Self-Transcendence as the Ultimate Reality in Interreligious Dialogue: A Neo-Confucian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the Confucian teaching of self-transcendence and its modern implications for interreligious dialogue. It first points out that most scholars in the field of interreligious dialogue share a common tendency to rely very heavily on Western concepts and/or Christian theological approaches. My discussion of self-transcendence is based on the classical teaching of Confucius and Mencius and its leading interpretation by two eminent Neo-Confucian thinkers, Chu Hsi (1130—1200) and Yi T’oegye (1501—1570). I present this core textual tradition while consulting its modern interpreters and some key examples of Confucian practice. Human beings have the potential to work toward perfection (sagehood), and embedded in this doctrine is a religious belief in the oneness of Heaven and human nature. We need to explore a new approach to the interreligious discussion of ‘‘ultimate reality’’ by considering Neo-Confucianism. A dialogue between the Neo-Confucian vision of self-transcendence and the converging heart of world religions will enhance the global enterprise of comparative religion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".