; E-15—17 further state explicitly that because of darkness and obscuration one must preserve, examine and learn to remove obscuration. The definition in the “Reply to Gu Dongqiao” and the conditions of realization in the “Reply to Lu Yuanjing” support each other; their structural significance exceeds a teaching label.
Counter-question: The unity of knowing and acting shows that knowing can be deleted, leaving only acting
Current reply: The original text conversely rejects acting without knowing and knowing without acting; removing the duality is not removing the function of knowing.
Counter-question: “Outside the heart there is no principle” amounts to individual arbitrary thought creating the world
Current reply: The author stresses that innate knowing is realized in each and every affair and thing, removing selfish intentions and practising; an arbitrary idealism cannot be constructed from a single sentence.
Counter-question: The late four-sentence teaching can overturn any judgment of ②
Current reply｜The “four-sentence teaching” is already listed as E-22 (T2) as supplementary evidence of his late teaching, and cannot be treated as the author’s own T1. Its “knowing good and evil is innate knowing; doing good and removing evil is the investigation of things” keeps a positive stipulation of the functions of cognition and of investigating things, and the meaning of the original substance as “neither good nor evil” should be read against the teachings for different faculties; one cannot take a single sentence in isolation and declare that the function of right cognition has been deleted.
Counter-question: The Chuanxi lu is entirely in his own hand, so all of it is T1 at the same level
Current reply: The author’s letters in Book II and the disciples’ records in Book I are at different levels; introductions, disciples’ editing and Wang Shouren’s own writing must be marked separately.
No.26 Mengzi: Yangming directly inherits Mengzi’s line on heart, nature and innate knowing, but his structural relation of completion, “extending innate knowing to each and every affair and thing”, cannot be written back as though Mengzi already had a complete system of the Learning of the Mind. A comparative hypothesis awaiting verification.
No.25 Confucius: knowing and acting connect with humane virtue, but Yangming explicitly connects heart, Heavenly principle and innate knowing, and may bear on the ① / ② boundary a function different from normative ethical thought. A formal comparison must check the main text of the No.25 archive.
Limits of comparison｜Figures for whom current archives exist are read against each other at the same level of primary texts; researchers not yet independently completed are only compared as hypotheses awaiting verification.
In his own letters Wang Yangming stipulates at once that innate knowing, the substance of the heart, is constantly illuminating and is not newly produced by effort, and that one must preserve, examine and remove obscuration out of obscurity, extend innate knowing in each and every affair and thing, and make things each obtain their principle. Original substance and functioning are not two entities, nor can they logically cancel each other. The T2 record of the late four-sentence teaching at Tianquan strengthens the interpretation that sets original substance and effort side by side, but is not automatically equal to his own T1.
Hence, under the present evidence of completion in the author’s T1, ② (B) is maintained, and ① keeps a systematic C-grade competing interpretation.
What it dismantles｜a principle set up outside the heart that can be independently obtained; the mechanical two-stage theory of knowing first and acting later; treating the substance of the heart as a separate sensory object; two final entities of delusion and illumination.
What finally cannot be deleted｜the structural position of innate knowing as Heavenly principle and of the constantly illuminating substance of the heart, together with the actual functions of completion — preserving and examining to remove obscuration, extending innate knowing, concrete knowing and acting, and each and every affair and thing obtaining its principle; not an additional substantial knower.
Whether the thought itself is within the whole｜self-reflexivity: not solidifying true and deluded illumination; self-inclusion: “outside the heart there is no principle / no affairs”, the constant illumination of innate knowing, and thinking as the functioning of innate knowing give strong evidence of internal placement (B), but a complete account of how its own text is understood still has a C-grade limit.
To what grade the most delicate point can be judged｜“constant illumination of the original substance” and the actual function of completion of “extending knowing and removing obscuration” are compatible: the original substance not being newly produced does not mean that the role of right preserving and examining can be deleted. Completion load B, systematic competition from ① C, provisionally ②.
Chuanxi lu, Book I｜https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/傳習錄/卷上
Chuanxi lu, Book II｜https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/傳習錄/卷中
Chuanxi lu, Book III (used mainly for explaining textual layers)｜https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/傳習錄/卷下
Note on evidence levels｜the notes by Xu Ai, Lu Cheng and others in Book I of the Chuanxi lu are T2; the “Reply to Gu Dongqiao”, “Reply to Lu Yuanjing” and “Reply to Ouyang Chongyi” in Book II are the author’s letters with relatively strong attribution at present, listed as T1; the “four-sentence teaching” of the Verification of the Way at Tianquan in Book III is a record by Qian Dehong and other disciples at T2, included as E-22 as important supplementary evidence. The different accounts of “sudden awakening—effort” in the four-sentence teaching have differences of transmission, and cannot corroborate the letters in his own hand without distinction.
Collected Works of Wang Yangming, juan 3 (Chuanxi lu III · Verification of the Way at Tianquan)｜https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/王陽明集/卷03
Verification not completed｜Collation against images of the original editions of the received texts, finer division of authorship of some chapters, and correction of variants in all the short quotations have not been completed. Systematic collation of the quotations in the searchable online transcription against authoritative critical editions remains outside the completed scope; this archive does not claim to have collated against facsimiles.
Missing evidence is not resolved evidence｜classics, histories, the teaching background and the author’s other writings not yet listed may change the boundaries of the argument; one cannot therefore say that the author never answered.