The Way to Achieve “This Culture of Ours”: An Investigation Based on the Viewpoints of Pre-Qin Confucianism and Song Confucianism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, the two terms in the title “Pre-Qin Confucianists and Neo-Confucianism” do not correspond; consider the following: “Pre-Qin Confucianists and Neo-Confucianists” or “Pre-Qin Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism.”

Second, the author appears to lack familiarity with the English expressions or translations of some Chinese terms or concepts, evident in the abstract of the paper. For instance, the Chinese term “先秦儒学” is usually rendered as “Pre-Qin,” not pre Qin (see lines 6 and 11). Similarly, the Chinese term “宋代新儒学” is usually translated as “Neo-Confucianism,” not “New Confucianism” or “Neo Confucianism.” Additionally, in line 11, the Chinese concept of “心” must be translated as “heart-mind” rather than simply “heart.”

Third, the major problem of the paper is that the choice of the research object is somewhat arbitrary. According to the subject of the paper, it is possible to represent Pre-Qin Confucianism, but there seems to be no explanation for focusing only on Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism. The author mentions, “They emphasized the necessity of learning classics and then writing articles to get closer to the hearts of sages, and then to build a cultural community together.” But it must not be ignored that the Han and Tang Confucians also emphasize the necessity of learning classics and then writing articles to get closer to the hearts of sages, and then to build a cultural community together. Moreover, why only emphasize Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism and not Ming dynasty Confucianism? One of the reasons why the author is influenced by Modern New Confucianism and neglects Han and Tang Confucianism is that the author refers to Liu Shuxian’s view on the three phases of Confucianism. In fact, the idea of the three phases of Confucianism is not original to Liu but is the original theory of Mou Zongsan. Liu was merely influenced by Mou. 

Fourth, another major with the paper is its limited relevance to the theme of the special issue of the journal, which focuses on exploring the relationship between the community and the individual. As a result, the paper does not effectively contribute to the intended aim or goal of this particular journal issue.

Finally, the paper has some technical errors. For instance, there is a minor problem in citing the Complete Works of Zhuzi 《朱子全书》; on pages 9 and 10 of the paper, it should be Book 21, not Vol. 21. On page 11, the direct quotation from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi 《朱子语类》 does not indicate the specific source. It is unclear why the line numbering only starts on page 5 of the paper. The page numbers of the first five pages are also not indicated. 

First, the two terms in the title “Pre-Qin Confucianists and Neo-Confucianism” do not correspond; consider the following: “Pre-Qin Confucianists and Neo-Confucianists” or “Pre-Qin Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism.”

Second, the author appears to lack familiarity with the English expressions or translations of some Chinese terms or concepts, evident in the abstract of the paper. For instance, the Chinese term “先秦儒学” is usually rendered as “Pre-Qin,” not pre Qin (see lines 6 and 11). Similarly, the Chinese term “宋代新儒学” is usually translated as “Neo-Confucianism,” not “New Confucianism” or “Neo Confucianism.” Additionally, in line 11, the Chinese concept of “心” must be translated as “heart-mind” rather than simply “heart.”

Third, the major problem of the paper is that the choice of the research object is somewhat arbitrary. According to the subject of the paper, it is possible to represent Pre-Qin Confucianism, but there seems to be no explanation for focusing only on Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism. The author mentions, “They emphasized the necessity of learning classics and then writing articles to get closer to the hearts of sages, and then to build a cultural community together.” But it must not be ignored that the Han and Tang Confucians also emphasize the necessity of learning classics and then writing articles to get closer to the hearts of sages, and then to build a cultural community together. Moreover, why only emphasize Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism and not Ming dynasty Confucianism? One of the reasons why the author is influenced by Modern New Confucianism and neglects Han and Tang Confucianism is that the author refers to Liu Shuxian’s view on the three phases of Confucianism. In fact, the idea of the three phases of Confucianism is not original to Liu but is the original theory of Mou Zongsan. Liu was merely influenced by Mou. 

Fourth, another major with the paper is its limited relevance to the theme of the special issue of the journal, which focuses on exploring the relationship between the community and the individual. As a result, the paper does not effectively contribute to the intended aim or goal of this particular journal issue.

Finally, the paper has some technical errors. For instance, there is a minor problem in citing the Complete Works of Zhuzi 《朱子全书》; on pages 9 and 10 of the paper, it should be Book 21, not Vol. 21. On page 11, the direct quotation from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi 《朱子语类》 does not indicate the specific source. It is unclear why the line numbering only starts on page 5 of the paper. The page numbers of the first five pages are also not indicated. 

Author Response

Point 1: The two terms in the title “Pre-Qin Confucianists and Neo-Confucianism” do not correspond; consider the following: “Pre-Qin Confucianists and Neo-Confucianists” or “Pre-Qin Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism.”

Response 1: The two terms in the title “Pre-Qin Confucianists and Neo-Confucianism” do not correspond indeed. I have corrected the two terms to“Pre-Qin Confucianism and  Song Confucianism.”

Point 2: The author appears to lack familiarity with the English expressions or translations of some Chinese terms or concepts, evident in the abstract of the paper. For instance, the Chinese term “先秦儒学” is usually rendered as “Pre-Qin,” not pre Qin (see lines 6 and 11). Similarly, the Chinese term “宋代新儒学” is usually translated as “Neo-Confucianism,” not “New Confucianism” or “Neo Confucianism.” Additionally, in line 11, the Chinese concept of “心” must be translated as “heart-mind” rather than simply “heart.”

Response 2: I have corrected “pre Qin” to “Pre-Qin”(see lines 6 and 11). Similarly, I have corrected “New Confucianism” or “Neo Confucianism” to “Neo-Confucianism” of the whole paper. Additionally, in line 11, I have corrected “heart” to “heart-mind”.

Point 3: The major problem of the paper is that the choice of the research object is somewhat arbitrary. According to the subject of the paper, it is possible to represent Pre-Qin Confucianism, but there seems to be no explanation for focusing only on Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism. The author mentions, “They emphasized the necessity of learning classics and then writing articles to get closer to the hearts of sages, and then to build a cultural community together.” But it must not be ignored that the Han and Tang Confucians also emphasize the necessity of learning classics and then writing articles to get closer to the hearts of sages, and then to build a cultural community together. Moreover, why only emphasize Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism and not Ming dynasty Confucianism? One of the reasons why the author is influenced by Modern New Confucianism and neglects Han and Tang Confucianism is that the author refers to Liu Shuxian’s view on the three phases of Confucianism. In fact, the idea of the three phases of Confucianism is not original to Liu but is the original theory of Mou Zongsan. Liu was merely influenced by Mou.

Response 3: The choice of the research object is not arbitrary. Quite the contrary, it is on purpose. The number of words in a submitted paper is limited. Under this premise, I would like to select what I think is the most typical object to study the topic of "斯文".Mou Zongsan's theory of the three periods of Confucianism was indeed earlier than Liu Shuxian's. But the more important thing is actually the earlier Wang Guowei王国维. In his article "Philosophy Discrimination"(zhexuebianhuo,哲学辨惑), he especially emphasized that philosophy is an inherent Chinese learning. In this article, he only discussed the Six Classics of the Pre-Qin period and the theory of Confucianism in the Song Dynasty, and said that the theory of the Six Classics and Confucianism in the Song Dynasty has achieved in-depth philosophical issues. The interpretation of "斯文" in this article is also the first choice of these two cases with the most philosophical depth to discuss the community of "文" as a topic with philosophical significance. I have added this clarification to the paper and have changed the Neo-Confucianism in the title to Song Confucianism. This will be more clear and accurate.

Point 4: The paper limited relevance to the theme of the special issue of the journal, which focuses on exploring the relationship between the community and the individual. As a result, the paper does not effectively contribute to the intended aim or goal of this particular journal issue.

Response 4: Certainly, the theme of the special issue of the journal was focuses on exploring the relationship between the community and the individual. This theme itself has a diverse nature, and there is no absolute monotonous standard to frame what content is considered to be in line with this theme. So why "this is our culture" not an important relevance to the theme? Everyone's compassion, polite behavior, and cultural literacy are important factors for the practice of a civilized community. The classics carrying the way of saints can be learned and practiced by more people. This is also an important way to realize a civilized society from individuals to communities.This is the main argument why this paper is exactly relevant to the theme of the special issue.

Point 5: The paper has some technical errors. For instance, there is a minor problem in citing the Complete Works of Zhuzi 《朱子全书》; on pages 9 and 10 of the paper, it should be Book 21, not Vol. 21. On page 11, the direct quotation from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi 《朱子语类》 does not indicate the specific source. It is unclear why the line numbering only starts on page 5 of the paper. The page numbers of the first five pages are also not indicated.

Response 5: The technical errors with citations that pointed out at Point 5 have all been corrected. “It is unclear why the line numbering only starts on page 5 of the paper. The page numbers of the first five pages are also not indicated.” I also unclear and try to correct it, but it seems not work well by my computer’s word technical system. It may looking forward to the editor for this paper to try how could make this problem. Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

The term New-Confucianism is used to describe 20th and 21st century developments. Song dynasty Lixue is referred to as Neo-Confucianism, or Daoxue or Lixue, not New-Confucianism.  Both expressions are used to describe Song Confucianism.

Why use the term "instincts" it is a technical biological term, and it is generally accepted that human instances are merely the fear of falling and fear of loud noises. Humans don't build nests like birds. 

Why not use the traditional term xing 性？I'd suggest you use xing to talk about human nature rather than instincts.

Why "our culture"? Confucianism has become a global religio-philosophy; it has especially influenced Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Manchu, Mongolian and other cultures. Confucianism is a global phenomenon; why do you want to only focus on "your culture?" This could be fixed by proposing that Confucianism has created a new trans-cultural "cultural". Otherwise promoting the idea of "our culture" as only being Chinese Confucianism reads like empty nationalism.

Does the Journal style require Italics on Romanized terms?

In this statement consider translating 教 as education instead of teaching in this statement on p. 2  wenzhijiaohua 文治教化 (governance of wen and transforming through EDUCATION).

LINE 256 claims that the six art and the six classics are the same. But there is no book of archery. there is a recent article in Early China that clearly shows that there never was a book of music despite the few later references to a lost book of music.

The grammar in the notes needs work, especially notes 1 and 5 have missing words or poor syntax.

Ames is in note 1 but his book is NOT listed in the references.

The References are not in alphabetical order.

run a grammar check.

fix wording in notes, especially 1 and 5.

Author Response

Point 1: The term New-Confucianism is used to describe 20th and 21st century developments. Song dynasty Lixue is referred to as Neo-Confucianism, or Daoxue or Lixue, not New-Confucianism.  Both expressions are used to describe Song Confucianism.

Response 1: This point is very important, thank you. I have changed the term New-Confucianism to Song Confucianism. The title also be corrected.

Point 2: Why not use the traditional term xing 性？I'd suggest you use xing to talk about human nature rather than instincts.

Response 2: I have corrected the term “instincts” at the first page to “xing” as a tranditional term.

Point 3: Why "our culture"? Confucianism has become a global religio-philosophy; it has especially influenced Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Manchu, Mongolian and other cultures. Confucianism is a global phenomenon; why do you want to only focus on "your culture?" This could be fixed by proposing that Confucianism has created a new trans-cultural "cultural". Otherwise promoting the idea of "our culture" as only being Chinese Confucianism reads like empty nationalism.

Response 3: First of all, the translation “this culture of ours” comes from Prof. Peter K. and Prof. Ames, Roger T. The reason why I agree with this translation is because this "ours" has a worldwide meaning in today's era. This "ours" refers to a community with a shared future for mankind all over the world, not a nationalistic "ours". I have added this clarification into the paper in order to avoid misunderstandings by readers.

Point 4: Does the Journal style require Italics on Romanized terms?

Response 4: Maybe yes. This has to require the editor to confirm. Please.

Point 5: In this statement consider translating 教 as education instead of teaching in this statement on p. 2  wenzhijiaohua 文治教化 (governance of wen and transforming through EDUCATION).

Response 5: All “teaching” in this paper have been corrected as “education”. That's pretty accurate. Thanks.

Point 6: LINE 256 claims that the six art and the six classics are the same. But there is no book of archery. there is a recent article in Early China that clearly shows that there never was a book of music despite the few later references to a lost book of music.

Response 6: Yes, I agree with the points in the article you mentioned. On line 256, I quoted the statement in Han Shu and respected the meaning of the original text.

Point 7: The grammar in the notes needs work, especially notes 1 and 5 have missing words or poor syntax.

Response 7: I have made grammatical corrections to notes 1 and 5. If there still have grammatical problems in notes 1 and 5, they are the original texts of the references.

Point 8: Ames is in note 1 but his book is NOT listed in the references.

Response 8: This problem has corrected.

Point 9: The References are not in alphabetical order.

Response 9: This problem has corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

As a whole the English is well done, with just a couple of errors which I have highlighted in attached file. One of the more interesting aspects of this article was the ways in which some Chinese ideograms were translated into English, using translations that are not customary. I actually these translations were "good" (and even "better" than the traditional versions), but I think a few words to explain why these particular translations were chosen would be helpful.  I have indicated these clearly in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See the above and the attached file. As a whole the English is well done, with just a couple of errors which I have highlighted in attached file.

Author Response

Point 1: As a whole the English is well done, with just a couple of errors which I have highlighted in attached file.

Response 1: I have corrected the errors which highlighted in attached file. I also changed "philosophical terms" to "the Chinese language". It is very exactly.

Point 2: One of the more interesting aspects of this article was the ways in which some Chinese ideograms were translated into English, using translations that are not customary. I actually these translations were "good" (and even "better" than the traditional versions), but I think a few words to explain why these particular translations were chosen would be helpful.  I have indicated these clearly in the attached file.

Response 2: “A speech given by the Duke Xiang of Shan 单襄公 gives us a “list of virtues” (demu 德目) that was popular at his time, which included the virtue of “reverence” (jing 敬), “good faith” (zhong 忠), “trustworthiness” (xin 信), “consummate conduct” (ren 仁), “optimal appropriateness” (yi 义), “wisdom” (zhi 智), and “courage” (yong 勇).” In these part, actually I have used the translations that are not customary. In fact, these concepts such as jing 敬zhong 忠xin 信ren 仁yi 义zhi 智yong 勇 do not have a fixed or single word meaning, which is also the special charm of Chinese concepts. The reason why I used a more personal way to translate(such as choosing “good faith” for 忠） is due to my tendency to understand the original text from the Duke Xiang of Shan 单襄公. I think that the translations of these concepts do not have a standard best translating method. Every translator has his own interpretations and preferences. So I also respect different translations. Thank you very much for your kind and careful handwritten comments in the attached file.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As the reviewer, I am generally satisfied with the author’s response to the initial review comments and suggestions. However, the author did not respond to the last suggestion or observation I previously indicated, i.e., “On page 11, the direct quotation from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi 《朱子语类》 does not indicate the specific source.” I must point out that there are two quotations from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi on that page, lines 296-297 and 307-308, and line 188 on page 5. I think this type of direct quotation should indicate the page number/s. Furthermore, I present additional comments and suggestions. 

First, Title The Way to Achieve “This Culture of Ours”: An Investigation Based on the Viewpoints of Pre-Qin Confucianism and Song Confucianism is the title of the paper. I can’t figure out how the word “Title” serves any purpose. Could it be a typographical error that needs to be deleted?

Second, (论语 Analects 9.5) on page 1 should be ( Analects 论语 9.5). For the sake of style and uniformity, the Chinese characters should be placed after the English translation (e.g. Analects 论语). Please check other instances in the paper. For example, the Book of Changes《周易》on the same page, Analects《论语》 and Shiji《诗经》on page 2, Tianyun of Zhuangzi《庄子·天运》on page 5, etc.

Third, there is a note pertaining to Aristotle’s Politics on page 5, line 197. This source is not indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Fourth, the substantial quotation from  The Yiwen zhi of the Hanshu《汉书·艺文志》in lines 246-254 on page 6 should be annotated and indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Fifth, direct quotations (especially substantial quotations) from The Collected Works of Zhoudunyi《周敦颐集》, The Collected Works of Zhangzai《张载集》and The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》should indicate the page number/s. This is similar to the author’s citation of Zhuzi Quanshu 《朱子全书》, which indicated the page number/s. Moreover, the《二程遗书》cited on page 3, lines 87-91, must be a part of  The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》. If the citation originates from a single-volume version of the  Ercheng Yishu《二程遗书》, it should be properly indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Sixth, it seems that the reference entries pertaining to the works of Herbert Fingarette and Wu Xiaofeng are not in correct format. Additionally, the format of Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note is also not correct.

Seventh, there are translations of substantial passages originating from the Commentary on  Zhouyi 《易传》 on page 1,  Zhuangzi《庄子》 on page 2, and  Guoyu《国语》 on page 3. Are these the author’s translations or are they based on something? If the latter, perhaps there should be an annotation. 

Eighth, on page 4, there seems to be a confusion regarding the pinyin of the 《论语集释》(Lunyu Jishi), which is 《论语集解》(Lunyu Jijie). Please clarify. Also, should the book be indicated in the references section?

Ninth, on page 5, lines 176-177, it is stated that: “Regarding the ‘wende 文德’ of the ‘kun 坤’ hexagram, Zhang Zai said in the HengquYishuo I that the de of platitude and compliance is not isolated.” Is the “I” a typographical error?

Tenth, from the point of view of philosophy, 4 . Concrete ways of realizing “this culture of ours”: the theory and practice of Song dynasty Confucians, this section seems to discuss only the theory of Song Confucianism but not the practice. 

Eleventh, “wen is identical to dao 文就是道” reflects the Song Confucian tradition of exploring knowledge(daowenxue 道问学), while Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism has a large number of discussions of criticizing the six classics, which is a direct challenge to your argument. For example, Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism proposed the dross theory of the six classics(liujingzaopolun 六经糟粕论). Unfortunately, the paper ignores this line of reasoning, which is clearly unfavorable to you.

As the reviewer, I am generally satisfied with the author’s response to the initial review comments and suggestions. However, the author did not respond to the last suggestion or observation I previously indicated, i.e., “On page 11, the direct quotation from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi 《朱子语类》 does not indicate the specific source.” I must point out that there are two quotations from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi on that page, lines 296-297 and 307-308, and line 188 on page 5. I think this type of direct quotation should indicate the page number/s. Furthermore, I present additional comments and suggestions. 

First, Title The Way to Achieve “This Culture of Ours”: An Investigation Based on the Viewpoints of Pre-Qin Confucianism and Song Confucianism is the title of the paper. I can’t figure out how the word “Title” serves any purpose. Could it be a typographical error that needs to be deleted?

Second, (论语 Analects 9.5) on page 1 should be ( Analects 论语 9.5). For the sake of style and uniformity, the Chinese characters should be placed after the English translation (e.g. Analects 论语). Please check other instances in the paper. For example, the Book of Changes《周易》on the same page, Analects《论语》 and Shiji《诗经》on page 2, Tianyun of Zhuangzi《庄子·天运》on page 5, etc.

Third, there is a note pertaining to Aristotle’s Politics on page 5, line 197. This source is not indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Fourth, the substantial quotation from  The Yiwen zhi of the Hanshu《汉书·艺文志》in lines 246-254 on page 6 should be annotated and indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Fifth, direct quotations (especially substantial quotations) from The Collected Works of Zhoudunyi《周敦颐集》, The Collected Works of Zhangzai《张载集》and The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》should indicate the page number/s. This is similar to the author’s citation of Zhuzi Quanshu 《朱子全书》, which indicated the page number/s. Moreover, the《二程遗书》cited on page 3, lines 87-91, must be a part of  The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》. If the citation originates from a single-volume version of the  Ercheng Yishu《二程遗书》, it should be properly indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Sixth, it seems that the reference entries pertaining to the works of Herbert Fingarette and Wu Xiaofeng are not in correct format. Additionally, the format of Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note is also not correct.

Seventh, there are translations of substantial passages originating from the Commentary on  Zhouyi 《易传》 on page 1,  Zhuangzi《庄子》 on page 2, and  Guoyu《国语》 on page 3. Are these the author’s translations or are they based on something? If the latter, perhaps there should be an annotation. 

Eighth, on page 4, there seems to be a confusion regarding the pinyin of the 《论语集释》(Lunyu Jishi), which is 《论语集解》(Lunyu Jijie). Please clarify. Also, should the book be indicated in the references section?

Ninth, on page 5, lines 176-177, it is stated that: “Regarding the ‘wende 文德’ of the ‘kun 坤’ hexagram, Zhang Zai said in the HengquYishuo I that the de of platitude and compliance is not isolated.” Is the “I” a typographical error?

Tenth, from the point of view of philosophy, 4 . Concrete ways of realizing “this culture of ours”: the theory and practice of Song dynasty Confucians, this section seems to discuss only the theory of Song Confucianism but not the practice. 

Eleventh, “wen is identical to dao 文就是道” reflects the Song Confucian tradition of exploring knowledge(daowenxue 道问学), while Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism has a large number of discussions of criticizing the six classics, which is a direct challenge to your argument. For example, Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism proposed the dross theory of the six classics(liujingzaopolun 六经糟粕论). Unfortunately, the paper ignores this line of reasoning, which is clearly unfavorable to you.

Author Response

First of all: As the reviewer, I am generally satisfied with the author’s response to the initial review comments and suggestions. However, the author did not respond to the last suggestion or observation I previously indicated, i.e., “On page 11, the direct quotation from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi 《朱子语类》 does not indicate the specific source.” I must point out that there are two quotations from the Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi on that page, lines 296-297 and 307-308, and line 188 on page 5. I think this type of direct quotation should indicate the page number/s. Furthermore, I present additional comments and suggestions.  

Response: Thank you for your careful review comments. Page numbers(lines 296-297 and 307-308, and line 188 on page 5) have been added to the places you pointed out. The quotation of lines 296-297 is from Zhou Dunyi(line 277:“Using wen to convey dao is like using a cart to carry goods.”). Zhu Xi just followed and borrowed Zhou Dunyi and his provenance is noted on the lines 293-294. I checked the contexts of this paragraph, and where the source is not clearly marked, the page numbers have been added.

Point 1: First, Title The Way to Achieve “This Culture of Ours”: An Investigation Based on the Viewpoints of Pre-Qin Confucianism and Song Confucianism is the title of the paper. I can’t figure out how the word “Title” serves any purpose. Could it be a typographical error that needs to be deleted?

Response 1: I have deleted the word “Title”.Thanks for your correction.

Point 2: Second, (论语 Analects 9.5) on page 1 should be ( Analects 论语 9.5). For the sake of style and uniformity, the Chinese characters should be placed after the English translation (e.g. Analects 论语). Please check other instances in the paper. For example, the Book of Changes《周易》on the same page, Analects《论语》 and Shiji《诗经》on page 2, Tianyun of Zhuangzi《庄子·天运》on page 5, etc.

Response 2: I have corrected (论语 Analects 9.5) to  (Analects 论语 9.5). Similarly, I have also corrected the Book of Changes《周易》on the same page, Analects《论语》 and Shiji《诗经》on page 2, Tianyun of Zhuangzi《庄子·天运》on page 5 and this kind of problems of the whole paper. Thanks for your correction.

Point 3: Third, there is a note pertaining to Aristotle’s Politics on page 5, line 197. This source is not indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Response 3: The source of Aristotle’s Politics on page 5, line 197 has been added in the references at the end of the paper. And the page number also has been added.

Point 4: Fourth, the substantial quotation from The Yiwen zhi of the Hanshu《汉书·艺文志》in lines 246-254 on page 6 should be annotated and indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Response 4: The page number and substantial quotation from The Yiwen zhi艺文志 of the Hanshu汉书has been added. The source of Hanshu also has been added in the references at the end of the paper. Thanks for your correction.

Point 5: Fifth, direct quotations (especially substantial quotations) from The Collected Works of Zhoudunyi《周敦颐集》, The Collected Works of Zhangzai《张载集》and The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》should indicate the page number/s. This is similar to the author’s citation of Zhuzi Quanshu 《朱子全书》, which indicated the page number/s. Moreover, the《二程遗书》cited on page 3, lines 87-91, must be a part of The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》. If the citation originates from a single-volume version of the  Ercheng Yishu《二程遗书》, it should be properly indicated in the references section at the end of the paper.

Response 5: The page numbers of The Collected Works of Zhoudunyi《周敦颐集》, The Collected Works of Zhangzai《张载集》and The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》and Zhuzi Quanshu 《朱子全书》all have been added to the paper. Ercheng Yishu《二程遗书》is a part of The Collected Works of Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi 《二程集》and the citation issues related to this have been corrected. Thanks for your correction.

Point 6: Sixth, it seems that the reference entries pertaining to the works of Herbert Fingarette and Wu Xiaofeng are not in correct format. Additionally, the format of Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note is also not correct.

Response 6: For the reference entries pertaining to the works of Herbert Fingarette and Wu Xiaofeng and the format of Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note, I refer to the references’ format of the papers published on Religions. It's not quite clear how the correct format should be modified. I will consult the editor teacher later. Thank you very much.

Point 7: Seventh, there are translations of substantial passages originating from the Commentary on  Zhouyi 《易传》 on page 1,  Zhuangzi《庄子》 on page 2, and  Guoyu《国语》 on page 3. Are these the author’s translations or are they based on something? If the latter, perhaps there should be an annotation.

Response 7: These translations(the Commentary on  Zhouyi 《易传》 on page 1,  Zhuangzi《庄子》 on page 2, and  Guoyu《国语》 on page 3) all by the author.

Point 8: Eighth, on page 4, there seems to be a confusion regarding the pinyin of the 《论语集释》(Lunyu Jishi), which is 《论语集解》(Lunyu Jijie). Please clarify. Also, should the book be indicated in the references section?

Response 8: Both 《论语集释》(Lunyu Jishi), which is 《论语集解》(Lunyu Jijie) are not exotically correct. I have deleted them and emphasized Cui Shu崔述’s Zhusi Kaoxinlu洙泗考信录 on page 4.

Zhusi Kaoxinlu洙泗考信录 is no single-volume version publication yet. I placed the Chinese text of the citation after the quotation.

Point 9: Ninth, on page 5, lines 176-177, it is stated that: “Regarding the ‘wende 文德’ of the ‘kun 坤’ hexagram, Zhang Zai said in the HengquYishuo I that the de of platitude and compliance is not isolated.” Is the “I” a typographical error?

Response 9: Yes, the “I”is a typographical error. I have deleted it. Thanks.

Point 10: Tenth, from the point of view of philosophy, 4 . Concrete ways of realizing “this culture of ours”: the theory and practice of Song dynasty Confucians, this section seems to discuss only the theory of Song Confucianism but not the practice.

Response 10: “The theory and practice of Song dynasty Confucians”indeed not very correct. In this section, the discussion is focus on exploring theory but not the practice. And the maturity of these theories was precisely the practice made by these Song Confucian scholars through "wen". But I deleted “and practice”, and put a sentence on lines 340-342 to explain that Zhu Xi practiced the inheritance of classics through producing new classics(wen). The theory and practice of siwen斯文 by Song Confucianism is an interesting dialectic. Due to limited space, I think I will must delve deeper into this issue in the future. Thank you very much.

Point 11: Eleventh, “wen is identical to dao 文就是道” reflects the Song Confucian tradition of exploring knowledge(daowenxue 道问学), while Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism has a large number of discussions of criticizing the six classics, which is a direct challenge to your argument. For example, Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism proposed the dross theory of the six classics(liujingzaopolun 六经糟粕论). Unfortunately, the paper ignores this line of reasoning, which is clearly unfavorable to you.

Response 11: Ming Dynasty scholar Chen Baisha陈白沙 explicitly proposed the theory of "six classics dross"六经糟粕论. Not Lu Jiuyuan or Wang Yangming. The turning point of Confucianism in the Ming Dynasty is a complex issue in the history of Confucianism. It is related to many fields such as the ideological history of the Ming Dynasty. The focus of the latter half of this paper is on the Song Confucianism. The main discussion is about their positive promotion of "Using wen to convey dao" and “wen is identical to dao”. This is also why the latter part can continue the call of Pre-Qin Confucianism for siwen in the first half. The emphasis on wen and the invention of ideas by Song Confucians is a positive promotion of the inheritance of Confucian classics. This positive effect benefits every individual Confucian. The topic and theme are both positive, so there is not much involvement in the voices of the Ming Dynasty after them. But this is still a very interesting suggestion. I also added these explanations in Chapter 5 for further explanation(lines 351-358). Thanks a lot.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version nicely addresses my concerns and incorporates my earlier comments.

 The paper  may be accepted after minor revision.

The revised version nicely addresses my concerns and incorporates my earlier comments.

 The paper  may be accepted after minor revision.

Author Response

Your previous revision comments provided important help to my paper. Thank you again! I would carefully revise the details and make minor revision if there is a chance that the paper could be accepted.