Reconstructing the Confucian Dao

Joseph A. Adler

Description

Zhu Xi, the twelfth-century architect of the neo-Confucian canon, declared Zhou Dunyi to be the first true sage since Mencius. This was controversial, as many of Zhu Xi's contemporaries were critical of Zhou Dunyi's Daoist leanings, and other figures had clearly been more significant to the Song dynasty Confucian resurgence. Why was Zhou Dunyi accorded such importance? Joseph A. Adler finds that the earlier thinker provided an underpinning for Zhu Xi's religious practice. Zhou Dunyi's theory of the interpenetration of activity and stillness allowed Zhu Xi to proclaim that his own theory of mental and spiritual cultivation mirrored the fundamental principle immanent in the natural world. This book revives Zhu Xi as a religious thinker, challenging longstanding characterizations of him. Readers will appreciate the inclusion of complete translations of Zhou Dunyi's major texts, Zhu Xi's published commentaries, and other primary source material.
Acknowledgments

Part I

Introduction

1. Zhu Xi, Zhou Dunyi, and the Confucian dao

2. Zhou Dunyi’s Role in the daotong

3. The Interpenetration of Activity and Stillness

4. Taiji as “Supreme Polarity”

Conclusions

Part II: Translations of Zhou Dunyi’s Major Works and Zhu Xi’s Commentaries, with Further Discussions by Zhu Xi and His Students

Introduction

5. The Supreme Polarity Diagram (Taijitu 太極圖)

6. Discussion of the Supreme Polarity Diagram (Taijitu sho 太極圖說)

7. Penetrating the Scripture of Change (Tongshu 通書)

8. Zhu Xi’s Postfaces and Notes

Bibliography
Index

Sujets

• East Asian religions
• Confucianism

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 27 mars 2014
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781438451589
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 11 Mo

Extrait

R ECONSTRUCTING THE C ONFUCIAN D AO
SUNY SERIES IN C HINESE P HILOSOPHY AND C ULTURE

Roger T. Ames, editor
Reconstructing the
CONFUCIAN DAO
Zhu Xi’s Appropriation of Zhou Dunyi
JOSEPH A. ADLER
S TATE U NIVERSITY OF N EW Y ORK P RESS
Published by
S TATE U NIVERSITY OF N EW Y ORK P RESS , A LBANY
© 2014 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Production and book design, Laurie Searl Marketing, Michael Campochiaro
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Adler, Joseph Alan.
Reconstructing the Confucian Dao : Zhu Xi’s appropriation of Zhou Dunyi / Joseph A. Adler.
pages cm. — (SUNY series in Chinese philosophy and culture)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4384-5157-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Zhou, Dunyi, 1017–1073. 2. Neo-Confucianism. 3. Zhu, Xi, 1130–1200. I. Title.
B128.C44A63 2014
181 .112—dc23
2013025545
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
For Ruth and Anna
Contents
Acknowledgments
PART I
Introduction
Chapter 1: Zhu Xi, Zhou Dunyi, and the Confucian dao
Chapter 2: Zhou Dunyi’s Role in the daotong
Chapter 3: The Interpenetration of Activity and Stillness
Chapter 4: Taiji as “Supreme Polarity”
Conclusions
PART II : Translations of Zhou Dunyi’s Major Works and Zhu Xi’s Commentaries, with Further Discussions by Zhu Xi and His Students
Introduction
Chapter 5: The Supreme Polarity Diagram ( Taijitu 太極圖 )
Chapter 6: Discussion of the Supreme Polarity Diagram ( Taijitu shuo 太極圖說 )
Chapter 7: Penetrating the Scripture of Change ( Tongshu 通書 )
Chapter 8: Zhu Xi’s Postfaces and Notes
Bibliography
Index
Acknowledgments
I remember the precise moment when I began to look into Zhu Xi’s appropriation of Zhou Dunyi. It was in Taipei, in February 1990, and I was sitting in a bare office at National Taiwan University with my hands poised over the keyboard of an old (even at the time) “IBM-compatible” PC. I had not yet decided which of two options to pursue under my Language and Research fellowship at the Inter-University Program in Chinese Language Studies: to revise my dissertation for publication, or to look further into Zhu Xi’s use of Zhou Dunyi’s texts, a topic that I had touched on in the dissertation. Finding the latter more intriguing, I began translating Zhu’s commentary on Zhou’s Tongshu . The work continued sporadically over the intervening two decades, as other writing projects pushed it to the back burner. I am extremely grateful to the Inter-University Program and the Academia Sinica Committee on Scientific and Scholarly Cooperation with the U.S.A. for providing that fellowship. In 1994 I received a grant from the Pacific Cultural Foundation to continue work on the translation ( Part II of this book), and in 2008 I received a Scholar Grant from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation to support the writing of Part I . For both, and for my 2008–09 sabbatical leave from Kenyon College, I am extremely grateful.
I also wish to express my heartfelt thanks to those who provided feedback at various stages of this project: the late Professor Yang Youwei of Taipei, who helped me with the earliest stages of the translation; Kidder Smith Jr. and the participants in the New England Symposium on Chinese Thought at Bowdoin College for their comments in 1992 on my first attempt to make sense of Zhu Xi’s appropriation of Zhou Dunyi (ultimately a dead end); Philip J. Ivanhoe, for his detailed written comments in 1999 on the paper I read at the Association for Asian Studies annual meeting in Washington, D.C. (the first statement of this book’s argument); Hoyt Tillman for organizing that panel at the AAS and Robert Gimello for his comments as discussant; Daniel Gardner for his supportive comments and his several examples of excellent studies and translations of Zhu Xi; Conrad Schirokauer for his penetrating comments on the whole manuscript, Steve Angle for inviting me to participate in the Neo-Confucianism and Global Philosophy Conference at Wesleyan University in 2006; my Kenyon colleague Yang Xiao for invaluable help on a number of translation problems; Kirill Thompson for reading the entire first draft of Part I and providing excellent and detailed feedback; and Tu Weiming for first challenging me to work on Zhu Xi way back in 1979. Finally, I would like to thank Laurie Searl at SUNY Press for her excellent work on this project.
Part I
Introduction
The story of the early development of “Neo-Confucianism”—the revival of Confucianism in Song 宋 dynasty China (960–1279), after eight hundred years during which Buddhism and Daoism had dominated the religious landscape—has taken pretty much a standard form ever since the late twelfth century. 1 It begins with Zhou Dunyi 周敦頤 (1017–1073), who contributed three major items to the tradition: the Taiji Diagram ( Taijitu 太極圖 ); a “Discussion of the Taiji Diagram” ( Taijitu shuo 太極圖說 , usually translated as “Explanation”); and a longer text called (in very loose translation) Penetrating the Scripture of Change ( Tongshu 通書 ). 2 The “Discussion” is said to provide the cosmological basis of Neo-Confucian philosophy—cosmology in terms of qi 氣 (the “psycho-physical stuff” of which all things are composed), which has two modes of activity, yin 陰 (dark, moist, sinking, condensing) and yang 陽 (light, dry, rising, expanding).
The story continues with Zhou acting as tutor to his two nephews, Cheng Hao 程顥 (1032–1085) and Cheng Yi 程頤 (1033–1107), for about a year when they were teenagers. The Cheng brothers then grow up to form the nucleus of a group of Confucian thinkers in the city of Luoyang, in north-central China (Henan province). The Chengs and their many disciples come to be known as the Luo 洛 school—usually referred to in Western scholarship as the Cheng school. They become quite influential in philosophical circles and are actively involved in government, especially as part of the conservative opposition to the reformist prime minister, Wang Anshi 王安石 (1021–1086).
About twenty years after Cheng Yi dies, comes a catastrophe. The capital, Kaifeng, is captured by the Jurchen, a nomadic ethnic group from the northeast. The emperor is abducted. The remaining court flees to the south and establishes a new Song capital in Lin’an (modern Hangzhou), but the northern half of their former domain is now ruled by the Jurchen. (The dynastic era is thenceforth divided into two parts, the Northern Song [960–1127] and Southern Song, which was finally conquered by the Mongols in 1279.) Some of the Chengs’ disciples also move south and spread their teachings there. Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), born three years after the loss of the north, studies with some third-generation Cheng disciples and eventually, after seriously flirting with Buddhism, becomes committed to their school of thought and spreads their teachings prolifically. He becomes even more influential than the Cheng brothers, and his teachings eventually dominate those of his competitors. He combines the ideas of the Chengs and their associates with his own, creating a new synthesis called Daoxue 道學 (Learning of the Way)—also called the “school of principle” ( lixue 理學 ) or (preferably) the Cheng-Zhu school. While never without serious competition, this school dominates the later history of Chinese thought right up to the twentieth century, becoming in many people’s minds synonymous with “Neo-Confucianism.”
This “standard” history is recognized by scholars today as at best a partial view of the development of Confucian thought and practice in the Song dynasty, which was much more varied than the simplified story allows. At worst it is a reductionistic identification of “Neo-Confucianism” with the Cheng-Zhu school alone—perhaps admitting the Lu-Wang school as a counterpoint. 3 It is no longer sufficient to limit the story to the Northern Song masters Zhou Dunyi, the Cheng brothers, Zhang Zai 張載 (1020–1077), Shao Yong 邵雍 (1012–1077), 4 Zhu Xi, and Lu Jiuyuan 陸九淵 (commonly known as Lu Xiangshan 陸象山 ) in the Southern Song (1127–1279); and Wang Yangming 王陽明 in the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). We now know how important Zhu Xi’s correspondence with Zhang Shi 張栻 (1133–1180) was to the development of his thought; we know more about Zhu’s friend and sometime collaborator Lü Zuqian 呂祖謙 (1137–1181), and his rivals Chen Liang 陳亮 (1143–1194), Lu Jiuyuan, and Lu s brothers. 5
We also know, although it is not widely acknowledged, that the placement of Zhou Dunyi at the head of the lineage of Song “sages” was entirely the invention of Zhu Xi. 6 We also know how problematic that choice was for Zhu: Zhou Dunyi was widely regarded as having strong Daoist leanings, and Zhu Xi was vehemently opposed to Daoism, at least after the 1150s. Zhou’s Taiji Diagram, in fact, almost certainly was given to him by his Daoist friends, and this was well known in Zhu Xi’s time (although he denied it). The key terms in the “Discussion” of the diagram, written by Zhou himself, were largely or exclusively Daoist terms ( taiji and wuji ). And some of Zhu’s colleagues—notably the Lu brothers—objected strongly to Zhu’s elevation of Zhou to the position of first Confucian sage of the Song because of his Daoist connections. This dispute produced a rather bitter split between Zhu Xi and Lu Jiuyuan, who had previously been good friends.
All this raises the obvious question: Why did Zhu Xi declare Zhou Dunyi to be the first true Confucian sage since Mencius (Mengzi 孟子 , 4th century BCE)? He could easily have followed the consensus o