Individual Autonomy and Responsibility in Late Imperial China By ...

mind of the sage is like a clear mirror. Since it is all clear, it responds to all stimuli as they come and reflects everything. There is no such case as a previous image still remaining in the present reflection or a yet-to-be-reflected image already existing there.”²⁶ The body/embodying represents the holistic extension of one’s person to others and the universe, the expansion of one’s sensitivity and the scope of one’s sense of integration with others.²⁷ Thus, although this stage does not deny the reality of the distinction between oneself and others, and consequently supports differential interactions on the basis of social relations, it excludes any separation of oneself from others. Borrowing Shun Kwong-loi’s words, “the state of ‘no-self’ excludes the presence of an emphatic self; that is, it excludes a way of viewing oneself in relation to others and to the world that draws this further distinction.”²⁸ This perspective is shared by Zhuxi and Wang Yangming and corresponds to the main trend of Confucianism. Other directions were taken by a few thinkers, as far as the role of emotions and desires and the functions of self are concerned. The most radical scholars would resort to the same or analogous expressions but propose a different doctrine, one based on a new morality. Li Zhi is the thinker who is mentioned several times in this study for his eccentric and heterodox ideas: a new concept of human being and morality, incitement of critical judgement, rejection of the principle of authority, defence of individual autonomy, and condemnation of the moralists ready to impose their truth and ethics to others. With his writing style, he challenges readers with the subjective, flexible meaning of his texts and their eccentric, provocative interpretation of Classics.²⁹ Thus, he uses the same traditional terms but renews their meaning. ³⁰

Li Zhi plays with the terms used in Neo-Confucian texts for “no-self” (wuji 無己), “self-mastery” (keji 克己), “renouncing one’s way” (sheji 舍己), their double meaning in Neo-Confucian and Buddhist self-cultivation, and injects his new interpretations: “The gentleman learns from oneself only; thus Confucius’s disciples did not need to turn to Confucius for guidance on humaneness. One behaves for oneself only; thus there was no need to provide teachings for disciples. His doctrine was “without