 While raising his standing in pedagogy, this focus on the Four Books came at the expense of Zhu’s deeper, more nuanced texts and dialogues, and opened the door to undue philosophic criticism. The schematic presentation of Zhu’s broad theory of li pattern and qi cosmic vapor that lay in the background of his commentary to the Four Books easily opened him to charges of dualism and of reading abstract categories into the down to earth, essentially practical ancient texts. Because his commentary was focused on reading and understanding the meaning, intent, and cultivation message of the Four Books, critics generalized that Zhu and his method were essentially scholastic and would be myopic and stilted in facing real situations. Anyone who peruses the corpus of Zhu’s writings and dialogues, however, will find that his ontology is not a crude dualism but a holism built of complementary, mutually implicative elements that never exist in separation. Also, his reflections are always informed by knowledge of history, current events, practical observation, and personal reflection, as his method of observation applies generally to objects (and self) and phenomena while respecting texts, which he took to be handbooks of ethical insight and practice, after all. Even Zhu’s comments on Confucius and Mencius often refer back to the person and the speech context, and thus are not entirely scholastic. His method of observation opened the door to breakthroughs beyond the “verities” of the classics, though he was careful not to play up this fact because most of his intellectual colleagues primarily sought the truth in the texts, thinking empirical facts were distractions from the essential Natural-patterning (tianli) that was reflected most adequately in the canonical texts.