Wang, Kun 王錕, A Comparative Study of Zhu Xi and Whitehead’s Philosophy 朱熹與懷特海哲學比較研究

BOOK REVIEWS JOSEPH A. ADLER, Reconstructing the Confucian Dao: Zhu Xi’s Appropriation of Zhou Dunyi. SUNY Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2014. x, 331 pp. US$95 (hb). ISBN 978-1-4384-5157-2 Joseph A. Adler’s contribution to Confucian studies aims to clarify the problematic relationship that unites Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) with Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (1017– 1073). Indeed, why did Zhu Xi choose a minor figure with Daoist connections as the founder of “Neo-Confucianism”? In order to clarify this “appropriation” from one thinker to another, Adler proposes an answer in two parts (argumentation and translations ), divided into eight chapters. The introduction, especially useful to non-specialist readers, recounts the emergence of Song Confucianism and its masters. Unsatisfied with the conventional philosophical explanation for Zhu Xi’s choice of Zhou Dunyi, Adler argues that one must inquire into Zhu Xi’s life and religious practice to understand his thought. Through a well-justified explanation of Confucianism as a religious tradition, Adler asserts that Zhu Xi’s articulation of the difference between belief and action is fundamental to explain “the peculiar shape taken by the Cheng-Zhu school” (p. 7) and, therefore, to analyze the issue of the succession of the Way or daotong 道統. Through the exposition of biographical, historical, and political elements (chapter 1), Adler shows that Zhu Xi’s vision of the Dao 道 is grounded in the differentiation between Buddhist (Chan) and Confucian metaphysical interpretations, as well as in their concrete applications within society. Zhu Xi aims to find the way to cultivate oneself and to practice the Confucian Dao at a governmental level. Regarding the transmission of the Dao, Adler examines its discontinuous structure through the figures of Confucius, Mencius, Han Yu 韓愈, and the Cheng brothers 二程. He then turns to Zhou Dunyi’s life, and to Hu Hong’s 胡宏 (1105–1155) first assertion that Zhou was the one who carried on the Confucian lineage (see Zhu Xi’s Preface to Master Zhou’s Tongshu, translated by Adler on pp. 32–34). For his part, Zhu Xi discovered Zhou Dunyi’s writings in 1152, but only developed a true interest for his thought under the leadership of his teacher, Li Tong 李侗 (1093–1163), beginning in the 1160s. In chapter 2, Adler pertinently considers Zhu Xi’s discursive strategy and campaign with Zhang Shi 張栻 (1133–1180), through pilgrimages and commemorations (some of which are translated by Adler), to establish Zhou Dunyi’s legitimacy. For Zhu Xi, the parallels between the figures of Fuxi 伏羲 and Zhou Dunyi as well as their expressive styles (trigrams and diagram) prove that Confucianism is the sole authentic Dao, and that only these two sages received it directly from Heaven. Thanks to Zhu Xi’s disciples, the idea of Zhou Dunyi being the first sage of the Song dynasty had become orthodox by the Yuan dynasty (1259–1368). Journal of Chinese Religions, 43. 2, 194–219, November 2015© Society for the Study of Chinese Religions 2015 DOI 10.1179/0737769X15Z.00000000024 But Adler points out that this “scenario” has weaknesses, since Zhu Xi’s 1190 prefaces to the Daxue 大學 and to the Zhongyong 中庸 clearly omit Zhou Dunyi in the transmission of the Way to the benefit of Cheng Hao 程顥 (1032–1085). To solve this contradiction, Adler argues that, in this case, Zhu Xi does not consider the transmission of the Way in general, but only the transmission of these two texts in particular that are further linked to the Cheng brothers’ concerns. One may reply that the issue of authenticity or cheng 誠 is nevertheless fundamental to these two texts and to Zhou Dunyi’s Penetrating the Scripture of Change (Tongshu 通書). For Adler, Zhu Xi’s choice in favor of Zhou Dunyi is a reevaluation of his opinion, and he detects three types of issues—sectarian, philosophical, and historical —that would explain the difficulty of including Zhou Dunyi within the Learning of the Way or daoxue 道學. In chapter 3, Adler considers a central issue of Zhu Xi’s thought, that of unexpressed (weifa 未發) and expressed (yifa 已發) heart-mind (xin 心). He shows that Zhou Dunyi’s concept of “interpenetration of activity and stillness” (jing 靜 dong 動) is the key to the...

이 연구는 간재 전우의「大學記疑」에 나타난 경학적 연구방법을 분석한 것이다. 주석 분석은 저자의 본의에 따라 분장 분절하여 경전 해석을 外形的 특징과 記述的 특징으로 나누어 살펴보았다. 외형적 특징에는 訓詁的방법과 文句的 방법으로 분석하였다. 간재는 경전을 주석하면서 중요한 ‘字意’나 ‘文句’가 나오면, 그것에 대한 개념을 자세히 풀어서 전체 문장의 논리적 구조와 맥락을 파악하였다. 따라서 간재가 명덕설을 개진하는데 앞서 심을 훈고적 방법으로 해석하고 있음을 볼 수 있다. 그 다음은 愚按, 自注, 絶不可曉, 似當更商, 似說不行, 俟當質問 등에서 나타나는 문구적 특징을 알아보았다. 그리고 기호낙론을 계승한 간재가 어떤 관점으로 경전을 해석하고 있는지 기술적 특징을 검토하였다. 본문 전체의 文脈이나 文義와 어긋나는 해석이 있다면 주자의 학설이라도 문제점을 수정해야 한다는 입장을 취하고 있다. 세부적으로 따르는 면을 살펴보면 주자대전 을 통해 주자주를 준수하며, 다양한 타 문헌을 인용하여 주자주를 준수하며, 주자설로 타 학자의 견해를 비판한 것은 모두 주자의 해석을 따르는 것이다. 비판하는 면을 살펴보면, 혹문을 존중하고 주자 어류는 ‘未定說’이라하면서 주자설로 주자주를 비판하며, 주자소주의 ‘未精核說’을 주장하여 비판하며, 경전해석에 대한 주자어류 ‘誤記說’을 제시한 것은 모두 주자의 해석을 비판하는 것이다. 둘째, 先儒의 경전해석을 따르면서 비판도 가하고 있다는 점이다. 예컨대 기호낙론계의 대학자라 하더라도 文脈의 본의가 다르게 해석되면 국외의 학자나 경전을 근거로 비판적 의견을 제시했다. 셋째, 타 학자들의 견해를 비판적으로 수용하고 있다는 점이다. 예컨대 여러 학자들의 경전 주석을 열거하면서 그 중에서 자신이 옳다고 생각하는 해석을 선택적으로 수용하거나 주자와 상이한 점이 있다하더라도 비판적으로 수용하였다. 이것은 당시 淸代의 학술을 무시하던 노론·낙론계의 태도나 일본을 夷狄으로만 취급하던 입장에서 볼 때, 분명 이례적인 태도였다. 이처럼 간재가 私見을 배제한 엄정한 학문 태도를 갖게 된 이유는 ‘正學을 추구하며 학자 본연의 역할을 자임한 노력의 결과’라고 볼 수 있다.This study analyses the research methodology in the study of the Confucian classics, which appears in Ganjae Jeonwoo’s Daehakgieui. By dividing sentences and clauses at this author’s discretion for annotation analysis, this study closely examined the interpretations of scriptures by dividing them into external and descriptive characteristics. External characteristics were further divided into exegetical and expressive methods. When annotating scriptures, Ganjae understood the logical structure and context of the overall text by fleshing out the concepts behind essential meanings or phrases. Thus, we can see that, before setting forth Myeongdeokseol, Ganjae interpreted the “heart” using the exegetical method. Next, this author studied the expressive characteristics in the text, such as wooan(愚按), jaju(自注), julbulgahyo(絶不可曉), sadanggangsang (似當更商), saseolbulhang(似說不行), and sadangjilmun(俟當質問). Moreover, this study examined the descriptive characteristics to see in what perspective Ganjae, an inheritor of the Gihonakron, interpreted the scriptures. First, Ganjae seemed to have adhered to the interpretations of Zhu Xi but, at the same time, he also criticized them. For instance, he claimed there was a need to revise the problematic parts of the scriptures in which the interpretation went against the context and meaning of the overall text, even if the interpretation was a product of Zhu Xi’s theory. Where Ganjae closely adhered to Zhu Xi’s theory, we can see that he abided by Zhu Xi’s interpretations through Zhu Xi Daejeon, followed Zhu Xi’s interpretations when citing various other documents, and criticized the opinions of other scholars with Zhu Xi’s theory, which all show Ganjae’s compliance with Zhu Xi’s interpretations. Conversely, where Ganjae criticized Zhu Xi’s theory, we can see that he respected Hokmun and criticized Zhu Xi’s interpretation using Zhu Xi’s theory by labelling Zhu Xi eoryu a “tentative hypothesis.” He criticized this interpretation by claiming it was a “hypothesis without a core” (a comment of Zhu Xi’s) and suggested a “mistranslation” of the scripture in Zhu Xi eoryu, all of which are instances that show Ganjae’s criticism of Zhu Xi’s interpretations. Second, while following the scriptural interpretations of previous Confucian scholars, Ganjae criticized them also. For instance, he proposed critical viewpoints of even the most prominent scholars of Gihonakron if their work contradicted the original intent of the context and based his criticism on the works of foreign scholars or the scripture itself. Third, Ganjae accepted the opinions of other scholars with a critical viewpoint. For instance, he would enumerate the annotations of scriptures by many other scholars and would selectively accept those that he would deem correct and accept some critically even if they exhibited differing viewpoints from Zhu Xi’s interpretation. Given the attitude of the scholars in the Noron and Nakron factions of looking down on the academia of the Qing Dynasty, and the consideration of the Japanese as only barbarians, this was indeed an unusual stance. Therefore, we can consider the reason for Ganjae’s impartial attitude towards academia devoid of personal opinions to be the “results of his pursuit of correct learning and his commitment to taking up the proper role of a scholar.”

0 Metaphysical Fundamentality as a Fundamental Problem for CS Peirce and Zhu Xi Fr. James Dominic Rooney, OP Department of Religion and Philosophy, Hong Kong Baptist University jdrooney@hkbu.edu.hk Contemporary metaphysics has begun to focus on questions having to do with the methodology of metaphysics. In particular, there are two prominent approaches to delineating the unique kinds of explanations offered by metaphysical theories. One is an approach associated with Aristotle, where metaphysics aims to provide explanations in terms of what entities or relations, etc., are more fundamental than others, identifying the right kinds of dependence relations among entities – i.e., “what grounds what”.i Another approach is one on which metaphysics aims to provide those concepts that are ‘joint-carving,’ giving us knowledge of the fundamental structure of the world, aiming to provide perfectly ‘natural’ representations of what the world is like.ii Even though advocates of grounding can also make use of a notion of joint-carving, their notion of what kinds of distinctions are joint-carving would highlight precisely the grounding relations. The entities and their relations are theoretically primary, with joint-carving-ness defined in terms of those relations. The inverse holds true of the advocates of a joint-carving approach: assuming there were entities which ground other entities, those relations will figure prominently in a well-constructed ontology. Yet this latter approach will understand metaphysics as primarily a matter of representing the world’s structure accurately. The conceptual issues 1 associated with metaphysical ideology take precedence over the substantive issues of whether there are fundamental entities or relations. In this paper, I attempt a contrast between two historical figures – the American pragmatist CS Peirce and the twelfth-century Confucian thinker Zhu Xi (朱熹). The contemporary approaches to metaphysics which highlight either grounding or joint-carving are mirrored, I argue, in these two historical figures, as epistemological assumptions made by these two are shared in some ways by the contemporary approaches to metaphysics. Pierce, for example, gives theoretical primacy to semiotic and other logical disciplines, whereas metaphysics has a subordinate role coordinating natural scientific theories. The hierarchy of sciences corresponds to the way in which Pierce understands the aim and nature of knowledge, i.e., as a pragmatist. One might therefore take Pierce to approach metaphysics as providing knowledge of fundamental entities, but instead – I argue – his position more resembles that of the joint-carving approach. Conversely, although Zhu Xi holds that knowledge of the world involves knowledge of the world’s structure, he does not approach metaphysics in as a joint-carver would. Instead, one comes to know that structure by means of knowing the entities in the world and their relation to one another. And the point is not merely epistemological. Zhu Xi paints the moral ideal of the sage as achieving unity with the world by means of his knowledge because the structure of the entities in the world involves an extra-mental unity or dependence – the sage comes to know and appropriate his own pre-theoretical unity with other things in knowing the world’s structure. 2 Even though interpretation of either thinker is controversial, my survey contrasts Pierce and Zhu Xi as exemplars of distinct approaches to metaphysics. I will conclude that there is an important divergence between Zhu Xi and Pierce because of the distinct ways in which they conceive of the epistemology of metaphysics. This points to a more perspicuous manner to contrast contemporary debates in metaphysics, because the joint-carving and grounding-centric approaches to metaphysics implicitly involve distinct epistemological presuppositions that lead them to their respective notions of metaphysical structure. Examination of Zhu Xi and Peirce sheds light on these divergent approaches to metaphysics and can help, I will propose, to decide between them. Zhu Xi, Li, and Self-Cultivation Zhu Xi, as a twelfth-century Confucian, was far removed from Peirce’s context. As a commentator on classical texts of the Confucian tradition, Zhu Xi needed to reconcile two tendencies found in that tradition. On one hand, it is uncontroversial that Confucianism aims at moral self-cultivation, “the purpose of Zhu Xi’s entire philosophical and educational system.”iii Self-cultivation is intimately connected to governing...

This thesis focuses on the Neo-Confucian thinker Zhu Xi’s (1130-1200) study of Four Books, investigating his idea of shi li (real reason) and its relation to li (rites) with an approach of hermeneutics of classics. Zhu Xi's idea of shi li involves two indivisible sides: the real reason as ben ti (original substance) and the realization of the real reason which is understood as the gong fu (cultivation) for enlightenment . The reason for Zhu Xi to use the term “real reason” instead “reason” or “reason of heaven” is that the extension of the word “reason” is too vague and loose to make a distinction between the Confucian reason and the Buddhist’s reason of “emptiness” or the Daoist reason of “nothingness”. According to almost all neo-Confucians, rites are understood as the embodiment of shi li. In this regard, Zhu Xi criticizes the two Cheng Brothers’ disciples’ idea of “the replacement of rites by reason” in his works of commentary and discrimination on the topic of “ke ji fu li” (to restrain oneself and return to rites) in the Analects. He points out that the idea of “the replacement of rites by reason” puts too much emphasis on the reason and undermines the importance of the practical function of rites. In other words, they think that if someone understands the reason, without additional effort, he will have the result of the cultivation of rites spontaneously, which makes people neglect the study from the groundwork of rites and thus makes no difference from the idea of Buddhism. Zhu Xi thinks the gong fu of “to return to rites” is more subtle and basic than “to restrain oneself”. Buddhism only stresses on the latter but not on the former, therefore, according to Zhu Xi, its end-result is void. The combination of shi li and rites constitutes a criterion to distinguish Confucianism from Buddhism and Daoism. Zhu Xi regards the elementary education as rites for children’s basic learning. He compiled a book called Elementary Education and considered its content as an important part of his entire theory of Neo-Confucianism. He thinks that the elementary education is the very beginning of learning to be a good man, the base of the great learning and the logical starting point of his systematic study of the Four Books. Both elementary education and great learning incorporate the practice of rites. Zhu Xi practices rites all the time in his life, therefore the practice of rites forms his moral life. It is obvious that the idea of rites play a role as important as that of reason in Zhu Xi’s thought. On the first hand, the rites and the reason cannot be separated as two things. The reason is a principle and the rites are its usage. On the other hand, according to Zhu Xi’s explanation of the ancient rites, the rites (including elementary education and great learning) are understood as the root and primacy of self-cultivation. The two main gong fu of Zhu Xi’s theory, jing (reverence) and qiong li (investigation of things) are secondary and supplementary to the ancient rites. Jing is supplementary in terms of its function…

Confucius founded Confucianism in the late Spring and Autumn periods, and Mencius and Xunzi emerged during the Warring States period to develop Confucianism from their perspectives. However, Confucianism in this period had not yet achieved a stable social status, and even tended to decline after the war, and was once strongly threatened by the rising Buddhism and Taoism. It was not until the emergence of Zhu Xi, a Southern Song scholar who made a new interpretation of Confucianism and Mencius, that he built a new Confucianism with the core of science. It was then that Confucianism established its unshakeable dominance in the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties for nearly seven hundred years. In this paper, we study the inheritance and innovation of Song Confucianism to pre-Qin Confucianism, and we study Zhu Xi's philosophy, which not only developed the ideas of his predecessors but also transformed Confucian values into his true spiritual pillars. We find that Zhu Xi truly achieved the greatness of science and created the new Confucianism, namely Zhu Xi's philosophy. In Zhu Xi's view, "the preservation of heavenly reason, and the extinction of human desire" is the essence of Confucianism. Zhu Xi also established the mind-only theory of "reason and qi dualism". He believes that "reason" is the basis and root of the material world, which is also the law of natural operation, while "qi" is the element of all things He believes that "reason" is the basis and root of the material world, and is also the law of natural operation; while "qi" is the element of all things, "reason" and "qi" are not separate, but "reason first, qi second. In addition to this, Zhu Xi also attaches great importance to education. Zhu Xi believes that if there is no education, even if personal achievements can exceed those of their predecessors, the impact is too small to have much value. He pointed out that if Confucianism could be invested in education, then the spirit of Confucianism could be extended to the whole country, and the achievement of doing so would be incomparable. We see that Confucius' transmission of the Six Classics has become a cultural paradigm. And Zhu Zi's teaching of the Four Books has also achieved uninterrupted success. The teachings of Confucius and Zhu Zi were successively reflected, the former in the pre-Qin Dynasty, the latter in the Southern Song Dynasty, even though a hundred years apart, but Zhu Xi has well taken up the spirit of Confucianism and transformed it into the creation of Neo-Confucianism, which is Zhu Xi's philosophy.

The Questions and Answers between Zhu Xi and Cheng Xun records the personal correspondence between Zhu Xi and Cheng Xun, including the letters Zhu Xi wrote to Cheng Xun and Cheng Xun's replies. In trying to fully understand the value of this collection, this article is divided into three sections. First investigated is the background to the compilation of this collection. It was compiled and funded during the Ming dynasty by Cheng Zi, an adopted child of the Cheng family. One of the most interesting types of documents in this collection is the ancestors' manuscripts preserved within the family. These documents were highly valued because the Cheng family in the Ming dynasty put a lot of emphasis on Zhu Xi's studies as their family teachings. Second, the collection provided firsthand information for Cheng Tong's compilation of Cheng Xun's biography in The Intellectual Lineage of Xin'an in the Ming dynasty. Also, Qing scholar Xia Xin used the correspondence preserved in the collection to support his observation of three changes in Zhu Xi's theories. Both scholars made an effort to construct the heritage of Zhu Xi's studies in the Huizhou area, but how they used the documents has problems. Third, since the collection includes Zhu Xi's lost works and Cheng Xun's letters, it provides historical evidence for reconstructing the chronology of these scholarly communications. It validates Zhu Xi's association with Lin Yong-Zhong and Ye Ren, verifies Zhu Xi's earlier views on Zhang Zai's Rectifying the Ignorant and The Western Inscription, and reflects the ideological differences between Zhu Xi and Cheng Xun.

Reviewed by: Zhu Xi: Basic Teachings by Daniel K. Gardner Joachim Gentz Daniel K. Gardner, trans., Zhu Xi: Basic Teachings. New York: Columbia University Press, 2022. xiv+ 155 pp. US$120 (hb). 978-02-31-20633-4 Like an echo of the "Basic Writings" series with selected translations of Chinese thinkers by Burton Watson published in the 1960s as part of their "Columbia College Program of Translations from the Oriental Classics," Columbia University Press has now again published a book in the same format: Zhu Xi: Basic Teachings, translated by Daniel K. Gardner, a paperback booklet, 155 pages in length displaying, like the "Basic Writings," a Han dynasty stone rubbing on its front cover. The contents of the book appear familiar as well. In 1990, Daniel K. Gardner published a translation of chapters 7–13 of the Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類 with 79 pages of introduction, notes, commentary, glossary, bibliography, and index, a most wonderful book.1 Zhu Xi basically follows this composition. The fourteen-page introduction follows the same structure of the earlier seventy-nine-page text: providing the reader with a biography, historical background, philosophy, writings. It includes sentences and entire paragraphs that are copied verbatim from the earlier introduction and basically reads like a summary of it. The following "Notes on the Text and Translation" contains many similar points as the "Note on Text and Translation" of the earlier book, but lacks the discussion of the important issue of contradictory passages, a discussion that due to the lack of commentary in Zhu Xi would have been even more important for this shorter and terser translation. The Zhuzi yulei (Classified Conversations of Master Zhu) is again the main source of the translations in this book. It presents selected translations of the first thirteen chapters of the Zhuzi yulei because these chapters, according to Gardner, "constitute the best overview of Zhu Xi's basic and most enduring philosophical teachings" (p. xxi). The translations are organized into five chapters: 1. "Foundations of the Universe," with three sections mainly containing passages from chapters 1–3 of the Zhuzi yulei; 2. "Human Beings," with three sections mainly containing passages from chapters 4–6 of the Zhuzi yulei; 3. "Learning," with three sections mainly containing passages from chapters 7–9 of the Zhuzi yulei; 4. "A Theory of Reading," with three sections mainly containing passages from chapters 10–11 of the Zhuzi yulei with some passages from chapter 14 and other writings such as Zhu Xi ji 朱熹集; and 5. "Moral Self-Cultivation," with two sections mainly containing passages from chapters 12–13 of the Zhuzi yulei. Three of the five chapters thus contain translations from chapters that Gardner had previously translated, commented and annotated in his 1990 book. The other two chapters present translations of many passages for which we also have translations in Wing-tsit Chan's Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, [End Page 161] pp. 605–646.2 The translations provided by Gardner in this new edition are similar to both his own earlier translations of chapters 7–13 and those in Chan's 1963 translations, but while he often makes use of the same terms—Gardner sticks to "principle" as translation for li 理—and uses similar syntactical constructions found in the earlier translations, the new translations are updated, such as "psychophysical stuff" for qi 氣. As Gardner explains: "while I consulted them, I was eager to read the text with a fresh set of eyes and what Zhu called an 'open mind'" (p. xxiv). The translations are thus slightly more polished, elegant, and economic, and thus at times also more implicit and demanding for the readers who are not familiar with Zhu Xi's texts. This stands in contrast to the overall format of the book, which appears to be more addressed to a non-specialist audience. A major strength of the book and its most original and innovative element are the introductions to the five chapters. In average three pages in length, they each provide historical, systematic philosophical, biographical, and linguistic details to the five main fields of the translations and, just like the introduction, reflect Gardner's knowledge, experience, and masterly ability to convey complex concepts and contexts in...

The Legal Philosophy of Zhu Xi ((()(1130-1200) and Neo-Confucianism's Possible Contributions to Modern Chinese Legal Reform

Reviewed by: De la continuité dynamique dans l’univers confucéen: Lecture néoconfucéenne du Zhongyong (中庸): Nouvelle traduction du chinois classique et commentaire herméneutique by Diana Arghiresco Christian Soffel (bio) De la continuité dynamique dans l’univers confucéen: Lecture néoconfucéenne du Zhongyong (中庸): Nouvelle traduction du chinois classique et commentaire herméneutique (Of dynamic continuity in the Confucian universe: A Neo-Confucian reading of the Zhongyong: A new translation from the classical Chinese and a hermeneutical commentary). By Diana Arghiresco. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2013. Pp. 416. €35, isbn 978-2-204-10026-7. When delving into traditional Chinese philosophy, it is tempting to search for an “original meaning” of the classical scriptures. However, this is a futile task for several reasons: First, we are confronted with a complex textual history, lacking a reliable “Urtext” version; much less can we rely on sufficient contextual information. Second, modern recipients—consciously or unconsciously—are prone to be influenced by orthodox interpretations, which have been dominating the discourse for several centuries. A good way to solve this dilemma is to take a close look at the most prevalent standard commentaries from the middle and late imperial era. This way we can not only increase our awareness for developments of the classical tradition, but also unlock its full epistemological potential for contemporary philosophical discussion. In view of its reliable textual foundation and its prominent position in the living tradition in East Asia, it is striking that scholars have been hesitating so far to fully translate Zhu Xi’s 朱熹 commentary to the Four Books (Daxue 大學, Zhongyong 中庸, Lunyu 論語, and Mengzi 孟子), the basic compendium of Confucian learning, which has served as the standard for elementary education and civil service examinations since the fourteenth century. In spite of their special importance, Western scholars interested in the Four Books’ wisdom have concentrated on the classical texts and used Zhu Xi’s extensive notes mostly as a stepping stone in order to uncover the “original meaning” of the canon. The new book by Diana Arghiresco, De la continuité dynamique dans l’univers confucéen: Lecture néoconfucéenne du Zhongyong, [End Page 615] deliberately takes a more profound approach, combining a full translation of the Zhongyong and Zhu Xi’s commentary with a hermeneutic analysis of these two textual layers. Not only does her “traduction pensante” (Heidegger) encompass the quest to approach the central message of the texts, but her examination of the Zhongyong (including Zhu Xi’s commentary) serves as a foundation upon which she builds a discussion of relevant Confucian and Daoist scriptures. Additionally, the author builds a bridge from Zhu Xi to classical Greek philosophy, thus going beyond Chinese indigenous thought. By adding another rich layer of background information on Chinese philosophy, Arghiresco delivers a compendium for classical Confucian thought in the context of other schools. In particular, she quotes numerous passages from the Lunyu (including Zhu Xi’s commentary), delivers countless references to other quotes from classical texts concerning the Zhongyong’s central topics (like zhong 中 or he 和), demonstrates the coherence with the Laozi and the Yijing, introduces key personalities (e.g., Emperor Shun or Confucius’ disciples), and explicates particular concerns in Zhu Xi’s thought (e.g., his religious ideas). As the subtitle suggests, the author delivers a “Neo-Confucian reading” of the classical Zhongyong text through the eyes of Zhu Xi. Thus, it can serve as a foundation to discuss alternative points of view from the Chinese tradition itself, such as the Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 commentary from the late Han (second century a.d.). For example, while discussing the famous term “watchfulness over oneself” (shen du 慎獨) (Zhongyong chapter 1), one can show that Zheng Xuan’s stance offers an alternative, concentrating more on physical “aloneness” and deviating from Zhu Xi’s focus on self-cultivation. A more problematic instance, where the author seems to adhere strictly to Zhu Xi’s view, is the question of dating and authorship. For Arghiresco, the Zhongyong is a book from the fifth century b.c. authored by Zi Si (pp. 12, 372). Furthermore, she accepts the traditional daotong perception (p. 21). In this regard, some interaction with more critical approaches from recent secondary literature...

In the historical interpretive tradition of the Shi Jing [Book of Songs or Classic of Poetry], Zhu Xi's Shi Ji Zhuan is considered a third great milestone, building on the accomplishments of the classic Mao Shi Zhuan-Jian, and the Mao Shi Zheng Yi. Aside from the Shi Ji Zhuan, Zhu Xi wrote Shi Xu Bian Shuo, and Shi Zhuan Gang Ling, all vital works for researching Zhu Xi's interpretation of the Shi Jing. Fu Guang was Lu Zu-Qian's former student, and later became a student of Zhu Xi. Fu Guang wrote Shi Tong Zi Wen, strongly criticizing the Shi Xu [Great Preface to the Songs]. Many scholars of past generations have considered Shi Tong Zi Wen to belong to or continue the ”School of Zhu Xi,” but viewing it simply as such misses Fu Guang's own purposeful striving and accomplishments. This paper analyzes the method and character of Fu Guang's interpretation of the Shi Jing, and explains the significance of Shi Tong Zi Wen in the of Shi Jing interpretive tradition. The main content of Shi Tong Zi Wen, as well as the ”Xiao Xu” and the ”Shi Zhuan Gang Ling” sections correspond largely to Zhu Xi' three works; it is extremely clear that Fu Guang is intent on following Zhu Xi's system of Shi Jing study, and Fu Guang quotes Zhu Xi's three works extensively. Thus, Fu Guang's work can be seen as a supplement to Zhu Xi's. However, Fu Guang's promotes and improves on the methodology used in Zhu Xi's work on the Shi Jing, with important and tangible accomplishments. The value of Shi Tong Zi Wen clearly transcends the label of works viewed simply as ”auxiliary aids to Zhu Xi's scholarship.”

As one of the greatest thinkers in ancient China, Zhu Xi was renowned for his philosophy but his achievements in historiography occupied an important position in traditional China as well. However, Zhu Xi’s historiography were only implied, but has not been discussed enough yet in comparison to his various works on philosophy. This thesis would like to focus on Zhu Xi’s historiography as a core topic to certify that Zhu Xi’s achievement on this field not only played an irreplaceable role among the grand system of his philosophy, but also on behalf of a special and significant historiographical sample in Chinese historiography that can be called “Neo-Confucian philosophy of history”. To achieve this aim, the thesis is divided into three parts. Their titles are “The Substance of Zhu Xi’s Historiography”, “The Functions of Zhu Xi’s Historiography (1)” and “The Functions of Zhu Xi’s Historiography (2)”. Zhu Xi’s historiography inherited “Three generations” and Confucius’ classics, and formed his philosophy on history, so it is the substance. Zhu Xi’s historiography also has many functions and expressions such as elucidate the way of running the state, establish the system and views on talents, which make his conception on history comes true, and really have positive effects on the society, so there are called the functions. More importantly, Zhu Xi’s great insight on history can be directly expressed via his writings and discussions, all of which were embodied in his works and discourses of historiography. In these three parts, the contents and spirits of Zhu Xi’s historiography can be described deeply and entirely, also seem to be more methodic.

After learning from Li Tong, Zhu Xi directed the Confucianism as the orientation in his life. From Li's reminding, Zhu Xi faced another vision, a ”methodology of practice” dimension. Once, Li Tong required Zhu Xi to consider how to nourish ”mind” and get rid of disturbance. In the aspect of philosophy of principle, Zhu Xi unfolded the practice of ”keeping quiescence” and ”keeping reverence.” The former was to lead life enter quiescence by the way of adjusting breath and correcting mind. The latter was to fix the life on pure thought by the way of reminding the mind and focusing on one thought, and then the wild thoughts would be ignored. Zhu Xi carried the viewpoint of Neo-Confucianism in observing, writing, and even judging poems. In his opinion, before judging the poems fairly, people should keep the mind calm, and then the principle would unfold clearly. We must say that was Zhu Xi's subjective interpretation, but not necessary solving the question thoroughly. In addition, Zhu Xi used the imaginative poem language to describe the pure life with the metaphor of the flowing source. Zhu Xi drew an advanced practical state of life from the Neo-Confucianism and poetry description.

Reviewed by: Zhu Xi's Reading of the Analects: Canon, Commentary , and the Classical Tradition Suck Choi (bio) Daniel K. Gardner . Zhu Xi's Reading of the Analects: Canon, Commentary , and the Classical Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. 226 pp. Paperback $19.50, ISBN 0-231-12865-7. This book is Daniel K. Gardner's third excellent contribution to the contemporary scholarship of East Asian intellectual history. He aims at a thorough understanding of Zhu Xi's reconstruction of the Confucian tradition and an effective demonstration of how Zhu's readings of the canons were different from those of He Yan, whose commentaries on the Analects were considered to be the standard for reading the text. To achieve these goals Gardner selected some passages of the Analects and arranged them according to five topics: learning, true goodness, rituals, ruling, and the gentleman and the Way, all of which were definitely central issues throughout the whole Confucian tradition and which provide the locus for an effective examination of the differences among interpretations made by different commentators. He Yan's and Zhu Xi's commentaries on each selected passage of the Analects are compared with Gardner's own comments and analyses so that the differences between them can be properly explored. Gardner's writing aims at another goal, which he implicitly but importantly emphasizes, namely to reevaluate the historical and philosophical significance of [End Page 87] the interlinear commentary. Since Confucius mentioned himself as one who simply transmits (genuine tradition), not creates () (Analects 7:1), this has for a long time been a motto in the Confucian intellectual tradition. Many scholars have presented their understandings of the classics through their commentaries rather than through independent works. Gardner evaluates the interlinear commentary as a significant genre for understanding Chinese intellectual history: As a sort of reflection on the words and ideas of a text, interlinear commentary conveys the commentator's understanding of the meaning of the text while it shapes and conditions future readings and understanding of that text by others, both contemporaries and later generations. (p. 3 ) Although it is true that their commentaries, as Gardner notes, are subject to a historical logic (p. 6), this also implies that without reading these commentaries one cannot fully understand the history of the interactions among Confucian scholars and their central issues. Gardner correctly comments on the historical significance of the commentaries: Reading the various commentaries on a canonical text allows us not only to observe that the Confucian interpretive community was, in fact, an ever changing one but also to chart in detail how ideas, beliefs, and values important to that community underwent historical changes at the hands of different interpreters over the centuries. Thus, as a genre that illuminates the Confucian past and that documents especially well the vibrancy and changing nature of that past, commentary is indispensable to the studies of Chinese intellectual history. (p. 6 ) However, just as Confucius was considered not simply a transmitter of his ancestors' ideas, these commentaries should be approached not simply as a review but as the original ideas of Confucian scholars. The latter aspect of the commentaries is one of the reasons why Gardner selected Zhu Xi's commentaries to the Analects, because Zhu's work of commentary on the classics shows not only its historical value but also his original ideas on diverse contemporary topics. As is well known, Zhu Xi was a synthesizer of traditional Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Only after he established his own philosophical system did he start his commentary on the traditional classics, and this work continued until the end of his life. Zhu Xi aimed at the reestablishment of the Confucian tradition, and his works, which transmitted the Confucian orthodoxy through proper commentaries on the classics, were urgently in demand. Gardner indicates the general intellectual climate of Zhu Xi's time, compared with that of He Yan's: Whereas pluralism and relative intellectual openness characterized the atmosphere of the second and third centuries, a tendency toward defining a "correct" body of thought, an intellectual orthodoxy that would "save" the Chinese tradition and protect it from foreign influences, gained momentum in the Northern and Southern Song. (p. 18...

The famous Neo-Confucian Scholar, T'uo-jan-kuan-t'ung, an extremely complex concept, has been the core and dominant ideology in Zhu Xi' theory. Human beings, in spite of the potential nature which is originally good, find it hard to actualize their potential nature owing to the influence of 習氣. The purpose of Zhu Xi'theory of cultivation lies at, by removing the influence of bad habit, sactualizing the original nature in order to ascend the level of personhood to the utmost. Yet, how is this theory realized in his life and arrived T'uo-jan-kuan-t'ung? This is the main concern of this article. How does Zhu Xi establisher the factuality and necessity of the T'uo-jan-kuan-t'ung. First, Zhu Xi interprets the concept of ”original nature” from the viewpoint of ”天理”. ”Original nature” is the result of the reality and concretized Confucius canon. Not only the ”Original nature” was inspired by 天理, but also Zhu Xi had the affirmative that T'uo-jan-kuan-t'ung naturally according to the acclimatization training of the body and the mind. Moreover, Zhu Xi states cumulative 格物 would have a positive influence on the T'uo-jan-kuan-t'ung. We will review relevant documents in order to clarify and understand Zhu Xi's thought in his worship of the sagacious motto ”一以貫之” by Confucius.

Heavenly Principle is no doubt the core concept in Zhu Xi’s philosophy. According to him, the Heavenly Principle is a fundamental and all-encompassing principle that governs not just the natural cosmos but also human nature and civilization. While they cannot be separated in reality, Heavenly Principle is precisely the purpose and rule of Energy and can only be actual and meaningful when it is accompanied by the flow of Energy, or to put it another way, Heavenly Principle is Energy itself. This kind of feature is the fundamental spirit of Chinese philosophy so called „Nature and Man in One”. On the other hand, Heavenly Principle is also the rule of history because it is universal and converges with Energy. Zhu Xi believed that the Heavenly Principle was actually realized in the history of the Xia, Shang and Zhou, also called the „Three Generations”, were the golden age of history only because the Heavenly Principle was realized in these periods. Therefore, the goal of history is to reproduce the Heavenly Principle in the future, then human history would realize itself. Obviously, this concept of history can be easily compared with the work The City of God written by Augustine. The following paper will make an effort to examine the various levels and perspectives from which Heavenly Principle appears in Zhu Xi’s thinking. And highlighting the unusual and important role the Heavenly Principle has played throughout history. Given that this is the guiding principle of the natural world, human history ought to follow suit in the proper manner. The real world, however, frequently deviates from the ideal standard since people frequently display their vices in addition to their virtues. The works of Augustine contain all of these descriptions as well. As a result, this essay will highlight some intriguing parallels between Zhu Xi and Augustine, or more precisely, between Confucianism and Christianity, while simultaneously emphasizing their fundamental differences. Key words: Heavenly Principle, Three Generations, Zhu Xi, philosophy of history, The City of God.