Transcending Individual Traditions: Zhang Taiyan’s Interpretation of Zhuangzi’s Notion of Chengxin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe framing of this paper is wrong. It takes a notion from Zhuangzi, chengxin, and it then discusses how it has been interpreted by certain figures representative of Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. However, given that the paper is constructed on chengxin, it mostly presents a philosophical interpretation of it by a fellow named Zhang Taiyan, which is fine, except the author presents Zhang as something of a traditional Yogacara Buddhist; however, he appears a something of a modern scholar-philosopher. Thus, the paper should alter its framing to give Zhang more pride of place. A more appropriate title should be something like: "A Modern Philosopher's Re-Interpretation of Zhuangzi's notion of Chengxin: A Study of Zhang Taiyan." The author should give much more information about Zhang and center the paper on him. The author also talks about the value of Plato and Kant for understanding Zhang, but wasn't it Zhang himself who brought them into the picture? This is just one issue among many that can be clarified by radically altering the framework of the paper to center on Zhang.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhat the article does:
#1 The article addresses a topic of recent interest, namely the idea of the 成心 chengxin (completed-mind or fixed-mind).
#2 The article examines a series of interpretations of the chengxin: Guo Xiang’s interpretation, Cheng Xuanying’s interpretation through Buddhism, Lu Huiqin’s interpretation through Neo-Confucianism, and Lin Xiyin’s interpretation through Neo-Confucianism.
#3 The article presents and summarizes Zhang interpolation of Yogacara Buddhism and Kantian idealism.
#4 The article presents and summarizes Zhang’s interpretation of the chengxin using Kantian Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism.
#5 The article presents and summarizes Zhang’s interpretation of tian ni “heavenly distinctions” using Kantian Idealism and Yogacara Buddhism.
#6 The article proposes adapting Zhang’s interpretation of the chengxin for better resolution of contemporary philosophical debates.
Reader impressions
#1 The review to Zhang’s syncretistic interpretation is clear and well-organized.
# 2 The article is largely a summary of Zhang’s interpretations and does not critically engage with Zhang’s interpretations, which are highly controversial.
General Concerns:
1: The role of prior interpretations in the argument:
The article needs to establish why prior interpretations of the heart-mind are insufficient. What is particularly missing or wrong with Guo Xiang’s interpretation? The article claims that Zhang Taiyan’s interpretation resolves contradictions and shortcomings of prior interpretations. But the author seems to use the idea of contradictions very broadly, more in the sense that there are different interpretations, as opposed to specific competing claims that are mutually incompatible. The presence of different interpretations is no surprise, and that there should be differences is no surprise. But the author needs to more strongly demonstrate that these different interpretations are a problem. This is particularly an issue given the author’s stance that the Zhuangzi does not advance propositional claims and instead presents open-ended poetic discourse. Given the author’s position on the text, it seems only natural that a variety of interpretations would spring from the text. So the author’s claims that Zhang’s interpretation resolves the problems of earlier translations is simultaneously weak (from lack showing how earlier interpretations are actually a problem) while also being overly ambitious (by trying to posit an interpretation that resolves the fundamental poetic ambiguities of the text). There are other possible ways to approach Zhuangzi, but the author’s commitment to non-propositional discourse in the text creates a problem for proposing any one interpretation resolves the problems of others.
#2 Establishing a problem within the text of the Zhuangzi:
The article needs to establish why the Zhang Taiyan’s interpretation is useful for better understanding issues within Zhuangzi. What problem in the text of the Zhuangzi is being addressed by the Yogacara interpretation? And how does a Yogacara interpretation resolve that problem more convincingly than prior interpretations?
#3 Lack of Critical Engagement with Zhang:
The article is largely a summary of Zhang’s ideas and does not critically evaluate Zhang’s interpretation. It should be noted that Zhang's interpretations of Yogacara Buddhism using Kantian idealism is controversial and will be strongly critiqued by contemporary Yogacara scholarship. It should further be noted that Zhang's interpretation of Zhuangzi's chengxin using Kantian-infused Yogacara Buddhism is highly controversial. Contemporary Zhuangzi scholarship will lagely reject any appeal to "innate ideas," either in the chengxin or tian ni.
#4 Lack of engagement with contemporary scholarship:
The article does not engage contemporary scholarship in Yogacara Buddhism or Zhuangzi studies. Contemporary scholarship in Yogacara Buddhism will largely reject Zhang’s appeal to Kantian idealism. Contemporary scholarship on Zhuangzi will reject Zhuang’s interpretation of the chengxin as “innate ideas,” particularly when connected to the idea of tian ni as heavenly distinctions present within the chengxin.
#5 Contemporary application:
If the article seeks to apply Zhang's theories to contemporary discourse, there are immediate problems stemming from Zhang's interpretation of Zhuangzi. Most notably Zhang's argument in turning to chengxin as a form of heavenly distinction that resolves conflicts. Trying to appeal to "innate ideas" seems to run directly contrary to Zhuangzi's own advice, and Zhuangzi's diagnosis of shi/fei judgments as preconditions of disputation, which leads to strife and conflict. Given the controversies surrounding Zhang’s interpretations this reader finds Zhang’s relevance to contemporary discourse challenging at best.
Overall Recommendation:
This reader finds the article's philosophical argument (that Zhang's ideas can be used to better resolve disputes in contemporary discourse) to be generic and unconvincing. It might be easier to abandon this framework, which seems mostly relegated to the conclusion. It might be far more interesting for the author to demonstrate the relationship of Zhang's interpretation to other areas of his writings or life activities. Or, the author might consider historic responses to Zhang's interpretations. How did Zhang's contemporaries respond to his interpretation? Was this consistent with responses to his other writings? Why or why not?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has done a fine job or revising and restructuring the paper.
The paper can go forward, but the author might also consider adding more details about Zhang and incorporating more secondary scholarship on him and his views, if such works exist. But the paper is fine as is.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe author has done a fine job or revising and restructuring the paper.
The paper can go forward, but the author might also consider adding more details about Zhang and incorporating more secondary scholarship on him and his views, if such works exist. But the paper is fine as is.
Author Response
Comments 1:
The author has done a fine job or revising and restructuring the paper.
The paper can go forward, but the author might also consider adding more details about Zhang and incorporating more secondary scholarship on him and his views, if such works exist. But the paper is fine as is.
Response 1:
Thank you for the positive feedback and for considering my revisions. I genuinely appreciate your suggestions. In response, I have enriched the section on Zhang Taiyan by incorporating additional details (indicated in red) and integrating secondary scholarship (please refer to section 3.1, "Zhang Taiyan and his Qiwulun Shi"). Given the article's focus on the Qiwulun Shi, I have expanded the range of research discussed, adding new references (highlighted in red), including English, Chinese, and Korean language works that specifically address this topic. I hope these additions will provide a more nuanced understanding and a broader scholarly context for Zhang Taiyan's work.
Comments 2: Minor editing of English language required.
Response 2: Thank you for the reminder. I have meticulously proofread the article to ensure clarity and accuracy in the language. If there are any specific areas that still require further refinement, please feel free to point them out, and I will address them accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsChanges:
The reviewer noted the following changes in the article:
- Lines 4-21 Revised Abstract.
- Lines 58-74 Revised Introduction.
- Lines 236-285 Role of Yogacara Buddhism in Chinese scholarship, Zhang’s method of geyi.
Lines 304-317 Alaya-vijnana in Yogacara.
Lines 396-444 Comparison of Zhang vs Daoist Interpretations.
Very nice use of sources in this section.
Lines 520-574 Comparison of Zhang vs Confucian Interpretations.
Lines 622-799 Criticisms and Implications.
Lines 800-828 Revised Conclusion.
Response:
This reviewer is extremely impressed with the revised article. The revised article is excellently structured, and the additions create a full and fascinating discussion of chengxin. Examining the differences between Zhang's view versus Daoist and Neoconfucian views provides valuable analysis, and adds to the understanding of Zhang's view. The addition of the critical analysis of Zhang's work is extremely benefcial, as this explains the reception of Zhang's work, putting Zhang into a larger conversation. This helps expand the role of geyi in the article, which further increases the value of the research and scholarship. Seeing Zhang's approach in addition to the critical response helps the reader better understand and appreciate Zhang's method. This reviewer would absolutely recommend this article or cite this article in research for serveral reasons: as a review of chengxin interpretation; as a source of information on Zhang Taiyan; and as an explanation of Zhang's interpretation method.
Suggestions:
The reviewer only has two very minor suggestions. I leave these up to the author if they wish to make these changes.
Line 61: On one hand
Line 63: On the other hand
Line 717: Instead of "existential implications" use "epistemological implications".
Conclusions
The reviewer is deeply impressed with the work and finds the work immensely interesting. Reframing the scholarship in the historic context and adding the critical analysis makes this article both rich in detal and highly valuable as a resource on Zhang Taiyan. The reviewer greatly appreciates the author's work and effort.
Author Response
Comments 1:
The reviewer only has two very minor suggestions. I leave these up to the author if they wish to make these changes.
Line 61: On one hand
Line 63: On the other hand
Line 717: Instead of "existential implications" use "epistemological implications".
Response 1:
I have implemented the recommended changes according to your guidance. I appreciate your meticulous attention to detail and your valuable input. Thank you for your generous feedback and encouragement. Your recognition of my efforts is truly motivating.
