Dao (2017) 16:253–276

DOI 10.1007/s11712-017-9550-1

Above the Literal Sense: Hermeneutical Rules in ZHU Xi,

Eckhart, and Augustine

Shuhong ZHENG 1

Published online: 12 April 2017

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract This article is designed to form a question-focused cross-cultural dia-

logue, rather than compare ZHU Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) with Meister Eckhart (1260–
1328) in general terms. It will start with an analysis of the exegetical/
hermeneutical rules that ZHU Xi and Eckhart set up for their own scriptural
commentaries. The study of Eckhart will then be extended to Augustine, in order
to explore how Eckhart resorts to Augustine in his commentary writings. Having
explored Eckhart’s affinity with Augustine regarding their consensus about the
multiplicity of literal senses, as well as their emphasis on the renewal or the
continuous growth of the meaning of scriptural texts, the discussion will come
back to the starting point of this comparative model, and attempt to form a
comparison between the two traditions, through the exemplars of ZHU Xi, Eckhart,
and Augustine, with a focus on the implications of these hermeneutical rules.

Keywords Hermeneutical rules . ZHU Xi 朱熹 . Meister Eckhart . Augustine . Scriptural

commentaries

* Shuhong ZHENG
zhengshh7@mail.sysu.edu.cn

1
Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 135 Xingang Xi Road,
Guangzhou 510275, People’s Republic of China
254 Shuhong ZHENG

1 Introduction

Each tradition is supported by its own fundamental texts, the so-called canons, scrip-
tures, or classics,1 in which certain values and principles are uniquely formulated in a
language that speaks of the cultural/religious/spiritual identity of the relevant commu-
nity or communities within that tradition. Since the meaning and vitality of these texts
can only be realized through contextualization and interpretation, the genre of scriptural
commentary, comparing with other literary forms, has acquired more significance
insofar as the continuity and development of a tradition is concerned. From a cross-
cultural or inter-religious perspective, this article intends to bring together two tradi-
tions—Confucianism and Christianity—by examining the hermeneutical rules as em-
bodied in ZHU Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) and Meister Eckhart (1260–1328).
Methodologically speaking, this article is designed to form a question-focused cross-
cultural dialogue rather than compare ZHU Xi with Meister Eckhart in general terms.
The topic, therefore, will be confined to the hermeneutical rules that run through their
commentary works. After the common ground for comparison is clarified, the discus-
sion will focus on one question, namely, the controversy over the literal sense as seen in
ZHU Xi and Eckhart, because both have reserved an essential role for philosophical
thinking in their commentary writing, which makes it almost inevitable to wrestle with
the literal meaning of scriptural texts each time a new philosophical term is to be
brought into the framework of commentary.
It will start with an analysis of the exegetical rules that ZHU Xi and Eckhart set
up for their own scriptural commentaries. The study of Eckhart will then be
extended to Augustine, in order to explore how Eckhart resorts to Augustine in
his commentary writings, in particular his second commentary on Genesis—the
Book of the Parables of Genesis. For that purpose the focus of the study here will
be narrowed to one specific question, namely, what role the kind of Augustinian

1
I use “scriptures” instead of “classics” in this article to signify those fundamental texts that bear canonical
authority in the eyes of the Song 宋 masters including ZHU Xi 朱熹. Some may find it provocative and arbitrary
to bring the term “scripture” to the fore without giving sufficient explanations as to why the conventional
translation “classics” is not adopted here. I do understand the subtle difference/distinction between the two and
actually pick “scripture” after deliberation. Generally speaking the meaning of “scripture” is often associated
with religious/spiritual perspectives, whereas the term “classics” bears more literary/historical/political signif-
icance. Since seeking and establishing Confucian religious/spiritual identity became unprecedentedly an
urgent issue for the Song literati, as illustrated by the attempt to uplift certain texts such as the Mengzi 孟子,
Daxue 大學 (The Great Learning), and Zhongyong 中庸 (The Doctrine of the Mean) to canonical status, what
most Song masters (Cheng-Zhu 程朱 in particular) mean by the Confucian canonical texts allude to the Four
Books (Sishu 四書) rather than the Five Classics (Wujing 五經) as their Han 漢 / Tang 唐 predecessors, and ZHU
Xi’s grouping of the Four Books is undoubtedly underpinned by his intention to construct the so-called
succession and transmission of the Way (daotong 道統) within Confucian tradition as clearly presented in his
forewords to the Daxue and Zhongyong. If ZHU Xi’s theory of daotong and the grouping of the Four Books
cannot be read in spiritual and religious terms, how can we make sense of the inter-religious dialogue, that is,
the complicated borrowing and exchanging ideas/terminologies between Confucianism, Buddhism, and
Daoism in the Song/Ming 明 periods? In addition, expressions such as “scripture” and “Holy Scripture” by
no means indicate a hierarchy or qualitative gaps between religions. The holiness of a religious text consists
only in those who have formed affiliation with the religion in question, so, for instance, the greatness of Jesus
and the absolute authority of the Holy Bible can hardly be considered outside the Christian faith, hence exert
little power over outsiders. The religious and spiritual aspects of ZHU Xi’s thought have been particularly
addressed by Julia Ching and Joseph A. Adler (see Ching 2000; Adler 2008: 57–79).
Above the Literal Sense 255

stance played in Eckhart’s deviation from the Thomistic distinction between literal
sense and spiritual sense. Having explored Eckhart’s affinity with Augustine
regarding their consensus about the multiplicity of literal senses, as well as their
emphasis on the renewal or the continuous growth of the meaning of the scripture,
the discussion will come back to the starting point of this comparative model, and
attempt to form a comparison between the two traditions, through the exemplars of
ZHU Xi, Eckhart, and Augustine, with a focus on the implications of these
hermeneutical rules.

2 Controversy over the Literal Sense as Seen in ZHU Xi and Meister

Eckhart

As a great thinker and the most influential commentator of the Confucian world,
ZHU Xi seems to have faced challenges similar to his Christian counterpart Meister
Eckhart, as both intended to formulate their original thinking in the form of
scriptural commentaries; indeed, both managed to enrich their own longstanding
exegetical tradition by introducing a new integrative approach to scriptures. Not
only did they insert innovative ideas in commentary writings in order to merge
into the intellectual tradition in which they were brought up, but they also
provided the reader with hermeneutical rules, so that these innovative ideas could
be properly understood and the new interpretive method justified. The fact that
both felt the need to formulate a set of hermeneutical rules to account for their
commentary writing (and similar works offered by other commentators) makes it
clear that they were not unconscious of the gap between original texts and
seemingly far-fetched philosophical interpretations they provided, hence their
attempts to bridge it. It is not hard to detect in both ZHU Xi and Eckhart a
conscientious effort to maintain the fundamental importance of the literal sense
yet at the same time to overcome the conventional adherence to it. The contro-
versy over the literal sense in dealing with scriptural texts constitutes the core of
the hermeneutical rules that normally come along with their commentaries.
These hermeneutical rules, however, are rendered differently in the two contexts. In
ZHU Xi, hermeneutical rules are separate from scriptural commentaries. The former
derives mainly from his oral instructions, transcribed by his pupils as Zhuzi Yulei 朱子語
類 (Conversations of ZHU Xi Topically Classified), and the latter is typically consoli-
dated into his master piece—Sishu Zhangju Jizhu 四書章句集註 (Collected Commen-
taries on the Four Books), and a more detailed elaboration upon his integrative method
and philosophy is seen in another book—Sishu Huowen 四書或問 (Questions and
Answers Concerning the Four Books). In Eckhart, the hermeneutical rules are formu-
lated in the form of prologues to the forthcoming commentaries, thereby constituting an
integral part of the commentaries; the extensive philosophical expositions are embed-
ded into the scriptural commentaries. As a result, the hermeneutic art, the speculative
theology, and philosophy are fused into one. What particularly strikes us, in the cases of
both ZHU Xi and Eckhart, is the sophisticated integration of intellectual rigor with
spiritual concern as presented in their highly speculative commentaries.
In the case of ZHU Xi it is plain that he deliberately weaves philosophy into
the fabric of his commentaries with mature exegetical skills. In accord with the
256 Shuhong ZHENG

thriving of the philosophical movement of his time, ZHU Xi allows the concept
of li 理 (Principle) 2 to be posited at the center of his thought, and attempts to
formulate an all-embracing system in which philosophical terminologies are widely
employed to reinterpret the classical Confucian ideas, as a result of which the Confucian
morals are systematized and internalized in both ontological and epistemological terms.
That theoretical achievement in the meantime provides a coherent system of apology for
the Confucian view of the world and way of living, which serves to rehabilitate the
orthodox role of Confucianism in the whole society.
Noticeably it is his philosophical thinking that distinguishes his commentaries from
the previous ones. His reading of scripture bears a clear rationalistic mark and the
concept of li 理 is applied to interpret nearly all the cardinal concepts in the Confucian
classics. Furthermore, the variation in the meaning of those concepts is explicit. Taking
the word tian 天 (Heaven) as an example, tian 天 literally means “the natural sky”; in
religious texts it normally refers to the universal force acting as an invisible deity whose
pervasive power forms a divine intervention in social affairs and private life, and in that
sense it serves as the object of veneration to which personal prayers are addressed. ZHU
Xi’s interpretation of tian 天 is stunningly different and concise: “Heaven, meaning
Principle” (tian, ji li ye 天, 即理也) (Zhu 1983: 65). Here the status of “Heaven” is
simply substituted by that of “Principle.” Another fundamental Confucian concept,
xing 性 (nature), is treated in the same fashion: “Nature means the heavenly Principle”
(xing ji tianli 性即天理) (Zhu 1983: 325). Similarly, the central concept in Confucius’
Analects, ren 仁 (humaneness), is interpreted as “the Principle of love and the property
of mind” (ren zhe, ai zhi li, xin zhi de ye 仁者, 愛之理, 心之德也) (Zhu 1983: 48). Suffice
it to say that ZHU Xi’s scriptural interpretation relies heavily on the philosophical
concept of li 理, which characterizes the whole project of his intellectual reconstruction
of Confucianism.
In addition to the above philosophical interpretation of single words or phrases
randomly scattered in his work, a religious and spiritual doctrine concerning the
Confucian concept of daotong 道統 (transmission and succession of the Way) is
included in his Collected Commentary on the Four Books, although in the form of a
preface or a foreword. 3 This apologetic effort obviously aims to resolve the crisis of
spiritual identity for Confucian adherents, following the footsteps of HAN Yu 韓愈
(768–824) who, in his renowned philosophical treatise “Yuan Dao 原道” (“An Inquiry
on the Way”), openly refutes the legitimacy of Buddhism and sets up the Confucian
version of the succession of the spiritual lineage. HAN Yu’s account of the succession of
the Way within Confucian tradition is highly regarded by the Cheng brothers and later
stressed by ZHU Xi. In the aforementioned prefaces to his commentaries ZHU Xi depicts

2
In the context of Neo-Confucianism the concept of li 理 (the Principle) occupies the center of ontological
speculation. ZHU Xi’s employment of this concept marks his affinity with the Cheng brothers, CHENG Hao 程顥
(1032–1085) and CHENG Yi 程頤 (1033–1107), who initiated the philosophical discussion over it. Only in ZHU
Xi’s system, however, is this concept thoroughly expounded. By li 理 he means the substance of the whole
universe through which all things are unified as one. He holds that all things participate in the one Principle
and differentiate according to the lot each one is endowed with (li yi fen shu 理一分殊). However, li 理 alone
cannot bring things into existence. It is through the integration of li 理 with qi 氣 (the matter) that things come
into being.
3
This line of thought is most explicitly presented in ZHU Xi’s “Mengzi Xushuo 孟子序說” (“Foreword to The
Book of Mencius”), “Zhongyong Zhangju Xu 中庸章句序” (“Preface to The Doctrine of the Mean”), and
“Daxue Zhangju Xu 大學章句序” (“Preface to The Great Learning”).
Above the Literal Sense 257

the Cheng brothers as the successors of Mencius after the transmission had been
cut off for over a thousand years, and drops the hint that he himself is a successor
of CHENG Yi 程頤 in both intellectual and spiritual terms.
It is not hard to see that ZHU Xi’s commentary writing entails his ambition to
reconstruct the Confucian intellectual and religious/spiritual tradition. The urgency
and complexity of this reconstruction task requires the commentator to go beyond
the literal meaning of the text, which to a great extent explains the element of
arbitrariness that can be detected in ZHU Xi’s commentaries. Is ZHU Xi aware of the
groundless speculations he sometimes puts forward in his commentaries? Does he
believe that more advanced exegetical rules ought to be applied and a blind commit-
ment to the literal sense be rejected? To answer these questions we need to examine the
hermeneutical rules that ZHU Xi has endorsed with the intention of rectifying the bias of
his contemporaries, in particular the pupils under his supervision. These rules constitute
a general guideline for reading scriptures and a criterion to judge the relevant exegeses,
as will be discussed later.
Similarly, the urge to go beyond the literal sense is also expressed in Eckhart despite
his commitment to the scholastic standard. Generally speaking, scholastic commentary
fixes itself upon rational demonstration of divine truth contained in sacred texts, and on
that basis the expression of personal piety is superseded by a rigorous logical demon-
stration of divine truth. Metaphysical questioning is thus integrated into theological
speculation. From the middle of the 12th century onward, Aristotle’s De Sophisticis
Elenchis was thoroughly studied and also enjoyed increasing popularity. This treatise
on fallacies certainly met the demands of the quaestio technique, as it provided both
students and masters at the faculty of theology with a method for detecting and refuting
fallacious arguments. It is also notable that the quaestio technique gave impetus to the
commentary writing of a scholastic theologian like Eckhart. Although scriptural com-
mentaries appear never to be as argumentative as disputed quaestiones, a scholastic
commentator implicitly encloses a debate within his commentary by alluding to the
opinion that he intends to refute. Similarly, the technique of syllogistic reasoning,
which plays a predominant role in the writing of quaestiones, is not excluded from
the writing of scriptural commentary. Commentary on scriptures is expected to attain to
the level of scientific research, hence the striving for objectivity and universality is
manifest in theology as it is in secular studies. In that sense the Holy Bible should be
studied as it is, and the commentary on a scriptural text ought to clarify and disclose the
objective, literal meaning of scripture itself. It is understandable that a scholastic
commentator would no longer be content with an unproven claim charged with
personal emotion and apologetic enthusiasm.
Distinctive of Eckhart is that he stands within a double tradition: that of scholastic/
academic theology and philosophy, and that of the patristic and monastic lectio divina
(Winkler 1965: 114–116). As pointed out by Donald F. Duclow, Eckhart’s commen-
taries are clearly the fruit of 13th-century efforts, but of efforts at speculative thought
rather than literal exegesis. In another aspect, Eckhart is more traditional than his
contemporaries and immediate predecessors because he retains theology’s place within
scriptural interpretation (Duclow 2006: 172). This is best illustrated by his two different
commentaries on Genesis: one focuses on the literal meaning as scholastic commen-
taries are supposed to do, the other on the parabolic meaning of the metaphors, in his
words, the hidden meaning of the parables.
258 Shuhong ZHENG

His rendering of words as seen in the sermons delivered in the vernacular language
seems to be even more distanced from the literal sense. For example, in the oft-
mentioned Sermon 2 Eckhart freely renders the Latin mulier (woman) as “virgin and
wife,” and plays upon the German word empfangen, which can mean both “received”
and “conceived.”4 By means of such free-rendering of words Eckhart makes the point
that the good gifts that are received in virginity should be reborn back into God in
wifely fruitfulness. Obviously he gives priority to the message he intends to deliver
rather than the literal meaning of the text.
In order to make his highly speculative commentaries more accessible to the reader,
Eckhart offers general guidelines for reading his commentaries in a number of pro-
logues, in particular his prologue to the Book of Commentaries where five points are
highlights. As a commentator Eckhart conscientiously makes room for the reader to
participate in the dialogue with the scriptural texts. Instead of delivering a certain
interpretation, Eckhart provides a good variety of expositions concerning the same text,
and leaves it to the reader to decide, to judge, and to harmonize them.5 He also invites
the reader to cross-examine the different passages of the scriptures. In his commentaries
it often happens that when one text is to be expounded, many other texts are being
cited, so that one passage can be explained by many others and vice versa. For
instance, Eckhart’s comments on the verse “In the beginning God created heaven
and earth” (Genesis 1:1) parallel his comments on the verse “In the beginning was
the Word” (John 1:1). If the reader wishes to know more about one cited item, he
may find a full exposition in its proper place. In addition, Eckhart emphasizes the
fact that these passages are often cited with a meaning that goes beyond (my
emphasis) the primary meaning of the text. That, however, can be justified by the
true and proper sense of the words following the procedure demonstrated by
Augustine in his Confessions XII.6
It is plain that both Augustine and Thomas influenced Eckhart’s approach to
scriptural texts. Put it simply, Eckhart’s continuity with Thomas makes him well
established in the scholastic context, and his recourse to Augustine suggests a link
with the Patristic tradition. The affinity that Eckhart has presented with both Thomas
and Augustine lies at the heart of his hermeneutic art, and the core of his theory of
interpretation is the discussion over the literal sense. The different taking of this
hermeneutical rule determines the interpretive direction of the commentator.
As shown above, in both ZHU Xi and Eckhart the introducing of innovative elements
in their commentaries is inevitably entangled with the need for justification on the
grounds of literal sense, in other words, for both thinkers the gravity of literalism can
never be completely overcome, nor is it their intention to downplay the literal meaning

4
As pointed out by Walshe, Eckhart’s rendering is very free as the Latin says nothing about a virgin (see
Walshe 2009: 81, n.1, 2).
5
For instance, his treatment of the term “darkness” appeared in Verse 5 “The Light shines in the darkness, the
darkness did not comprehend it” in Commentary on John. Here we find the connotations of “darkness” vary
from “everything that is created” (nn. 72–73), to what Thomas and Maimonides mean by “fire” in the sense
that fire does not give light in itself save in foreign material (n. 74) with reference to “Darkness was over the
face of the earth” (Genesis 1:2). Eckhart also includes the moral implication of “darkness” which refers to evil
that exists in something good (n. 75). See Eckhart, Comm. Jn. nn. 72–75 (LW III 60–63); English trans.,
McGinn 1986: 148–149. This study is based on the latest critical edition of Meister Eckhart’s Latin and
German Works (Meister Eckhart 1936–). “LW” refers to his Latin Works.
6
Eckhart resorts to Augustine in his prologue to the Book of Commentaries (see Maurer 1974: 104–105).
Above the Literal Sense 259

of scriptural texts. Hence a tension between originality and faithfulness is felt in

ZHU Xi and Eckhart; consequently controversies over the literal meaning of
scriptures are taken on board by both. Despite the differences in context, reflection
upon the conventional stress on literal sense is found in the hermeneutical rules
endorsed by both. As philosophers and commentators, both ZHU Xi and Eckhart
stress the primary importance of obtaining a literal understanding of scriptural
texts and both drive home the limitation of such doing. The hermeneutical rules,
as presented in both contexts, serve as a companion to the commentaries that have
read a great deal of philosophy into the scriptural texts. These rules certainly
account for the seemingly arbitrary, far-fetched or even groundless interpretations
we may encounter in both thinkers. Our reading of ZHU Xi and Eckhart, as a
continuation of the interpretative tradition, promises a reflection on the medieval
hermeneutic art in the Confucian world of East Asia and the Christian world of the
Latin West.

3 Hermeneutical Rules in ZHU Xi7

Admittedly, a longstanding exegetical tradition, with differing approaches to Confucian

classics existed before ZHU Xi. Yet despite all the praxis and methods concerning
scriptural exegesis, many scholars today still wonder whether it is appropriate to apply
the Western term “hermeneutics”8 to the study of Confucianism, and more widely to the
long history of intellectual development in China. 9 With the thriving of the study of
hermeneutics in the tradition of Chinese thought, ZHU Xi’s role as a commentator has
been particularly addressed. In addition to his various kinds of commentary works, one
text transcribed by his pupils has been given extra attention, namely his Dushu Fa 讀書
法 (Method of Reading) or to be precise, Method of Scriptural Reading, as it focuses on
scriptural learning in ZHU Xi’s context.
However it is open to dispute whether this single treatise really presents a
theory of understanding. Some scholars treat it as a documentary proof of the
hermeneutical concern in ZHU Xi, while others, such as Wolfgang Kubin, hesitate
to link this text with “hermeneutics.” Kubin argues that ZHU Xi’s main concern as
reflected here is not the text, but the reader and his reading practice; therefore his
Method of Reading is far from a theory of understanding. According to Kubin,
China neither invented a name for “the art of understanding,” nor has it ever
developed a systematic theory of its own. On that account Kubin strongly disputes

7
Given the increasingly heated discussions and numerous publications on this topic, I will in this section start
with a review of the recent scholarship in this field instead of delineating in detail the hermeneutical rules as
presented in Yu Lei 語類 (Conversations Topically Classified) and Wen Ji 文集 (Collection of Literary Works),
which has been done by previous studies. Apart from his Collected Commentaries on the Four Books, all the
other primary sources of ZHU Xi are based on the edition of Zhuzi Quanshu 朱子全書 (Zhu 2002).
8
Even in the West, the meaning of “hermeneutics” varies in different periods of history; it was not until
Schleiermacher that hermeneutics started to be treated as an independent discipline.
9
Over the last few decades hermeneutics has been the subject of heated discussion by scholars involved in
Chinese classical studies both in China and worldwide. The specific research into Chinese exegetical traditions
started around the mid-1980s; subsequently the Western term “hermeneutics” was applied to this newly
emerged scholarly field, thus we have “Chinese hermeneutics.” In 2001 a conference on Chinese hermeneutics
held at Rutgers University resulted in a collection of papers as seen in Tu 2005.
260 Shuhong ZHENG

the application of “hermeneutics” to the tradition of Chinese thought, to the extent

that he takes the term “Chinese hermeneutics” to be almost as odd as “a Chimera”
(Kubin 2005: 311–319). As a response to Kubin’s critical stance, CHENG Chung-
ying poses a rhetorical question: “If we can speak of a hermeneutical tradition, can
we speak of developing a hermeneutics for the tradition?” Cheng highlights the
divergence in our conception of “hermeneutics”: he argues that if we take “her-
meneutics” as an open concept rather than a closed concept hidden specifically in
one tradition, then it is possible and justified to construct a different type of
“hermeneutics” or “art of understanding” from another tradition so long as it does
not lack exegetical praxis. From Cheng’s perspective the very notion of herme-
neutics must presuppose an antecedent or a correlated notion of a hermeneutic
tradition and vice versa (C. Cheng 2005: 321–341).
Given the heated debate over the legitimacy of “Chinese hermeneutics” as shown
above, in particular the dispute as to the nature of ZHU Xi’s Method of Reading,10 we
are compelled constantly to remind ourselves of the fundamental difference between
ZHU Xi’s practical concern with the hermeneutical issues in his time and the current
discussions about “Chinese hermeneutics” which basically concern how to justify (like
CHENG Chung-ying) or refute (like Wolfgang Kubin) this newly emerged research trend
according to the modern academic standard. In order to avoid ambiguity, distinction is
to be made between the three terms—“exegetical” (concerning zhushi 註釋), “herme-
neutical” (concerning quanshi 詮釋), and “hermeneutics” (quanshixue 詮釋學)—ac-
cording to the way each is used in the following discussions. Put simply, “exegetical”
here refers only to issues related to the commentating of a scriptural text which may
point to a spectrum ranging from semantics to phonetics to historical explorations
regarding a single word or phrase; and “hermeneutical” refers mainly to issues related
to the understanding of a scriptural text which encompasses reading, commentating on,
and interpreting a text. By contrast “hermeneutics” refers to a systematic discourse on
“the art of understanding” in general.
The aforementioned distinctions offer some help in classifying recent scholarly
research in this field concerning ZHU Xi’s contribution to the exegetical/hermeneutical
tradition in China. 11 Seen in this light, recent studies in ZHU Xi’s commentary works
generally fall into three categories. For instance, QIAN Mu 錢穆 and CAI Fanglu 蔡方鹿
put emphasis primarily on the exegetical aspect, and both provide detailed textual
analysis and demonstrate insightful ways to contextualize ZHU Xi’s exegeses (Qian
1986; Cai 2001). The sort of studies as performed by Qian and Cai highlight the
importance of exegesis in ZHU Xi’s system of thought as well as his position in the
longstanding history of Confucian exegetical tradition. Of course the hermeneuti-
cal theory underpinning Zhu’s exegetical praxis is also touched on especially by
QIAN Mu. On the basis of his extensive study of the history of Chinese thought,
Qian comes to the conclusion that neither the Han 漢 / Tang 唐 Confucians nor the
Qing 清 scholars are as competent as Zhu in respect to his insightful exposition of
exegetical method. As highlighted by QIAN Mu, the hermeneutical rules laid down by
10
It is beyond the scope of this study to participate in the debate over “Chinese hermeneutics,” however
relevant the topic, nor is it necessary to refute Kubin’s downplaying of ZHU Xi’s Method of Reading here, as he
simply uses this text as an example to dispute the term “Chinese hermeneutics.”
11
Over the last three decades numerous monographs and articles came out, clearly ZHU Xi’s role as
commentator has been particularly addressed (see Huang 2008).
Above the Literal Sense 261

ZHU Xi suggest an unprecedented contribution to the theory of scriptural exegesis in

Confucian history.12 This sort of research makes it clear that as a commentator ZHU Xi
not only clarifies what is distinctive of the genre of commentary, but also sets up a
standard for scriptural exegesis in general and endorses a series of hermeneutical rules to
reinforce Confucian scriptural learning in pedagogical terms.
Unlike Qian and Cai, who conscientiously think in the train of Neo-Confucian
discourse and understand and interpret ZHU Xi’s work exclusively in Zhu’s terms,
some contemporary scholars attempt to establish links between ZHU Xi and Western
hermeneutical theories. LIN Wei-chieh 林維杰, for instance, brings ZHU Xi into the
discourse of philosophical hermeneutics 13 by forming a cross-cultural comparison
between ZHU Xi and Gadamer (Lin 2001). His recent publications (especially Lin
2012) demonstrate a continuity in this direction, meaning to work out a theory of
hermeneutics on the basis of ZHU Xi’s intellectual achievement.
LIU Xiaogan 劉笑敢 differs from these two approaches, drawing attention to the
hermeneutical methodology involved in ZHU Xi’s commentary writing. The com-
plexity of this question has been expounded at length in his Quanshi Yu
Dingxiang 詮釋與定向 (Exegesis and Its Directional Role). In this volume Liu
summarizes the characteristic of Z HU Xi’s scriptural commentaries as
rongguanxing quanshi 融貫性詮釋 (coherent and penetrative exegesis) in compar-
ison with the works of other creative commentators such as WANG Bi 王弼 (226–
249) and GUO Xiang 郭象 (252–312). According to Liu’s observation, ZHU Xi’s
Collected Commentaries on the Four Books reflects a great attempt to bridge the
gap between the meaning of original text and CHENG Yi’s philosophy, hence it is
marked by a sophisticated integration of annotation, exegesis and expression of
Cheng-Zhu philosophy (Liu 2009: 208–237).
Seen from a hermeneutical perspective, this masterpiece is by no means composed
in accordance with a strict adherence to the literal meaning (benyi 本義) of the original
text. Compared with his predecessors, in particular those erudite commentators in the
Han and Tang periods who gave priority mostly to the literal meaning and often
dedicated their whole lives to exegetical practice, ZHU Xi’s exegeses and interpretations
as seen in his Collected Commentaries on the Four Books are stained with arbitrariness.
In other words, he allowed too much freedom for his own thought and thus transgressed
against the law of literalism in too many places.14

12
Qian also gives a detailed discussion on Zhu’s hermeneutical principles under the title Zhuzi Lun Jiejing 朱子
論解經 (Master Zhu on Scriptural Exegesis) (see Qian 1986: [3] 1389–1436). In addition, he delineates in detail
the differences between ZHU Xi and the Cheng brothers in their exegeses (see Qian 1986: [3] 1437–1580).
13
ZHU Xi’s hermeneutical rules or principles chiefly derived from his exegetical praxis as a creative
commentator, which also reflect his pedagogical concern as a prominent teacher. These two aspects boil
down to a deep-rooted spiritual concern, namely to take scriptural learning as the means to attain self-
realization; in other words, scriptural learning paves the way for one’s attainment of sagehood. Precisely in that
sense, it is not appropriate to read ZHU Xi through the lens of Gadamer or even to extract a theory of
“philosophical hermeneutics” from his work. The fundamental differences between ZHU Xi and the modern
philosophical hermeneutics have been thoroughly discussed by a few specialists in Neo-Confucianism. CHEN
Lisheng 陳立勝, for instance, highlights that what ZHU Xi has prescribed here as the method of reading actually
has little in common with the modern theory of hermeneutics. It is basically designed for a group of readers
who share the same faith in a scripture that is sacred to them (see Chen 2003: 107–134).
14
This is the Qing scholars’ typical criticism of ZHU Xi, including MAO Qiling 毛奇齡 and many others.
262 Shuhong ZHENG

However, ZHU Xi himself would not acknowledge that he neglected the literal sense.
Should we read his Collected Commentaries on the Four Books in the Neo-Confucian
context, probably we would not believe it justified to criticize him for deviating from
the literal meaning of the text. The Song Confucian masters, especially from ZHOU
Dunyi 周敦頤 (1017–1073) onward, started to lay emphasis on a philosophical under-
standing of, rather than a literal or philological approach to, the Confucian classics. For
them the mastery of language would never be sufficient for understanding the ancient
texts. In other words, one’s literal comprehension does not guarantee a perfect under-
standing of a text, and even more so when scriptures are concerned. Thus from the
perspectives of the Song masters the conditions for grasping the profound meaning of
scriptures, or put differently, for receiving the esoteric messages the ancient sages intend
to convey, consist ultimately in the sphere that is above the literal sense despite the
importance of it. This spirit gains a transparent expression in ZHU Xi’s predecessor
CHENG Yi, namely you jing qiong li 由經窮理 (probing the Principle through scriptures)
(see CHENG Yi, Henan Chengshi Yishu 河南程氏遺書 [Posthumous Work of the Two
Cheng Masters], juan 15; H. Cheng and Y. Cheng 1981: [1] 158). In line with CHENG Yi,
ZHU Xi takes scriptures as the means to obtain the Principle. Scriptural reading therefore
functions as an exemplar of how to put his philosophical doctrine—gewu zhizhi 格物致
知 (the investigation of things and extension of knowledge) into practice (Yulei 10.49).
Nonetheless, compared with his contemporaries and some of the Northern Song masters
including CHENG Yi, ZHU Xi clearly attaches more importance to the literal sense. On the
one hand he distanced himself from the Han and Tang exegetical style in the sense that
he explicitly applies the Cheng-Zhu philosophical thinking to commentary writing (Cai
2001: 575), but on the other hand his research interest exceeds the typical Song
scholarship in the sense that apart from philosophical speculations ZHU Xi was also
deeply engaged in textual criticism and even philological studies throughout his aca-
demic life.15 Overall his attitude toward the literal sense is far more complicated than
what is seen in many of his predecessors as well as his contemporaries.
The questions that concern us most in this article will be (1) in what sense and to
what extent ZHU Xi believes the literal meaning of the text should be prioritized; and (2)
under what circumstances it is justified and justifiable to break through the confinement
of the literal sense according to ZHU Xi. Here we will adopt a contextual approach to
these questions and try to render this issue in hermeneutical terms. For that purpose we
will derive from the primary sources a sophisticated threefold relation as the framework
to structure ZHU Xi’s thinking on this regard, namely the relation between a literal
understanding and a philosophical interpretation of a text, the relation between scripture
and commentary, and the relation between scripture and the Principle. Clearly such a
hermeneutical awareness as unfolded in the Conversations and other works by ZHU Xi
is rarely seen in CHENG Yi or the pupils of the Cheng brothers.

3.1 Between Literal Meaning and Philosophical Interpretation

Given the philosophical orientation of his commentaries, it is unsurprising that the

reader is often under the impression that ZHU Xi has allowed the literal sense to be

15
ZHU Xi’s achievement in philology is best reflected in his Hanwen Kaoyi 韓文考異 (The Critical Edition of
Han Yu’s Works). This point has been particularly addressed by QIAN Mu (see Qian 1986: 1724–1828).
Above the Literal Sense 263

substantially compromised, at least in his Collected Commentaries on the Four Books.

However, if we examine his explanations as to what he puts in the Commentaries, for
instance, his Sishu Huowen 四書或問 (Questions and Answers Concerning the Four
Books), Wenji 文集 (Collection of Literary Compositions), and the Conversations, and
so on, we will find that ZHU Xi has no intention to displace the role of the literal
sense, nor does he underestimate the fundamental importance of the literal under-
standing of a text. Contrariwise, among the Neo-Confucian masters it is ZHU Xi
who earnestly calls for a faithful and submissive attitude toward scripture and
gives priority to the literal sense. He affirms that one must first grasp the literal
meaning of a text before moving on to the philosophical connotations. At times he
even deliberately chooses strong words to express his contempt for blind adher-
ence to subjectivity, simplicity and abstractness, hence his golden rule for scrip-
tural learning expressed as follows:

With regard to the method of scriptural reading, I believe one should cover a
broad realm, gain a thorough understanding and know the details. As to my
personal view, I would go for details rather than brevity, for a lower rather than a
higher level, for clumsiness rather than cunningness, and for something that lies
in a nearer rather than a further place. (Yulei 10.33)16

The same message is repeated time and again in the Conversations in which ZHU Xi
exhorts his students to first read the text and seek for the literal meaning, and only then
to look at the commentaries. He mentions that people of the day mistakenly tend to do
otherwise, fixing their eyes on what is beyond the text (Yulei 11.114). Due to oblivi-
ousness to the literal meaning and a deficiency in comprehension, many have distorted
the scriptures. ZHU Xi repeatedly warns students that in handling the words of the
ancients, it is always the one who does not understand it that jumps to conclusions,
which is particularly harmful. In so doing one stands no chance of acquiring the truth; it
is nothing but a waste of time (Yulei 11.27). Therefore, being faithful to the scripture is
of crucial importance, and this should be applied at all times. ZHU Xi thus claims:

When reading a scripture, one must keep a receptive mind, never rush into your
own opinion. Do not move to the next paragraph unless you have fully under-
stood this one. One must behave like a judge who, in dealing with a legal case,
must first listen to the whole story before issuing a verdict. (Yulei 11.26)

That should be the attitude of a student in reading scriptures. The “receptive mind” (xu
xin 虛心) here is an ideal state of mind in which preconceived ideas and prejudice are
suspended, so that a perfect reception of the text is possible. A man with a receptive
mind is supposed to be impartial and always prepares himself to listen rather than
judge. In other words, he is capable of suspending pre-judgement of any kind and of
listening to the voice of scripture with all his mind and heart. That is what ZHU Xi
means by a receptive and objective mind, which is the prerequisite to understanding a

16
The English translation included in this article is my own work. The translator’s name will be mentioned if
otherwise.
264 Shuhong ZHENG

scripture literally. In contrast, being arbitrary and subjectivistic can be catastrophic,

because it blocks the way to assimilate the teaching of the ancient sages. ZHU Xi affirms
that there is no possibility for a man to take in the teaching of the sages unless he first
puts aside his own opinions (Yulei 11.22–23).
As demonstrated by the above textual analysis, ZHU Xi is determined to drive home
the priority of the literal sense in scriptural learning, which obviously conforms to his
bottom-up method (xiaxue shangda 下學上達). As a result, he hardly puts emphasis on
philosophical interpretation although he himself directly inserts philosophical interpre-
tations in many of his commentaries. If we believe ZHU Xi is not contradicting his own
rules, the only solution will be to redefine the relation between literal sense and
philosophical interpretation, and treat the two as embodiment of two layers or levels
of understanding, thus the latter will be taken as a deeper understanding of the text on
the basis of the former which, of course, involves orderly proceedings in scriptural
learning.

3.2 Between Scripture and Commentary

For ZHU Xi this kind of faithful attitude toward scripture should be applied even more
squarely by the commentator, hence a hierarchical distinction between scripture and
commentary is stressed.17 With regard to commentary writing, ZHU Xi fully endorses a
receptive and submissive stance toward scriptures and proscribes any traces of arbitrary
judgement and subjectivistic interpretation. 18 He summarizes the typical problems of
his contemporary commentators into “four categories: uplifting the original text to
make it higher; excavating it to make it deeper; pushing it to make it reach further; and
muddling it to make it obscure” (Yulei 11.121). These are all substantial mistakes and
should be abstained from at all costs. To him the assimilating of a scripture is crucially
conditioned by a full commitment to the words of the sages, which should be applied
under all circumstances.
This kind of unconditional commitment to scriptures is regarded as a predominant
academic standard for scriptural interpretation, to be employed to scrutinize any
existing commentary or subcommentary on a scripture. ZHU Xi expounds it in the
following three points:

1. The relation of a commentary or subcommentary to a scripture is that of a slave

or servant to a master (Yulei 11.117).
2. The main job of writing a commentary is to untie the knot, to decode the words
of the sages so as to make them more accessible (Yulei 11.116).
3. The inclusion of a treatise in the commentary is to be avoided.19

Here ZHU Xi openly claims a kind of absolute authority and power for Confucian
canonical texts. Seen in this light, the authority of some traditionally recognized
commentary texts such as Preface to the Book of Odes (Maoshi Xu 毛詩序) will be
17
The relation between scripture and commentary is a very complicated question that persists throughout the
history of Confucian exegetical tradition. Although there is no room for a fuller discussion in this article, some
recent scholarship can be referred to, for instance, Jing 2016.
18
Whether ZHU Xi lives up to this standard is another matter which cannot be discussed here.
19
ZHU Xi points out that even Master Cheng’s commentary is tainted by this defect. See Yulei 11.115.
Above the Literal Sense 265

weakened or even be undermined in some cases.20 In accordance with this definition of

scripture-commentary relation, ZHU Xi highlights the sacred nature of a scriptural text
in terms of its origin and author on the one hand, and abolishes the authority of
commentary on the other. Obviously he is trying very hard to draw one’s attention to
scriptural texts and to shift the focus from commentary to scripture.
For ZHU Xi scriptures are the words of the ancient sages, and therefore should
always be treated with mindfulness. He keeps telling his pupils that these sacred texts
are never delivered at random; rather the structure and order are subtly presented, hence
extreme attentiveness is required. ZHU Xi holds on to the assumption that every single
word uttered by the sages will fall into place, and a scriptural text as a collection of the
sacred words never fails to hold a coherent meaning, which subsists in a semantic
skeleton of its own. Thus he urges all to keep an eye on the framework hidden in a text.
He has the impression that the words of the sages preserved in a scripture are always
formulated in a structure as well balanced as that of the “leaves on the same tree that
respond to one another (yeye xiangdang 葉葉相當)” (Yulei 10.76), and the layout of a
scripture suggests a mutual union, like the “branches of a tree spontaneously gazing at
one another (zhizhi xiangdui 枝枝相對)” (Yulei 10.76).

3.3 Between Scripture and Principle

In the Neo-Confucian context, especially with regard to the Cheng-Zhu school, the
relation between scripture and Principle is mostly conceived as a relation between
means and end. That is to say, scriptures are normally treated as the means to pursue the
ultimate goal, that is, dao 道 (the Way) or li 理 (the Principle); in other words, scriptural
learning acquires its ultimate significance only in the sense that it paves the way for the
pursuit of the Principle.
It is worth noting that for them Principle (li 理) is not only encapsulated in Confucian
scriptures via the ancient sages, but also inheres in the original state of human nature.
Scriptural reading as thus is closely tied up with self-cultivation. For ZHU Xi it plays an
essential part in shaping one’s personality. Following CHENG Yi’s footsteps ZHU Xi
furthers the necessity for a systematic and intensive scriptural learning. Through his
effort the practice of scriptural reading was transformed into an essential element of
Confucian learning which, in the Neo-Confucian context, is associated with the art of
sage-making or the method of fulfilling humanity in real terms.
If reading scripture is to be conducted in the sense of probing the Principle and
cultivating one’s self, it naturally requires introspective thinking on the part of the
reader, who thereby seeks intently the relevance of the scripture to his or her personal

20
As explained by QIAN Mu, the trend of feizhuan jiejing 廢傳解經 (abolishing commentary texts and
commentating on scriptural texts [directly]) had already started in the Tang commentators and was continu-
ously upheld by the Northern Song masters. For detailed elaborations, see Qian 2001: 294–295. This attitude
toward commentary texts can also be illustrated in ZHU Xi especially by his treatment of the Yijing 易經 (The
Book of Changes), Shijing 詩經 (The Book of Odes), Daxue 大學 (The Great Learning), and Xiaojing 孝經 (The
Book of Filial Piety), and so on. What I would like to particularly point out is that ZHU Xi’s highlighting the
original meaning of “changes” as presented in his Zhouyi Benyi 周易本義 (The Literal Meaning of the Book of
Changes), which differs a great deal from CHENG Yi’s work, serves more as an exemplar of his hierarchical
distinction between scripture and commentary than as proof of his emphasis on the primacy of the literal sense.
In other words, ZHU Xi’s resorting to the authority of the literal sense does not serve to enhance literalism, but
to pave the way for a new approach to the Yijing.
266 Shuhong ZHENG

circumstance (Yulei 11.2). In searching for the relevance of a scripture to one’s own
experience in real life, one will be able to make a personal appropriation of that
scripture. Only then does a scripture cease to be external and start to be meaningful
to its reader; in other words, the meaning of a scripture is internalized. The exercise of
scriptural reading will have little impact on a person unless he works out his personal
affinity with that scripture and makes sense of it on his own. As a result, the distance
between the scripture and the reader will be gradually diminished, to the extent that the
words of the ancient texts become as vivid and meaningful as if they issued from the
bottom of the reader’s heart (Yulei 10.95).
Like the Cheng brothers who attributed their appropriation of the Heavenly Principle
to personal experiences21 and his contemporary LU Xiangshan 陸象山 who claimed that
he got it by himself while reading the Mencius,22 ZHU Xi also addressed the importance
of zide 自得 (getting it oneself or getting it spontaneously). 23 With regard to the
cultivation of an original mind, ZHU Xi seems to have a lot to learn from the
methodology of the Chan 禪 (Chan/Zen Buddhism) masters. In private conversations
with his favorite students ZHU Xi time and again reveals his deep appreciation of Chan
on this respect. For instance, he points out to the Confucian students that the Chan
methodology holds a significant advantage, one that is paradoxically associated with its
counter-language disposition, because in Chan the abandoning of commentary on
scripture gives the Chan practitioners no opportunity to follow other people’s thinking;
each individual has to work out the meaning of the ineffable on his own. This explains
why in the circle of Buddhism there always stands a qualified successor, whereas in
Confucianism and Daoism the succession of the spiritual lineage is sometimes cut off
(Yulei 14.42).

4 Hermeneutical Rules Endorsed by Eckhart and Augustine

Considering the biblical education occurring in the schools of Paris and elsewhere,
the main purpose of scholastic commentary is to sharpen the minds of students by
providing them with the objective meaning of scriptural texts. It aims to deepen
the reader’s understanding of the sacred texts, rather than to arouse piety in him.
The scholastic approach to scripture in general differs from the principle Augus-
tine advocates in his On Christian Doctrine, in which he forcefully emphasizes the
priority of faith and takes it as the groundwork for a proper understanding of

21
CHENG Hao openly proclaimed his own attainment of the Heavenly Principle: “Although some parts of my
thought are handed down by the predecessors, the two words ‘Heavenly Principle’ are derived from my own
experience” (Henan Chengshi Waishu 河南程氏外書 [External Works of the Chengs], juan 12; H. Cheng and Y.
Cheng 1981: [1] 424). For CHENG Yi’s view concerning zide 自得, see Henan Chengshi Yishu 河南程氏遺書
(Posthumous Work of the Two Cheng Masters), juan 15; H. Cheng and Y. Cheng 1981: [1] 168.
22
The concept of zide 自得 (getting it oneself) characterizes the method of learning advocated by LU
Xiangshan, who openly proclaims that he had worked out the essence of Confucianism by himself while
reading The Mencius (see Lu 1992: [35] 308).
23
CHAN Wing-Tsit elaborates ZHU Xi’s interpretation of zide 自得 and argues that what ZHU Xi means by zide
should be “getting it with entire spontaneity” instead of “getting it by oneself” (see Chan 2007: 220–221). For
similar discussions, see de Bary 1991: 8).
Above the Literal Sense 267

scripture. To Augustine the pursuit of knowledge is prone to arousing arrogance in

the knower if his mind is not firmly rooted in faith. He thus lays down a rule
concerning scriptural reading:

When he [the reader] is meek and lowly of heart, subject to the easy yoke of
Christ, and loaded with his light burden, rooted and grounded and built up in
faith, so that knowledge cannot puff him up, let him then approach the consid-
eration and discussion of ambiguous signs in scripture. (Augustine 2008, 2.12.17)

Augustine’s deep concern about the potentially detrimental effect of knowledge is not
necessarily shared by a medieval scholastic, and neither is his optative or even
imperative tone. In contrast to the homiletic and pastoral style of the patristic and
monastic commentaries, scholastic commentary makes more room for rational demon-
stration, using a language often dominated by the propositional form, and whatever
tends towards unction, colloquialism or informality will be skilfully withdrawn from
consideration.
In that sense, the scholastic commentator is more cautious about his personal
interference with the literal meaning of scriptures. Clearly this sort of scholastic
analysis of scriptural texts attaches most importance to the literal meaning, which refers
to the intention of the author of the Holy Scripture—God. Although the literal sense
points directly toward what is intended by the author, this does not mean that the words
in the Holy Scripture can be taken only in the literal sense. God, unlike the human
author of a secular text, comprehends all things by his intellect in one act; it follows that
even according to the literal meaning, it is not unfitting to recognize that one word in a
scripture may be understood in several senses.
In Summa Theologiae (Aquinas 1920, I, q.1, a.10) Thomas resorts to Augustine
(Augustine 2015, 12.31.42) to justify the multiple senses of the words in the scriptures.
On that basis Thomas makes a distinction between the literal sense and the spiritual
sense, and insists that the literal sense is one, a word signifies one thing, and that thing
could have further signification if God so intended. Thomas gives a full exposition of
the relation between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. From his perspective, the
spiritual sense must be entirely based on and derived from the literal sense. He further
explains the fundamental difference between the divine author and the human author,
claiming that:

The author of Holy Scripture is God, in whose power it is to signify his meaning,
not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. (Aquinas
1920, I, q.1, a.10)

On this ground, Thomas points out the distinctive character which distinguishes theol-
ogy from every other science with regard to the word and its signification. According to
Thomas, the spiritual sense that is deemed the enlargement or extension of the literal
sense ought to be strictly reserved for the words contained in the holy scripture; the
coexistence of the spiritual and literal senses applies only to the divine, and no other
science apart from theology—the science of the divine—is proper to this hermeneutical
principle. God alone, as the author of the Holy Bible and the creator of all things, is
entitled to make one thing serve as the symbol that signifies another reality. In other
268 Shuhong ZHENG

words, only the Bible enjoys the spiritual sense,24 and as the reader we can never take
one thing as the symbol of another unless we are so informed in the literal sense. The
spiritual sense is threefold, namely the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical.
Such a scholastic stance as expressed by Thomas clearly gives priority to the literal
meaning and conscientiously redefines the scope of it. Although both Thomas and
Augustine take the literal meaning of a word as what is intended by the author, in
Augustine the term “literal” is taken in a broader sense; when the author is God, who in
his intellect comprehends all things, the literal sense of a word could become multiple.
To Thomas one word has only one literal meaning. The stance as to the multiplicity of
literal senses is to be abandoned entirely. After Thomas, Eckhart seems to stand closer
to Augustine when he attempts to unite the literal sense with the spiritual sense.
Although Eckhart agrees with Thomas as to the primacy of the literal sense, and
insists that the text should always be interpreted literally first, he nevertheless does not
follow Thomas so closely with regard to the distinction between the literal and spiritual
senses. Eckhart instead takes an Augustinian stance regarding the multiplicity of literal
senses, which shows a subtle divergence from Thomas. 25 In line with Augustine,
Eckhart addresses the same hermeneutic rule in his prologue to the Book of the
Parables of Genesis,26 namely, that the meaning that goes beyond (my emphasis) the
primary meaning of the text ought to be justified. He wrote two different versions of
Commentary on Genesis. The first concentrates on the noteworthy points so far as the
“more evident sense” of the book is concerned. In the second, the Book of the Parables
of Genesis, Eckhart shifts the focus of attention to the “more hidden sense” of the
scriptural texts27 in order to reveal or disclose what is hidden beneath the surface of the
literal sense. According to Eckhart, it is absolutely necessary to explore the hidden
sense of the words when they are expressed in a parable fashion. 28 This kind of
exploration will be intellectually and spiritually rewarding; in his own words:

When we can dig out some mystical understanding from what is read it is like
bringing honey forth from the hidden depths of the honeycomb. (Eckhart,
prologue to the Book of the Parables of Genesis, n.1 [LW I 449]; trans. Colledge
and McGinn 1981: 93)

By laying more emphasis on the richness of the parables contained in the holy
canon, Eckhart somehow loosens the Thomistic definition of the literal sense of a word
and blurs the line that Thomas intended to distinguish the literal sense from the spiritual

24
Gadamer offers some insights into this question under the title “The Nature of Things and the Language of
Things” in which he highlights the point that the correspondence between things and the human mind is more
original than both things and the apprehension of things, thereby such a correspondence that finds its
concretion in the linguistic experience of the world is absolutely prior (cf. Gadamer 2008: 78–79).
25
Bernard McGinn briefly addresses this issue in his translation (see Colledge and McGinn 1981: 320, n.66).
26
It is open to dispute whether Eckhart made a radical change in his hermeneutical concerns.
27
Thomas only mentions the parabolical sense in his arguments. He does not give further explanation as to a
proper approach to the parables contained in the Scriptures. The parabolic sense is not included in what he
means by the threefold spiritual sense—moral, allegorical, and anagogical (see Aquinas 1920, I, q.1, a. 10).
28
As pointed out by McGinn, the influence of Maimonides on Eckhart is manifest with regard to the inner
meaning of scripture. Studies on Eckhart’s hermeneutics have been done by a number of scholars, in particular
Winkler 1965 and Weiss 1963: 107–108.
Above the Literal Sense 269

sense. At this point Eckhart is more likely to think in the vein of Augustine on the
Platonic ground, in accordance with the axiom that every truth comes from nowhere
but the Truth itself.
Based on the Platonic principle, Eckhart puts forward the proposition that every true
sense is a literal sense. His arguments proceed as follows: the holy men spoke when
being driven by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) and the Holy Spirit teaches all truth
(John 16:13); as the literal sense is what the author intends and God is the author of the
Holy Scriptures, it follows that every true sense is a literal sense. As well as citing the
scriptural texts, Eckhart also falls back on the authority of Augustine, whom he lets
speak for him:

As long as anyone in reading the holy scriptures is trying to understand what their
author meant to say, what harm is there if he lays hold of something that you, the
light of all truthful minds, shows him to be true, even if the author he is reading
did not grasp it—though the author did grasp a truth, just not this one?... What
harm does it do to me that different meanings can be taken from the same words
as long as they are true?. (Augustine, Confessions 12.18.27; see Colledge and
McGinn 1981: 93)

After quoting Augustine’s rhetorical question, Eckhart adds one sentence to make it
complete: “And true in the single truth of Light?”
Here we see a unification of “the different meanings” of the same words with the
“single truth of Light.” To Eckhart the legitimacy of the multiple meanings of a word
can be established in One Truth which is God himself. The words of God can be
understood differently so long as the reader is inspired by the divine intellect. The
validity of one’s understanding of the scripture lies in its conformity to the divine
thought, rather than in its conformity to the things.29 Noticeably Eckhart’s focus is on
the source or origin of the truth, which can be nothing but the divine intellect. In that
sense Eckhart makes the point that God, who is the real author of the scripture,
never fails to renew the meaning of his own words in the intellect of the reader
while the scripture is assimilated anew. Not only does God allow the Word to be
spoken in human language, but he also comprehends, inspires and intends all truth
at one time in his intellect.30 “This is why Augustine says that he made scripture
fruitful in such a way that everything that any intellect could draw from it has
been sown in it and sealed upon it.”31
Thus the renewal or growth of the meaning of the scripture does not contradict the
Truth; on the contrary, it is derived from and rooted in the divine intellect. Eckhart, in
line with Augustine, allows the growth of the meaning of the scriptural texts to be

29
Thomas, De Veritate: “Truth is ‘the conformity of thing and intellect.’ But since this conformity can be only
in the intellect, truth is only in the intellect” (Aquinas 1952–1954, q.1, a.2).
30
Eckhart only quotes this verse from Thomas’s Summa Theologiae. I. q.1, a.10, instead of referring to
Thomas’s full exposition concerning truth, intellect, and things in De Veritate, q.1. Eckhart is not so much
concerned with the empirical approach as Thomas is. Thomas gives a lengthy discussion as to the conformity
of things to the intellect, claiming that from this conformity arises the question of truth.
31
Eckhart resorts to Augustine to affirm his view. For Augustine’s words, see Augustine 2008, 3.27.28.
270 Shuhong ZHENG

justified on the intellectual ground. Such a hermeneutic rule encourages the reader to
rise above the literal meaning and delve further into the spiritual meaning of the
scripture, especially when it comes to the parables.
Insofar as the divine is concerned, the literal sense is no other than the spiritual
sense, because whatever is intended by God or preconceived in the divine intellect is
always the spiritual truth, be it in the form of natural law, ethical doctrine or parabolical
image. Hence a parable speaks the spiritual truth concerning God, nature, and ethics to
the same extent as other forms of expression. From the viewpoint of the divine, there is
no hierarchical distinction between natural, ethical, and spiritual truths. They all
intimately agree with the divine truth so long as they are properly understood. Here
Eckhart seems to be in open defiance against the Thomistic view, which stresses
the distinction between the literal and the spiritual sense. However, a closer
scrutiny will show that Eckhart is not simply identifying the literal sense with
the spiritual sense, nor does he intend to dissolve the scholastic ground established
by Thomas. On the contrary, he is trying to push the scholastic perspective one
step further so as to demonstrate that literal sense is fundamentally spiritual sense.
This proposition, nevertheless, is based strictly on the scholastic ground in the
sense that the identification of the literal and spiritual senses is derived from
understanding rather than from faith alone, and can be clearly demonstrated with
the aid of natural reason.
As particularly seen in his prologue to the Book of the Parables of Genesis, Eckhart
explicitly articulates the necessity to reinstate the spiritual sense at the centre of scriptural
learning. He does so, however, in accordance with the scholastic principle, and his
emphasis on the significance of parabolic expressions is mainly due to an intellectual
consideration. Eckhart’s commentary is intended to arouse deeper understanding of the
scripture in the mind of the skilled reader. Using all available means, Eckhart attempts to
prove in a sophisticated scholastic manner that it is not idle to say that the Spirit will
teach the disciple all truth (John 16:13) (see Eckhart, prologue to the Book of the
Parables of Genesis, n.2 [LW I 452]; trans. Colledge and McGinn 1981: 94).
On the grounds of scripture itself, following the Aristotelian theory that truth
lies in the intellect rather than in things, and in agreement with both Augustine
and Thomas on the point that the true sense of the words of scripture consist in the
divine intellect, Eckhart asserts that divine truth can only be taught by the Holy
Spirit, and the truth that God intends to convey by the scripture is received and
conceived nowhere but in the intellect of the reader with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Hence the reader’s understanding of the scripture entails his or her intellective
operation as well as the performance of the Holy Spirit, and on that account the
hermeneutical, the intellectual, and the spiritual issues become one. This is a
significant insight on Eckhart’s part, which has some profound implications: the
scripture should be understood rather than merely believed, thus understanding
rather than faith is at stake; to understand the scripture means to receive the divine
truth in the intellect, thus truth rather than charity, intellect rather than will is to be
focused on; and the divine truth is taught by the Holy Spirit, thus the acquisition
of truth is no less than the reception of the Spirit. To Eckhart the spiritual issue is
radically an intellectual or even hermeneutical matter, and vice versa.
Despite his identification of the spiritual sense with the literal sense, the
intellectual issue with the spiritual issue, Eckhart persistently adheres to the
Above the Literal Sense 271

scholastic standard in his practice of commentary writing. That scholastic concern

is particularly illustrated in his treatment of the parables in Genesis. In his second
commentary on Genesis, where the significance of the parabolical expression is
particularly highlighted, Eckhart insists that his commentary is to be unfolded in a
logical procedure, which comprises three steps:

1. The text itself will always be literally interpreted;

2. The things that seem to be hidden in parabolical fashion under the words of each
text will be treated in a summary and succinct way;
3. The nature and properties of the divine, natural or ethical truths contained under
the parable or surface of the letter will be explained in a more extensive way.
(Eckhart, prologue to the Book of the Parables of Genesis, n.7 [LW I 456]; trans.
Colledge and McGinn 1981: 95)

The same principle of exegesis is addressed in his commentary on Exodus, where

Eckhart claims that “sacred scripture frequently tells a story in such a way that it
also contains and suggests mysteries, teaches about the nature of things, and
directs and orders moral actions” (Eckhart, Comm. Ex., n. 211 [LW II 178]; trans.
McGinn 1986: 110). This oft-repeated hermeneutical rule makes plain Eckhart’s
attempt to ground the natural, moral, and theological truths on scripture itself, and
on that basis to reveal the agreement between three types of truths. This position
has its root in the longstanding tradition of biblical exegesis, as McGinn has
pointed out in his summary of Eckhart’s theology, whereby the division of the
inner meaning of scripture into three, namely theological, natural, and moral, is
nothing innovative, but is a traditional position first seen in Jerome. This relates
extensively to the division of science into theological, natural, and moral truth,
which probably derives from both the Aristotelian and the Platonic-Stoic tradi-
tions, as we see in the former a division of speculative philosophy into physics,
mathematics, and theology, and in the latter a division among physics, logic, and
ethics (Colledge and McGinn 1981: 29; 299–300, n.26). Throughout his commen-
taries on both the New and the Old Testaments, Eckhart shows an intention to
demonstrate the unity, coherence or even mutual complement between the three
layers of truth hidden in scripture.
Overall Eckhart ensures that all of the “unusual” or “novel” statements in his
works will gain a logical and rational demonstration in accordance with the
scholastic standard. This “unusual” or “novel” character of Eckhart’s thinking
cannot be understood without referring to the authoritative expositions provided
by earlier masters, in particular Thomas, as the theological questions that used
to puzzle Thomas continue to preoccupy Eckhart. The continuity between
Eckhart and Thomas in both speculative theology and biblical commentary
makes it absolutely necessary to cross-read between the two thinkers, if we
are to grasp the characteristic of Eckhart’s theological thinking and his unique
approach to scripture.
Admittedly, an attentive reader may spot elements of arbitrariness in Eckhart, but
those seemingly arbitrary judgements and interpretations are derived solely from a
creative dialogue with scripture which, in turn, can be justified by Eckhart’s broader
view of the literal meaning of scripture.
272 Shuhong ZHENG

5 A Comparison: Differences and Similarities between ZHU Xi

and Eckhart

Clearly the issue of hermeneutical rules, in particular the controversy surrounding the
literal sense as well as the legitimacy of innovative philosophical interpretation, is at
stake in both contexts. To both ZHU Xi and Eckhart, the problem of hermeneutics is not
the art of understanding in general, but precisely the art of understanding and
interpreting scriptures. Neither thinker shows an interest in formulating a theory about
the art of understanding in the modern sense. Since in both contexts the hermeneutical
issues are tied up with scriptural exegesis, the problem of hermeneutics in ZHU Xi and
Eckhart is largely subject to the task of commentary writing, and the hermeneutical
rules given by both thinkers are meant to provide the reader with general guidelines in
order that their philosophical interpretations will be properly understood. On the other
hand, these rules also serve to justify their own interpretations, in particular the
innovative ideas they put forward in their commentaries.
Despite such common ground, some fundamental differences are found between
ZHU Xi and Eckhart in terms of the detailed contents of the hermeneutical rules they
endorse. As the study of scriptures is conducted in different ways in the two traditions,
accordingly different questions are raised with regard to the proper way to understand
and interpret a scriptural text. The hermeneutical rules in ZHU Xi are prescribed mainly
for educational purposes, and to a great extent reflect his lifelong insistence on the
methodology of the bottom-up procedure (xiaxue shangda 下學上達). It is not hard to
see that these hermeneutical rules are meant to be practical and concrete, and will
become incomprehensible once disassociated from ZHU Xi’s own teaching experience
and exegetical practice. As a whole they speak of a practical method for scriptural
learning which, in turn, plays an essential part in the Confucian way of self-cultivation
within the Cheng-Zhu school.
Compared to ZHU Xi, Eckhart seems more concerned with the philosophical
reflections on the issue of hermeneutics in his time, such as the source of truth, the
possible growth of the meaning of a scriptural text, the spiritual and literal meaning of
words, and the compatibility between what is seen in nature, what is found in
philosophy, and what is revealed in scripture. He evidently keeps them in mind while
composing commentaries on the holy scriptures, as is seen from the fact that Eckhart
attaches a prologue to each of his commentaries, and a general prologue to his Opus
Tripartitum, each of which contains some hermeneutical rules that are designed to
account for the style of the forthcoming commentary and the innovative ideas contained
in it. Overall these rules, although they are to be applied specifically to Eckhart’s
biblical commentaries, actually reflect his solution to the aforementioned hermeneutical
difficulties, typically arising from the academic standard of scholasticism.
A cross-reading of ZHU Xi and Eckhart makes it clear that medieval Christian
theologians and Confucian masters shared a very similar academic goal, namely, to
embed independent thinking into the scriptural ground. As shown in the previous
sections, both thinkers blend philosophical ideas into a commentary on scriptural text.
Thus, in both contexts we find a tension between original thinking and traditional
doctrines, as well as the conscientious effort to ease and resolve such an unavoidable
tension. Under such an intellectual circumstance philosophical thinking is not to be
dissociated from scriptural learning, but developed almost exclusively into a
Above the Literal Sense 273

philosophical reading of a transmitted text, and in that sense philosophical

questioning is merged into the longstanding tradition of scriptural learning. In
both contexts, philosophical speculation does not stand on its own; even in
Eckhart’s scholastic quaestiones the philosophical discussions and debates are
conducted under a theological title, which is undoubtedly rooted in the Holy
Bible. To a medieval Christian theologian like Meister Eckhart and a medieval
Confucian master like ZHU Xi, it is almost a norm that one ought to think through
scriptures, and philosophical thinking should be provided with a scriptural ground;
as a result, in both the medieval Latin and the medieval Chinese world, philo-
sophical glosses were incorporated in scriptural exegeses, and philosophical inter-
pretation of scriptures were in vogue.
It must be noted that to form a scriptural commentary with the aid of philosophical
terms is much more demanding and complicated than simply constructing a systematic
philosophical or theological discourse, because the former entails persistent striving for
a balance between the passive assimilation of the scriptural meaning and the subjective
personal appropriation of scriptures, which requires original thinking and one’s unique
experiential approach. Thus in both traditions the genre of commentary calls for
mastery of scriptural knowledge as well as maturity in philosophical thinking. Unsur-
prisingly, the task of commentary writing was exclusively assigned to the most
prominent thinkers of the day.
As seen in their commentaries, both ZHU Xi and Eckhart treat scripture as the
primary authority, and also take the scholarly tradition of scriptural exegesis into
account. This is most clearly illustrated by the fact that both ZHU Xi and Eckhart
refer to the expert views of the past and present before proposing a new idea. They
both skilfully summarize the exegetical sources at their disposal and further
integrate them into their own commentaries. Through the means of writing
scriptural commentaries both ZHU Xi and Eckhart demonstrate a strong affinity
with the thinking of previous commentators in the same tradition. Through the
form of commentary ZHU Xi and Eckhart make it clear how strongly they are
affiliated with their own intellectual tradition, and how much contribution they
have made. To both ZHU Xi and Eckhart the scriptural texts upon which their
commentaries are built are sacred, in the sense that these texts have a supra-human
or divine origin. In both contexts it is seen that scripture serves to gauge personal
thinking, and a thoroughly intellectual penetration of scripture is grounded on a
firm faith in that scripture. In both traditions commentary writing effectively
fulfils the role of preserving and promoting the traditional values and fundamental
doctrines, hence inevitably it serves pedagogical purposes in the long run.
By comparison, philosophical speculation has a more significant role to play in
Eckhart’s work, especially in his quaestiones, where philosophical debate is judged on
its own merit and is allowed to run its course without being interrupted by scriptural
authority. Thanks to the intellectual climate of medieval scholasticism Eckhart enjoyed
the freedom to develop speculative theology in the form of quaestio; even biblical
commentaries find sufficient room for philosophical discussion. Moreover, Eckhart
does not set restrictions on the length of his commentaries, hence we have the extensive
commentaries in which he tries to exhaust the possible interpretations of a selected
verse, in order to deepen and broaden one’s understanding of scripture to the utmost. To
a scholastic theologian like Eckhart, pagan philosophers are no less important than
274 Shuhong ZHENG

prominent church fathers; not only was Aristotle’s work treated as canonical,32 but the
works of his Arabic commentators were also well received in the Latin world. From
Augustine to Boethius, philosophy had long been deemed an essential aid to scriptural
reading; although anti-intellectualism figures like Tertullian had their voices heard,
overall philosophical thinking continued to have a remarkable bearing on both scrip-
tural interpretation and speculative theology within the Christian tradition. With the
thriving of the scholastic movement in the 12th and 13th centuries, the vital importance
of philosophy was dramatically displayed in the form of quaestiones.
Compared with their Christian counterparts, Neo-Confucian masters like ZHU Xi
and his predecessor CHENG Yi seem to be more dubious about the role of philosophical
speculation, in spite of the fact that they engaged in philosophical debate when trying to
prove theoretically the superiority of Confucian doctrines over the teachings of Bud-
dhism and Daoism. There seems always to be an effort to maintain the purity of
Confucian doctrine, and philosophical concepts originated from other schools of
thought are treated with particular caution. Philosophical speculation does not stand
on its own; nor is it to be judged on its own merit. Accordingly, in Confucian tradition a
philosophical reading of scripture does not gain legitimacy due to its structural or
logical beauty; the conformity between the philosophical interpretation and the original
meaning of the scriptural text will be ceaselessly questioned. Indeed, the legitimacy of
ZHU Xi’s commentary is still questioned by many Confucian scholars today.
The last point I would like to make is that a comparative study of the hermeneutical
rules given by ZHU Xi and Eckhart suggests a contrast between ZHU Xi’s striving for
orthodoxy and Eckhart’s openness to diversity, which gives a hint as to the reasons why
one was canonized and the other condemned. It is beyond the scope of this paper to
look into the moral and political implications of their thoughts and to seek the reasons
for the striking difference in the posthumous dissemination of their works. Notwith-
standing all the differences regarding the historical fate of the two thinkers, points of
resemblance are detected in their exegetical works, especially in their approach to
scriptural texts and the scholarly tradition which confronted them. What they achieved
not only defies modern distinctions between philosophy, theology, and spirituality, but
compels us to probe into the primary sources and to seek a new angle and new language
to accommodate the richness of their thoughts, and hopefully to bridge the two
longstanding intellectual traditions by cross-reading of the two thinkers. By taking up
a comparative model this paper is intended to make an attempt in this direction, as a
comparative perspective not only allows us to read their works in their own contexts,
but more importantly calls for a mutual enlightenment between the two thinkers, which
makes it inevitable to break through the disciplinary distinctions as well as the cultural
boundaries we are confronted with today.

32
According to Jacqueline Hamesse’s observation, numerous theologians reacted against the new methods
employed to treat theological questions. Criticism and opposition as to Aristotelianism was extensive from the
end of the 12th century. Nevertheless, the second half of the 13th century was far from the first quarrels and
spirited reactions that took place at the beginning of the century against philosophy and in particular against
Aristotelianism. If resistance still cropped up, the context in which it arose had changed. The majority of
writings coming from theologians made room for philosophical arguments and also treated speculative
problems. The role of Aristotelianism in the apprenticeship of reason was no longer disputed. For details,
see Hamesse 2006: 21–22.
Above the Literal Sense 275

Acknowledgments This article was based on a paper presented to the 5th British Patristics Conference in
London (September 2014). I am indebted to Professor Markus Vinzent and Dr. Nicola Spanu for their
comments during the conference discussion. I am also very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for
their critical and stimulating comments on the manuscript of this article, and the part on ZHU Xi’s hermeneu-
tical rules has been substantially revised in accordance with their suggestions. This research is sponsored by
the social science project “Studies in the Four Books and the Intellectual Tradition of China” (四書學與中國思想
傳統研究 [15ZDB005]).

References

Adler, Joseph A. 2008. “ZHU Xi’s Spiritual Practice as the Basis of His Central Philosophical Concepts.” Dao:
A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 7: 57–79.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1920. Summa Theologiae. Trans. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 2nd and
rev. ed. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ (last accessed February 28, 2017).
____. 1952–1954. De Veritate. Trans. by Robert W. Mulligan, James V. McGlynn, and Robert W. Schmidt.
Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm (last accessed February 28,
2017).
Augustine. 2008. De Doctrina Christiana. Edited and trans. by R. P. H. Green. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
____. 2015. Confessions. Trans. by Edward Bouverie Pusey. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/augconf/index.
htm (last accessed February 28, 2017).
Cai, Fanglu 蔡方鹿. 2001. Researches on Chinese Scriptural Learning and Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism 中國
經學與宋明理學研究. 2 vols. Beijing 北京: Renmin Chubanshe 人民出版社.
Chan, Wing-Tsit (CHEN Rongjie) 陳榮捷. 2007. New Studies of Master Zhu 朱子新探索. Shanghai 上海:
Huadong Shifan Daxue Chubanshe 華東師範大學出版社.
Chen, Lisheng 陳立勝. 2003. “ZHU Xi’s Method of Scriptural Reading: Exegesis and Beyond Exegesis 朱子讀
書法: 詮釋與詮釋之外.” In The Method of Scriptural Exegesis in Confucianism 儒家經典詮釋方法, edited by
LI Minghui 李明輝. Taipei 台北: Ximalaya Yanjiu Fazhan Jijinhui 喜瑪拉雅研究發展基金會.
Cheng, Chung-ying. 2005. “Inquiring into the Primary Model: The Yijing and the Structure of the Chinese
Hermeneutic Tradition.” See Tu 2005.
Cheng, Hao 程顥, and CHENG Yi 程頤. 1981. Works of the Two Chengs 二程集. Beijing 北京: Zhonghua Shuju
中華書局.
Ching, Julia. 2000. Religious Thought of CHU Hsi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colledge, Edmund O. S. A., and Bernard McGinn, trans. 1981. Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons,
Commentaries, Treatises, and Defence. New Jersey: Paulist Press.
De Bary, Wm. Theodore. 1991. Learning for One’s Self: Essays on the Individual in Neo-Confucian Thought.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Duclow, Donald F. 2006. “Meister Eckhart on the Book of Wisdom: Commentary and Sermons.” In Masters
of Learned Ignorance: Eriugena, Eckhart, Cusanus, edited by Donald F. Duclow. Surrey: Ashgate.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2008. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Trans. by David Edward Linge. Berkeley / Los
Angeles / London: University of California Press.
Hamesse, Jacqueline. 2006. “Theological Quaestiones Quodlibetales.” In Theological Quodlibeta in the
Middle Ages: The Thirteenth Century, edited by Christopher Schabel. Leiden: Brill.
Huang, Junjie 黃俊傑, ed. 2008. An Initial Study of the Exegetical Tradition concerning the Four Books in
China and Japan 中日四書詮釋傳統初探. Shanghai 上海: Huadong Shifan Daxue Chubanshe 華東師範大學
出版社.
Jing, Haifeng 景海峰. 2016. “On ‘Interpreting Scriptures by Means of Commentaries’ and ‘Interpreting
Scriptures by Means of Scriptures’ 論‘以傳解經’與‘以經解經’.” Academic Journal Monthly 學術月刊 48.6:
5–12.
Kubin, Wolfgang. 2005. “Chinese ‘Hermeneutics’—A Chimera? Preliminary Remarks on Differences of
Understanding.” See Tu 2005.
Lin, Wei-chieh (LIN Weijie). 2001. Verstehen und sittliches Praxis. Ein Vergleich zwischen dem
Konfuzianismus Zhu Xis und deer philosophischen Hermeneutik Gadamers. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.
____ 林維杰. 2012. ZHU Xi and Scriptural Interpretation 朱熹與經典解釋. Shanghai 上海: Huadong Shifan
Daxue Chubanshe 華東師範大學出版社.
276 Shuhong ZHENG

Liu, Xiaogan 劉笑敢. 2009. Exegesis and Its Directional Role 詮釋與定向. Beijing 北京: Shangwu Yinshuguan
商務印書館.
Lu, Xiangshan 陸象山. 1992. The Complete Work of LU Xiangshan 陸象山全集. Beijing 北京: Zhongguo
Shudian 中國書店.
Maurer, Armand A., trans. 1974. Meister Eckhart: Parisian Questions and Prologues. Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
McGinn, Bernard, trans. 1986. Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher. New Jersey: Paulist Press.
Meister Eckhart. 1936–. Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Mainz: Hrsg. im
Auftrage der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Qian, Mu 錢穆. 1986. A New Anthology of Master Zhu 朱子新學案. 3 vols. Chengdu 成都: Bashu
Shushe 巴蜀書社.
Tu, Cheng-I, ed. 2005. Interpretation and Intellectual Change. New Brunswick and London: Transaction.
Walshe, Maurice O’C., trans. 2009. The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart. New York: The
Crossroad Publishing Company.
Weiss, Karl. 1963. “Meister Eckharts Biblische Hermeneutik.” In La mystique rhénane, edited by Université
de Strasbourg, Centre de recherches d’histoire des religions. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Winkler, Eberhard. 1965. Exegetische Methoden bei Meister Eckhart. Tübingen: Mohr.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹. 1983. Collected Commentaries on the Four Books 四書章句集註. Beijing 北京: Zhonghua Shuju
中華書局.
____. 2002. Zhuzi Quanshu 朱子全書 (Complete Works of Master Zhu). Shanghai 上海: Shanghai Guji
Chubanshe 上海古籍出版社.
Reproduced with permission of
copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.