BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN CHAN BUDDHISM AND CONFUCIANISM: A COMPARATIVE HERMENEUTICS OF QISONG'S <i>ESSAYS ON ASSISTING THE TEACHING</i>. By DianaArghirescu. World Philosophies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2022. Pp. xii + 297. Hardback, $90

This volume explores the relatively understudied philosophy of Qìsōng 契嵩 (1007–1072) through his work Fǔ jiào biān 輔教編 (Essays on Assisting the Teaching). Arghirescu's translation of fǔ jiào 輔教 as “Assisting the Teaching” is more precise than the alternative translation “Defending Buddhism.” This reflects Qìsōng's non-sectarian approach; the Teaching here is not exclusively Buddhist. While he presented Buddhism as encompassing a more complete (rooted in the individual and inward) moral transformation than the Confucian method of collective and external social change, he saw Buddhism as a complementary force rather than an opposition to Confucianism. The employment of classical Confucian language and terminology to refer to Chán Buddhism serves to underscore the fact that this is a dialogue between two traditions of Chinese philosophy and religion. In the initial chapter, Arghirescu points to Qìsōng's distinction between the Buddhist laity and the “clergy” (referring to ordained Buddhists, the term “clergy” is somewhat misleading). This discussion focuses on the teachings for the laity, namely the Five Precepts (wǔjiè 五戒) and the Ten Goods (shíshàn 十善), which are analyzed as reinforcing the Confucian Five Constant Virtues (wǔcháng 五常) in everyday life. Chapter Two presents Qìsōng‘s interpretation of Confucian moral concepts within the context of Buddhist spirituality. The middle (zhōng 中) signifies not only an impartial disposition, but also an awareness of the non-duality of the universal principle. The realization of the heart-mind (xīn 心), reinterpreted as (Buddha) nature (xìng 性), denotes the fulfillment of sincerity (chéng 誠). Qìsōng extended his conceptual reinterpretations, explained in the next chapter, to illustrate how Buddhism can assist Confucianism's doctrinal limitations (being constrained to the present life and external effects). Chapter Four addresses the notion of filiality. It is not only to “repay the debt” (which I suggest be rendered as “to return the favors”) to one's parents (bào fùmǔ 報父母) but also to express the appreciation of all sentient beings according to the interrelatedness espoused in the Chán worldview. The final three chapters provide additional insight into Qìsōng's novel interpretations of Buddhist spiritual concepts and their moral implications that contribute to the improvement of social welfare, a primary concern of Confucianism. This book is a valuable reference point for examining the interaction between Sinicized Buddhism and Confucianism in the period preceding the establishment of the identity of Neo-Confucianism during the Sòng dynasty (960–1279).