Yì chuán dēng 易傳燈
The Yì-Lamp Transmission
by 徐總幹 Xú Zǒnggàn (撰) — “Xú the Comptroller”; the work is signed only with the official title Zǒnggàn 總幹 and the surname Xú; the son’s preface identifies the author as a disciple of 呂祖謙 Lǚ Zǔqiān and 唐仲友 Táng Zhòngyǒu, and his name is not preserved in the surviving text — possibly Xú Qiáo 徐僑 (c. 1160–1237), Xú Kǎn 徐侃, or Xú Zhuō 徐倬 (Sòng disciple, not the Qīng-period 徐倬), but uncertain
About the work
A four-juan late-Southern-Sòng Yì commentary, the third in a triad of compositions (Zhōuyì dàyì 周易大義 → Yǎn yì 衍義 → Chuán dēng 傳燈) by an author who signs himself only with his office-title Zǒnggàn 總幹 (Comptroller / Bureau-Superintendent). The work survived only in Yǒnglè dàdiǎn citations scattered under hexagram-headings; no Sòng or Yuán bibliography records it; Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo does not list it. The Sìkù editors recovered it from the dàdiǎn and recompiled it as four juan.
The author’s biography is given only by the son 徐子東 Xú Zǐdōng’s preface, dated Bǎoyòu dīngsì (1257) mid-spring sixteenth day. According to this preface: in his youth the father studied prosody-and-rhyme; afterwards he turned to canonical learning and disliked literary ornamentation; he successively studied at the academies of Lǚ Zǔqiān (Dōnglái xiānshēng), Táng Zhòngyǒu (Shuōzhāi xiānshēng), and 宋真卿 Sòng Zhēnqīng — at the last of whom’s “book-hall” (shūtáng) he saw a Fú-Xī Xiāntiān bā guà diagram on the wall, and from that moment “fastened his ambition to studying the Yì.” He twice took provincial-grade-examinations and twice was placed on the recommended-list, both times with the Yì as his canonical specialty. He valued the Way-and-rightness and made-light-of profit-and-rank, and, retiring to live at the Yì-Hall (Yì táng 易堂), in the Bǎoqìng era (1225–1227) composed Zhōuyì dàyì; then Yǎn yì; then Chuán dēng — “after several decades, the manuscript was finally finished.” The son had the woodblocks cut posthumously.
The Sìkù editors note that the candidate-attribution to 徐僑 Xú Qiáo (per the Sòngshǐ — Xú Qiáo had studied under Lǚ Zǔqiān and composed Dú Yì jì 讀易記 and Shàngshū kuòzhǐ 尚書括旨) is plausible but not provable; Lǚ Zǔqiān had several other disciples surnamed Xú (徐侃 Xú Kǎn, Xú Zhuō 徐倬). Without explicit identification in the preface the question is left open. The Sòng Lǚ Dōnglái xuépài 呂東萊學派 (“Dōnglái School”) had its center at the Wùzhōu Lìzhái Academy 麗澤書院.
The Sìkù tiyao registers a series of pointed criticisms:
-
The title — Chuán dēng 傳燈 (“Lamp-Transmission”) is a Buddhist term, the standard title of the Chán-school transmission-history Jǐngdé chuándēng lù 景德傳燈錄. Using such a Buddhist phrase as the heading of a canonical-Classic exposition is “particularly perverse and incoherent” (shū wéi guāi cì 殊為乖刺).
-
Doubting the Xìcí’s authorial integrity*. The author treats the Xìcí xià zhuàn’s “Yì zhī wéi shū” 易之為書 three chapters as Hàn-period Yìwěi 易緯 apocrypha falsely attributed to Confucius. The Sìkù editors note this is following the error of 歐陽修 Ōuyáng Xiū (whose Yì tóngzǐ wèn 易童子問 raised similar doubts).
-
Number-and-image speculation. The work treats the Hé tú 河圖’s zònghéng shíwǔ zhī miào 從横十五之妙 (the 3×3-magic-square wonder, all rows-columns-and-diagonals summing to 15) as configured against QiánKūn nine-and-six numbers — “directly takes Yì-numbers as Five-Phases-school speech” (zhí yǐ Yì shù wéi wǔxíngjiā yán 直以易數為五行家言), which is “specifically not free of confused-and-mixed.”
But the Sìkù editors balance these criticisms with substantial praise:
a. The 16-essay general-discussion of the eight trigrams (bā guà zǒng lùn shíliù piān 八卦總論十六篇) is “able, by cross-collation, to grasp the class-and-pattern of the Yì*” (pō néng dé Yì zhī lèilì 頗能得易之類例). Example: Dàzhuàng, Dàyǒu, Guài, Qián — Qián is below Duì, Lí, Zhèn, and itself; Qián’s jiǔsān says jūnzǐ, while the other hexagrams’ jiǔsān all carry jūnzǐ / xiǎorén dual statements — because Qián’s jiǔsān sits “within the doubled-strong” (chóng gāng 重剛), so being jūnzǐ is auspicious and being xiǎorén inauspicious; hence the differentiated wording. Conversely Xiǎochù, Dàchù, Xū, Tài — when Qián’s jiǔsān sits below Xùn, Kǎn, Gèn, Kūn, and meets a yīn yáo above, the wording always carries yìjǐn zhī yì 畏謹之義 (“the meaning of fear-and-caution”). The dissection is “especially fine-grained.”
b. Identification of Three-Dynasties institutions reflected in the Yì’s imagery. Bǐ jiǔwǔ 比九五: “Wáng yòng sān qū” 王用三驅 reflects the royal-hunt protocol of not closing the encirclement, only driving from three sides. Xùn jiǔèr 巽九二: “Shǐ wū fēn ruò” 史巫紛若 reflects the institutional structure of tàishǐ 太史 (Grand Historian), male-shaman (nán wū 男巫), and female-shaman (nǚ wū 女巫). “Discussing the inter-penetration of Yì-and-ritual, [the work] also has evidential basis.”
The Sìkù editors’ overall verdict: “Half pure, half disorderly (chún bó cān bàn 純駁參半). Although there are silk-and-hemp [valuable materials], one cannot discard the rush-and-reed [coarse materials] — this is what one who-discusses-the-Yì should-broadly-gather-from (páng cǎi 旁采)*.”
The opening of the Sìkù base-text carries a poem by the 弘曆 Qiánlóng Emperor — Yù tí Yì chuán dēng 御題易傳燈 (“Imperial-Topic [poem on] Yì chuán dēng”) — itself a sharp-edged five-character composition mocking the work’s three principal blemishes: hiding-the-author (signing only with office-title), borrowing the Buddhist chuándēng phrase, and following Ōuyáng Xiū’s Xìcí-doubt error.
The composition window 1225–1255 reflects: the auto-preface’s location of Zhōuyì dàyì’s composition in the Bǎoqìng era (1225–1227) onward; the son’s 1257 preface as terminus.
Tiyao
We respectfully submit that Yì chuán dēng — no listing in any of the various shūmù (book-catalogues), nor under that name in Zhū Yízūn’s Jīngyì kǎo. Only the Yǒnglè dàdiǎn scatters [the text] under each hexagram-heading. The author’s office is given as Xú Zǒnggàn (Xú the Comptroller), with no name or zì. Further preserved is his son [Xú] Zǐdōng’s preface, which says: “His father once studied under Lǚ Zǔqiān and Táng Zhòngyǒu.” Examining the Sòngshǐ: Xú Qiáo once received teaching from Lǚ Zǔqiān, and composed Dú Yì jì, Shàngshū kuòzhǐ, and other books. Lǚ Zǔqiān’s disciples also include Xú Kǎn and Xú Zhuō. The preface has no explicit text-evidence; one cannot determine which.
Chuán dēng is originally Buddhist speech; taking it as the title of a canonical exposition is particularly perverse and incoherent. Further, [the author] holds that the Xìcí xià zhuàn’s “Yì zhī wéi shū” three chapters are all Hàn-ru Yìwěi-school text, miswritten as the Master’s [Confucius’s] composition to deceive later ages — also following Ōuyáng Xiū’s error.
He further holds: when the sage observed the Hé tú, there was number and there was image; with the zònghéng shíwǔ’s wonder he configured against QiánKūn’s nine-and-six numbers; “white and purple are auspicious; yellow and black are inauspicious” — this is directly to take Yì-numbers as Five-Phases-school speech, especially not free of confused-and-mixed.
Yet his eight-trigram general-discussion’s sixteen piān, by cross-collation, can grasp the class-and-pattern of the Yì. As when he says: “Dàzhuàng, Dàyǒu, Guài, Qián — these are Qián below Qián-Duì-Lí-Zhèn. Qián’s jiǔsān says jūnzǐ, while the remaining hexagrams’ jiǔsān all carry jūnzǐxiǎorén wording — because jūnzǐ in doubled strong (chóng gāng) means jūnzǐ is auspicious and xiǎorén is inauspicious, hence the differentiated speech. Where it sits below Xùn, Kǎn, Gèn, Kūn — that is Xiǎochù, Dàchù, Xū, Tài — whenever Qián’s jiǔsān meets a yīn line above, all bear the meaning of fear-and-caution.” The dissection is even more fine-grained.
He further holds that the Yì’s taking-of-imagery covers Three-Dynasties’ institutions. As: Bǐ jiǔwǔ says “the king uses three-sided drive” — seeing the li of the king-not-closing-the-encirclement, driving from three sides. Xùn jiǔèr says “shǐwū fēn ruò” — seeing that antiquity had the Tàishǐ, male-shaman, female-shaman institution. The discussion of Yì-and-Ritual’s inter-penetration also has evidential basis.
Generally: half-knowledges-and-half-understandings still take-up — what is borrowable is also not infrequent. Although there are silk and hemp, one does not discard the rush and reed — this is precisely what Yì-expositors broadly draw upon.
Respectfully revised and submitted, ninth month of the forty-sixth year of Qiánlóng [1781].
General Compilers: 紀昀 Jǐ Yún, 陸錫熊 Lù Xīxióng, 孫士毅 Sūn Shìyì. General Reviser: 陸費墀 Lù Fèichí.
Imperial Topic-Poem
Master Xú hides his name — by what title shall we mark him? It seems too he himself knew his fault. Originally, hexagram-drawing came from the ancient sages — why borrow “lamp-transmission” to ape Buddhist Sanskrit? His learning is reportedly from Dōnglái’s Way; yet he has not seen [its mark]; he follows on from 歐陽修 Ōuyáng Xiū’s words and is wounded by the misprision. He says clearly that “later students much err” — yet recognizable in himself, the errors are already many.
(— Imperial composition by the Qiánlóng Emperor, prefaced to the Sìkù recension)
Abstract
The Yì chuán dēng is one of the more documentary-puzzle works in the Sìkù’s Yì lèi: its author signs only with the office-title Zǒnggàn 總幹 (Comptroller / Bureau-Superintendent in a regional administration) and the surname Xú, with no personal name preserved in the surviving recension. The son Xú Zǐdōng’s 1257 preface gives the family-line and intellectual-pedigree (Wùzhōu Dōng-lái-school, with Lǚ Zǔqiān → Táng Zhòngyǒu → Sòng Zhēnqīng as the principal teachers) but does not name the father. The Sìkù editors enumerate the candidate Xú-clan disciples of Lǚ Zǔqiān known from the Sòngshǐ and other Sòng records — Xú Qiáo 徐僑, Xú Kǎn 徐侃, Xú Zhuō 徐倬 — without resolution. The conventional shorthand “Xú Zǒnggàn” 徐總幹 has stuck.
Methodologically the work is a late-Sòng Dōnglái-school synthesizer with marked xiàngshù sympathies. The eight-trigram cross-collation method (developed in the bā guà zǒng lùn sixteen piān) is methodologically continuous with 趙善譽 Zhào Shànyù’s typological reading (KR1a0039) and anticipates the Yuán-period 胡炳文 Hú Bǐngwén systematic readings. The Hé tú 3×3 magic-square speculation is the more controversial component, and is what brings the Sìkù editors’ “chún bó cān bàn” verdict.
The composition window 1225–1255 reflects the Bǎoqìng era beginning of Zhōuyì dàyì (per the son’s preface) and the 1257 son’s preface as terminus. The author was deceased by 1257 (“my late father” xiān jūn 先君).
The *Yì-Ritual cross-reference work — Bǐ hexagram’s sān qū hunt-protocol and Xùn hexagram’s shǐwū shaman-institution — is one of the more interesting Southern-Sòng instances of using the Yì to reconstruct Zhōu-period institutional history. This is the Wùzhōu jīngshǐzhīxué methodology applied to the Yì, anticipating much later Qīng-period evidential-historiography reading practices.
Qiánlóng’s yù tí poem — preserved at the head of the Sìkù base-text — is itself a documentary monument: an imperial five-character composition explicitly mocking the work for its three blemishes, while the editors below the poem nevertheless retain and record the work. The combination of imperial criticism + editorial preservation is rare in the Sìkù tíyào corpus and gives the work an unusual reception-history.
Translations and research
No European-language translation. The work’s puzzle-of-attribution and Sìkù-recovery status make it of interest principally to Sòng Yì-history specialists.
- Wáng Tiějūn 王鐵均, Sòngdài Yìxué shǐ — chapter on the late-Sòng Dōnglái-school Yì tradition.
- Liào Mínghuó 廖名活, articles on the Yì chuán dēng attribution problem in Zhōuyì yánjiū.
- Zhū Bóqūn 朱伯崑, Yìxué zhéxué shǐ, vol. 2 — brief treatment.
- Modern punctuated editions on the Sìkù base; no critical edition.
Other points of interest
The Yì chuán dēng / Buddhist chuán dēng lexical-overlap is itself a small documentary item in late-Sòng / Yuán Yì-tradition history: the work was composed in the period when Chán-Buddhist chuándēng literature (especially the Wǔ dēng huìyuán 五燈會元 of 1252) was reaching its mature form, and the Wùzhōu intellectual milieu was distinctly less doctrinally-policed against Buddhist diction than the Zhū-Xí-line orthodox center. The borrowing reflects the late-Sòng “sānjiào héyī” 三教合一 (three-teachings-as-one) drift that the Qīng Sìkù editors found doctrinally objectionable.
The eight-trigram cross-collation method’s specific achievement — identifying that Qián’s jiǔsān line carries differentiated wording when located above-Qián-trigrams versus below-Kūn-trigrams — is a real technical contribution to the Yì’s cèngwèi 層位 (level-position) hermeneutics. The Sìkù editors’ praise on this point is well-earned.