In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Epilogue Toward Li in Neo‑Confucianism This is not the place to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the Neo‑Con‑ fucian conceptions of Li. It would require another book, or possibly several, to exhaust the vast and sometimes contradictory utterances of even one of the main Neo‑Confucian thinkers, let alone the various possible inter‑ pretations offered in the growing body of secondary literature. However, it might be worthwhile to take a quick and tentative glance at the direction such a work might take, on the basis of these considerations of the prehis‑ tory of Li. We have been groping for models with which to think about describing values and accounting for the identities and relations of existing entities without recourse to mutually exclusive notions of one and many, or of sameness and difference. Applying the takeaway models of center and periphery, of vertex and vortex, of second‑order coherences between coher‑ ences, of intelligibility as cohesion, of negation (transcendence) as inclusion (immanence), and so on, to the formative moves in the development of Neo‑Confucianism, attempting also a somewhat oversimplified account of the immensely complex and hotly contested question of Zhu Xi’s (朱熹, 1130–1200) understanding of the relation between Li and “material force” (氣 qi), we can perhaps gain some insight into some of the peculiarities of this mode of thinking, some of which were mentioned in passing at the beginning of this work. I choose to focus on Zhu Xi not only for the obvious reason of his historical and philosophical importance and influence, but also because Cheng‑Zhu Neo‑Confucianism is often viewed as the place to look for a decisive rift in the tradition, where something much closer to European dualistic metaphysics somehow makes its appearance in China. Zhu Xi seems closer to the two‑tiered model, with his ontology of Li and qi. Moreover, he sometimes says Li is static as opposed to the dynamism of qi, that it is eternal and unchangeable, and that it preexists qi, has determining influ‑ ence on qi, provides values, and so on—all of which stinks of metaphysical 321 322 beyond NENESS AND DIFFERENCE dualism. But here too, we must make the adjustment to the vertex‑vortex model. This helps clear up some of the confusions about oneness and many‑ ness, or sameness and difference, among the Li. We may start by considering the very beginning of this shift in the conception of Li in the work of Cheng Hao 程顥 (Cheng Mingdao 程明道, 1032–1085). For it was Cheng who famously is said to have declared himself the initiator of a new understanding precisely of Li: “Though much in my learning was received from tradition, my understanding of the two characters 天理 tianli are derived from my own experience.”1 This seems to suggest that Cheng believed he had arrived at a radically new understanding about “Heavenly Li” at least, which becomes the guiding concept for the more comprehensive innovations and expansions of the Neo‑Confucian concept of Li simpliciter, always a shorthand for tianli in this context, to follow in the thought of his younger brother Cheng Yi 程頤 (Cheng Yichuan 程伊 川, 1033–1107) and of Zhu Xi. It is thus perhaps useful to look at Cheng Hao’s first deployments of the term. In my view, Cheng’s short essay “Shi ren pian” (識仁篇 “Essay on Recognizing Ren”) is extremely illuminating in this connection. That work opens with the following words: The first thing we must do is recognize what ren 仁is. Ren means to form a single undivided body with things. Rightness [義 yi], Ritual [禮 li], Wisdom [智 zhi], and Good Faith [信 xin] are all ren. Once you have recognized this Li [ci Li], simply attend respectfully to it and preserve it with Sincerity [cheng]; there is no need for caution or control, for extensive searching. The only thing to guard against is laziness of mind. If the mind is not lazy, what need one guard against? Extensive searching is necessary only when the Li is not understood. But if it is preserved long enough it will become clear spontaneously; then what search is necessary? This Dao means not to stand over against things as their opposite [與物無對 yuwuwudui]; “vastness” is really inadequate to describe it. All the functions of the world are then my own function. Mencius said that for “all things to be complete in me” requires “finding the genuinely sincere in oneself upon self‑examination,” and that this is the greatest joy. If in self‑examination you find a lack...

Share