Journal of Chinese Religions, 43
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Chinese Religions, 43. 2, 194–219, November 2015 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 trans- lations), 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 philosophi- cal 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 dis- covered 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 cam- paign with Zhang Shi 張栻 (1133–1180), through pilgrimages and commemora- tions (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 Confu- cianism 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). © Society for the Study of Chinese Religions 2015 DOI 10.1179/0737769X15Z.00000000024 REVIEWS 195 But Adler points out that this “scenario” has weaknesses, since Zhu Xi’s 1190 pre- faces 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 trans- mission of the Way in general, but only the transmission of these two texts in par- ticular 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 histori- cal—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 unex- pressed (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 equilibrium between Li Tong’s insistence on the benefit of the Confucian meditation of “quiet-sitting” (jingzuo 靜坐), Zhou Dunyi’s notion of “emphasizing-stillness” (zhujing 主靜), and the activity (dong 動) extolled by the Hunan School. Adler convincingly shows that this non-dualistic concept of interpe- netration supports Zhu Xi’s method of spiritual praxis and helps resolve the “reli- gious crisis” he encountered from 1163 to 1169. Adler’s argumentation mostly relies on Zhu Xi’s use of Zhou Dunyi’s concept of taiji 太極 (chapter 4). Considered by Adler as the key to Zhu Xi’s problematic build- ing of Zhou Dunyi’s image as founder, the “Supreme Polarity,” as he translates it, is precisely what allows Zhu Xi to connect cosmological (qi 氣) and metaphysical (li 理) ideas. Evaluated among all its translations in Western languages since 1738, the concept of taiji 太極 has, in Adler’s opinion, mostly been considered in the Con- fucian tradition, not the Daoist one. Talking of supreme polarity points out that it is a unitary principle that embraces the possibilities of differentiation and change. The translations contained in the second part of the book (chapters 5 to 8: The Supreme Polarity Diagram, Master Zhu’s Explanation of the Diagram, The Discus- sion of the Supreme Polarity Diagram, Penetrating the Scripture of Change, and Zhu Xi’s Postface and Notes) are briefly introduced and completed with facsimiles of several of the diagrams. Although Zhu Xi’s editorial influence on Zhou Dunyi’s works could have been discussed (framing, order, theoretical significance, and so forth), specialist and non-specialist readers will be grateful for the accurate and first complete translations Adler provides of Zhu Xi’s commentaries. One may ques- tion the relevance of the double translation of the Penetrating the Scripture of Change, without and with Zhu Xi’s commentaries, as Adler neither justifies his choice nor proposes a personal commentary of Zhou Dunyi’s text. Considering the original approach, the insights brought out, and the stimulating discussion it engages for the apprehension of religion in the field of Chinese studies, this very valuable contribution deserves to be read by a broader audience than Daoxue 道學 specialists. MAUD M’BONDJO CRCAO (Centre de Recherche sur les Civilisations de l’Asie Orientale, UMR 8155), Paris 196 REVIEWS LIANG CAI, Witchcraft and the Rise of the First Confucian Empire. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014. xii, 276 pp. US$ 85 (hb). ISBN 978-1-43 84-4849-7 This is a book by a scholar who lacks historical imagination (or possibly training?), who is not widely read in her field, judging from her bibliography, and who tends to play fast and loose with her terminology and her sources. As non-specialists are citing this book as if it were an accurate reflection of the first stable empire in China, 1 the Western Han (202 BCE–9 CE), a fair reviewer must outline the reasons for such a negative assessment. This puzzling book is slippery in its claims, but the argument boils down to this: that the rise of the ru 儒 (my “classicists,” her “Confucians”)after Han Wudi 漢武帝 (r. 141–87 BCE) is due to a single cause: a power vacuum created in the capital bureaucracy in the wake of the witchcraft trials of 91–90 BCE,shortly before Wudi’s death. Any reader might ask how Huo Guang 霍光,acloserelativeof the very Wei 衛 heir apparent whose supporters were targeted during those trials, not only survived the witchcraft scare, but also went on to assume supreme powers within five years. Also, how did these ru come into their court positions before 91 BCE, so that they might express support for Huo? A specialist might push: what sorts of people generally enjoyed power at Wudi’s court who were not classically trained, given Wudi’s fondness for literary flourishes? Somehow the Imperial Academy (taixue 太學) figures in Cai’s story, but I am hard put to explain how. Good historians are taught early on that monocausal theories cannot explain a complex phenomenon, and indeed US historians have not engaged in such mono- causal theories since the Turner thesis (1893) swept the field of American history.2 To prove her monocausal hypothesis, Cai must engage in a series of questionable moves. First, the regent Huo Guang must somehow become a special patron of the ru, because they “helped bang the drum for Huo” (p. 162). Second, Xuandi 宣帝 (r. 79–48 BCE) must be recast as a fervent ru supporter, when he was actively hostile toward some classicists and concerned, above all, with demonstrated admin- istrative ability (as admitted on p. 165). Third, Cai must style the ru an exclusive group with a monopoly on (a) knowledge of the Classics and particularly (b) adept wielding of “correlative cosmology,” though she contradicts herself regarding their group membership (see below); and something so ill-defined as her version of correlative cosmology appears in every single text from Zhanguo through Western Han so that it can hardly be the exclusive monopoly of Confucians.3 Fourth, Cai must mischaracterize recent trends in “modern” scholarship (as on p. 178).4 Then, 1 But see the careful review by Michael Loewe, “Review Article: Officials of Western Han and Their Background,” Archiv Orientální 82, no.