Recognized as one of the greatest philosophers in classical China, Chu Hsi is especially known in the West through translations of one of his many works, theChin-su Lu. Julia Ching, a noted scholar of Neo-Confucian thought, provides the first book-length examination of Chu-Hsi's religious thought, based on extensive reading in both primary and secondary sources.

In this book, Julia Ching offers a survey of over 4,000 years of Chinese civilization through an examination of the relationship between kingship and mysticism. She investigates the sage-king myth and ideal, arguing that institutions of kingship were bound up with cultivation of trance states and communication with spirits. Over time, the sage-king myth became a model for the actual ruler. As a paradigm, it was also appropriated by private individuals who strove for wisdom without becoming kings. As the Confucian (...) tradition interacted with the Taoist and the Buddhist, the religious character of spiritual and mystical cultivation became more pronounced. But the sage-king idea continued, promoting expectations of benevolent despotism rather than democratization in Chinese civilization. (shrink)

This article seeks to answer such questions as: what is chinese ethics? what is kant's position regarding chinese ethics? why did kant fail to appreciate chinese ethics? after an exploratory discussion of the early schools of chinese ethics according to kant's criteria of autonomy and heteronomy (basically: the schools of mo-Tzu, Lao-Tzu and confucius), The writer points out how kant's preference for formalism in ethics prevents him from properly appreciating chinese ethics, And how his basic position is still shared by (...) many western philosophers. (shrink)

This was what Heidegger said to his Japanese enquirer in “A Dialogue on Language,” which, however, concluded on a note bespeaking much more of convergence than of divergence. Yet the difficulties which lie in any comparative study of two thinkers belonging to such distinct and independent traditions as Heidegger and Wang Yang-ming remain great and many. First of all, as Heidegger himself pointed out, we have the language hurdle. Chinese as well as Japanese lacks a clear verb to be; the (...) Chinese language in particular organizes its uninflected words solely according to word order and the placing of particles. Such a language seems to defy logical analysis and forbids an exact translation of the term, “Being.” How is common ground to be found in such a case? (shrink)

The Goose Lake Monastery Debate was an important event in the history of Chinese thought, chiefly because it marked the differences between two of the greatest representatives of the movement of thought known in the West as Neo-Confucianism. In this article, it is my aim to offer a historical reconstruction of the events that took place, to give an exegetical analysis of the problems discussed, and to conclude with an interpretation that places these problems in a wider perspective. I hope (...) to show how this event which occurred in China 800 years ago was not a hair-splitting affair with little consequence for men today, but that it concerned a problem that is both universal and contemporary: the conflict between learning and wisdom. (shrink)

This was what Heidegger said to his Japanese enquirer in “A Dialogue on Language,” which, however, concluded on a note bespeaking much more of convergence than of divergence. Yet the difficulties which lie in any comparative study of two thinkers belonging to such distinct and independent traditions as Heidegger and Wang Yang-ming remain great and many. First of all, as Heidegger himself pointed out, we have the language hurdle. Chinese as well as Japanese lacks a clear verb to be; the (...) Chinese language in particular organizes its uninflected words solely according to word order and the placing of particles. Such a language seems to defy logical analysis and forbids an exact translation of the term, “Being.” How is common ground to be found in such a case? (shrink)

Studies of the reaction of European thinkers of the Enlightenment - Leibniz, Wolff, Hegel, Kant, et al -to Chinese culture and ideas.

It is fair to say that Confucius never ceased to be the object of the cult he had wanted: . . . [celebrating] the wisdom that causes men to turn away from mystical practices and theories, from magic and prayer, from doctrines of personal power and salvation. Marcel Granet..

The Goose Lake Monastery Debate was an important event in the history of Chinese thought, chiefly because it marked the differences between two of the greatest representatives of the movement of thought known in the West as Neo-Confucianism. In this article, it is my aim to offer a historical reconstruction of the events that took place, to give an exegetical analysis of the problems discussed, and to conclude with an interpretation that places these problems in a wider perspective. I hope (...) to show how this event which occurred in China 800 years ago was not a hair-splitting affair with little consequence for men today, but that it concerned a problem that is both universal and contemporary: the conflict between learning and wisdom. (shrink)

Includes texts by Leibniz and Wolff, translated from French, German and Latin.

This statement was presented at a conference on pluralism at the centennial celebration of the World Parliament of Religions, in Chicago, on August 31 September 3, 1993. In doing so, I also had in mind the generosity of spirit of Prof. Max Charlesworth and his wife Stephanie for their vision of pluralist Australia.