 As to textual grounds, Wang and Dai argued that Zhu was so enamored of his metaphysics of pattern and qi that he constantly read them into the classical texts. For example, Dai said Zhu blandly associated Confucius’ term tian (heaven) with his own notion of li (pattern), quoting Analects 11:9 where Confucius, in sorrow over the death of his disciple Yan Hui, cried that “Heaven has forsaken me”. Da questioned how Zhu Xi could  reasonably claim that Confucius was crying that li had forsaken him? Critics tend to find this counter-intuitive example of Dai’s against Zhu’s approach to be compelling. However, consulting Zhu’s original commentary, we find that he noted that this phrase was not literally about heaven but rather expressed Confucius’ utmost sorrow, that Confucius felt Yan Hui’s death as if it was his own son’s, without mentioning “pattern”. This example does not support Wang and Dai’s claim in the least. It illustrates that Zhu’s commentary was nuanced and sensitive to pragmatic, situational usages despite his penchant to see his own notion of “pattern” in some of Confucius’ usages of “heaven”. Moreover, as the intellectual historian Daniel Gardner shows, Zhu’s commentary was not intended as simply a glossary with comments. It was intended as a guide to self-cultivation. Hence, Zhu sometimes recast passages in the Analects more generally to show their broader implications for self-cultivation and realization, often with the isolated countryside student in mind. Gardner shows how Zhu had effectively enriched the text as a tool for self-cultivation whereas earlier commentaries of the Han and Tang dynasties had just given glosses necessary for answering examination questions.