does not exclude other ideological implications and internal psychological sanctions, such as the sense of cosmic order and guilt.

158. The first scholar to discuss this attitude was Li Zehou in Zhongguo Gudai Sixiangshi Lun.

159. Lackner (“Some Preliminary Remarks,” 31–32) notes how Buglio in his translation of Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa theologica” into Chinese avoided the direct use of that notion: “Since ‘sin’ was one of the most difficult Christian ideas to convey, Buglio (1606–1682) tends to omit it in certain passages, as, for instance, in shan xing yu fou 善行與否 (peccatur et recte vivitur) ‘good conduct and its opposite.’” On the reception of “sin” by a Chinese convert, see for instance the recent article by Cheng Yu-Yin, “Christian Literati of the Lower Echelon,” 103: “[B]ut the goal of the scholars of Yangming’s learning and the Taizhou School was always on an individual’s inner transformation to make themselves the same as the sage, even the same as Heaven. They thus claimed that ‘my own mind-and-heart is identical with the mind-and-heart of Heaven’ (jixin ze tianxin 己心則天心). Xiong, however, totally changed the focus from the individual human being to Jesus Christ because he believed that human nature possessed ‘great sins.’ Therefore, only Jesus, not human beings, possessed the mind-and-heart of Heaven […].” For other aspects on Christians in the late Ming period, see Amy Yu Fu, “Living-in-Between,” 70–93.

160. For example, on guilt, confessions and repentance in medieval China, see Xie Shiwei, “Shouguo yu Chanhui,” 735–764. See Eberhard, Guilt and Sin in Traditional China. On the existence of the notion of sin in Daoism in addition to Buddhism, see Robson, “Sin, Sinification, Sinology,” 73–92.

161. Since the nineteenth century, Western scholars have discussed the attitude of Confucians and Neo-Confucians toward the problem of evil. In this regard, Griffith (“The Ethics of the Chinese,” 39) states that “[t]he theory of human nature in relation to the doctrine of sin that these philosophers maintain is very different from what has been stated by saints and sages. It was an intelligent attempt to harmonise all the contradictory opinions of previous orthodox and heterodox writers. Although they professed to maintain the doctrine of the innate goodness of human nature, we find that in reality they were almost as far removed from Mencius as from Xunzi [...].” In Legge’s interpretation, especially during the Song, the Neo-Confucian insistence on “the selfishness of ego” and on sensual desires inherent in the physical