Jigan and Jizhao: The Convergence of Yi Learning of Song Dynasty and Sinicized Buddhism

Abstract

Jigan (寂感), derived from the Book of Changes, which states “when remaining in serene stillness without stirring, it attains universal penetration once stirred by resonance (jiran budong ganer suitong 寂然不動感而遂通).” It describes the profound subtlety of the Zhouyi. On the other hand, Jizhao (寂照) is a Sinicized Buddhist interpretation denoting the non-dual integration of true suchness and prajñā wisdom. Jigan developed into an ontological framework during the Song Dynasty (960–1279), while jizhao took shape during the Wei-Jin period. Philosophically, both manifest a non-dual substance-function structure “quiescence as resonance” and “quiescence as illumination.” They jointly serve as the foundational model for mind-nature cultivation and spiritual transcendence. From this theory of cultivation, however, divergent spiritual aspirations of Confucianism and Buddhism. Confucianism elucidates the principle of universal oneness of all things through quietude-resonance, pursuing the spiritual realm of sagehood. By contrast, Buddhism penetrates through self-attachment and dharma-attachment via quiescent illumination, thereby detaching from all karmic conditions, and manifests Prajñā. Confucianism integrates the practice of jigan into its ritual education, sacrificial ceremonies and daily disciplinary norms, rendering it a practical pathway for sustaining the cosmic-ethical order and generating ritual authority. Buddhism implements jizhao in meditation, precepts, and monastic life, constructing an enlightenment-oriented sacred community. Jigan and jizhao represent two distinct paths of religious transformation and spiritual attainment. This paper compares how both emanate from the ontological state of “serene stillness without stirring” into practical cultivation manifested as “resonance penetrating all things” or “simultaneity of illumination and function”, and ultimately shape divergent modes of sacredness and forms of social integration. While jigan and jizhao reveal a structural convergence in the cultivation theories of Confucianism and Buddhism, they also demonstrate disparate orientations in their spiritual aspirations.

1. Introduction

The Song Dynasty concept of jigan and the earlier Buddhist concept of jizhao share a striking structural resemblance: both articulate a non-dual relationship between a quiescent ontological ground and its dynamic cognitive or responsive function. Rather than advancing a claim about direct historical borrowing, this paper argues that jigan and jizhao represent two independent yet structurally analogous solutions to a shared philosophical problem—namely, how an absolutely quiescent ti (本體, substance) can give rise to dynamic cognition and practical yong (發用, function) without compromising its own purity. The comparison of these two concepts is justified not merely by the lack of existing scholarship, but more importantly by the fact that they offer a unique lens through which to examine how Confucianism and Buddhism—sharing the same cultural and linguistic milieu—construct fundamentally different ontologies and practices from a remarkably similar conceptual grammar.

The possibility of dialogue between jigan and jizhao lies in their shared concerns: how is the relationship between substance and phenomena manifested and verified through subjective cultivation, and how does the absolutely quiescent ti give rise to dynamic cognition and practical yong? Therefore, this article aims to reveal how, when facing similar fundamental philosophical problems, Confucianism and Buddhism developed different responsive methods based on their different value presuppositions. The overall goal is to conduct a structural comparison of philosophical concepts, rather than a merely superficial investigation of historical sources and influences. Moreover, this paper also goes beyond textual comparison and examines how these two contemplative ontologies of mind-nature embedded in jigan and jizhao are manifested in concrete, everyday religious rituals. This comparative approach is justified not merely by the lack of existing scholarship on jizhao and its comparison with jigan, but more importantly by the fact that these two concepts offer a unique lens through which to examine how two major Chinese traditions address the same fundamental ontological and soteriological questions while arriving at distinctly different answers.

Exploring this pair of concepts allows for a deeper understanding of the exchange and divergence between Confucianism and Buddhism, providing an analytical framework based on ritual practice for comprehending the complex relationship between “immanent transcendence” and “institutional religion” in Chinese thought. By “immanent transcendence”, this paper refers to the capacity of a religious or philosophical system to locate the ultimate ground of reality and value within the human mind-nature or the natural world, while at the same time affirming that this ground transcends ordinary phenomenal experience, social conventions, and discursive thought. In the Confucian context, immanent transcendence means that the tianli (天理, heavenly principles) is both inherent in human nature and the transcendent source of cosmic order. In the Buddhist context, it means that true suchness (zhenru 真如) is both the fundamental nature of all sentient beings and utterly beyond all conceptual grasping. While current scholarship has thoroughly investigated concepts related to jigan, particularly gantong (感通, resonance) and ganying (感應, stimulus and response), there are relatively few specialized studies on jizhao, and comparative research on jigan and jizhao is lacking. Therefore, this article attempts, by analyzing their systematic differences in ontological presuppositions and ultimate spiritual realms, to clarify the internal logic and fundamental divide between the Confucian and Buddhist traditions of mind-nature theory, thereby deepening the understanding of the diversity of “substance-function relationships” in Chinese philosophy.

2. The Mind-Nature Structure of the Yijing Doctrine of Jigan

Both Confucianism and Buddhism emphasize the indivisible, mutually entailing relationship inherent within the concepts of jigan and jizhao, regarding it as the function manifested by the highest wisdom. Within the Confucian intellectual system, jigan is considered the wondrous functioning of the Dao of the Book of Changes. When annotating the Yi, Han Kangbo 韓康伯 pointed out that jigan elucidates the mysterious nature of shen (神, spirit).

Shen, being quiescent and unperturbed, responds and comprehends instantaneously. Thus it can discern the subtlest tendencies under heaven and integrate them to realize their functional applications.

神，寂然不動，感而遂通，故能乘天下之微，會而通其用也。

(B. Wang 2009)

This indicates that shen achieves its wondrous functioning precisely through ji (寂, quiescence). Precisely because it remains tranquil and unperturbed, it can perceive and respond to the subtlest incipient stirrings under heaven. What ji presents is an expression of cosmogony: the tianli (天理, heavenly principles) itself, though silently unmoving, can resonate with all things and generate all phenomena. “Silently unmoving” does not signify mere static stillness, but rather an empty quiescence that does not shift with external things and is constant and unchanging. It points towards an inwardly focused transcendental attentiveness, namely the cheng (誠, sincerity) and jing (敬, reverence) emphasized by Confucianism.

On the other hand, gan (感, stimulation) is also understood as the constitutive structure inherent within the tianli. Cheng Yi 程頤 maintained that gan is not an external interaction involving a change in form, but rather the transformation between movement and stillness triggered by the unity of opposites inherent in the tianli. Zhang Zai 張載 also pointed out that gan presupposes difference; there must be two distinct poles in opposition before they can mutually resonate. In Cheng Yi’s interpretation, this structure of movement-stillness transformation is the tianli itself. All things originate from the tianli; therefore, all things can both resonate with the tianli and mutually respond to each other. The fundamental reason lies in their common possession of the silently unmoving nature. This constitutes the metaphysical root from which gan arises. From Zhang Zai’s perspective, all things are constituted by qi, and qi possesses contrasting states such as hidden and manifest, being and non-being, thus enabling mutual resonance; since all things are transient forms of the same qi, a universal relationship of resonance naturally exists among them.

Ji and gan are not separate, opposing categories. Ji is the ontological basis for the occurrence of gan. Precisely because the Dao of the Book of Changes is silently unmoving, it can respond according to the times and resonate with all things. Similarly, it is precisely the existence of gan that allows the empty, quiescent substance of the Dao of the Book of Changes to be manifested. Ji and gan are two different states of the Dao, but this does not mean the Dao alternates between these two states. Rather, it signifies that the two are always co-present within the totality of the Dao. The Dao of the Book of Changes is mysteriously unfathomable; ji and gan cannot be sharply separated. Their unity within the Dao is the unity of substance and function. The Dao is quiescent precisely when operating, operating precisely when quiescent; substance and function are non-dual.

3. The Mind-Nature Structure of the Buddhist Doctrine of Jizhao

Having analyzed the mind-nature structure of jigan, this section systematically expounds the Buddhist concept of jizhao by examining its ontological meaning, mind-nature structure, and practice, thereby laying the groundwork for a comparative analysis with the Confucian jigan. Within the Buddhist intellectual system, jizhao refers to the True Suchness Dharma-nature (zhenru faxing 真如法性). Ji denotes the inherent emptiness and tranquility of the Dharma-nature of Suchness, transcending all dualities including being and non-being, cause and effect, subject and object. This quiescence is not sheer nothingness, but an unconditioned state beyond both existence and non-existence. It is not non-existent for it manifests all phenomenal appearances; yet it is not existent, in that all manifested phenomena are illusory. It should be noted, however, that the interpretation and practical emphasis of jizhao varied across different schools of Chinese Buddhism. The Tiantai school, for instance, stressed the equal cultivation of zhi (止, cessation) and guan (觀, contemplation), interpreting jizhao as the perfect integration of calm abiding and clear seeing. The Huayan school emphasized the mutual unobstructedness of principle and phenomena, viewing jizhao as the radiant functioning of the one true Dharma-realm. The Chan school, by contrast, privileged direct mind-to-mind transmission and sudden awakening, often interpreting jizhao in terms of the original luminosity of the self-nature. Despite these differences, all schools shared the fundamental insight that quiescence and illumination are non-dual aspects of the same reality. This internal diversity will be addressed further in Section 5.

To begin with the ontological meaning of jizhao, ji signifies that the True Suchness Dharma-nature is originally empty and quiescent, transcending all dualities. Zhao is not a vacuous nothingness, but rather a state of absolute transcendence that is “neither being nor not being”. Buddhism expresses this attribute via the shadowy (zhequan 遮詮) method.

Xiao Tong 蕭統 of the Southern Liang (502–557) stated:

The Dharma-body is empty and quiescent, transcending the realm of being and non-being, and standing aloof from causality. It can neither be comprehended by wisdom nor perceived by consciousness; how could it ever be expounded and debated by mere words and designations? Yet to manifest such truth, silence is not permissible.

法身虛寂，遠離有無之境，獨脫因果之外。不可以智知，不可以識識，豈是稱謂所能論辯？將欲顯理，不容默然。

(Dao Xuan 1934)

Hui Si 慧思 of the Tiantai school further elucidated:

Hearing that all dharmas are quiescent in nature, originally without characteristics, but due to false karma, there are the various dharmas. However, false dharmas, having being, are actually non-being; there is only the One True Mind, and no separate true characteristics can be grasped. Having heard this teaching, through skillful cultivation, one knows that dharmas are originally quiescent, that there is only the One Mind.

聞說一切諸法，自性寂靜，本來無相，但以虛妄因緣，故有諸法。然虛妄法有即非有，唯一真心亦無別真相可取。聞此說已，方便修習，知法本寂，唯是一心。

(Hui Si 1934)

Hui Si held that the mind-substance is originally quiescent; due to the perfuming of ignorance (wuming 無明) and the aggregation of karma, the various phenomenal characteristics of the world are manifested. Therefore, dharmas that appear to be existent yet are not truly existent; their illusory characteristics lack substantial reality. Hui Si interpreted ji as the mind-substance being equally apart from all characteristics, and maintained that the mind-substance originally possesses the two aspects of quiescence and function. As the True Suchness entity, the mind-substance is undefiled by the myriad dharmas—hence called ji; simultaneously, it can give rise to all phenomenal characteristics—hence called function. This accords with the Mahāyāna śraddhotpāda śāstra’s principle of one mind opening two gates. Ji and function are inseparable. Zhao then, is the cognitive function and operation of the True Suchness substance. Although True Suchness is quiescent, it can unify self and things and radiantly manifest all dharmas.

In distinguishing between suppressing afflictions (fulei 伏累) and extinguishing afflictions (mielei 滅累), Xie Lingyun 謝靈運 stated:

Suppressing afflictions and extinguishing afflictions are similar in appearance but different in reality—this must be examined carefully. The substance of extinguishing afflictions forgets both subject and object, and views being and non-being as one. The suppression of suppressing afflictions holds different sentiments towards self and other, and sees emptiness and reality as distinct. To distinguish reality from emptiness, to differentiate self from other—this is to fall into stagnation. To unify being and not being, to identify with subject and object—this emerges from illumination.

(Dao Xuan 1934)

滅累之體，物我同忘，有無一觀。伏累之伏，他己異情，空實殊見。殊實空、異己他者。入於滯矣。一有無，同物我者，出乎照也。

(Dao Xuan 1934)

The reason extinguishing afflictions can dissolve the distinction between subject and object and enter the unity of being and not being is precisely its reliance on the zhao of prajñā wisdom. This zhao is not the dualistic cognition possessed by ordinary beings, but the equal, thus-like radiant manifestation issued by the True Suchness itself. Thus, ji is the substance of True Suchness, zhao is its function, and substance and function are non-dual.

The mind-nature structure of quiescent illumination consists of the inherent quiescence of Suchness, with wisdom functioning as illumination. Influenced by Zhu Daosheng’s 竺道生 doctrine of epiphany Buddhahood (dunwu chengfo 顿悟成佛), Xie Lingyun opposed gradual cultivation and stated:

Provisional knowledge is the suppression of afflictions; thus principle is temporarily manifested as function. Function being temporarily taken as principle, its knowing is not constant. True knowledge illuminates quiescence; thus principle is constantly manifested as function. Function constantly abiding in principle, therefore it is eternally true knowledge.

假知者累伏，故理暫為用；用暫為理，不恒其知。真知者照寂，故理常為用；用常在理，故永為真知。

(Dao Xuan 1934)

In his view, gradual cultivation is merely an expedient method that depends on external conditions to temporarily suppress afflictions. Only jizhao constitutes true Suchness. Through epiphany Buddhahood, realizing the non-duality of the substance of nirvāṇa and the wisdom of prajñā, one awakens to Dharma-nature. Jizhao integrates the wisdom meaning of contemplating emptiness from Prajñāpāramitā thought and the ontological meaning of quiescent extinction and non-action, thereby manifesting the realm where True Suchness is non-dual in substance and function, and subject and object are both extinguished.

In analyzing the difference between suppressing and extinguishing afflictions, Xie Lingyun pointed out that gradual cultivation suppresses afflictions, only temporarily subduing the kleśas; whereas epiphany Buddhahood extinguishes afflictions, fundamentally eradicating them. The distinction lies in that extinguishing afflictions dissolves the distinction between emptiness and being, reaching the level where subject and object are dissolved. To reach this level, the contemplative illumination of prajñā wisdom is necessary. Zhao is not the dualistic cognition possessed by ordinary beings, but the equal, thus-like radiant manifestation issued by the True Suchness.

This mind-nature structure was already clearly articulated in Eastern Jin (317–420) translations of scriptures.

The Dharma-master Dhamatrāta’s Meditation Sūtra states “The flourishing of the three karmas takes dhyāna and prajñā as their essential principle. Without prajñā, dhyāna cannot exhaust quiescence; without dhyāna, prajñā cannot deepen illumination. Thus the essence of dhyāna and prajñā is what is called quiescence-illumination. They assist each other: illumination does not leave quiescence, quiescence does not leave illumination.

夫三業之興，以禪智為宗，禪非智無以窮其寂，智非禪無以深其照，則禪智之要，照寂之謂。其相濟也，照不離寂，寂不離照。

(Buddhabhadra 1934)

Here, dhyāna and prajñā correspond respectively to gongfu (工夫 cultivation) and benti (本體 original substance). Dhyāna without prajñā cannot realize the ji; Prajñā without dhyāna cannot achieve the function of zhao. Inheriting his teacher’s thought of valuing both prajñā and dhyāna equally, Hui Yuan 慧遠 held that prajñā constitutes theory, while meditation constitutes practice; the two must be cultivated together and advanced simultaneously. Only through practicing dhyāna can one awaken to and realize prajñā, and the essential meaning of prajñā is precisely the unity of ji and zhao. He proposed the method of Buddha-recollection samādhi (nianfo sanmei 念佛三昧). The key to cultivating samādhi lies in unifying mental focus and rendering thought empty and quiescent, thereby manifesting the illumination of wisdom. Thus, ji is the natural state of the mind-substance, and zhao is its naturally functioning cognitive capacity; together, they constitute a mind-nature structure where substance and function are one.

The cognitive mechanism of jizhao is manifested as zhao without knowing (buzhi zhizhao 不知之照).

As the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states,

Prajñā knows nothing, sees nothing. This distinguishes the function of wisdom-illumination; yet it is said to be without marks, without knowing—why is this? Indeed, there exists knowledge without marks, zhao without knowing—this is clear. Why? That which has knowing thereby has not-knowing. Because the sage’s mind is without knowing, therefore it knows everything. Knowing without knowing is called all-knowing.

般若無所知，無所見。此辨智照之用，而曰無相無知者，何耶？果有無相之知，不知之照，明矣。何者？夫有所知，則有所不知。以聖心無知，故無所不知。不知之知，乃曰一切知。

(Seng Zhao 2010)

Here, “without knowing” means that prajñā lacks the deluded, grasping knowledge of the mundane world, and this very unknowing constitutes the excellence of prajñā wisdom. It is precisely because of this knowing without knowing that prajñā can wisely illuminate all dharmas. The sage, with a mind of not knowing, achieves the zhao of knowing all. Emptying the mind is how to fulfill illumination—this is the sage’s method of knowing things. This means that the sage must maintain a mind-state of empty clarity, like a mirror that allows things to manifest their original countenance.

Silently shining, sheathing its light; emptying the mind, darkly reflecting; closing off wisdom, blocking hearing; yet alone awakening to the dark-dark.

默耀韜光，虛心玄鑒，閉智塞聽，而獨覺冥冥者矣。

(Seng Zhao 2010)

The sage’s wise illumination of the myriad dharmas is not done deliberately; rather, it manifests naturally through concealing the discriminating mind and emptying the mind for dark reflection. Seng Zhao further elucidates the perfect integration of quiescence and illumination.

The sage is spiritual through it [Prajñā], therefore emptiness does not lose zhao; having no form, no name, therefore zhao does not lose emptiness. Zhao not losing emptiness, therefore it intermingles without changing; emptiness not losing zhao, therefore it moves to connect with the coarse.

聖以之靈，故虛不失照；無狀無名，故照不失虛。照不失虛，故混而不渝；虛不失照，故動以接粗。

(Seng Zhao 2010)

Prajñā sage-wisdom, though dwelling in a realm of empty quiescence, can reflect and illuminate all things; and its function of contemplation does not depart from the nature of empty quiescence. Empty quiescence is the foundation of contemplation; contemplation is the wondrous function of empty quiescence. The two are mutually entailing and inseparable.

Based on the simultaneous character of prajñā’s ji and zhao, communication between the sage and ordinary beings becomes possible. The sage neither falls into empty quiescence nor stagnates in illumination; thus, while in accordance with the true meaning, can respond opportunistically, guide, and liberate sentient beings. In Confucianism, ji is a real, substantive tianli that possesses intrinsic normative content—it is inherently ethical, hierarchical, and creative of cosmic order. In Buddhism, however, ji is ontologically empty (śūnyatā) of any fixed nature; its quiescence is precisely the absence of any intrinsic essence. Correspondingly, the gan of Confucianism is a real, effective resonance that establishes and maintains ethical relationships and cosmic harmony, while the zhao of Buddhism is a cognitive event that sees through the illusion of all relationships and harmonies.

In conclusion, through the above exposition—beginning with the ontological meaning of True Suchness as absolutely transcendent and the non-duality of substance and function, proceeding to analyze the mind-nature structure wherein ji gives rise to zhao, then clarifying the cognitive mechanism of “zhao without knowing”, and finally demonstrating how expedient means and various names all point to the same jizhao substance. This structure profoundly influenced the Chinese Buddhist schools of Tiantai, Huayan, and chan-Buddhism, and provided essential intellectual resources for the Neo-Confucian concept of jigan in the Song and Ming dynasties, to which the following sections will turn.

4. Confucian Practice of Jigan as Ritual Technology

Jigan is precisely a cosmogonic expression that reveals the ultimate limit of individual self-cultivation. “Serene stillness without stirring” is not mere quiescence, but an empty constancy that remains unmoved by external things; and “resonance and penetration” means that, when confronted with multifarious affairs, one can respond appropriately and engage with things without letting the original mind be swayed. What jigan ultimately signifies is an inward transcendental attentiveness—namely, the Confucian practices of jing (敬 reverence). Confucian jigan practice is not a mere abstract mental contemplation but a concrete set of ritualized bodily technologies. By examining the cultivation method of jing, the ritual-music system, and their internalizations in Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, this section will show how Confucianism transforms the quiescent substance (jiti 寂體) into daily social practice and ethical order.

In fact, Confucianism and Buddhism both advocate practical methods to concentrate body and mind in the theory of spiritual cultivation (shoushe shenxin 收攝身心). Within Confucianism, such practice is mainly embodied in jing. The Confucian tradition of reverence can be traced back to respectfully practicing the five conducts (jingyong wushi 敬用五事) in Hongfan chapter of the Book of Documents. Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤, influenced by Daoist thought, proposed emphasizing quiescence (zhujing 主敬), whereas the Cheng brothers held that emphasizing quiescence could easily be confused with Buddhist and Daoist methods, and therefore advocated maintaining reverence (chijing 持敬). Zhang Zhaowei 張昭煒 points out that zhujing focuses on nourishing benti, while chijing emphasizes the aspect of solemnizing benti. He attributes these orientations to the tacit dimension of Chinese Confucianism—a cultivation approach that values bodily perception and embodied knowing. He argues that the moral cultivation theory of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism is devoted to recovering the embodied knowing of benti, entering the realm of the tacit dimension, and realizing the unity of the empirical and the transcendental (Zhaowei Zhang 2018). From this perspective, jing constitutes an important pathway through which, by means of the solemn and orderly regulation of external appearance and demeanor, one achieves the concentrated gathering and bright awareness of the entire body–mind, thereby silently realizing and integrating the tiandao (天道, the Dao of Heaven) with the mind-nature.

The unfolding of Confucian jigan practice always relies on the ritualized operation of the body. It is never an abstract, disembodied realization of mind-nature. Ritual technology, through the repeated performance of bodily ceremonies, accomplishes the dual implementation of nurturing the quiescent substance and achieving resonance between heaven and humanity.

The body is frequently the medium that bridges the inner and outer. As Catherine Bell pointed out, the role of the body in ritual practice is formative, and ritualized action produces not just a physiological body but a “cultural being” deeply inscribed, shaped, and disciplined by social norms, values, and power relations (Bell 2009b). In other words, the essence of ritualization lies in bodily engagement and the structuring of the environment. It should be noted that Bell is also deeply influenced by Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of the sense of practice. What Bourdieu argues is that social norms are not transmitted solely through intellectual indoctrination but are manifested through a process of “embodiment”. “Bodily hexis, the embodied form of the sense of one’s place, is thus the most visible marker of social identity” (Bourdieu 1984, p. 474). Bell further develops this idea, maintaining that repetitive ritual actions internalize the deep value-perceptions of society at the level of bodily habit—the key lies in physical performance rather than mere intellectual understanding (Bell 2009a). The very process of participating in ritual is the process of the body being infused and reshaped by value orders.

This theoretical framework provides a crucial lens for interpreting Confucian jigan practice. Read in this light, the Confucian system of ritual and music is essentially an institutionalized ritual technology. Through daily bodily movements, comportment in social interaction, and solemn demeanor, practitioners settle their quiescent original mind within ritual actions, internalize the order of tianli as embodied self-awareness, and achieve the unity of nurturing the quiescent substance with the practice of ritual. For instance, the prescribed gestures of sacrificial offerings are not arbitrary conventions. They are precisely calibrated to induce a state of bodily stillness and mental focus, while simultaneously creating an atmosphere of solemnity that invites the presence of spirits and ancestors, thereby enabling mutual responsiveness. Similarly, the musical accompaniment in sacrifices, with its slow tempo and pentatonic modes, is designed to evoke a collective mood of reverence and harmony, further amplifying the resonance between the human participants and the cosmic order.

Confucian daily ritual norms are the concrete manifestation of the quiescent benti as it operates in worldly affairs, and also the most direct external vehicle for jigan practice as ritual technology to take root in everyday ethics. Michael Puett argues that the early Chinese world was seen as dominated by capricious spirits, and humans engaged in sacrifices to influence, appease, or harness these forces, thereby pursuing a sacred order with moral coherence. Puett points out that, for Confucians, the goal of ritual was to domesticate both human nature and the divine, constructing an ethical, hierarchical cosmic order (Puett 2022). Puett emphasizes that the classical Chinese ritual tradition does not presuppose a self-sufficient, harmonious cosmos; rather, it acknowledges the brokenness and discreteness of everyday experience. The meaning of ritual does not lie in passively conforming to an existing order, but in humans actively using ritual technologies to domesticate the world and construct a temporarily harmonious order (Puett 2015). The Chinese system of ghosts, ancestors, and spirits is itself a set of ritual domestication practices: by transforming dangerous wandering ghosts into protective ancestral spirits, it builds a trans-kinship, trans-local network of temple rituals that serves both social integration and ethical edification (Puett 2013).

Within the Confucian ontological view, ritual is by no means an artificially fabricated external form; rather, it is the natural expression of the original, quiescent, unmoving benti after it has resonated with human affairs, possessing a transcendental ontological basis. Zhang Zai notes that

There are also rituals that need not be changed, such as the Heavenly Sequences and Heavenly Orders—how could they be changed! Ritual does not necessarily all originate from humans. For instance, even if there were no humans, the rituals of Heaven and Earth would exist naturally—why depend on humans? When Heaven generates things, it inherently possesses the phenomena of noble and base, great and small; humans simply accord with this—this is what constitutes ritual.

禮亦有不須變者，如天敘天秩，如何可變！禮不必皆出於人，至如無人，天地之禮自然而有，何假於人？天之生物便有尊卑大小之象，人順之而已，此所以為禮也。

(Zai Zhang 1978)

Zhang Zai held that ritual is not simply established by humans but is rooted in the natural principles of Heaven and Earth; humans merely follow these principles. In Zhang Zai’s view, ritual originates from the inherent order of the cosmos. Through maintaining reverence and putting it into practice, humans cause this quiescent substance to be manifested and realized in the human cultural world. Therefore, Confucian ritual essentially constitutes the externalized form of jigan thought at the level of social norms and daily practice.

Song-Ming Neo-Confucian interpretations of ritual exhibit a marked tendency toward theorization and internalization. As Fei Xiaotong 費孝通 observed, ritual is not promoted by means of an external power; rather, it cultivates in the individual a sense of reverent awe through edification, causing people to submit willingly; people’s submission to ritual is active (Fei 2005). The Cheng brothers explicitly proposed that ritual is principle, directly equating ritual with tianli. Building on this, Zhu Xi 朱熹 further pointed out, ritual is the patterned expression of tianli and the ceremonial norm of human affairs (Zhu 2002). This interpretive approach highlights the endogenous nature of ritual—it is not external coercion but rooted in tianli and inherent in human nature. Ritual creates a “subjunctive” space—“as if” things were ideally arranged—where ideal ethical relations between humans and spirits, ruler and minister, father and son are temporarily established. This space stands in contrast to the profane secular state, forcing individuals to break through habitual fixations, cultivate humane virtues, and transform their body–mind (Puett 2008). Zhu (2002, p. 239) noted that nature is real principle, and benevolence, righteousness, ritual, and wisdom are all complete therein. Wang Yangming 王陽明 went even further. Within the framework of the liangzhi (良知, innate moral knowledge) substance, he completely internalized the principle-ritual structure within the mind, emphasizing that this original substance of the mind is originally just tianli, originally nothing contrary to ritual (Y. Wang 2014, p. 41), and explicitly stating that “ritual is rooted in the mind and is of one root” (Y. Wang 2014, p. 297). Yin Hui 殷慧 argues that Zhu Xi’s discussions on ritual in terms of nature already possessed an incipient tendency toward subjectification, and this tendency was strengthened in Wang Yangming’s discussion of ritual in terms of mind. Thus, Song-Ming Neo-Confucian interpretation of ritual progressively shifted from an external cosmic-normative framework toward an inner, mind-based foundation.

Ritual and music complement each other and together constitute the complete system of Confucian ritual technology. Through the resonant function inherent in ceremonial practice, they achieve the unity of nurturing the quiescent substance, constructing social order, and effecting mind-nature resonance. Li (2001) observed that according to the ritual-music tradition, ‘music’ was originally a tool parallel to ‘ritual’ for consolidating political order. Guo Moruo 郭沫若 also held the view that Confucius’ advocacy of ritual and music aimed at “internally establishing the individual’s lofty character, externally seeking the universal happiness of society” (Guo 1951, p. 8). Human beings are originally endowed with a quiescent Heavenly nature, which, upon stimulation by external things, gives rise to affective functions.

The deeper value of ritual and music, through the inscribed ritual technologies of ceremonial performance, musical sound, and choreographed bodily movements in social interactions, precisely lies in moderating affective arousal and returning to the quiescent substance, and on the other hand simultaneously resonating the individual, society, and the cosmos, thereby manifesting the sacred dimension of order. In Puett’s words, a crucial function of ancient rituals and sacrificial ceremonies was to integrate the discrete cosmic elements—natural phenomena, spirits and ancestors, and human society—into a continuous, interconnected whole by means of hierarchical lineages and institutionalized ceremonial structures (Puett 2023). Schipper also highlights the importance of resonance in the Chinese ritual tradition. In The Taoist Body, he notes that sacrifices are often accompanied by theatrical performances, and Chinese theater has a strongly ritual character, expressing the most central meaning of festive sacrifice: the shared joy of the people and the gods, the resonance of all things (Schipper 1993). Both scholars confirm that ritual and music, as the core ritual technology, are precisely the key vehicles through which Confucianism and other native Chinese traditions cultivate the quiescent substance and connect heaven and humanity by means of ritual resonance.

It should also be noted that the Confucian practice of jigan as ritual technology consistently adheres to the principle that inner quiescent sincerity is the substance and external ceremonial forms are the function. It consciously rejects mere formalism, emphasizing that the ultimate purpose of ritual is to cultivate the original quiescent mind and establish inner sincerity, not to rigidly adhere to external patterns. The Cheng brothers emphasized, “the three hundred rituals of the ritual classics, the three thousand dignified ceremonies, all issue from nature; they are not false appearances or embellished sentiments” (Cheng and Cheng 1981, p. 668). If there is only external compliance without inner recognition, ritual and music easily degenerate into empty formalism. The dialogue between Confucius and Zai Wo 宰我 concerning the three-year mourning period reveals this principle.

Confucius’ aim was not merely to oblige Zai Wo’s superficial compliance with the three-year mourning, but rather to evoke Zai Wo’s inner filial piety in order to demonstrate the rationality of the three-year mourning and establish the ethical foundation of mourning rites. Hence Confucius asked Zai Wo whether he felt at ease. Wang Yangming made a similar statement. While in mourning, he did not weep in front of guests, because Yangming held that the key to ritual teaching lies not in external elaborate formalities but in sincere inner emotion. When discussing whether one should weep in mourning ceremonies, he said, “in unfortunate events, there is no summons; sorrowful weeping values originating from sorrow, not increasing or decreasing based on whether guests arrive or not. The Ancients rushing to a mourning, wept upon seeing the city walls, wept upon seeing the houses—this was the sorrowful heart unable to stop itself. People nowadays, regardless of whether they feel sorrow or not, weep upon seeing city walls and houses—this is following fixed patterns, not from the heart. Weeping when guests arrive, not weeping when guests do not arrive—this is especially hypocritical” (J. Wang 2007, p. 120). He criticized the hypocritical behavior that had degenerated into stereotyped patterns, emphasizing that the foundation of ritual lies in sincere inner emotion, not in external elaborate ceremonies.

Overall, what Confucianism valued were the spiritual values and human achievements behind the Zhou rituals, not the mechanical replication of ritual details. Ritual arises from human emotions, and its core lies in constructing genuine affective connections between people. Michael Puett proposes that the various ritual practices surrounding life, ghosts, and sacrifices in early China gave rise to two distinct strategies for dealing with supernatural and existential predicaments: “ritual domestication” and “sincere belief”. Ritual is devoted to the continuous ordering and domesticating of a fragmented and discrete world, while sincerity originates from the heart’s trust in a coherent and whole cosmos. The tension between the two constitutes a unique intellectual framework of Chinese ritual theory, distinct from the West (Puett 2019). Puett argues that human beings are essentially bundles of emotional energies that react when triggered by external things; the world is a process of things colliding and responding to each other in countless situations, and Ritual emerges from such entanglements of human emotions (Puett 2006). It seems safe to conclude that in the Confucian tradition, ritual implements are the means, quiescent sincerity is the inner substance; external forms are for function, resonance of the original mind is the ultimate purpose.

In summary, whether emphasizing quiescence or maintaining reverence, both are cultivation practices built upon the framework of Confucian jigan thought, and both are rooted in the realization of the Confucian benti. This silently unmoving benti can refer either to the transcendent tianli or to the immanent mind-substance; both are different modes of manifestation of the tiandao. The Confucian ritual system inherited the ceremonial traditions of early religion; its embryonic form gradually took shape within the sacrificial ceremonies of the ancient. The duty of early Confucians was to preside over sacrificial rituals and perform ceremonial procedures; they were the inheritors and practitioners of ritual-music culture. The essence of ritual lies in the humanistic cultivation of sacred order. National sacrifices such as worship of Heaven and ancestors are not mere forms; rather, through a set of standardized ceremonial procedures, they achieve the cosmological resonance of “uniting one’s virtue with Heaven and Earth.” In this sense, Heaven as the supreme sovereign bestows legitimacy upon the ruler’s governance; if the ruler loses virtue, Heaven sends down calamities. Sacrifice thereby becomes the sacred practice through which the ruler, in a state of “quiescence,” resonates with Heaven and Earth. It is both the medium for his communication with the cosmic order and the symbolic ceremony of his ruling authority. The focus of sacrifice does not lie in formal compliance with ritual, but in possessing genuine reverent awe—“sacrificing to the spirits as if the spirits are present”—only then can one resonate with the spirits and deities. Confucius’s saying, “If I do not participate in the sacrifice, it is as if I did not sacrifice,” (吾不與祭，如不祭) precisely emphasizes the requirement of bodily mental presence and sincere-reverent resonance in sacrifice.

Facing the challenge of Buddhist mind-nature theory, Confucianism after the Song-Ming period systematically constructed its own theory of mind-nature. However, unlike Buddhism’s pursuit of inner transcendence, Confucianism’s ultimate ideal remained inner sageliness and outer kingliness (neisheng waiwang 内圣外王). Mind-nature cultivation does not stop at the individual’s inner realm; ultimately, it must be externalized into edification practice and social norms. In other words, inner sageliness must realize its practical significance in the dimension of outer kingliness. Confucian ritual norms and clan sacrifices constitute the concrete practice of jigan thought within social structure and public life. Through the establishment and sacralization of the patriarchal ethical community, jigan practice becomes embedded in the ritual structures of family, local community, and state, embodying the unity of the ji substance with the gan function, of inner cultivation with outer order. Thus, this section has demonstrated that Confucian jigan is not merely an introspective quietism but a comprehensive ritual technology that integrates body, mind, society, and cosmos—a finding that will be essential for the subsequent comparative analysis with Buddhist jizhao practice.

5. Buddhist Jizhao Cultivation Embedded in a Systematic Framework

Having analyzed the Confucian practice of jigan as ritual technology, this section aims to demonstrate that Buddhist jizhao cultivation is not merely an individual technique for realizing mind-nature, but a fully articulated system that is operationally practical, transmissible, and conducive to communal practice. The section establishes that jizhao cultivation operates as a coherent, multi-layered system encompassing theory, ethics, communal adaptation, and mental realization.

Within the Buddhist intellectual system, jizhao, as a core cultivation method, has its theoretical origins traceable to early Buddhist scriptures. The Saṃyukta Āgama already proposed the cultivation of zhiguan juxiu (止觀具修, cultivate both cessation and contemplation), where zhi corresponds to ji and guan corresponds to zhao. However, due to the political fragmentation of the Six Dynasties period, there was a lack of exchange between north and south. Northern Buddhism emphasized the practice of meditative concentration, while southern Buddhism emphasized doctrinal investigation. Consequently, zhiguan and dinghui (定慧, Samatha and Vipassanā), as traditional Buddhist cultivation methods, became separated. The Tiantai school’s proposal of the cultivation principle of equal emphasis on zhi and guan, dual cultivation of ding and hui, was precisely aimed at reconciling this contradiction. Its founder, Zhi Yi 智顗, explicitly argued that ding and hui are like the two wheels of a chariot or the two wings of a bird; inclining to one side leads to delusion. In the Tiantai view, jizhao is one and perfectly integrated. Zhi Yi proposed zhi and guan as bright quiescence, holding that zhi is quiescence and guan is bright seeing, which is consistent with the meaning of jizhao. Chen Jian 陳堅 further distinguishes that zhi and guan belong to the sphere of cultivation practice, while ding and hui pertain to the spiritual realm of cultivation. Zhi leads to attaining ding, guan leads to attaining hui. Thus, zhi and guan are the unique cultivation methods of the Tiantai school, whereas ding and hui constitute the common cultivation goal of all Buddhist schools. This theoretical integration of divided practices into a unified jizhao method forms the first pillar of the systematic structure.

The precept system serves as both the physical and mental discipline and the institutional foundation for the cultivation of jizhao. As the fundamental norms regulating body and mind, precepts help practitioners cut off external desires, and together with dhyāna concentration, form the practical support for the practice of jizhao.

Tan Luan 昙鸾 pointed out that

People fear the three destinies, therefore they receive and uphold the prohibitive precepts. Because they receive and uphold the prohibitive precepts, they can cultivate dhyāna.

人畏三塗，故受持禁戒。受持禁戒，故能修禪定。

(Tan Luan 1934, p. 844)

These passages confirm that śīla foundation does not act as an external constraint but as the protective ground for guarding the quiescent mind-substance, providing the prerequisite for illuminate prajñā to arise. Without this ethical groundwork, jizhao cultivation would lack stability and become vulnerable to distraction or self-deception.

During the process of Buddhism’s Sinicization, śīla were often analogically compared with Confucian rituals through the method of geyi (格義, concept-matching). Chen Yinke 陳寅恪 pointed out “Geyi was prevalent in the Six Dynasties period. Chinese Confucian ritual and Indian Buddhist precepts were analogically paired and regarded as naturally corresponding” (Chen 2001, p. 135). In the eyes of Buddhist monastics and Confucian scholars at that time, Buddhist śīla were similar to Confucian rituals, and an interpretive style of explaining śīla by means of ritual emerged, termed “matching precepts”. Although Buddhist śīla and Confucian rituals differed considerably in their value orientations, Buddhism modified its teachings over the course of its development to integrate into Chinese society, drawing closer to Confucian ethics. Corresponding to the “three thousand dignified ceremonies” (weiyi sanqian 威儀三千) of the Doctrine of the Mean, Buddhism proposed its own “three thousand dignified ceremonies” for fasting and purification. Yan Yaozhong 严耀中 (Yan 2007) holds that śīla and ritual systems are homologous in nature, and both possess the characteristic of dual constraint—self-constraint and external constraint, with the former being primary and the latter supplementary. This adaptive process shows that the jizhao system was not a rigid import but a transmissible framework that could be communally embedded through alignment with indigenous ethical structures.

The chan-Buddhism particularly emphasizes the importance of mind-nature purity, and its interpretation of precepts points more directly to the inner mind-substance. As Songyue Yuangui Zen Master stated “Without mind, there are no śīla; without śīla, there is no mind (Zan Ning 1934, p. 829).” The Platform Sutra advocates the “formless precepts” (wuxiang jie 無相戒). Fu Weixun 傅偉勳 holds that the formless precepts uses epiphany practice to dissolve all inner attachments, realizing the immediate perfection of “birth-and-death is nirvāṇa” (Fu 1989). In the chan-Buddhism view, the jieti (戒體 the essence of the precepts) is the inherently pure seed present from birth, the source of all Buddha-nature; precisely because the mind-substance is originally quiescent, there is soil for the pure seeds to arise. This realization of the mind-substance’s original quiescence provides the inner basis upon which śīla are established, thereby internalizing the entire cultivation system.

Beyond individual cultivation and precept observance, the jizhao system also operates through institutionalized monastic structures. Monastic discipline provides the communal framework. Monastic rules governing daily routines are all designed to maintain the conditions for quiescent contemplation. The practice of jizhao is not merely an individual achievement but a shared endeavor, supported by collective rituals such as the uposatha and intensive meditation retreats. Thus, jizhao cultivation is embedded in a comprehensive institutional matrix: the precepts regulate the body and speech, the monastic rules structure communal life, the meditation manuals provide step-by-step guidance, and the lineage system guarantees authenticity and continuity. This institutional dimension is essential for understanding how jizhao, as a contemplative ideal, generates social authority and religious integration, paralleling the role of ritual in Confucianism.

This section set out to demonstrate that Buddhist jizhao cultivation constitutes a complete, practical, and transmissible system rather than a mere personal realization technique. The jizhao system encompasses individual mind-nature cultivation, ethical discipline, communal adaptation, and doctrinal integration—forming a coherent whole in which theory, practice, and systemic arrangements mutually support one another. Ultimately, this system aims at transcending worldly discrimination and realizing True Suchness, pointing toward a nirvāṇa realm that, while transcending worldly ethics, is nevertheless actualized through a structured, shared, and operational path of quiescent illumination.

6. Conclusions

Hong Xiuping 洪修平 (Hong 2013) once argued that Buddhist meditative cultivation can be traced back to ancient Indian yoga, and its emergence originated from humanity’s self-awareness of the existential predicament of its own finitude. Confucianism and Buddhism, facing the same existential problem, share certain similarities in their cultivation methods. For example, Confucianism pursues the unity of Heaven and humanity (tianren heyi 天人合一), while Buddhism equally advocates that self-nature is prajñā (zixing ji bore 自性即般若). Both, through their respective systematic ritual practices, actualize ultimate concern as institutionalized and operable ceremonial procedures. In this sense, the convergence of jigan and jizhao lies crucially in their shared structure of quiescent contemplation—radiant manifestation (jingguan-langxian 静觀-朗現), and the rich ritual practices unfolded therefrom.

Through different paths of ritualization, they respectively produce different types of sacredness, and relying on corresponding institutional fields, shape different forms of social authority and integration mechanisms. Structurally, both traditions posit that an absolutely still ontological ground must simultaneously manifest cognitive or responsive activity without compromising its own purity. However, this structural convergence gives way to a profound divergence in the type of sacredness each tradition cultivates. Specifically, Confucianism, taking jigan as the guidance of the benti, embeds and reinforces the existing “cosmic-ethical” order through ritual practice, thereby generating a kind of “sacredness of order.” Buddhism, taking jizhao as the cultivation program, penetrates ignorance and false attachments through institutionalized meditative contemplation practice, realizing the “sacredness of substance”. At the level of social integration, Confucianism, relying on ritual governance, constructs an ethical community of graded harmony, harmonious yet diverse. Buddhism, following dharma–condition relationships, advocates the universal liberation ideal of equality and compassion.

Although facing the same problem of immanent transcendence, Confucianism and Buddhism pursue fundamentally different models of sagehood and saintliness. Confucian sacredness is rooted in the cosmic-ethical order itself. On the one hand, through external ritual norms and moral edification, it internalizes the value system in the human heart; on the other hand, through external behavior and ritual practice, it concretely manifests the moral system in reality. Buddhist sacredness, however, points to a nirvāṇa realm transcending worldly ethics and cosmology, pursuing a thorough awakening that transcends worldly discriminating thought. Through renouncing the world and strictly upholding precepts, it ultimately dissolves all discrimination, breaks through ignorance and false attachments, and attains the thorough awakening of having no desires or wants. Together, Confucianism and Buddhism shaped the composite religious cultural landscape of Chinese society, embodying not only the institutional practice of “immanent transcendence” within different thought systems, but also providing concrete and detailed analytical cases for understanding the practicality and religiosity of Chinese thought.