This article provides a translation with commentary of the key parts of the Book of Han (Hanshu) concerning the reforms of the state cults during the reign of Chengdi (32-7 BC). The translated texts represent a substantial source on the form of, and ideology underlying state-sponsored religious rites in early imperial China. The translated debates demonstrate the controversy between partisans of the traditional view on the meaning and form of the rites, and the reformers (though the latter likewise present their case as a return to ancient models attested in the Classics). The traditional view of the religious rites holds that the rites should be conducted at the place where the gods themselves appear (the humans respond to the gods' actions). The reformists, on the other hand, set a universal rational framework (based on yinyang classification), which prescribes the proper way of revelation and sacrifice for both the humans and the gods. Furthermore, the debates are an interesting testimony to the identity of Confucianism in the given period. The rationalization of religious rites promoted by the reformists is usually associated with Confucianism. However, in these debates we find famous Confucians in both camps.
This paper proposes a reading strategy for the Zhuangzi based on the distinction between "conceptual framework" and "argument". It is argued that one conceptual framework can accommodate various arguments; conceptual frameworks are not the focus of the text – they consist of literary devices (shared vocabulary and terminology, literary topoi, narrative structures and topics) that are used in the text to form specific arguments. The paper opposes those approaches to the Zhuangzi which present the text (or a part of it) as a unified philosophical vision. The paper argues that every attempt to read the Zhuangzi as one philosophy (to translate the multi-faceted text into a philosophical treatise) is reductionist; it achieves philosophical coherence at the cost of sacrificing the richness of meaning we find in the text. One specific "conceptual framework" is analysed in this paper – the dichotomy of "heaven" and "man". "Heaven" represents a cosmic power that can be adopted by human beings so that the human can fulfil his natural potential and live better (or more effectively) than within the confines of human society ("man"). The paper analyses a number of instances of the dichotomy in the Zhuangzi and shows that the dichotomy (a conceptual framework) is used differently in various contexts in the Zhuangzi and accommodates diverse arguments.
The article analyses one of the central ideas of the Laozi – the Sage as an ideal ruler – as it is viewed in three traditional commentaries to the text: Wang Bi's, Heshang gong's and the Xiang er. It focuses on two interrelated aspects of the idea – self-cultivation and political competence. All three commentaries view political competence as a result of self-cultivation. The article analyses differing interpretations of this idea in these three texts. In Wang Bi's and Heshang gong's commentaries the Laozi's political conception is regarded as the main import of the text. In spite of this, it is demonstrated that the implied reading of the text does not focus on politics but on self-cultivation, however differently viewed. The same focus is explicit in the Xiang er commentary. It is concluded that the Laozi's political message was in fact not the main motivation for these readings of the text. Instead, the commentaries read the text in context of differing concepts of self-cultivation, specific for the different social environments where these commentaries were written. The concept of the Sage's rule remains one of the principal topics in the commentaries but it is no longer crucial for their implied reading.