 But there was a second set of concerns that tended to push against the temptation to say that heartmind is a constituent of Pattern. This had to do with the pernicious implications of subjectivist accounts of ethical norms. By the start of the Song, many of China’s laypeople adopted practices from Chan Buddhism (better known in the West as Zen Buddhism) and much of the intelligentsia were interested in Chan ideas. Chinese Buddhists in general took an interest in the ways that features of the seemingly objective world were actually dependent on (and constituted by) the minds or heartminds of subjects (DSQXL 575c-579c). And some Chan Buddhists openly embraced a way of life that seemed to countenance subjective whims or inclinations (Gregory 2002). This, at least, was a worry about Buddhism shared by Confucians in the Song-Ming period. Cheng Yi succinctly described the difference between Buddhist and Confucian ethics by suggesting that the former “based themselves on the heartmind” whereas Confucians “based themselves on Heaven” (Tian, the cosmos, the objective order) (HNCSYS 21b:274). Accordingly, it become something of a commonplace for some Confucians to accuse others of being too Buddhist, by which they often meant that the latter (more Buddhist) Confucians failed to establish standards of assessment sufficiently independent of subjective whim (Angle &amp; Tiwald 2017: 72–88). This is a complaint that Zhu Xi often made about his contemporary Lu Xiangshan (ZZYL 104:2619–20, 124:2975–76; Zhu 2019: 148–150). Zhu preferred ways of characterizing the relation between heartmind and Pattern according to which the latter was largely independent of the former, and was careful to distinguish between phases or states of heartmind that appropriately tracked and reflected Pattern (called “the heartmind of the Way”, Daoxin 道心) and phases or states in which the heartmind imposed its own selfish or private desires and inclinations (called “the human heartmind”, renxin 人心). In making this distinction he followed Cheng Yi and took himself to be in direct opposition to Lu Xiangshan (Angle &amp; Tiwald 2017: 83–86).