Understanding Chinese and Western Cultures 9781003318088

Citation preview

Understanding Chinese and Western Cultures

The title is a collection of essays centering on the topic of intercultural communication between Chinese and Western cultures by Tang Yijie, one of the most renowned philosophy scholars in China. Comprised of five parts, the author discusses how Chinese culture should modernize itself through borrowing from Western culture premised on a self-​awareness of Chinese culture per se. The book begins by critiquing theories of the so-​called clash of civilizations and new empires and argues for the coexistence of cultures and a global consciousness instead. Chapters in the second part revisit contemporary Chinese culture in transition and call for the cultural integration of China and the West, with China defined in both its ancient and modern guises. By providing reflections on the cultural trends of the 1980s and 1990s, the third part illustrates the inevitable growth of diversified cultural development while analyzing cases of cultural dialogue in history, philosophy and religion. The fourth part demonstrates the significance of culture diversity and interaction while the fifth provides thoughts and reflections on some real-​life cultural issues. This title will appeal to all levels of readers interested in Chinese culture, cross-​cultural studies and topics of cultural pluralism. Tang Yijie (1927–​2014) was an accomplished professor and an authority of Chinese philosophy at Peking University, China. In the last decade of his life, he spearheaded the monumental Confucian Canon project.

Understanding Chinese and Western Cultures Tang Yijie

The translation of this title is funded by B&R Book Program. First published in English 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Tang Yijie The right of Tang Yijie to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. English version by permission of China Renmin University Press. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​33077-​8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​33078-​5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​31808-​8 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003318088 Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

Contents

Preface

ix

PART I

The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations

1

1 What Is Civilization?

3

2 Appraisal of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations Thesis

6

3 The Irreversible Trend of Cultural Diversity

13

4 The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”

18

5 “Identity of Ontology and Methodology”: A New Perspective on Modernistic Diversity

34

6 New Perspectives on Western Sinology

40

7 Current Cultural Exchange and Communication between China and the West

50

PART II

Chinese Culture in Transition

57

8 How to Develop Chinese Culture

59

9 The Combination of “Global Awareness” and “Root-​Seeking Awareness”: The Conception of Developing Chinese Culture

63

vi Contents

10 Chinese Culture to Go Global and the Global Culture to be Introduced into China

75

11 On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation

78

12 Issues of Cultural Development in China during the Transition Period

103

13 Looking Forward to Cultural Development in the 21st Century

114

14 A Brief Discussion on Chinese and Western and Ancient and Modern Controversies in Chinese Culture over the Past Century

117

15 Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture

125

16 Cultural Consciousness and Problem Consciousness

170

PART III

Reflection after the Cultural Fever

177

17 “Modern” and “Post-​modern”

179

18 The Rise of “Sinology Fever”

188

19 “Culture Fever” and “Sinology Fever”

195

20 How Western Scholars in Reflection Look at Traditional Chinese Culture

200

21 Economic Development Still Requires a Sense of Dedication and Moral Responsibility

203

PART IV

The Meaning of Cross-​cultural Dialogue

209

22 The Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Comparative Religion Regarding the Introduction of Indian Buddhism into China

211

Contents  vii

23 On Matteo Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures

241

24 On the Comparison of Chinese and Western Cultures Concerning the Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty

254

25 Two-​way Choice of Cultures

271

26 Between Walls and No Walls: Are Walls Necessary between Cultures?

280

27 Reflections on Cultural Issues

286

28 Two Challenges Facing the Multicultural Development

297

PART V

Ideology, Faith and Culture

303

29 Cultural Rescue, Preservation and Innovation

305

30 “Edify the Populace to Achieve a Harmonious Society”

308

31 How to Cope with Mankind’s Misery: Compared with Thousand Years Ago, Humans Are Struggling with Less or More Misery?

312

32 On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures

318

Appendix Bibliography Index

342 349 353

Preface

Reviewing the history of centuries, Chinese culture (sinology) for a long time has been losing ground under the impact of Western culture, and “Total Westernization” (or “the overall Sovietized”) has gained the upper hand. Even “down with the Confucianism” has become the manifestation of “progress” advocated by some Chinese intellectuals. However, even though sinology has declined, generations of Chinese scholars have insisted on inheriting the extraordinary traditional Chinese culture and safeguarding the spiritual root of Chinese culture. At the same time, they have absorbed and integrated the quintessence of “Western culture” with an open mind. As convinced that the outstanding traditional Chinese culture will never fade away, they have assumed the mission of rejuvenating Chinese culture. Therefore, it is precisely that the shock of “Western culture” has enabled Chinese scholars to reflect on our own cultural traditions and gain “cultural consciousness.” Our awareness has been raised about which elements of our cultural tradition should be carried forward, abandoned or absorbed. Therefore, over the past centuries, the Chinese have learned, absorbed and digested “Western culture” under the precondition of adhering to the subjectivity of Chinese culture, facilitating the transformation of traditional Chinese culture to its modern shape. As Russell said, “Interaction of different civilizations usually becomes a milestone in human progress.”1 The first part titled “The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations” functions as an extension of the “Reflection on Cultural Craze.” In 1993, US scholar Samuel P. Huntington published The Clash of Civilizations. I consider his theory of the “clash of civilizations” to be wrong and harmful both in theory and in real life. Therefore, I wrote an article, Comments on Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, which was published in the third issue of Philosophical Research in 1994. In this article, I mainly leveraged the Confucian concept of “harmony but difference” to criticize the “hegemony” of the US. Since then, I have produced many articles addressing cultural issues. In the second part of this volume titled “Chinese Culture in Transition,” I focus on how Chinese culture progressed from tradition to modernity and how Chinese culture should reach out to the world. Over the past century, Chinese academia has been confronted with “the dispute between ancient and

x Preface modern China and the West.” At the juncture of the 20th century and 21st century, I proposed that Chinese culture should orient itself from “the dispute between ancient and modern China and the West” to “the integration of ancient and modern China and the West.” Therefore, on the one hand, I have striven to find how China and the West and ancient and modern China can be integrated and be complementary; on the other hand, I explored the joint force of cultural radicalism, liberalism and conservatism in the process of cultural transformation, which is the driver for the development of culture. Therefore, we should use the theory of “Western culture,” which is very different from “sinology,” as a reference, which will be of inestimable significance to the development of Chinese culture. Therefore, I pooled many scholars to write A History of the Introduction of Western philosophy into China in the 20th Century. The General Introduction is intended to explain how “Western culture” was introduced into China, what impact it has had on traditional Chinese culture, and how to tell the stories of Chinese culture in a new fashion. The third part titled “Reflection after the Cultural Fever” mainly includes the problems I was contemplating after the “political storm” at the turn of spring and summer in 1989. The 20th century witnessed a surging cultural craze in Chinese academia when many potential ways to develop Chinese culture popped up, but the “political storm” disrupted the diversity-​oriented “cultural craze.” Guangming Daily published an article titled Diversity is Liberalization containing some incorrect arguments to which I must respond. Instead of applying direct critique, I clarified that the diversified cultural development is historically inevitable and it is the only way to achieve sound cultural development by illustrating the two academic directions that emerged after the “political storm.” The thought of “postmodernism” entered China in the 1980s, which however brought no significant impact on Chinese academic culture. But after the “political storm,” it became prevalent in China. Why? Postmodernism was put forward in the west to eliminate various intractable contradictions that appeared in the development of modern society. The postmodernists tend to deconstruct “Modernity,” oppose unification, advocate diversification, and demand the elimination of all authority in order to eclipse the authority and dominance of “Modernity.” Some Chinese scholars have noted the obvious characteristics of “postmodernism” that oppose unification and advocate diversification, and have constantly studied and advocated the deconstruction of “postmodernism.” At the same time, the “sinological craze” has quietly emerged in Peking University. This trend of thought gradually impacted all sectors of Chinese society. It indicates a “cultural consciousness” of the Chinese people to emphasize the subjectivity of our own culture, which aspires to advance the Chinese culture grounded on its own root. Therefore, I am very interested in the trend of these two thoughts in China and wrote some relevant articles, which are included in the “reflection after the cultural fever” in this volume.

newgenprepdf

Preface  xi The fourth part titled “The meaning of Cross-​Cultural Dialogue” mainly demonstrates that Chinese and Western culture inevitably bring great impact on each other’s cultural development through dialogue and interaction. On the Comparison of Chinese and Western Cultures on the Pursuit of the Truth, the Goodness and the Beauty was published in the third issue of Social Sciences in China in 1990, originally titled Further Research on the Pursuit of the Truth, the Goodness and the Beauty in Chinese Traditional Philosophy. It is a sequel to Research on the Pursuit of the Truth, the Goodness and the Beauty in Chinese Traditional Philosophy (published in Social Sciences in China, 1984 (4)). In this article, I compared the thoughts of Laozi, Confucius and Zhuangzi with those of Hegel, Kant and Schelling in the West. In the article’s conclusion, I proposed that Western philosophy mainly aims to establish a whole knowledge system, while Chinese philosophy pursues a spiritual realm. The last part, “Thought, Belief and Culture,” contains what I learned from some problems in “culture in real life.” For instance, my dialogue with Academician Ike Xavier Le Pichon, a French geographer, showed the frustration of Chinese and foreign intellectuals; In the dialogue with the French scholar Léon Vandermeersch, I put forward a new interpretation of the system of The Book of Changes. I look forward to critique and correction for this interpretation. Tang Yijie December 5, 2012

Note 1 Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted, see The Problem of China by Russell, translated by Qin Yue, page 146, Shanghai, Xuelin Publishing House, 1996. Citation changed slightly.

Part I

The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations



1 What Is Civilization?1

The 21st century is extraordinary. As the new century has dawned, humankind has stepped into a new phase shaped by multi-​culture and inter-​civilizational dialogue. In this era marked by a new starting point, we need to rediscover and reappraise the history and the value of human civilization, as well as the gains and losses when we have created and are promoting civilizations as mankind. First, what is civilization? Chinese civilization has a history of 5000 years. From a broader sense, human civilization is far more than 5000 years. It is huge progress for humankind from gathering and hunting naturally to cultivating consciously. As cooking became ubiquitous, both human physique and brain have been greatly enhanced. If observed by this criterion, human civilization boasts a history of roughly 7000–​8000 years. From living a primitive form of life to drilling wood to make fire for cooking food, human beings evolved a unique way to stay alive. Confucianism regards this way of survival as “li,” or “rites” that functions to incarnate the concept of culture or civilization. Throughout the long history, human beings have constantly transcended the old self and transformed into a new self, by which we have been improving the way of survival and refining the incarnation of civilization. Nevertheless, civilization is often apprehended in a more narrowed sense, specifically from the aspects of human ideologies, human’s understanding of nature, society and self as well as the relations among them. It represents the wisdom of humankind for survival and development, as an intellectual treasure of universal guidance. Therefore, civilization is a crucial subject. Second, what is Chinese civilization? It is traced to the Pre-​Qin period,2 more precisely to the three ancient dynasties3 of China. What represents the three ancient dynasties of Chinese civilization? They are the Chinese classic texts, namely the “Six Classics,” composed of Classic of Poetry, Classic of History, Book of Rites, Classic of Music, Book of Changes, Spring and Autumn Annals, which are of significant and eternal value embodying the Chinese civilization by encompassing subjects in various fields, such as nature, society and humankind. The “Six Classics” were followed by the “Hundred Schools of Thoughts” during the Pre-​Qin period, which mainly refer to the prominent philosophers DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-2

4  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations and thinkers from the 6th century BC to 221 B C during the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period of ancient China. The so-​ called Hundred Schools, in fact, primarily refer to the “six schools,” or “ten schools.” The Six Schools were first put forward by Sima Tan4 (165–​110 B C E ), the father of the Western Han historian Sima Qian, and the Ten Schools were put forward by Liu Xin5 (50 BCE –​23 C E ) later. The Six Schools refer to Confucianism, Mohism, Taoism, Legalism, School of Names and School of Yin-​yang. In addition to the six major philosophical schools mentioned, four were added into the Ten Schools, namely Agriculturalism, School of Diplomacy, Syncretism and School of “Minor-​talks.” The Hundred School of Thoughts flourished as the creative and valuable interpretation of the Six Classics. These thoughts and ideas that to some extent have laid the foundation for the system and framework of Chinese culture are of far-​reaching implications on later generations. It bears pondering over the reasons why philosophers emerged in large numbers during those hundreds of years. German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883–​1969) proposed the theory of an “Axial Age” in the late 1940s. He believes that ancient Greece is not the singular in human culture and both China and India evolved human civilizations as advanced as ancient Greece during the period from 800 BC to 200 B C . He developed it as the “Axial Age,” a period during which substantial philosophical development was observed in various geographical regions. This accurate and meaningful theory breaks the inherent understanding that human civilization is dominated only by the West. In addition to the ideas and thoughts in the Pre-​Qin period, Chinese civilization includes the philosophical writings and theories of the past dynasties. For example, Xuanxue6 in the Wei-​Jin period, Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties, Buddhism with the characteristics of the Chinese nation and Taoism in native Chinese culture is all valuable. I’m of the view that Chinese civilization evolved from classics and ideas in the Pre-​Qin period into a system through constant development. What is the core of the Chinese system of civilization? I’d like to encapsulate it with one word, “harmony,” because it has been recognized by thinkers of every generation studying this issue. I’d like to give you two examples. One is the “preservation of Taihe is to be Lizhen” said in the Commentaries on the Classic of Changes. “Taihe” refers to the supreme harmony. The Book of Documents said that Emperor Yao (2356 B C E –​2255 B C E ) could unite the people across the country from “the near to the distant” (Emperor Yao) and was able to promote moral values so that amity prevailed in his clan. He then clarified the hierarchical order of tribal officials. Only when it was done could all vassal states, big and small, prosper in harmony, and ensure the coexistence of all in harmony.” Therefore, the first two Chinese classics of the earliest age had addressed the issue of harmony systemically. It is also very important that Chinese cultural system remained unbroken in terms of evolvement and inheritance for thousands of years as compared to other human cultures. We

What Is Civilization?  5 should be proud of our own culture. What’s more, we need to learn to better inherit and disseminate the Chinese culture so as to provide spiritual nourishment to more people. Third, how do we deal with the differences between civilizations nowadays? Human civilization is often said to be composed of Eastern and Western civilizations. Since the ancient Indian civilization collapsed nearly a thousand years ago, the Eastern mainly refers to Chinese civilization. But in fact, every nation has its own culture and values for detailed analysis. It has become increasingly prejudiced and fallacious as the West proclaims that it is the sole home to human culture. Western civilization should not be viewed as the only form of human civilization despite its advancement in material progress during the past hundreds of years. Western civilization and its contribution to the development of human beings are appreciable, while Chinese civilization is equally significant and a profound resource for social progress. The West today is also rethinking and re-​evaluating our civilization. While promoting the excellent civilization of the Chinese nation, we never discriminate against the civilization of other nations which is often significant. It is wise for different civilizations to learn from each other for assimilation and syncretism, which is necessary for civilizations to nourish mankind and to survive. Just as the notable Western philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–​ 1970) stated in Chinese & Western Civilization Contrasted, “contacts between different civilizations have often in the past proved to be landmarks in human progress,” the Chinese civilization has evolved as constantly impacted by other nations in the world and made an indispensable contribution to the worldwide progress. Civilization is both our hallmark and the nourishment for our survival and development. Human beings create civilization and vice versa.

Notes 1 This article was published at Xinhua Wenzhai, 2007 (5). 2 The Pre-​Qin period refers to the long period before the imperial unification by the Qin dynasty in 221 BC . 3 The three ancient dynasties refer to Xia (2070–​1600 B C ), Shang (1600 B C –​1046 B C ) and Zhou (1046 B C –​256 BC ). 4 Sima Tan (165–​–​110 BC E ) was a Chinese astrologer and historian during the Western Han dynasty. 5 Liu Xin (50 B C E –​23 C E ) was a Chinese astronomer, historian, librarian, mathematician, politician and Confucian scholar of the Han dynasty. 6 Xuanxue is a metaphysical post-​ Classical Chinese philosophy from the Six Dynasties (222–​589), bringing together Taoist and Confucian beliefs through revision and discussion.

2 Appraisal of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations Thesis1

As the 20th century is coming to an end and the 21st is approaching, people are hoping for the “peaceful development” of human society. At this juncture, however, Harvard professor Huntington published an article titled “The Clash of Civilization?” in the journal Foreign Affairs (Summer, 1993), which stirred up discussions both at home and abroad. The gist of this article is that the global landscape is envisioned to be dominated by the “clash” in the coming phase continuingly as a result of cultural division. This article starts with two paragraphs as follows: World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be –​the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catch aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years. It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. Then Huntington laid out his arguments to support his perspectives. Among them, some are appreciable while others are what I believe fallacy or misrepresentation. Instead of going into his arguments, I’d prefer to share some thoughts on his basic perspectives.

1  Is the Trend of Human Cultural Development Primarily Antagonistic or Syncretic? As Huntington observed, the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or economic. The great divisions DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-3

Appraisal of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations Thesis  7 among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. The principal conflicts of global politics will occur between groups of different civilizations, mainly between “Western culture” and “non-​Western culture” (Confucian culture and Islamic culture). He made an argument from a historical perspective. He believes that the differences in civilization are historical and will not disappear immediately and are more fundamental than divisions in political ideologies and states. Such civilizational division will lead to conflicts more endless and ruthless. The source of conflicts between states, nations and regions have definitely sometimes been cultural (such as religion) in the past human history. However, from the overall perspective of historical development, cultural syncretism is the main trend among different countries, nations and regions. Therefore, the reason behind conflicts between states, nations and regions are not always cultural. Given my very limited knowledge of Western history and culture, I may have a little say, so I just quote Bertrand Russell to explain that today’s Western culture is shaped by absorbing and syncretizing multiple cultural elements. In 1922, after visiting China, Russell wrote an article entitled “Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted” containing the following paragraph: Contacts between different civilizations have often in the past proved to be landmarks in human progress. Greece learnt from Egypt, Rome from Greece, the Arabs from the Roman Empire, medieval Europe from the Arabs, and Renaissance Europe from the Byzantines. There may be different views on whether Russell’s perspective mentioned is correct. He stated that firstly the contacts between different cultures are crucial for the development of human civilization. Secondly, today’s European culture is shaped by absorbing many factors from other cultures, including the Arabic culture. If we look at the development of Chinese culture, especially Confucianism in China, we learn that the conflicts due to cultural divisions are always temporary, while syncretism between different cultures is dominant. Before the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period, China was home to many different regional cultures, including the Central Plains culture, Qilu culture, Qinlong culture, Jingchu culture, Wuyue culture, Bashu culture, etc., all of which were later syncretized into a generally unified Chinese culture. During the Pre-​Qin period, Confucianism was merely one of the various cultures. Not until Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty (206 B C –​A D 8) decided to “adopt the Confucianism as the main state ideology and abandon all the other schools of thought” did Confucianism rose as the only dominant ideology. Nevertheless, by that time the Confucianism had actually syncretized with ideas from Legalism, Taoism and the School of Yin-​yang. This argument, though less convincing, can to some extent support the fact of syncretism between different cultures, while the most convincing one should be the integration of Indian Buddhism with Chinese culture.

8  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations There have been three phases for Chinese culture absorbing and integrating with Indian Buddhism, lasting nearly a thousand years. First, Buddhism came to China around the end of the Western Han dynasty in the 1st century AD . It was assimilated into the “Taoism” of native Chinese culture and then into the Xuanxue during the Wei and Jin period for dissemination. Despite the conflicts from time to time, Indian Buddhism and Chinese culture have co-​ existed peacefully to a large extent. Second, by the Eastern Jin dynasty (317–​ 420), people began to have a better understanding of the original essence of Buddhism as there were increasing translations of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. They became aware of the differences between Buddhism and Chinese culture. Chinese culture requires one to be “loyal to the nation state and fulfill the filial duty to parents” and believes that “there are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.” While Buddhism encourages one to “forsake the world by becoming a Buddhist” and upholds that Buddhists should not worship the king or get married to have descendants. All of these are merely cultural conflicts. Besides, it was primarily the political and economic conflict rather than the cultural conflict that triggered the “anti-​Buddhist persecution” twice during this period. Third, the Sui (581–​618) and Tang (618–​907) dynasties witnessed the emergence of sinicized Buddhism in a variety of schools, such as Tiantai, Huayan and Zen, representing the inclusion of Buddhism with Confucian and Taoist ideas. In the Song (960–​1279) dynasty, Neo-​Confucianism was critical of Buddhism on the one hand, but also borrowed Buddhist ideas enabling significant advancement of Chinese Confucianism. Therefore, we can argue that Chinese culture benefited from Indian Buddhism, which in turn was promoted in China. The history of cultural contacts between India and China unveils that cultural difference is not the main source of conflict but is often an important factor to promote mutual understanding between different countries and ethnic groups for cultural development. For more than a hundred years, Chinese people have been xenophobic and rejected Western culture because they suffered the military aggression of Western powers. Therefore, the main source of such xenophobia is political and economic instead of cultural. And they are still inclusive toward Western culture in such status. We learned from Western science and technology first and then the Western political and legal systems and pursued the “science and democracy” of Western culture around and during the May Fourth Movement. In the process, we took many wrong paths and are confronting problems even today. After the May Fourth Movement, Chinese intellectuals, such as Xiong Shili2 (1885–​1968) and Liang Shuming3 (1893–​1988) of New Confucianism, advocated to fully absorb the Western thoughts of “science and democracy,” except for a few obstinate scholars in favor of Chinese nationalism and ignorant people and bureaucrats. Moreover, Chinese culture is currently developing toward the trend of Westernization. From the perspective of Chinese history, the introduction of Indian Buddhism and Western Culture into China proves the temporality of cultural

Appraisal of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations Thesis  9 conflict and the dominance of convergence between different cultures. Just as Sima Qian said, “Living in the present world, we need to learn from historical lessons, though the situation may have changed much.”

2  Will Confucianism Be a Source of Political Conflict and War? Huntington believes that the cultures are divided into “Western” versus “non-​ Western.” When illustrating “non-​Western culture,” he mentioned specifically the “Confucian-​Islamic connection” and said that “a Confucian-​Islamic military connection has come into being” and “the local conflicts most likely to escalate into major wars will be those along the fault lines between civilizations. The next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations.” Here instead of discussing the plausible arguments of Huntington, I’d like to share some thoughts on the possibility of Confucianism being the source of political conflict and war. Confucianism, as in Chinese history, functions in the forms of a state ideology and a philosophical theory. Being a state ideology, Confucianism is indeed composed of “authoritarian” and “violent” aspects, but it never suggests aggression. Any doctrine that serves as an ideology will be counterproductive. While as a philosophical theory, it shows substantial inclusiveness by advocating “harmony as the most precious.” Currently, it is impossible for countries and nations in reality to regard Confucianism as a state ideology, but as a philosophical theory, which promotes the concept of “universal harmony” requiring our attention. As for the vision of what human society will be in the 21st century, it is imperative to take “peace and development” as the responsibility of all countries and nations. Human society must advance toward peaceful coexistence depending on the aligned relationship between countries, nations and regions. “Development” should involve mankind’s proper use and development of nature, hence creating a balanced relationship between mankind and nature. The “peace and development” of human society will undoubtedly be facilitated by the concept of “universal harmony” in Confucianism. In its completeness the concept encompasses at least four levels, namely the harmony within nature, the harmony between mankind and nature, the harmony between mankind, and the harmony between the individual inner and outer self. The Confucian mindset believes that nature is the most perfect and harmonious unity as “the supreme harmony,” the basis for the concept of “universal harmony.” The harmony within nature is the premise for harmony between mankind and nature. The latter cultivates the harmony between mankind and then between the inner and outer self of individuals and vice versa. Only when one’s physique is in harmony with his or her own mind, can one be in harmony with others, can mankind be in harmony with nature and can harmony within nature be achieved. It seems that Confucianism pays more attention to the system of “universal harmony” as derived from “the harmony between the inner and outer world of mankind,” which is more than obvious

10  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations as the Great Learning states that “all must regard the cultivation of the self as the most essential thing.” That is to say, from a theoretical perspective, Confucianism will not be the source of conflicts between countries, nations and regions. It is my observation that Huntington’s argument on Confucianism being one of the sources of the conflict between “Western culture” and “non-​Western culture” is groundless and shows his ill-​understanding of Confucianism as a theoretical system.

3  Huntington’s Article Is Based on the Outdated Theory of “Western Centrism” Huntington quoted V.S. Naipaul in his article that Western civilization is “a universal civilization suitable for all.” He believes that there will be no universal civilization in the foreseeable future, but only a world containing different civilizations, and that each civilization must learn from and coexist with others. And he realized that “Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-​Western cultures attempt to gain the latter without the former. They are more capable of reconciling the values of modern things and traditional culture.” However, reviewing Huntington’s article, I wonder why he emphasizes the conflict between “Western culture” and “non-​Western culture,” especially the prediction that “the union of Confucianism and Islam” is “the most likely cause of a world war”? In my opinion, Huntington is undoubtedly still haunted by Western Centrism. In the past few hundred years, the hegemonism of Western countries in politics, economy and even culture has hurt or even destroyed the culture of many nationalities. However, after World War II, the international landscape has undergone significant changes. The colonial system that aims to divide the world has collapsed with the accompanying cultural Western Centrism gradually dissolving. From the post-​war trend of cultural development, the diversified cultural progress under the Global Consciousness has gradually come into shape. With the rapid development of science and technology, the connection between countries and nationalities has been intensified. Humankind is faced with common challenges, so the culture should develop with the awareness of Global Consciousness. However, many countries and nationalities that were devastated and suppressed by Western countries wish to develop on their own and realize modernization, so naturally, they want to develop their own culture. Therefore, the culture of the world inevitably presents a generally diversifying development trend under the Global Consciousness. Let’s recount the Nobel laureates for literature since 1982: the laureate in 1982 was the South American Colombian writer Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez; In 1987, Wole Soyinka of Nigeria in Africa; the famous poet Derek Walcott of the Caribbean Island of St. Luya for 1992; and an American black female writer, Toni Morrison, for 1993. After winning the Nobel Prize for literature, Márquez said in an interview about the cultural development of the American region, “I think

Appraisal of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations Thesis  11 Latin America is the only creative region in the world today. The revival of Brazilian films and the drama movement in Colombia have attracted worldwide attention. Similarly, Latin American literature is also the best contemporary literature. When commenting on Soyinka’s works, a Western critic said, “No African writer has been more successful than Soyinka in making the rest of the world view mankind from an African perspective.” When introducing Walcott, Kjell Espmark, an academician of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, said, “his poetry integrates cultures from the West Indies, Africa and Europe.” Once the oppressed and devastated national culture gets rid of the shackles of colonial rule and Western Centrism, it will undoubtedly exhibit their excellent cultural creativity. At the 17th World Congress of Philosophy in 1983, the president of the Congress, C. Cauchy, a Canadian philosopher, delivered a speech that showed the wisdom of a philosopher. The gist of his speech was: in the past more than one hundred years, with the advantages of Western science, technology and economy, the Westerners also claimed to be advanced in philosophy and humanities. However, the East has caught up with and even had the potential to surpass the West in terms of science, technology and economy. Now it is time for the West to get over their illusion and learn from the East open-​mindedly. Western culture (including religion, philosophy, literature, art, etc. and their values) has made significant contributions to the development of human culture, and will contribute to it in the future; But Eastern cultures, like Chinese culture, Indian culture and Islamic culture also were conducive to mankind in our history. Moreover, isn’t it true that Chinese culture, such as the “concept of universal harmony” of Confucianism, functions as a particular contributor to the development of human society in the 21st century? I would also mention the characteristics of Indian culture. Tagore, an Indian scholar and poet, once said in an article entitled Civilization Without Walls, “Indians give prominence to the harmony between man and the universe. They believe that if the universe is absolutely irrelevant to us, we shall not have any interaction with the surrounding environment.” “This is why the Upanishads describes people who gained their purpose of life as ‘quiet people’ and ‘people who are one with God’, which means that they live in full harmony with nature, hence also live in the unity with God without any distractions.” It appears that Eastern cultures have this common feature: they prioritize the concept of harmony. This is presumably an important area where Western cultures should learn from Eastern cultures. However, it appears that Huntington knows nothing about the contribution of Eastern cultures to mankind and completely ignores their importance to future human development, indicating that Huntington is still obsessed with the outdated Western Centrism, dividing cultures into Western and non-​ Western cultures. He also regards the non-​Western culture of the so-​called “the union of Confucianism and Islam” conceived by him as the enemy of Western cultures led by the United States, so as to maintain America’s

12  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations dominance in the “Western world,” hence sustain its hegemony that can still alter the world’s landscape. Therefore, in the last section of his article, Huntington suggested that the US government “restrain the military expansion of Islamic and Confucian countries”; “perpetuate the military advantage of the West in East and Southwest Asian countries”; “create differences and conflicts between Confucianism and Islamic countries”; “uphold and legitimize international organizations that reflect Western interests and values, and encourage non-​Western countries’ participation in these organizations” and so on. Are the above opinions in line with humankind’s common goal of peace and development for the 21st century? Throughout Huntington’s article, although some of his analyses are not groundless, with his concept of Western Centrism unchanged, we can only consider this article to be theoretically insignificant, an article that merely supplies political strategies for the temporary interests of the US. While criticizing Huntington’s theories, we should note that it is more than important to develop our own national culture and to absorb valuable elements of Western cultures in an unprejudiced manner. Instead of being misled by Huntington to adopt the theory of dividing Western and non-​Western cultures, we should endorse another cultural value, that is, we should strive to absorb what is beneficial to the peace and development pursued by our society. I would like to repeat it: We should develop our national culture with a Global Consciousness in order to safeguard world peace and promote the common development of all countries and nationalities.

Notes 1 This article was originally published in Philosophical Research, 1994 (3). 2 Xiong Shili (1885–​1968) was a Chinese essayist and philosopher, regarded as the thinker who laid down the basis for the revival of Confucianism during the twentieth century. 3 Liang Shuming (1893–​1988) was a Chinese philosopher, politician and writer in the Rural Reconstruction Movement during the late Qing dynasty.

3 The Irreversible Trend of Cultural Diversity1

Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted written by Russell in 1922 stated that “the exchanges between different cultures had proven to be milestones in the advancement of human civilization in the past.” Greece learned from Egypt, Rome followed the footsteps of Greece, Arabia imitated the Roman Empire, and the same thing happened between Europe and Arabia in the Middle Ages, and Europe and the Byzantine Empire during the Renaissance. Western cultures advanced through interactions with various cultures. This also stands true for the Chinese culture. When examining Chinese history, there are two major introductions of foreign culture: one is the introduction of the Indian Buddhist culture around the 1st century AD ; the other is the introduction of Western cultures since the end of the 16th century. The introduction of Indian Buddhist culture into China has brought a significant impact on many aspects of China’s philosophy, literature and art, ethics, science and technology, medicine and health and even our society and life. We can conclude that Chinese culture has reaped benefits from Indian Buddhist culture. Meanwhile, Indian Buddhist culture thrived in China. Large numbers of Buddhist classics lost in India have been preserved in China, moreover, several Buddhist sects with Chinese features have been established through the annotation of Indian Buddhist scriptures by more than ten generations of eminent monks, such as the Tiantai Sect, Huayan sect and Zen sect. And these sects were introduced into the Korean Peninsula and Japan and then got integrated with the local culture, bringing forth Buddhist sects with the local characteristics. The introduction of Western cultures into China is roundabout. After being introduced into China at the end of the 16th century, they were embraced by enlightened scholars and bureaucrats, which was interrupted by the Dispute of Etiquette. The cultures only got introduced into China again in the middle of the 19th century under a special circumstance when the Western countries busted China’s door open and Western culture then followed in. Despite this circumstance, Western cultures have wielded significant influence on Chinese culture for more than 100 years. Like Indian Buddhism, Western cultures have altered many aspects of Chinese culture and boosted the modernization and globalization of Chinese culture.2 Today, scholars of vision in the Western academic community have also recognized DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-4

14  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations the significance of Chinese culture (Oriental Culture) piece by piece. At the 17th World Congress of Philosophy held in Montreal, Canada in 1983, the president of the congress and the University of Montreal, Professor Cauchy, said that the Westerners also claimed to be advanced in philosophy and humanities in the past centuries as a result of their advantages in Western science, technology and economy. However, the East has caught up with and even had the potential to surpass the West in terms of science, technology and economy. Now it is time for the West to get over their illusion and learn from the East open-​mindedly. Tymieniecka, President of the International Phenomenological Society and a female philosopher, said at the meeting that the West often unknowingly benefits from the East, such as Leibniz’s emphasis on the concept of universal harmony. She even believes that today’s Chinese philosophy is more fortunate than its Western counterpart for not following the trajectory of decomposition of Western philosophy. For the West today, there are at least three aspects to learn from the East: first, treasuring nature; second, recognizing the everchanging universe3; third, moral practice. She also asserts that Western cultures must fend for themselves. It is unfeasible to learn something from the East superficially to beautify themselves, hence exchange between cultures is absolutely necessary. Western scholars have begun to appreciate the meaning of Oriental Culture (Chinese culture), so what should be done by the Chinese scholars who are pursuing modernization? I believe that we should not only learn the West’s advanced science and technology, but also study their political and legal system, way of thinking and values. As long as it is conducive to the development of Chinese society, we should learn and absorb it so that Chinese culture can advance as much as when absorbing the Indian Buddhist culture. In this absorption and innovation process, the essence of Western cultures is carried forward in Chinese culture, achieving integration and complementarity of Chinese and Western cultures in a broad fashion. As a result, cross-​cultural research has undoubtedly become one of the most significant topics in today’s Chinese and Western cultural circles. In order to make cross-​cultural research more targeted in reality, we must understand its current research situation at home and abroad. According to my knowledge, cross-​cultural research has recently raised a question for many scholars, that is, whether the development of culture in the 21st century is dominated by cultural global integration or cultural ethnic diversity? I have encountered this question at two conferences I participated in recently: the 20th World Congress of Philosophy held in Boston, USA and the Second International Symposium on Oriental Thought held in Beijing. There were three different opinions at these two meetings on the direction of world cultural development in the 21st century: The first opinion is that economic globalization and the fast advancement of science and technology (especially computers and networks) have made the world a global village, therefore, cultures will merge under the influence and clashing of each other, leading to cultural global integration.

The Irreversible Trend of Cultural Diversity  15 Some scholars think that although the traditional cultures of various nationalities still exert an impact, they will be disintegrated by the development of economy, science and technology, and their national cultural contents will gradually fade and eventually collapse. The second opinion holds that for a long period of time after the 21st century, national cultures will not fade but develop. Some scholars proposed that with the disintegration of the colonial system and the rise of emerging nationalities and countries after World War II, the countries urgently need to develop their own cultures. For example, in order to highlight its national unity, Malaysia took Malay as its national language, which was an oral language without written words originally. In order to found the nation of Israel, the Israelites restored Hebrew that was previously only used in religious ceremonies as their daily language. After decades of efforts, Hebrew has not only evolved into a tool for living in Jerusalem, but also gradually the ground for New York Jews to pursue their cultural roots. Some Oriental scholars even introduced Cultural Oriental Centrism to resist Cultural Western Centrism based on the damage caused by Western cultures to the world and the oppression the East have been subjected to in the past two centuries. They believe that economic globalization does not necessarily lead to cultural globalization. Economic globalization in an actual sense requires not only the development of developed countries, but also the progress of developing countries, only by this can we achieve sustainable economic globalization. With economic development, developing countries will inevitably demand their own cultures to also grow. As a result, cultural diversification will be irreversible. The third opinion believes that a pluralistic and integrated community of various economies and cultures is likely to be established in the 21st century. This opinion is mainly held by scholars in Japan and South Korea. They believe that the economic and cultural pluralistic community of Britain and the US has been formed, and that of Europe is emerging, so is it possible for East Asia to form a pluralistic community? From my own perspective, the second opinion generally fits the trend of world cultural development for a long time to come (at least in the mid-​21st century). However, there will also be problems regarding the development of cultural diversity led by the demands of all nationalities to develop their own culture. If the demand is strong for all nationalities, there is a risk of nationalism that adheres to local cultures and cutting exchanges with other cultures. These cultural differences may lead to confrontations and conflicts between nationalities and between countries. Therefore, we should promote the diversified development of national cultures with Global Consciousness in mind, which means that each nation should harbor Global Consciousness while developing its own culture. What is exactly Global Consciousness? I think it is that all nationalities must also pay attention to the common challenges

16  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations faced by human society while developing their own cultures. Nowadays, the most significant challenges faced by human society are undoubtedly peace and development and environmental problems. The development of cultures of all nationalities should not contradict the aspirations of people worldwide for peaceful coexistence and common development, but explore resources conducive to the realization of the aspirations from their cultures. In order to ensure the healthy and sound development of different national cultures, some scholars have also proposed some principles to handle the pluralistic development of cultures, like the principles of justice and solidarity proposed by Jürgen Habermas, who applied these two principles on the relationship between different traditional cultures. The principle of justice means respecting other national cultures and achieving equality. The principle of solidarity demands the obligation of sympathizing and understanding other national cultures. Through continuous trade and communication, the interactions between different traditional cultures can be promoted. In my opinion, the Chinese ancient principle of “harmonious but different” dealing with interpersonal relationships can be of significance to handle the relationship between different traditional cultures. “Harmonious but different” means that we should recognize the “difference.” Only “harmony” (peace and integration) formed on the basis of “difference” can promote development. If we single-​mindedly pursue “sameness,” there will be no development, but declines. In different cultural traditions, certain consensus can be reached through cultural interaction and dialogue, which is a process from “difference” to a certain sense of “recognition.” This “recognition” doesn’t require one party to destroy the other, nor one party to assimilate the other, but looking for the common places in the two cultures and promoting both cultures on this basis of their commonality, which is precisely the benefits of “harmony.”4 Therefore, we believe that for a long period of time after the 21st century, the diversified development of culture worldwide will be the dominant trend; the same applies to cultural diversity in China. In this regard, cross-​cultural research should be highly valued by academia.

Notes 1 This article is an excerpt from Dialogue Transcultural, Vol. II, Shanghai, Shanghai Culture Publishing House, 1999. 2 For the great impact of Western cultures on Chinese culture, please refer to my book The Dispute between Ancient and Modern China and the West and the Development of Modern Chinese Culture, which is included in Tang Yijie’s Academic and Cultural Essays. 3 The Book of Changes states that “creating is perpetual growth and change,” which means that new things are always created when the changing universe. Later, Confucians of the Song dynasty, Zhou Dunyi and Cheng Hao emphasized “perpetual growth and change” as the fundamental principle of the universe.

The Irreversible Trend of Cultural Diversity  17 “Recognizing the everchanging universe” refers to the law that human (human society) should realize and achieve the endless life of the universe. Therefore, Xiang Zhuan of the Book of Changes states that “heaven walks strong, gentlemen constantly strive for self-​improvement.” 4 See also The Value Resources of the Principle of “Harmonious but Different,” Dialogue Transcultural, Vol. 1, Shanghai, Shanghai Culture Publishing House, 1998.

4 The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”1

1  The “Clash of Civilizations” Theory and the “Neo-​imperialism” Theory Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations was published in the summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs. In 1994, I wrote A Review of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, criticizing Huntington as the representative of American “hegemony,” during which many scholars in China and abroad discussed or criticized Huntington’s theory from different perspectives. In 1996, Huntington published TheClash of Civilizationsand the Reconstruction of World Order in response to criticism, and to supplement and revise some of his views. It can be seen that some of his views have changed. For example, in the preface, he wrote for the Chinese edition that “for the first time in human history, global politics has become multipolar and multicultural.” In the section of “The Commonality of Civilizations,” he put it, “Some Americans promote multiculturalism at home, some Americans promote universalism abroad, and some Americans promote both. Multiculturalism at home poses a threat to America and the West, and the universalism abroad poses a threat to the West and the world. They both deny the uniqueness of Western culture. Global mono-​culturalists want to make the world the same as America. While multiculturalists within America want to make America the same as the world. It is impossible to build a multicultural America because it will not be called America if it is non-​Western-​oriented. A pluralistic world is inevitable since it is impossible to build a global empire. Preserving America and the West requires rebuilding Western identity while preserving world security requires embracing global multiculturalism.”2 Although there are still some points to be discussed in this passage, it is wise for him to suggest that “preserving world security requires embracing global multiculturalism.” The change in Huntington’s views took place as he found the “hegemonic” position of the West (more precisely the US) was being challenged and threatened worldwide and the US was troubled by “race” and other issues at home. Therefore, he raised the topic of the “reconstruction of the world order.” In the section of “The Revival of the West,” Huntington stated: DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-5

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  19 The West is clearly different from all civilizations that have existed, for it has had an overwhelming influence on all civilizations that have existed since 1500 A D . It initiated a worldwide process of modernization and industrialization. As a result, all other civilizations have been trying to catch up with the West in terms of wealth and modernization. However, whether these characteristics of the West mean that its evolution and changes as a civilization are fundamentally different from the patterns that prevail in all other civilizations? This is not the case as evidenced by history and comparative civilization historians. So far, the West is not significantly different from the rest of the civilizations throughout history worldwide regarding the shared history evolutionary patterns and driving force. The Islamic revival movements and the momentum of economic development in Asia reveal that the rest of the civilizations worldwide are alive and are at least a potential threat to the West. A major war involving the West and other core civilized countries will not be inevitable, but also could happen. The gradual and erratic decline that began in the West at the beginning of the 20th century could last for decades, if not centuries. Or the West could revive, reversing its declining influence on world affairs and re-​establishing its position as a leader for other civilizations to follow and emulate.3 This passage reflects Huntington’s feeling that the West’s leadership in the world is in “gradual and erratic decline” and those countries that learned from the West and have or are embarking on “modernization” and “industrialization” are “a potential threat to the West.” This is certainly something he and some Western scholars, especially political leaders (such as the current US President George W. Bush Jr.), do not want to accept. Huntington and some Western scholars and politicians found it hard to explain: why did rising countries in Islamic revival movements and Asia that have embarked on the path of “modernization” and “industrialization” they created instead pose a threat to the West? In their view, it is “reasonable” that these rising countries should have followed them in all aspects (politically and culturally) and obeyed their orders. But this is not the case in reality, thus showing the worries of the Western world. What’s more, what Huntington really wanted was the “revival” of Western civilization and the “re-​establishment of its position as a leader for other civilizations to follow and emulate.” In 2004, right after the 9/​11 event, Huntington proposed in his new book Who Are We? –​Challenges to American National Identity, that as far as the United States is concerned, the idea of multiculturalism runs counter to the overall national identity of the US and its national interests. As far as the world is concerned, he views the extremists of Islam now and the underlying, non-​ideological Chinese nationalism as a whole as the enemy of the US. According to Huntington, the US needed enemies in order to secure its national identity.”4 What the Bush administration has done since 9/​11 event can be seen as an attempt to establish its leadership as the hegemon of other civilizations.

20  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations Following Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of World Order, the book Empire –​The Political Order of Globalization, co-​ authored by Antonio Negri (Italy) and Michael Hardt (US), was published in 2000. The book provides a basic view of the current world situation: “Right before our eyes, imperialism is growing and forming. Boundless and never-​ending, this is the new global political order –​a new form of sovereignty: empire.” “A new form of sovereignty is emerging. An empire is a political object that effectively controls these global exchanges, and it is the supreme power that rules the world.”5 Based on this theory, many scholars in the United States strongly promote this “neo-​imperialism” theory. For example, in 2002, Professor Millson from the University of Chicago pointed out in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics: Any state will seek to maximize power, so power balance is impossible. The best defense is offense (this is the basis of Bush’s theory of “pre-​emptive strike”). British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s adviser Robert Cooper also holds “post-​modern country theory” and he divides countries throughout the world into three categories: the first is the post-​modern, namely North America, European countries and Japan; the second is the modern, which are still nation-​states, such as China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, etc.; and the third is the pre-​modern, such as Africa, Afghanistan, and the Middle East countries. One concept that Cooper has proposed and reiterated is “neo-​imperialism,” which means that postmodern countries use their national power (including military power) to control modern countries in the first place, and at the same time prevent the actions of pre-​modern countries, such as massacres.6 What’s more, American neo-​conservatism in the 21st century proposed three fundamental views: (1) extreme reverence for military power; (2) advocacy for the establishment of American “benevolent hegemony”; and (3) emphasis on the promotion of Americanized democracy and values. Accordingly, US President Bush proposed three major principles at the West Point graduation ceremony on June 1, 2002: first, the US should maintain “pre-​emptive” power; second, American values are universal; and third, US should maintain unchallengeable military power.7 According to such “neo-​imperialism” theory, it is impossible not to cause “clashes” among countries and peoples of different cultural traditions. Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory actually provides the most basic strategies for this “neo-​ imperialism” theory. In his book The Clash of Civilizations, there are two basic propositions: (1) “suppress the military expansion of Islamic and Confucian states”; “maintain Western military superiority in East and Southwest Asian countries”; and “create differences and clashes between Confucianism and Islamic countries.” (2) “consolidate international organizations that reflect and legitimize Western interests and values, and promote the participation of non-​Western countries in these organizations.” Based on these theories, we can see that the current world is in chaos and local wars are getting more and more intense because the West, mainly the US, has taken advantage of cultural differences (e.g., differences in values) to provoke conflicts among civilizations.

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  21 What if “civilizations” can only choose to achieve the “neo-​imperialism” theory that unifies the world through conflicts? What if it is impossible for different civilizations to coexist?

2  “Coexistence of Civilizations” and the New Axial Age The past human history has witnessed many clashes between nations, peoples and regions due to differences among civilizations (e.g., religions). However, seen from the overall landscape of historical development, civilizations of different countries, peoples and regions should develop in a way dominated by mutual absorption and integration. As I see it, civilization is not the primary source of clashes between countries, nations and regions. I have very limited knowledge of Western culture (both civilization and culture are incarnations of a comprehensive lifestyle of a nation, and civilization is culture from a broader perspective) and therefore have little to say about it. So, I will only quote Russell to illustrate that today’s Western civilization is formed by absorbing and integrating many cultural elements. In 1922, after Russell’s visit to China, he wrote an article entitled The Comparison of Chinese and Western Civilizations, which included the following passage: “Exchanges between civilizations have proven many times in the past to be a milestone in the development of human civilization. Greece studied Egypt, Rome borrowed from Greece, Arabia referred to the Roman Empire, and medieval Europe imitated Arabia, while Renaissance Europe followed the Byzantine Empire.” Whether Russell’s passage is very accurate, there may be different opinions, but he put it that: (1) exchange among civilizations is an important factor in the development of human civilization; (2) European culture today is an assimilation of many elements of other national cultures and contains some elements of Arab culture. These two points are undoubtedly true. If we conclude from the development of Chinese culture, it is always temporary for clashes between different cultures due to cultural reasons, while the mainstream for mutual absorption and integration of different cultures. In the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period (770 B C –​221 B C ), there were various regional cultures in China, including Central Plain culture, Qi and Lu culture, Qin and Long culture, Jing and Chu culture, Wu and Yue culture, and Ba and Shu culture, but only later did they integrate into a roughly unified Chinese culture. In particular, the introduction of Indian Buddhist culture into China in the early 1st century A D reinforced the idea that two different cultures could coexist. Indian Buddhist culture was introduced to China in a peaceful way. There was never any cultural war between Indian Buddhism and the native Confucianism and Taoism, but only three political and economic conflicts when China’s royal power cracked down on Buddhism. But for most of the time, the cultures of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism

22  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations coexisted in China. A famous French sinologist (Kristofer Schipper) once asked me, “Why is Chinese culture so diverse?” I thought about it for a while and replied two reasons, “One is the ideological reason since China has always advocated “harmony in diversity.” Culture can be different but can also live together in harmony (I will explain more about this issue below). The second is the institutional reason. China regards the emperor as the highest authority, and all cultures (religion, philosophy and ethics) center around the will of the emperor. However, for the sake of social stability, the emperor often does not want clashes or even wars caused by different cultures. Therefore, the emperor has often adopted the method of “three-​religions debate” by summoning Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists to the royal court to debate, and whichever won the debate was ranked first, followed by the second and third. They were not allowed to kill each other or start wars.” From the above, based on historical experience, I believe that Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory is, in any case, one-​sided and serves the American strategy. He stated, “I believe that the source of clashes in the new century will no longer be ideological or economic, but culture will be the main reason that separates humanity and causes clash. In world affairs, nation-​states will remain important, but the main conflicts in global politics will be between communities of different cultures. The clash of civilizations will shape global politics, and the fault lines between civilizations will become the battle lines of the future.” Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory is a keen observation that certain clashes due to “civilizations,” such as the Palestinian–​Israeli conflict in the Middle East, the conflict in Kosovo, and even the war in Iraq, all contain certain cultural (religious and values) causes. However, when analyzed, the most basic cause of clashes and wars is not cultural, but “political and economic,” as in the case of the Palestinian–​Israeli conflict over the control of the region, the Iraqi war mainly over oil, and the Kosovo conflict mainly over the strategic position of the great powers. Instead, we should see on the other side that there is no clash between many different cultures now due to civilizational (cultural) differences, such as between China and India, between China and Russia, and even between China and Europe, all of which have not had any serious clashes, much fewer wars, for quite a long period of time, especially in the last decade. Therefore, the “clash of civilizations” theory does not correctly describe the current situation in the world, let alone the prospects for the development of human society. But the “coexistence of civilizations” should be the way out for human society and the goal that human society must strive for. To clarify this issue, I think perhaps we should first understand what kind of time we are in. I’m of the view that we are in a new “Axial Age.” The German philosopher Jaspers once proposed the concept of the “Axial Age.” He argues that around 500 B C , great thinkers emerged almost simultaneously in ancient Greece, Israel, India, and China, all of whom offered unique views on issues of human concern. Socrates and Plato in ancient Greece, Laozi and Confucius in China, Siddhartha Gautama in

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  23 India, the Jewish prophets in Israel, and Zoroaster in Persia, have all formed different cultural traditions. After more than 2000 years of development, these cultural traditions have become the main spiritual wealth of human culture, and the different cultures of these regions originally developed independently and did not influence each other. “Humankind has always survived on everything that was produced, thought and created during the Axial Age. Each new leap in history would recall this period and be rekindled by it. Since then, this has been the case. The awakening or the recollection or revival of the potential during the Axial Age always provide the spiritual impetus.”8 For example, the European Renaissance turned its attention to ancient Greece, the origin of its culture, thus rekindling European civilization and bringing massive impact on the world. When experiencing the shock of the Indian Buddhist culture, the Song and Ming Confucianism (Neo-​Confucianism) in China returned to philosophies of Confucius and Mencius in the Pre-​Qin Dynasty, elevating Chinese indigenous philosophy to a new level. In a sense, the development of multiple cultures worldwide today may embody another leap from the Axial Age of more than 2000 years ago. So, can we say that the culture of human society today is entering or is about to enter a new “Axial Age”? I think it might be possible from all signs. First of all, since World War II, the formerly colonized countries and oppressed nations have found it urgent to confirm their independent identity in all aspects due to the gradually disintegrating colonial system, with the unique culture of the nation (language, religion, values etc.) as an important pillar to confirm its independent identity. We learned that after World War II, Malaysia insisted on using Malay as its national language to emphasize national unity. After the founding of Israel, it decided to restore the Hebrew language, which had long been used only for religious ceremonies, as the common language. “The main elements of any culture and civilization are language and religion.”9 In order to emphasize the identity of their own cultures, some leaders and scholars of Eastern countries have proposed group-​ centered “Asian values” that differ from the Western individual-​ centered so-​ called “world values,” etc. Even Huntington recognized that “non-​Western civilizations in general are reasserting their cultural values.”10 Secondly, the Axial Age around 500 B C was the time when the above-​mentioned Axial countries entered the Iron Age, and productivity developed greatly, giving birth to a number of important thinkers. Now that we have entered the information age, human society will take another big leap forward. As we can see, economic globalization, technological integration, and the development of information networks have unified the world. Cultures of different countries and nations will not develop independently, as they did in the “Axial Age” in the 5th and 6th centuries B C , but in contradiction, clash, mutual influence, and mutual absorption. Each culture is limited in understanding itself since you will not be aware of the shape of a mountain when you stand on it. If you look at it from another cultural system, that is, from the other “mountain,” you can more comprehensively

24  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations recognize the features of this culture. In his article Why we Westerners cannot bypass China in the study of philosophy, French scholar François Jurien put it, “We choose to depart, that is, we choose to leave, in order to create space for thinking. For all exotic countries, such roundabouts are done systematically. People cross China in this way to better understand Greece; despite the cognitive disconnect, we have a certain innate familiarity with Greece due to heredity. Therefore, to understand it, and also to develop it, we have to cut off this familiarity and constitute an external view.”11 This kind of cross-​cultural research, which focuses on “mutual subjectivity” and “cross-​reference” and pays attention to looking at one’s own culture from the “other,” has been gradually accepted by the majority of Chinese and foreign scholars. The purpose of understanding one’s own culture from another culture is to inherit and develop its own traditional culture. In such a situation, how to preserve its cultural identity and pass on its cultural lifeblood is undoubtedly a question that must be seriously addressed. The economy can be globalized and technology integrated, but culture cannot be homogenized. From the development of human society till today, it is impossible and undesirable for any culture to be free from the influence of foreign culture; however, only by giving full play to the inherent spirit of its original culture can it better absorb foreign culture to nourish local culture. As Mr. Fei Xiaotong said, “In the process of maintaining contact and active communication with the Western world, we can turn our good things into worldwide good things. First is localization, then globalization.”12 This means that when absorbing foreign cultures, we must maintain the roots of our own culture. Therefore, the development of culture in human society in the 21st century will be both national and global. Third, in terms of the current human society and cultural existence, a new pattern of cultural diversification development under the global consciousness has been formed or is forming. We can see that perhaps the 21st century will be dominated by four major cultural systems, namely, European and American culture, East Asian culture, South Asian culture, and Middle Eastern and North African culture (Islamic culture), all of which not only have a long historical and cultural tradition, but also influence a population of over one billion people each. Certainly, there are other cultures that will influence the future of human society in the 21st century, such as Latin American and African culture. But at present, the influence of these cultures is far less than the above four ones. If human society wants to extricate itself from the current chaos and conflicts, especially to criticize cultural hegemony and cultural tribalism, it is necessary not only to embrace the new “Axial Age” culturally, but also to continuously promote dialogues among countries and nations of different cultural traditions, so that each culture can consciously work together to solve the common problems faced by human society today. There is no doubt that the four cultures mentioned above shoulder particularly important responsibility for human society today. As human society is now at a major historical turning point, each nation and country should

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  25 make a serious, careful reflection on its own culture, especially on the European, American, East Asian, South Asian and Islamic cultures, which have a significant impact on the current human civilization, and which is undoubtedly necessary for the future development of human society. For any nation or country, especially those with a long history and a significant influence on human society today, its cultural tradition is a fact that has been established and cannot be severed, because its cultural tradition has penetrated into the hearts of millions of people of this nation or country and is the spiritual pillar of this nation or country. We go back to “tradition,” take “tradition” as the starting point, and find strength from “tradition” to advance the development of our culture and to solve the current problems of human society. In this sense, the 21st century will probably be driven by European and American cultures, East Asian cultures, South Asian cultures, and Islamic cultures, which have a long history of cultural traditions, into a “New Axial Age” in which human society will once again recall the Axial Age of 2500 years ago. In this New Axial Age, there are different cultural traditions and these cultural traditions still have a strong base of population resources, which can never be eliminated. Even if war is resorted to, it can only have a temporary effect. Therefore, cultures must still coexist in the long run.

3  Can Chinese Culture Contribute to “the Co-​existence of Civilizations”? If Chinese people want to make contributions to the “Co-​ existence of Civilizations” in the contemporary world, we must understand our own culture well; in other words, we must be “conscious” of our own culture. The so-​called “cultural consciousness” means that people in a certain culture will ponder or reflect on the origin, history, characteristics (including both merits and weakness) of the culture as well as the trend of its future development. It is fair to say that the Chinese nation is on the eve of national rejuvenation. Therefore, we must be conscious of Chinese culture, properly position the traditional culture and explore the true spirit of our ancient culture so as to contribute to humankind. On the other hand, we also need to carefully examine the cultural flaws, based on which we absorb the valuable cultures of other countries and nations. We need to interpret Chinese culture in a modern way in line with the general trend of contemporary social development. In this way, our country can truly lead the development of global culture and create a modern world together with other cultures. Traditional Chinese culture is mainly composed of Confucianism and Taoism, which are believed to be complementary. It is certain that when Indian Buddhism was introduced to China, it has also had an important impact on Chinese society and Chinese culture. Now, I would like to talk about whether the thoughts and theories of Confucianism and Taoism could provide meaningful resources to the “coexistence of civilizations.”

26  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations 3.1  The Confucian “Doctrine of Benevolence” Is Positive to the “Co-​existence of Civilizations” It is put in a manuscript text in Guodian Chu Slips that “The Way originates in affections,” where “Way” here refers to “humanity,” i.e., the principles of interpersonal relationships or of social relationships. It is different from “the Way of Heaven” that refers to the laws of nature or of the universe. Human kinds are bonded by affections at first, according to the basic principle of the “doctrine of benevolence.” When Confucius was asked by his disciple, Fan Chi, what “benevolence” is, he answered, “To love people.” What is the source of “benevolence”? As it was put in the Doctrine of the Meanor Zhongyong, “Benevolence is to love people, while to love your parents is the utmost benevolence.” “Benevolence” is an inherent character of humankinds, while to love our relatives is the minimal of its kind and should be expanded. It is put in Guodian Chu Slips that “It is only love when you filially love your parents; but it is ‘benevolence’ when you love not only your father but also others.” “Be filial to your parents while loving the people.” You should not only be filial to your parents but also love the people in the world. That is to say, the Confucian “doctrine of benevolence” refers to extending love from “family” to “all the people,” in the idea of “putting oneself in the place of another.” To fulfil “benevolence” one has to “respect not only his/​her parents but also other elderly, love not only his/​her own children but also other kids.” It is not easy to do. One has to regard as the standard the principle of “treating other people as you would yourself,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “if you wish to become successful or make achievements, help others do the same.” (Zhu Xi’s Notes on the Four Books, “To fulfil yourself is loyalty, to put yourself in the place of another is reciprocity.”) If we want to extend “benevolence” to the whole society, then we need to follow what Confucius said, “Self-​ denial and fulfilling propriety are benevolence. Once you can restrain yourself and practice propriety, everyone else will praise you for your benevolence. You must practice benevolence yourself; how can others practice it for you?” Since ancient times, “self-​denial” and “practicing propriety” have been interpreted as two parallel concepts, which for me is far from being accurate. On the contrary, it means that you need to “restrain yourself ” first and “practice propriety” before being benevolent. Mr. Fei Xiaotong also explained it, “Only by self-​denial, can you practice propriety that is necessary for you to live in the society by following the social norms. Self-​promotion and self-​denial may be the key to the differences between eastern and Western cultures.”13 I think this is very reasonable. Zhu Xi explained it by stating that “Self-​denial refers to the restraint of one’s own desire or interest. And it is a heavenly principle to fulfill the propriety.” That is to say, we need to restrain our own desires in order to behave in compliance with the etiquette system. “Benevolence” is one’s own intrinsic moral character (“Love is born of human nature”); “Rite” is an external etiquette system that regulates people’s behavior, which functions to adjust the relationship between people and make them live in

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  27 harmony. To abide by the ritual system, people must be self-​conscious and act out of “loving others,” in order to meet the requirements of “benevolence.” Therefore, Confucius said, “Benevolence is for oneself, but for others!” Regarding the relationship between “benevolence” and “propriety,” Confucius made a clear statement, “What is propriety when people are not benevolent? What’s the pleasure of being heartless?” Propriety and music without benevolence is hypocritical and deceptive. Therefore, Confucius believed that with the conscious pursuit of “benevolence” and realizing this kind of “benevolence” in the daily society according to certain norms, the society would be harmonious and peaceful, and “self-​denial in one day would lead to benevolence in the world.” In my opinion, the mindsets of Confucius and Confucianism are meaningless to those who “govern the country” and to the ruling groups of developed countries (especially the US) in the world. To “govern the country and bring peace to the people” should be based on “benevolent governance” and “magnanimity,” instead of “hegemony.” “Benevolent governance” and “magnanimity” enable different cultures to coexist and develop together. “Hegemony” will lead to the clash of civilizations, the simplification of culture and form cultural hegemonism. If Confucian theory of “Benevolence” is used to deal with the relationship between different civilizations, then conflicts and even wars will not be caused among different civilizations, and “coexistence of civilizations” will be realized. Confucius’s theory of “Benevolence” certainly is not capable to solve all the problems of “cultural coexistence” in today’s human society. However, it is of undoubted significance in working as a moral requirement of “self-​ discipline” based on “benevolence,” and as a criterion to adjust the relationship between different cultures. It is never easy to seek the harmonious coexistence of different cultures so that different countries and nations with different cultural traditions can live in peace. Maybe Confucius can provide us with some insights. He proposed an idea called “harmony in diversity.” He said, “Men with noble character can keep harmonious friendships but meanwhile they do not have to agree with each other on specific issues; men with vile characters agree blindly with each other but deep inside they do not have a friendly and harmonious attitude towards each other.” He believes that noble men with obliging and compassionate souls treasuring peace should seek harmony in diversity, while vile men with no moral standard cannot live in harmony with others because they tend to force their opinions on others. If we take “harmony in diversity” as the principle to deal with relations between different cultures, we may find positive solutions for the conflicts between different countries and nations. Especially for the disagreements and conflicts arising from differences of cultures (such as differences in religions and values), “harmony in diversity” should be more meaningful. Chinese people historically believe that “harmony” and “identical” differ from each other. There was even a debate about it. According to The Zuo Tradition: the 20th Year of Zhao Gong, the King of Qi said, “Only Ju and I are

28  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations in harmony!” Yan Zi said, “What you have with Ju is only being identical. It is not harmony.” The king said, “Aren’t they the same?” Yan Zi said, “They are not. Harmony is like making soup. You cook fish and meat with water, fire, vinegar, sauce, salt and plums. The cook balances each flavor to reach a moderate taste. If it tastes too strong, he would put water to dilute it. A decent man eats soup like this and his mind will be soothed. It is also like the relationship between the king and his ministers... However, it is not what you and Ju have. Ju blindly agrees with your opinions. If your soup only contains water and you dilute it with even more water, no one will like it. If string instruments only play in one tone, no one will want to hear it. This is why you should not pursue being identical.” According to Discourses of the States, the Discourse of Zheng, Shi Bo said, “Prosperity can only be achieved in harmony rather than identical. Harmony is the balance of diversified things, which is the root of prosperity. If things are simply added to each other, they will be cast away sooner or later. So, the former kings balanced metal, wood, water, fire and earth and created everything.” That is why we can tell that “harmony” and “identical” are different concepts. “Balancing different things to reach harmony” is based on differences, which tells that development rises from the coordination of different things. “Pursuing the amount of the identical thing” is the simple overlying of the same thing, which creates nothing. The ideal goal of traditional Chinese culture is that “All things are nourished together without injuring one another,” which consists of the idea of “unidentical” and “harmony” in one sentence. This philosophy provides endless insights for the coexistence of diversified cultures. The insightful Western scholars have recognized that different civilizations should be able to coexist and should not cause conflicts or even wars due to cultural differences. They believe that different nations and countries should be able to achieve a certain “consensus” through cultural exchanges and dialogues. This is a process from “difference” to mutual “identification” in a certain sense. This kind of mutual “identification” does not mean that one party destroys one another, nor is one party “assimilates” one another, but seeks a meeting point between two different cultures, and promotes the development of both two cultures on this basis. This is exactly the function of “harmony.” Different ethnic groups and countries have formed different cultures and traditions due to geographical, historical and some accidental reasons. Those differences in culture are precisely the reason why human society is rich and colorful and has formed a complementary and interactive pattern in the course of human history. Cultural differences may cause conflicts and even wars, but it cannot be assumed that “differences” will definitely cause conflicts and wars. Especially with the highly developed science and technology of today, large-​scale wars may destroy mankind itself. Therefore, we must strive to achieve harmony between different cultures through dialogue. Many Chinese and Western scholars have now recognized the importance of strengthening mutual understanding between different cultures through dialogue and communication. For example, Habermas put forward the

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  29 concepts of “justice” and “unity,” which I believe can be treated as the principle for dealing with the relationships between different nations and cultures. Habermas’s “justice” principle can be understood as ensuring the independence of each national culture and the right to develop in accordance with its national wishes; the “united” principle can be understood as the duty to show sympathy, respect and understanding toward the culture of other nations. Only through continuous dialogue and exchanges can we always form a virtuous circle in the interaction between different nations and cultures. The German philosopher Gadamer14, who passed away not long ago, proposed that “understanding” should be extended to the level of “broad dialogue,” precisely because of which that the subject and the object (subjective and objective) can transit from unequal status to equal status. On the other hand, dialogue is only possible if both parties of the dialogue are in equal status. It is safe to say that the subject-​object equality consciousness and cultural dialogue theory held by Gadamer is exactly the important philosophy that our time needs.15 This concept has important enlightenment for how we correctly and deeply understand Sino-​foreign cultural relations, ethnic relations, and so on. However, both Habermas’s “justice” and “solidarity” principles, or Gadamer’s “broad dialogue theory” must be based on the recognition of the principle of “harmony in diversity.” Only those countries who embrace the differences of culture and tradition can live in harmony with others through dialogue and obtain equal rights and obligations. Under such circumstances, “broad dialogue” can be “really carried out and successfully completed.” Therefore, the Confucian principle of “harmony in diversity” based on “harmony is precious” should become a basic principle for dealing with different cultures. Applying the principle of “harmony with difference” to handle the relationship between countries and nations with different cultures and traditions not only has a positive significance for eliminating contradictions, conflicts and even wars, but also is a driver for the development of various countries and ethnic cultures in exchanges. So, Bertrand Russell said, “The exchanges between different civilizations have been proven many times in the past to be milestones in the course of human history.” What human society needs today is that different cultures can absorb and merge with each other to develop the characteristics of different cultures and traditions, in order to achieve “cultural coexistence” on a new basis.

4  “Tao” from Taoism Can Provide Meaningful Resources for the Prevention of the “Clash of Civilizations” If we say Confucius is a man with benevolence, Laozi is a man with wisdom. In his book Tao Te Ching, “Tao” is the basic concept, while “natural non-​ interference” which means conforming to the law of nature is the basic characteristic of “Tao.” Wang Chong said in his work Lun Heng, “Chu Bing” that “Conforming to the law of nature is the will of the universe.” The disputes in today’s human society are undoubtedly caused by the greedy pursuit of power

30  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations and money. The root of chaos and disorder of the world is the major powers who expand their influence, loot the resource of the weak, and practice power politics for their own interests. In other words, imperial hegemony is the root of the “clash of civilizations.” The “natural non-​interference” proposed by Laozi can be understood as: “Don’t go against the will of the general public, so that society will be peaceful and the world will be peaceful.” Laozi said, “An ancient sage once said, ‘The ruler in power should not interfere too much with the people. Don’t disturb the normal life of the people. Don’t do things that go against the people’s wishes. And don’t be greedy to exploit the people’.” By avoiding doing those, the people will civilize themselves, get on the right track of life, and live a prosperous but simple life. If we understand this paragraph in a modern context, it can be of great significance to the domestic stability of a country, but also to the elimination of conflicts between different cultures. This paragraph can be understood as: “The more countries interfere with others, the more chaotic the world will be. If major powers willfully use military force or use force as a threat to others, the world will be more turbulent and out-​of-​order. If the powerful countries loot the weak ones in the name of help, the weak ones will be poorer. If developed countries fight for wealth and dominance with growing desire, the world will be one of horror with no room for moral standards. Based on this, I believe that “non-​interference” might be a cure for the leaders of the new empire. Accepting it, they can make the world peaceful and stable. However, the “new empire” often treats other countries and nations with “interference” like intervention, loot and invasion, which is undoubtedly caused by the greedy nature of the empire itself. Laozi believes that “No misfortune is greater than being insatiable. No guilt is bigger than being greedy. People who know where to stop are always contented.” Isn’t the “new empire” exactly “insatiable” and “greedy”? Laozi also said, “Isn’t ‘the will of the universe’ like shooting an arrow with a bow? If it is too high, you should lower it; If it is too low, you should raise it a little. If there is more, it will be reduced, and the deficiencies will be supplemented. The law of ‘the will of the universe’ is more of reducing the redundant and using it to make up for the deficient. ‘The will of human’ is different. It tells people to deprive the inadequate to enshrine the excess.” What caused the chaotic and unstable status of the human society today? It is human itself, especially those leaders of the “new empire.” They have violated the will of the universe, and they have lost the trust of people. They “deprive the inadequate to enshrine the excess,” which is exactly the root of all the contradictions, conflicts and even wars. We can see from here that the theory of “clash of civilizations” has a tight connection with the theory of “new empire.” For the peace and stability of the society, Laozi stands strongly against war. According to his Tao Te Ching, waging war is inauspicious and everybody hates it, so rulers with morality would not do it. Wars kill people, stop production and break social order. So, Laozi believes that it is not a good thing. People hate it. And leaders with morality do not solve problems with wars. Laozi also said, “We should warn rulers with morality, so that they

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  31 do not impose military force on others. Consequences come with invasion. Armies destroy everything wherever they go, and thorns will grow wildly. After a big battle, it will be a famine year.” Looking back at the history of countries around the world, after every war, people could see a massive decline in population, waste of land, damage of production and the rise of thieves. This is also the outcome of two world wars, and also the case for the wars in the Middle East. Rulers of the new empire have waged wars in many places but have only dragged their own country into the mud. Because the people of the invaded countries refuse to yield and choose to fight back with no fear of death. So, Laozi said, “The people are not afraid of death, so what use is it to threaten them with death?” and he also said, “Those who love killing will not triumph.” We can see from history that those who wage wars might succeed at first, but they always fail in the end with their reputation being ruined for good. Hitler was an example, so was Japanese militarism. As a man with wisdom, Laozi was able to see the other side of things. He said, “Good luck often stands beside disasters, while disasters tend to lurk inside good things.” People in some countries are now suffering, but it is also the start of the rejuvenation of their nations. Looking back at the past century of China, it was only after invasions from others that the Chinese people were awakened. That is why we can say that China is on the eve of national rejuvenation. I believe that rulers of countries around the world, especially those of the new empire, should absorb the wisdom of Tao Te Ching, and realize that power politics and hegemonism have no future in the long-​term development of the world. So, I believe that the wisdom of Laozi is vital for the refutation of the theory of “clash of civilizations” and “new empire.” We support the theory of the “coexistence of civilizations,” support the theory of “non-​interference” of Laozi. We hope humans today can live in a world of peace, stability, common development and common prosperity. Of course, it is unlikely for the wisdom from 2000 years ago to solve all the problems facing human society in the current days (including the contradictions and conflicts between different nations), but his thoughts still bring great enlightenment. What we should do is to explore and develop the essence of his thoughts, and put it in the modern context, so that people can get some precious enlightenment from the ancient Chinese wisdom. Between different nations and countries, conflicts can be caused by differences in religious belief, value, and the way of thinking, and conflicts can even lead to wars. However, the conflicts are not inevitable; they can be defused and wars caused by the differences in culture can be prevented. This requires us to find wisdom that can contribute to the coexistence of civilizations from the cultures of different nations, and use them to neutralize the factors that can lead to conflicts. As mentioned above, Confucianism and Taoism in Chinese culture can defuse conflicts between civilizations and provide resources for the “coexistence of civilizations.” I believe the way to resolve the “clash of civilizations” and contribute to the “existence of civilizations” also exists in the cultures of other nations and countries. When human society enters the

32  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations 21st century, we have two choices to face the relations of different nations and cultures –​the theory of “clash of civilizations” or the theory of the “coexistence of civilizations.” We must be careful with our choice. Standing against the theory of “clash of civilizations” and upholding the theory of the “coexistence of civilizations” will undoubtedly lead to the well-​being of mankind. It is written in the Book of Documents: Canon of Yao that “All nations live side by side in perfect harmony.” Like many other nations, the Chinese nation is a great nation with long and glorious history, culture and traditions. The Chinese culture is undoubtedly a precious treasure for human society. We should make good use of it and make it contribute to the “peaceful coexistence” of human society, realize the coordinated coexistence of different cultures, and facilitate the exchanges between cultures.

Notes 1 Originally published in Chinese Culture, June 2004, and also published in Macau in Chinese and Western Culture Studies, June 2004. 2 By Huntington, translated by Zhou Qi, Liu Him, Zhang Liping and Wang Yuan: The Clash of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of World Order, Beijing, Xinhua Publishing House, 1999, 2nd edition, p. 368. 3 By Huntington, translated by Zhou Qi, Liu Him, Zhang Liping and Wang Yuan: The Clash of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of World Order, 2nd edition, p. 348. 4 See Fan Ke: Huntington’s Worries, in Reading, 2005(5); Samuel Huntington, translated by Cheng Kexiong: Who Are We? Challenges to American National Identity, Beijing, Xinhua Publishing House, 2005. 5 By Michael Hart and Antonio Negri, translated by Yang Jianguo and Fan Yiting: Empire –​The Political Order of Globalization, cover and preface, Nanjing, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House, 2000. 6 See Perry Anderson et al. Three New Theories of Globalized International Relations, in Reading, 2002 (10). 7 See Chen Guangxing, and the Question of De-​ Imperialization, in Reading, 2002(7); Cui Zhiyuan, The Bush Principles, the Western Humanist Tradition, and Neoconservatism, in Reading, 2003(8). Blair once said, “The best way to defend security is to spread our values.” (“Does Blair’s Theory of Liberal Imperialism Work?,” The Sunday Telegraph, 2004-​ 05-​ 30, quoted in “British Newspaper Thinks Blairism Is Heading for the End of the Road,” Reference News, 2004-​06-​02, 3rd edition). 8 Jaspers, The Origin and Object of History, p. 14. 9 By Huntington, translated by Zhou Qi, Liu Him, Zhang Liping and Wang Yuan: The Clash of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of World Order, edition 2nd, p. 49. 10 Ibid., p. 5. 11 Intercultural Dialogue, Fifth Series, Shanghai, Shanghai Culture Press, 2001 p. 146. 12 Fei Xiaotong: Chinese Culture and Sociological Anthropology in the New Century: A Dialogue between Fei Xiaotong and Li Yiyuan, in Fei Xiaotong’s Collected Works, Beijing, Qunyan Publishing House, 1999, vol. 14, p. 395. 13 Fei Xiaotong, “Re-​understanding the Relationship between Man and Nature in Cultural Theory,” see ISA Working Paper of China Center for Social

The “Clash of Civilizations” and “Coexistence of Civilizations”  33 Development, Department of Sociology, Peking University, Institute of Sociology and Anthropology, Peking University, February 2002. 14 See Yue Daiyun: Cultural Relativism and Comparative Literature, and Cross-​ cultural Bridge, Beijing, Peking University Press, 2002. 15 See Pan Derong: Gadamer’s Philosophical Heritage, Hong Kong’s Twenty-​First Century, April 2002; Yu Qizhi, “The Philosopher’s Cultural Achievement,” The 21st Century, August 2002.

5 “Identity of Ontology and Methodology” A New Perspective on Modernistic Diversity1

There are at least two very different interpretations of “modernistic diversity.” One is that there is diversifying modernity and “modernity” varies from nation to nation. The other is that there is only one kind of “modernity” with a fundamentally common reference. However, nations follow different paths toward modernization in different forms, which can be interpreted as “modernistic diversity.” In my personal opinion, perhaps the latter explanation is more reasonable. As we all know, “modernity” has its roots in the West, where modernization has already taken place, and many developing countries are now embarking on the journey toward modernization. Therefore, they share the same core values in terms of “modernity.” What is the core value of “modernity”? I’d like to take Yan Fu’s viewpoint to share my opinion. Yan Fu criticized the thought of “applying Western learning to the society based on Chinese learning,” which he believed was trying to match horses’ jaws to cows’ heads because he believes in the “identity of ontology and methodology” in Chinese philosophy.2 As he held the Chinese philosophy of “the ontological existence of a thing should determine its expression and application,” he believed that modern Western society is based on ontological freedom and methodological democracy.3 In my opinion, Yan Fu referred to human “modern society” when mentioning “modern Western society.” So, is it fair to conclude that “modern society” is “ontologically free and methodologically democratic,” and that “freedom” and “democracy” are fundamentally the core values of “modernity”? The answer is yes to me. To modern society, “freedom” is a spirit (including free-​market economy and the “free” development of individual “people,” because “freedom” is creativity), while “democracy” realizes the value of “freedom” spirit from rights and obligations. In this sense, “freedom” and “democracy” that originated from the West are “universal values,” which should not be denied despite their origin. Certainly, there are different paths and ways to evolve into a “modern society.” But “modern society” should be based on “freedom” and “democracy.” It is a new perspective from which we can view the global history from the Chinese philosophy of “the ontological existence of a thing should determine its expression and application.” We can take “modern society” as a middle point and extend it upward and downward, through which human society DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-6

“Identity of Ontology and Methodology”  35 can be categorized into “pre-​modern society,” “modern society” and “post-​ modern society.” If we use the Chinese viewpoint of “the ontological existence of a thing should determine its expression and application,” can we presume that “pre-​modern society” is based on “authoritarianism characterized by edification”? The “modern society” is based on “freedom characterized by democracy,” while the “post-​modern” one is based on “harmony characterized by the way of mean.” In the pre-​modern period, human society, whether it is the “imperial dictatorship” in China or the “royal dictatorship” (or “divine dictatorship”) in the Western Middle Ages, is committed to maintaining its “autocracy.” Therefore, “edification” was an instrument. Historically, China has been an “imperial dictatorship” since the Han Dynasty (206 B C to AD 220), during which Confucianism was politicized for the “edification” of the whole society to secure its rule. Chinese society is currently in the process of transition from “pre-​modern” to “modern.”4 This is probably the same case in many other developing countries. The Western Middle Ages are characterized by “royal or divine dictatorship” when Christian ethics was an instrument for the “indoctrination” to secure the religious rule. Thus,5 the world was a “pluralistic pre-​ modern” society. Since “freedom” serves as a spirit, “democracy” should be a guarantee for its realization. However, in modern society, “freedom” and “democracy” are not free from all kinds of defects, for contradictions may emerge in the ideological system itself.6 Any ideological system is only relatively good or bad at a certain time, which also applies to the concept of “freedom” and “democracy.” But in any case, “freedom” and “democracy” are of fundamental importance for human society along the path toward the “modern era.”7 “Freedom” is greatly valued as it is a very meaningful creation. It is because of the “free economy” (free market economy) that the wealth of human society has grown tremendously since industrialization, and people have benefited greatly in material well-​being. It is because of “free thinking” that science and culture are transforming rapidly. However, it cannot be denied that the “free economy” has led to growing polarization between the rich and the poor (of countries, of nations and peoples, and even within the same country or nation); in particular, the uncontrolled free economy to a certain extent will lead to economic crisis and social chaos, as evidenced by the recent financial crisis.8“Scientism” and “instrumental rationality” has proliferated to stifle the spirit of “humanism,” rejecting value rationality and marginalizing it. The philosophy of subjectivity and subject–​object dichotomy promoted by “modernity” has intensified the contradiction between “man and nature,” and thus the trend of deconstruction of “modernity” emerges, namely the “postmodernism.” I’ve not studied much about “postmodernism,” so I can only make some rough comments. Postmodernism, which emerged in the 1960s, was proposed in response to the defects of modernization in the process of development, and it was the deconstruction of “modernity,” which had eclipsed all authority and domination, and at the same time fragmented and floated everything. Therefore, the initial postmodernism aimed at “deconstruction”

36  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations and attempted to smash all authority, which is undoubtedly meaningful. Nevertheless, it failed to propose new constructive ideas, nor usher in a new era. By the end of the 20th century, the “constructive postmodernism” based on “process philosophy” proposed to integrate the achievements of the first enlightenment with postmodernism and to call for a “second enlightenment.” For example, A.N. Whitehead’s process philosophy argues that “man” should not be considered the center of everything, but rather man and nature should be considered as an interconnected community of life. His critique of the dualistic way of thinking in modern Western society, and promotion of the concept of the organic whole, provided the theoretical basis for his critique of modern dualism (scientism). John Cobb, founding Director of the Center for Process Studies, put it, “Constructive postmodernism is critical for the deconstructive postmodernism ... We explicitly introduce an ecological dimension into postmodernism, which is an era of harmony between humans and between man and nature. This era will retain some of the positive aspects of modernity but transcend its dualism, anthropocentrism, and patriarchy in order to construct a postmodern world where the common welfare of all life is valued and cared for.” “Today we recognize that people are part of nature and that we live in an ecological community...”9 This view may be in line with the ancient Chinese philosophy of “the unity of heaven and man.” They also argue that the world was firstly a place where people are part of nature and that the slogan of the First Enlightenment was “emancipation of the self ” and the Second Enlightenment is “concern for the other” and “respect for difference.” As in his The European Dream, Jeremy Rifkin emphasized that in the new era, everyone’s rights are respected and cultural differences are welcomed, where everyone enjoys a high quality of life (not a luxurious life) within the limits of the earth and human beings can live in stability and harmony. They believe that the concept of organic holistic systems is concerned with harmony, integrity and the interplay of all things.10 The above-​mentioned view may be, to some extent, similar to the concept of “harmony” in traditional Chinese culture. Process philosophy also argues that when individuals use their freedom to undermine the social community, the result of which must undermine their own “freedom.”11 Therefore, it is necessary to reject the abstract view of freedom in order to move toward deeper freedom with responsibility, to introduce the concept of responsibility and obligation into freedom, and to reveal the intrinsic connection between “freedom” and obligation. This is somewhat similar to an important idea in traditional Chinese culture that human beings can only survive in relationships with others. Therefore, given the gradual influence of constructive postmodernism in the West, is it possible that postmodern society, as opposed to “modern society,” will be a society with “ontological harmony and methodological mean”? As a concept, “harmony” entails the harmony between human beings and nature, between human beings (social harmony), and between human beings and their own bodies and minds, and other valuable meanings. A balance must be constantly sought in these “harmonies,” requiring the “middle ground” to be

“Identity of Ontology and Methodology”  37 achieved. It is an arduous and long way for Chinese society to successfully go through the process of modernization. However, given the traditional Chinese culture has the intellectual resources of “harmony” and “mean,” it may be easier for us to enter a “constructive postmodern society” with a new interpretation12 to adapt to human society. As Cobb put it, “Traditional Chinese thought is very attractive to constructive postmodernism, but we cannot simply return to it. It needs to renew itself by taking seriously science and the transformed society that has taken place. For the pre-​modern tradition to be useful to the postmodern, it must critically absorb the positive aspects of the Enlightenment, such as a concern for and respect for individual rights.” This13 quote from Cobb should be very instructive. Thus, it is an inevitable trend that the quest for “universal values” in different cultures has become an area of concern in the current academic world. In his later years, Mr. Feng Youlan often put forward some novel ideas that were commented by himself as “very strange theories.” People often come up with “strange ideas” in their old age. I think that my above-​mentioned view is also a kind of “very strange theory.” I would like to invite your criticism.

Notes 1 This article was originally an excerpt from the book titled Quest for “Universal Value” in Culture, which was included in Chinese Confucianism, Volume 4 (Beijing) by China Social Sciences Press in 2009, and was later edited as the second half of the second section of the general preface of the History of Chinese Confucianism (Beijing), Peking University Press, 2010. 2 Yan Fu put it in his article “To Editor of Foreign Affairs Daily,” “Ontology and methodology should identify with each other for one thing. Cattle are fit for carrying heavy loads and horses for running. I never heard of cattle used for running and horses for carrying heavy loads. Therefore, sinology and Western studies are ontologically and methodologically different, which need to be treated separately.” (The Collected Works of Yan Fu, Volume III, pp. 557–​559). 3 Yan Fu: Yuan Qiang, The Collected Works of Yan Fu, Volume I, p. 5. 4 It is said in Bai Hu Tong Yi, Three Classes and Six Chapters, “The Huan Wen Jia said, ‘ruler guides subject, father guides son and husband guides wife’. It is said, ‘We need to respect all fathers and brothers, six discipline road line. Uncles have righteousness, and we respect for seniority, fraternity and teachers and friends, so that the upper and lower levels of the Zhang Li, neatly humane...is the discipline for the transformation, if the net has a discipline, and all the eyes are open’.” 5 As Engels pointed out in “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in the Middle Ages, with the development of the feudal system, Christianity formed a religion that was compatible with the feudal system, and the Middle Ages encompassed everything in philosophy, politics, law and other systems of thought within theology, turning it into a sub-​discipline of theology. 6 Russell said in The History of Western Philosophy, “A philosophy that cannot be self-​justifying is never completely correct, but a philosophy that is self-​justifying can be totally wrong. The most fruitful philosophies have always contained conspicuous self-​contradictions, but for this very reason they are partially correct.”

38  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations (History of Western Philosophy, Volume II, p. 143). This passage of Russell should be said to be relevant to any philosophy. 7 On March 16, 2007, Beijing Evening News published Premier Wen Jiabao’s answer to a reporter from Le Monde, France, saying, “Democracy, legal system, freedom, human rights, equality and fraternity are not unique to capitalism, but are the civilized achievements jointly worked out by the whole world in the long historical process, and are also the common values pursued by mankind.” 8 “Liberalism not only frees people from the shackles of the times before the market economy, but also makes people bear the crisis of financial and social disasters.” See Capitalism Will Transform by Paul Kennedy, professor at Yale University, Reference News, March 16, 2009. 9 For the Common Well-​being: An Interview with John Cobb (Interview with Wang Xiaohua), Shanghai Journal of Social Sciences, June 13, 2002. 10 See Jeremy Rifkin, translated by Yang Zhiyi: European Dream, Chongqing, Chongqing Publishing House, 2006. 11 In the Confucianism of Chinese traditional culture, especially in the Pre-​Qin period, it is believed that there is a corresponding relationship between people, such as “loyalty to the monarch, loyalty to the minister,” “filial piety to the father,” “respect to brothers and friends” and so on. It is asked in the Book of Rites, “What is human righteousness? Father and son are filial, brother and brother are good, husband and wife listen, Changhui Youshun, Junren Chenzhong, and ten are called human righteousness.” “Twenty-​six Years of Zuo Zhuan Zhaogong”: “The monarch makes ministers in total, the father is filial, the brother loves his brother and respects him, the husband and wife are soft, the aunt is kind and the woman listens, and the courtesy too.” 12 There are many arguments on the concept of “harmony” in Chinese classics. For example, it is said in Zhouyi Gan Gua Nuo Ci, “The change of Heaven has broken the original order and rules, but it is necessary for everything to develop according to its nature and rules, and thus every country and nation develops according to its own reality and characteristics, which is called great harmony.” (It is said in Zhang Zi Zheng Meng Zhu that “Taihe refers to the greatest harmony.” In the Analects of Confucius, it is said, “The etiquette functions to guard the precious harmony”; “Harmony but difference.” It is said in Zheng Yu, “The unity of contradiction contains differences, and the unity of opposites is the driver for the development of things. Things that do not contain internal differences cannot exist or develop.” In the West, Leibniz’s philosophy is called a “system of harmony” that is based on the so-​called universal harmony. He regards the whole universe as an idea of a harmonious system, and sees unity in distinctiveness. About the concept of “golden mean,” for example, it is said in Shangshu Dayu Mo, “Impartiality in words and deeds is in line with the way of righteousness.” It is said in “Analects of Confucius,” “Confucius said that the doctrine of the mean is virtue, but it’s too late, and the people are rare for a long time.” (Zhu Xi’s “Notes on Four Chapters, Doctrine of the Mean Chapters” said that “the middle person, without the name of being inferior, is mediocre and ordinary.”) “Neutralization” in The Doctrine of the Mean “(The middle one is also the big one in the world; Also, the world can reach the Tao.)” Zheng Xuan explained in his Notes on Book of Rites –​ The Doctrine of the Mean that “Those who are called the Doctrine of the Mean, should be used for their neutralization.” “He (Shun) mastered the opinions on both ends of the problem, and then adopted moderate ones for the people.” There

“Identity of Ontology and Methodology”  39 is a word “mean” in Western philosophy, which is translated into “Zhongyong” (中庸）in Chinese. Aristotle linked the doctrine of the mean with moderation and put forward a set of systematic theories. He believes that everything has its golden mean, such as “10” and “5.” As for human kinds’ psychological state and emotion, excessive desire is dissolute, while inferior desire is abstinence and temperance is moderate. There are two kinds of moderation: the absolute moderation of the nature and the relative moderation of human kinds related matters. In ethics, all human behaviors have three states: excessive, inferior and moderate. Excessive and inferior are the characteristics of evil deeds, and only moderation is the characteristic of virtue and the standard of morality. Virtue is a kind of moderation, aiming at the intermediary. He also applied this doctrine of the mean to the theory of the political state. He thinks that a country governed by the middle class is the best, because owning moderate property is the best, it is the easiest to follow reasonable principles, and it is the most stable citizen class in the country. The city-​ state composed of middle-​class citizens is the best in structure and organization, hopeful to govern the country well. 13 For the Common Well-​being: An Interview with John Cobb (Interview with Wang Xiaohua), Shanghai Journal of Social Sciences, June 13, 2002.

6 New Perspectives on Western Sinology1

1  My Observation about Three New Perspectives on Western Sinology China’s academic going global should be based on the premise that Chinese scholars has learned about the “overseas sinology.” Recently, I have read some relevant literature and come up with some ideas to share. Although I’m not an expert in the area of “Western sinology,” I have paid attention to this issue from the perspective of my subject area (Chinese philosophy). My observation can trace back to the three seminars that I attended on sinology held by Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, which have impressed me very much. Last year witnessed the “3rd World Forum on Sinology” held by Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences every two years since 2004. This forum was designed to serve as a platform for Chinese and foreign scholars to exchange and talk about “sinology.” All the three seminars were about issues of actual significance to China and the world, which were themed on three coherent topics, namely, “Harmony but Difference,” “Harmony and Peace” and “Mutual Support in Harmony.” “Peace and development” is a common topic drawing global attention in the context of globalization. In the “3rd World Forum on Sinology,” discussions were held on “the road of China’s reform and opening up for 30 years,” “the way of coexistence between China and the world,” “the research on the methodology of Chinese studies,” etc. Each meeting had about 200 Chinese scholars and 100 foreign scholars to attend, some of whom were generally fixed guests for the sake of in-​depth discussion. I was interested in the issue of sinological methodology, as it involved the question of whether there is “universal value” in the academic culture of various nationalities. I think it is undoubtedly of great significance to raise this question. I will be more specific on this issue in the following sections. “Sinology” covers a wide range, since the study on any Chinese elements can be included in “sinology ,” such as philosophy, religion, philology, history, literature and art, ethics, political science, economics, law, archaeology and even theoretical issues of science and technology, etc. But generally speaking, it can be divided into two categories: research of practical significance and of academic significance, which should be complementary. “Sinology” can DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-7

New Perspectives on Western Sinology  41 provide some meaningful reference for solving the practical problems in China, and some topics that can be deeply studied in theoretical research for the latter. The latter (research of academic significance) should address more the theoretical topics with long-​term significance and basic academic construction, which can provide theoretical support for solving problems in Chinese society. I mainly focus on a few narrow areas of “philosophical” related to “sinology.” In view of my knowledge in philosophy, I would like to share my observations about three new perspectives on “sinology”: (1) the quest for ideological resources with certain “universal value” in Chinese culture; (2) Jullien, a French sinologist, studied “sinology” in the mode of “circuitous-​ regression”; (3) the rising tide of research on Chinese original classics. Since my subject area is philosophy, I am not capable to address the whole academic area of “sinology” that the Western sinologists are interested in. Here, I just want to share my observations about three new perspectives of some Western sinologists on “sinology” from my study on philosophy. 1.1  Quest for Ideological Resources with Certain “Universal Value” in Chinese Culture Léon Vandermeersch, a contemporary French scholar, is a consultant for the Confucian Canon Project by the Editorial and Research Center of Confucian Canon of Peking University. He wrote a book, titled The Global Significance of Confucianism, in which he noted, “The post-​modernization ... Western humanism, which once brought perfect human rights thoughts to the world, has brought the declining challenge of modern society; so far it cannot give a correct answer. Then, why don’t you think about the ways that Confucianism may guide the world, such as the idea of respecting nature put forward by ‘heaven and man in unity’, the holism of rejecting religion advocated by ‘being far away from God and close to people’, and the fraternity spirit of ‘All men are brothers within the four seas’?”2 In fact, there are many sinologists sharing the similar view, such as Schwartz, Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall. For example, in Thinking through Confucius, Roger T. Ames and Hao Dawei put it, “We should not only study Chinese tradition, but also try to make it a cultural resource that enriches and transforms our own world. Confucianism defines ‘man’ from a social point of view. Can this be used to correct and strengthen the Western liberalism model? In a society constructed with ‘rites’, can we find available resources to help us better understand the concept of human rights with insufficient philosophical foundation but rich practical value? ...”3 Professor Xavier Walter of Sorbonne University in France believes that4 “Confucianism is full of faith, hope, compassion and universality. In the 21st century, there is not only moral demonstration, but also spiritual radiation.” Most of these views ask for ideas of Chinese culture to solve various problems in today’s human society. Should these ideas of special significance in Chinese culture contribute to the “universal value”? In any case, this should

42  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations be a trend that deserves our attention. In particular, the constructive post-​ modernism emerging in the new century is more interested in the “value” of “Chinese culture.” The “Constructive Postmodernism,” based on A.N Whitehead’s “process philosophy,” proposes to integrate the achievements of the first enlightenment with postmodernism and call for the “Second Enlightenment.” “The first enlightenment advocates to emancipate oneself and the second enlightenment to respect others.”5 Whitehead’s “process philosophy” holds that man should not be regarded as the center of everything, but man and nature should be regarded as an interconnected community of life. He criticized the dualistic thinking in modern Western society and advocated the positive concept of wholeness.6 John Cobb, Director of the Process Research Center and one of the founders of American constructive postmodernism, put it, “Constructive postmodernism is critical of deconstructive postmodernism… We definitely introduce the ecological dimension into postmodernism, an era in which people and nature live in harmony. In this era, some positive things of modernity will be preserved … in order to construct a post-​modern world in which the common well-​being of all life is valued and cared for.”7 He also believes that the concept of the organic whole system “cares about harmony, integrity and the mutual influence of all things.” “When the process thought is owned and used for reference by Chinese people, it will greatly develop in China than in the West, because Chinese traditional culture has always been organic holism.” “Constructive postmodernism and many Chinese traditional thoughts all start from a different ontology. It is a new way of thinking, called organic philosophy. According to this mode of thinking, concrete things are the matrix of continuous change. There is no permanent entity, on the contrary, a constantly changing relationship.”8 From the above-​mentioned, we can see that in the process of seeking “universal value” in Chinese culture, Sinology in the West has facilitated a new group of constructive post-​modernism in Western philosophy, based on the meaning of “universal value”9 in Chinese philosophy (philosophy of organic holistic view). I think we must distinguish the “universalism” of Western values advocated by some Western scholars and politicians from the concept of “universal value” meaning existing in national cultures, and we should understand that the factors of “universal value” in national cultures often lie in the “special value” of their cultures. In my opinion, overseas sinologists have noticed some ideological resources with “universal value” meaning in Chinese ideology and culture, which should be a new contribution to the sinological study. 1.2  French Sinologist Jullien Studied “Sinology” Based on the “Circuitous-​Return Route” Francois Jullien is a relatively young French sinologist and a European “Greek philosopher.” He has been to China many times and has written several books about Chinese culture, such as The Value of Metaphor-​Principles of Poetry

New Perspectives on Western Sinology  43 Interpretation in Chinese Tradition, Process and Creation –​An Introduction to Chinese Scholars’ Thoughts, Endogenous Images –​Philosophical Reading of Books of Changes, and The Doctrine of the Mean, the most important of which should be Roundabout Entry –​Meaningful Strategies of China and Greece. Jullien wrote an article entitled “We Westerners can’t bypass China when studying philosophy,” in which he put it, “We choose to start and to depart, so as to create a long-​term thinking space. Such roundabout and orderly route have been taken to all the exotic places. People travel through China in this way in order to understand Greece better. Despite the cognitive fault, we have some innate familiarity with Greece due to heredity, so to understand it is also to develop our study on it. We have to cut off this familiarity and form an external point of view.”10 Why did Jullien choose to study Chinese culture in a way far from his own cultural tradition? This is because he believes that “Chinese culture represents the most obvious externality for European culture. Whether it is ancient or developed, it will enable Europeans to get rid of the ethnocentric theory.”11 As both a sinologist and a philosopher, Jullien has taken a roundabout route by studying China to observe Greece. Will this methodological journey bring a new perspective to other Western scholars? Certainly, it will. This kind of cross-​cultural research that takes “mutual subjectivity” and “mutual reference” as the core pays attention to “the other” to reflect on one’s own culture, and understands one’s own culture from another culture, which is precisely to inherit the cultural tradition by developing it. If discussing the meaning of “universal value” in different national cultures is to seek the common meaning of “universal value” in “special value” and seek the “common ground,” then Jullien’s approach of “roundabout return” is to seek “difference” in various national cultures. Jullien took the road of advocating “difference,” as he had a deep understanding of Zhuangzi’s saying that “things are naturally different.” The more different cultures are, the more valuable they are to learn from, while Chinese culture is the furthest away from European culture. As Jullien said, “These two cultures have been developing independently for so long that they have not looked at each other or ‘talked’ from the beginning.” Once these two cultures meet, there will be several possibilities for their collision: First, one side rejects the other and closes itself, such as some fundamentalism; Second, one party is conquered by the other, and the conquered party becomes a nation that has lost its tradition; Third, the two sides of different cultures can understand each other after a long period of “seeing each other” and “talking.” Jullien may have provided us with a new mode of “seeing each other” and “talking,” that is, discovering the “benefits” of “differences” to the development of their own culture in the understanding of “exotic atmosphere.” From the study of Chinese culture, Jullien took a circuitous road. After reflecting on his own culture, he got rid of his ethnocentric theory and then returned to Greek culture. This is because he lived in the atmosphere of Greek culture all the time and “had some innate familiarity with Greece.” In order to develop his own culture, looking at his own culture from a very different external point of view requires a new perspective, leading

44  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations to new discoveries and new creations. In my opinion, this may be a feasible way for Western sinologists (especially European sinologists) today. Therefore, we should pay more attention to new sinologists like Jullien. His new “Chinese Studies” research mode of “roundabout and entry” or “roundabout-​return” should enlighten our “Chinese Studies.” Can we return to our own cultural traditions from different Western traditions by reflection on the same roundabout way? Should we “understand it” in this way? In my opinion, Chinese culture is now in the great era of “reviewing traditional Chinese culture for innovation,” while the innovation should be based on re-​studying Chinese learnings. It requires a deep understanding of the source and flow of Chinese ideology and culture. We should insist on the subjectivity of our own culture. The deeper we know about Chinese ideology and culture and its trend, the stronger vitality it will have in facing the new century. “Innovation” requires us to comprehensively and systematically understand the major problems of survival and development, the major problems of world cultural development and the general trend of world cultural development, which requires us to make a timely and contemporary new interpretation of Chinese ideology and culture. “Reviewing traditional Chinese culture” and “innovation” are two inseparable aspects. Only by deeply exploring the true spirit of Chinese ideology and culture can we open up a new situation in the development of Chinese ideology and culture in a timely manner. Only when we dare to face the new problems existing in the current human society can we develop and renew the true spirit of Chinese ideology and culture, and make Chinese ideology and culture “rekindle the flame” in the 21st century. 1.3  Re-​emphasis on the Research Trend of Chinese Classics Early European sinologists paid much attention to the original classics in China, such as the Five Classics of Confucianism, Laozi and Zhuangzi of Taoism, as well as phonology, exegesis, writing, archaeological documents and so on. Recently, a large number of antique documents in China have been unearthed, which are closely related to the Five Classics (Classic of Poetry, Book of Documents, Book of Rites, Book of Changes and Spring and Autumn Annals), such as Book of Changes in Mawangdui silk book and in Shanghai Museum bamboo slips, Thoughts on Classic of Poetry, and Yin Zhi, Yin Hao and Shi Ye in Tsinghua Bamboo Strips, and a batch of Confucian classics dating back to the Warring States period in Guodian Chu Slips. Besides, there is Tao Te Ching in Mawangdui silk and Laozi in three groups collected by Shanghai Museum. These unearthed documents have greatly enriched the classics of early Confucianism and Taoism, and even added many important materials to the original Confucianism and Taoism, which will change some of our views on ancient Chinese culture. Due to the unearthed ancient bamboo slips and silks, Western scholars have once again attached great importance to ancient Chinese historical documents. I remember that the

New Perspectives on Western Sinology  45 first important international symposium on Guodian Chu Slips was held at Damus University in the United States. Since the end of the 20th century, sinologists (overseas Chinese scholars) in Europe, America and Japan have studied the unearthed bamboo slips and silks more and more extensively. Therefore, the Five Classics will definitely draw the attention from Western scholars. If one doesn’t understand the source of Chinese culture, it will be difficult to have a practical understanding of the reality and possible development of China today. Although there were some sporadic translations of the Five Classics in the 19th century, most of them were outdated and incomplete, which greatly hindered the study of the original classics of Chinese culture and the “revival” of Chinese national culture. In view of this, Hanban invited Chinese and foreign scholars to translate the Five Classics, and invited Professor Kristofer Schipper, a Dutch scholar, to preside over it. They first translated the Five Classics into English, and then translated them into French, German, Indian and Malay languages. The German philosopher Jaspers said in The Origin and Goal of History, “Human beings have been living by everything produced, thought and created during the axial period. Every new leap looks back at this period and is rekindled by it. Since then, this has been the case. The awakening of the potential in the axial period and the recollection of the potential in the axial period, or revival, always provide spiritual strength. The return of this beginning is a constant occurrence in China, India and the West.”12 Why did Jaspers specifically say such thing when mentioning China, India and the West in the mentioned quotes? I think this is not only because China, India and the West (Greek culture) are important regions in the “Axial Age,” but also these three regions are in a period of great transformation of “globalization.” They will all get the opportunity of “rejuvenation,” and their “new leap will look back at this period and be rekindled by it.” In this case, it is necessary to review one’s own cultural tradition and attach importance to its original classics. Therefore, “Chinese studies” in the West not only pay special attention to the political, economic and social realities of China, but also have a “craze for bamboo slips and silks” since the end of the 20th century. The study and translation of “Five Classics” in the early 21st century will certainly offer a new perspective for “Western sinology,” which will open up a new chapter for the study of Chinese history and culture by countries worldwide. In my opinion, to understand China today should be based on the premise that we know China’s historical and cultural traditions and the national characteristics of the Chinese nation, requiring special attention to “Five Classics,” the original classic of Chinese culture. The above three points are just some opinions based on my professional research, far from being a comprehensive and overall observation about “Western sinology.” As a scholar in a limited subject area, I may not be able to present the whole picture of “Western sinology.” Please make allowance for this.

46  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations

2  My Three Views on Studying “Sinology” 2.1  My Observation Concluded from the Research Approach of Jullien Some foreign scholars on “China issues” have noticed that they should “get rid of their ethnocentric theory” and develop their own culture by understanding China and drawing on the experience of Chinese history and culture. At present, a craze for “sinology” prevails in China. It is necessary to attach importance to our excellent historical and cultural tradition that lasts for 5000 years, shoulder the heavy responsibility of inheriting it, and hold onto the “subjectivity” of our own culture. However, we should overcome the parochial “nationalism.” “Europe-​centralism” has culturally collapsed, so we should never put forward anything impossible and pernicious such as “China-​centralism,” or believe that the “shoe is on the other foot” or “Chinese culture can save the world.” At present, we must cherish the cultural heritage left by our ancestors, which requires us to add more luster to it. We have made great progress in the academic area but have not yet made epoch-​making contributions to human society in academic theory when compared with the Western academic community. I still recall that there were three keynote speeches at the first “World Forum on Sinology” held by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in 2004, one of which was Titarenko, the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of PAH. He addressed the economic and other achievements of China, and finally said, “China should not be complacent about the great achievements that you achieved.” Being the commentator for the three keynote speakers at that time, I was quite impressed by the concluding words of Titarenko. In my comments, I talked about my personal experience to show that I have benefited a lot from Russian literature, which was unforgettable. In my opinion, Chinese scholars will still pay attention to Russian culture and other countries in the future and continue to learn their excellent cultures. We are the last to be complacent. We should still be modest despite the achievements we made in academic culture. I delivered remarks at a conference on “Research and Translation of the Five Classics,” where I concluded by noting that” scholars must be modest” and we should always see our shortcomings and never forget the saying “Conceit makes one lag behind.” The purpose of our research on “Western sinology” is to understand how overseas scholars view China. Be it correct or not, it is meaningful for us to develop our own academic community. 2.2  Only through “Dialogue” Can Research on “Sinology” Be “Understood” Since 2004, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences has started to hold the “World Forum on Sinology” every two years. Last year the 3rd forum took place. It was designed to build up a continuous and equal dialogue platform for Chinese and foreign scholars, so as to enhance their mutual “understanding,”

New Perspectives on Western Sinology  47 which should be valued. “Dialogue” is to “understand” each other, so as to achieve “peaceful coexistence.” Hans-​Georg Gadamer, a German philosopher who died in 2002, proposed that “understanding” should be facilitated in a “broad dialogue.” So the subject and object (subjective and objective) can transition from unequal to equal status. On the other hand, only when both sides of the dialogue are on an equal footing can it really be carried out and successfully completed. Gadamer’s consciousness of equal subject-​object (object) and the theory of cultural dialogue are important ideas required by our times.13 Gadamer’s theory of “generalized dialogue” breaks the long-​ standing popular model of “subject–​object dichotomy” in the West. At the same time, the subject can be the object, and the object can also be the subject, giving priority to each other and being the object, so as to form an equal dialogue. Only by recognizing the equal dialogue between different cultures can different nations and countries coexist peacefully through equal dialogue. Only in this way can different nations and countries obtain equal rights and obligations in the dialogue, and the “broad dialogue” can be “really carried out and successfully completed.” In the early 1990s, I talked about the significance of Confucius’ “harmony but difference” to mutual understanding and equal dialogue among different ethnic groups. Differences among cultures require dialogue dedicated to eliminating barriers and living in harmony. As I said earlier, scholars should be modest, but also be confident. They must seriously participate in the discussion and construction of the academic culture of all countries and nationalities, and strive to seek resources for the rational development of human society in the ideological culture, so that everyone can really benefit from the discussion. 2.3  To Seek Cultural Resources with the Meaning of “Universal Value” Some Western sinological scholars have already seen some ideological resources with “universal value” meaning in Chinese traditional culture. Then, should we also pay attention to some ideological resources with “universal value” meaning in Western and other national cultures? My answer is yes. As human beings, we are bound to meet and solve problems together. I believe that there will be valuable ideological resources in different cultures to solve the problems encountered by human society. At present, there have been many discussions on whether there is “universal value” in culture (philosophy) in the Chinese academic community, and some scholars and politicians hold a negative attitude toward the existence of “universal value” in culture (philosophy). I think this is a big problem. If “universal value” is not recognized to exist in the cultures of all ethnic groups, we will probably be challenged by the “relativism” of culture, and think that there is no “truth” (even the “truth” of relative significance), but only “what is said by the public is justified.” Therefore, it is difficult to form a dialogue between different cultures and reach a “consensus” on solving common

48  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations problems, for example, whether the concepts of “freedom,” “democracy” and “human rights” are of “universal value” in modern society. In my opinion, as “freedom,” “democracy” and “human rights” that originated from the West are an important symbol of “modernity,” developing countries such as China are on the path toward “modernity.” We should admit the existence of “universal value.” However, this is not the kind of “freedom,” “democracy” and “human rights” proclaimed by some Western scholars and politicians, especially in the US. What they have been advocating is not equivalent of the “freedom,” “democracy” and “human rights” of “universal value,” the actual ideas of which we can’t deny. Living in today’s interconnected world, for the development of human society, it is not only necessary to contribute the ideological resources with special value in our culture to human society, but also to seriously study and explore the ideological resources with “universal value” in the cultures of various countries and nationalities. This is also what we have learned from scholars of “Western sinology” trying to “get rid of their ethnocentric theory.”

Notes 1 This article was published in Chinese Culture, No. 31, Spring 2010. 2 Léon Vandermeersch, “The Global Significance of Confucius Canon Project,” Guangming Daily, August 31, 2009. 3 Thinking as a Confucianist, Preface of Chinese version, Beijing, Peking University Press, 2005, p. 5. 4 See “Chinese and French Scholars on Confucius Thought in Shanghai,” Wenhui Reading Newspaper, 2009-​09-​18. Leibniz once said, “I think that the promotion of human civilization today should focus on Europe and China. I regard this as a unique arrangement of fate, because it is China that promotes the civilization of the East, just as Europe promotes the civilization of the West.” (Quoted from Tang Chongzhao, “Witnessing the Dialogue of Masters,” World Cultural Forum, 2005(9)) Therefore, in my opinion, it is very important for Chinese and Western civilizations to have dialogue and enhance mutual understanding. 5 See Wang Zhihe, “The Post-​modernism Calls for the Second Enlightenment,” World Cultural Forum, January and February, 2007. 6 See “Whitehead’s Harmonious Response to the East,” Shanghai Social Science Journal, August 15, 2002. 7 “For the Common Prosperity-​Interview with John Cobb” (collated by Wang Xiaohua), Social Sciences Weekly. 8 See Crisford Cobb, “Ecological Civilization Calls for an Organic Way of Thinking,” World Cultural Forum, 2008(2); “Thinking about Freedom: A New Perspective of Process Thinking,” World Cultural Forum, 2009(1); see also Wang Zhihe, Vice President of Sino-​American Institute of Postmodern Development, “Postmodernism Calls for the Second Enlightenment,” World Cultural Forum, January and February 2007. 9 We must distinguish the “universal value” from the “universalism” advocated by some Western politicians and scholars. Please refer to my book Seeking Common Values in Culture (the original title of my thesis is “Seeking Common Values in

New Perspectives on Western Sinology  49 Culture,” but when Wen Wei Po was published it they asked for it to be changed to “Seeking Common Values in Culture,” and the content basically remained unchanged). Moreover, “universal value” is also different from “eternal value,” because the meaning of “universal value” is often concrete to address some problems. Whether there is “eternal value” also needs to be discussed. 10 YueDaiyun ed. Intercultural Dialogue, Fifth Series, Shanghai, Shanghai Culture Press, 2001, p.146. 11 It can be seen in the speech of The Significance of Jullien’s Thoughts to the History of Western Thoughts delivered in Peking University in 2008. 12 Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, p. 14. 13 See Pan Derong, “Gadamer’s Philosophical Heritage,” Hong Kong’s 21st Century, April 2002; Yu Qizhi, “The Philosopher’s Cultural Achievement,” The 21st Century, August 2002.

7 Current Cultural Exchange and Communication between China and the West1

1  What Kind of Era Are We in at Present? What kind of era are we in at present? The whole world is undergoing the transformation from the capitalist modern society to the post-​modern society of the second “enlightenment,” which has started by the first “enlightenment” since the 18th century. For China, it will be a critical moment to realize the great national rejuvenation under the background of globalization. This era will be a great opportunity for human society to move toward a new era. As we know, the Western capitalist society has a history of 300 years since the “enlightenment” in the 18th century, also the history of its “modernization.” But up to now, “modernization” has led to increasingly apparent social contradictions with many problems emerging. Kant proposed to “dare to use “rationality” as the slogan of “enlightenment movement,” but “rationality” is now in trouble. Originally, “rationality” should include two aspects: “instrumental rationality” and “value rationality,” which have greatly promoted the development of human society. However, the omnipotent “instrumental rationality” of science now outshines the others, marginalizing the “value rationality” of humanistic spirit. If the economy is not effectively regulated, it will evolve into a greedy beast, causing sharp contradictions and mutual hostility among people, countries and nations. Another slogan of the “enlightenment” is “emancipation of the Individual,” which was originally aimed at religious superstition and secular ignorance for “people” to be liberated and know the power of self. However, up to now, individual liberation has dominated over others. In particular, imperialism with their hegemony forcibly imposed their “values” on other nations and promoted “universalism.” The abnormal development of capitalist modern society has led to the indulgence of power desire instead of “rationality.” Therefore, all the people are living in contradiction and pain, politicians are suffering for not gaining the trust of the people, entrepreneurs are distressed by various contradictory systems and rules, ordinary people are struggling to make a living under difficult living conditions, and intellectuals are condemned by their conscience day by day for being powerless in the face of various social DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-8

Current Cultural Exchange and Communication: China and West  51 chaos. People from all walks of life hope for a happy life, but it seems that there is no time in sight, so everyone is unhappy. This is not a personal problem, but an inevitable pain in a major transformation period of human society. Therefore, each of us should shoulder the responsibility of promoting the early dawn of the new society.

2  Western Intellectuals Are Pondering Over the Birth of Post-​modern Society as Trying to Get Out of the Crisis Brought by the “Modern Society” In order to save human society and eliminate the negative influence brought by modernity, a “post-​modernism” trend of thought appeared in the West in the 1960s to dispel modernity. The early “post-​modernism” was “deconstructive post-​modernism” put forward in view of the defects in the development of modern society. What they did was to deconstruct “modernity,” oppose unification, advocate pluralism, demand to smash all authorities, and eclipse the authority and domination of “modernity.” However, the deconstructive “post-​modernism” includes not a single new constructive idea, nor has it ushered in a new era. At the juncture between the 20th century and 21st century, the “constructive postmodernism” based on “process philosophy” proposed to integrate the positive factors of the first “enlightenment” (that is, the 18th-​century “enlightenment movement”) with “postmodernism” and called for the second “enlightenment.” For example, Whitehead’s philosophy of process holds that “man” should not be regarded as the center of everything, but “man and nature should be regarded as a closely related community of life.” John Cobb, the founder of the Center for Process Philosophy, said, “Constructive postmodernism is critical of the position of deconstructive postmodernism… We definitely introduce ecologism into postmodernism, and postmodernism is an era of harmonious coexistence between people and nature. This era will retain some positive things in modernity and surpass its dualism, anthropocentrism and male chauvinism, so as to build a post-​modern society in which all the common good of life is valued and cared for.” They also pointed out that if the slogan of the first enlightenment is “self-​liberation,” then the slogan of the second enlightenment is “caring for others” and “respecting differences” (referring to entering the post-​modern society). They believe that when the community is weakened by its own “freedom” dictatorship, the result will definitely weaken its own “freedom.” Therefore, we must reject the abstract concept of freedom and move toward deep freedom with responsibility. We should introduce the concept of responsibility and obligation into freedom and reveal the internal relationship between “freedom” and obligation. At present, constructive postmodernism is only a trickle in the West, with little influence, but it has attracted the attention of a group of Chinese scholars for national rejuvenation.

52  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations

3  Traditional Chinese Culture in the Historic Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation Will Make an Epoch-​Making Contribution to the Development of Human Society in the Context of Globalization The Chinese nation is in the process of great national rejuvenation, which must be supported by rejuvenating its cultural traditions. However, in the context of globalization, the traditional Chinese culture, for its revival, has to face the problems in both its society and the current world. Therefore, we need to address the fact that it is both national and global while developing it. 3.1  Theory of “Man and Nature Share a Community of Life” and “Harmony between Man and Nature” Cobb, the representative of constructive postmodernism, said, “Today we realize that people are a part of nature, and we live in an ecological community.” Where did this idea come from? Undoubtedly, it is closely related to the Chinese thought of “the unity of man and nature.” “Harmony between man and nature” is one of the core values of traditional Chinese thought. This idea and the theory of “distinction between heaven and human,” which has been popular in the West for a long time, are two different ideological systems. In 1992, 1,575 scientists in the world published a book titled The Warning of World Scientists to Mankind, which had a saying at the beginning, “Man and nature are on a mutually contradictory road.” Why was nature destroyed? It cannot but be said that it is closely related to the philosophy of “harmony between man and nature,” which has long been influential in the West. Different from Western philosophy, “harmony between man and nature” can be said to provide a feasible way of thinking for solving the problem of natural destruction. We can see that Confucius put forward the idea of “knowing the heavens” and “fearing the heavens” as early as more than 2500 years ago. “Knowing the heavens” requires people to know the nature, so that people can consciously use the nature for the benefit of human society. “Fear of heaven” means that people should be in awe of nature, know the sanctity of “heaven,” and consciously fulfill the responsibility of protecting nature. Zhu Xi explained the philosophy of “harmony between heaven and man” that “Heaven is man, and man is heaven. When a man is born in heaven at the beginning, that is, when he is born, then heaven is in man again.” That is to say, after “Heaven” produces “Man,” “Heaven” and “Man” has an intrinsic relationship that is inseparable from each other. Therefore, the truth of “Heaven” should be manifested by “Man,” and “Man” had an unshakable responsibility for “Heaven.” We can see that in addressing the relationship between “man” and “heaven” (nature), traditional Chinese philosophy and constructive postmodernism are following the same path. Just like what the great French scholar Vandermeersch said, “Facing the challenge of post-​modernization … why not think about the ways that Confucianism

Current Cultural Exchange and Communication: China and West  53 may guide the world, such as the idea of respecting nature in the idea of reaching ‘harmony between heaven and man’?” 3.2  The “Second Enlightenment” of Constructive Postmodernism and Confucian “Doctrine of Benevolence” According to constructive postmodernism, the “second enlightenment” should advocate “caring for others” and “respecting differences,” since the “first “enlightenment” advocated “individual liberation.” To “care for others” means “benevolent people love others” in Chinese Confucianism, which is its core value. While the “benevolence” advocated by Confucianism essentially means to “love your family” (or relatives), as Confucius said, “Benevolence means to love your family, which is the greatest of its kind.” Benevolence is an inherent personality of mankind, the core spirit of which is to love their family. However, Confucius believed that being “benevolent” means loving your family and all the others, just as what Mencius meant by saying to “extend your respect to the senior in your family to those in others’ families, extend your love to the young ones in your family to those in others’ families.” Mencius also said, “The emperor should love his parents and extend his love to the people all over the country. As he cares for his people, he can extend his love to everything in the world.” This doctrine is in line with constructive postmodernism. The constructive postmodernists hold their philosophy to “build a postmodern world where the well-​being of all living communities is valued and cared for” on the basis of “preserving some positive things in a modern society,” which is a more comprehensive expression of “caring for others.” As human society develops, its culture should continue to evolve, and always embrace innovation in inheritance. Therefore, the post-​modern society must preserve the positive factors of “freedom,” “democracy,” “human rights” and so on in the society of “modernity,” so as to highlight the significance of “building a post-​ modern world where the well-​being of all living communities is valued and cared for.” The constructive postmodernists have put forward the doctrine of “respecting differences,” just as what Confucianism advocates by stating that “Tao is parallel but not contradictory.” Ideological and cultural traditions are often characterized by their different features meaningful to human society, not mutually exclusive. For example, when we appreciate the significance of “democracy” put forward by the West in modern times, we are not rejecting the positiveness in the thought of “people-​oriented” in Chinese ideological and cultural tradition, nor rejecting the “universal value” of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” in Chinese traditional culture to human society. Only by acknowledging the contributions by different ideological and cultural traditions to human society, can countries and nations “coexist” and “share prosperity.” It is the only way for the development of human culture to absorb the advantages and disadvantages of different cultural traditions for mutual appreciation. As Russell said, “Communication among different

54  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations civilizations has proved to be a milestone in the development of human civilization many times in the past.” There are common problems for humankind to solve, which may require different methods but often the same goals. 3.3  How to Define “People” and “Human Rights” in the Doctrine of “Rites” in Traditional Chinese Culture The concept of “human rights” is very important to modern society, but how to make it a positive role in building a healthy and reasonable society should be discussed in depth among different ideological and cultural traditions. Roger T. Ames and David Hall, famous American philosophers, wrote a book entitled Think as a Confucianist. In this book there is a passage saying, “We should not only study Chinese tradition, but also try to make it a cultural resource that enriches and transforms ourselves. Confucianism defines ‘man’ from a social point of view. Is it possible to apply it in correcting and strengthening the Western liberal model? In a society characterized by etiquette, can we find resources to help us better understand the fundamental and valuable human rights concepts?” This passage mainly addresses the following three issues: firstly, Western ideology and culture should not only study Chinese ideology and culture, but also apply it to “enrich and transform” Western ideology and culture; secondly, in traditional Chinese culture, the significance of people is identified from a social perspective; and thirdly the Chinese “ritual” culture contains the valuable concept of “human rights.” In my opinion, Roger Ames came up with the three issues to address “the fragile foundation of Western philosophy.” Since an individual’s freedom is highly valued in modern society (the history after the first enlightenment), human society has been able to make great progress, because humankind’s “freedom right” is of great creativity. Nonetheless, when the “freedom right” of individuals, countries and nations are abused under certain circumstances, the “freedom right” of other peoples, countries and nations will be threatened, restrained or even violated. In traditional Chinese culture, “humankind” is defined from a social perspective instead of an isolated “individual,” because “humankind” is born to live and grow up in various relationships. This is quite similar to what Marx said in the Theses on Feuerbach that human nature is abstract and inherent in an individual, which in fact is the sum of all relationships. So, how to deal with these complicated “social relations between people”? In ancient China, “rites” were used to deal with various interpersonal relationships in society. The cultural concept of “rites” binds the behavior of “humankind.” In the first chapter of Analects of Confucius, titled Xue Er, it is said, “The most important function of ‘rites’ is to promote social harmony.” It means that “rites” in Chinese traditional culture functions to achieve social harmony by exerting discipline on people. In Chapter 30 of Book of Rites, titled Fang Ji, it is said, “The man of moral integrity applies rites and morality to guard against the corruption, punishment to guard against debauchery and lewdness, and decree to guard against the greed.”

Current Cultural Exchange and Communication: China and West  55 The man of moral integrity develops “rites” to prevent the corruption of the moral code of society, and formulate penalties (criminal law) to prevent the disruption of social order. As Jia Yi in the Western Han Dynasty (206 B C –​ AD 24) put it in Chen Zheng Shi Shu, “I do not think so when someone has told His Majesty that the world is now settled and well governed. These people are either ignorant or flattering, who do not really know the methods to deal with chaos.” What are the “methods to deal with chaos”? Jia Yi said, “The role of ritual is to prevent misconducts from happening, and the law is to punish a crime that has already taken place. So, the role of the law is obvious, but the role of ritual is difficult to perceive” Therefore, “rites” draw special attention in the Chinese tradition, as Chinese Confucianism believes that there should be a mutual correspondence between people. For example, it is stated in the Book of Rites that “the father is loving, the son is dutiful, the brother is friendly, the younger brother is obedient, the husband is kind, the wife is meek, the elder is favored, the younger is obedient, the monarch is benevolent, the gentlemen are loyal, all of which refer to human righteousness.” This is the moral relationship between people, where rights and duties (responsibilities) correspond to each other. There should not only be rights without the corresponding duties (or responsibilities). The Chinese “rites” are designed to harmonize the rights and duties of social relations. Therefore, I believe that pre-​modern Chinese society can be a Confucian ideal “ruled by rites and law.” It requires us to think about whether a “covenant of responsibility” should be established along with “human rights” in order to strike a balance between “duty” and “responsibility. This is the role that the “ritual,” as Roger T. Ames believes, can play in “enriching and transforming” the valuable Western concept of “human rights.” We can observe that the “covenant of responsibility” may protect and enhance the “Covenant of Human Rights.” John Cobb said as quoted, “Traditional Chinese thought is very attractive to constructive postmodernism, but we cannot simply return to it. It needs to renew itself by taking seriously science and the transformed society that has taken place. For the pre-​modern tradition to be of benefit to the post-​modern, it must absorb the positive aspects of the Enlightenment, such as respect for individual rights.” This quote from Cobb should be quite relevant to our study of Chinese thought and culture. The pre-​modern Chinese traditional culture needs to absorb all the positive achievements of modern society since the Enlightenment, such as freedom, democracy, human rights and other ideas of “concern and respect for individual rights,” so as to integrate with the constructive post-​modernism and promote the transformation of modern society into its post-​modern shape. In this way, the pre-​modern Chinese traditional culture and constructive post-​modernism can work together to promote the transformation of modern society to its post-​modern shape. It has been noted that some Chinese scholars and Western constructive postmodernists have not only forged extensive exchange, but have also started good cooperation. The representative constructive postmodernists have learned the unique value of Chinese traditional culture to human society for its

56  The Clash and Coexistence of Civilizations value; likewise, some Chinese scholars have learned the practical significance of constructive postmodernism to the current human society in getting out of the dilemma, who have paid serious attention to its development. The “prevalent sinology” and constructive postmodernism, which have been widely influential in China, represent the organic synthesis of these two trends under the guidance of Marxism. If they can evolve in Chinese society extensively and in a new way, perhaps China can embrace the “first enlightenment” to achieve modernization, thus entering the post-​modern society characterized by the “second enlightenment” relatively soon. If this really happens, the revival of Chinese national culture will be the most fruitful in the history of human social development. August 21, 2011

Note 1 This is an unpublished text of speech at the 60th anniversary of the Central Research Institute of Culture and History.

Part II

Chinese Culture in Transition

8 How to Develop Chinese Culture1

Three questions constitute the general issue of how Chinese culture develops.

1  The Integration of Marxism and Traditional Chinese Culture We can consider this issue from several aspects. Marxism was introduced into China around the May Fourth Movement. From the 1920s to the 1940s, there were several debates on the relationship of Marxism, traditional Chinese culture and Western culture, namely the so-​called “East–​West cultural debate” and “science–​metaphysics debate.” These debates did not go deep when the war of resistance against Japan started. Today, how should we grasp this relationship and from what aspect? From the perspective of Chinese history, three foreign cultures were introduced into China: the first was Indian culture (mainly Buddhism) in the 1st century, the second, European Christian culture spread by Western missionaries after the middle of the 17th century, and lastly, the introduction of Marxism after the May Fourth Movement. What problems have occurred by the introduction of foreign cultures into China? The introduction of Indian culture can be generally divided into three stages: attachment to Chinese traditional culture (in the Han and Wei dynasties), mutual conflict (after the northern and Southern Dynasties) and eventual integration (after the Sui and Tang Dynasties). Consequently, Chinese culture embraced Indian Buddhist culture and Indian Buddhist culture was also transformed, giving birth to Chinese Buddhism like the Tiantai Sect, Huayan sect and Zen sect. Zen sect is particularly sinicized. In the Song and Ming Dynasties, Chinese culture has absorbed all it can gain from Buddhism. Due to this, Indian Buddhism no longer functions as a philosophical thought in China. The spread of Christian culture in the 17th century has similarities with that of Indian Buddhism. In the 17th century, Western missionaries including Matteo Ricci had a good rapport with Chinese scholars. The missionaries wanted to combine Christian ethics with Chinese traditional ethics. For example, Matteo Ricci wrote Twenty-​five Sentences in Chinese, trying to combine the two ethics, but had little success. The exchange environment was sound from the middle of the 17th century to the era of Emperor Kangxi. DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-10

60  Chinese Culture in Transition However, Emperor Yongzheng adopted the policy of secluding China from the outside world. Then the policy was disrupted by the Opium War, so China was forced to accept the Western culture. According to some theologians of Western churches, the Vatican has taken a roundabout, namely, forcing China to accept its culture. As a result, Christian culture exerts far less influence on Chinese culture than Buddhist culture. After the May Fourth Movement, Marxism was introduced into China and met China’s political needs. In this sense, what Chairman Mao Zedong called “the integration of Marxism and Chinese culture” did take place, however, which have been unfinished or at least not been well finished. Buddhism was embraced by China, so Chinese culture can absorb its essence. This is an important lesson, that is, we should adopt an open attitude toward foreign culture. In this aspect, there are two perspectives to observe the combination of Marxism and Chinese culture: one is the Sinicization of Marxism in the ideology and culture; another is the absorption of Marxism by modern Chinese culture. It is not identifiable that which one fits our cultural development. However, these two are interconnected. After all, as Marxism was born in the West, it must be incorporated by Chinese culture to be localized in China.

2  Facing the Challenge of Current Western Culture (Including All Kinds of Western Marxism), We’re Told to Realize Modernization We must learn Western technology and Western economic model and enterprise management. But must we introduce Western cultures at the same time? If so, how it is? There may be an issue involved here: modernization equals not Western cultures. These are two concepts that cannot be equated. Western things do not necessarily fit the needs of modernization. There are two lessons for this in China’s history: during the May Fourth Movement, some scholars proposed “overall Westernization,” which was a dead end. Therefore, “Traditional Chinese Culture as Standard” gained momentum, resulting in a grand debate between “Overall Westernization” and “Traditional Chinese Culture as Standard,” which lasted until the 1940s. If we fail to handle this problem well, it will either cause retro and “preserve the quintessence of China,” or cut off our national cultural tradition. In the latter scenario, there will be little value left in our nationality. Therefore, “overall Westernization” is beyond the bounds of possibility, not only because of cultural reasons. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, we learned from the Soviet Union in an all-​round way, and our university education system was the result of this act, so it’s not exactly a success. It is impossible to artificially cut off the historical connections. “Overall Westernization” leads to the challenge of “Traditional Chinese Culture as Standard”; the overall imitation of the Soviet Union gave rise to a simple rejection of traditional culture. Consequently, we failed to inherit our excellent cultural heritage, but preserved backward facets of Chinese culture.

How to Develop Chinese Culture  61 After the Second World War, there was no mainstream ideology in the modern West. Analytical philosophy prevailed in the UK and the US nonetheless which caused increasing dissatisfaction in the philosophy field. Existentialism, structuralism and phenomenology all showed signs of falling down. We can conclude that in a fairly long period of time, the world culture will be diverse. Only when we view and understand the development of culture from the global perspective can our culture have a bright future.

3  We Need to Have a Historical Reflection on Our Own Culture in General Only by properly evaluating our own culture can we solve the challenges of the world. The advantages and disadvantages of Chinese traditional culture can be summarized as the following four aspects: first, a trace of utopian idealism. In ancient Chinese philosophy, the variety of schools including Confucianism, Mohism, Taoism and Legalism was very concerned about the society and held an ardent ideal of transforming it (except Chuang Tzu and Yang Zhu). This idealism not only failed to change the society and politics, but beautified them. This utopian idealism has greatly influenced China. Second, the tradition of humanism. Chinese humanism is different from Western humanism. Chinese scholars have attached great importance to man’s position and role in this world since the time of Confucius. Texts like “The human being manifests the Tao. The Tao doesn’t manifest the human being,” Mencius’s “knowing the heaven through human nature,” and “the three talents of sky, earth and man” in the Book of Changes, all stress people’s obligations and responsibilities rather than people’s rights and independent personality. Therefore, Chinese humanism is limited to the “five cardinal” relationship. People can only realize their values through others and find their status from obligations and responsibilities, which also has a great impact on China. Third, the pursuit of unity and harmony. In ancient China, “the unity of heaven and man,” “the unity of knowledge and practice” and “the unity of situation and scene” were highlighted. This thought of seeking unity and harmony affected our way of thinking, so our observation of things often lacks an overall analysis. This way of thinking has also affected the transition of our science from ancient times to modern times. Some people believe that Vigourism is similar to the quantized field theory and there are binary electronic computer principles in the Book of Changes. I think the reason why it is atomic theory rather than Vigourism theory that can develop into modern science is that Vigourism lacks an overall view. Our way of thinking is deficient, so the traditional philosophy didn’t establish the systematic and logical analysis theory. Moreover, our epistemology is often closely combined with morality. The purpose of cognition is to make people gain morality. Fourth, intuitive rationalism or moral intuitive rationalism. From Mencius to Confucians in Song Dynasty, the scholars all emphasized introspection and self-​awareness. It is believed that knowing the self means knowing the universe, and man must know the

62  Chinese Culture in Transition self from a moral perspective. All this demands historical reflection to find out the problem, rather than blindly belittling or praising our culture.

Note 1 This article was originally published in Outlook Weekly (Overseas Edition). February 24, 1986.

9 The Combination of “Global Awareness” and “Root-​Seeking Awareness” The Conception of Developing Chinese Culture1 Today the development of Chinese culture has drawn a lot of attention both at home and abroad, which isn’t an accident. This situation can be attributed to both domestic and foreign reasons. From both vertical and horizontal perspectives, the development of our country’s socialism shows that studying the development of Chinese culture has become an urgency of the times. When we follow the vertical timeframe to observe, that is, from the previous to the current situation in China, our country is in the historical stage of achieving the Four Modernizations (strengthening the fields of agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology) and reforming the economic and political system. Since the May Fourth Movement, the slogan of modernization has been put forward for more than half a century. But why was this process interrupted over and over again? It seems that an issue needs to be solved correctly. Modernization should not be limited to the scientific and technological level only. More importantly, we should combine it with cultural modernization which includes values, mindset and historical reflection on our country’s traditional culture. Modernization is complicated. Given that we have been proposing to achieve modernization, we are still in the historical period of “non-​modernization.” The first issue is the relationship between modernization and tradition, which involves a profound problem related to values. And this issue cannot be set apart from traditional Chinese culture. So, there’s no shortcut to achieving modernization. Instead of studying superficial cultures such as natural science methods, we should look deep into the culture on the basis of reflection. A look at the history over the last hundred years shows that there has been a so-​called “ancient or modern, domestic or foreign” debate since the “Chinese essence and Western utility” (Chinese classics as the substance and Western learning for practical application) was put forward. The debate over “overall Westernization” and “Traditional Chinese Culture as Standard” continued from around the May Fourth Movement to the 1930s and the 1940s. However, instead of being solved, this issue was put aside in the end. Here I wonder whether we confused modernization with Westernization. It seems that neither “overall Westernization” nor “Traditional Chinese culture as Standard” is correct, and DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-11

64  Chinese Culture in Transition neither is conducive to China’s modernization. Issues such as the evaluation of Chinese traditional culture, the comparative study of Chinese and Western culture and the development of Chinese culture were put forward based on historical development. From a horizontal perspective, Hong Kong’s return to China made us face the reality of “one country, two systems.” How to maintain long stability in a country where two totally different systems coexist is a question. Is it necessary to have a conceptual basis to deal with this according to historical development? If the answer is no, then how can the historical basis be guaranteed? It seems that we must seek “the common conceptual ground” from a certain aspect that can only be found in some kind of common culture. And this relates to the core culture of the nation. Grasping the core culture requires not only research on issues related to current culture but also a reflection on tradition. It is at this juncture that the historical reflection on traditional Chinese culture, the comparative study of Chinese and Western culture and the development of Chinese culture are characterized by the significance of the times. We will better understand the contemporary significance of the issue related to developing Chinese culture if we analyze it according to the current trend of the development of world culture. All around the world, two kinds of paradoxical awareness exist when we talk about cultural development. One is “global awareness” and the other is “root-​seeking awareness” or “national awareness.” Major issues that arise in one region or state are closely associated with other places. Rapid transmission of knowledge and information can lead to the spread of new ideas and theories. Therefore, it is impossible to study cultural development without a global vision. And it means that we must keep abreast of all kinds of new theories and ideas. So, the exchange of ideas and culture is inevitable. It is this kind of exchange that reinforces the interactions between different theories and ideas. Therefore, we can see that cultures around the world are developing in an integrated direction. No country or nation can develop its culture without considering the major issues faced by the whole world and striving to solve the major problems posed by the world. On the other hand, “root-​seeking awareness” (“national awareness”) is receiving more and more attention. We can see that national consciousness and national independence have become an unstoppable trend since the Second World War. In order to develop themselves, all nations need to find their own cultural tradition, which will lead to the development of the “root-​ seeking” awareness. I don’t think this is an accidental or temporary situation. “Global awareness” (seeing cultural development through regarding the world as a whole) and “root-​seeking awareness” (giving play to the special national culture) seem to contradict each other, but actually they are two sides of the same coin. We know that without “global awareness” we cannot see the development of culture from the height of the whole world, and neither can this kind of culture reflect the requirements of this era. Accordingly, lacking

“Global Awareness” and “Root-Seeking Awareness”  65 vitality, this culture is about to deviate from the track of human culture. However, if there is no “root-​seeking awareness,” it is impossible to create a distinctive culture, thus always limited in contribution to human culture. So, my opinion is that today if a country, especially China, a big country steeped in cultural tradition, wants to develop its culture, it must combine these two kinds of awareness well. We should develop our own socialist culture as well as create a new modern culture. This view states that the global culture, after the elimination of “Eurocentrism,” is developing in the direction of pluralism under the guidance of “global awareness,” which in turn makes world culture colorful. In order to demonstrate the development of cultural diversity under the global consciousness, I’d like to enumerate several issues of concern to everyone in Western countries. (1) Whether the origin of human civilization is pluralistic or monolithic. In recent years, more and more new archaeological discoveries can prove that this origin is diverse. (2) The discussion of the German philosopher Karl Jaspers’ (1883–​1969) concept of the “Axial Age” shows that around 500 BC , many great thinkers appeared all over the world, and they all reflected on the fundamental problems of the universe and life. And different paths adopted by them led to different forms of spiritual civilizations. Cultures of these regions developed independently without interacting with each other, so cultural development seems to have always been so diverse. (3) The discussion on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber (1864–​1920) led to the discussion on the diversification of modernization modes and cultural development. These discussions appeared exactly after the elimination of Eurocentrism when all nations required to develop their culture under “global awareness.” Against this backdrop, the West attached more and importance to oriental culture and traditional Chinese ideas. Why did this happen? It is understood that since China is a big country, its cultural development cannot be ignored. In addition, the following situations may also be the causes. 1. East Asia tends to outpace the West in terms of industrial rise, technological and economic development. The conventional view is that there is only a Western model for modernization. However, with the economic development of countries around the world, this “Eurocentrism” has been gradually broken. Rapid economic and technological development has brought East Asia the third mode of modernization which is different from that of Western Europe, the United States, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Some scholars considered whether there is a kind of eastern entrepreneurial spirit dominating the industrial and economic development in some regions of East Asia. They said that this model of modernization in East Asia shows the solid core of eastern civilization. And if we trace the origin, we can know that this core is exactly the traditional spirit of Confucianism. After analyzing this view, some scholars believed that in the post-​ industrial era, in order to enhance competitiveness,

66  Chinese Culture in Transition enterprises should attach importance to harmony within them and the collective and interpersonal relationship. And this spirit is in sync with Eastern thought, especially Confucianism in terms of valuing inner harmony. However, only further research and a longer period of practice can determine whether we can analyze and conclude like this. 2. The prevalence of contemporary Western Christian humanism and the humanism characteristics of Chinese tradition culturally overlap. We can see that scientific development has a growing impact on Christian theology, thus promoting the development of Christian humanism and the emergence of the so-​called “Christian Hominology.” They argued that although “God” is the fundamental question to be considered in Christianity, perhaps “man” itself is the more important question to be addressed. They always study the essence of Christianity from anthropology, psychology, sociology, folklore and culturology. Therefore, the question about the value of “man” becomes salient. And since this question involves the issue of human ethics, some Christian theologians have asked whether there is some common ground between Christian ethics and Chinese Confucian ethics, and whether they can find some basis for dialogue between the two. For example, Charles Hartshorne, a British master of Process Theology, believed that Western culture, represented by Christianity, must learn from the East the spirit of its “practice of virtue.” In addition, he particularly appreciated the fact that Chinese philosophers like Mencius did not separate the heart from the brain and believed that thought and emotion were inseparable. No matter how much science and technology develop, there are always limitations. Computers can neither feel nor think, and we cannot confuse their actions with living human behavior. 3. The spiritual crisis of the Western world forced people to seek a remedy from eastern culture. With the rapid scientific development, human beings, which have conquered nature, have mastered the weapon which could destroy themselves. Various drawbacks of the post-​ industrial society, including the apartness of the society and the soul, led to people’s growing sense of loss and their reflection on humanism. During their seeking process, the harmony and warmth of eastern culture undoubtedly attracted them in some ways. 4. Scientific development has not only transformed some mindsets of Westerners but also increased their interest in oriental culture as well as Chinese philosophy. Western humanists attach more importance to Confucianism while some scientists are more interested in Taoism. Although some Western scholars show a growing interest in Eastern culture and Chinese philosophy, we cannot believe that eastern thought really has a great influence in the West, let alone that it will play a greater role in the future. We should notice that maybe some Western scholars are men of insight. They saw the disadvantages of their culture and hoped to get some remedy from the eastern culture so that they can develop

“Global Awareness” and “Root-Seeking Awareness”  67 better and continue to play a leading role in the world. And this deserves eastern scholars’ serious treatment. To make Chinese culture lead the way in the world is not something that can be accomplished overnight. It may take several decades or even a hundred years. But instead of waiting, we should move forward. And this means we must see the general trend of the current development of world culture and the reality of Oriental culture and Chinese philosophy. In this situation of cultural diversification under the global consciousness, Oriental culture and Chinese philosophy have received a certain degree of attention. Under these circumstances, to develop Chinese culture, we need to solve three interconnected problems: (1) How to respond positively to the challenges of Western culture; (2) How to combine Marxism with traditional Chinese culture to adapt the former to China’s condition; (3) How to treat traditional culture as a whole.

1  How to Respond Positively to the Challenges of Western Culture? There are two attitudes toward current Western culture (Western Marxism is included): one is a negative response, while the other is positive response. From 1949 to the third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee in 1978, our attitude toward Western culture was largely negative and we resorted to “seclusion.” This made us sluggish in many fields, such as economy and culture, and affected our social progress. Therefore, it is obviously not advisable to adopt a negative attitude toward Western culture. Instead, we must treat Western culture positively. The current policy of “opening to the outside world” is undoubtedly correct. To respond positively to Western culture, we must solve two problems. First, we should learn the Western culture in a correct way. To achieve the Four Modernizations, we should introduce advanced Western science and technology and methods of economic management and so on. And it is impossible not to introduce parts of Western culture that are compatible with modernization, such as certain values and ways of thinking. If we do so, we will go on the old road of Chinese essence and Western utility which will not work. Since the advanced Western countries have entered the modern age, some of their values and mindset are in line with the requirements of modernization. Therefore, we cannot reject them. The slogan of the May Fourth Movement, “science and democracy,” is still relevant to us today. In addition to science and technology, we should also introduce democratic ideas and institutions and make them compatible with socialism. Meantime, we should know that modernization is different from Westernization. Equating them two means overall Westernization which is a dead end. Some people put forward this idea after the May Fourth Movement, but it didn’t bring prosperity to China. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, we put forward the slogan of “learning from the Soviet Union in all respects” which affected our social development.

68  Chinese Culture in Transition Second, a positive response to the challenge of Western culture requires two conditions, namely, the development of Marxism and a correct understanding of traditional Chinese culture. The world is developing, so is China. And this means Marxism must also develop. It must absorb fresh scientific achievements and philosophical thoughts at any time to make itself a truly open ideological system. Engels pointed out in a draft of the Anti-​ Dühring that there was no system theory. It is obvious that the world has become a unified system, that is, a connected whole. But the understanding of this system presupposes an understanding of nature and history, which is never possible. Therefore, to establish a system, one has to fill innumerable gaps with his own fictions, that is to say, to engage in irrational fantasies and become an idealist. We should get a clear understanding of traditional Chinese culture and the positive role it may play in our modernization before creatively transforming it and making it serve for modernization. In the face of the challenge of Western culture, a nation should have a profound foundation of national culture, so that it can better absorb the Western culture and create a modern culture with national characteristics. The combination of these two aspects, that is, the open Marxism and the part of traditional Chinese culture that may play a positive role, can become the fundamental condition for us to respond actively to the challenge of Western culture under the new historical circumstances.

2  How Should We Combine Marxism with Traditional Chinese Culture to Adapt to China’s National Condition? Before 1949, Marxism played a very important role in guiding the Chinese revolution. And the combination of it and the practice of the Chinese revolution was the guarantee for the victory of the democratic revolution in China. Comrade Mao Zedong once put forward the issue of establishing a new Chinese culture in his On New Democracy. He said that the culture of New Democracy should be “national, scientific and belong to the broad mass,” which still holds true today. However, before 1949 we were in the mire of war, when we were deprived of the ability to achieve this goal. We failed to achieve it after the founding of People’s Republic of China due to the “ultra-​left”-​led national chaos. Therefore, we are still trying to answer the question as how to combine Marxism with traditional Chinese culture. Perhaps many people would agree that we should combine Marxism with potentially positive parts of traditional Chinese culture, but how to combine them is a question. Maybe we can consider it in different ways. For example, try to find parts of them that can be combined. That means we can seek some factors in the development of Chinese culture that can be used to develop Marxism and supplement Marxism with aspects of traditional Chinese ideas that are still playing a positive role today and so on. Problems like this need our deep research. For those that cannot be solved by using one or two examples, we should look for the law of development through researching the history of Chinese thought,

“Global Awareness” and “Root-Seeking Awareness”  69 philosophy and culture and then figure out the way to combine the two, so we must have a historical reflection on Chinese thought, philosophy and culture. And next is the third question we are going to discuss.

3  How to Treat Traditional Culture as a Whole There may be a problem of how to treat traditional culture. People always want to simply and clearly ask questions such as which of the traditional Chinese thought and culture is useful and beneficial to us today while what is useless and unfavorable to us today. But that may not be the case, and it is often the other way round. Merits and drawbacks of our traditional thought and culture always exist together, so we cannot directly use it to serve modernization. Traditional Chinese ideology and culture have had a profound influence on the national psychology of the Chinese nation, which has condensed into a special psychological characteristic of the Chinese nation. This special trait has long influenced every aspect of our nation, and even today it still dominates our thinking and attitude toward life in many ways. But it shows both the merits and drawbacks of traditional Chinese thought and culture at the same time. The core of traditional Chinese ideology and culture, which has influenced the Chinese nation for a long time, can be generally classified into the following four aspects: idealism, humanism, dialectical thinking and rationalism. How should we make a concrete analysis of these ideologies and cultures? What are the functions of them according to the requirements of the “modernization”? We should seriously consider these problems. 1  On Idealism Chinese traditional thought and culture scored high in idealism. Confucius is an idealist, who aspires for a society in which “is governed by Tao” and pursues the ideal politics of “govern by Tao and rites.” Later, Confucianism developed it into a set of ideals of “Great Harmony in the world,” and demanded to realize this ideal through practice in society, that is, “cultivate the self, regulate the family, govern the state, then lead the world to peace.” Laozi of Taoism proposed the ideal of “small country and few people,” and hoped to realize it through “Inaction” politics. In China’s long-​term feudal society, the ruler and the ruled shared one ideal: the ideal of great harmony and peace in the world. Most scholars hold a positive and passionate attitude toward the society and try to realize their ideal of a harmonious society to transform the real politics, but not only did they fail, but their “blueprint of the ideal society” was often exploited to whitewash the reality. Why? From the perspective of traditional ideology and culture, it is because the “idealism” of China’s traditional thought was mostly Utopian, or it is Utopian in essence. In the final analysis, the so-​called ideals of “governing the state and leading the world to peace” and “peaceful world” are just an idealized feudal society. The “ideal of a harmonious society” sought after and designed by some

70  Chinese Culture in Transition Chinese philosophers might contribute to human civilization by encouraging people to pursue constantly and push the society forward. However, from the perspective of Chinese traditional ideology and culture, this illusion of “a peaceful world” led to our subjective departure from reality, resulting in grave cost. Hadn’t this utopian idealism repeated many times in modern Chinese history and hindered the progress of our society? Our view of this utopian idealism is very important. Our traditional society is based on the small-​scale peasant economy. The thought of farmers and small producers is susceptible to utopia, thwarting the advancement of society. It is certainly appropriate for us to advocate idealism, but it must be based on science. 2  On Humanism There is a tendency of humanism in Chinese traditional ideology and culture. This humanism is different from its Western counterpart since the Renaissance that is also strongly individualistic and opposes deism as well as highlights independent personality, natural human rights and personality liberation. The perspective of humanism in Chinese traditional ideology is that man has a core position in the universe. There are the so-​ called “the three talents of sky, earth and man.” Only “man” can “observe heaven and earth and appreciate the universe’s change.” Zhang Zai, a neo-​ Confucianism scholar in the Song Dynasty, said that “build spiritual values for the society, endow people with the meaning of life, inherit and carry forward the knowledge of the sages that is in danger of disappearing, and achieve a permanent and peaceful state for all generations.” This sentence deeply demonstrates the characteristics of Chinese traditional humanism, which is moralized humanism. It emphasizes people’s social responsibility and historical mission. Due to this excessive emphasis, most ancient Chinese scholars hope to realize their ideal society by themselves. They “study the phenomena of nature in order to acquire knowledge” entirely for “governing the state and leading the world to peace,” and they study for practical politics. Therefore, some Chinese thinkers were unlikely to systematically explore some abstract issues of ultimate concern to humankind, so there is no rigorous theoretical demonstration in Chinese philosophy, which hampered the development of China’s abstract theoretical thinking. What is more problematic is the Chinese traditional ideology and culture. It only puts “people” in an opposing social relationship of rule and obedience to explain how one should take on the responsibility as a “person” with a special status, it ignores people’s due rights. Therefore, there are the so-​called “five cardinal” relationships of “emperor and minister,” “father and son,” “husband and wife,” “brothers” and “friends,” which highlights “emperor’s righteousness and minister’s loyalty,” “father’s amity and son’s filial piety,” “harmony between husband and wife” and so on. It demands people to abide by various obligations, and rarely allows them to enjoy their rights as individuals. Therefore, although people are very important, they must live

“Global Awareness” and “Root-Seeking Awareness”  71 in the “five cardinal” relationship. People’s values can only be expressed in other people that share an opposing relationship with them. Without such an opposing relationship, there are hardly any people’s values. On the surface, Chinese traditional thought emphasizes people’s subjectivity, consciousness and initiative, but in reality, this subjectivity only exists under the specified “five cardinal relationship.” This consciousness is a false one without the understanding of one’s own independent personality, and one only has initiative within the limited scope. In other words, people’s subjectivity, consciousness and initiative are meaningful only when people are not involved in any social life. Once they enter the real social life, they become pointless. Therefore, if people do not have independent personalities and due rights in social life, they cannot gain real subjectivity, consciousness and initiative, nor will they achieve personality liberation and personal freedom. This “humanism” in Chinese traditional ideology and culture is even harmful to the development of “democratic thought” and the establishment of a democratic system, which may be one of the reasons for the long-​term continuation of Chinese feudal society and the slow germination of capitalism. It is clear that only by breaking through this social relationship limited to the “five cardinal relationships” (a specific relationship of rule and obedience) can “man” be free and become a person with an independent personality, and can China have a democratic social system. The “humanism” thought in Chinese traditional society can also be examined from another perspective. Some of our sages advocated the “people-​oriented” thought of “cherishing people.” Mencius can be said to have proposed this thought earliest and most systematically. Of course, we should recognize that this thought is meaningful in the era of Mencius and the long-​term feudal society after that. However, it is not necessarily conducive to our modernization and democratization in today’s society. After careful analyzing it, we can see that this thought is based on a “condescending” view covered with a layer of tenderness, which regards “people” as the receivers of the “mercy,” and the highest idea of it is just “officials should give justice to the people.” “People-​oriented” means that the “officials” perceive “people” as “fundamental” and important. This thought is different from the real “democracy” thought. “Democracy” means that the “people” themselves can take initiative. How can “officials” be taking initiative for them? This is clearly a reversal of the relationship. Therefore, the thought of “democracy” is not the natural development of the thought of “people-​oriented,” but a negation of it. 3  On Dialectical Thinking Chinese traditional thinking is relatively rich in dialectical thinking. As early as the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, the Book of Changes systematically put forward the paired concepts of Heaven and Earth, Qian and Kun, Yin and Yang. Hong Fan proposed the concept of “five elements,” which explains the connection and interaction between the

72  Chinese Culture in Transition “five elements”; Laozi of Taoism expressed his understanding of a series of conceptual categories such as “existence” and “non-​ existence” and the connection and transformation and between concepts. Since the pre-​ Qin Dynasty, Chinese traditional thought has formed a way of thinking that highlights the relationship between things and pursues harmony and unity. Of course, this way of thinking of harmony and unity is reasonable in some way, which contains rich dialectical factors. Because it emphasizes harmony and unity and opposes “excess” and “not enough,” under certain circumstances, it can promote social stability and development and the study of the connection and dynamics between things, which we should recognize. However, this way of thinking is a double-​edged sword. From the perspective of science and technology, in Chinese traditional thought, people’s observation and understanding of things are often general and lack categorization. Therefore, categorized specific scientific research has not been developed much. In fact, modern science needs to go through the stage of metaphysical mechanism proposed by Engels. Some scientists at home and abroad often believe that China’s traditional way of thinking is similar to modern science. I think they are only similar formally, so we shouldn’t believe that this way of thinking can be directly developed into modern science. For example, it is a misunderstanding to believe that Vigourism is close to quantum field theory and relativity theory. It is precisely our insufficient understanding of the external objective world that led to our weak modern science and confusion between epistemology and moral philosophy in ancient Chinese philosophy that often explains cognitive issues from personal experience, like the so-​called “practicing Tao” and “examining Tao.” In fact, epistemology and logic in the strict sense have never been established in our ancient thought. This way of thinking led to severe equalitarianism and the deep-​rooted idea of “inequality, not scarcity, that haunts people” in social life, which are significant obstacles to China’s modernization. 4  On Rationalism “Rationalism” in Chinese traditional thought is generally rationalism of morals and intuitions. It emphasizes the subjectivity of “man” and has highlighted “man’s mind.” People are required to understand themselves through their own rationality and base the principle of being a man on rationality. Fundamentally speaking, the principle of being a man should be a reasonable moral concept, and this “moral concept” is the requirement of human nature, it can be obtained directly through self-​introspection, so it should be learned by doing. This conscious practice of proposing “the principle of being a man” from the perspective of people’s own subjectivity makes the research on “human moral values” in Chinese traditional thought unique. However, we can’t equate learning one’s own moral values with understanding the outside world, and we can’t apply the principle of

“Global Awareness” and “Root-Seeking Awareness”  73 being a man to the material world (the outside world). Chinese traditional thoughts often reflect people’s understanding of themselves and their moral values into the universe, like the idea of Mencius: “be dedicated, know your personality and know the heaven.” Song Confucianism also believed that human nature is “benevolent,” so the universe is also “benevolent,” and “Heaven’s reason” is “the supreme expression of morality.” It is not reasonable to apply people’s internal morality to the universe. It not only deviates from “rationalism,” but also is the opposite of the new “rationalism,” that is, “irrationalism.” Therefore, although the thought of “unity of heaven and man” in Chinese philosophy is rational in certain aspects, it will be more meaningful if it was based on “knowing the difference between heaven and man.” It is difficult to say whether my views on the above issues are correct or not. Fundamental issues like these will be discussed continuously. Each person has his or her own principles. It is unnecessary and impossible to forcibly achieve unity. Maybe in this way, the study in this area can be advanced. What are the prospects of Chinese culture? We can say that it must be a modern Chinese socialist new culture that possibly has two aspects: one is sinicized Marxism suitable for the requirements of China’s modernization; the other is a Chinese culture that meets the requirements of China’s modernization and absorbs Marxism. Further research is needed to tell whether these two prospects are the same, but I believe they are the same thing. Because sinicized Marxism, first of all, is Chinese and a must for China’s modernization. It not only needs to absorb the achievements of contemporary science, study the new issues of contemporary philosophy and address the new challenges encountered by China and the world, but also needs to incorporate the positive aspects of Chinese traditional culture. Only in this way can Chinese Marxism make a unique contribution to human civilization. Marxism was originally developed on the basis of Western culture; at least Marx and Engels did not study sufficiently about Chinese history, Chinese society and Chinese culture. If Marxism can be sinicized, it will certainly promote our social development and the realization of our modernization. The second perspective may have a different angle but the same result as the first one. After all, China’s modern new culture should be developed under the conditions of Chinese history and reality, so it is always Chinese and should always have Chinese characteristics. This new culture developed in contemporary China must have absorbed the achievements of Western modernization, and the open Marxism can fully absorb the advanced scientific achievements and philosophical thoughts of the West. Therefore, it can also be said that the new culture of China is a Chinese culture that has absorbed Marxism. No matter from which perspective, the final result of the development of Chinese culture may be the same, that is, to form a modern socialist new culture with Chinese characteristics. The Chinese nation has suffered many hardships for more than 100 years, it is “a heavy task and a long way to go” for every Chinese to

74  Chinese Culture in Transition revive Chinese culture and build a modern Chinese culture. We must strive for this goal. December 1986

Note 1 This article was originally published in Journal of Chinese Academy of Culture (correspondence Edition). April 10, 1987.

10 Chinese Culture to Go Global and the Global Culture to be Introduced into China1

Dear gentlemen, friends and comrades, The “Seminar on Chinese and Western Comparative Culture Studies” held by the Chinese Culture Academy opens today. It has been said that the comparative study of Chinese and foreign cultures not only can meet the needs of the intellectuals to reflect on Chinese traditional culture, the needs to introduce and absorb contemporary world scientific and cultural knowledge, but also can promote the comparative study of culture generally, reduce the narrowness in the existing knowledge and educational structure, encourage the penetration and integration among different disciplines to open up a broader perspective and a new subject area. It turns out that this seminar is welcomed by a lot of intellectuals. The 12,815 comrades participating in the seminar came from 29 provinces, cities and autonomous regions. We sincerely welcome you all to study and do research together in this seminar, and we hope that together with our comrades working at the academy, you will make this seminar a fruitful one for the study of Chinese and foreign comparative culture. The Chinese Culture Academy was founded by scholars in Beijing including Liang Shuming, Feng Youlan, Zhang Dainian, Li Zehou, Pang Pu and Dai Yi. It aims to “inherit and carry forward the fine traditions of Chinese culture through the teaching and research of it, and promote the modernization of Chinese culture through the introduction of foreign culture and the comparative study of Chinese and foreign culture.” Since the May Fourth Movement, Chinese intellectuals have held a goal of making our motherland rich and strong, not only in the sector of science and technology, but also in ideology and culture (philosophy, literature, art, etc.). The comrades working at the academy will strive together for this goal. As May 4 has just passed, this year marks the 68th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement. When our class ends in 1989, it will be the 70th year of the May Fourth Movement. There is a saying that “life rarely live to seventy years.” Seventy years is a rather long period of time. Moreover, the past 70 years are not only a time of rapid development of human culture, but also a time of the rising of the most complex problems encountered by human society. Looking back on the past 70 years, there are still many DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-12

76  Chinese Culture in Transition problems worthy of our deliberation: How to evaluate this great new culture movement? Is the goal “democracy and science” pursued by this great movement realized? Today, nearly 70 years after the May Fourth Movement, how should we develop Chinese culture? When we study and deliberate on these issues today, we can probably say that it is a problem of “ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign.” To put it more specifically, it is the relationship between “tradition” and “modernity” and the relationship between “Chinese culture” and “Western cultures.” These two problems have been put forward and discussed widely since the May Fourth Movement. Unfortunately, they haven’t been solved even today. How to treat Chinese traditional culture and foreign Western cultures is definitely a very complex problem. But from my point of view, we should deal with traditional Chinese culture and foreign culture in a creative manner rather than inheriting the former and introducing the latter in China in their entirety. Both cultures should be transformed to adapt to China’s modernization. It means that we will create a modern new culture with Chinese characteristics under the “global consciousness.” The Chinese culture academy hopes to contribute to this great cause for our motherland, our nation and the people worldwide. Today the academy is just a very small non-​governmental academic institution, but we believe that with a group of patriotic mentors who desire to develop Chinese culture and have a deep knowledge of Western cultures, a group of staff who are devoted to the development of our academy and a large number of comrades who have participated in various workshops and researches led by us or who will study the comparative culture between China and foreign countries with us, we can certainly contribute to China’s modern new culture. It is no exaggeration to say that the academy has exerted a significant impact at home and abroad. Many Chinese and foreign scholars are willing to work for the academy without pecuniary reward. After learning what the academy has made effort for, foreign scholars said, “Chinese culture will not disappear,” “Chinese culture is rooted in China” and “Chinese culture will eventually be a leading force worldwide.” Instead of viewing Chinese culture as an antique, they have learned that Chinese scholars, the elder and the young, are developing Chinese culture and creating modern Chinese culture, which will contribute to the development of human culture. Shortly after the May Fourth Movement, Russell, a great British philosopher, came to China in 1921. In Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted written by Russell in 1922, it was stated that the exchanges between different cultures had proved to be milestones in the advancement of human civilization in the past. Greece learned from Egypt, Rome followed the footsteps of Greece, Arabia imitated the Roman Empire, and the same thing happened between Europe and Arabia in the Middle Ages, as well as Europe and the Byzantine Empire during the Renaissance. In many exchanges like this, the developing countries, referred to as “students,” always surpass the developed countries, “teachers.” In cultural exchanges between China and foreign countries, China, as a student, will eventually surpass her teachers. We are indeed lagging behind the

Chinese Culture to Go Global; Global Culture Introduced to China  77 advanced Western countries in many aspects. Therefore, we must learn from them, but at the same time, we must be creative and develop our own culture. By the 21st century, Chinese culture will be in the forefront of its global peers. We wish to promote Chinese culture in the world and introduce the world culture into China.

Note 1 This article was originally published in Journal of Chinese Academy of Culture (correspondence Edition). May 10, 1987.

11 On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation1

When it comes to the development of Chinese culture, we should first understand the stage Chinese culture is currently in. We know that the development of culture is often characterized by two stages: “cultural identity” and “cultural exclusion.” The second stage is a period of transformation. Generally speaking, the period of transformation refers to a period in which there are obvious crisis and fractures in cultural development, and at the same time rapid reorganization and renewal. For China, this was most pronounced in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period, the Wei, Jin and Southern and Northern Dynasties and the period after May Fourth New Cultural Movement, when there were also great societal changes. Culture is generally developed through the interaction of “identity” and “exclusion.” Cultural identity is manifested in the consistency and interpretation of the mainstream culture, the inward and in-​depth development of culture within a specific area, the further excavation of the established model and the exclusion and suppression of alien forces. It aims to consolidate the established boundaries and norms set by the mainstream culture. While “cultural exclusion” is manifested in criticism and sublation, that is, the negation and doubt of the mainstream culture in a certain period of time and the disruption of the established norms and boundaries. It embraces the excluded and releases suppressed energy, thus impacting or even subverting the mainstream culture. It is in the period of cultural transformation when “cultural exclusion” prevails. In the period of cultural transformation, there are often three opinions about traditional culture, namely cultural conservatism, cultural liberalism and cultural radicalism, the division here is specific to attitudes toward the traditional culture. Therefore, there is no praise or derogation for all these three forces. They coexist in the same framework, and the tension and confrontation between them is an important engine for cultural and societal development. We often assume that in the period of cultural transformation, only “radicalism” is useful for cultural development. I think this view is narrow, or at least worth our reconsideration. 1. The Spring and Autumn and Warring States period was a period of great changes in Chinese society. After Emperor Ping of Zhou moved the DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-13

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  79 Zhou royal government eastward, the Zhou Dynasty gradually declined, states took advantage of this situation to wage wars, and cultural crisis appeared too. By the late Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, there was a Variation of Thought from All Schools. Meanwhile, Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, the School of Logicians, Legalism, and the Yin-​Yang school emerged one after another, among which Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism had the greatest influence in that period and after. In the Han Dynasty, the influence of Mohism and the School of Logicians faded (the thought the School of Logicians regained some momentum at the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty), and the Yin-​Yang school was absorbed by Confucianism. Therefore, we may say that in the Pre-​Qin period, Confucianism represented conservatism, Taoism represented liberalism and Legalism represented radicalism. In the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, Confucianists (mainly Confucius and Mencius) took it as their own responsibility to maintain the tradition of the Western Zhou Dynasty. Therefore, we can call them Conservatives. Confucius believed that it was an era of “propriety disintegration,” the Rites of Zhou were destroyed, and he should restore it. He said, “If I were entitled to the position to govern the society, I will revive Zhou rites in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty.” He traveled all his life to inherit the cause of Emperor Wen and Chou Kung. He strove to “follow the previous wise ways” (the Doctrine of the Mean). However, Confucius did not want the society to be unchanged, as he said in the Analects of Confucius for Politics, “The Shang Dynasty inherited the etiquette system of the Xia Dynasty, and the reduced and added contents can be known; The Zhou Dynasty inherited the etiquette system of the Shang Dynasty, and the same is true. It is also possible to know in advance that there will be successors to the Zhou Dynasty even after hundred generations.” Although there were “causes” and “reforms” in the process of historical changes, Confucius believed that the tradition must be “carried forward into the future,” not lost. Therefore, he advocated the preservation of ancient culture, as he “only faithfully taught the ancient classics but never created new things because he loved and was convinced in the ancient doctrines.” Hence, he lectured mainly poetry, writing, classical arts and rites. Because of Confucius’ conservative attitude toward traditional culture, it is no surprise that he was ridiculed as “knowing what’s impossible and keeping doing it” in an era of great social changes. Mencius’s lifelong commitment was to learn from Confucius. Mencius said, “What I desire is to learn from Confucius.” (Mencius-​Gong Sun Chou I). He praised the “rule of Yao and Shun” and advocated “remembering mistakes and acting in accordance with the old rules.” According to Biography of Mencius and Xun Qing in Historical Records, “When the vassal states were committed to the strategy of ‘combining vertical and horizontal’ and regarded the ability to attack as talents, Mencius advocated the moral governance of Tang Yao, Yu Shun and Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties, which didn’t meet the needs of the

80  Chinese Culture in Transition countries he visited. Therefore, he went back to his hometown to organize the Book of Songs and the Book of History to elucidate Confucius’s thoughts and theories, and wrote Mencius, a book of seven chapters.” It can be seen that Mencius took inheriting the traditional culture Confucius strove to preserve as his own responsibility, and was regarded as “foolish and” by people of his time. In these respects, Mencius, like Confucius, was culturally conservative at that time. Here there is the need to clarify that cultural conservatism is not to blindly inherit traditions, but to maintain traditions and “carry forward the past and forge ahead” on basis of it, in order to ensure uninterrupted cultural development. Similarly, cultural conservatism doesn’t equal political conservatism, and it is certainly not a hindrance to social progress. Although the Pre-​Qin Confucianists cannot fully adapt to the social upheaval at that time, they doubtlessly contributed to our culture and future generations. It is exactly the Confucians’ conservative attitude toward traditional culture that made them the guardians of Chinese culture, who were praised by later generations. Taoism was the representative of liberalism in the Pre-​Qin period, if this was not obvious in Laozi’s thought, it was in Zhuangzi’s thought. Although Laozi once served as the “keeper of the library of Zhou classics,” due to various artificial reasons at that time, there was turmoil and chaos. Therefore, he was skeptical about the rites representing traditional cultures. He said, “Those who follow rites are weak in loyalty and are the source of chaos” (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 38). He believed that man-​made moral norms like “benevolence and righteousness” are against human nature and are the source of hypocrisy and chaos, as Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 18 puts it, “When the great Way is abandoned, benevolence and righteousness arise. When wisdom and knowledge appear, great pretense arises. When family ties are disturbed, devoted children arise. When people are unsettled, loyal ministers arise.” Therefore, Laozi advocated in Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 19 to “abandon wisdom, discard knowledge, and people will benefit a hundredfold. Abandon benevolence, discard duty, and people will return to the family ties. Abandon cleverness, discard profit, and thieves and robbers will disappear,” hoping to restore the society to its original state of “small country and few people” and “tying knots for reckoning” through the method of “natural inaction.” Laozi’s thought demonstrates an “anti-​culture” trend, while Zhuangzi pursues spiritual freedom. In Zhuangzi, the first article is entitled the Carefree Excursion, which advocates that people should get rid of limitations of body and mind and achieve the state of freedom. He often takes a cynical attitude toward traditional culture in Zhuangzi, so he was more “anti-​cultural” than Laozi. In the Philosopher-​King, through the words of Pu Yizi, he wrote, “Do you know this now? Yu Shun was inferior to Fuxi. Yu Shun used benevolence and righteousness to win the support of the people, but he was still trapped in the dilemma of man-​made division of things and self, and did not go beyond the world of binary opposition. Fuxi, on the other hand, was relaxed and comfortable when he slept and woke up; He allowed some people to see themselves

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  81 as horses and others as cattle; He got real talent and pure virtue. He came back to nature and became a simple, plain and natural real person. Moreover, he had never been involved in the dilemma of dichotomy between things and self, and been selflessly integrated with nature.” According to Zhuangzi, human society’s development loses momentum over generations because people pursue those artificial things. Only when we return to the original state of society, or even the era of caveman, can human “be free and comfortable” and “not be weighed down by things.” This philosophy is reflected in his advocating of “mindfulness” and “meditation.” Zhuangzi believes that to gain spiritual freedom, we must “forget our own body, abandon our own intelligence, get rid of the shackles of our body and intelligence so as to integrate with Tao.” Although Laozi and Zhuangzi of Taoism show the tendency of “anti-​ culture,” they believe this is a personal choice, a spiritual realm pursued by individuals. They also proposed a blueprint for an ideal society, but they hadn’t striven to realize this ideal. They hope the society can be improved naturally without human interference, such as it is put in Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 57: “I do not act, and people become reformed by themselves. I am at peace, and people become fair by themselves. I do not interfere, and people become rich by themselves. I have no desire to desire, and people become like the uncarved wood by themselves.” And Zhuangzi –​In Response to High Kings says, “Let your mind find its enjoyment in pure simplicity; blend yourself with (the primary) ether in idle indifference; allow all things to take their natural course; and admit no personal or selfish consideration –​do this and the world will be governed.” Different from the Legalists at that time who employed force to pursue their ideals, Laozi and Zhuangzi advocated “natural inaction.” Therefore, Laozi and Zhuangzi were only negating the traditional culture passively rather than attacking it actively, which is fundamentally different from the radical attitude of the Legalists toward the traditional culture. Therefore, we classify Laozi and Zhuangzi as liberals toward the traditional culture. The Pre-​Qin Legalists took a radical attitude toward traditional culture, so they belonged to radicalism. Although the early Legalists such as Shang Yang did not directly express their attitudes toward traditional culture, we can learn Shang Yang’s attitude from his view of history. He believes that society is constantly changing, “people in ancient times cherished their loved ones and pursued self-​interest; then people respected sages and liked benevolence; today, people respected dignitaries and officials.” (The book of Shang, Kaisai) Therefore, he opposes the doctrine of “back to the ancients,” for which he wrote “sages neither imitate the ancient traditions nor stick to the status quo. Imitating traditions will make one lag behind the times; and if you stick to the status quo, you will fail to keep up with the development of the society.”

82  Chinese Culture in Transition (The book of Shang, Kaisai). He believes that it is unnecessary to abide by traditions, “the world or a country can’t be governed in a rigid way, but be flexible according to the reality” (The Book of Shang, Gengfa). Shang Yang based his opposition to follow the rites and traditions and his proposal for reform and innovation on this theory. He not only attached no importance to the traditions, but also demanded reform to break the shackles of the traditions. He said, “As long as it can make the country strong, a sage governor will not resort to the old testimonies; as long as it benefits the people, he will not abide by the old rites.” (The Book of Shang, Gengfa). Han Fei, a later legalist, also believes that society is constantly changing. He said, “In ancient times, people competed morally; then people competed in intelligence; today, people competed in strength.” (Han Feizi, Wuxiang). Therefore, he proposed the ideas of “changing ancient testimonies and traditions,” “beautifying today” and “imitating today’s sage emperors.” He criticized Confucianism that “when lobbying monarchs, Confucians did not praise the present methods of governing the country, but praise the achievements made by ancient emperors. They don’t know the implementation of government decrees, don’t bother to examine the intentions of treacherous officials, but chatter about the beautiful tales from ancient times and ancient emperors’ tremendous achievements.” He believed that the Confucians are just deceivers like Wizards.” Therefore, “there is no such thing as Yao and Shun’s way. If Confucians must say there is, then they are either fools or deceivers.” (Han Feizi, Xianxue). In the Chapter of Xianxue, Han Fei regards the traditional culture worshipped by Confucianism as completely outdated. In the Chapter of Nanyi, he cites the examples of “spear” and “shield” to illustrate that Confucianism and Mohism both talk about Yao and Shun, but there is no consensus between them, and in the Chapter of Xianxue, he criticizes them by saying, “a society cannot be managed well by pursuing opposing schools,” which shows his demand for political power to end the “contention of hundreds of schools.” We can see that Legalists not only oppose traditional culture, but also require force to prohibit other schools. This definitely belongs to radicalism. In the Pre-​ Qin period, China’s culture developed continuously in the collision of Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism (of course also Mohism, the school of Logicians and the Yin-​Yang school). It was under the force of mutual influence and restraint that China’s culture developed vigorously and formed the “contention of hundreds of schools.” At that time, Confucianism was committed to maintaining and inheriting the tradition, while Taoism and Legalism criticized the tradition. Radical Legalists like Shang Yang and Han Fei and Taoist liberals often disagreed with conservatives in attitudes toward traditional culture. It seems reasonable for Sima Qian to put Laozi, Zhuangzi, Shen Buhai and Han Fei in the same profile of his Historical Records. The ideological connection between Legalism and Taoism in the Pre-​Qin period has been affirmed by researchers, so there is no need to discuss it in detail here. If we conduct a historical investigation in the context of the background of cultural transformation at that time, I believe that Confucianism, Taoism

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  83 and Legalism all have contributed to the development of Chinese culture, and we should not favor one over the other by the standard of influence on later cultural development. Without Confucianism, the Chinese cultural tradition could be interrupted; without legalism, it couldn’t be advanced; without Taoism, it couldn’t be so colorful and enlightening. Therefore, in the cultural transformation period of Pre-​Qin, China’s culture was rich and colorful because it had a diversified cultural orientation. At that time, scholars could discuss cultural issues and the ultimate concerns of the universe and life from a very broad field with multi levels and perspectives, which made China’s culture at that time not inferior in any respect to cultures in other parts of the world (such as Greece and India), and the reason is that it’s “pluralistic” rather than “unitary.” We can gain an insight from this. That is, in the period of cultural transformation, only by viewing the traditional culture from different perspectives can we push forward cultural development. At the same time, we can also see that it is precisely the “divorce” of traditional culture caused by the “contention of hundreds of schools” in the Pre-​Qin period that gave birth to the stage of cultural “recognition” of “one authority” after the Han Dynasty. Although Confucianism was defined as authority for 400 years in the Han Dynasty, Confucianism at that time had absorbed the ideas of legalism, Taoism, the Yin-​Yang school and others to achieve in-​depth development. In this way, Chinese culture entered the era of “Confucian classics” with Confucianism as the mainstream culture. Confucianism became the “official school” and the position of Five Classics Doctorate was set up, and the practice of annotating and researching Confucian classics formed. Although this trend later had various disadvantages, the Confucian classics of the Han Dynasty contributed significantly to the development of Chinese culture. Historically speaking, the transition of cultural development from the stage of “divorce” to the stage of “recognition” is inevitable. In the period of cultural transformation, the development of culture is bound to be in a state of “divorce,” and we cannot force it to achieve “recognition.” 2. The Wei-​Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties (220–​581) can be said to be the second important transformation period of Chinese culture. From the perspective of Chinese society, it was also another period of great social changes. The peasant uprising and the rise of separatist forces in the late Han Dynasty destroyed the unified Han Dynasty. First, it’s the Three Kingdoms Period and then a temporary reunification in the Western Jin Dynasty. Soon, the northern ethnic minorities entered the Central Plains to found the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Social changes were accompanied by pluralistic and opposing cultures. Confucianism declined during this period, but it still exerted great influence in society. Although Taoism was unorthodox in the Han Dynasty (except the great impact of Huang-​Lao thought in the early Han Dynasty), it still exercised considerable influence in society. There were no fewer than 60 Huang-​ Lao schools at that time, forming a latent force to attack the orthodoxy

84  Chinese Culture in Transition status of Confucianism in the late Han Dynasty. Yan Junping, Wang Chong and Zhong Changtong in the late Han Dynasty are all masters of Taoist traditions at that time. Their thoughts “purified” the orthodoxy Confucianism thought. At the same time, the School of Logicians gained some eminence because of its requirements of “grant official positions according to one’s ability” and “demand performance according to one’s title and responsibility,” and Mojing was also studied, for example, in Lu Sheng’s Mohism debate notes. During this period, Buddhist culture from India and the Western regions became popular. When this foreign culture met with the local culture, various issues would inevitably appear. We can see that this period is actually the second “contention of hundreds of schools” in Chinese history. Of course, due to the practice of “ousting the hundred schools, only focusing on Confucianism” in the Han Dynasty, the second one was very different from the Pre-​Qin period in both form and content. But generally, there were also three cultural forces in this period, namely radicalism, liberalism and conservatism. Their attitudes toward the traditional culture formed since the Han Dynasty were significantly different. We can consider the cultural pattern of this period from two perspectives to distinguish the cultural patterns of the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties. The first does not take foreign Indian Buddhism into account, which may not cover the whole cultural landscape of the Wei-​Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, but mainly that of the Wei and Jin Dynasties; the second takes Indian Buddhist culture into account, which can better reflect the cultural pattern of the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties. Ji Kang and Ruan Ji proposed to “let human nature express freely beyond the constraints of Confucian ethics,” and condemned the “Mingjiao” (Confucian ritual religion) since the two Han Dynasties. Ruan Ji stated, “Ethics was not set up for our generation”; Ji Kang not only despised the traditional Confucian classics by “criticizing and destroying classics” (the Book of Jin, Ji Kang Biography), regarded “the six classics as filthy” and “benevolence and righteousness as rotten” (Criticizing the Learning of Classics), but also slandered the ancient emperors by “belittling Tang Yu and ridiculing Dayu” (Buyiu), and “despising Cheng Tang, Zhou Wu emperor, Chou Kung and Confucius” (a Letter Breaking off Relations to Shan Juyuan). Ji Kang and Ruan Ji criticized Mingjiao so fiercely because they considered it not only violated people’s nature, but also was often exploited by hypocrites and deceivers for personal benefits, “slaughtering the world to serve their own interests.” (Taishi Proverbs). Because of their fierce opposition to the Mingjiao, they condemned the traditional Confucian culture. Ji Kang despised the Confucian scholars at that time for “taking Chou Kung and Confucius as the key” (Answering the Criticism on Health Preservation) and “regarding the six classics as their beliefs” (Criticizing the Learning of Classics). In Criticizing the Learning of Classics, Ji Kang explained their

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  85 reason against the traditional Confucian thought, “The Six Classics tend to advocate repression and seduction, but humankind inherently enjoy open-​ mindedness and inclusiveness. Humankind inherently dislike repression and seduction, while enjoying openness and inclusiveness. Naturally we cannot acquire happiness from the Six Classics nor the rites and laws and regulations that violate humankind’s nature. Therefore, the ideology of benevolence and righteousness are hypocrite, through which the true temperament of humankind cannot be attained; the rites were born out of competition and plunder instead of nature.” It is understandable that Ji Kang’s “anti-​tradition” attitude through his criticism of the traditional culture is represented by the Six Classics. They criticized the orthodox Confucian tradition since the Han Dynasty, but they also inherited another unorthodox Chinese cultural tradition, that is, the Lao Zhuang Taoism since the Pre-​Qin Dynasty. They said, “Laozi and Zhuangzi are our teachers.” We can conclude that the thoughts of people who oppose orthodox traditional thoughts are often closely related to some unorthodox thoughts. Although Wang Bi and Guo Xiang have different philosophies, they agree with trying to reconcile Mingjiao and nature, and reconcile Confucianism and Taoism. They advocate “letting human nature stretch freely without abolishing Mingjiao.” According to Wang Bi, Mingjiao is originally a reflection of “nature” (or the nameless and invisible “Tao”). He commented on the text “When the uncarved wood (pu) is split, its parts are put to use. When the sage is put to use, he becomes the head” in Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 28, saying that Unworked wood (pu) is true, thus Tao. Tao is turned into various moral disciplines. Sages set up institution of country and assign people to different levels based on their moral merit, so to let the noble rule those who are not and improve social morals and create a unified as well as harmonious country. Tao is often nameless, but there are names for the morals. Mingjiao should not be abolished as it is established according to “Tao.” Guo Xiang, however, believes that the so-​called “God Man” is “today’s sage,” and “whether the sages are in the hall or in the mountain forest, the social responsibilities of them will not change”; He can “live in a glorious house and wear a jade seal” and “travel through mountains and rivers and work with people” without losing his status of “reaching the highest Tao” (Comments on the Zhuangzi –​Free and Easy Wandering). Sages are exactly people who can “wave their form all day without changing their spirit” and “handling various matters but be carefree and indifferent.” “Inside and outside are originally unified, and sages exercise both inside and outside.” (Comments on the Zhuangzi –​Great Master). Sages “often travel across the outside world to expand the inside” to “deal with worldly matters in a carefree manner,” and “those who unintentionally allow things to be transformed should

86  Chinese Culture in Transition be Emperors” (Comments on the Zhuangzi –​In Response to High Kings). Therefore, “the Tao of inner sage and outer king” is one of the key points that Guo Xiang wanted to prove. That is to say, Guo Xiang believes that Mingjiao is “nature” and that a true sage “rules country in the royal hall” with his minds wandering “in the mountains,” who is a real king for the outer and sage for the inner-​self. In this sense, Confucianism and Taoism are thus “integrated into oneness.” Wang Bi and Guo Xiang are also reflected in their attitude toward Confucian classics. Wang Bi annotated not only Tao Te Ching but also The Book of Changes, and wrote Explain the Analects of Confucius; Guo Xiang not only annotated Zhuangzi, but also wrote the Commentaries on Confucius and the Analects of Confucius. When comparing Confucius with Laozi and Zhuangzi, they also believe that Confucius is more intelligent than Laozi and Zhuangzi. According to the biography of Wang Bi by He Shao, “At that time, Pei Hui was the official minister, and Wang was yet a teenager. One day, Wang visited Pei and asked him, ‘None’ is the source of all things, but the sages did not say much about it. However, Laozi talked endlessly about ‘none’, why is that?” Wang replied, “The sages take ‘none’ as the noumenon that can’t be explained clearly, because ‘none’ will be turned into ‘existence’ ” if it is explained. Laozi and Zhuangzi can’t get rid of “existence.” Therefore, they always explain the inadequacy. Wang Bi believes that Confucius really understood “none” and was unified with Tao, and Laozi didn’t really understand “nothing,” so he always talked about it. In Comments on Zhuangzi, Guo Xiang put it, “Zhuangzi reveals the ontology of things, which are different to be apprehended. The vast majority of people simply do not understand it as it makes sense only to a very few people. He talks about none but responds to nothingness. The material things described are supposed to be useless; high realm cannot be reached without mentioning material things. This state cannot be compared with the state of being still until circumstances call.” Guo Xiang believes that although Zhuangzi knew the cause, he was incapable to connect the cause to the effect, and still harbored the dichotomy of Mingjiao and nature. He implied that it is who “have to be pushed to respond” like Confucius that can unify Mingjiao and nature (Confucianism and Taoism as one). In Abolishing Zhuangzi’s Thoughts by Wang Tanzhi of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, this thought is stated more clearly, “Confucius considers farness too, but he uses nearness because of the farness; Yan Zi does have virtue, so he carries on the rituals.” To conclude, Wang Bi and Guo Xiang mostly based their thoughts on Laozi and Zhuangzi’s philosophy, however which were used to reconcile Confucianism. They were masters of metaphysics just as Ji Kang and Ruan Ji in the Wei and Jin Dynasties, but their attitudes toward traditional culture were quite different from those of the latter. Ji Kang and Ruan Ji fiercely opposed rites and Confucianism, representing radicals against the tradition; Wang Bi and Guo Xiang, on the other hand, follow Laozi and Zhuangzi, but demand to reconcile Mingjiao and nature, so we may consider them as liberals toward the tradition.

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  87 The conservatives at that time were represented by Pei Wei, Fan Ning, Ganbao, etc. During the reign of Emperor Yuankang in the Western Jin Dynasty, Pei Wei wrote On Advocating Existence to condemn the atmosphere of “debauchery and rite-​trashing.” The Biography of Pei Wei, the Book of Jin states, “Wei was concerned about the debauchery and disrespect for Confucianism at that time, He Yan and Ruan Ji talk about non-​existence and don’t obey the etiquette and law, they get salary without contributing to the society. As for people like Wang Yan, their reputation and status are too high, they do not restrain themselves by engaging in government affairs, leading to people’s imitation and declining customs and education. Therefore, Wei writes Treatise on Advocating Existence to explain this atmosphere’s harmfulness.” It can be seen that Pei Wei wrote this book to “criticize nihilism in the secular world” and “correct the disadvantages of nihilism.” He believes that some “famous scholars” at that time advocated “nothingness” and diminished “existence,” resulting in many social problems. Wei criticized those who advocated “nothingness” for encouraging “inaction,” which will be developed into negating “action,” and the advocation of “nature” will be developed into defamation of “Mingjiao,” thus destroying the ritual system. Then there was no way to govern the society. Wei believed that issues of relationship between people are inevitable in a society, giving birth to the division of status, the order of age and various etiquette norms, so the normal relationship between people can be maintained. Rites were established to meet this need of our society, so it is reasonable and essential, and there is no need to find any basis outside itself. Wei criticized the trend of “letting human nature stretch freely beyond the constraints of Confucian ethics” harshly. Wei was standing from the viewpoint of Confucianism to maintain the ritual tradition since the Han Dynasty. In the Eastern Jin Dynasty, the trend of “debauchery and rite-​ trashing” was criticized more harshly, as Fan Ning said, “He Yan despised the classics, disobeyed the etiquette, and boasted his words to conceal the truth and deceive people. The disciples of the gentry changed their ways and followed the trend, resulting in the decline of benevolence and righteousness. Hence rites and elegance were ignored and the Central Plains was overturned. The ancient description of ‘people who speak falsely always argue, and people who behave deviously are stubborn’ fits him perfectly!” (Volume 75 of The Book of Jin, Biography of Fan Ning) Gan Bao wrote On the Jin Dynasty to discuss the gains and losses of the Jin Dynasty, the pandect in this book criticizing the “words only” atmosphere at that time, saying, “The social conducts are vulgar and backward, as scholars hold high the Laozi and Zhuangzi while despising the Six Classics; the talkers use empty mind as their argument and disrespect inner inspection; the practitioners regard filthiness as flexibility and ignore faith and honesty; those who enter the government value disgrace gains, but are contemptuous to righteousness; and officials value emptiness and deride diligence.” Obviously, Fan Ning and Gan Bao all took it as their duty to maintain the traditional ethics and defend the Confucian classics, so the force to protect the traditional culture was still very strong at that time.

88  Chinese Culture in Transition According to Qian Mu’s article On the relationship between academic culture and family status of the Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties,2 “there were a lot of works on Confucian classics in this period, including 94 books and 829 volumes on the Books of Change, 41 books and 296 volumes on the Book of Documents; 76 books and 683 volumes on The Book of Poetry; 211 books and 2186 volumes on The Book of Etiquettes; 46 books and 263 volumes on The Book of Music; 130 books and 1910 volumes on The Spring and Autumn Annals, but most of them have been lost.” The Book of Etiquettes was studied the most, so Zhu Xi said, “there are many people who study rites in the Six Dynasties,”3 and Shen Yao, a Confucian of the Qing Dynasty, also wrote in Collection of Luofan Building, “The people of the Six Dynasties studied etiquette very well.”4 Therefore, there were many people who still attached importance to traditional culture at that time. Because of this, their contributions to the preservation and continuation of traditional culture should not be buried. From the conservative criticism to the trend of “metaphysics,” we can see that the conservatists indiscriminately condemned the above-​mentioned radicals and liberals, the great metaphysics masters such as Ji Kang and Ruan Ji and normal ones like Hu Wufu and Wang Yan, reflecting their positions and the social mindset at that time. However, we can also say that the radicals and liberals at that time indeed belong to the same new ideological trend and both helped to break the shackles of traditional ideas and initiate new ideas. Because their ideas were new, they had a greater impact on the society they were in and later academic culture than the conservatives. Let’s consider how to analyze the cultural pattern of the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties formed by accounting the foreign cultural factor of Indian Buddhism. From the perspective of the attitude toward China’s traditional culture, Buddhism can be regarded as radicalism, while metaphysics (including Ji Kang, Ruan Ji, Wang Bi and Guo Xiang) as a whole can be regarded as liberalism; and Pei Wei, Fan Ning and Gan Bao are conservatives who abide by ethics and maintain Confucian tradition. As a foreign culture, the Indian Buddhism naturally had contradictions and conflicts with the original Chinese traditional culture. At the beginning of the introduction of Buddhism, it was first attached to the “Taoism” of the Han Dynasty and then to the metaphysics of the Wei and Jin Dynasties, so the contradictions and conflicts were not obvious. However, we can learn about the criticism of Buddhism in the late Han Dynasty from some documents, such as the so-​called “religion of four destruction” in the Taiping Sutra, criticizing Buddhism’s “being a monk” and “childless” to be against filial piety; the Discussion of Reason and Confusion at the end of the Han Dynasty also records the criticism of Buddhism from the Confucianism’s standpoint of maintaining “ethics.” Therefore, Buddhism and China’s traditional culture were already having contradictions in treating “ethics” at the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty. However, at that time, Buddhism had little impact on society and did not pose a threat to traditional culture, so the

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  89 contradiction was not intense. After the Eastern Jin Dynasty, there were more and more Buddhist scriptures translated, especially after Kumarosh came to China and translated a large number of Buddhist sutras, vinaya and sastra of Mahayana and Chinese Buddhism more accurately, which made it possible for people to better understand the original meaning of Indian Buddhist culture, so contradictions and conflicts between the two cultures were inevitable. The existing Hongming Collection can inform us of the conflict between the two cultures in the Northern and Southern Dynasties. There were arguments on “extinction of the gods and the immortality of God” and on “karma,” involving philosophical issues of karma and nature (life is natural); on the “relationship between emptiness and existence”; and on “whether Buddhists should abide by the emperors” and whether they should be filial to their parents. There was discussion on the “relationship between man and all sentient beings,” which is related to the maintenance of Confucian tradition; and the so-​called “dispute between China and Yi.” All these debates show the conflicts between the two cultures, the most significant one being maintenance of “loyalty and filial piety” of “ethics.” In volume 3 of The Anthology of Hong Ming, Sun Chuo’s On Tao quoted the Confucian attack on Buddhism against filial piety which says, “Duke Zhou and Confucius attach great importance to filial piety, which is the basis of all actions. As long as we perform our fundamental duties, Tao will arise and we will be closer to god. Therefore, child is destined to serve his/​ her parents. He/​She should support his/​her parents when they are alive and worship them when they are dead. For anyone, the greatest responsibility is to have offspring. Our bodies are given by parents so we must not hurt ourselves. If we do that, we shall be ashamed for life. While Buddhist monks leave their parents and relatives, shave their beard and hair and destroy their inborn appearance. They don’t even support their parents. Therefore, their parents are left behind waiting pitifully. Such behavior is totally out of reason.” Sun Chuo defended Buddhism in that Buddhism could also bring honor to one’s ancestors and bless them by preaching doctrines and performing monasticism. However, he also knew that Buddhism is a “monastic” religion, and having no offspring is incompatible with Chinese tradition, which is an irreconcilable contradiction. During the reign of Emperor Cheng and Kang in Eastern Jin Dynasty (326–​344), Yu Bing was in charge of the government. On behalf of the emperor, he ordered the Buddhist monks to pay tribute to the emperor and perform the ceremony of kneeling down. This involved another major issue of “ritualism,” that is, the relationship between the emperor and ministers. In his edict, Yu Bing put it, “If Buddhist monks just respect the emperor as they respect their fathers, isn’t it meaningless to establish the order of the emperor and ministers, formulate the system of laws and advocate rituals?” (The Edict that Buddhist Monks Should Pay Tribute to the Emperor Cheng of Jin Dynasty). Since “ritual” is the basis of the country, “ritual and respect are both important through which the emperor can govern the country well” (The Anthology of Hong Ming volume 12: The Edict that

90  Chinese Culture in Transition Buddhist Monks Should Pay Tribute to the Emperor Cheng of Jin Dynasty). The Buddhists, however, were “destroying their appearance, defying the rules, changing the rituals and abandoning Confucian ethical codes.” As a result, “There is no distinction between superiority and inferiority and the emperor can’t rule effectively.” Therefore, Buddhist monks were ordered to kneel down before the emperor. This was opposed by chief imperial secretary He Chong and others, who believed in Buddhism, and was not put into practice. At the end of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Huan Xuan again said that Buddhist monks should pay tribute to the emperor, and used the ideas of the Taoist Laozi to support his argument, “Laozi thinks that the emperor is as important as three major things, namely Tao, Heaven and Earth. The emperor is valued not for his exalted status but for his contribution to the survival and development of the people and all things. The virtue of heaven and earth lies in the creation of all things, while the virtue of managing and rationalizing things lies in the emperor. That is why the emperor enjoys the supreme position and the rituals are set up in such a grand manner. These worship rituals are certainly not for extending the emperor’s governance. It is because the emperor is managing all things well that Buddhist monks can have enough daily needs to survive. Isn’t it unreasonable to enjoy the emperor’s benevolence without observing his rituals, and to receive the emperor’s favor without respecting him?” (The Anthology of Hong Ming volume 12: Discussions on Buddhist Monks’ Attitudes toward the Emperor). Huan Xuan believed that the emperor and heaven and earth share the same virtue, and people are nurtured by the emperor in the same way as they are nurtured by heaven and earth, so people should respect the emperor as much as they respect heaven and earth. Like others, Buddhist monks are nurtured by the emperor and have “enough daily needs to survive,” so they should not “enjoy the emperor’s benevolence without observing his rituals, and receive the emperor’s favor without respecting him.” Therefore, although Huan Xuan quoted Tao Te Ching, what he wanted to defend was still the traditional “ritualism.” For Master Hui Yuan, in his Reply to Grand Commandant Huan and On Buddhist Monks’ Disrespect to the Emperor, he made great efforts to distinguish the “mundane Buddhists” from “monastic Buddhists.” Hui Yuan proposed that those who practice Buddhism at home should uphold filial piety just like other people, while monastic Buddhist monks should “live in seclusion for his ambition, abandon his vulgarity to achieve his way and change his customs instead of practicing the same rituals like others. They should live in seclusion in order to be nobler and more honorable.” (The Anthology of Hong Ming volume 12). On the one hand, Hui Yuan compromised with traditional Chinese culture, but on the other hand, he still insisted that there is no need for Buddhist monks to respect the emperor. During the Northern and Southern Dynasties, there were even two incidents of exterminations of Buddhism. Although the reasons for them were different, they both had something to do with the clash of two different traditional cultures. Despite this, Buddhism continued to grow in China. In the Sui Dynasty, according to the Bibliography of Chronicles of the Sui

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  91 Dynasty, “Many people admired Buddhism a lot, and there were over tens of hundreds of times of Buddhist scriptures among the people than the six Confucian classics.” In the Tang Dynasty, many Chinese Prime ministers and admonishers criticized Buddhism from the traditional Confucian standpoint. For example, Han Yu wrote On the Memorial of Buddhist Bone, which is an afterthought and I will not go into details here. Of course, we must note that there were also Chinese monks during the Northern and Southern Dynasties who tried to reconcile the conflict between Buddhism and Confucianism, but they failed to resolve the fundamental contradiction. If metaphysics in Wei and Jin Dynasties was regarded as a whole, then the mainstream metaphysics represented by Wang Bi and Guo Xiang should belong to the liberal school. However, can Ji Kang and Ruan Ji be regarded as “liberalists” since they also represent a school of metaphysics. If so, how to explain their “anti-​tradition alism” and criticism of “ritualism”? This question can be addressed from the following two aspects. First, Ji Kang and Ruan Ji did not represent the mainstream metaphysics, so they will not affect the relationship between metaphysics and traditional culture, Taoism and Confucianism in general. The mainstream metaphysics that was trying to reconcile nature and Scholasticism, Taoism and Confucianism, should belong to the liberal school at that time. Secondly, although Ji Kang and Ruan Ji fiercely opposed “ritualism,” this may be only one aspect of their thinking. Since their attitude toward life was extremely serious, they actually believed in ritualism. In Wei-​Jin Demeanor and Articles and the Relationship between Medicine and Liquor, Lu Xun put it, “The seven of them (referring to the Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove) are almost all rebels against the old rituals.” “For example, Ji Kang and Ruan Ji were charged with destroying the rituals. But in my personal opinion, that judgment is wrong. In the Wei and Jin Dynasties, it seems to be very good to worship rituals, but it is really the destruction of rituals and disbelief in rituals. However, those who appear to destroy rituals, in fact, recognize them and believe in them much more.”5 What Lu Xun said is true. It is because Ji Kang and Ruan Ji were “too convinced of ritualism,” but they found that since the end of the Han Dynasty, those royalty and scholars were verbally defending “ritualism” but actually destroying it. So they were disappointed with the social atmosphere at that time and acted in the way of “anti-​ritualism.” But we can still see from the works of Ji Kang and Ruan Ji that they opposed hypocritical “ritualism” but appreciated genuine “ritualism.” In Family Commandment, Ji Kang put it, “We should be humble in a large sense instead of pretending a modicum of modesty; and we should mind the overall situation instead of caring about the insignificant shame. For someone, if he gives up his official position when recruited by the court, or if he prefers to sacrifice his life when he needs to uphold justice, like Kong Wenju’s request to die on behalf of his brother, then he boasts the moral integrity that only loyal ministers and martyrs have.” In Ruan Ji’s poems that express ambitions and feelings, he says, “Life is short but every living creature spares no effort to make it more complete.” That is why in The Collections of

92  Chinese Culture in Transition Ruan Ji, Chen Wende says that Ruan Ji’s writings are “fierce and generous. The anger in his heart makes his actions dangerous; the loyalty in his doctrine makes his ideas far-​reaching.”6 Accordingly, it can be seen that Ji Kang and Ruan Ji were still influenced by traditional culture. Therefore, we say that in general the metaphysicians could be regarded as the liberals at that time. As for the Conservatism represented by Yi Pei, Fan Ning and Gan Bao, which has been discussed in detail in previous articles, I will not say much here. Based on either of the two patterns mentioned above, the culture during the transitional period of the Wei, Jin and Northern and Southern Dynasties actually developed significantly in the midst of the conflict between Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism or Confucianism and Taoism, which heralded that the further development of Chinese culture certainly will be the integration of the three schools. Since the middle of the Tang Dynasty, this trend has been gradually revealed. By the Song Dynasty, there was “Neo-​Confucianism,” which was formed by fully absorbing the ideas of Buddhism and Taoism on the basis of Confucianism. In this way, Chinese culture has moved from the stage of “dissociation” to the stage of “identification.” 3. Since the 20th century, Chinese society has been in violent turbulence as the New Culture Movement and the May Fourth Movement took place in China. We can say that from the May Fourth Movement (or earlier, from the end of the 19th century) to 1949, Chinese culture was in a new transitional period. Since Chinese society was in a period of greater and more complex changes than the previous two periods. Chinese culture has also become extremely complex, if not difficult to clarify. However, we can say that the radicalism represented by Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu, the liberalism represented by Hu Shi and Ding Wenjiang, and the conservatism represented by Yan Fu and Du Yaquan, and then by Liang Shuming, Zhang Junmai and the Xueheng School, all showed different responses and different levels of thinking in face of rapid changes in Chinese society and the great cultural upheaval in the world during the May Fourth period. Questions at that time included “how to deal with traditional culture,” “how to accept Western culture,” “how to build own new culture” and so on. Radicalism and liberalism of the May Fourth period once jointly proposed “anti-​ traditionalism,” advocated “democracy and science,” and attacked orthodox culture (mainly Confucianism). Before the May Fourth Movement, Li Dazhao said, “In a word, Democracy is the only authority, and the modern era is the era of Democracy.”7 Chen Duxiu said, “The reason for the superiority of modern Europe over other nations is the rise of science. Science does not contribute less than human rights. Science and human rights, like the two wheels of a car, have jointly promoted the prosperity of Europe.”8 They criticized the old rituals, old morals and old traditions fiercely, and made “democracy” and “science” the goal of their pursuit. Chen Duxiu said

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  93 in response to the conservative diehards’ attack on the New Youth at that time, “What they criticized was our destruction of rituals, rites and laws, the national quintessence, chastity, the old ethics (loyalty, filial piety, integrity), the old arts (Chinese opera), the old religion (ghosts and gods), the old literature, and the old politics (the rule of privileged people).”9 Chen Duxiu’s words clearly show that the New Culture Movement they launched was to get rid of all the aspects inherent in tradition and break the traditional culture that had confined people’s minds for thousands of years. Chen Duxiu and others, of course, saw that China was socially backward, politically corrupt, and had long been humiliated by the Western powers; but they also saw that the Western countries were strong and civilized. Therefore, they believed that China must learn from the West in order to become rich and strong, and must thoroughly criticize the old cultural traditions and introduce the new culture of the West. According to them, “The so-​called new is none other than the foreign Western culture, while the so-​called old is none other than the inherent Chinese culture. ... The two cultures are fundamentally different, so there is no room for reconciliation and compromise.”10 At that time, the liberal Hu Shi also advocated the total absorption of Western culture. He said, “I am very candid in criticizing our traditional culture, and praising the modern Western culture ... Now the ignorant incite the haughty to propagate the superiority of Chinese old culture and of Chinese outdated morals. ... I must say that don’t fall for their tricks. ... We must admit that we ourselves lag behind in many aspects, not only materially and mechanically, in our political system, but also morally, intellectually, literally, musically, artistically, and physically.”11 The radicalists and liberalists advocated “anti-​tradition” during the May Fourth Movement because that China lagged behind and was inferior to the West in every way. Therefore, these schools decided to advocate “Total Westernization.” Undoubtedly, such “anti-​tradition” thought had a great impact on breaking the shackles of traditional thought. It opened up a way for the development of Chinese culture and laid the foundation for the “enlightenment” of Chinese society. Although it may also have some negative effects (such as absolute ideological tendency, “scientism” of “scientific omnipotence,” “cultural determinism” tendency, etc.), its positive significance in history must be fully recognized. But not long after that, in 1920, Liang Qichao returned from Europe and published his book Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe, arguing that Western culture had fallen into a desperate situation after the First World War, and that Eastern culture might be able to save the world. In his book, Liang Qichao made a fierce attack on the Western culture represented by “science” in recent times, saying that “today, those who eulogize the omnipotence of science are full of hope for the success of science, and the golden world will appear in the near future. Now that their goal has been accomplished since the material progress in a hundred years is several times greater than that of the previous three thousand years. However, we humans have not only failed to achieve happiness, but also have brought many disasters. It is like a traveler

94  Chinese Culture in Transition who has lost his way in the desert and sees a big black shadow from afar, so he desperately rushes forward, thinking that he can rely that one to guide him. But when he catches up, the shadow disappears, leaving him in endless sadness and disappointment. Who is the shadow? It’s ‘Mr. Science’. Europeans once dreamed about the omnipotence of science, but now they say that science has gone broke, which is a great change of thinking recently.”12 Before that, Liang Qichao’s “New Citizenship” introduced Western culture to China and criticized traditional Chinese culture. But in his book Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe, while criticizing the “omnipotence of science” of the West, he was very positive about traditional Chinese culture, saying that “our lovely youth, stand at attention and march! Tens of thousands of people on the other side of the sea are worried about the bankruptcy of material civilization and are crying for help, waiting for you to save them! Our three ancestors in heaven and many predecessors are eagerly expecting you to accomplish their cause and are blessing you with their spirits!”13 The publication of Liang Qichao’s Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe was undoubtedly a reaction against the “anti-​tradition” trend and “Westernization” of the May Fourth Movement, and even Hu Shi had to admit that the book was quite influential at that time. He said, Since the publication of Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe, the dignity of science in China has been far less than before, and the old gentleman who had seldom gone out happily spoke up that “European science has gone collapsed! This is what Liang Qichao said.”14 In the summer of 1921, Liang Shuming gave a speech on Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies, which can be said to be the first reflection on “anti-​tradition” by conservatives since the May Fourth period. In his book Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies, Liang shows a rational critical spirit toward Western culture and Chinese culture. He believes that China should introduce Western culture so that “science and democracy” can also be fully developed in China. According to Liang Shuming, the greatest characteristic of Western culture lies in its conquest of nature, in its respect for science, and in its advocacy of democracy. He argues that Western culture originated from ancient Greece and Rome and was only able to consciously develop again in modern times after a long period of suppression during the dark Middle Ages. Based on his understanding of the nature of Western culture and his three-​stage theory of historical development, Liang Shuming naturally concluded that the life style of Western society was appropriate in the development of history, and therefore Western culture should be introduced into Chinese society at that time. In Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies, he says clearly, “These two spirits (Science and Democracy) are completely right and can only be uncritically and unconditionally recognized, that is, what I call a ‘total acceptance’ of Westernization. How to introduce these two spirits is really urgent today;

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  95 otherwise, we will never be qualified to talk about human dignity, and we will never be qualified to talk about academics.”15 That is why he repeatedly stated, “My advocacy of Orientalization is different from the old mind’s rejection of Westernization.”16 However, he also criticized the modern Western culture and advocated carrying forward the original Chinese cultural spirit. He thought that the development of Western culture had reached its zenith and thus exposed many problems and difficulties, causing many pains and disasters, for example, unreasonable economic phenomena, the extreme spiritual emptiness of people, the killing of each other in wars, the destruction of natural resources, and the tension between people, to name but a few. This situation shows that Western culture has reached the point where their society, attitudes and opinions all have to change. Liang Shuming also believes that Western culture has in fact seen a momentum of change, such as the socialist tendency in social transformation. And even greater changes take place in attitudes, from focusing on studying nature and material to focusing on studying human beings and life, the most striking of which is the Philosophy of Life. All these changes in Western culture are consistent with the essential spirit of traditional Chinese culture. Accordingly, Liang believes that in the near future there will be a revival of Chinese culture, just as the revival of Western culture after the long Middle Ages. Therefore, the focus of Liang’s cultural outlook is certainly not on “anti-​tradition,” but on how to revive and carry forward the spirit of Chinese culture under the impact of Western culture. Later there was the Xueheng School and the main figures were international students who returned from Harvard University in the early 1920s, such as Mei Guangdi, Wu Mi, Tang Yongtong and Hu Xiansu (Hu was a foreign student in the United States who studied natural sciences and was very accomplished in biology), etc. They were influenced by Neo-​Humanism that was popular at Harvard University at that time, and their slogan was “carrying forward our national quintessence, and absorbing the best of other national cultures.” The journal Xueheng was founded in 1922, and ceased publication in 1933, with a total of 79 issues. The scholars of Xueheng School attempted to find the relation between modernity and tradition in order to perpetuate traditional Chinese culture. They believe that (1) “new” and “old” are relative, and there is no absolute boundary; there is no “new” without “old.” (2) The humanities, unlike the natural sciences, cannot be completely based on the theory of evolution. (3) History has “changes” and “constants.” In the humanities, “truth” is a constant that is accumulated through many trials and experiences. This “truth” is not only eternally new, but also has universal significance in the world. These views, which do not seem to be very wise today, were a different tone amidst the voices for “anti-​tradition” at that time, and could not be totally denied. What is even more interesting is that these foreign students who came back from the United States could not be said to be ignorant of Western culture, and it was even through them that certain Western ideas were introduced to China. However, we must also see

96  Chinese Culture in Transition that most of these scholars also have a deep knowledge of traditional Chinese culture. Although neither Liang Qichao, Liang Shuming nor the Xueheng School opposed the introduction of Western culture, they all opposed “anti-​ tradition.” Therefore, there is no doubt that neither of them was the mainstream school that created the new Chinese culture at that time, but we can’t say that they only played a negative role in the new Chinese culture. In my opinion, Conservatism at that time at least played a role in restraining the “anti-​tradition” trend, so that the radicalism, especially the liberalism, could not fully implement their idea of “Total Westernization.” The “Debate between Science and Metaphysics” took place in 1923 which was a major clash between the mainstream and non-​mainstream schools of the New Culture Movement. In the debate, radicals and liberals united against conservatives. While the Metaphysical School represented by Zhang Junmai seemed to have lost, the debate has left many questions for serious consideration. For example, does “science” have its limits? According to Ding Wenjiang, “the scientific method absolutely has no limits”; if “science” becomes an “ism,” does “scientism” go against the spirit of science; what’s the meaning of the “outlook on life”; whether all problems are related to the “outlook on life,” etc. After this debate, the two mainstream schools of the New Culture Movement also decided to go separate ways. As Hu Shi openly stated in his Preface to Outlook on Science and Life, his “scientific outlook on life” can also be called the “naturalistic outlook on life.” Hu Shi said, “In that naturalistic universe, in that infinitely large space, in that infinitely long time, five feet and six inches tall on average, with a life span of no more than a hundred years. Man, the two-​handed animal, is really a tiny microorganism... With his two hands and a brain, he could actually make many tools and think of many ways to create some culture. He not only tamed many beasts, but also studied the natural laws of the universe and used them to manage everything well. Today, he even can make use of the electricity to drive cars and let the Ether send him letters.... In short, in this naturalistic outlook on life, humans have many opportunities to use their wisdom to create.”17 At that time, Chen Duxiu had already believed in the “materialist conception of history,” so he asked Hu Shi and other “science school” members whether they believed in the “materialist conception of history”? Hu Shi replied, “While we welcome the ‘economic interpretation of history’ as an important historiographical tool, we have to admit that ideas, knowledge and other things are also ‘objective causes’ and they can also ‘change society, explain history, and govern the outlook on life’.”18 So Chen Duxiu pushed Hu Shi and others to Zhang Junmai’s side, saying, “Shizhi (Hu Shi) respects science a lot. How could he treat mind and material equally? Shizhi does believe in materialist outlook, but he also believes in the impact of mind, that is, knowledge, ideas, speech, and education, which can also change society, explain history, and govern the outlook on life. It is a clear assertion of the materialist and idealist dualism, and Zhang Junmai must have come to greet Shizhi.”19 After that,

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  97 Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu went on separate ways. That is, the liberals and the radicals parted. It turns out that the two mainstream schools of the New Culture Movement, the Radicals and the Liberals, were united in their opposition to the old culture and morality of feudal despotism and in their advocacy of “science and democracy.” But they differed greatly on how to fight against feudal despotism and for “science and democracy.” Probably because the liberals advocate a reformist approach while the radicals advocate a “revolutionary” approach. As a result, a tripartite situation has emerged in Chinese culture circle since the mid-​to late-​1920s. From the mid-​1920s to the mid-​1930s, there were various debates in Chinese intellectual and cultural circles. For example, debates on philosophy, debates on the nature of Chinese society and social history, debates on Eastern and Western cultures (i.e., debates on “total Westernization” and “Chinese-​centered culture”), and so on. The debate on philosophy, which took place after 1927 between Zhang Dongsun and Ye Qing, reflected the contradiction between the liberalism and radicalism. Zhang Dongsun absorbed various thoughts of Western philosophy and established his system of “pluralistic epistemology.” As Ye Qing said, “Zhang Dongsun’s philosophy is not new. All his ideas were taken from foreign countries, and he copied from the great philosophers of ancient and modern Europe and America. So his philosophy is a collection of foreign philosophers’ ideas.”20 While Ye Qing was a supporter of Marxist Dialectical Materialism. The debate began with a discussion about “whether dialectics is a scientific method” and later turned into a discussion about “whether dialectics is truth.” Although Ye Qing criticized Zhang Dongsun from the standpoint of materialistic dialectics, orthodox Marxists such as Ai Siqi not only criticized Zhang Dongsun, but also criticized Ye Qing’s distortion of Marxism. Later Zhang Dongsun compiled the Collection of Debates on Materialist Dialectics, from which we can see the general situation of the discussion on this “philosophical issue” at that time. The debate on the nature of Chinese society and social history took place between 1929 and 1935, with participants from Radical, Liberal and Conservative schools. The debate was originally raised by the very real question of what the nature of Chinese society was at that time. Some thought that Chinese society at that time was a “commercial capitalist society,” such as Tao Xisheng; some thought that it was already a “capitalist society,” such as Ren Shu and Yan Zuofeng; while some thought that it was a semi-​feudal and semi-​colonial society, such as Lu Zhenyu and Guo Moruo. In order to figure out the nature of Chinese society at that time, it is necessary to make a comprehensive study and discussion of the development of Chinese society from ancient times to the present. A lot of articles and works were published at that time. Among them, the most influential one is The Study of Ancient Chinese Society by Guo Moruo. Based on the Marxist theory of the five modes of production, he believes that Chinese society has also developed from a slave society and a feudal society. Tao Xisheng, author of The Analysis of the History of Chinese Society and the History of Chinese Political Thought,

98  Chinese Culture in Transition believes that Guo Moruo’s analysis is just a copy and a fabrication of the conclusions drawn by European scholars from the analysis of European society. Based on Marx’s theory of the “Asiatic mode of production,” Li Ji and others argue that Eastern (Chinese) societies differ from Western (Greco-​ Roman) social development and deny the universality of the “five modes of production.” Today it seems that this debate is not very meaningful, because it is limited to a dispute over terminology, or to the application of some dogmas to Chinese society indiscriminately, and does not really go into the analysis of historical materials. Of course, in the end, it had to end. The debate on Eastern and Western cultures was caused by the publication of the Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture in 1935 by ten professors, including Sa Mengwu and He Bingsong, which mainly reflected the contradiction between the liberal and conservative schools. After the publication, scholars from all over the world held a series of “symposiums on the construction of Chinese-​centered culture,” which led to a great debate between “Chinese-​centered culture” and “total Westernization.” Both the radicals and liberals during the May Fourth Movement had a tendency to “total Westernization,” and this trend developed until the 1930s, when Chen Xujing more systematically clarified the position of “total Westernization.” According to Chen Xujing, culture as a whole is inseparable, and in order to assimilate Western science, it is impossible not to assimilate other aspects and even disadvantages. He said, “In terms of cultural development, it seems that the modern Western culture is indeed much more advanced than ours, and its ideas are indeed superior to those of China. Western culture is better than Chinese culture in terms of thought, art, science, politics, education, religion, philosophy, and literature. Even our basic needs such as clothing, food, housing and transportation are not as good as Westerners’.” “The way out for Chinese culture is undoubtedly to start with total Westernization.”21 During this period, Hu Shi suggested that “full Westernization” or “full universalization” could be used instead of “total Westernization,” but his position of “total Westernization” could still be seen in his criticism of “Chinese-​centered culture,” and he also wrote an article I Fully Agree with Mr. Chen Xujing’s Theory of Total Westernization. In The Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture, it says, “China has lost its cultural influence and its characteristics in Chinese politics, social organization and the content and form of thought... To enable China to raise its head in the realm of culture, to give Chinese politics, society and thought a Chinese identity, we must engage in the construction of a Chinese-​centered culture.”22 Therefore, the Declaration criticized the various views on building Chinese culture that were popular at that time, and proposed that their “Chinese-​centered culture construction” was “not to be old-​fashioned and not to be followed blindly, but to adopt a critical attitude and apply scientific methods to review the past, grasp the present, and create the future based on China’s conditions.”23 These words seem to be plain and fair, but they are undoubtedly blaming the “Westernizationists.” Hu Shi said in his article A Review of the So-​Called

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  99 ‘Chinese-​centered Cultural Construction, “We cannot help but point out that the ten professors claim that they cannot abandon the ‘Chinese-​centered culture’. Although they declared that they are ‘not old-​fashioned’, it is in fact their conservative hearts that are at work there,” and “it is the latest disguise of ‘Chinese Learning as the Fundamental Structure, Western Learning for Practical Use’ that appears.”24 Although Hu Shi could see the intentions of scholars who upheld the so-​called “Chinese-​centered culture,” he still failed to find a feasible way for the development of Chinese culture from the standpoint of the “Westernizationists.” In my opinion, neither ten professors nor Hu Shi or Chen Xujing have actually got rid of the constraints of the “cultural determinism” mentality and one-​sided ideological approach since the May Fourth Movement. Therefore, this debate has not contributed much to the development of Chinese culture. From the above debates, we can see that neither the radicals, liberals nor conservatives have been able to point out a way out for the development of the new Chinese culture, and none of these schools has yet achieved a recognized leadership (dominant) position in Chinese society. Therefore, Chinese culture is still in a pattern of multiple confrontations. Such a situation, of course, is related to the objective environment of Chinese society, but it can also lead us to the view that although the significance of these debates cannot be completely denied, the various schools did not conduct in-​depth research on some controversial issues at that time. They often argued for the sake of argument or were influenced by certain political forces at the time. Therefore, although they have raised some problems that should be paid attention to, they have not provided much meaningful resources for the development of Chinese culture. From mid-​1930s to mid-​1940s can be regarded as an important period in the development of Chinese academic culture. During this period, a number of representative figures emerged and had a profound influence on Chinese academic culture. For example, there are Lu Xun, Guo Moruo, Hou Wailu and others in the radical school. Lu Xun’s essays in this period can be said to have extremely profound insights into various problems of Chinese society, history and culture, and his writings are undoubtedly our valuable treasure; Guo Moruo’s research on oracle bone inscriptions, bronze inscriptions and Chinese social history, and Hou Weilu’s research on Chinese social history and intellectual history have all made positive contributions. In the liberal school, there are Hu Shi, Chen Xujing, Zhang Dongsun, Jin Yuelin, etc. Hu Shi was in the United States during this period, so he didn’t make a lot of contributions to academic culture. But his On Confucianism corrected his past prejudice against Confucianism and contributed to the study of Zen Buddhism; Chen Xujing’s theory of “Total Westernization” was completed during this period, which can be said to be a comprehensive demonstration of “Total Westernization”; Zhang Dongsun completed his “Pluralistic Epistemology” system, and he was one of the first modern Chinese philosophers to establish an epistemological system; Jin Yuelin wrote On Tao and Theory of Knowledge whose systems are fairly rigorous. The

100  Chinese Culture in Transition former is about his metaphysics, and the latter is his epistemology system. However, the Theory of Knowledge was not published after its completion, but was published by the Commercial Press in 1983. On the conservative side, there are Xiong Shili, Feng Youlan, He Lin and others. Xiong Shili completed his philosophical system in New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness, and his theory laid the foundation for modern Chinese Neo-​Confucianism; Feng Youlan not only wrote the influential History of Chinese Philosophy, but also completed the “Neo-​Confucianism” system by using the methods of Platonic philosophy and New Positivism, and wrote the “Six Books of Zhen and Yuan.” He Lin used German classical philosophy to explain Chinese philosophy, and gave important play to Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming’s philosophy of mind. His A Brief Explanation of Modern Theory of Idealism and A New Theory of the Unity of Knowledge and Action showed the spirit of the times of learning both Eastern and Western cultures. In addition, there is another group of scholars who are the modern masters of Chinese studies. They are different from the masters in the past in that they not only understand the ancient and modern history deeply, but also are acquainted with the East and the West. Therefore, their writings are epoch-​making. Nowadays, it is necessary to study the fields they have covered and make use of their research results in order to move forward, and some of their works have been recognized as authoritative at home and abroad. For example, Chen Yinke’s research on the history of the Northern and Southern Dynasties and the Sui and Tang Dynasties, Chen Yuan’s research on the history of religion, Tang Tong’s research on the history of Chinese Buddhism and the metaphysics of the Wei and Jin Dynasties, Dong Zuobin’s research on the history of oracle bones inscriptions and the Yin and Shang Dynasties, and so on. Therefore, we can say that the past decade or so is the best period of academic and cultural development in China so far, and it is a period that has produced many valuable academic and cultural achievements. After 1949, the development of academic culture was in a new historical environment, which is not the subject of this passage, so I will not elaborate on it. Based on the above historical review, we may conclude that: (1) During the period of cultural transition, in the field of academic culture, the development of academic culture is often pluralistic, precisely because of the coexistence of radicalism, liberalism and conservatism. The development of academic culture is driven by the tension and struggle of these three forces since cultural development is always driven by the combined forces. (2) When cultural radicalism, liberalism, and conservatism coexist, one cannot simply use a value standard to judge their superiority, especially non-​academic standards, so that academic culture can develop in a relatively healthy way. (3) The period of cultural transition is by no means short. From the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period to the Western Han Dynasty

On the Cultural Resultant Force in Cultural Transformation  101 when Confucianism became orthodox and had the highest authority, it took 300–​400 years; from the Wei and Jin Dynasties to the Sui and Tang Dynasties, it also took 300–​400 years; however, from the end of the 19th century to the present, it has only been 100 years, so there may be a considerable period of time before Chinese culture comes out of the transitional period and forms new cultural traditions. In this period, it is very necessary to implement the policy of “letting all flowers blossom and all schools of thought contend” regarding academic and cultural issues.

Notes 1 This article was originally published in Chinese Culture, 1994(10). 2 See Qian Mu, Essays on the History of Chinese Academic Thought (III), pp. 138–​ 139, Taipei, Dongda Book Company, 1977. 3 Ibid., p. 139. 4 Ibid. 5 The essay is included in And That’s that, in The Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 3, pp. 388–​391, Beijing, People’s Literature Press, 1957. 6 Ruan Ji Collections, p. 1, Shanghai, Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 1978. 7 Li Dazhao, “The Problem of Labor Education,” in Selected Works of Li Dazhao, p. 138, Beijing, People’s Publishing House, 1959. 8 “To the Youth,” Youth Magazine, vol. I, p. 1. 9 The Defense of the Crimes in the Book of Records, see Chen Song (eds.), Selected Essays on the Issues of Eastern and Western Cultures Around the May Fourth Movement, p. 101, Beijing, China Social Sciences Press, 1985. 10 Wang Shuqian: New and Old Issues; see Chen Song (eds.), Selected Essays on the Issues of Eastern and Western Cultures Around the May Fourth Movement, p. 10. 11 Hu Shi, “Introducing My Own Thoughts,” quoted from Selected Materials of Chinese Modern Bourgeois Philosophy, Vol. 1, pp. 64–​66, Changchun, Jilin University Press, 1980. 12 Liang Qichao, “Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe,” see Chen Song, Selected Essays on the Issues of Eastern and Western Cultures around the May Fourth Movement, p. 346. 13 Ibid., p. 374. 14 Hu Shi, Preface to Outlook on Science and Life, in Works of Hu Shi II, vol. 2, reprinted in Selected Materials on Modern Chinese Bourgeois Philosophy, 1st series, and p. 89. 15 Liang Shuming, Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies, photocopy, p. 206, Beijing, The Commercial Press, 1987. 16 Ibid., p. 21. 17 Hu Shi, Preface to Outlook on Science and Life, cited in Selections from Modern Chinese Bourgeois Philosophy, 1st series, pp. 101–​102. 18 Hu Shi, “Reply to Mr. Chen Duxiu,” in Outlook on Science and Life, p. 32, Shanghai, Shanghai Yadong Library, 1924. Quoted in Yuan Weishi, Manuscript on the History of Modern Chinese Philosophy, p. 744, Guangzhou, Zhongshan University Press, 1987.

102  Chinese Culture in Transition 19 Chen Duxiu: Answer to Shizhi, in Outlook on Science and Life, pp. 41–​42. Quoted in Yuan Weishi, A Draft History of Modern Chinese Philosophy, p. 751. 20 Quoted in Guo Zhanbo, A History of Chinese Thought in the Last Fifty Years, p. 184, Beiping, Humanities Bookstore, 1936. 21 Chen Xujing, “The Way Out for Chinese Culture,” in Luo Rongqu, edited by Luo Rongqu, From “Westernization” to “Modernization,” pp. 371–​372, 375, Beijing, Beijing University Press, 1990. 22 The Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture, quoted in Luo Rongqu (ed.), From “Westernization” to “Modernization,” p. 399. 23 The Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture, quoted in Luo Rongqu (ed.), From “Westernization” to “Modernization,” p. 402. 24 Hu Shi. A Review of the So-​Called “Chinese-​centered Cultural Construction,” quoted in Luo Rongqu (ed.), From “Westernization” to “Modernization,” pp. 425–​426.

12 Issues of Cultural Development in China during the Transition Period1

In February 1991, a conference on “Cultural China and Chinese Society” was held by the East-​West Center in Hawaii, USA. The paper I submitted to the conference was On the Development of Chinese Culture in the Period of Transition, which was later published in the October 1991 issue of Twenty-​ First Century. I have recently expanded it into an article of more than 20,000 words. In my opinion, when discussing the development of Chinese culture, we should first find out what stage Chinese culture is at. Generally speaking, cultural development is characterized by two stages: “cultural identity” and “cultural exclusion.” The former refers to being consistent with the mainstream culture, which is a further development of the mainstream culture in a certain scope and a further exploration of the already existing model. At the same time, it represses and rejects the alien force, which functions to reinforce the boundaries and norms established by the mainstream culture, so that it can be consolidated and cohesive. “Cultural exclusion” is manifested as criticism and renunciation, that is, the negation and doubt of the mainstream culture in a certain period of time. It intends to disrupt the existing norms and boundaries, and is compatible with the excluded culture, releasing the suppressed energy, thus having an impact on the mainstream culture or even subverting it. It is in the period of cultural transition when “cultural exclusion” prevails. In China, the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, the Wei and Jin and the Northern and Southern Dynasties, and the May Fourth Movement are the transitional periods of Chinese culture since the phenomenon of “dissociation” is the most obvious in these three periods. Three forces often coexist in attitudes toward traditional culture in times of cultural transition: cultural conservatism, cultural liberalism, and cultural radicalism. I use the terms “conservatism,” “liberalism,” and “radicalism” here only in the sense of their attitudes toward traditional culture, and in no other sense. Therefore, I am not praising or blaming any school. In the period of cultural transition, these three forces coexist in the same framework, and the tension and struggle between them provide an important opportunity for culture to move forward. For some time, it was often thought that only radicalism was instrumental in the development of culture in times of cultural DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-14

104  Chinese Culture in Transition transition, while liberalism, especially conservatism, was an obstacle to cultural development. This view, I think, is incorrect, or it should be a matter that we should discuss realistically. We can examine it from both historical and practical aspects. As we look back in history, during the Pre-​Qin period, Confucianism represented the conservative school. Confucian masters such as Confucius and Mencius advocated preserving ancient cultural traditions. Confucius said that he himself is “an interpreter rather than an author, who trusts and loves the ancient legacy.” He taught his students mostly “poetry,” “writing,” “rites,” “music” and other traditional culture. Mencius praised the governance of Yao and Shun, advocating that “never break the law or act boldly, and strictly follow the ancestral rules and regulations in everything.” He also said, “I wrote prefaces for the Book of Songs and the Book of History, explaining the meaning of Confucius’s theories and has composed seven works including Mencius.” At a time of dramatic social change, the ideas of Confucius and Mencius were undoubtedly not well adapted to the social development of the time, but it was precisely because of their tendency to “restore the ancient” that ancient Chinese culture was preserved and kept making a difference in the future for a long time. Taoism shares the same tendency of “restoring the past” with Confucianism, but it advocates following nature and opposes artificial “benevolence and righteousness,” “rites and music” and so on. As Laozi said, “If people abandon cleverness and wisdom, they will benefit a lot; if people give up benevolence and righteousness, they will be filial again.” Zhuangzi’s criticism of “benevolence and righteousness” is no less than Laozi’s. He believes that it is because of the decline of morality that people talk about “benevolence and righteousness” and “destroys morality for benevolence and righteousness,” so people must abandon the pursuit of “benevolence and righteousness.” They believe that the ancient times, when people were the freest, should be restored. The first book of Zhuangzi, A Carefree Excursion, advocates that people should be free from the constraints of body, mind and soul to achieve a free and unrestrained spiritual state. Therefore, we can say that Zhuangzi adopts a liberal attitude toward traditional culture. The Legalists, unlike the Confucians and Taoists, proposed not to follow the ancient rules and said, “In ancient times, people competed with each other on morality. In the Middle Ages, people competed with each other on wisdom and strategy. While in today’s society, people compete with each other on strength.” Therefore, we need to change the traditional system and guidelines. Han Fei, a legalist, criticized Confucianism, saying that everything in Confucianism must find a basis in history and always follow the governance of Yao and Shun, which is “foolish and false.” Han Fei also advocated ending the “contentions of a hundred schools of thought” and using political power to ban all doctrines other than legalism, so that legalism would become dominant. The Legalists not only adopted a negative attitude toward traditional culture, but also advocated forbidding it by force, which is certainly an authoritarian and radical approach.

Issues of Cultural Development in China during Transition Period  105 As we look back on history, we can see that the cultural transitional period in the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period was precisely a period of different schools of thought based on three different attitudes to traditional culture. Chinese culture is constantly developing in the collision of Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism (of course, there are also Mohism, Scholasticism, the Yin-​Yang School etc.), forming the first “contention of a hundred schools of thought” in Chinese history. The Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties (220–​581) were another period of great social change in Chinese history. During this period, there were also three different attitudes toward the academic culture of the Han Dynasty with Confucianism as the orthodox: radicalism represented by Ji Kang and Ruan Ji, liberalism represented by Wang Bi and Guo Xiang, and conservatism represented by Pei Wei, Gan Bao and Fan Ning. Ji kang and Ruan Ji proposed “going beyond the Confucian constraints and liberating people’s nature” and took a strong critical attitude toward the “Scholasticism” (or “ritual”) advocated by Confucianism since the Han Dynasty. The Jin Dynasty scholar Zheng Xianzhi said, “Loyalty and filial piety are the pursuit of Scholasticism.” (Picture of Official Tengxian). And Ruan Ji clearly said, “Ritualism is definitely not set for my generation.” Ji Kang sharply criticized the “Six Classics” outdated and obsolete. He criticized the ruler of Shang, King Wu of Zhou, the Duke Zhou and Confucius and despised the Confucian scholars for “viewing rituals as the key” and “establishing the Six Classics as the norm.” The moral education taught by Confucianism in the Han Dynasty is all hypocrisy which is against the nature of man. Therefore, they opposed the Confucian tradition since the Han Dynasty and highly admired Laozi and Zhuang Zhou, saying, “Laozi and Zhuangzi are my teachers.” The liberal school, represented by Wang Bi and Guo Xiang, attempted to reconcile “nature” and “Confucian ethical code,” and to reconcile Taoism and Confucianism, advocating “not abolishing norm but letting nature take its course.” According to them, there is no contradiction between “norm” and “nature,” because “norm” is originally a reflection of “nature” (the inevitability of heaven, the great law of the universe, and the nature of man), so “norm” doesn’t need to be abolished. However, “nature” is fundamental so the “norm” should conform to the requirements of “nature.” They adopted the method of interpreting Confucian classics with Taoist thought, and formed a complementary ideological format of Confucianism and Taoism, and this attitude toward traditional culture belonged to the liberal school of the time. Pei Wei, Fan Ning and Gan Bao stood on the side of Confucianism and fiercely criticized those who destroyed the “norm” at that time and demanded the preservation of the traditional “rituals.” Pei Wei’s Chong You Theory criticized the “Unbridled School” at that time, saying that they did not respect their superiors when they were officials, and they had lost their integrity and shame in their actions, which led to moral corruption and a lack of courtesy. Fan Ning believed that those who opposed the “norm” were the reason for the downfall of the Western Jin Dynasty, as benevolence and

106  Chinese Culture in Transition righteousness had declined and rituals and music had collapsed. Gan Bao’s The Chronicle of Jin discussed the social failures of the Western Jin Dynasty. In the introductory part, he said that the social atmosphere at that time was corrupted because of the destruction of the Confucian tradition, which had been centered on the “norm” since the Han Dynasty. It can be seen that during the period of cultural transition between the Wei and the Jin Dynasties, it was the tension and struggle between the above three schools that promoted the development of academic culture. After the Sui and Tang Dynasties, Chinese academic culture gradually formed a situation where Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism merged. In the Song Dynasty, a new tradition of Neo-​ Confucianism was formed, incorporating the two schools of Taoism and Buddhism, making Confucianism orthodox again. Compared with the first period of Pre-​Qin Confucianism, the second period of Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties has brought Confucianism to a deeper level. Since the 20th century, Chinese society has been in violent turbulence as the New Culture Movement and the May Fourth Movement took place in China. We can say that from the May Fourth Movement (or earlier, from the end of the 19th century) to 1949, Chinese culture was in a new transitional period. Since Chinese society was in a period of greater and more complex changes than the previous two periods, Chinese culture has also become extremely complex, if not difficult to clarify. However, we can say that the radicalism represented by Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu, the liberalism represented by Hu Shi and Ding Wenjiang, and the conservatism represented by Yan Fu and Du Yaquan, and then by Liang Shuming, Zhang Junmai and the Xueheng School, all showed different responses and different levels of thinking in face of rapid changes in Chinese society and the great cultural upheaval in the world during the May Fourth period. Questions at that time include “how to deal with traditional culture,” “how to accept Western culture,” “how to build own new culture” and so on. Radicalism and liberalism of the May Fourth period once jointly proposed “anti-​ traditionalism,” advocated “democracy and science” and attacked orthodox culture (mainly Confucianism). Before the May Fourth Movement, Li Dazhao said, “In a word, Democracy is the only authority, and the modern era is the era of Democracy.” (Issues in Labour Education). Chen Duxiu said, “The reason for the superiority of modern Europe over other nations is the rise of science. Science does not contribute less than human rights. Science and human rights, like the two wheels of a car, have jointly promoted the prosperity of Europe.” (Advice to the Youth). The liberal Hu Shi also said, “I am very candid in criticizing our traditional culture, and praising the modern Western culture... Now the ignorant incite the haughty to propagate the superiority of Chinese old culture and of Chinese outdated morals. ... I must say that don’t fall for their tricks. ...We must admit that we ourselves lag behind in many aspects, not only politically, materially, mechanically, but also morally, intellectually, literally, musically, artistically, and physically.” (Introducing My Own Thought). The radicalists and liberalists advocated “anti-​tradition”

Issues of Cultural Development in China during Transition Period  107 during the May Fourth Movement because that China lagged behind and was inferior to the West in every way. Therefore, these schools upheld the thought of “Total Westernization.” Undoubtedly, such “anti-​tradition” thought had a great impact on breaking the shackles of traditional thought. It opened up a way for the development of Chinese culture and laid the foundation for the “enlightenment” of Chinese society. Although it may also have some negative effects (such as absolute ideological tendency, “scientism” of “scientific omnipotence,” “cultural determinism” tendency, etc.), its positive significance in history must be fully recognized. But not long after that, in 1920, Liang Qichao returned from Europe and published his book Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe, arguing that Western culture had fallen into a desperate situation after the First World War, and that Eastern culture might be able to save the world. In his book, Liang Qichao fiercely attacked the Western culture represented by “science” in recent times, saying that “Europeans once dreamed about the omnipotence of science, but now they say that science has gone broke, which is a great change of thinking recently.” Before that, Liang Qichao’s “New Citizenship” introduced Western culture to China and criticized traditional Chinese culture. But in his book Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe, while criticizing the “omnipotence of science” of the West, he was very positive about traditional Chinese culture, saying that “recently, many Western scholars want to learn more about Eastern civilization, so that they can better their own culture.” The publication of Liang Qichao’s Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe was undoubtedly a reaction against the “anti-​ tradition” trend and “Westernization” of the May Fourth Movement, and even Hu Shi had to admit that the book was quite influential at that time. He said, “Since the publication of Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe, the dignity of science in China has been far less than before, and the old gentleman who had seldom gone out happily shouted, ‘European science has gone broke! This is what Liang Qichao said’.” In the summer of 1921, Liang Shuming gave a speech on Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies, which can be said to be the first reflection on “anti-​tradition” by conservatives since the May Fourth period. In his book Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies, Liang shows a rational critical spirit toward Western culture and Chinese culture. He believes that China should introduce Western culture so that “science and democracy” can also be fully developed in China. According to Liang Shuming, the greatest characteristic of Western culture lies in its conquest of nature, in its respect for science, and in its advocacy of democracy. He says clearly: “(Science and Democracy) these two spirits are completely right and can only be uncritically and unconditionally recognized, that is, what I call a ‘total acceptance’ of Westernization. How to introduce these two spirits is really urgent today; otherwise, we will never be qualified to talk about human dignity, and we will never be qualified to talk about academics.” And he repeatedly stated, “My advocacy of Orientalization is different from the old mind’s rejection

108  Chinese Culture in Transition of Westernization.” However, he also criticized the modern Western culture and advocated carrying forward the original Chinese cultural spirit. Liang Shuming also believes that Western culture has in fact seen a momentum of change, such as the socialist tendency in social transformation. And even greater changes take place in attitudes, from a focus on studying nature and material to one on studying human beings and life, the most striking of which is the Philosophy of Life. All these changes in Western culture are consistent with the essential spirit of traditional Chinese culture. Accordingly, Liang believes that in the near future there will be a revival of Chinese culture, just as the revival of Western culture after the long Middle Ages. Therefore, the focus of Liang’s cultural outlook is certainly not on “anti-​tradition,” but on how to revive and carry forward the spirit of Chinese culture under the impact of Western culture. Later there was the Xueheng School and the main figures were international students who returned from Harvard University in the early 1920s, such as Mei Guangdi, Wu Mi, Tang Yongtong, Hu Guangxiao etc. They were influenced by Neo-​Humanism that was popular at Harvard University at that time, and their slogan was “carrying forward our national quintessence, and absorbing the best of other national cultures.” The scholars of Xueheng School attempted to find the relation between modernity and tradition in order to perpetuate traditional Chinese culture. They believe that: (1) “New” and “old” are relative, and there is no absolute boundary; there is no “new” without “old.” (2) The humanities, unlike the natural sciences, cannot be completely based on the theory of evolution. (3) History has “changes” and “constants.” In the humanities, “truth” is a constant that is accumulated through many trials and experiences. The “truth” is not only eternally new, but also has universal significance in the world. These views, which do not seem to be very wise today, were a different tone amid the voices for “anti-​ tradition” at that time, and have their special significance. What is even more interesting is that these foreign students who came back from the United States could not be said to be ignorant of Western culture, and it was even through them that certain Western ideas were introduced to China. However, we must also see that most of these scholars also have a deep knowledge of traditional Chinese culture. Although neither Liang Qichao, Liang Shuming nor the Xueheng School opposed the introduction of Western culture, they all opposed “anti-​ tradition.” Therefore, there is no doubt that neither of them was the mainstream school that created the new Chinese culture at that time, but we can’t say that they only played a negative role in the new Chinese culture. In my opinion, Conservatism at that time at least played a role in restraining the “anti-​ tradition” trend, so that the Radicalism, especially the Liberalism, could not fully implement their idea of “total Westernization.” The “Debate between Science and Metaphysics” took place in 1923 which was a major clash between the mainstream and non-​mainstream schools of the New Culture Movement. After this debate, the two mainstream schools of

Issues of Cultural Development in China during Transition Period  109 the New Culture Movement also decided to go separate ways. In the debate, radicals and liberals united against conservatives. While the Metaphysical School represented by Zhang Junmai seemed to have lost, the debate has left many questions for serious consideration. For example, does “science” have its limits? According to Ding Wenjiang, “the scientific method absolutely has no limits”; if “science” becomes an “ism,” does “scientism” go against the spirit of science; what’s the meaning of the “outlook on life,” whether all problems are related to the “outlook on life”; etc. After this debate, the two mainstream schools of the New Culture Movement also decided to go separate ways. It turns out that the two mainstream schools of the New Culture Movement, the Radicals and the Liberals, were united in their opposition to the old culture and morality of feudal despotism and in their advocacy of “science and democracy.” But they differed greatly on how to fight against feudal despotism and for “science and democracy.” Probably because the liberals advocate a reformist approach while the radicals advocate a “revolutionary” approach. As a result, a tripartite situation has emerged in Chinese culture circle since the mid-​to late-​1920s. From the mid-​ 1920s to the mid-​ 1930s, there were various debates in Chinese intellectual and cultural circles, for example, debates on philosophy, debates on the nature of Chinese society and social history, debates on Eastern and Western cultures (i.e., debates on “total Westernization” and “Chinese-​centered culture”), and so on. The debate on philosophy, which took place after 1927 between Zhang Dongsun and Ye Qing, reflected the contradiction between the liberal and radical schools. The debate on the nature of Chinese society and social history took place between 1929 and 1935, with participants from Radical, Liberal, and Conservative schools. The debate on Eastern and Western cultures was caused by the publication of The Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture in 1935 by ten professors, including Sa Mengwu and He Bingsong, which mainly reflected the contradiction between the liberal and conservative schools. After the publication, scholars from all over the world held a series of “symposiums on the construction of Chinese-​centered culture,” which led to a great debate between “Chinese-​centered culture” and “total Westernization.” Although this debate had considerable influence at the time, none of the three schools had yet made a significant contribution to the creation of a new Chinese culture, and none of them had achieved a recognized dominant position in Chinese society, so Chinese culture was still in a pluralistic confrontation. Such a situation, of course, is related to the realities of Chinese society, but it can also lead us to the view that the various schools did not conduct in-​depth research on some controversial issues at that time. They often argued for the sake of argument or were influenced by certain political forces at the time. Therefore, the debate had no choice but to end. The period from the mid-​1930s to the mid-​1940s can be regarded as an important period in the development of Chinese academic culture. During this period, a number of representative figures emerged and had a

110  Chinese Culture in Transition profound influence on the development of Chinese scholarship and culture, or constructed a relatively influential idealogical system. For example, there are Lu Xun, Guo Moruo, Hou Wailu and others in the radical school. Lu Xun’s essays in this period can be said to have extremely profound insights into various problems of Chinese society, history and culture, and his writings are undoubtedly our valuable treasure; Guo Moruo’s research on oracle bone inscriptions, bronze inscriptions and Chinese social history, and Hou Weilu’s research on Chinese social history and intellectual history have all made positive contributions. In the liberal school, there are Hu Shi, Chen Xujing, Zhang Dongsun, Jin Yuelin etc. Hu Shi was in the United States during this period, so he didn’t make a lot of contributions to academic culture; Chen Xujing’s “Theory of Total Westernization” was completed during this period, which can be said to be a comprehensive demonstration of the rationality of “total Westernization.” Zhang Dongsun completed his “Pluralistic Epistemology” system, and he was one of the first modern Chinese philosophers to establish an epistemological system; Jin Yuelin wrote On Tao and Theory of Knowledge (not published at the time) whose systems are fairly rigorous. The former is about his metaphysics, and the latter is his epistemology system. On the conservative side, there are Xiong Shili, Feng Youlan, He Lin and others. Xiong Shili completed his philosophical system in finishing his book titled New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness, whose theory laid the foundation for modern Chinese Neo-​Confucianism; Feng Youlan not only wrote the influential History of Chinese Philosophy, but also completed the “Neo-​Confucianism” system by using the methods of Platonic philosophy and New Positivism, and wrote the “Six Books of Zhen and Yuan.” He Lin used German classical philosophy to explain Chinese philosophy, and gave important play to Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming’s philosophy of mind. His A Brief Explanation of Modern Theory of Idealism and A New Theory of the Unity of Knowledge and Action showed the spirit of the times of learning both Eastern and Western cultures. In addition, there is another group of scholars who are the modern masters of Chinese studies. They are different from the masters in the past in that they not only understand the ancient and modern history deeply, but also are acquainted with the East and the West. Therefore, their writings are epoch-​making. Nowadays, it is necessary to study the fields they have covered and make use of their research results in order to move forward, and some of their works have been recognized as authoritative at home and abroad. For example, Chen Yinke’s research on the history of the Northern and Southern Dynasties and the Sui and Tang Dynasties, Chen Yuan’s research on the history of religion, Tang Tong’s research on the history of Chinese Buddhism and the metaphysics of the Wei and Jin Dynasties, Dong Zuobin’s research on the history of oracle bones inscriptions and the Yin and Shang Dynasties, and so on. Therefore, we can say that the past decade or so is the best period of academic and cultural development in China so far, and it is a period that has produced many valuable academic and cultural achievements. A group of scholars created their philosophical system. Why

Issues of Cultural Development in China during Transition Period  111 was it possible to achieve such important achievements during this period? I think there may be several reasons: (1) various thoughts can be displayed more freely on a more equal basis; (2) due to the national crisis, all conscientious scholars had to care about the fate of their own country and nation, and their sense of worry was particularly strong, which made them more creative; (3) after various debates since the May Fourth period, a group of scholars gradually realized that they had to solve the problem of the development of Chinese culture. To create a new culture, it is necessary to do in-​depth research on all aspects of Chinese culture and form a system, rather than just looking at one or two specific issues and arguing endlessly; (4) since the May Fourth Movement, a large number of Western culture (ideas) have been imported, and many Chinese scholars have done long-​term research abroad, so they have a deeper understanding of Western culture than before. But I think the most important thing remains which scholars can engage in creative work in a freer environment and with less political interference. Today, it seems that after the 1950s, there has been no work of such self-​contained and long-​term academic value in mainland China (I am not familiar with the situation in Taiwan) as there was in the 1930s and 1940s. After 1949, academic and cultural research in mainland China has undergone very significant changes. Stalinism was imported from the Soviet Union, and it dominated Chinese culture for a long time. At that time, there was the idea of “total Sovietization,” which was a variation of “total Westernization.” At that time, it was required that Zhdanov’s three speeches (“Speech on the History of Western philosophy,” “Speech at the Conference of Soviet Musicians held in the Central Committee of the U.S.S.R.” and “Report on the magazines ‘Star’ and ‘Leningrad’ ”) be regarded as classics in all academic and cultural fields in mainland China. Thus, philosophy, history, literature and art theory were all heavily influenced by the ultra-​leftist dogmatism. In the history of philosophy, special emphasis is placed on the history of “the struggle between materialism and idealism,” the idea of “materialism being progressive while idealism being reactionary,” and so on. In historiography, Zhdanov criticized Pokrovsky’s “leftist” thinking and proposed that historiography was a narrative discipline, but the proponents of Mao Zedong Thought developed it into “history by theory,” that is, to set a frame first and then look for historical evidence to prove it. This completely violates the principle that historical theory should be based on historical facts and historical experience while literature and art need to have the party spirit of serving politics and literature, thus making literature and art a tool to beautify real politics. Such an ultra-​left dogmatic radicalism has become the ruling force of ideology and culture in mainland China, and has launched political campaigns to criticize liberals and conservatives again and again. As a result, Chinese academic culture has been completely isolated from the development of world culture, and a serious “fault line” has emerged in Chinese culture, thus depriving the Chinese academic culture of its vitality. In fact, as I think, the use of political movements or political criticism to deal with

112  Chinese Culture in Transition academic and cultural issues does not conform to the principles of Marxism. It is probably the creation of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In 1966, the “Cultural Revolution” occurred. On the one hand, it destroys the things that have made positive contributions to human culture, but on the other hand, it greatly promotes despotism and resurrects many decadent things. After 1979, the reform and opening up brought a little vitality to the academic and cultural circles of mainland China, but it also advanced amidst difficulties, and sometimes even showed a backward situation. Why is it like this? I think the reasons are obvious and I don’t need to explain more. Based on the above historical review, we may draw the following conclusions: (1) During the period of cultural transition, in the field of academic culture, the development of academic culture is often pluralistic, precisely because of the coexistence of radicalism, liberalism and conservatism. The development of academic culture is driven by the tension and struggle of these three forces since cultural development is always driven by the combined forces. (2) When cultural radicalism, liberalism and conservatism coexist, one cannot simply use a value standard to judge their superiority, especially non-​academic standards, so that academic culture can develop in a relatively healthy way. (3) The period of cultural transition is by no means short. From the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period to the Western Han Dynasty when Confucianism became orthodox and had the highest authority, it took 300–​400 years; from the Wei and Jin Dynasties to the Sui and Tang Dynasties, it also took 300–​400 years; however, from the end of the 19th century to the present, it has only been 100 years, so there may be a considerable period of time before Chinese culture comes out of the transitional period and forms new cultural traditions. In this period, it is very necessary to implement the policy of “letting all flowers blossom and all schools of thought contend” regarding academic and cultural issues. (4) It should be seen that the tension formed by the interaction of the three schools can only promote the development of culture in the period of cultural transition. If political power is used to make culture develop in only one direction, it will definitely become more and more biased and destroy the vitality of academic culture development. This has been the experience for four decades, and it also has been the experience in recent years. The above is my thoughts on “Cultural development in China during the period of transition,” and it is not yet the full text, as I have removed some of the quoted material and abridged the narrative. My purpose of writing this article is obvious, which is to demonstrate the diversified development of culture and to create public opinion for breaking the monolithic authoritarianism of culture. As we all know, the space for civil society in mainland China is very small. The Chinese Cultural Academy has been running for almost ten years (next year will be its tenth year) and has gathered so many current mainland scholars, but it is difficult to develop now. The situation is totally incredible and incomprehensible. Therefore, if we do not strive for

Issues of Cultural Development in China during Transition Period  113 a little space for academic independence and cultural freedom, we will be ashamed of our ancestors and future generations.

Note 1 This article was originally published in Between Non-​ Being and Non-​ Nothing, Taipei, Chou-​Chung Books, 1995.

13 Looking Forward to Cultural Development in the 21st Century1

Yan Chunde asked me to write a short article about looking forward to the cultural development in the 21st century for Chinese Cultural Studies, and I thought about it for several days, not knowing what to write. First, I wrote a passage about what I wanted to do in the 21st century, that is, what I wanted to study. But I stopped soon, thinking that it had nothing to do with “looking forward to the 21st century.” So I thought of another topic, “My Dream for the 21st Century,” and wrote 500 or 600 words, mainly hoping that Peking University would become a “world-​class university” in the 21st century. But I didn’t continue to write, because I think “making Peking University a world-​ class university” is probably just a “dream,” which cannot become a reality. Based on the current situation of Peking University, she does not show the tendency to become a world-​class university. It’s a bit discouraged to write it this way. Therefore, I chose this large and broad topic. Although this topic is “too large and broad,” it is an issue that many scholars are concerned about. Under the trend of globalization of economy and science and technology, how culture (mainly spiritual culture) will develop in the 21st century is undoubtedly an important issue for many scholars. There are at least two opposing views on this issue: one view is that due to the globalization of economy and the rapid development of science and technology (especially the development of telecommunications), the whole world is connected and becomes a “global village.” Therefore, under the mutual influence and collision, culture will become more and more similar, and will move toward cultural globalization. Some scholars say that in the 21st century, although the traditional culture of each nation can still play a certain role, it will be undermined by economic and technological development, and the components of each national culture will gradually be weakened and disintegrated. Another view is that in the period after the 21st century, the cultures of different nations, especially those with a long history and still have significant influence on human society, will not be weakened but, on the contrary, may have a tendency to develop. Some scholars point out that due to the gradual collapse of the colonial system after the Second World War, many nation-​states emerge and they are eager to develop their own culture. Even some Oriental scholars, in view of the catastrophe caused by the Western culture dominating the world for two DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-15

Looking Forward to Cultural Development in the 21st Century  115 centuries and the oppression suffered by the oppressed nations, put forward the cultural “East-​centered theory” in order to counter the cultural “West-​ centered theory.” They believe that in the 21st century, the Eastern culture will replace the Western culture and lead the world. Some scholars believe that real economic globalization requires not only the economic development of developed countries, but also the corresponding economic development of developing countries, so as to realize sustainable economic globalization. If developing countries achieve economic development, they will inevitably require their own culture to develop as well. Therefore, the trend of cultural diversification seems to be irreversible. On the whole, cultural diversification will be a dominant trend in a fairly long period of the 21st century. This is not only because several large cultural systems, which have been formed for historical reasons, are still in effect, but also because theoretically, the diversified development of culture enriches the life of human society and is a stimulus for rational economic development. From the history of the Western world, it is Europe’s continuous absorption of various cultures that has led to today’s European civilization. In an article A Comparison of Chinese and Western Civilizations written in 1922, Russell put it that way, “The exchanges between different cultures have proven many times in the past to be a milestone in the development of human civilization. Greece studied Egypt, Rome learned from Greece, Arabia referred to the Roman Empire, and medieval Europe imitated Arabia, while Renaissance Europe followed the Byzantine Empire.” Similarly, the development of Chinese culture, which has fully absorbed Buddhist culture throughout its history, is today absorbing a great deal of Western culture. These two absorptions of foreign cultures have greatly contributed to the development of Chinese society, economy and culture in all aspects. Therefore, human society can develop more rationally only in the interplay of diverse cultures today. At present, there are two undesirable (or wrong) tendencies for the healthy and rational cultural development of human society: one is cultural “hegemonism”; the other is cultural “tribalism” (or culturally narrow nationalism). Cultural hegemonism is that one country imposes its own culture on other cultures by virtue of its current strong position in an attempt to eliminate other cultures and thus consolidate its political and economic hegemony. Huntington’s theory of “clash of civilizations” can be regarded as a representative of cultural hegemonism. There is no denying that cultural differences can cause conflicts, and many examples can be found in both history and reality. The question is how to deal with the conflicts and even wars that may arise from cultural differences. There are two main approaches proposed by Huntington: the first is to “create differences and conflicts between Confucian and Islamic countries”; the second is to “consolidate and legitimize international organizations that reflect Western interests and values, and promote the participation of non-​Western states in these organizations so that “Western countries” can exercise control over “non-​Western countries.” These claims of Huntington are the manifestations of Western (American) cultural

116  Chinese Culture in Transition hegemonism. Cultural tribalism is another extreme manifestation of culture where a country refuses cultural exchanges and mutual dialogue, clings to their own narrow national culture, and even avoids the trend of world cultural development. Such cultural tribalism is not only detrimental to the development and renewal of one’s own culture, but also an obstacle to the maintenance of the common goal of “peace and development” pursued by human society, and may even lead to confrontation and clashes between nations and countries because of excessive emphasis on cultural differences. Therefore, I believe that under the new situation of globalization of economy and science and technology, the world culture will develop toward diversification in the view of global consciousness. This means that each nation should have a global consciousness while preserving and developing its own culture. What is “global consciousness”? We can understand it in this way: it means that while each nation develops itself, it should pay attention to the current common problems facing human society. The most important issue that human society is concerned about today is undoubtedly “peace and development.” The cultural development of all nations and countries should not run counter to the wishes of people all over the world for “peaceful coexistence” and “common development.” Instead, all nations and countries should explore the resources from their cultures that are conducive to the realization of “peace and development.” For this reason, we must oppose cultural hegemonism and cultural tribalism.

Note 1 This article was originally published in Chinese Culture Research, Spring Vol, 2000.

14 A Brief Discussion on Chinese and Western and Ancient and Modern Controversies in Chinese Culture over the Past Century1

Chinese culture has been in the transitional period in the 20th century, and it will probably be a long time before it gets out of this period. In this period of time, the cultural discussion is undoubtedly about Chinese and Western as well as ancient and modern controversies, and it is about three interrelated issues: how to deal with traditional Chinese culture, how to accept foreign Western culture, and how to create a new Chinese culture that adapts to the development of world culture. Generally speaking, cultural development undergoes two stages: “cultural identity” and “cultural exclusion.” The former means being consistent with the mainstream culture, which is a further development of the mainstream culture in a certain scope and a further exploration of the already existing model. At the same time, it represses and rejects the alien force, which functions to reinforce the boundaries and norms established by the mainstream culture for its consolidation. The latter is manifested as criticism and renunciation, that is, the negation and doubt of the mainstream culture in a certain period of time. It intends to disrupt the existing norms and boundaries, and is compatible with the excluded culture, releasing the suppressed force, thus having an impact on the mainstream culture or even subverting it. It is in the period of cultural transition when “cultural exclusion” prevails. Three forces often coexist in the attitudes toward traditional culture in times of cultural transition: cultural conservatism, cultural liberalism, and cultural radicalism. I use the terms “conservatism,” “liberalism” and “radicalism” here only in the sense of their attitudes toward traditional culture, and in no other sense. Therefore, I am not praising or blaming any school. In the period of cultural transition, the three forces coexist in the same framework, and the tension and struggle between them provides an important opportunity for culture to move forward. The three forces are all about how to treat “tradition.” Of course, we should also be aware that they are of different significance for the development of culture at different historical stages. For some time, it was often thought that only radicalism could promote the development of culture in times of cultural transition, while liberalism, especially conservatism, was an obstacle to cultural development. This view, I think, is incorrect, or it should be a matter that we should discuss again. DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-16

118  Chinese Culture in Transition Since the 20th century, Chinese society has been in violent turbulence. From a cultural perspective, it is also a major transitional period. From around the May Fourth Movement in 1919 (or from the end of the 19th century) until today, Chinese culture has not got out of the transitional period for various reasons. Due to the drastic social changes and turbulence in this period, Chinese culture has become extremely complicated and even difficult to clarify. At the juncture of the May Fourth Movement, there were magazines representing different ideological trends such as New Youth, the Renaissance, the Eastern Miscellany, National Heritage, Xue Heng etc., which were full of Chinese and Western and ancient and modern controversies. Following the May Fourth Movement, in 1923, there was a debate on “the outlook on science and life,” which was a major conflict between the mainstream and non-​ mainstream schools of the New Culture Movement. In the debate, radicals and liberals united against conservatives. It seems that conservatives have been defeated in the debate, but more importantly, liberals and radicals broke up and went separate ways. Thus, since the mid-​1920s to late-​1920s, a situation of three-​school confrontation has been in place in Chinese culture. From the late 1920s to the mid-​1930s, there were many debates in Chinese ideological and cultural circles. For example, the debate on “philosophical issues” between the liberals and the radicals after 1927, the debate on “nature and social history of Chinese society” between 1927 and 1935, in which the radicals, liberals and conservatives all participated, and the debate on “total Westernization” and “traditional Chinese culture as standard” after 1935, which was triggered by the Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture published by ten professors, including Sa Mengwu. It was not until the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression that the cultural circle had reached certain consensus on the issue of resistance against Japan, but they still held different opinions in terms of cultural issues. All these debates and differences are closely related to the Chinese and Western and ancient and modern controversies. After 1949, the Chinese mainland society has undergone tremendous changes, followed by extraordinary cultural changes. At that time, there was the guiding ideology of the so-​called “Leaning to one side,” that is, the “total Sovietization” that follows Soviet Union. In the field of culture, it can be said that radicalism “dominated.” This period took a largely negative attitude toward traditional Chinese culture and even non-​Marxist Western culture. The “Cultural Revolution” period can be described as a great cultural catastrophe in China. On the one hand, it was actually a campaign of destruction of traditional culture. On the other hand, it was a strong advocacy of certain aspects of traditional culture (such as the movement to deify leaders and create gods, etc.), which was the result of the development of cultural radicalism into extreme leftist thinking. After the “Cultural Revolution,” especially after the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee, the rule of cultural ultra-​leftism ended, but three attitudes toward “tradition” gradually emerged, that is, radicalism, liberalism and conservatism. Since 1984,

Chinese, Western, Ancient and Modern Controversies   119 there has been a “cultural fever” in the country, when the Chinese cultural circle put forward the idea of “moving from tradition to modernity” in culture, and launched a heated discussion on this issue. This trend of cultural development was interrupted in the summer of 1989, and less attention was paid to cultural issues for a year or two. However, since the early 1990s, the craze for traditional Chinese culture has been on the rise, and at the same time, “postmodernism” that deconstructs cultural unification has emerged. In the mid-​1990s, there were debates on “humanistic spirit,” discussions on the relationship between “traditional Chinese culture” and Marxism, as well as controversies on Confucian culture and Christian culture. Until the last year or two, there were heated debates between the liberalism and the “New Left” school and reflections on different aspects of “modernity.” Therefore, we can see that in the 1990s, a culturally diverse pattern has gradually formed. Looking forward to the 21st century, this diversified situation in Chinese culture will continue for a long time. Looking back, we can see that the development of Chinese culture in the 20th century was advancing among Chinese and Western and ancient and modern controversies. For more than 100 years, there has always been Chinese and Western and ancient and modern controversies on the development of Chinese culture. That is to say, Chinese intellectual circle has been concerned with how to modernize Chinese society, how to revive the glory of Chinese culture or how Chinese culture should be completely transformed. Are there any useful lessons that we can learn from this period of history? I think they can be summarized in the following three points: (1) During the period of cultural transition, in the field of academic culture, the development of academic culture is often diverse, precisely because of the coexistence of radicalism, liberalism and conservatism. Under the tension and struggle of the three forces, academic culture has not developed in a single direction, but has been able to develop in a healthier way. That is to say, cultural development is driven by the combined forces. When cultural radicalism, liberalism and conservatism coexist, one cannot simply use a fixed dogmatic value standard to judge their superiority, especially any certain external ideological standard, so that academic culture can develop in a relatively healthy way. In other words, we should make an objective and unbiased assessment of the different roles of the three forces in China’s cultural development under different circumstances, so that we can make a reasonable and realistic analysis of the history of Chinese cultural development over the past century. We should see that radicalism often plays a role in breaking the old rigid traditions and creating a new situation of cultural development at a certain stage of cultural transition. However, if radicalism develops to the extreme, it will become an ultra-​left ideology that totally negates traditions. Conservatism, on the other hand, can play a role in preventing traditions from disappearing and making it possible for national cultural traditions

120  Chinese Culture in Transition to continue; but if conservatism limits itself to outdated traditions, it will surely become narrow nationalism. Liberalism can propose new questions and new dimensions of thinking for the development of culture, ensuring a broader space for culture. But if liberalism expands itself out of reality, it will go to relativism. Therefore, the merits and demerits of the three schools should be analyzed realistically according to specific historical conditions. Besides, we should also note that the period of cultural transition is by no means short. From the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period to the Western Han Dynasty when Confucianism became orthodox and had the highest authority, it took 300–​400 years; from the Wei and Jin Dynasties to the Sui and Tang Dynasties, it also took 300–​400 years; however, from the end of the 19th century to the present, it has only been 100 years, so there may be a considerable period of time before Chinese culture goes out of the transitional period and forms new cultural traditions. There is a question that needs to be answered. Some scholars believe that it is too simple to divide academic culture into radical, liberal and conservative camps, and that such divisions make people feel that they are somehow connected to political divisions. Indeed, the Chinese academic and cultural circles in the 20th century were quite complicated. If we analyze the many influential scholars in the academic and cultural circles one by one, we will find that every influential scholar is different from other scholars. For example, in the 1930s, Ye Qing and Ai Siqi, who belonged to the same radical school, were very different; Zhang Dongsun and Jin Yuelin belonged to the same liberal school, but one was philosophically influenced by Neo-​Kantianism, while the other was basically an analytic philosopher; Conservatives such as Liang Shuming and Xiong Shili have fundamental differences in attitudes toward Buddhism. Many such examples can be cited. If we study the problem in this way (of course, this kind of research is also necessary), then we cannot classify scholars in the academic and cultural circles and make research. As mentioned before, we have classified the Chinese academic and cultural circles in the 20th century in this way only in terms of their different attitudes toward tradition, and in terms of the basic tendencies of a particular scholar’s life (or in terms of the basic tendencies of the period in which he had the most influence on academic culture). We know that a famous and influential scholar’s ideological tendency will change over the course of his life. For example, Yan Fu, the first scholar to introduce Western liberalism, later became culturally conservative. But we can still regard him as a representative of the early liberal school, because he played a more important role in the development of Chinese academic culture during that period, than the later period when he became a conservative. As for scholars divided into radical, liberal, and conservative schools because of political divisions, I think that academic and cultural schools and different political attitudes are different issues. There may

Chinese, Western, Ancient and Modern Controversies   121 be a connection between the two in a particular situation but not under any circumstances. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic and cultural radicals, liberals, and conservatives opposed the Kuomintang’s autocratic rule and the corruption of the ruling bureaucracy. By the early 1950s, many academic and cultural scholars with different tendencies all agreed with socialism. While after the mid-​1950s, their political attitudes have changed again. But such political change has nothing to do with their academic culture. All these are historical facts. This is why I have repeatedly stated that the division of the academic and cultural circles into radicals, liberals, and conservatives is only about their attitudes toward “traditional culture.” It is very necessary to classify the research objects in academic research, so that we can explore the essential characteristics of different types and grasp the essence of things through the phenomenon of them. Therefore, it is important to analyze the “individuality” (specificity) of each thing, but it is equally important to reveal the “commonality” of a certain type of things, and in some case it is even more important than understanding the “individuality.” Of course, there are still differences in the classification of the research objects, but there is clear “commonality” in terms of the requirements we set (e.g., we set the classification by different attitudes toward “traditional culture”). In this sense, it is necessary to classify the Chinese academic and cultural circles in the 20th century. (2) For the Chinese and Western and ancient and modern controversies that have existed in Chinese culture for more than a century, I think there are two biases on this issue: one view is that the Chinese and Western controversies are all ancient and modern controversies and most of the total Westernizationists hold this view; the other view is that the Chinese and Western controversies are not ancient and modern controversies which is held by most of the Nationalists. In the debate at that time, there were indeed ancient and modern controversies in the Chinese and Western debates, such as whether “science and democracy” should be introduced, whether “the three cardinal guides and the five constant virtues as specified in the feudal ethical code,” “three rules (in ancient China, a woman was required to obey her father before marriage, and her husband during married life and her son in widowhood) and four virtues (fidelity, physical charm, propriety in speech and efficiency in needle work)” were suitable for the requirements of modern society and whether or not system of rites and music for maintaining the autocracy is reasonable. These questions are about whether to go out of the “pre-​modern” era which belongs to ancient and modern controversies related to times. However, not all Chinese and Western issues are related to ancient and modern controversies. For example, in traditional Chinese philosophy, there are theories such as “harmony between man and nature,” “the unity of knowledge and action,” “the unity of feeling and scenery,” “virtue against power,” “harmony being the most valuable,” “harmony in diversity” and

122  Chinese Culture in Transition people’s subjective consciousness characterized by internal transcendence in particular. These issues do not lose their meaning because of their differences from Western culture or changes of the times. They can “renovate themselves and be better every day” with the development of national culture. Therefore, we can say that it is these far-​reaching ideas in Chinese culture and new interpretations of these ideas in different historical periods that allow our national culture to play a special and positive role in the general trend of modern cultural development. Today’s world is so closely connected that no country or nation can fail to pay attention to the common problem facing human society, that is, “peace and development.” Therefore, the world culture can only develop in the process of cultural diversification under global consciousness. “Global consciousness” is an issue of the times and a “common” issue of cultural development. While “cultural diversification” is an issue of national characteristics manifested by various national cultures, which is an issue of “individuality” in cultural development. The development of any national culture nowadays should reflect the combination of “commonality” and “individuality,” as well as “modernity” and “nationality.” Chinese and Western and ancient and modern controversies in Chinese culture over the past century are probably caused by the failure to correctly resolve the issues of modernity and nationality, and commonality and individuality in cultural development. When we discuss the Chinese and Western and the ancient and modern controversies since the May Fourth Movement, there is another issue that should also be paid attention to. Although radical, liberal, and conservative scholars differ in their academic and cultural approaches and in their attitudes toward “traditional culture,” those who have made important contributions to the academic culture in the 20th century are not only be able to “integrate the past and the present,” but also are “proficient in both Chinese and Western cultures.” Therefore, I agree with Ji Xianlin, who believes that the academic masters before the modern era could only “integrate the past and the present” but were not “proficient in Chinese and Western cultures” due to the difference of times; while the modern academic masters can “integrate the past and the present” and are “proficient in both Chinese and Western cultures.” Therefore, since the May Fourth Movement, some “nationalists” strongly oppose Western culture and advocate the revival of Chinese culture, but in fact they have no significant impact on the development of academic culture in China. While the radicals Lu Xun and Guo Moruo, the liberals Hu Shi and Zhang Dongsun, and the conservatives Liang Shuming and Chen Yinke are all able to “integrate the past and the present” and are “proficient in both Chinese and Western cultures.” It is through their achievements in different directions that the Chinese culture of the 20th century was constructed. The difference between the academic masters is not in levels and their mastery of “Chinese culture” and “Western learning,” but in

Chinese, Western, Ancient and Modern Controversies   123 their attitudes toward “traditional culture.” In this regard, the debate between radicalism, liberalism and conservatism has only relative significance. Those academic and cultural masters who have an influence on this century tend to be proficient in Chinese and Western cultures, and their difference is only in their attitudes toward “tradition.” We cannot say that Chen Yinqian is inferior to Hu Shi or Guo Moruo in the mastery of Western culture, and we cannot say that Lu Xun is inferior to Liang Shuming in the mastery of Chinese culture. Although such comparison is reasonable, it is difficult to grasp the development trend of Chinese culture from it. However, analyzing the differences in their attitudes toward “traditional culture” (or “Chinese and Western, ancient and modern”), we can better grasp the inner rationale of Chinese cultural development in the 20th century, which will be important for us to consider the future development of Chinese culture. At the moment when human society has entered the 21st century, we should step out of the Chinese and Western and ancient and modern controversies. From the perspective of creating a new landscape for Chinese academic culture, fully absorbing the best parts of Western culture (and the best parts of all other national cultures) on the basis of carrying forward the fine traditions of Chinese culture is undoubtedly the direction of the development of Chinese culture. (3) In the history of China’s cultural development over the past century, the controversies between “Chinese and Western, ancient and modern” have often been manifested by separating “enlightenment,” “salvation” and “academics,” either because the “salvation” overwhelmed the “enlightenment” and prevented the enlightenment of thought; or because the “enlightenment” and “salvation” affected the free development of “academics”; or “academics for the sake of academics” played a negative role in social progress, and so on. I think these views only see one side of the problem. While the development of Chinese academic culture not only needs “enlightenment,” but also must pay attention to the real social problems and the fate of the nation, and at the same time should allow “academics for the sake of academics” and “art for the sake of art.” Since ancient times, Chinese intellectuals have had a sense of social responsibility and historical mission toward their own nation and culture, whether they wish to move from the “periphery” to the “center” or to move away from the “center” and willingly be “marginalized.” As long as they are meaningful to the development of national culture, they should be recognized. Especially in a relatively stable society, “academics for the sake of academics” can enable some scholars to get rid of the immediate utility and delve into the ultimate questions about the fate of human society, i.e., those that are far from the “practical” and fall into the “real” metaphysical questions. Even the organization and interpretation of traditional Chinese culture (including the newly discovered and unearthed artifacts) with new perspectives and methods should also receive our attention. Therefore, I believe that whether academic culture

124  Chinese Culture in Transition is used for “enlightenment,” whether it is used to enrich his country and strengthen the military power, or whether it is used to achieve some “purely academic” research, it will promote the development of Chinese academic culture, and enable Chinese culture and the Chinese nation to obtain their rightful place in the world. At present, our academic and cultural circles may focus too much on the immediate interests and too little on “pure academic theory.” Therefore, the long-​standing influence of “science over literature” is very serious, which is not good for the development of China’s academic culture and the revival of national culture. Now, I hope that Chinese intellectuals should be more broad-​minded. In the process of developing Chinese culture, they should not only stick to the research direction chosen by themselves, but also respect the research direction chosen by others, thus realizing “harmony in diversity.” This is perhaps more in line with the spirit of the “doctrine of the mean” of Chinese culture, and will set a new trend for the Chinese academic and cultural circles.

Note 1 This article was originally published in Chinese Cultural Studies, Summer Vol, 2001.

15 Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture1

1 Today’s Chinese culture is actually formed on the basis of continuously absorbing the cultures of various nations, countries, and regions in the course of 5000–​6000 years of development. In this long process, two major foreign cultures have deeply influenced the course of Chinese culture. Regardless of the introduction of Nestorianism in the Tang Dynasty and Arkagun in the Yuan Dynasty, both of which were interrupted for various reasons. The first introduction of foreign cultures was Indian culture since the 1st century A D . The second one was the introduction of Western culture since the end of the 16th century and especially since the middle of the 19th century. The introduction of these two major foreign cultures has greatly influenced the development of Chinese culture. In an article A Comparison of Chinese and Western Civilizations, Russell put it that way, “The exchanges between different cultures have proven many times in the past to be a milestone in the development of human civilization.” The above two foreign cultures have profoundly affected all aspects of Chinese culture and Chinese society. It can even be said that each time, it has brought Chinese culture and Chinese society into a profound transitional period. See from the history of cultural development in various countries, the cultural development undergoes two stages (including philosophy): “cultural identity” and “cultural exclusion.” The former means being consistent with the mainstream culture, which is a further development of the mainstream culture in a certain scope and a further exploration of the already existing model. At the same time, it represses and rejects the alien force, which functions to reinforce the boundaries and norms established by the mainstream culture for its consolidation. While the latter is manifested in criticism and renunciation, that is, the negation and doubt of the mainstream culture in a certain period of time. It intends to disrupt the existing norms and boundaries, and is compatible with the excluded culture, releasing the suppressed force, thus having an impact on the mainstream culture or even subverting it. It is in the period of cultural transition when “cultural exclusion” prevails. DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-17

126  Chinese Culture in Transition Although it entered China in the form of a religion, Indian Buddhism culture is both “religious and philosophical.” It has greatly influenced many aspects of Chinese culture, such as religion (including Chinese Taoism), philosophy, literature, art, architecture and the social life of people. Our review of the history of the introduction of Indian Buddhism may serve as a mutual comparison and reference for our understanding of the introduction of Western culture. Generally speaking, Indian Buddhism (also as a philosophical idea) was introduced into China through three historical stages: (1) From the end of the Western Han Dynasty to the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Buddhism was firstly attached to Fangshu (supernatural arts, also known as “Taoist arts”) in the Han Dynasty. Then in the Wei and Jin Dynasties, it was attached to Metaphysics. After Buddhism was introduced to China, it was mainly about “immortality of the soul,” “karma,” etc, for a fairly long period. Therefore, Yuan Hong said in The Chronicles of the Later Han Dynasty that in the Han Dynasty, Buddhists held the view that “people are dead but their spirits are immortal, and they will reappear one day. All good and evil deeds done when people are alive all have their retribution, so it is important to practice goodness and cultivate the spirits in order to refine the spirits and become a Buddha.” Such idea is culturally embedded in China, based on which Buddhism can flourish in ancient China. At the end of the Han Dynasty and the beginning of the Wei Dynasty, there were more and more translations of Buddhist classics, including both the Hinayana and Mahayana scriptures. As a result, Buddhism was divided into two major systems to spread in China: One is the An Shigao School which belongs to the Hinayana Buddhism and focuses on Zen Buddhism. At that time, the Breath-​Mindfulness Discourse (Ānāpānasmṛti Sūtra) and Yin Chi Ru Jing have been translated into Chinese. The former is about breathing and keeping the mind, which is similar to the breathing and exhaling techniques of the Chinese Taoists and Shintoists; the latter explains Buddhist nomenclature concepts, which is similar to the chapter and verse of the Chinese sutra commentary. The theory of Yin Chi Ru Jing on life and the universe is based on “spirit,” using “Four Majors” (wind, fire, water, earth) to represent “Five Elements” (metal, wood, water, fire, earth), “Five Precepts” to “Five Constants.” It says that “spirit” means “Five Elements,” that is, “Five Yin” (Five Aggregates). For example, the “Five Yin Zhong” in the Yin Chi Ru Jing Notes explains, “Five Yin Zhong forms the body... It is also like the Vigor... Since the Vigor is contained, after the rise and fall, the recession and the prosperity, and the ending and the beginning with no definite end, it is called Zhong.” This way of using “Vigor” to explain the “Five Yin” is far away from Buddhism, but it is quite similar to the “Taoist arts” at that time. The second is the Lokaksema school, which belongs to Mahayana Buddhism and teaches Prajna. At first, An

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  127 Shigao was quite popular in China, but later in the Wei and Jin Dynasties, Metaphysics based on Laozi and Zhuang Zi’s thoughts emerged, and then Prajna learning became popular. The Lokaksema school believes that the most fundamental truth of life is to “return to one’s original nature.” It can be seen that it has been affected by Laozi and Zhuangzi since it is consistent with “Taoist thought.” Lokaksema then asked his disciple Zhi Qian to translate Prajna Paramita Sutra into Great Wisdom and Original Nature Sutra, “Prajna Paramita” into “Great Wisdom,” which was taken from the meaning of “having the great wisdom to see hidden constants” in Laozi, and “Paramita” into “Original Nature,” which means achieving the state of unity with “Tao” (“return to the original nature”). From the name of the Sutra, we can see that Lokaksema Buddhism is following Metaphysics. That is because the central issues of the Buddhist Prajna are “emptiness” and “being” while Metaphysics is mainly about “the origin and end of things.” They are relatively close to each other, and adopt methods such as “comparison, analogy and citation.” Daoan said in the Preface to Vinaya: “Among twelve parts, the Vijayra part is the largest in number. They follow Metaphysics and change their behaviors.” The reason is that Prajna and Metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties were quite similar, so the “famous scholars” and “famous monks” in the two dynasties complemented each other, and “Metaphysics” and “Buddhism” tended to merge. The changes in Chinese local academics affect the way of the introduction of Indian Buddhism, while Chinese local culture is absorbing Indian culture to nourish itself. Although there were “six or seven factions” in Prajna learning in the early Eastern Jin Dynasty, they almost all depended on Metaphysics. Later on, Seng Zhao Work was published, which was not only a summary of the discussion of Metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties, but also a beginning of the sinicization of Buddhism. Zhao Lun borrows Buddhist Prajna thoughts, but it discusses the issues of Chinese Metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties. The style of the article is quite similar to Wang Bi’s Annotations on Laozi and Guo Xiang’s Preface to Annotations on Zhuangzi, which exactly reflects the two-​way selection of different traditional cultures in the interaction. (2) After the Eastern Jin Dynasty, the translation of Buddhist scriptures became more and more systematic, and the differences between Indian Buddhism and Chinese culture have been seen, which caused contradictions and conflicts between the two cultures. But these two cultures influenced and absorbed each other in the conflicts. We can see that theHongming Collection preserved today involves various issues that were controversial at that time, such as “whether the Samen should pay tribute to the emperor,” “whether God is immortal or not,” “whether Karma really exists,” “what the relationship between emptiness and existence is” and the so-​called “distinction between Chinese and Barbarians,” “the way to deal with Barbarians” and so on. In the debate on these issues, both conflicts and mutual absorption can be seen. At that time, there was a tendency for

128  Chinese Culture in Transition famous scholars and famous monks to merge. Many famous scholars, on the one hand, were appointed officials of the court and, on the other hand, were good friends of monks; many monks, on the hand, lived in seclusion in the mountains and recited Buddhist scriptures, and on the other hand, were edicts to the emperor and participated in political affairs. At this time, due to the increasing number of translations of Buddhist scriptures and the prevalence of Buddhist sutras, it seemed that Indian Buddhism would replace Chinese culture. But when the Nirvana Sutra became popular in the Southern Song Dynasty, especially the 40-​volume version of the Great Nirvana Sutra, the situation of Indian Buddhism in China changed. Although Buddhism Prajna requires to “break through sermon and manifest the true nature,” it emphasizes destructive aspects. After the Song and Qi Dynasties, Nirvana began to rise, and became extremely popular in the Liang Dynasty. We can find that Nirvana and Prajna are successively related. That is to say. Buddhism, which was popular in China during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, was able to manifest the doctrine of the “Buddha nature” of Nirvana only after all the illusions of the world were dispelled. Liang Baoliang’s Nirvana Collection listed ten theories about “Buddha Nature” at that time, which shows that the discussion on this issue is unprecedented. If Seng Zhao Work uses Buddhist Prajna to discuss “Metaphysics” (that is, the development of Laozi and Zhuangzi’s thought), then Liang Baoliang’s Nirvana Collection discusses “Buddha Nature” through Buddhist Nirvana, which is actually related to the traditional Chinese theory of mind and nature. During this period, despite the contradictions and conflicts between the native Chinese culture and the foreign Indian Buddhist culture, the Chinese court generally adopted an attitude of absorption, accommodation, and even to some extent welcomed the foreign Buddhist culture (philosophy). It can be said that Chinese culture was in a period of great change and transition, a period of “dissociation” from the orthodox sutra of the two Han dynasties and the Metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties to Buddhism. Buddhism had a great influence on people. It even replaced many folk beliefs since the Han Dynasty. According to the Bibliography of Chronicles of the Sui Dynasty, “There were over tens of hundreds of times of Buddhist scriptures among the people than the six Confucian classics.” (3) In the Sui and Tang Dynasties, there was a rich and unique Chinese culture with a history of 2000–​3000 years. Will it change into Indian culture due to the spread of Indian Buddhist culture in China for five to six centuries and its profound influence on all aspects of Chinese culture and society? On the contrary, since the Sui and Tang dynasties, Buddhist culture has been profoundly influenced by Chinese culture, especially the philosophical thoughts of Confucianism and Taoism, and gradually Chineseized, forming several Chinese Buddhist sects. On Buddhist issues, Tiantai Sect, Huayan Sect and Zen Sect, for example, all integrated the theory of mind

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  129 and nature of Chinese Confucianism: “One mind contains everything” in Tiantai; “there is nothing outside the mind” in Huayan; “knowing the mind and seeing the nature” and “seeing the nature and becoming Buddha” in Zen. These ideas followed the Pre-​Qin Confucian theory of mind and nature and initiated the theory of mind and nature (or “nature is truth” or “mind is truth”) of Neo-​Confucianism. We can also note that the question of whether Buddhists should respect the emperor, which caused a serious cultural conflict between India and China during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, is no longer an issue. Buddhism advocates that one should only worship Buddha, not emperors or parents, but “loyalty and filial piety” is the core part of traditional Chinese culture and rituals. While in the Ode to Wuxiang of the Platform Sutra of Zen Buddhism, it is said, “Be filial to parents, show pity for others, and cultivate forbearance to make society more harmonious.” “Although I am a Buddhist student, I love the emperor and worry about the country as much as a loyalist.” These Buddhist Sects have been deeply imprinted with Chinese culture. Tiantai Sect even absorbed some of the ideas of Taoism, while Huayan Sect and Zen Sect are inextricably linked to the thought of Laozi and Zhuangzi (e.g., “Let nature be,” etc.) in both content and method. At the same time, Consciousness-​only theory, which was advocated by Master Monk Xuanzang, declined in the Tang dynasty after a short time (about 30 years). What is more peculiar is that Indian Buddhism began to decline in the 8th or 9th century (it was almost annihilated in the 14th century), while Chinese Buddhism was developing greatly at this time. Chinese Buddhism sects were spread to the Korean Peninsula, Japan, and Vietnam where Buddhism was combined with local cultures to form Buddhism with different characteristics. On the one hand, the Neo-​ Confucianists in the Song Dynasty criticized Indian Buddhism (especially the ideas of “staying away from worldly affairs” and “sunyata”), and on the other hand, they fully absorbed some ideas in Buddhism (“one is more, more is one”; “knowing the mind and seeing the nature; seeing the nature and becoming Buddha,” “Epiphany,” etc.). Therefore, as Neo-​ Confucianism (New Confucianism) rose in the Song and Ming Dynasties, it has replaced Buddhist philosophy in terms of philosophical thought, and Buddhism has generally become a folk belief, with no significant theoretical achievements. Therefore, we can say that Chinese culture (philosophy) has benefited from the foreign Indian Buddhism, and Buddhist culture has been carried forward in China. In the end, Chinese culture was not transformed by Indian Buddhism. On the contrary, Indian Buddhism was sinicized. This shows that the introduction of foreign culture and its exchanges with local native culture are indeed milestones in cultural development. It also shows the issue of two-​way choice and heterogeneous development among different cultures, especially among cultures with a long history and rich cultural connotations. The introduction of Indian Buddhism into China had a significant impact and it was carried

130  Chinese Culture in Transition forward. After the introduction of Indian Buddhism, on the whole, the Chinese people adopted an attitude of acceptance and absorption to develop Chinese culture. For the studies that can be better integrated with Chinese culture such as the “Fahua Learning” (the Tiantai Sect admired the Fahua Sutra), “Huayan Learning” (Huayan Sect theory was based on Huayan Sutra), and “Great Epiphany of Zen” (Zen Buddhism was based on Vajra Prajna Sutra), they were adopted and widely spread. But for the Consciousness-​only theory which is purely Indian, it was hard to be popular. Although Esoteric Buddhism was all the rage after the mid-​Tang Dynasty, it wasn’t popular in the Han region for a long time. Although Indian Buddhism began to decline in the 8th or 9th century and was nearly annihilated by the 14th century, it got developed in China. Similarly, Greek philosophy was spread to Arabia and developed, and then returned to Europe, becoming a strong culture in the world today. Therefore, the two-​way choice of culture and the development of culture in different places show that “the exchange between different civilizations are a milestone in the development of human civilization.”2 Why do we briefly discuss the history of the introduction of Indian Buddhist culture into China as a foreign culture? This is because it is hoped that some lessons and insights can be drawn from the history so that we can get some reference and insights to elaborate and analyze the introduction of Western culture into China. Western culture (Nestorianism) was introduced to China as early as in the Tang Dynasty, but later on, due to the extermination of Buddhism by Emperor Wu of the Tang Dynasty, Nestorianism gradually disappeared in China afterwards. The Christians among the Mongols in the Yuan Dynasty also disappeared with the fall of the Yuan Dynasty. The real influence of Western culture in China was at the end of the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century. At that time, some of the doctrines of the Western Christian Jesuits were introduced, and they were often attached to traditional Chinese culture. Meanwhile, Western technology was also introduced, especially when Matteo Ricci and Xu Guangqi co-​translated Euclid’s Geometric Elements (Euclide, about 330 BC –​275 BC ) and when Li Zhizao and missionary Fu Fanji co-​ translated the book titled Introduction to Aristotle’s Dialectics, which was introduced to China. It is very meaningful. At the beginning of the Qing Dynasty, it was interrupted by the disputes of etiquette. By the middle of the 19th century, with the invasion of Western powers, Western culture flooded into China like a tide. So far, this kind of “Western learning” has been imported in all directions, which has become a special feature of Chinese culture. It is a fact that Chinese philosophy must accept. There are various definitions of culture, but in any case, culture includes philosophy. Or we should say that philosophy is the core of culture. A deeper understanding of a culture cannot be achieved without grasping or revealing its philosophical connotations. If we want to understand Chinese culture, we

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  131 must understand Chinese philosophy. But what is Chinese philosophy, and is there philosophy in China? This is the first question we need to clarify. Most Chinese and foreign scholars nowadays do not say that there is no philosophy in China, and most of them believe that there is a wealth of philosophical ideas in Chinese Confucianism, Taoism and Chinese Buddhism. But this was not the case two or three hundred years ago. From the West, Hegel once argued that there was no philosophy in China or even in the East, and that all that existed in China (or even in the East) was “opinion,” and that “the opposite of opinion is truth.”3 Hegel’s view is certainly wrong, because there are rich resources of “philosophical ideas” and “philosophical issues” in traditional Chinese culture, which no one can deny. But before the introduction of Western philosophy into China, there was no such word as “philosophy” in China. The term “philosophy” was first used by the Japanese scholar Nishi Amane (1829–​1897) to refer to the philosophical doctrines that originated in ancient Greece and Rome, by using the Chinese characters “哲” (Zhe) and “学” (Xue). The Chinese scholar Huang Zunxian (1848–​1905) introduced this name to China, and it was accepted by Chinese academic circle. If we discuss this issue further, we can probably say that before the introduction of Western philosophy, “philosophy” was not yet separated from “Confucian Classics,” “Philosophers Study,” “History,” “Literature” etc. in China to be studied as an independent subject. The study of “philosophical thought” and “philosophical issues” is often included in studies of “Confucian Classics” and “Philosophers Study.” This means that we have not consciously regarded it as an independent research object. In the West, “philosophy” is the study of “love of wisdom,” which aims at the pursuit of truth and consciously seeks to establish a study that explains the universe and life. From today’s perspective, the works of some historical scholars are “philosophical,” such as Wang Chong’s Lun Heng, Wang Bi’s Annotations on Laozi, Ji Kang’s Voice without Grief and Joy Theory, Zhou Dunyi’s Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate, Zhang Zai’s Zhengmeng, Fang Yizhi’s Harmony of East and West, etc. There are also papers that analyze and summarize the ideological trend of a period, such as Zhuangzi·Tianxia, On the Six Main Points of Thought by Sima Tan, and so on. These books and papers have very rich philosophical content, but the author’s purpose of writing these books is not purely to study “philosophy” as an object. At least they haven’t considered philosophy an independent subject to consciously conduct research on it nor haven’t they completely separated the “philosophical thought” from other subjects. Strictly speaking, perhaps the thesis of the Gongsun Longzi or Hui Shi could be regarded as “philosophical propositions,” and they did conduct certain research on the philosophical issues consciously. In my opinion, “philosophy” should be a set of conceptual systems formed by thinking about certain or several “philosophical issues,” and forming a number of “philosophical propositions” based on the connections between concepts. There is considerable self-​consciousness in method, and then a philosophical system about life and universe will be formed based on theoretical analysis and synthesis. Therefore, in China,

132  Chinese Culture in Transition philosophy was consciously regarded as an independent research object at the beginning of the 20th century. It is undoubtedly of great significance to study the history of the introduction of Western learning into China in the 20th century, the influence of Western philosophy on China, the fact that Chinese philosophy has become an independent subject, and the characteristics of Chinese philosophy relative to Western philosophy. Seeing from the historical progress at that time, the invasion of the Western powers greatly facilitated the entry of various Western cultures into China; at the same time, some Chinese people began to feel that the strength of the West was closely related to its culture. And philosophy was the core of culture, so they began to pay attention to Western philosophy. From that time and even today, after the entry of Western philosophy into China, we have been faced with three interrelated problems: how to deal with Western philosophy; how to view our own original philosophy; and how to create a new Chinese philosophy. Apparently, Chinese scholars had different attitudes toward these three interrelated issues during this extremely complex period of history, when Chinese and Western philosophies were in violent collision. We can see that in the process of the introduction and learning of Western philosophy, there may be three different and even antagonistic attitudes toward Western philosophy: the radical school (also called the total Westernization school), the native culture school (also called the cultural conservatism school), and the reformist school (also called the reconciliation of Chinese and Western cultures school). For more than 100 years, there have been serious academic conflicts and sometimes even political opposition among the three schools, which often turn philosophical academic issues into political ideologies. Next, I would like to say a few points of my views on the history of Western philosophy spreading to the east in the 20th century. As I have said before, it was after the introduction of Western philosophy that “Chinese philosophy” became an independent subject and a subject of conscious study for Chinese scholars. This is a different question from whether there was philosophy in China before the introduction of Western philosophy into China. As I have clearly stated before, China has not only had a wealth of “philosophical thought” and “philosophical issues” since the Pre-​ Qin Dynasty, but it has also revealed that it is very different from Western philosophical thought. However, before the introduction of Western philosophy, we really did not study “Chinese philosophy” consciously as a subject, but often mixed it with Confucian Classics, Philosophers Study and History, or studied it in the fields such as ideological history, academic history and so on. We know that it is not enough to say that a subject is established as long as we discuss its certain philosophical issue. For example, archaeology, excavation of cultural relics (including tomb raiding), and identification of cultural relics certainly belong to the scope of archaeology, but these alone do not mean that there is “archaeology.” According to the Chinese Encyclopedia –​Archaeology Volume, the “emergent period” of Western archaeology was between 1760 and 1840, while Chinese “archaeology” was under the influence of Western

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  133 archaeology until the 1920s when Pei Wenzhong, Li Ji and other scholars established it. Another example is the establishment of “comparative literature.” People usually think that it became an independent “subject” in the 19th century. However, whether in the West or in China, “comparison of literature” has long existed. For example, Wen Xin Diao Long Ming Poetry compares the works of poets and poetry styles of different eras. There is a sentence that talks about the evolution from “Metaphysical poems” to “Landscape poems.” Here is a comparison of the changes in poetry style between the Northern and Southern Dynasties and the Wei and Jin Dynasties. In the Wei and Jin Dynasties, poems were often “Metaphysical poems,” but at the beginning of the Liu Song Dynasty, the poetry style gradually changed from “Metaphysical poetry” to “Landscape poetry,” which made the poetry closer to “nature.” In the New Direction in Comparative Literature Studies, Li Dasan says, “As a subject, ‘comparative literature’ did not mature in France until the 1830s and 1840s. In this way, in France or anywhere else, Ampère (1800–​1864) or Wildman (1790–​1867) can be considered to have truly conceived the complete ‘comparative literature’.” In China, it was after the 1920s that “comparative literature” was studied as an independent “subject.” Therefore, maybe we can say that the emergence of any research subject has a long or short history of “issue accumulation,” “ideological resources,” “material accumulation” etc. I suppose it is the “prehistory” of this subject. Before the introduction of Western philosophy into China, China had already had a wealth of “philosophical thoughts” and “philosophical issues,” which no one could deny. However, it was at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century that Chinese philosophy or the history of Chinese philosophy was consciously studied as an independent subject. I just briefly discussed some phenomena in the historical process of the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China. Did the same or similar phenomena appear when Western philosophy was introduced into China? There may not be exactly the same historical events in Chinese and foreign history, but we can often find some surprising similarities. The Nestorianism introduced in the Tang Dynasty and Christian prevailed in the Yuan Dynasty are not of our interest here. Western missionaries introduced Western philosophy to China at the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century, and Western logic was also introduced to China at the end of the Ming Dynasty, but they exerted little impact. However, we can learn from Matteo Ricci’s books in Chinese that situation similar to early Indian Buddhism introduction applies to his work too. For example, in order to preach, Ricci adopted the following methods for the then dominant Confucianism: “combining Confucianism” (indicating that Catholicism had similarities with Confucianism and ancient Chinese Classics), “exceeding Confucianism” (suggesting that Western Catholicism is superior to Confucianism in some aspects), “supplementing Confucianism” (believing that Catholicism and Confucianism had many similarities, but Confucianism can be complemented by Catholicism), and “attaching to Confucianism”

134  Chinese Culture in Transition (modifying some aspects of Catholicism to attach to Confucian traditional thought).4 In the argument of Xu Guangqi and others, in terms of method, there are some similarities with Indian Buddhism introduced into China, such as the concept of “Ge Yi (definition),” and “Lian Lei (concatenation).” In addition to a few Chinese scholars (like Xu Guangqi and Li Zhizao) who had a relatively deep understanding of Catholicism, the scholar bureaucrats at that time either rejected Catholicism, such as Zhong Shisheng who criticized Catholicism as “heresy that expels Buddhism but also steals its chaff, pretends to respect Confucianism but actually intends to disrupt it,” or only appreciated Western artifacts (such as binoculars and self-​chimes) with an attitude of “Chinese essence and Western utility.” For example, in the view of the Confucian Xu Dakou at that time, Western science and technology “are delicate but make no contributions to human mind and body.” The argument is that such techniques do not benefit the holy way.5 It was not until the end of the 19th century that Western philosophy began to exert a significant impact in China. We can see that the dispute between “ancient and modern China and the West” always existed in the progress of Chinese culture in the 20th century. At the beginning, “Chinese essence and Western utility” was accepted by most scholars, and then some scholars knew more about Western culture and gradually changed their mind. The harshest critic of “Chinese essence and Western utility” was Yan Fu. In his Letter to the Manager of the Diplomatic Daily, he criticized it, “Ontology should identify with methodology. The ox should serve to bear weight, while the horse should run far away. There is no such a thing as an ox to be used as a horse.”6 On the basis of an in-​depth understanding of Western culture, Yan Fu said, “It takes freedom as essence and democracy as utility.”7 Whether Yan Fu’s generalization of Western culture is accurate or not, this is an important part of the dispute then between “ancient and modern China and the West,” giving Chinese people a preliminary understanding of Western culture. Later, the dispute continued in the history of Chinese culture (including philosophy). Around the time when Yuan Shikai became the emperor, the “Confucian Association” was established, and it used Confucianism to exclude and criticize Western culture, causing the first debate between Chinese and Western culture. At that time, there was no clear definition of “philosophy,” and philosophical issues are often replaced by “cultural” issues. There were those who distinguished between Chinese and Western philosophies by “ancient” and “present,”8 those who divided Chinese and Western philosophies by “new” and “old,”9 and those who discussed the differences between Chinese and Western philosophies by “static” and “dynamic,”10 but the most important one is the debate between the Oriental Magazine represented by Du Yaquan and the New Youth represented by Chen Duxiu. Although Du Yaquan wasn’t a representative of blindly safeguarding China’s old traditions and opposing Westernization, he put forward the theory of integration and asked to describe the great cause of “Chou Kung’s learning from the three kings, Confucius’s inclusive study and Mencius’s rejection of heresy,” which can be said to be the typical remark of

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  135 philosophy (culture) of that time. At the same time, from the perspective of philosophical methodology, the debate between Hu Shi and Li Dazhao on “problem and doctrine” can also be regarded as the debate between reformism and radicalism in philosophy. The debate between Chinese and Western culture reached its peak around the May Fourth Movement. The radicals represented by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao belonged to the Marxist camp and the Liberals represented by Hu Shi belonged to the pragmatic one. They jointly advocated “Down with the Confucianism,” upheld Western “science and democracy,” and attacked the traditional orthodox culture. The reason why they fiercely opposed tradition was mainly the backwardness of Chinese society and political corruption at that time, which were due to the downsides of Chinese traditional culture. Therefore, they believed that China must learn from the West in all aspects, including philosophy. That is to say, the radicals and reformists at that time believed that “sinology” was ancient (or pre-​ modern) and outdated, and only “Western culture” is the “modern culture” that met the needs of modern society, which is essentially “Total Westernization.” If we compare it to the “Chinese essence and Western utility” at the end of the 19th century, what Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi advocated can be described as “Western essence and Western utility” in China. However, we must admit that the total anti-​traditional thought of Chen Duxiu and others had an significant impact on breaking the shackles of old traditions (such as the thought of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism) at that time, and laid the foundation for the “Enlightenment” of Chinese society and the wide spread of Western philosophy in China. We can say around the May Fourth Movement, whatever philosophical thoughts there were in the West, China would have an imported variety of certain Western thoughts. The great impact of Western thoughts introduced by the May Fourth Movement naturally led to the counterattack of “sinology.” Liang Qichao and Liang Shuming were the most famous scholars who defended Chinese tradition at that time. Although the criticism of Western science in Liang Qichao’s The Records of Travels in Europe had a considerable impact, Liang Shuming’s Eastern and Western Culture and Philosophy can be said to be Chinese philosophy’s valuable response to Western philosophy and rational reflection on itself. After the May Fourth Movement, there were constantly debates between Chinese and Western culture and Chinese and Western philosophy, such as the debate on “science and the outlook on life” in 1923. On the surface, this debate ended with Western culture’s (including Marxism, pragmatism, Western Scientism) victory over sinology (Zhang Junmai advocated the restoration of “New Song Studies”). But it caused the division between Marxism represented by Chen Duxiu and pragmatism represented by Hu Shi. Since then, there has been a tripartite confrontation in Chinese philosophy among Marxist radicals, pragmatic reformers and conservatives who maintain tradition, leading to constant dispute between “ancient and modern China and the West” in philosophy and culture. The most famous is the Declaration on China-​centered Cultural Construction issued by ten professors including Sa Mengwu and He Bingsong

136  Chinese Culture in Transition in 1935, which can be said to be a heated debate between “China-​centered Culture” and “total Westernization.” The school of China-​centered Culture highlighted the characteristics of national culture but ignored the features of cultural development at that time; while scholars who advocated total Westernization only concentrated on the features of cultural development and denied the nationality and inheritance of culture. Therefore, this debate had little impact on the development of Chinese culture. After the outbreak of the War of Resistance against Japan in 1937, the philosophical “debate between China and the West” eased a little, but there was still Marxist scholars’ criticism of Feng Youlan’s New Neo-​Confucianism, and the debate between Professor Hong Qian of Vienna School and Professor Feng Youlan on metaphysical issues, which still reflect the “dispute between ancient and modern China and the West” in philosophy. After 1949, the social life in mainland China underwent enormous changes, accompanied by tremendous change of the philosophy there. At that time, there was a so-​called “one-​sided” guidance of Marx Lenin Stalin doctrine in the Soviet Union, which was also a variant of “Total Westernization.” At that time, China’s philosophy community took Stalin’s Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism as the criteria for critique of philosophy, while Zhdanov’s Speech on the History of Western philosophy was the textbook for Chinese to study philosophy. Chinese traditional philosophy, including the thought of Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi, Zhu Xi, Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming, was criticized indiscriminately. This movement to criticize Chinese traditional culture, especially Chinese philosophy, was guided by the extreme left trend of Marxism Leninism and developed into the “Cultural Revolution.” The Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 launched the so-​called “breaking the four old” movement, which led to the isolation of Chinese mainland philosophy from world culture, and also caused serious discontinuance in China’s philosophy. After the Cultural Revolution, “Class-​Struggle as the Center” was denied in politics and Deng Xiaoping put forward the principle of “Four Modernizations” and reform and opening up policy, but the dispute didn’t stop. In the 1980s, China’s ideological and cultural circles faced the task to make China move from tradition to modernity, so they must criticize the closed feudal autocracy, which is a necessity for realizing modernization. The most typical example of this was the broadcast of River Elegy. Despite its mistakes and distorted descriptions of Chinese history, its original intention was to remind Chinese people not to follow the old track of self-​isolation, but it was harshly criticized. This criticism reflects the question whether China should take the world-​oriented road of reform and opening up or just carry out some reforms in economy and still adopt a closed attitude that existed for centuries in ideology and culture. This is undoubtedly another replay of the dispute. The “political storm” at the turn of spring and summer in 1989 interrupted the modernization in ideology and culture (even that of political system). After a static period in ideology and culture (including philosophy), two trends of thought gradually rose in academic circles (mainly

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  137 philosophical circles), “Postmodernism” and “Neoconservatism.” Postmodernism entered China in the 1980s, but it was not widely spread. However, it suddenly became the focus of attention of Chinese philosophy circle (also of other disciplines such as literature and art) in the early 1990s, and many postmodern books were translated and numerous postmodern books and papers written by Chinese scholars were published. Why? I think “dispelling the tendency of cultural unification at that time” is one important reason. After the political storm in 1989, a newspaper in Beijing published an article entitled Diversification is Liberalization, which criticized the tendency of cultural pluralism in the previous stage, and to a certain extent manifested the requirements for returning to the new far left tradition in culture formed since 1949. Some scholars at that time believed that this would make China’s academic culture retrogressive. In order to break this tendency of cultural unification, a large number of “Postmodernism theory” works were introduced and interpreted. Compared with “Modernity” theory’s clarity, certainty, ultimate value, completeness and systematicness, Postmodernism advocates the ambiguity of theory, and pursues uncertainty, non-​ hierarchy, anti-​ centrism and cultural diversity. I think in addition to Postmodernism’s popularity in the West, it undoubtedly helped to counteract cultural unification in Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy. There were a “Chinese classics craze” in China’s mainland to study and promote traditional culture in the autumn of 1992, which was probably initiated by some scholars who saw the negative impact of Western philosophy on human society, and believed that Chinese traditional philosophy may resolve some biases of Western philosophy. Reviewing this period, although some scholars also exaggerated the practical significance of Chinese philosophy or had cultural conservatism tendencies, most scholars believed that realistic research should be carried out on our national culture (including philosophy) to contribute to the modernization of Chinese culture (philosophy) moving from tradition to modernity. In June 1994, a signed article was published in Philosophical Research, in which the author wrote, “Some people assert that China needs Confucius and Dong Zhongshu and a new Chinese philosophical system juxtaposed with Marxism should be reconstructed,” and “it is possible that some people are try to utilize the suspicious concept of ‘sinology’ to exclude the new socialist culture from Chinese culture.” At a symposium held by the magazine Confucius Research in early 1995, many scholars criticized the above views of Philosophical Research. In 1995, a signed article in Oriental also criticized it, explaining that if the study of sinology is opposed to the study of Marxism, then a possible scenario will be “opposing Marxism and the study of Sinology and repeating the dogmatic ideology’s suspicion and criticism of sinology in the past.” Although this debate didn’t have a significant impact, it is still a facet of the dispute. At the same time, some scholars who have a deep understanding of Western philosophy, especially Western Christian philosophy, such as Liu Xiaofeng, held a strong critical attitude toward Chinese culture and philosophy, which in turn aroused the counter criticism of some conservatives of

138  Chinese Culture in Transition traditional culture, such as Jiang Qing. There were also some scholars who held an attitude of sympathy and understanding for both Chinese and Western culture and philosophy. They tried to coordinate the two’s differences. These are still the continuation and manifestations in different periods of the dispute over a century. The dispute between “liberalism” and “New Left” in China in the late 1990s is still going on, but we can also see that it is still about how to move Chinese culture from tradition to modernity, so it’s also related to the dispute. I have given a detailed outline of Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy in the past century, in order to demonstrate that in a stage after the encounter of local culture and foreign culture (i.e., Chinese culture and Western culture), contradictions and conflicts are inevitable. Although there are great differences between the introduction of Western culture (philosophy) and that of Indian Buddhism, we can still find some similarities. When Western culture was introduced, it was already a powerful culture, and Chinese culture was declining, which was very different from the period of prosperous Chinese culture when Indian Buddhism was introduced. Therefore, Western culture was attached to Chinese culture and Confucianism at the beginning of its introduction, but this was not only very temporary, but also uncommon. Shortly after that, conflict of etiquette led to the stoppage of the exchange between Chinese and Western cultures. Western culture entered China as a powerful culture in the middle of the 19th century. Broadly speaking, Chinese culture was still introducing and learning from Western culture by the 20th century, but we can still see the two cultures’ coordination, mutual-​learning and adjustment amongst conflicts and confrontations. That is to say. There was a conflict between two cultures like the conflict in the Northern and Southern Dynasties after the introduction of Buddhism. Is this a common phenomenon that occurs when two traditional cultures with long histories encounter?

2 We can make a more careful discussion and investigation from the perspective of philosophy, to see if there have been some sinicized Western philosophical schools or modern Chinese philosophy in the 20th century, similar to the sinicized Indian Buddhism in the Sui and Tang Dynasties and later. Yan Fu was the first to introduce Western philosophy into China and had the most influence. The thought of evolution in his translation works such as Evolution and Ethics affected the philosophical view of several generations of Chinese people. Yan Fu can be said to be the greatest contributor of the introduction of Western philosophy. After that, Schopenhauer’s philosophy, Nietzsche’s philosophy, ancient Greek philosophy, anarchism, Marxism, pragmatism, realism, German philosophy in the 19th century, analytical philosophy, the Vienna School, phenomenology, existentialism, structuralism, deconstruction, postmodernism and others successively entered China

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  139 and influenced Chinese philosophy. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the establishment of Chinese philosophy can be said to start with the study of the history of Chinese philosophy, so several books titled History of Chinese Philosophy appeared, which are represented by Hu Shi’s Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy11 and Feng Youlan’s History of Chinese Philosophy, so as to prove that there has been philosophy in China since the Pre-​ Qin Dynasty. This indicates that Chinese scholars consciously took “Chinese philosophy” as their research object and carried out systematic research. This is exactly the situation after the introduction of Western ­philosophy, and then several books on the comparison of Chinese and Western philosophy appeared. For example, Liang Shuming’s Eastern and Western Culture and Philosophy illustrated the differences among Chinese,  Western and Indian philosophy from the perspective of different types of culture. It should be noted that Eastern and Western Culture and Philosophy can be said to be a serious reflection of Chinese scholars on “anti-​ tradition” and “advocating Western culture” since the May Fourth Movement. In this book, he believes that China should introduce Western culture and philosophy to promote “science and democracy” in China, and reiterates that such advocacy is different from the outdated rejection of Westernization. This book also shows the influence of Bergson’s life philosophy on him. But Liang Shuming also criticized Western culture and advocated utilizing the original Chinese cultural spirit to contribute to human society. He believes that in the near future, there will be the rejuvenation of Chinese culture, just like the rejuvenation of Western culture after the long Middle Ages. Western philosophy reached its peak in the 1920s, and many problems and difficulties were exposed, causing many sufferings and disasters, such as the extreme emptiness of people’s spirit, the tension of interpersonal relationship, and the destruction of natural resources. Chinese philosophy is represented by Confucius’ theory of benevolence, which is a non-​utilitarian life attitude of “non-​interference” that advocates “being content with your situation, being arranged by fate” and realizing “self-​ transcendence, peace of mind and inner harmony.” This can fix the downsides brought by Western philosophy. Although Liang Shuming was still of the view to compare Chinese culture with its Western counterpart, we can conclude that his perspective of the differences between Chinese and Western philosophy are much profound than those at the beginning of the 20th century. Since the early 1930s, Chinese philosophers have formed a number of modern Chinese philosophy on the basis of absorbing Western philosophy, Xiong Shili and Zhang Dongsun at first, then Feng Youlan and Jin Yuelin, and Mao Zedong’s works, On Practice and On Contradiction, which made Marxism have certain Chinese characteristics. In the book titled New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness, Xiong Shili only completed the part of “ontology” (mindset theory) (the impact of Bergson’s Philosophy’s on him can be seen in this part), but he planned to write about “epistemology” (quantity theory), which we can be seen in his other works. The basic idea of

140  Chinese Culture in Transition his “quantity theory” is that Chinese philosophy originally lacked “epistemology,” so he advocated the creation of Chinese-​style epistemology in Chinese philosophy. He said, “China’s academia highlights concepts and recognition and ignores analysis, which is both its strength and shortcoming.” Therefore, “the two cultures should be integrated” and “we should learn from the West to expand ourselves.”12 For this reason, Xiong Shili proposed, “Philosophy is the study that integrates analysis and practice,” because “those who specialize in analysis can sharpen their mind, but their analysis is rootless due to the lack of practice, and those who attach great importance to practice can cultivate their character, but cannot achieve full morality due to the lack of analysis. Therefore, the supreme study should be based on the combination of analysis and practice” (New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness). It can be seen that Xiong Shili was also striving to absorb Western philosophy, so as to build modern Chinese philosophy. In particular, Xiong Shili’s philosophy of “identity of ontology and methodology” and “contradictions and tensions engender changes in the universe” are all important developments of the philosophy of The Book of Changes in the new era. Xiong Shili’s philosophy initiated modern Neo-​ Confucianism, followed by works of Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi, who became the backbone of inheriting Confucianism in modern China. Zhang Dongsun put forward his “pluralistic epistemology” system and the so-​called “framework theory,” which is a modern “Chinese philosophy” based on the theory of New Kant School and the thought of critical realism. He proposed a road map for Chinese philosophy different from that in Jin Yuelin’s Analects on Taoism: Jin Yuelin’s philosophy is the alignment of epistemology with ontology; Zhang Dongsun’s philosophy pursues the alignment of cosmology with epistemology, and denies that China has “ontology.”13 Their two philosophies reflect the two major systems of Chinese traditional philosophy: the ontology of The Book of Changes and cosmogenesis, but they both construct their philosophical system with the help of Western philosophy. Jin Yuelin wrote his Analects on Taoism and Theory of Knowledge by means of analytical philosophy and logical positivism. The advantage of his philosophy is based on analytical philosophy. The form of his philosophy is very different from Chinese philosophy, but its content is influenced by Taoist philosophy and Confucian philosophy. Feng Youlan’s New Neo-​Confucianism clearly states that his philosophy is not based on the Neo-​Confucianism of the Song and Ming Dynasties, but follows it. His “following” actually introduced the “common phase” and “special phase” of Plato’s philosophy and the theory of new realism into Chinese philosophy, and divided the world into “truth” (or “reason,” or “Tai Chi”) and “reality.” The reality becomes something according to the natural reason. In particular, Feng Youlan’s New Original Tao, also named The Spirit of Chinese Philosophy, states that the spirit of Chinese traditional philosophy is “the Tao of inner sage and outer king.” He said, “In Chinese philosophy, every school believes that they are talking about ‘the Tao of inner sage and outer king’.” Feng Youlan also thought that

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  141 his philosophy is about the “the Tao of inner sage and outer king.” In his New Primitive Man, he put forward the theory of “four realms,” while in New Knowledge, he asserted that Western philosophy highlights analysis (metaphysical positive method), while Chinese traditional philosophy emphasizes intuition (metaphysical negative method), and his philosophical method combines the two. All these demonstrate that Feng Youlan’s philosophy utilizes Western philosophy, and develops Chinese philosophy following Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties, so as to modernize Chinese philosophy. However, the basic distinction between “truth” and “reality” in Feng Youlan’s philosophy can both connect with the theory of “Universal Variety” of Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties, and the views of “common phase” and “special phase” in Western philosophy, which is exactly why he chose Plato’s philosophy and new realism for his philosophy. All these show that Chinese scholars tried to establish a new “Chinese philosophy” with the help of Western philosophy in the 1930s and 1940s. In the same period, Tang Yongtong studied metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties in order to prove that Chinese philosophy also has ontology and special philosophical methodology (“Obtaining the Significance by Getting Rid of the Words”), which was valued by scholars at home and abroad. The writing method of his History of Buddhism in the Han, Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties was greatly influenced by German philosophy historian Windelband, and this book has become an authoritative work in the history of Chinese philosophy. Tang Yongtong studied in the United States in his early years and was greatly influenced by the Neoconservatism popular in the United States at that time, so his theory was also modified by Western culture. We can see that some new “Chinese philosophy” had a greater impact in China than others. For example, Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili had a greater philosophical impact than Jin Yuelin and Zhang Dongsun. The reason is that Feng Youlan’s and Xiong Shili’s philosophy “follow” Chinese traditional philosophy, while Jin Yuelin’s and Zhang Dongsun’s philosophy are more Westernized. In their efforts to establish modern Chinese philosophy, they all noticed that Chinese traditional philosophy lacked “epistemology” (“the Theory of Knowledge”), and tried to fix it, which is certainly the result of the influence of Western philosophy. If the study of “history of Chinese philosophy” refers to Western philosophy to prove that “Chinese philosophy” exists, and is the first step to establish Chinese philosophy, then Xiong Shili, Zhang Dongsun, Feng Youlan and Jin Yuelin were establishing their modern Chinese philosophy under the impact of Western philosophy. However, objectively speaking, the philosophy of Zhang Dongsun and Jin Yuelin is quite profound, but why can’t their influence on China be compared with that of Xiong Shili and Feng Youlan? I think it’s because the philosophy of Xiong Shili and Feng Youlan follows the Neo-​Confucianism of the Song and Ming Dynasties, so their philosophy has more Chinese characteristics. Zhang Dongsun’s and Jin Yuelin’s philosophy emphasizes analysis in methodology, thus deviating from Chinese

142  Chinese Culture in Transition tradition. We can see that although Xiong Shili’s philosophy includes the “speculative” Western philosophy and adds some analytical elements (may also come from Buddhist “idealism”) to Chinese traditional philosophy, it still develops along the characteristics of integrity and intuition (even ambiguity) of Chinese philosophy. His successors may have absorbed more theories and methods of Western philosophy, but they still stayed on the trail blazed by Xiong Shili. Feng Youlan is naturally superior to Xiong Shili in the use of logical analysis, and is much more impacted by Western philosophy, but as mentioned earlier, his philosophy is still “modern Chinese philosophy” following Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties. The philosophy with more logical analysis elements (such as analytical philosophy and scientific philosophy) finds it hard to have a great impact in China. From this perspective, when two philosophy meets, there must be a two-​way choice in their interaction. However, we can also note that some scholars who study Western philosophy (or both Chinese and Western philosophy) have tried to use Chinese philosophy to interpret Western philosophy (or bring more or less Chinese characteristics in explaining Western philosophy), which may be a meaningful attempt to sinicize Western philosophy.14 However, in my opinion, these attempts to sinicize Western philosophy or absorb Western philosophy to modernize Chinese philosophy cannot be compared with the influence and significance of Chinese Buddhist philosophy formed in the Sui and Tang Dynasties. Unlike the Neo-​Confucianism created after absorbing and criticizing Indian Buddhist philosophy in the Song and Ming Dynasties, Chinese modern philosophy still hasn’t evolved into a “modern shape” that meets the requirements of China’s modern society and the development of world philosophy. As for the long period after 1949, due to the influence of the far-​left thought, although some achievements have been made in the “history of Chinese philosophy” and Chinese traditional philosophy, the development is very unideal. Since the 1980s, there have been considerable achievements in the research of “history of Chinese philosophy,” “Chinese traditional philosophy” and Western philosophy. Philosophical works in this period not only greatly surpassed those in the previous 80 years in quantity, but also in many aspects of the depth of problem research. However, objectively speaking, in the second half of the 20th century, there were no original and influential philosophers like Xiong Shili, Zhang Dongsun, Feng Youlan and Jin Yuelin. Of course, we can’t blame the philosophers (or philosophical workers) in this period, but should recognize that it was due to the social and political environment. We can only feel deep regret about this.

3 German philosopher Jaspers proposed the concept of “Axis Age.” He believed that around 500 B C , great thinkers appeared almost simultaneously in ancient Greece, Israel, India and China, all of whom put forward unique

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  143 views on the fundamental issues of human concern. Ancient Greece has Socrates and Plato, China has Laozi and Confucius, India has Sakyamuni, and Israel has Jewish prophets, forming different cultural traditions. After two or three thousand years of development, these cultural traditions have become major spiritual wealth of human culture, and the different cultures of these regions developed independently and did not affect each other. “Mankind has always relied on everything created in the Axial Age to live, and every new leap looks back to this period and is rekindled by it.”15 For example, the Renaissance in Europe focused on the source of its culture, ancient Greece, so European civilization was rekindled and had a significant impact on the world. After the impact of Indian Buddhism, Chinese Neo-​ Confucianism returned to Confucius and Mencius again, raising Chinese philosophy to a new level. To some extent, the development of multiple cultures in the world today is another leap of the Axial Age more than 2000 years ago. We know that since Second World War, the Western colonial system gradually disintegrated, so an urgent task for the original colonial countries and oppressed nations was to consciously confirm their independent identity in all aspects, and their independent culture was the most important factor in confirming this identity. Therefore, we may conclude that a new Axial Age will appear. In the foreseeable future, all nationalities and countries will promote their own culture with their economic development. Therefore, economic globalization will be conducive to cultural diversity. From the trend of future world cultural development, there will be a new landscape of multi-​cultural development under global consciousness. Several important cultural areas may take shape in the 21st century: European and American cultural area, East Asian cultural area, South Asian cultural area and Middle East and North African cultural area (Islamic cultural area). The cultures of these cultural areas not only have a long history, but also affect more than one billion people respectively. Of course, there will be other cultures that exist and play a certain role at the same time. However, these philosophy with great cultural trends that long histories will become the engine for the development of world culture. The cultural development of this new “Axial Age” will be very different from that of the “Axial Age” around 500 B C . The differences are as follows: (1) In this new “Axial Age,” the world is connected by economic globalization, scientific and technological integration and the development of information network. Therefore, the development of cultures will not be independent, but be under mutual influence. The various cultures’ contribution to human culture will be determined by their ability to absorb elements of other cultures and update themselves. Although several cultures of the original “Axial Age” had no mutual influence at first, they continued to absorb other cultures for more than 2000 years. Russell wrote about the development of Western culture in Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted:

144  Chinese Culture in Transition Exchanges between different cultures had proved to be milestones in the advancement of human civilization in the past. Greece learned from Egypt, Rome followed the footsteps of Greece, Arabia imitated the Roman Empire, and the same thing happened between Europe and Arabia in the Middle Ages, and Europe and the Byzantine Empire during the Renaissance… By the 17th and 18th centuries, the West absorbed Indian culture and Chinese culture. It is no exaggeration to say that the reason why European culture has powerful vitality today is its ability to absorb elements of different cultures, constantly enriching and updating itself. Similarly, Chinese culture was also developed by constantly absorbing foreign cultures. As we all know, the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China promoted the development of philosophy, religion, literature, art and other aspects of Chinese culture. Chinese culture benefited from Indian Buddhism, and the latter was carried forward in China and spread from China to the Korean Peninsula and Japan, forming new sects with local culture elements there. With the impact of Western culture, modern Chinese culture constantly absorbed Western culture and updated itself. Over the past hundred years, various schools of Western culture have had or are still exerting a profound impact on Chinese culture and changed the landscape of Chinese society and culture. Undoubtedly, it is the exchange and interaction among different cultures that create the precious culture of today’s human society. Various cultures in the new “Axial Age” will develop along this existing trend of exchange and mutual absorption among cultures. Therefore, various cultures will be developed under the global consciousness. This is distinctively different from the culture of the “Axial Age” more than 2000 years ago. (2) Cross cultural and interdisciplinary cultural research will become the engine of cultural development in the 21st century. The world is connected, and cultures cannot develop in isolation, so cross-​cultural and interdisciplinary research will see great development. Each culture’s understanding of itself is limited. “The true look of Lushan is lost to my sight, for it is right in this mountain that I reside.” If we view our own culture from another cultural system, that is, from the “other,” we may understand our culture more comprehensively. Therefore, cross-​ cultural research has become a heated topic in cultural research today. Cultures that take “mutual subjectivity” and “mutual reference” as the core and emphasize self-​reflection from the perspective of the “other” have gradually been accepted by the academic circles at home and abroad, and have laid foundation for the diversified development of cultures. This also applies to different disciplines. Today’s science is significantly different from that of the West in the 18th century. Today, science has broken the original division of disciplines and developed many new and marginal disciplines. The original division of disciplines has become more and more blurred. In the past, Physics was physics, and chemistry was chemistry, but now we

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  145 have both physical chemistry and chemical physics, breaking the original boundary between natural sciences. Moreover, the boundaries between natural science, social science and humanities are also disintegrating. For example, economics must adopt mathematics, law must utilize high-​tech methods, and humanities even involve the Nobel Prize winner Prigogine’s “Dissipative Structure” theory. Therefore, according to the current trend, mutual penetration is forming between different cultural traditions and different disciplines. It is foreseen that exchanges and integration between different cultural traditions and disciplines in the 21st century will have a greater influence on the development of world culture. The new “Axial Age” in the 21st century will be a period of multi-​dialogue and interdependence between disciplines, which is significantly different from the “Axial Age” around the 5th century BC . (3) Unlike the culture of around 500 BC , the culture of the new “Axial Age” will not be dominated by a few great thinkers, but be directed by many ideological groups. Because today our society progresses much faster than in ancient times, ideology is changing every day in the interaction of various cultures and disciplines. Cultures are already interconnected, so it is impossible to have an independent great thinker. Today’s ideology addresses not just one country or one nation, but the whole world, so it must absorb other national cultures and have a globalized vision. Therefore, truly successful thinkers will discuss both national and global issued. We can observe that in the West, various ideological trends have appeared for the past 100 or 200 years, and even the most influential ones could only dominate for decades at most. So far, there is no thought that can integrate the various popular factions in the West. In China, for the past more than 100 years, we were basically learning from Western culture and building a new Chinese culture. We can predict that there will be a new “contention of hundreds of schools” and a landscape of cultural diversity in China. Since the reform and opening up, various Western theories and schools have flooded into China. To this day, we are still absorbing Western culture eagerly, but we haven’t formed a modern new Chinese culture on the basis of fully absorbing Western culture, as we formed Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties on the basis of absorbing Indian Buddhist culture. However, after entering the 1990s, the division of China’s ideological and cultural circles has been increasingly clear, and some small academic groups have been formed. These groups probably can only represent “the words of one school,” and there is no authoritative school to lead the ideological circles. Looking forward to the 21st century, there may be different academic factions that meet the needs of modern Chinese society in the near future, but a unified ideological system may not be possible. That is to say. Whether it’s at home or abroad, with the mutual influence and continuous transformation of culture, it is probably impossible for great thinkers representing cultural traditions like Plato, Confucius, Sakyamuni to appear. Today nobody

146  Chinese Culture in Transition can present themselves as a savior anymore. Many ideological groups will work together to promote human culture, which is the requirement of multiculturalism. In my opinion, this situation may be related to the current transfer of elite culture to mass culture. With the fast pace of human social life, the traditional slow-​paced elite culture can no longer meet people’s emotional and spiritual needs. Therefore, there is a popular trend in all aspects of culture, and philosophy is no exception. In order to meet people’s fast-​paced spiritual and emotional needs, philosophical problems are also becoming more concise and popular. I think this is one of the reasons why there will be no “sages” such as Plato, Confucius, Laozi and Sakyamuni who have impacted human culture for more than 2000 years and will still exert an influence for a long time to come. It can be predicted that the philosophy of the 21st century may be a combination of elite philosophy and popular philosophy. (4) What should Chinese philosophy and Chinese philosophical circles do in the new Axial Age? Reviewing the Chinese philosophical circles in the 20th century, we can see that most of the scholars who can contribute to the research of Chinese philosophy or Chinese culture are those who can “blend the ancient and modern” and “integrate China and the West.” Sima Qian said that he wrote Historical Records to “explore the interaction between natural phenomena and human society, get familiar with the development of ancient to modern times, and form one’s unique theory.” Ji Xianlin once said, “In China’s academic history of thousands of years, a few masters have appeared in each era. These masters mark a new level of academic development, represent a new direction of academic progress, and study and integrate ancient and modern times. They are dazzling stars in the academic sky.” Modern China is no exception, but in my opinion, modern China is different from the past eras. Take Yu Quyuan (Yue) and his disciple Zhang Taiyan (Binglin) as an example, they demonstrate a significant change in China’s academic development from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. Yu Quyuan can blend the ancient and modern, but in addition to that, Taiyan can also integrate China and the West.” “After Taiyan, several Sinology masters, such as Liang Qichao, Wang Guowei, Chen Yinke, Chen Yuan and Hu Shi, can all do the two things at the same time.” I think Mr. Ji’s analysis of the differences between ancient and modern academic study is very correct. This was not due to the subjective reasons of ancient and modern scholars, but the feature of the times. Therefore, I would like to add a sentence to Sima Qian’s words that today’s scholars or philosophers should “explore the interaction between natural phenomena and human society, be familiar with the development of ancient to modern times, and integrate the East and the West.” A philosopher can become a philosopher not only by his ability of comprehension, but also by his extensive accumulation of knowledge, that is, the mastery of new materials and methods, so that he can consider the new direction of academic

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  147 development from a new perspective, and have a new understanding of the ultimate problems of the universe and life. As I have mentioned earlier, nowadays the world is interconnected, the issues of one country and one nation concern the world at the same time. Different countries and nationalities may have different ways of thinking and different approaches toward the problems faced by the human society today, but the problems they deliberate on must have some similarities from a philosophical perspective. Therefore, most philosophers who have made some achievements in Chinese philosophy in the 20th century not only are knowledgeable in Sinology, but also are versed in Western philosophy. We can prove this from today’s research on Chinese philosophers in the 20th century. In addition to the mentioned Yan Fu, Zhang Taiyan, Jin Yuelin, Feng Youlan, Zhang Dongsun, Hu Shi, Tang Yongtong, there are also scholars like He Lin, Shen Youding, Fang Dongmei, Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi, who can integrate China and the West to some extent. Even Xiong Shili, who has no knowledge of English, often deliberated on issues that intend to integrate China and the west. Although he is a defender of Chinese philosophy, he also believes that Chinese philosophy has no future without learning from Western philosophy. Xiong Shili knows little about Western philosophy, and most of his knowledge of it came from his dialogue with Zhang Dongsun.16 Just as Jaspers put it, “Every new leap of all cultural traditions looks back to this period (the Axial Age around 500 BC ) and is rekindled by it.” In order to exert a greater impact on human society in the new Axial Age, Chinese philosophy must give full play to its inherent internal spirit and embrace Western philosophy at the same time, so as to keep up with the trend of the development of world philosophy and become an important philosophical power in the new Axial Age in the 21st century. This should also be applied to the philosophies of other countries and nationalities in the new Axial Age.

4 In this new Axial Age, how can we promote Chinese philosophy in the world? At the end of Lu Xun’s essay on “take-​ism,” there is such a paragraph that “In short, we have to take things. We can use, store or destroy it. Then, the owner is the new owner, and the mansion will become a new mansion. However, first of all, this person has to be composed, brave, discerning and unselfish. Without taking things, one cannot become a new man, and literature cannot become new literature.”17 Reviewing the full text of Take-​ism, “thinking carefully on our own to introduce Foreign culture” is advocated. Now we still need to do it by introducing all the good Western cultural (including philosophical) resources in accordance to meet our requirements for modernization, and for nourishing our modern new culture and new philosophy. This short article also mentions the give-​away-​ism. Lu Xun

148  Chinese Culture in Transition believes that what China’s “give-​away-​ism” are often antiques and natural resources, and the so-​called “promoting national glory” is nothing more than “kowtowing and congratulating” other countries, which has nothing to do with true cultural exchanges. Today, we should still advocate Lu Xun’s “take-​ism” by continuously introducing Western philosophy and the philosophy of other nationalities. Only when we have the ability and courage to take in the excellent culture of other nationalities and countries fully and systematically rather than piecemeal (with a narrow pragmatic attitude), can we revitalize our own culture. Only by observing our own culture from the perspective of cultures of other nationalities and countries as the “other,” can we better understand the strengths and downsides of our own culture. Recently, many scholars have delivered valuable opinions on the reason and the approach for introducing foreign cultures, so I intend to discuss more about “the give-​away-​ism” here. I have visited many universities in Europe and America, I am surprised that except for students who study Chinese culture, other students almost know nothing about Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy. However, even those Chinese college students who study science, technology, medicine and agriculture know about Western culture (philosophy, religion, history, literature, art etc.), some of whom are proficient in Western culture. Why? Maybe it’s because that China lags behind in all aspects and Western countries look down on us (including our culture and our philosophy), so they think there is nothing to learn in China. But I think it’s not that simple. A discussion of some historical phenomena may help us to have a further understanding of this issue. Indian Buddhism has been introduced into China for 2000 years, but how did it enter China? According to Hui Jiao’s Biography of Eminent Monks, Buddhism was first introduced into China by monks from the Western Regions or India, and then Chinese monks went to the “Western Heaven” to learn Buddhist scriptures. But Chinese culture (such as Confucianism and Taoism) did not spread to India in this period. According to the records of the Book of Tang, the New Book of Tang and the Biography of Eminent Monks of the Song Dynasty, Xuanzang, Tao Te Ching was translated into Sanskrit. However, but Ji Xianlin said, “We have no evidence to decide whether Tao Te Ching was spread to India or not.”18 However, we can certainly say that the Tao Te Ching translated by Xuanzang had no impact on Indian culture and was lost for a long time. In the Han and Tang Dynasties (and even later dynasties), a large number of Indian Buddhist classics were translated into Chinese,19 but why were Chinese classics works not translated into Sanskrit (or other Indian languages) to be spread in India and have an impact on India’s society? Historically, monks from India and Western Regions had been drawn to China since the 2nd century. They came almost every year, and often spend their entire lives in China. Chinese monks or believers went to the Western Regions or India to learn Buddhist scriptures as late as after the Three

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  149 Kingdoms period, Zhu Shixing was among the first ones, and later we have famous monks such as Faxian, Xuanzang and Yijing, but the monks from the Western Regions and India who came to China greatly outnumbered Chinese monks who went to the West. Moreover, the purpose of Chinese monks was simple and clear, that is, to learn Buddhist scriptures. They almost have no intention to introduce Chinese culture into India. Why? After the Sui and Tang Dynasties, Silla, Baiji, Koryo and Japan on the Korean Peninsula in the east of China sent “knowledge monks” or students to China to study Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, or even all aspects of Chinese culture (music, dance, architecture, diet etc.). There are Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism works, literature, history books, notes and novels in the bibliography brought from China by the monks of the Korean Peninsula and Japan at that time. Many Chinese classics now preserved on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan have long been lost in China. However, in the same period or later, we did not introduce the culture of the Korean Peninsula and Japan into China with the same enthusiasm. Why? But it is strange that some Chinese technologies were quickly spread abroad and utilized by foreign countries, a typical example being the so-​called “four great inventions” (gunpowder, printing, compass and papermaking). Some aspects of Western technology have undoubtedly benefited from China, but China has been far behind the West in science and technology in the past 200 or 300 years, which is a phenomenon that probably deserves our study. Western culture (Christianity) was introduced into China in the Tang Dynasty, but it had little impact then. In the second half of the 16th century, the West powers came to China in order to expand their market, first with a group of missionaries, such as Luo Mingjian and Matteo Ricci. Their purpose was naturally to preach, but they also brought Western science, technology and culture, and Western culture has been introduced into China continuously since then. Although the introduction was interrupted later due to the “etiquette dispute,” it was leveled up the mid-​19th century with the expansion and invasion of Western powers. Western missionaries also introduced Chinese culture to Europe, causing enthusiastic reaction in the European intellectual circles, such as Leibniz’s admiration for Chinese philosophy20 and Voltaire’s being called Confucius of Europe.21 However, their understanding of Chinese culture didn’t come from Chinese people, but from the introduction of Western missionaries. From the end of the 19th century to now, many aspects of natural science, social science and humanities of China are learned from the West, we still have not created a new Chinese culture that meets the requirements of a modern society. Meanwhile, since the beginning of the 20th century, a large number of public or self-​funded students flooded into the West, especially in recent years. In the first half of the 20th century, Western powers also set up many missionary schools in China to spread their scientific knowledge and values. At this stage, we learnt from the West by actively or passively accepting Western culture, but we rarely spread Chinese culture to the West. Why?

150  Chinese Culture in Transition Based on the above introduction, we can conclude that China almost entirely “took in” in cultural exchanges with foreign countries in both its prosperous period (such as Han and Tang Dynasties) and its weak period (such as after the late Qing Dynasty), and rarely “gave away” our culture. To this day, except for a few sinologists who are interested in Chinese culture and have studied some aspects of Chinese culture and made achievements (even among them, many study Chinese culture for the purpose of invasion and plunder), the vast majority of Westerners are ignorant of the internal spirit of Chinese culture and some resources that can contribute to the development of today’s human society. What they know about China is either dragon lantern dancing, stilt walking, Yangko dancing, or red lanterns. At the first week of the 21st century, I tried to find out the reasons for the above phenomena, but I struggled to find one or several reasonable explanations that could satisfy me. However, I can’t just abandon it and wait for other scholars’ explanation. Therefore, I will try to talk about my views on this phenomenon of Chinese culture here. I think the reason why we didn’t spread Chinese culture to India in our period of prosperity may be that some Chinese scholar bureaucrats at that time believed that foreigners and Chinese people were different in nature, and it was difficult for foreigners to accept China’s “Enlightenment.” As He Chengtian said, “Chinese people have a composed and peaceful nature with benevolence and righteousness, and therefore they are taught Confucianism. Westerners are barbarian and greedy, and therefore the strict five precepts were established.”22 But at the same time, there was the Sutra on the Conversion of the Barbarians, which concocted the story of Laozi going out of the passes to “educate” the Hu people (foreigners). Isn’t this contradictory? Especially at that time (Northern and Southern Dynasties) and later (Sui and Tang Dynasties), more Chinese scholars and monks believed that Indian Buddhism was superior to Chinese culture. Zhang Jing said that “China’s literary promotion is still struggling in the darkness,”23 and Emperor Wen of Song said “the six classics are used to govern the society, but if we want to seek the truth of nature and spirit, we must take the Buddhist Scriptures as our guide.”24 At that time, the offspring of notable families either became monks or believers.25 Buddhism was also immensely popular among common people. After the Song Dynasty, Neo-​Confucianism rose. It criticized Buddhism superficially, but actually absorbed Buddhism, embracing Buddhist ideas into Confucianism. At this time, although the Chinese people had different attitudes toward Buddhism, they generally hold an open attitude with confidence toward accepting foreign cultures. When Chinese culture was in decline, Chinese people’s attitudes toward foreign culture was still positive on the whole, especially in the 20th century with a serious tendency of “Total Westernization.” That is to say. To a certain extent, China has lost confidence in its cultural values.26 It is undoubtedly difficult to draw a conclusion acceptable to everyone about this complicated situation of Chinese culture. Here I will try to give an explanation and elicit others’ discussion. We may say that Chinese people are highly conscious and active in absorbing foreign

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  151 cultures, but this is not the case in spreading their own culture to the world. In further analysis, maybe this is related to our national character. In history, the Chinese people were quite tolerant toward foreign cultures, or Chinese culture was quite inclusive; but the Chinese people lacked the outward enterprising spirit, or Chinese culture lacked this spirit. In other words, when China was strong, we thought it as a “Celestial Empire,” so it’s natural for other nations or countries to come to China to learn, and there’s no need to spread Chinese culture. At the beginning of the decline of our national strength, we were still blindly arrogant, but then came the “inferiority complex” in the state of being invaded, and we felt inferior to others in all aspects. Whether it’s “arrogance” or “inferiority complex,” they all demonstrate our lack of enterprising spirit in spreading our culture. This may be related to our social and political system. Since ancient times, our society has been an agricultural patriarchal autocratic society based on family, which lacks pioneering spirit and values conservation. Therefore, we paid little attention to spreading our own culture and suppressed pioneering spirit in terms of system and concept, such as use sending people to remote areas as punishment and treat it as an ethical norm that “when parents being alive, we do not travel to the distance,” all these hindering us from spreading our culture to the world. I raise this question here with no intention of promoting cultural expansion to the world at all, but I believe that cultural exchanges should be two-​way, especially under the current circumstance, only two-​way exchanges can benefit both sides. Entering the 21st century, we need to accelerate transformation to an industrialized and even information-​based society. Therefore, we should also change our attitude toward cultural issues. When treating foreign cultures, we should pay more attention to “selectivity.” Lu Xun said, “When introducing foreign culture, we should think carefully to select by ourselves.” “Selectivity” is not to exclude anything, but to select what we really need in Western culture and other cultures from a wider range. When we are spreading Chinese culture to other countries and nations, we should have more “consciousness” and “pioneering” spirit. The “pioneering spirit” here does not aim to impose Chinese culture on other countries and nations (which is not only undesirable, but also impossible), but aim to have people of other countries understand China and its culture and philosophy. Therefore, our cultural exchanges with foreign countries should be two-​sided. On the one hand, we should embrace all foreign excellent cultures. On the other hand, we should actively introduce our excellent cultures to foreign countries, so as to jointly promote human culture through cultural dialogue and interaction. At present, economic globalization is greatly impacting the development of human society and culture. It will not eliminate the conflicts among different countries and nationalities, but in some cases exacerbate the conflicts because of different cultural traditions. Therefore, cultural conflict and cultural coexistence are discussed all over the world. We can promote mutual understanding and tolerance to achieve “peaceful coexistence,” or beget war caused by cultural isolation and hegemony. This choice will affect the fate of

152  Chinese Culture in Transition mankind in the 21st century. Currently, there are two harmful trends of cultural issues: cultural hegemonism and cultural tribalism. In order to maintain their hegemony, some Western countries are still advocating Western centrism of culture, while some countries who have achieved independence or rejuvenation want to stick to their local culture and exclude foreign cultures, so they fall into cultural tribalism. Today, China’s cultural circles are also affected by two trends to some extent. A few scholars advocate that Western culture should be “taken in” indiscriminately, and deny China’s traditional culture; some other scholars believe that Western culture has entered a dead end and that Oriental culture (or Chinese culture) will dominate human culture in the 21st century. I think neither of these two views is an objective and rational understanding of the trend of the development of the world and Chinese culture, and both of them adopt wrong attitudes toward the “Give Me Doctrine” or the “Give Away Doctrine.” Today, we should examine the relationship between different cultures from a new perspective and form a new landscape of cultural pluralism and openness. In the 21st century, due to economic globalization, the integration of science and technology and the popularization of information network, the world is connected, so the interaction and exchange among cultures will be inevitable. Cultures of all ethnic groups and countries cannot develop in isolation, but can only grow by mutual reference and mutual learning in negotiation and dialogue. At the same time, the collapse of the colonial system after the World War II was accompanied by the breakdown of the “Western centrism” in culture. Therefore, all nationalities and countries are increasingly demanding the development of the intrinsic value of their own culture, and it is becoming more and more difficult for developed countries, especially superpowers, to force others to fully accept their values. Hence, on the whole, today’s human culture can only be developed in the direction of diversification under the global consciousness. Under this circumstance, we should advocate both the “give-​away-​ism” and the “take-​ism,” so that Chinese culture can achieve more reasonable and healthy development in the two-​way interaction with other cultures. When it comes to the “give-​away-​ism,” some people may ask, “What part of Chinese culture can and should be spread?” and “if there is nothing valuable to today’s human society in our traditional culture, isn’t it just empty talk?” I would like to try to answer this question. Of course, it is impossible to comprehensively discuss all aspects of the contribution of Chinese culture to today’s human society, which is beyond my ability. I just want to take some thoughts of Confucianism and Taoism that are still beneficial to mankind as examples to explain why when advocating the “take-​ism,” we should also advocate the “give-​away -​ism.” Chinese philosophy is one single element in the diverse culture of today’s human society (and this “single element” actually contains “diversity”). With the coexistence of multiple cultures in the 21st century, we must define Chinese culture appropriately. We should note that in the long history of human society, no theory is perfect, and can solve all the problems in human

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  153 society, and there is no universal absolute truth. Like other national traditional cultures, Chinese traditional culture can provide valuable resources for the development of today’s human society (through modern interpretation), but some aspects of it cannot fit (or even hinder) the development of today’s human society, so we can’t consider Chinese culture as a panacea. Therefore, Chinese culture should learn from other cultures to enrich and update itself, so as to adapt to the new situation of economic globalization and cultural diversity. It is often said that the biggest problem facing human society today is the problem of “peace and development.” In the 21st century, if we want to achieve “peaceful coexistence,” we need to address the relationship of people, and the relationship among nations, countries and regions. As the backbone of Chinese traditional philosophy, Confucianism and Taoism have greatly impacted Chinese history, forming a situation of “complementarity between Confucianism and Taoism” in Chinese philosophy. So, can Confucianism and Taoism contribute to the “peace and development” today? In my opinion, the Confucian thought of “benevolence” and the Taoist thought of “non-​ interference” can probably provide some valuable resources in this regard. For the common and sustainable development of human society, we should not only address the interpersonal relationship, but also address the relationship between “man and nature.” The Confucian thought of “unity of heaven and man” and the Taoist thought of “treasuring nature” may provide some valuable resources. Of course, Buddhism, especially the philosophy of Chinese Buddhist sects (such as Tiantai Sect, Huayan sect and Zen sect) also played an important role in the history of Chinese philosophy, which is omitted here. Confucius, the founder of Confucianism, put forward the thought of “benevolence.” His student Fan Chi asked what “benevolence” was, and he replied, “To love people.” What is the basis of “to love people”? There is a sentence in Bamboo Slips from the Chu Dynasty Tomb of Guodian, which may help us to understand Confucius’ “benevolence.” “Tao begins with emotion.” That is, the relationship between people is initiated by feelings. Therefore, The Doctrine of the Mean quoted Confucius as saying, “The greatest love for people is the love for one’s parents.” Mencius said, “Loving one’s parents is benevolence.” “To love people” as human’s basic moral character was not born out of thin air, but developed from loving one’s relatives. However, “benevolence” must go further, to “put oneself in the place of another,” and “expand the respect of the aged in one’s family to that of other families; expand the love of the young ones in one’s family to that of other families.” This is not easy, we have to take the “loyalty and forgiveness” of “not doing to others what you do not want” and “the man of virtue, while establishing himself and pursing success, also working to establish others and enabling them to succeed as well” as the criterion of “benevolence.” If we extend “benevolence” to the whole society, then like what Confucius said, “The essential spirit of benevolence is to discipline yourself and restore the rituals. Once you have practiced that, the whole world will be filled with benevolence. It’s entirely up to oneself to practice benevolence, and you cannot depend on others.”

154  Chinese Culture in Transition The interpretation of “self-​discipline” and “ritual restoration” often treats them as two parallel relative aspects. I don’t think this is the best interpretation. As for the “essential spirit of benevolence is to discipline yourself and restore the rituals,” it means that only the “ritual restoration” based on “self-​ discipline” can be called “benevolence.” “Benevolence” is an internal morality of human (“love is benevolence,” “love comes from human nature”27); “rituals” is an external etiquette system to regulate people’s behavior, in order to regulate the relationship between people and make people live in harmony, and “harmony is the essential part of rituals.” People must abide by rituals consciously to meet the requirements of “benevolence.” Therefore, Confucius said, “It’s entirely up to oneself to practice benevolence, and you cannot depend on others.” Confucius clearly stated the relationship between “benevolence” and “rituals.” “How can one practice rituals without benevolence? How can one enjoy music without benevolence?” With the consciousness of pursuing “benevolence” and realizing it in daily social life, society will be harmonious and peaceful.” Once you have disciplined yourself and restored the rituals, the whole world will be filled with benevolence.” This daily practice of the thought based on “pursuing benevolence” (Confucius said, “I want benevolence, so benevolence comes.”) is “while seeking to understand the highest things, he lives a plain life.” The “highest things” require us to seek the ultimate ideal of philosophy (benevolence), while the “plain life” requires us to realize the ideal in our daily life, and they cannot be divided into separate parts. If we say that Confucius’ theory of benevolence fully discussed the relationship between “benevolence” and “man,” Mencius further explained the relationship between “benevolence” and “heaven.” For example, he said, “He who has exhausted all his mental constitution knows his nature. Knowing his nature, he knows Heaven.” Mencius said in Gaozi I, “The feeling of commiseration belongs to all men.” Zhu Xi explained it more clearly: the benevolent is “willing to benefit things in heaven and earth, and express warm love for people. They integrated the four virtues and the four ends” (Volume 67 of Zhu Xi’s Anthology). The “heavenly heart” is “benevolent,” the “human heart” cannot be separated from “benevolence,” and “human heart” and “heavenly heart” are connected. Therefore, the Confucian theory of “benevolence” is actually based on moral metaphysics, so the Doctrine of the Meanexplains, “Honesty is the Tao of heaven, and the pursuit of honesty is the fundamental principle of mankind.” Although this set of “benevolence” theory of Confucius cannot solve all the problems of “relationship between people” in today’s society, but as a moral requirement of “self-​discipline” based on moral metaphysics and a criterion to regulate “relationship between people,” it undoubtedly can help people live in harmony. Laozi’s thought of “non-​interference” thought may help us deal with the “relationship between people” from another aspect. The various disputes in human society today are undoubtedly caused by the greedy pursuit of power and money. Powerful countries expand their clout and plunder the resources of weak countries for their own interests, which is the root of the world’s

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  155 chaos. Laozi advocated “less selfishness” and “fewer desires” as the basic content of “non-​interference,” which is definitely of significance to today’s world. Do not take what doesn’t belong to you, and don’t harm others to meet your own desires. Laozi believes that the most important thing in governing the country is to let the people live and work in peace to recuperate. “Ruling a great country is like cooking a small dish.” (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 60). At the beginning of the Han Dynasty, there was the Rule of Wen and Jing, during which non-​interference was practiced, so production was developed and the society was stabilized. Therefore, Laozi quoted an ancient sage that “I do not act, and people become reformed by themselves. I am at peace, and people become fair by themselves. I do not interfere, and people become rich by themselves. I have no desire to desire, and people become like the uncarved wood by themselves.” (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 57). I think we can re-​interpret these sentences to adapt them to the modern society. We may explain it in this way: the more a country interferes with the people, the more difficult it is for the society to be peaceful; the more interference with other countries, the more chaos in the world; in a country, the more the rulers want to control the words and deeds of the people, the more difficult it is for the society to get on the right track; if a strong country uses force or threat of force indiscriminately, the world will be turbulent and disorderly; a ruler of a country who constantly troubles the people will make people’s life more difficult; if powerful countries plunder weak countries in the name of helping them, the weak countries will become poorer; in a country, the greater the rulers’ insatiable desire, the more likely corruption will prevail, and the social morality will be materialistic and corruptive; developed countries will compete for wealth with greater and greater desire, and the world will become an immoral society. Therefore, I think “non-​interference” may be fit-​for-​purpose for the rulers inside countries and the leaders of all countries. It is a sound principle of governing the world that enables human society to “self-​transform,” “self-​correct,” “self-​attained richness” and “self-​attained simplicity.” In Tao Te Ching, the thought of “rule of non-​interference” is illustrated. So how did the sages manage to rule by non-​ interference? Laozi said, “The sage has no concern for himself, but makes the concerns of others his own.” (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 49). This demonstrates that Laozi knew that in order to achieve social stability, we must “comply with the people’s conditions,” which means applying with the nature of the people. Then although the leader is in a dominant position, the people will not feel that they are burdened or hindered, so they will naturally support the ruler. When the sage stands above people, they are not oppressed. When he leads people, they are not obstructed. The world will exalt him, and not grow tired of him. (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 66) People starve. The rulers consume too much with their taxes. That is why people starve. People are hard to govern. The rulers interfere with too much.

156  Chinese Culture in Transition That is why people are hard to govern. People take death lightly. They expect too much of life. That is why people take death lightly. (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 75) To do this, the rulers (sages) must “lessen selfishness and restrain desires.” (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 19). Therefore, Laozi believes that There is no greater crime than desire. There is no greater disaster than discontent. There is no greater misfortune than greed. Therefore, to have enough of enough is always enough. (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 46) With the increasing emphasis on desires in today’s society, Laozi’s thought must be meaningful to restore our declining social atmosphere today. Russell said in The History of Western philosophy, “Descartes’s Philosophy... completed or almost completed the spiritual and material dualism initiated by Plato and developed through Christian philosophy mainly for religious reasons... The Descartes system puts forward two parallel and independent worlds of the spiritual world and the material world, and the study of one doesn’t need to involve the other.”28 However, Chinese traditional philosophy has different opinions. Confucianism believes that the study of “heaven” (the Tao of heaven) must know “man” (the Tao of man); similarly, the study of “man” must involve the study of “heaven,” which is the Confucian thought of “unity of heaven and man.” Cheng Yi, a Confucian of the Song Dynasty, said, “Are there anyone who knows the Tao of man way but doesn’t know the Tao of heaven way? There is only one unified Tao, the Tao of man and the Tao of heaven cannot be separated” (Volume 18 of Henan Cheng’s Final Note) According to Confucian Philosophy, “heaven” and “man” cannot be divided into two parts, let alone be regarded as an external opposition relationship. We can’t study one of them without involving the other. Confucius said, “People promote the Tao, but the Tao promotes people.” The “Tao of heaven” should be carried forward by people. Zhu Xi said, “Heaven is man, and man is heaven. Humankind is derived from heaven; and since man was born, heaven will be revealed by man wholly.” (Volume 17 of Analects of Zhu Xi). If there is no “man,” “heaven” will have no liveness, no rationality and no purpose. Then how can it show its lively atmosphere? How to “build spiritual values for the society”? To “build spiritual values for the society” is to “endow people with the meaning of life,” which cannot be separated. In discussing the different views of Chinese culture and Western culture on the “relationship between heaven and man” here, I have no intention to deny the value of Western culture. Western culture has its own unique values, and has had a great impact on the development of human society in recent two or three centuries. However, at the end of the 20th century, the disadvantages brought by Western philosophy to human society are more and more obvious. Its disadvantages are related to the “dichotomy between heaven and man.” Many

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  157 scholars in the East and the West have already realized this. For example, in 1992, 1575 scientists published Warning of World Scientists to Mankind, and at the beginning they wrote, “Mankind and nature are on a conflicting road.” Therefore, I think on remedying the disadvantages brought by Western culture and providing a concept to contribute to the development of human society in the 21st century, the concept of “unity of heaven and man” will undoubtedly be of great significance. So how does Confucianism demonstrate “unity of heaven and man”? In the Analects of Confuciu, Gongyechang, Zi Gong says, “We can hear the teacher’s narration about documents; we can’t hear the teacher’s remarks about human nature and heaven.” Confucius’s discussion of “nature and the Tao of heaven” is indeed rarely recorded in the Analects of Confucius, but we can’t say that Confucius hadn’t considered this issue.29 “Nature” is “human nature,” which is a problem related to “man” itself; The “Tao of Heaven” is about the rule of “heaven,” that is, the law of the universe. Therefore, “nature and the Tao of heaven” are about the relationship between heaven and man. Confucius said, “Our nature is quite similar while habit makes us different.” There is a paragraph in the bamboo slip Chengzhiwenzhi unearthed in Guodian that can be a footnote to this quote, “Sages and mediocre people are similar in human nature. They were not different when they were born, and the same is true for people below the mediocre level. People are the same in nature, and only become different because of their living environments.”30 Confucius did not say whether human nature is “good,” “evil” or “neutral.” Therefore, later Confucianism had different interpretations of “human nature.”31 Then where does “human nature” come from? The Doctrine of the Mean says that “the mandate of heaven is nature.” The “human nature” is given by “heaven.” There is a similar saying in Guodian Chu Slips, “Nature comes from mandate, and mandate comes from heaven.” The “mandate” here refers to the “mandate” of “heaven.” The “mandate” comes from “heaven,” and is beyond the reach of human beings, so it’s a transcendental power. In ancient China, there were various views on “heaven.” Confucius and Mencius of Confucianism generally believed that “heaven” is not only a transcendental power external to human beings, “life and death are determined by fate, and wealth and ranks decreed by heaven”; but a dominant power internal to human beings, “Preserve your kindness and maintain your nature, so as to treat destiny. No matter how long or short your life span is, your attitude should be the same. You just cultivate yourself and wait for destiny. This is the way to establish a normal destiny.” (Mencius-​Jin Xin I). Confucius said that “At age fifty, one knows the mandate of heaven” and “knowing mandate of heaven” means that one can fully realize the “nature” derived from “heaven” to follow its requirements. Therefore, “the unity of heaven and man” has always been the basic thought of Confucianism. Guodian Chu Slips –​Yu Cong. I put it that “Know what heaven does, know what people do, you will know Tao, and then know destiny.” Knowing both the operation law of “heaven” (universe) and the operation law of “man” (Society) is called “knowing Tao.” Knowing

158  Chinese Culture in Transition “Tao” and then knowing “heaven” is the power (destiny) that dominates “man.” Therefore, in Yu Cong I, it is said that “changes integrate the Tao of heaven and humanity.” The Book of Changes discusses the issue of “the unity of heaven and man.”32 Wang Fuzhi wrote in Commentary on Zheng Meng, Since the Han Dynasty, people have studied the Tao of gentlemen, but they did not know that the study of sages is the Taoist foundation of humankind. However, Zhou Zi Shou of Lianxi used Taiji to study the origin of the unity of heaven and man. The birth of man is because of the mandate of heaven, and the essence of its divination becomes the nature of man. Therefore, the natural principle of daily things is nothing more than the natural order of Yin and Yang changes, which cannot be violated. This remark can be said to be a great explanation of Confucian thought on “the unity of heaven and man.” The “Tao of man” is derived from the “Tao of heaven.” The discussion of the “Tao of man” must involve the “Tao of heaven” and vice versa. This is because the principle of “the unity of heaven and man” is not only the “natural principle of daily things” of the “Tao of man,” but also the “natural order of Yin and Yang changes” of the “Tao of heaven,” and the “principle” of the “Tao of man” and the “order” of the “Tao of heaven” is consistent and cannot be violated. In this way, the Confucian theory of “unity of heaven and man” has important philosophical metaphysical significance. It is a feature of Chinese Confucianism to study the “Tao of man” and the “Tao of heaven” together. This philosophical thinking mode can contribute to human society and address the relationship between “man and nature” better exactly because it’s different from the thinking mode of Western philosophy. As early as more than 2000 years ago, the great Chinese philosopher Laozi put forward the theory that “man follows earth, earth follows heaven, heaven follows Tao, and Tao follows nature” from his understanding of the harmony of the universe itself. It reveals a law that should be followed. The characteristics of “Tao” are natural (“Tao” takes “nature” as its law). In the final analysis, people should follow the nature of “Tao” and conform to “nature,” so the sage does not act and therefore does not fail.” (Tao Te Ching –​ Chapter 64). Why should they follow the nature of “Tao”? Laozi believes that “man” and “nature” are relative, people often violate “nature.” And they will be punished for doing this. Therefore, Laozi said that the characteristic of the “Tao” as the universal law is “natural and non-​interfering.”33 It does not command everything on earth to do anything,34 so people should not destroy nature. Zhuangzi, a Taoist philosopher later than Laozi, proposed “the supreme harmony of everything,” which means that there is a perfect harmonious relationship among everything, so people should “follow the laws of heaven, act with the five virtues, and respond to nature.” People should abide by the laws of heaven and regulate their behavior according to the five virtues to meet the requirements of nature. Therefore, Zhuangzi emphasizes

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  159 that people should comply with the “nature,” such as “following the nature of things,” “responding to the nature of things” and so on. Zhuangzi believes that the ancient times is an era of harmony between man and nature. At that time, human society “did not do anything to destroy nature, but complied with nature. There is a story in Zhuangzi –​In Response to High Kings: Tiao was the emperor of the South Sea, Hu was the emperor of the North Sea, and Hundun was the emperor of the central land. Tiao and Hu often met each other at land of Hundun, who treated them very well. Tiao and Hu wanted to repay the virtue of Hundun, saying, “All people have seven apertures in their heads but Hundun had no apertures. We will try to chisel them.” They chisel one aperture every day, and Hundun died in seven days. This story seems a little extreme, but the thought it wants to express is very profound. Human beings are part of nature, so we must not develop nature indiscriminately. If we destroy nature, how can human beings survive in it? Today, human beings’ excessive development of nature has resulted in waste of resources, thinning of the ozone layer, marine poisoning and environmental pollution. Under such circumstances, the Taoist theory of “advocating nature” should be valued. The reason why people should not destroy “nature” is based on the idea that “Tao follows nature.” Tao is the most basic concept in the Taoist theory of Laozi and Zhuangzi. Laozi believes that “Tao” is nameless and invisible, but nourishes all things. Zhuangzi believes that “Tao” is insubstantial and nameless but gives birth to everything. According to them, “Tao” is not a specific thing, but the basis for the existence of everything in heaven and earth and the noumenon that transcends everything. Therefore, Laozi said, “The Tao that can be spoken of is not the constant Tao,” but “Tao” is “the mother of the world” and “the origin of everything”; Zhuangzi said that “the Tao cannot be named” but “the Tao exists in everything,” “the Tao is the origin of everything. If things do not conform to the Tao, they will die, and if they comply with the Tao, they will survive. If you do things against the Tao, you will fail, and if you follow the Tao, you will succeed.” (Zhuangzi, Fisherman). It is precisely because “Tao” is nameless and invisible (even “insubstantial”)35 that it can be the basis for the existence of everything in heaven and earth. However, “Tao” exists in everything, so Laozi regards “Tao” as “the door of all wonderful things,” and Zhuangzi says “Tao is everywhere.” This view of the inseparability of “Tao” and “tool” and the unity of “body” and “use” is exactly the basis for “man” to follow “Tao.” It’s also an expression of “the unity of heaven and man” as a mode of thinking. From this point of view, Taoism has something in common with Confucianism in the mode of thinking. Therefore, people should act according to the requirements of “Tao”; while “Tao” takes “nature and non-​interreference” as the law, so people should advocate “nature” and “non-​interreference.” Laozi and Zhuangzi’s theory of

160  Chinese Culture in Transition “conforming to nature” is actually founded on the philosophical ontology based on the transcendental “Tao.” At the same time, Laozi constructed a model of cosmogenesis for Chinese philosophy. He said, “The Way gave birth to one. One gave birth to two. Two gave birth to three. Three gave birth to all things. All things carry yin and embrace yang. They reach harmony by blending with the vital breath.” (Tao Te Ching –​Chapter 42). It has been interpreted in various ways, however which shows that Laozi believes that the universe is a differentiation process from simple to complex, accepted by many scholars. According to Laozi, the original state of the universe is a harmonious unity. It is precisely because the differentiation that the universe becomes more and more complex and further away from the “Tao,” so people should “return to the origin,” “return to the root” and return to the “Tao.” Only in this way can the disadvantages of “man-​doing” can be removed. Taoism’s cosmogenesis is also the philosophical basis for requiring people to conform to nature. That is to say. the ontology and cosmogenesis of Laozi and Zhuangzi’s Taoism have a significant impact on Chinese philosophy. When studying Taoism thoughts, we should recognize its great significance to the construction of today’s philosophy. From the above analysis, we may say that Confucianism is humanism based on moral cultivation and dedication, which can contribute to today’s society in improving people’s internal morality; Taoism is naturalism based on derogation of desire, which can contribute to the society in helping people adapt to nature and return to their internal nature. The “benevolence theory” of Confucianism and “non-​interference” of Taoism and their thinking mode of “unity of heaven and man” can also contribute to today’s society. That is to say. Chinese culture can not only play a significant role in adjusting “the relationship between man and man” and “man and nature,” but also make great contributions to the development of philosophy in the 21st century by its thinking mode and metaphysical philosophy. However, if we exaggerate the significance of Confucianism, its humanism will become Pan Moralism; if we exaggerate the significance of Taoism, its naturalism will make no difference. Similarly, if Chinese philosophers do not embrace the spirit of emphasizing knowledge system and logical analysis of Western philosophy, and view our philosophical problems from the perspective of the “other” of Western philosophy, then it will be difficult for Chinese philosophy to overcome its intuition to some degree and achieve a higher level. Therefore, we must give a new interpretation and appropriate positioning to Confucianism and Taoism, so as to make them be of modern significance. In today’s society, all nationalities and countries can probably find resources from their cultural traditions that can contribute to the society. However, all nationalities and countries should note that their cultural traditions can only make contributions to some issues but not all the issues existing in human society. As one culture in a multi-​ cultural world, Chinese culture should be given an appropriate position. If Chinese culture is to be in the forefront of human culture in the 21st century, we should take advantage of its inherent vitality, eliminate its outdated and

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  161 problematic parts. Besides, we should embrace the modern factors of other cultures, and introduce excellent cultures of other countries and nations, so as to renew our culture, constantly adapt it to the modern society. By doing so, we can contribute to addressing the problem in “peace and development” and philosophical issues of ultimate concern to mankind, which is the true welling of Chinese nation. At the same time, in today’s international landscape, we should take our responsibility to share our excellent culture with a 5000-​year history and form a harmonious symphony with the excellent cultures of other countries and nations to contribute to the 21st century. Why should I discuss the “take-​ ism” and the “give-​ away-​ ism” in the “General Introduction” of A History of the Introduction of Western philosophy into China in the 20th Century? This is because we should not only emphasize the necessity of continuing to introduce Western philosophy, but also observe Western philosophy from the perspective of Chinese philosophy. Only in this way can Chinese philosophy better understand its internal value and carry forward its internal spirit on the basis of constantly absorbing Western philosophy.

5 There are several issues to be clarified. (1) In the 20th century, Western philosophy was introduced into China, which brought about a giant impact on Chinese academic culture, so it entered a more profound cultural transformation period than when Indian Buddhism was introduced. In the period of cultural transformation, in the field of academic culture, the development of academic culture is often diverse. It is precisely because of the coexistence of radicalism, reformism and conservatism and the tension and struggle of the three forces that academic culture can gain healthy development. The culturally joint forces of different trends can promote cultural progress. When cultural radicalism, reformism and conservatism coexist, we can’t judge their values with a dogmatic value standard in different situations. In particular, we can’t judge them with some additional ideological standard, so as to develop academic culture healthily. That is to say. We should make an unbiased evaluation of the different roles the three forces play in China’s cultural development under different circumstances, so that we can make a practical analysis of the history of China’s cultural development over the past century. We should note that at certain stages of the cultural transformation period, radicals often could break the rigid old tradition and open up new cultural development; however, if the radicalism is extreme, it will become a far-​left trend of thought that completely denies the tradition. Conservatives, on the other hand, can keep the tradition alive and protect the tradition’s potential; however, if conservatism locks itself in outdated traditions, it will become

162  Chinese Culture in Transition narrow nationalism. Reformists can propose new issues and new aspects of thinking for the development of culture and create a broader space for our culture; however, if reformism expands itself without attaching to reality, it will become relativism. Therefore, the merits and demerits of the three forces should be analyzed realistically according to the specific circumstances. At the same time, we should also recognize that cultural transformation period is by no means a short period. It took three or four hundred years from the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period to the Western Han Dynasty for Confucianism to become orthodox; and 300 or 400 years from the Wei and Jin Dynasties to the Sui and Tang Dynasties for Buddhism to achieve dominance; Only 100 years have passed since the end of the 19th century. Therefore, it is likely that there will be a long period before Chinese culture goes through the transition period and forms a new cultural tradition that fits the development trend of world culture. Here I need to answer a question. Some scholars believe that it is too simple to divide the camp of academic culture into radicalism, reformism and conservatism, and this division may give people the wrong message that it is connected with the political division. Indeed, in the 20th century, China’s academic and cultural circles were very complex. If we analyze all the influential scholars in the academic and cultural circles one by one, we will find that they are all different. For example, Ye Qing and Ai Siqi, both belonging to the radical faction in the 1930s, are very different; Zhang Dongsun and Jin Yuelin are both reformists, but the former was influenced by Neo-​Kantianism while the latter was basically an analytical philosopher; conservative Liang Shuming and Xiong Shili also have fundamental differences in their attitudes toward Buddhism. There are many examples like these. If we research problems in this way (of course, this kind of research is also necessary), we can’t conduct classified research on scholars. Our classification of Chinese academic and cultural circles in the 20th century is only based on the scholars’ different attitudes toward “tradition” and “modernity,” and the basic tendency of a scholar’s lifetime (or the basic tendency of the period in which the scholar has the most influence on academic culture). We know that the ideological tendency of a famous and influential scholar will also change in his lifetime. For example, Yan Fu, the first scholar to introduce Western reformism, became a cultural conservative later on, but we can still regard him as the representative of early reformism, because he contributed a lot to Chinese academic culture at that time. Later, as a conservative, he was not that important to the culture. As for the issue that the division will be connected with political division, in my opinion, academic and cultural factions and different political attitudes are two different issues with no inevitable connections. In the first half of the 20th century, many radicals, reformists and conservatives in culture opposed the autocratic rule of the Kuomintang and the corruption of the ruling bureaucrats together. By

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  163 the early 1950s, many scholars with different academic and cultural tendencies agreed on socialism, and their political attitude also changed after the mid-​1950s, but it’s just a fact with nothing to do with their academic culture. This is why I have repeatedly stated that dividing the academic and cultural circles since the May Fourth movement into radicalism, reformism and conservatism is only based on their attitudes toward the relationship of “tradition” and “modernity.” It is very necessary for academic research to classify its objects, so that we can explore the essential characteristics of different types, so as to grasp the essence of things from the surface of them. Therefore, although it is important to analyze the “individuality” (particularity) of each thing, it is equally important and, in some situations, even more important to reveal the “commonality” of a certain kind of things. Of course, there will still be differences in the objects of the same classification, but there are obvious “commonalities” in the standards we set (for example, we set different attitudes toward “tradition” and “modernity” as the classifying standard). In this sense, the division is necessary. (2) For more than a hundred years, there has been the “dispute between ancient and modern China and the West” in Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy. I think there are two opinions on this issue. One view holds that the dispute between “China and the West” is a dispute between “ancient and modern,” which is mostly held by the overall Westernization school; another view is that the dispute between “China and the West” is not a dispute between “ancient and modern,” which is mostly held by the nationalists. In the debate at that time, there were indeed “ancient and modern” issues in the dispute between “China and the West,” such as pursuing “science and democracy” or not, whether “the three cardinal guides and the five constant virtues” and “three rules and four virtues” fit the modern society, and whether the ritual and music system that maintains the autocratic system is reasonable. These issues are about the necessity of getting out of the “pre-​modern” period and the dispute between “ancient and modern,” which is an issue of the times. However, not all “Chinese and Western” issues are related to “ancient and modern” issues, such as Confucius’s thought of “life and the Tao of heaven,” “unity of heaven and man,” “unity of knowledge and practice,” “resisting high ranks with morality,” “advocating harmony” and “harmony in diversity,” especially the human’s subjective consciousness characterized by internal transcendence. These thoughts don’t lose their significance because they are different from Western culture, or because of the changes of the times. They can be “renewed day by day” with the development of our national culture. Therefore, we can say that it is because of these far-​reaching thoughts and the new interpretation of these thoughts in different historical periods that our national culture can play a unique role in today’s cultural development. Today’s world is closely connected, so the world culture can only be developed in the process of cultural diversity with

164  Chinese Culture in Transition the global consciousness. “Global consciousness” is about our times and “commonalities” of cultural development; “Diversified development of culture” is about national characteristics expressed by various national cultures and the “individuality” of cultural development. Nowadays, the development of any national culture should reflect the combination of “commonalities” and “individuality,” and “times” and “nationality.” For more than a hundred years, the dispute between “ancient and modern China and the West” in Chinese philosophy is likely to be caused by the failure to achieve the combination. Entering the 21st century, although the dispute will still exist, we should strive to get over it and according to the new situation of initiating China’s academic culture, absorb the essence of Western culture (and that of all other cultures) on the basis of carrying forward the fine traditions of Chinese culture, which is undoubtedly the direction of our culture’s development. (3) In the history of China’s cultural development over the past 100 years, the dispute is often manifested in the separation of “enlightenment,” “national salvation” and “academia,” or the beliefs that ideological enlightenment is hindered because “national salvation” outweighs “enlightenment”; or that “enlightenment” and “national salvation” impedes the free development of “academia”; or that “researching just for academic purposes” obstructs social progress. I think these views only notice one facet of the issue. The development of Chinese academic culture not only needs “enlightenment,” but also must pay attention to the real social problems and the destiny of the country and nation. Meanwhile, we should also allow “researching just for academic purposes” and “making art for art.” Since ancient times, Chinese intellectuals have a sense of social responsibility and historical mission for our nation and culture. Whether they want to enter the “central stage” from the “periphery” or shy away from the “central stage,” they should be recognized if they have contributed to the development of national culture and philosophy. Especially when the society is relatively stable, “researching just for academic purposes” allowed some scholars to explore the philosophical issues of ultimate concern about the fate of human society without considering the immediate utility. The metaphysical issues that are far away from “reality” but in the “spiritual reality” should still be emphasized. We should also value the collation and interpretation of Chinese traditional culture and philosophy (including the newly discovered and excavated relics) through new ideas and methods. Therefore, whether academic culture is used to “enlighten,” or to serve the objective of “enriching the country and strengthening the army,” or to conduct “pure academic” researches, it will promote the development of Chinese academic culture and make Chinese culture and the Chinese nation obtain their due status in the world. At present, our academic and cultural circles may attach too much importance to immediate utility, and too little to “pure academic” research.

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  165 Particularly the idea of “regarding science as superior to liberal arts” has exerted a great impact for a long time, which is not a good thing for the development of our academic culture and the revival of our philosophy. Now, the Chinese intellectual community should have a broader mind, adhering to the development direction chosen by itself and respecting the development direction chosen by others at the same time in the process of developing Chinese culture, so as to achieve “harmony in diversity,” which may be more in line with the “Doctrine of the Mean” of Chinese culture and establish a new fashion for Chinese academic and cultural circles. A History of the Introduction of Western philosophy into China in the 20th Century hopes to make an objective (of course, also with the subjectivity of the authors) description, comment and outlook of the foundation, conflicts, development and trend of Chinese philosophy under the impact of Western philosophy in the past 100 years. There are many ways to write this multi volume and nearly five-​million-​word book. We can divide the history of the introduction of Western philosophy into several periods and make horizontal descriptions and comments of the various schools of Western philosophy. We can also describe and comment on the history of the schools’ introduction into China in separate volumes according to the time sequence of their introduction. A History of the Introduction of Western Philosophy into China in the 20th Century is divided into 14 volumes, General Introduction, Evolutionary Thought in China, Voluntarism in China, Pragmatism in China, Marxism in China, New Realism in China, Analytical Philosophy in China, German Classical Philosophy in China, Structuralism and Deconstruction in China, Phenomenology in China, Postmodernism in China, Christian Philosophy in China, Western Philosophy from the Perspective of Chinese Philosophy, and Western Philosophy in Hong Kong and Taiwan, each volume attached with an index of relevant materials and researches for readers’ reference. We used the latter way of writing, which does not mean that the former way is inappropriate, but that the latter may be easier for us to grasp. Most of the writers we invite are scholars who study a certain Western philosophy school or the history of the school’s spread in China, so the second way can fully manifest their research results; moreover, the writer’s research on a certain school often spans different historical stages. If this book is to be written according to historical stages, one volume will involve several writers, leading to contradictions and inconsistencies in the same volume due to the writers’ different opinions. Of course, there will also be inconsistencies even if we adopt the second way, but readers can clearly know the different views of each writer and better understand the development of a certain school of Western philosophy in China. Therefore, in addition to the unity of style and basic norms (such as introducing the translation works, development history, contributions and comments of the school), there is no requirement for unity in academic views, as long as the views are valid and reasonable. “Contention of hundreds of schools”

166  Chinese Culture in Transition is one of the principles of this book. If we regard the 14 volumes as a whole, this set of books will also enable us to understand all aspects of the introduction of Western philosophy in the 20th century and their respective influences in China. As the editor in chief of this set, I’m just an organizer. Of course, I have my opinions on the spread of Western philosophy in China in the 20th century and its influence. Some opinions are the same as those of the writers of this book, and some are not necessarily the same. This is natural, “academic” issues cannot have only one voice, and scholars must have the permission to speak out their own ideas. Without “academic freedom,” “academia” will not develop, or even will regress or die. We should be cautious about this. There are still some insufficiencies in this 14-​volume book organized by the Academy of Chinese culture and the Institute of Chinese Philosophy and Culture of Peking University. For example, we do not have volumes of “Greek Philosophy in China” and “French Philosophy of the 18th Century in China.” It’s not that we don’t consider these aspects to be of value, but we have generally covered them in Volume I. Moreover, we haven’t found suitable writers for these volumes, which is a bit regrettable! Fourteen volumes of A History of the Introduction of Western philosophy into China in the 20th Century plus 14 volumes of relevant materials cannot be completed in a short time if it had not been for the joint efforts of more than 20 writers and the close cooperation of comrades of Capital Normal University Press with us. As the editor in chief, I was mainly responsible for organizing. Here, I would like to express my deep gratitude to all writers and comrades of Capital Normal University Press. June 15, 2001 Revised on June 9, 2002

Notes 1 It was originally an excerpt from A History of the Introduction of Western Philosophy into China in the 20th Century, Beijing, Capital Normal University Press, 2002. 2 See “The Value Resources of the Principle of ‘Harmony in Diversity’,” in Contemporary Scholars’ Selected Essays –​Tang Yijie Volume, pp. 695–​699, Hefei, Anhui Education Press, 1999. 3 Speaking of Eastern thought, Hegel says, “We haven’t yet found philosophical knowledge here,” and of Confucius he says, “Confucius is only a practical wise man, in whom there is no philosophy of discernment at all –​only some good, sophisticated, moral lessons from which we can obtain nothing special.” (Hegel: Lectures on the History of Philosophy, pp. 97, 119, Beijing, The Commercial Press, 1978.) 4 See my book On Matteo Ricci’s Attempt to Merge Eastern and Western Cultures, China Forum, Taiwan, March 25, 1989. 5 See Sun Shangyang, Christianity and Confucianism in the Late Ming Dynasty, p. 226, Beijing, Oriental Publishing House, 1994. 6 Collection of Yan Fu, Vol. 3, pp. 557–​558, Beijing, Zhonghua Book Company, 1986. 7 Collection of Yan Fu, Volume I, p. 23. 8 See Chen Duxiu: French People and Modern Civilization, Youth Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 1, September 1915.

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  167 9 See Wang Shuqian: Old and New Problems, Youth Magazine, 1915 (12). 10 See Cheng Fu, “Static Civilization and Dynamic Civilization,” Oriental Magazine, 1916 (10). 11 The English version was originally entitled The History of Pre-​Qin Ming Studies. Xie Wuliang’s History of Chinese Philosophy was published in 1916, earlier than Hu Shi’s Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy. Since then, many books on the history of Chinese philosophy have been published. I won’t list them one by one here. 12 In Volume II of Analects of Xiong Shili, the quotation can be found in The Opening Lecture of Fuxing Academy and Answering a Student in The First Reading of Analects of Xiong Shili. 13 See Zhang Yaonan, Zhang Dongsun, in the World Philosophy Series, Taipei, Dongda Book Company, 1998. 14 For example, He Lin, Chen Kang, Zheng Xin, Hong Qian, Xiong Wei, Huang Jianzhong, Shen Youding and others strove in this regard, see He Lin, Chinese Philosophy in the Past 50 Years, Shenyang, Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 1989; and Zhao Dunhua: Chinese Interpretation of Western Philosophy, Harbin, Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House, 2002; In the first half of the 20th century, Zhao Zichen, Xie Fuya and Wu leichuan tried to localize Christianity, see Zhang Xiping and Zhuo Xinping: A Probe into Nature, Beijing, China Radio and television press, 1999. 15 Jaspers, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, p. 14, Beijing, Huaxia Publishing House, 1989. 16 In the fifth issue of volume 10 of Philosophical Review, there is Xiong’s Comprehensive Book on Philosophy with Professor Bert, and Chinese Philosophy and Western Philosophy is included in Volume 4 of Xiong Shili’s Complete Works (Wuhan, Hubei Education Press, 2001). It can be seen from these works that he had limited knowledge about Western philosophy in the 20th century. 17 Lu Xun, Demi-​Concession Studio Essays, the Complete Works of Lu Xun, Vol. VI, p. 33. 18 For the content here, see The Reverse Flow of Buddhism, Ji Xianlin’s Anthology, Vol. I, pp. 412–​422. It can also be found in Roaming in the Sea of Knowledge, Ji Xianlin’s Autobiography,” pp. 254–​255, Taiyuan, Shanxi People’s Publishing House, 2000. 19 According to the records of Kaiyuanlu of the Tang Dynasty, 1420 volumes of Buddhist scriptures were translated during the 250 years from the Han Dynasty to the Western Jin Dynasty, while 1716 volumes of Buddhist scriptures were translated during the Eastern Jin Dynasty (including the late Qin, Western Qin, Former Liang and Northern Liang in the north in the same period). By the time of the completion of Kaiyuanlu, the number had reached more than 5040 volumes. 20 Leibniz said, “in China, to some extent, there is a morality that is extremely admired by mankind, and there is a philosophy or a deism, which is respected because of its antiquity” (translated by Pang Jingren: Leibniz’s Two Letters to Grimaldi, published in Research on the History of Chinese Philosophy, 1981 (3), 1982 (1, 2)), Reichwein said, in the Enlightenment Movement, “Leibniz was the first to understand the great spiritual impact of Chinese culture on Western development” (translated by Zhu Jieqin: China and Europe: Intellectual and Aristic Contacts in the Eighteenth Century, p. 69, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1991).

168  Chinese Culture in Transition 21 In Voltaire’s Epistles, a young man named Richard wrote to Voltaire: “you are the Confucius of Europe and the greatest philosopher in the world” (quoted from Meng Hua: Voltaire and Confucius, Beijing, Xinhua Press, 1993). 22 He Chengtian: Answering Zongjushi, Explain the Questioning, Hongming Collection, Volume III. 23 See Zhang Xinan (Zhang Jing was the prefecture chief of Xinan): Answering Qiao Wang’s Interpretation of Confucius, see Hongming Collection, Volume XII. 24 Quoted in Biography of Eminent Monks, Biography of Hui Yan. For details, refer to Tang Yongtong, History of Buddhism in Han, Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties, ­chapters 13 and 14. 25 Such as Daoan’s “family background of scholars” (Volume V of Biography of Eminent Monks), Dao Sheng’s “influential family” (Volume VII of Biography of Eminent Monks), Seng Hui’s “notable family” (Volume VIII of Biography of Eminent Monks). Scholars who advocated Buddhism are too numerous to mention, like Xie Lingyun, Liu Xie, Ying Chao in the Northern and Southern Dynasties, and Wang Wei, Bai Juyi, Liu Zongyuan in the Tang Dynasty. 26 Entering the 20th century, there has always been a dispute between “ancient and modern China and the West,” and there are three attitudes toward Chinese culture, radical, conservative and reformative, while the introduction of Westernization by the radicals has been dominant for a long time. See my book The Dispute between Ancient and Modern China and the Development of Modern Chinese Culture, which is included in Tang Yijie’s Academic and Cultural Essays, Beijing, China Youth Publishing House, 1996. 27 Bamboo Slips from the Chu Dynasty Tomb of Guodian (Beijing, Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1998) includes Wuhang, “Be kind to your parents is love. If you expand this love to others, it’s called benevolence.” The Tao of Tangyu, “the expansion of filial piety is to love all man.” Yucong, “love is benevolence.” “Love comes from human nature.” 28 Russell, translated by Ma Yuande, The History of Western Philosophy, Vol. 2, p. 91, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1988. 29 In the Analects of Confucius, Taibo, it is said that “heaven is great, people should follow the law of heaven.” Ji Shi wrote, “a gentleman has three fears, fear of the mandate of heaven, fear of the lords and fear of the words of sages,” which believes that “the mandate of heaven” is consistent with “the words of sages.” All this shows Confucius’ view on the “relationship between heaven and man.” 30 Li Ling said in the Proofreading Notes of Guodian Chu Slips that “Cheng may be the name of the author.” We can’t be sure about from whom Cheng heard this; did he hear it from Confucius’ disciples or the disciples of Confucius’ disciples? The Proofreading Notes was published in Research on Taoist culture, Vol. 17, Beijing, Sanlian Bookstore, 1998. 31 The first part of Zhang Binglin’s Discriminating Nature states, “there are five schools inside Confucianism about human nature, Gaozi believes that human nature is neutral. Mencius considers it to be good. Sun Qing, evil. Yangzi, a mix of good and evil, and Qidiaokai, Shishuo, Gongsun Ni and Wang Chong believe that good and evil are different in every person.” See Liu Pansui, Volume III of Lun Heng Ji Jie, Nature, Beijing, Ancient Books Publishing House, 1957; Huang Hui, Volume III of Lun Heng Jiao Shi, Nature, Changsha, Commercial Press, 1938. 32 My book titled Discussion on the Establishment of Hermeneutics of the Book of Changes (published in the Study of the Book of Changes, 1999 (4)), puts forward

Chinese Culture under the Impact of Western Culture  169 that the Book of Changes, Xi CI Zhuan proposed two systems of cosmogenesis and ontology for Chinese traditional philosophy, which lays a foundation for Chinese traditional philosophy. Laozi also has such philosophical significance. 33 Wang Chong, Lun Heng, Chubing, “Nature and non-​interference, the Tao of heaven.” 34 Chapter 51 of Tao Teching, “the Tao is supreme, virtue is precious, and everything on earth always follows the nature.” 35 “Non-​existence” can be interpreted as “non-​existence but being.” In the third section of the second chapter of Feng Youlan’s Neo-​Confucianism, “Tai Chi is non-​existence but being.” Feng Youlan’s History of Modern Chinese Philosophy wrote, “Jin Yuelin... Reasoning non-​existence but being.” “Tao” is interpreted by “existence and non-​existence” as “non-​existence but being.”

16 Cultural Consciousness and Problem Consciousness1

In the new century, when we propose to build a harmonious society, Fei Xiaotong put forward “cultural self-​consciousness.” That is to say. To build a harmonious society, we must own this consciousness which refers to people’s knowing of the origination, formation, features and development trend of the culture that nurtures them. Accordingly, we must know what problems the construction of a harmonious society will bring to our present society and to all human societies. In the era of globalization, the problems faced by our society are definitely associated with those of all human societies. Therefore, we must find the major problems that need to be solved on the road to build a harmonious society. So, we should clearly raise the problems, deeply discuss them and then find the rational solution, and this is “cultural consciousness.” I believe that the major issues that confront China as well as the whole world can be boiled down to the contradiction between man and nature and the contradiction between people. The latter involves the contradictions between self and others, individuals and groups, different groups, states, and nations and the conflicts between one’s mind and body. There are various ways to resolve these conflicts, but we should realize the importance of finding solutions in culture, and that means we should concentrate on seeking resources from each nation’s own cultural traditions. In my opinion, to resolve the contradiction between man and nature, we can draw some meaningful resources from the idea of harmony between man and nature; to resolve the contradiction between people, we can use the idea of harmony between others and the self; to mediate the contradiction between the mind and the body, we can try to unite the two.

1  Use the Idea of the “Unity of Heaven and Man” to Resolve the Contradiction between Man and Nature At present, China faces serious ecological issues, while the whole world is plagued by overexploitation of nature, environmental pollution, ocean poisoning, population boom and other problems which have become serious threats to human survival. Why did this happen? Well, that’s because we regard nature as the object of conquest. Philosophically speaking, the DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-18

Cultural Consciousness and Problem Consciousness  171 Western thinking model “Subject–​Object Dichotomy” can be used to explain this. Whether turning to the model of unity of subject and object when we think about the relationship between man and nature can help us resolve today’s ecological issue? I think this can be taken into consideration. It may make sense to use the idea of the “unity of Heaven and man” as a solution. In ancient China, many philosophers have explained the idea, but I cannot quote all of them. Here, I’d like to quote Zhu Qi’s words. As he said, “Sky being People; People being Sky. People are born out of heaven. Since there exists man and human society, the ‘Heavenly principle’ is shown by them.” And this means that heaven and man cannot be separated from each other. Man was born out of heaven whose meaning depends on man to demonstrate. Accordingly, man bears responsibilities for heaven, so we can see that there are three interconnected basic points of the idea of harmony between man and nature. First, we should not only understand heaven (understand nature in order to make use of it in a reasonable way) but also revere it (regard the protection of nature as a divine responsibility). Today we emphasize only the former but ignore the latter. We try to conquest nature through knowledge, leading to disorderly destruction. And this is exactly the manifestation of the extreme development of scientism (or the view of omnipotent science). The traditional Chinese philosophy of the unity of heaven and man unites understanding heaven and revering it. Knowing heaven without revering it, we will regard it as an inanimate object but fail to understand that heaven is full of vitality and changes. But if we just revere heaven but not understand it, we will think of it as a mysterious force beyond human beings, and then we cannot obtain the favor of nature. Therefore, we can say that the idea of the unity of heaven of man can not only help us balance the relationship between heaven and man but also pave the way for a harmonious society. Second, according to the idea of the “unity of heaven and man,” we cannot just see the superficial relationship between heaven and man. Instead, we should look deep into their connection. Inner relationship (for example, the Western Cartesian philosophy holds that the spirit and the substance can be studied separately) is different from external relationship. The latter claims that heaven is irrelevant to man, while the former says that these two are intertwined with each other. As the basis of traditional Chinese philosophy, the idea, which comes from the Book of Changes, should be constantly interpreted as a brand new one by human society. Third, the reason why Chinese philosophy, especially Confucian philosophy, believes that there is an interconnected inner relationship between heaven and man is that traditional Chinese idea holds that “the voice of the people is the voice of God” and the nature of heaven and man is coherent. As Zhu Xi’s On Humanity said, “The person who owns kindness can bring brightness and love to everything and everyone on earth. And he embraces all good virtues.” (Volume 67 of The Collections of Zhu Xi). The “Heavenly principle” keeps changing and puts humanity as its core. Because of heaven,

172  Chinese Culture in Transition all things on earth can grow well, so man should follow it, love each other and cherish everything. The “Heavenly core” (the requirement of heaven) and the “human heart” (the requirement of man) are actually the same one (the same requirement is humanity). Human beings shoulder the responsibility of achieving the requirement of “Heavenly core.” And the meaning of life is proving it. So there is an inner relationship between heaven and man. From the above three points we can know that the idea of the unity of heaven and man is actually about how to balance the relationship between man and nature. If we just wantonly destroy nature, then how can we have a sound environment to build a harmonious society? As a worldview and thinking model, this idea is significant because it endows man with a responsibility. Man should use this idea to guide life and practice so as to sublimate himself to be as powerful as heaven and then benefit human societies consciously.

2  Use the Idea of Achieving Harmony between Self and Others to Resolve the Conflicts between People Compared with the contradiction between people, the one between man and nature is more complicated. It is not confined to the contradiction between self and others, individuals and groups and different social groups, but it also involves the contradiction between nations and countries. For instance, the quest for money and position, the competition for natural resources and the expansion of occupation and ambition can cause confrontation between nations and countries and even wars, and then imperial hegemony and terrorism arise. The over-​pursuit of position and money has exacerbated inequities and widened the gap between the rich and the poor (some farmers have no land, residents have no houses and citizens have no job), making the society descend into “moral vacuum” and “a crisis of faith.” So how can we ease the tension between people and then build a harmonious society? Well, we should combine political, economic, technological and cultural methods in order to achieve this goal. Either way we cannot ignore traditional culture. So, I believe that Confucius’s benevolence can provide precious resources for us. The Guodian Chu Slips –​Nature from Fate said, “Humanism comes from disposition which is from nature.” This sentence means that people build their relationship with others on the basis of affection which is the requirement of human nature, and this is exactly the focus of Confucius’ “humanity.” Fan Chi, a student of Confucius, once asked his teacher what “humanity” was. And Confucius answered, “It’s about loving people.” And where does this morality come from? The Doctrine of the Mean quoted Confucius’s word, “Benevolence is about loving people, whose supreme expression is loving the family.” We were born with kindness and loving the family is our focus of attention. So here is a sentence, “If one can love his family, he can also love other people.” But kindness should be more than that, and we should not just express it to our family. Instead, we should love all people and implement

Cultural Consciousness and Problem Consciousness  173 the policy of benevolence. As with the policy of benevolence, The Book of Mencius talked a lot about it and its extensive meanings. In this book, the basic point of this policy is “people who own property have ethical values and codes of conduct, while those without property have no ethical values and codes of conduct.” It means that only if people have stable industries can they have ethical values and codes of conduct. Therefore, Mencius once said, “To implement the policy of benevolence, we should divide the farmland first.” It means that we should let the people have their own land and then we can implement the policy of benevolence. Fei Xiaotong said, “I once talked with Hu Yaobang who attached importance to the family and regarded it as the cell of society. His thought came from fact, and I support it. I also believe that this ‘cell’ is full of vitality. After the movement of people’s commune, the agricultural industry returned to the families. The implementation of the household contract responsibility system has unleashed productive forces.” So, Mencius’s idea of providing necessary industries for people is a people-​ oriented thought which is the spirit of people first in today’s word. To build a harmonious society, we must provide stable industries for people, and this is the basic requirement of dealing with the relationship between people well. Opposing unjust war is also an important point of Mencius’s policy of benevolence. Gongsun Chou-​Mencius said, “People are bounded in, not by the limits of dykes and borders; a state is secured, not by the strengths of mountains and rivers; the kingdom is overawed, not by the sharpness and strength of arms. He who finds the proper course has many to assist him. He who loses the proper course has few to assist him. When this –​being assisted by few –​reaches its extreme point, his own relative revolt from the prince. When being assisted by many reaches its highest point, the whole kingdom becomes obedient to the prince. When one to whom the whole kingdom is prepared to be obedient, attacks those from whom their own relations revolt, what must be the result? Therefore, the true ruler will prefer not to fight; but if he does fight, he must overcome.” So Confucianists divided wars into just and unjust ones. Mencius said, “During the Spring and Autumn period, there was no just wars.” He also said, “He who loses the people will lose the whole kingdom.” The ruler of the country should also understand this principle. In the early years of the Han Dynasty, Jia Yi wrote the Ten Crimes of Qin in which he pointed out that the reason for the demise of the Qin Dynasty is that the lack of benevolence turned it to the besieged one from besieger. He also quoted a saying, “Guide for the future; experience is the best teacher.” Isn’t that what we should learn from? And we cannot say that these Confucian thoughts mean nothing to the ruler of a country or the ruling bloc of developed countries. To govern the country well, we should resort to the policy of benevolence; to adopt the kingly way, we should abandon the rule by force and not impose oppression on people. The bringing up of the “clash of civilizations” by Samuel P. Huntington in 1993 caused discussion in international academia. Through human history, clashes and wars caused by the difference of culture (philosophy, religions,

174  Chinese Culture in Transition values and so on) are not strangers to us. The 21st century hasn’t seen a world war, but local wars have no end. To deescalate the clashes and wars caused by culture, we should learn from the thoughts of “Harmony but not Sameness” by Confucius. In the history of China, “harmony” and “sameness” are two different concepts, over which there has been debate. For example, according to Discourses of the States, the Discourse of Zheng, “Things were born from He, but do not continue from Tong. Using one stuff to complement another one, and this is he who can make everything obtain development. But if we just multiple same things, then nothing can grow. So, the ancient king mixed Earth with Metal, Wood, Water and Fire to bring everything to life.” So, it’s true that “Harmony” and “Sameness” are not the same. Things which are different but also interconnected can achieve coordination and development. Multiplying same things will suffocate vitality. The supreme pursuit of traditional Chinese culture is “all living creatures grow together without harming each other. Ways run parallel without interfering with one another.” (Doctrine of the Mean) “All living creatures grow together” and “ways run parallel” are “not sameness,” while “not harming each other” and “not interfering with one another” are “harmony.” And this idea provides inexhaustible wisdom for us to achieve the goal of various cultures coexisting with harmony. Because of geography, historical and other accidental reasons, different nations and countries have different cultures and traditions. And this is exactly what makes human cultures colorful, complementary and interconnected. But we cannot say that “not sameness” will definitely lead to clashes and wars according to the fact that differences in culture may cause clashes and even wars. Under the circumstance of highly advanced science and technology, large-​scale wars may lead to human beings’ self-​destruction. Therefore, we must realize the importance of mutual-​ understanding between different cultures. For example, Jurgen Habermas put forward the theory of justice and cooperation. And his justice principle can be understood as safeguarding the cultural independence and autonomy of every nation and the rights to develop according to their will. The cooperation principle is about the obligation to empathize, understand and respect the cultures of other nations. Only constant dialogue and exchanges can produce a virtuous circle in the cultural interaction of different nations. Hans-​Georg Gadamer, a German philosopher who died in 2002, said that “understanding” should be extended to the level of “broad dialogue,” and only in this way can the subject and the object have equal status. Conversely, dialogue can take place smoothly only if the two sides are on an equal footing. Both Habermas’s principle of justice and cooperation and Gadamer’s “dialogue in extensive meaning” lay stress on “Harmony but not Sameness.” Confucius’s thought of harmony in diversity, which is based on the principle that “harmony is precious,” should be regarded as the ground rule to handle the relationship between different cultures.

Cultural Consciousness and Problem Consciousness  175

3  Apply the Idea of Harmony between Inner and Outer to Resolve the Contradiction between Mind and Body In the modern society, the internal and external pressure and endless pursuit of sensory enjoyment make people suffer from physical and mental disorders and split personality. Psychological imbalance distorts the mind and body, making people become mentally unbalanced, hit the bottle, commit suicide, kill people, etc. This has become social illness which greatly affects social stability. And the reason is moral hazard which breaks the harmony between mind and body. Accordingly, Confucianism’s “cultivate the moral self ” can provide some meaningful resources for us to harmonize mind and body. Guodian Chu Slips –​ Nature from Fate said, “After understanding the Tao, then one should use it to reflect on himself, and it’s the process of cultivating the moral self.” After understanding the Tao, we should use it to reflect on ourselves, and this is exactly cultivating the moral self. The Great Learning stresses the meaning of one’s moral to the building of a harmonious society. And it said that man should cultivate the moral self, regulate the family, maintain the state rightly and make all peaceful. “From the ruler of the state to the average people, all should cultivate the moral self. If this foundation is broken, then it will be impossible to regulate the family, the state and the whole world.” That is to say. Confucianism believes that if all people (from the ruler of the state to the average people) can cultivate the moral well, then the family will be regulated well, the state will be maintained rightly, and the whole world will be peaceful. But if people fail to cultivate the moral self, then the above will be impossible. Then how to cultivate the moral self ? Nature from Fate said, “Cultivate the moral self and then one can be close to kindness.” One should be guided by kindheartedness to cultivate his morality. He who can truly observe the guidance is the one who achieves harmony between mind and body, and he is worry-​free because of benevolence. Zhu Xi said, “The harmony between the mind and body enables one to be invulnerable to the turmoil around the world. The failure of achieving this harmony will make one experience spiritual distortions despite the peace of the world. This is true for families and countries as a whole.” (The Question-​and-​Answer on The Doctrine of the Mean). If one can achieve harmony between the mind and body, then even the turmoil around the world will not affect his spiritual peace. But if one fails to have physical and mental harmony, then he will experience distortions despite the fact that the world is peaceful. As Zhang Zai said in the introductory part of Ximing, “People are my kinships. The world is home to everything, including me.” Only if you are kindhearted can you reach tranquility whether you live or die. If one can perform his responsibility well, then he will own tranquilly at the time of his death, which means that he will find the shelter where he can achieve the harmony between the mind and body. Confucianists also pursue this dream in order to build a harmonious society. So as the Doctrine of the Mean said, “The knowing of

176  Chinese Culture in Transition cultivating the moral self leads to the knowing of people management which brings about the knowing of how to regulate the state.” Sima Qian said, “We should regard the truth that we learn from the past as a mirror to reflect on ourselves.” We study, expound and utilize the thoughts of ancient sages in order to obtain wisdom for the benefits of society and the building of a harmonious society. It is no doubt that traditional and modern societies are not the same, so it’s our responsibility to make good use of these ideas and give it modern explanation and brand-​new meanings to meet the requirement of modern society. The Wen Emperor, the Elegance, the Book of Songs said, “Despite the oldness, the city-​state country built by Zhou people saw innovation as its mission.” As the people of the Chinese nation which has 5000 years of history and culture, we should constantly innovate our society to contribute to all human societies.

Note 1 This article originally was published in China Ethnic News, October 10, 2006.

Part III

Reflection after the Cultural Fever

17 “Modern” and “Post-​modern”1

What is “modern”? This is a difficult question. Because if you define “modern,” someone will certainly voice different opinions. When Western thinkers put forward a definition of “modern,” some Eastern thinkers will probably put forward different views. For example, the post-​colonial theorist Edward Said opposed the so-​called “modern” of the West. So how do Chinese people understand “modern”? I want to explore this issue. But strictly speaking, the views I wrote about “modern” cannot be said to be the “modern” understood by Chinese people, but how someone in China interpretates “modern,” that is, “my understanding of modern.” When we say “modern,” we mean that it is not ancient, or “non modern” (pre-​modern). In the mid-​19th century, under the impact of Western powers, some Chinese people wanted to go out of “ancient time” in order to preserve their country. After the Opium War in 1840, some Chinese intellectuals proposed several plans to help China go out of “ancient time” and move toward “modern time.” These plans naturally include the issue of the relationship between Chinese traditional culture (sinology) and Western culture (the West culture). Therefore, for more than 100 years, there has always been the dispute between “ancient and modern China and the west.” At first, some intellectuals realized that China was inferior to the West in science and technology. Wei Yuan proposed the idea of “surpassing foreigners by learning from them” in Illustrated Annals of Overseas Countries. Later, Zhang Zhidong and others summarized this kind of thought as “Westernized Chinese style.” That means to take China’s original theory of body, mind and life (moral education) as the essence and absorb Western science and technology (foreign guns and cannons) as the utility. Of course, this plan failed to change China’s poverty and backwardness and resist invasions. At the end of the 19th century, some advanced intellectuals realized that the introduction of Western science and technology alone could not make China get rid of poverty and backwardness and move toward “modern time,” so the proposition of “reform” was put forward to learn political and legal systems from the west, leading to the 1898 Reform Movement. Although the revolution of 1911 overthrew the monarchy, established the Republic of China, and once set up a parliament, there were warlord separatism and two restorations of DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-20

180  Reflection after the Cultural Fever the monarchy. It seems that although there were changes in political system, people’s ideas were still the same and we only learnt superficial things from the West, leaving China still backward. Around 1919 there was the New Culture Movement, which was a great movement calling for changing old ideas, it took the Western “science and democracy” as its goal and “anti-​tradition” as its spiritual motivation. Some advanced intellectuals put forward the idea of “overall Westernization” and “taking the Western culture both as the essence and the utility,” they believe that only in this way can China move toward “Modern.” However, what the “essence” is and what the “utility” of “the Western culture” is was not seriously discussed at that time. However, if we analyze it, the “overall Westernization” theorists probably take “democracy” as the “essence” and “science” as the “utility.” However, we must doubt whether “democracy” can be the “essence,” because people may say “democracy” is a system and should belong to “utility.” Therefore, “overall Westernization” theorists may don’t really understand “modern.” Due to the “overall Westernization” theory, there have been many debates between Eastern and Western cultures after the 1920s. In the debates, even Hu Shi, one of the representatives of the “overall Westernization” theory, gradually felt that “modern” should not be “Western” or “Eastern,” but he didn’t use the relationship of “essence” and “utility” to explain this issue. After the 1980s, some scholars put forward the idea of “taking the west culture as the essence and the Chinese culture as the utility.” The “essence” includes both material production and spiritual production, but what it emphasizes is “social existence.” Because the Western social production mode is more advanced than China, we should take “the Western culture” of Western social existence, production mode, lifestyle and corresponding Western thoughts, theories and doctrines (including Marxism) as the “essence,” and the so-​called “Chinese utility” refers to the “application of Western essence in China,” or “Chinese traditional culture and ‘sinology’ should be regarded as the way to realize “Western essence.” This view can be said to indicate that “Westernization” is “modernization.” However, the concepts of “essence” and “utility” used by this scholar lost their original meaning in the Chinese traditional culture. At the same time, some scholars at home and abroad put forward the idea of “taking both the Chinese culture and the Western culture as ‘essence’ and ‘utility’.” They explained, “Take the Chinese culture or the Western culture as the essence and the other as the utility according to what is good in them.” This is actually a hodgepodge of “Westernized Chinese style” and “taking the Western culture as the essence and the Chinese culture as the utility.” Scholars who advocated this idea didn’t explain what is good in “sinology” and what is good in “the Western culture,” which was impossible for them. Why are there such different opinions, and why have the opinions caused confusion? I think there are three reasons, first, there is no correct understanding of the two concepts of “essence” and “utility” in Chinese traditional philosophy; second, although there are issues about the dispute between “ancient and modern” in the dispute between “sinology” and “the Western culture,” the two disputes

“Modern” and “Post-modern”  181 are different issues that cannot be equated; third, there is no in-​depth research of the essence of “modern.” In Chinese traditional philosophy, “essence” and “utility” are an important pair of categories. They are not a pair of substantive categories, but relational categories of fundamental significance. We must explain “what essence is” and “what utility is,” so that that they can be meaningful. For example, “conscience is the essence,” “natural reason is the essence,” or “taking non-​ existence as the essence.” Therefore, in Chinese traditional philosophy, “essence” usually does not refer to a specific thing, but to “internal spirit” or “transcendental principle.” According to Chinese traditional philosophy, “essence” and “utility” are unified. “Utility” is the expression and the function of “essence.” For example, we can say that “benevolence and righteousness are the essence, and rites and music are the utility.” “Tai Chi is the essence, and Ying and Yang are the utility.” “Reason is the essence, and materials are the utility.” “Essence” and “utility” cannot exist without one another. This was discussed by Wang Bi as early as the Three Kingdoms period, “Without taking non-​existence as the essence, there is no corresponding taking non-​ existence as the utility.” Cheng Yi wrote in the preface of his Annotation of the Book of Changes, “The essence and the utility have the same origin, and they cannot be separated.” According to him, “essence” should be metaphysical, general and abstract, while “utility” is physical, specific and individual, but metaphysics and physics are unified. Since “essence” and “utility” are unified, we cannot use this pair of categories to explain the relationship between “sinology” and “the Western culture,” because whether it’s “Westernized Chinese style,” “taking the Western culture as the essence and the Chinese culture as the utility” or “taking the Chinese culture or the Western culture as the essence and the other as the utility according to what is good in them,” they all misuse the categories. In his Letter to the Manager of the Diplomatic Daily, he criticized “Westernized Chinese style” and said, “Essence and utility are united. The utility of an ox is to bear weight, and the utility of a horse is to go far. There is no such a thing as an ox to be used as a horse..” In another article, Yuanqiang, Yan Fu used the relationship of “essence” and “utility” to explain that the Western society “takes freedom as essence and democracy as utility.” In my opinion, this sentence grasps the essence of modern society. However, “freedom as essence and democracy as utility” not only apply to modern Western society, but also to modern Eastern society and all modern societies. Because “freedom” is a modern spirit and “democracy” is a system to ensure the realization of “freedom.” I think the main difference of modern society from ancient society (or medieval society) is that it can mobilize people’s creativity. Freedom’s essence is creativity, which is the spirit of the modern times. In the past two or three centuries, there have been rapid changes in natural science, technical science, social science, humanities, literature and art and great advancement in productivity. These can only be achieved when people fully obtain freedom, which demonstrates people’s awakening as free man. Therefore, we can say that creativity comes

182  Reflection after the Cultural Fever from “freedom.” As for “democracy,” it is a system that can be “Republican,” “Constitutional Monarchy,” “People’s Congress” and so on, but its function is to ensure people’s “freedom.” If in the ancient world, countries and nationalities differed greatly in the same era due to geographical isolation; then in modern times, although there are still differences in cultural traditions between countries and nationalities, there are no differences in essence from the perspective of the times. Therefore, if we use the relationship between “essence” and “utility” to explain what “modern”(or modern society) is, an appropriate interpretation is that “modernity” takes “freedom as essence and democracy as utility.” We should consider another question. In Chinese philosophy, “essence” has always been regarded as metaphysical. How can we say that “freedom” is metaphysical? If we do not use “metaphysical” and “physical” to distinguish “essence” and “utility,” then there is no need to use “essence” and “utility” to discuss the issues of “modernity.” Therefore, we must give “freedom” a metaphysical meaning. The most fundamental proposition of a philosophical system is generally preset (predetermined), such as Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am,” and Buddhism’s “Nirvana.” The same is true in Chinese philosophy. Confucius defined “benevolence” as “to love people,” which is still about morality, while Zhu Xi interpreted “benevolence” as “the source of all principles and the root of all things.” In this way, “benevolence” has not only moral but also ontological significance. Therefore, Qian Mu wrote in New Study of Zhu Xi, “since Confucius and Mencius, Confucians had oriented benevolence to life, people’s mind and things, but Zhu Xi’s benevolence refers to the universe.” According to the Confucians of the Song Dynasty, “principle of heaven” is itself “benevolence,” so “benevolence” is defined as a metaphysical noumenon beyond experience. Wang Yangming’s “conscience” is actually an “innate moral principle,” but it is also the noumenon of the universe. If we define “freedom” as “creativity,” it is based on the internal essence of man; and the expression of this creativity in the universe can be said to be a transcendental principle of creativity, and human creativity is the humanization of this principle, just like Zhu Xi’s saying that “human nature is reason,” and human nature is the principle of heaven, so “freedom” can be understood metaphysically. Then we can say that modern society takes “freedom as essence and democracy as utility.” Of course, when I say that modern society should all take “freedom as essence and democracy as utility,” I do not mean that all countries and nationalities are the same, they can adopt different forms according to their specific circumstances. Therefore, modern society is also diversified. Moreover, we must also make clear that the meaning of “modernity” discussed here is only about one aspect of its basic characteristics, or only about a certain level of its characteristics different from “pre-​modernity.” If we view “modern” from other angles, it will certainly show some differences from “pre-​modernity.” We describe the characteristics of “modern” society as “taking freedom as essence and democracy as utility,” which is about the epochal aspect of cultural

“Modern” and “Post-modern”  183 development, but this way of description is very characteristic of Chinese culture. Using the relationship between the categories of “essence” and “utility” to explain the characteristics of an era is undoubtedly Chinese style, and it can be said that the proposition of “taking freedom as essence and democracy as utility” appropriately expresses the characteristics of modern society with Chinese thought. Therefore, we can say that this proposition demonstrates the combination of the modern and national characteristics of culture. If we take a broader perspective, we will see that in modern times, all national cultures must promote their distinctive features under global consciousness, because today’s world is closely connected, and no nation or country can ignore the problems faced by human society, so the general trend of world culture is the diversified development under global consciousness. “Global consciousness” is about our times and “commonalities”; “diversified development of culture” is about national characteristics expressed by various national cultures and the “individuality” of cultural development. Nowadays, the development of any national culture should reflect the combination of “commonalities” and “individuality.” For more than a hundred years, the problem about how to develop Chinese culture is likely to be caused by the failure to achieve the combination. Since the 20th century, there has always been the “dispute between ancient and modern China and the West” in cultural issues in Chinese academic circles. I think there are two opinions on this issue. One view holds that the dispute between “China and the West” is a dispute between “ancient and modern,” which is mostly held by the overall Westernization school; another view is that the dispute between “China and the West” is not a dispute between “ancient and modern,” which is mostly held by the nationalists. In the debate at that time, there were indeed “ancient and modern” issues in the dispute between “China and the West,” such as pursuing “science and democracy” or not, and whether “the three cardinal guides and the five constant virtues” fit the modern society. These issues are about the necessity of getting out of the “pre-​modern” period, which is an issue of the times. However, not all “Chinese and Western” issues are related to “ancient and modern” issues, such as, the “realm” (transcend worldliness and attain holiness) of ultimate concern discussed in Chinese philosophy, and propositions that embody the special spirit of our nation like “unity of heaven and man,” “unity of knowledge and practice” and “resisting high ranks with morality.” These thoughts don’t lose their significance because they are different from Western culture, or because of the changes of the times. They can be “renewed day by day” with the development of our national culture. Therefore, we can say that it is because these far-​reaching thoughts and the new interpretation of these thoughts in different historical periods that our national culture can play a unique role in today’s cultural development. We can conclude that in the process of our country’s “modernization,” we not only need to grasp the epochal nature of the development of today’s human culture, but also fully promote the characteristics of our national culture to contribute to human society. In this regard, I think the idea of “taking freedom as essence and democracy as

184  Reflection after the Cultural Fever utility” reflects the combination of the modern and national characteristic of the development of modern Chinese culture. After more than two centuries of development, modern society achieved more “freedom” and improved its democratic systems. During this period, the development of Western countries’ material civilization and spiritual civilization has far exceeded that of the previous thousands of years. However, there are many problems in the modern Western society today. It is time to reconsider the future of human societal development. For example, in conquering nature, we developed nature excessively, destroying the harmony of nature and the harmony between man and nature; the competition for money and power destroys the harmonious interpersonal relationship; the excessive pursuit of sensory pleasure destroys human’s internal and external harmony. All these threaten the survival of human beings. Of course, I am not saying that there is nothing wrong with non-​Western society. Quite the opposite, they have no less problems than Western societies, and they are still in the process of “modernization.” What caused the various problems in Western modern society? I think one of the reasons may be the misleading of “freedom” and “democracy.” We should consider from at least two aspects about “freedom.” One is that “freedom” has different levels; the other is that there is the relationship of “individual” and “group” in “freedom.” Either we do not understand these two aspects, or “freedom” and “democracy” are inevitably problematic because of the above two aspects. “Freedom” can be divided into at least three levels, freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of action. Thought can be completely free, while the freedom of speech and action must be subjected to some restrictions, so there will be contradictions between thought, speech and action. The complete freedom of thought is a prerequisite of human creativity. Without it, there can be no modern scientific theory and ideal of society. However, we cannot convert all the results of free thought into speech and action, but without the conversion, the results will not produce social effects, stifling people’s creativity. What’s the cause of this contradiction? I think it is that thought is purely personal, and a person will not impact others and society as long as he does not speak or act. But speech and action are not personal, and have impact on others and society. Therefore, the issue of “freedom” involves the relationship between “individual” and “group.” Therefore, there is the principle that “individual freedom should not hinder the freedom of others,” but this principle is very abstract and vague. Especially because “freedom” inevitably emphasizes the meaning and value of individuals, causing the situation of “his word against hers.” People may take advantage of the vagueness of “freedom” to create social injustice and chaos. If we regard a country (or nation) as an individual in the group of the world, some countries (or nations) also often take advantage of the vagueness to emphasize the significance and value of itself, resulting in injustice and chaos in the world. Therefore, although “freedom” is very important and valuable for the development of human society, and is the symbol of modern society, but its

“Modern” and “Post-modern”  185 misleading will also cause various problems, especially in real life. After two centuries of development, modern society (modern Western society) brings about more and more obvious disadvantages. On the one hand, the emphasis on individual freedom has mobilized people’s creativity, but on the other hand, it has led to the lack of understanding and isolation among people, just as Christopher Isherwood wrote in Prater Violet, “I am a traveler, a nomad. I noticed Bergman, my fellow traveler, walking beside me. A separate and secret consciousness, locked in itself, as far away as Orion.” Modern people are free, but also lonely. Therefore, the so-​called “postmodern” theory emerged in the West recently. It first appeared in literary theory, and later became a cultural theory. It involves philosophy, sociology, theology, pedagogy, ethics, aesthetics and other fields. There are different opinions about this theory, but it is undoubtedly a negation of the “modern” theory. If we study the “freedom” and “democracy” of modern society from the “postmodern” theory, it may be caused by the emphasis on individuals in modern society, so that everyone is now isolated, which is also reflected in the increasingly detailed social division of labor. However, since modern society has entered the information age, so although people are lonely in spirit, they are more and more closely connected in daily life, and the more detailed the division of labor, the tighter people’s actual connection. From the perspective of social life, people have a great degree of “freedom” and personalized choice in clothing, food, housing and transportation; people’s life is becoming more and more diversified. We my wear French clothes, eat Chinese food, live in house with materials and styles of the United States, and drive Japanese car, etc. Due to the personalization and social division of labor caused by “freedom,” the Western society today is even more inseparable. That is to say, the extreme individualization has instead led to the vagueness of interpersonal relationship. Modern society emphasizes the universal concern for human rights and the right to privacy, and countries have seemingly strict confidentiality systems for their interests, but with the development of technology and the rapid transmission of information, personal privacy and state secrets can be exposed, and the true and false merge into a vague picture. In this way, the clarity, certainty, the ultimate value and the integrity of the theoretical system of “modern” theory have been destroyed. Precisely because of the vagueness caused by extreme individualization in Western society, “postmodern” theory pursues uncertainty, disorder, anti-​centrism, randomness and anti-​cultural tradition. Besides social life, science is also eliminating boundaries and moving toward vagueness due to the increasingly detailed division of disciplines. On the one hand, many new and marginal disciplines emerged, such as physical chemistry and biochemistry, biophysics, cultural anthropology, and network economics, blurring the original division of disciplines. In the past, physics was physics, and chemistry was chemistry, but now we have both physical chemistry and chemical physics, breaking the original boundary between natural sciences. Moreover, the boundaries between natural science, social science and humanities are also disintegrating. On the

186  Reflection after the Cultural Fever one hand, the division of disciplines is more and more detailed; on the other hand, the boundaries of disciplines are becoming more and more blurred. The landscape of our world has also changed greatly since the World War II. The original most advanced region, Europe, was developed after it’s divided into several nation states. However, after the World War II, due to changes in world politics and economy, European countries gradually united and established the European community. Countries (nationalities) in other regions also share the trend toward integration, such as Latin America, Southeast Asia and Arab countries, but at the same time, some regions and countries split, such as the Soviet Union and some Eastern European countries, they will join the European community or the Arab group sooner or later. Due to this trend, in the 21st century, there is likely to be a requirement to break boundaries and weaken distinctions in the development of the world, so as to help the world resist confrontation and disintegration. Therefore, we may say “post-​modernism” takes “chaos as essence and vagueness as utility.” The world should have been a harmonious unity (chaos); therefore, we can make the world a diverse unity by blurring boundaries. As a way of thinking, this theory may be closer to the Eastern (Chinese) mode of thinking. So “postmodern” theory is likely to absorb more Eastern ideas. This requires further discussion. “Postmodernism” (or postmodern society) and “postmodern theory” are two different concepts. Of course, “postmodern theory” should reflect postmodern society (or postmodern phenomenon). But now, the description of Western postmodern society (or postmodern phenomenon) is diverse, so postmodern theory is also diverse. However, it’s doubtful whether there is a “postmodern society” or not, maybe there is no “postmodern society,” but some “postmodern phenomena.” And because of these “phenomena,” there is a “postmodern theory” against the “modern theory.” Therefore, we can say that “postmodern theory” appeared to address the modern society’s crisis at the end of the century. However, we must recognize that “postmodern theory” has affected people in many aspects. I must say that I do not understand the current “postmodern theory” very well, so the above view of mine is only a very intuitive impression, not a “theory,” and even my description of “postmodernism” can be wrong, but we can find “truth” from “wrong” ideas. When “postmodernism” appears in the West, China is in the process of “modernization,” and the same is true for many countries in the third world. Therefore, the trend of “postmodernism” is bound to affect some aspects of our society. I think the reason why it has a certain impact on China’s society, especially on literature, art and cultural theory, is likely to be related to China’s loss of tradition, belief crisis, a certain degree of moral vacuum and moral turpitude, and at the same time, may also be related to our current “call to return to the traditional way of thinking.” Under this circumstance, Chinese society, especially Chinese ideological circles, are bound to be extremely complex. In realizing modernization, we must take into account various problems existing in Western modern society, and we will be impacted by the trend of

“Modern” and “Post-modern”  187 “postmodernism.” Therefore, the study of the relationship between “modernity” and “postmodernism” is important.

Note 1 This was originally included in China Social Sciences Series, autumn volume 1994, Beijing, Sanlian Bookstore, 1994.

18 The Rise of “Sinology Fever”1

Although the “cultural fever” in the mid-​1980s went through a difficult period, a “Sinology fever” quietly rose in the 1990s. It seems that the research on Chinese traditional culture may become popular for a while. The cultural discussion in the 1980s mainly focused on how to move Chinese culture from “tradition” to “modernity.” The “tradition” here includes both the old tradition of thousands of years and the new tradition of the previous decades. It may take some time to see the trend of the rising “Sinology fever.” However, from historical experiences and its current development trend, it may leave the academic track again, returning to the “tradition” instead of rejecting the “tradition.” Of course, I hope that Chinese culture can still develop along the academic track and achieve modernization. Therefore, I propose that the research on Chinese culture should be conducted in the context of the current world cultural development so that the development of Chinese culture will not be separated from the trend of the world culture, but contribute more to the development of human culture. Last October and November, two newspapers interviewed me on this issue. On October 26, 1993, China Youth Daily published an interview with the title of Chinese Culture-​Getting Rejuvenations? I wrote a paragraph for this interview, “It is meaningful to advocate Sinology now, but we should put it in the context of contemporary world cultural development to understand and study it. Ji Xianlin once said that the difference between modern Sinology masters and ancient Sinology masters is that the former can not only blend the ancient and modern, but also integrate China and the West. This view of Mr. Ji is very meaningful. If one cannot integrate China and the West, it is impossible for him or her to make great achievements in Sinology research today. Therefore, I do not approve of excessive advocation of Sinology.” The following is the full text of the interview: “I don’t approve of excessive advocation of Sinology,” said Tang Yijie, President of the Chinese Culture Academy. The context of this clear-​ cut view of Mr. Tang is that modernization has become an irreversible trend in China in the 1990s, and Chinese culture will sooner or later face DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-21

The Rise of “Sinology Fever”  189 the world and be incorporate into the general trend of modern cultural development. “Despite its essence, the profound Chinese culture has many severe defects,” Mr. Tang said. Speaking of “Chinese culture,” I always feel it’s a little idyllic. I wonder if the reason is what Mr. Tang said, “Many contents of Chinese culture don’t fit the rhythm of modern society”? One of the propositions of Chinese Confucianism is the Tao of “inner sage and outer king.” The so-​called “inner sage” refers to one’s inner moral cultivation; and “outer king” refers to the application of this moral cultivation to social governance and order. “Of course, moral cultivation should be advocated, but this theory of ‘inner sage and outer king’ actually led to Pan Moralism, which believes that all social problems can be solved by moral cultivation, but obviously it’s impossible. In fact, morality is an internal standard, which lacks objective binding force. The power of morality is never as powerful as people’s wishful thinking and cannot solve all the severe contradictions and problems faced by modern people and modern society, and it is even more impossible for democracy and rule of law in line with the needs of modern society naturally grow out of this theory.” “And this, is one of the defects of Chinese traditional culture,” Mr. Tang Yijie emphasized. “Secondly, another feature of Chinese culture, which I call ‘internal transcendence’, led to rule of man instead of rule of law.” Mr. Tang believes that a healthy society should have two sets of social support systems. One is the moral education system of the society; the second is a sound and complete political and legal system. The two systems support each other and are both indispensable. There are many unsolvable contradictions in Western society, but it can be relatively stable thanks to the mutual support of its two systems. As a religion, Christianity makes “God” the external supervisor of ordinary people’s code of conduct, and everyone needs to restrain himself in front of God; “this is actually an ‘external transcendence’; although religions may promote wrong standards, they make people’s code of conduct objectively binding. This cultural concept can naturally lead to a legal system with objective standards, in which everyone is equal,” Tang said. However, in Chinese cultural tradition, Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism all require people to improve their consciousness and morality, reaching a state of “transcendence and holiness.” For example, Confucianism’s cultivation of mind, Buddhism’s idea of Buddha nature in everyone, and Taoism’s conformity to nature all pursue an inner transcendence that lacks external standards. “The legal system is at least the basic principle of modern society. The reason why China cannot implement the rule of law has a lot to do with these cultural concepts.” Reviewing the 5000 years of the rule of man of

190  Reflection after the Cultural Fever the Chinese nation and facing the zigzag road of the establishment of the legal system, the meaning of Mr. Tang’s words is self-​evident. “Sinology should be carried forward, but with modern ideas. How can Chinese culture be developed if we don’t understand the trend of world modern culture?” Therefore, Mr. Tang and his students have been committed to the study of the introduction of the Western culture into China since modern times in recent years, from Matteo Ricci in the late 16th century, the first to bring the “west fashion” to China, to recount for four centuries how the Western culture has taken Chinese scholars as media to infiltrate, confront, impact and change Chinese culture... “This is a huge project, and we will strive to complete it within the 20th century!” Naturally, the purpose of research is not recounting histories, but looking forward. What’s the direction of human culture in the 21st century? There is such a view that in the 20th century, mankind is facing the conflict between politics and economy, while in the 21st century, mankind will face the conflict among cultures. “I don’t agree,” said Mr. Tang. “Why can’t human culture be gradually integrated into a pluralistic unity?” Under the heavy pressure of complicated social and academic activities, Mr. Tang is committed to building a system that “combines the Western theory characterized by external transcendence with the Chinese theory characterized by internal transcendence to form a higher-​level cultural system.” “Only by this can mankind have a future,” said philosopher Tang Yijie. On November 29, 1993, Heilongjiang Daily published Chinese Culture with Global Consciousness-​Interview with Professor Tang Yijie. The full text is as follows, On the evening of April 4, the reporter went to the Zhongguan Garden of Peking University to visit Professor Tang Yijie and his wife, Professor Le Daiyun. In their shared study, thread-​bound Chinese books and hard-​ cover Western books were not placed neatly but harmoniously coexisted in one room, giving out a feeling that Chinese and Western cultures collide, communicate and integrate here. In this study, professor Tang Yijie gladly accepted the reporter’s interview. REPORTER: 

I heard that there is a “Sinology fever” rising in Peking University. As the president of the Academy of Chinese culture and professor of Philosophy Department of Peking University, can you explain to us the significance of advocating “Sinology” at present? TANG YIJIE:  After 1949, we basically held a negative attitude toward traditional culture. The movement of “destroying the four olds” of the “Cultural Revolution” ravished traditional culture more severely and thoroughly. The “cultural fever” in the mid-​1980s is also basically anti-​tradition. In the 1990s, people started to question whether blind anti-​tradition is

The Rise of “Sinology Fever”  191 problematic? Much essence of traditional culture have been abandoned, while some of its dross have been preserved. This phenomenon was most prominent during the “Cultural Revolution.” On the one hand, it’s anti-​ feudalism. On the other hand, it’s advocating another kind of worship. There has been a moral void for a period of time. Advocating Sinology now can oppose the trend of “total negation of tradition.” REPORTER:  In the early 20th century, Sinology had been advocated, and at the end of the 20th century, how should we treat Sinology? TANG YIJIE: This issue is very important. If we cannot solve this problem well, the study of Sinology will deviate from our original vision. I have advocated Sinology for a rather long time, but I advocated it in the light of global consciousness. After the Second World War, “Western centrism” declined, leading to the diverse development of the world culture. If we advocate Sinology separately and blindly, it is likely to drift away from the development of the world culture. Of course, we should treasure our own cultural characteristics, because we are one polar of the world culture. However, this must be considered in the context of global cultural trends. Otherwise we will deviate from the trends. If so, we will close ourselves, slide back into narrow nationalism and quintessence, reject and exclude everything, and miss the opportunity again to enter modernity, which is very dangerous.   A culture is not only vertical and national, but also horizontal and modern. The position of Chinese culture should be set at the intersection of our nation and the times. If you overemphasize the vertical, it is easy to ignore the modernity. I think at present, it is more important to emphasize the modernity of culture. REPORTER:  The cultural concept itself is multifaceted and complex. If we do not observe it from the perspective of the world and the times, it will be difficult to explain some concepts, and sometimes we will carry forward dross disguised as essence. The study of Sinology is arduous. TANG YIJIE:  Yes. The concepts in Chinese traditional culture are often very general, intuitive and unanalyzed. Without analysis, a theoretical system cannot be formed, which means that it’s difficult to accept these concepts, let alone “practice” them. No matter how good a concept is, if it is just a concept that cannot be accepted and practiced, it is of little significance. Therefore, we should make a modern interpretation of these concepts. Ideas should be backed up by proof. For example, Descartes proved “I think, so I am” by geometry. Only concepts with modern interpretation can be meaningful, like the concept of “unity of heaven and man” in Chinese traditional culture, “heaven and man” are not separated and defined. We now say that the “unity of heaven and man” must be based on the “dichotomy” and that subjectivity must have an object to be meaningful. Other examples include the concept of “loyalty” and “filial piety.” It will be problematic if we do not interpret them but blindly “carry forward” them.

192  Reflection after the Cultural Fever REPORTER: 

So what concepts in Chinese traditional culture are worth carrying forward and can contribute to modern cultural construction and human development? TANG YIJIE: For example, there is the concept of “universal harmony” in Chinese traditional culture. This harmony can be divided into four levels, harmony of nature, harmony between man and nature, harmony among people, and one’s own internal and external harmony. This is a very meaningful concept, which becomes more meaningful in today’s world. Western culture has the “dichotomy of mind and object” and emphasizes the conquest of nature. Of course, the development of modern science in the West has benefited mankind a lot, but the continuous conquest of nature has led to many problems, such as greenhouse effect, thinning of the ozone layer, and nuclear weapons, which are threatening the safety of nature and mankind itself. If there is a concept of “universal harmony,” these problems can possibly be avoided. Modern Western society is now very individualized, and there are barriers between people, leading to many social problems and people’s psychological abnormality... All four levels of harmony don’t exist anymore. Therefore, many Western scholars are studying and absorbing Chinese “traditional” culture. REPORTER:  When talking about current Chinese society, some scholars often refer to “cultural transformation period,” so what are the characteristics of the period? What model the new social form in the future will be? TANG YIJIE: “Transformation,” in my opinion, mainly refers to the transformation from ancient times to modern times. In fact, the “transformation period” has begun since the May Fourth movement. At that time, there were roughly three factions, Radicalism, represented by Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu; Liberalism, represented by Hu Shi; and Conservatism, represented by Liang Shuming. Social progress is not the result of a single force, but joint forces of different factions. Therefore, the culture in the period must be diverse. Only when the culture is stabilized and develops in depth, will cultural development have a certain direction. For example, in the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, there was a contention of hundreds of schools, and only when Confucianism became orthodox in the Han Dynasty could culture have a leading direction; During the Song and Ming Dynasties, Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism merged, and Neo-​ Confucianism became orthodox .In fact, the “cultural fever” since the 1980s is also the result of the joint forces of three power (Westernization school, Western humanism and conservatives). I’m afraid the “transformation period” will last for quite a long time, because the establishment of a new cultural form is complex and slow. REPORTER: At this stage of society, the previous value system has been shaken, and some people have lost their life goals and codes of conduct. Some people call it a “morality void.” Can we learn from traditional culture to rebuild the society’s morality?

The Rise of “Sinology Fever”  193 TANG YIJIE:  There

is a concept of moral cultivation and social governance in Chinese traditional culture, “the Tao of inner sage and outer king,” which means that as long as people’s moral cultivation reaches a perfect stage, social problems will be solved. This is actually Pan Moralism. In fact, morality is an internal standard, which lacks objective binding force. The power of morality is never as powerful as people’s wishful thinking and cannot solve all the severe contradictions and problems faced by modern people and modern society, and it is impossible for an ideal social governance system naturally grow out of this theory. This is precisely a defect of Chinese traditional culture. The “Tao of inner saint and outer king” can easily lead to “rule of man” rather than “rule of law.” A healthy society must have two sets of social support systems. One is the moral education system of the society; the second is a sound and complete political and legal system. The reason why China has not yet established a sound legal system is closely related to these traditional concepts. Therefore, when we are building modern Chinese culture today, it is not enough to only learn from traditional culture. We should also open up and learn from the world. The West is learning from the East to solve its problems, so why can’t we learn from the West in order to improve and develop ourselves? China has a history of “absorbing all cultures.” For example, in the Tang Dynasty, Western music, dance and Indian Buddhism were introduced into China. At that time, the number of Buddhist scriptures was “hundreds of times” higher than that of the Confucian classics. Instead of dying out, Chinese culture prospered. We should also have this kind of spirit and confidence now!   “Cultural fever” discusses and studies cultural issues and how Chinese culture moves from “tradition” to “modernity.” For “culture” and “academia,” it is not politicized or ideological. Therefore, politics is “nonexistence” to it, because it discusses “cultural” issues and “academic” issues; “Sinology fever” also discusses cultural issues, but it may accidently become “nonacademic,” politicized and ideological. Then for “culture” and “academia,” the impact of politics on it is likely to be “non-​nothingness.”   When I started to write this book, My Learning and Thinking Experiences, I didn’t know what kind of theme it should be organized by. I chose to write recent materials first, so I first wrote the two chapters of “philosophical thinking on Chinese philosophy” and “around cultural fever,” then wrote the first, second and third chapters of this book, and finally supplemented the section of “the Rise of ‘Sinology Fever’.” People spend their life in very different ways, which are impacted by both subjective and objective factors; some of these factors can be fathomed by us, others not. Trying to figure everything out may be painstaking and pointless. Therefore, the pursuit of life can be purposeful, but it must also be natural. Maybe my life can just be like this. When I wrote the first chapter “From Lament for the South,” it suddenly occurred to me

194  Reflection after the Cultural Fever that Lament for the South is both meaningful and meaningless to me. I seem to get a revelation that my life, study, work, thinking and writing may all be in a state of “between nonexistence and non-​nothingness.” Do I know myself ? I think I both know and don’t know myself. I am myself, so I can’t say I don’t know myself, which is the “non-​nothingness” part; but when asked why I am like this, I can’t say I understand myself, which is the “nonexistence” part. Therefore, my understanding of myself can only be “between nonexistence and non-​nothingness.” So, I can only write about myself as “non-​self and not non-​self.”

Note 1 This was originally included in Between Nonexistence and Non-​nothingness, Taipei, Zhengzhong Book Company, 1995.

19 “Culture Fever” and “Sinology Fever”1

The “anti-​traditional” focus in the May Fourth Movement was the old tradition formed over thousands of years, while the focus of the 1980s was the ultra-​left ideological trend formed over decades. It is harmful to criticize the May Fourth Movement and “culture fever” without analysis. The “sinology studies fever” in the 1990s might develop in two directions: one is to study traditional Chinese culture in the context of the general trend of world cultural development; the other is to study traditional culture off the academic track and become ideological. The “culture fever” that took place in China in the mid-​1980s was first promoted in Beijing by the Twenty-​ first Century Institute, followed by academic groups such as the Chinese Culture Institute and the journal Culture: China and the World. Later in 1992, the “sinology studies fever” quietly emerged, which was marked by the publication of Sinology Studies Quietly Emerge in Yan Yuan and Sinology Studies. In the recent two years, some scholars have written articles proposing to “reflect” on the “culture fever” of the 1980s. In my opinion, it is undoubtedly necessary to make a realistic and rational reflection on the “culture fever” at that time, but some of these views are not in line with reality. Some scholars believe that the “anti-​tradition” of the “culture fever” is radical, reckless and irresponsible; some believe that the “culture fever” has a “pan-​cultural tendency.” I think these scholars don’t really understand the cultural debate in the 1980s and some of them have certain prejudice. Therefore, as a participant in the discussion of cultural issues at that time, I must make some explanations. Why did the discussion of cultural issues occur in the 1980s? In my opinion, there are two reasons that should be taken seriously. The first is that the “Four Modernizations” have made some scholars worry that China may embark on the road of “science and technology” (mainly technology) again. I remember that in May 1985, a small “cultural seminar” was held in Shenzhen with the participation of scholars from Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan, Xi’an and Shenzhen, and two American friends. After the seminar, we wrote a summary, which I will record here for your reference: DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-22

196  Reflection after the Cultural Fever Since the May Fourth Movement, the slogan of modernization has been put forward for half a century, but the process of modernization has been interrupted again and again. Why is this? It seems that there is a problem that has not been well solved. Modernization is not limited to science and technology, but more importantly, it should focus on the modernization of culture, including values, thinking modes and historical reflection on the old and new traditions of our country. Modernization is a very complicated issue, and the idea of realizing it shows that we are still in a historical period of “non-​modernization.” Then, first of all, the problem lies in the relationship between “modernization” and “tradition,” which causes a great conflict in values. And this is closely related to traditional culture. From the above paragraph, we can see that at that time, we had already paid attention to the trend of China’s social development, and hoped that “modernization” should not be limited to “science and technology,” but should also focus on “culture.” That is to say. we hope our country will have a “comprehensive modernization,” not only in science and technology, but also in politics and culture. What we hope is that science and technology, economy, politics and culture can enter the modern era at the same time. We do not want to “skip” material civilization, or directly interfere with the system, or manipulate the culture. We do not hope that culture can cure “all diseases.” But without cultural modernization, can our “modernization” be called complete? When we raised the issue of the relationship between “modernity” and “tradition,” we particularly emphasized the relationship between “modernity” and “new tradition.” We know that the May Fourth Movement’s “anti-​tradition” was the most important factor in the development of the Modern Movement. We know that the focus of the May Fourth Movement’s “anti-​tradition” was against the old traditions that had been formed for thousands of years; while the “anti-​traditional” focus in the 1980s was the new tradition of ultra-​left dogmatism that has been formed for decades. Moreover, the opposition to the ultra-​leftist dogmatic new traditions is also aimed at preserving what has been meaningful and valuable in Chinese culture for thousands of years. These are two sides of the same coin. Will we forget the previous scenes of the Cultural Revolution? At that time, on the one hand, the meaningful and valuable parts of Chinese culture were being destroyed in a frenzy; on the other hand, the dregs of Chinese culture were being extolled. Therefore, we cannot deny the connection between the new ultra-​leftist dogmatic tradition that has been developed over the past few decades and the old tradition with a long history. We should also see that there were at least three different schools of thought (or more) involved in the cultural debate, some radical, some conservative, and some liberal. The three schools, though different in their directions, were able to discuss the issues in a more rational manner and agreed on criticizing the extreme leftist

“Culture Fever” and “Sinology Fever”  197 dogmatism that had developed over the decades. As a result, an unprecedented cooperation has been formed to promote the development of Chinese culture. I think this should be a very valuable experience for the Chinese academic circle. Some scholars now criticize the May Fourth Movement and New Culture Movement and their “anti-​ tradition” tendency without analysis, which I think is very unfair. Think about it, if the old traditions and morals of traditional Chinese culture, such as the “distinction between Chinese and Barbarians,” “the three cardinal guides and six disciplines,” “three rules and four virtues,” “eight-​part essay examination in personnel selection” and so on, had not been violently attacked, can our society move forward? Of course, the May Fourth Movement’s “anti-​tradition” has its shortcomings and one-​sidedness. However, the spirit of it still has its positive meaning today. Moreover, it was the May Fourth Movement and New Culture Movement that criticized the autocracy and decadence, so that the true spirit of Chinese culture could be revealed. I think the problem with the “anti-​traditional” tendency in May Fourth Movement and New Culture Movement was mainly due to political reasons, which made Chinese culture subservient to politics and failed to make culture develop in a more reasonable way. While for the “culture fever” in the 1980s, it was difficult to discuss some specific issues, such as the examination of books, the organization of documents, and the interpretation of words and phrases in a systematic and in-​depth manner under the conditions of the time. It is because we are faced with the question of how to break the dominance of the dogmatic ultra-​leftist trend that has prevailed for many years, and to promote Chinese culture in a way that is conducive to the development of Chinese society and in line with the general trend of contemporary world cultural development. Therefore, the negation of the achievements of the “culture fever” of the 1980s is not only wrong, but also harmful. It will be some time before we can see how the “sinology studies fever” that quietly emerged in mainland China in the 1990s is heading. In the present situation, it is certainly necessary and meaningful to make a rational reflection on the “culture fever” in the 1980s, to affirm its positive value and significance at that time, to point out some of its shortcomings, and to discuss and study some issues in greater depth. We know that things always develop in waves, not in a straight line. After a period of intense criticism of the old and new traditions that hinder the modernization of Chinese society, and especially after a strong impact on the arbitrary dogmatism, scholars are more likely to study some issues in greater depth and to sort out the thousands of years of traditional culture in detail. However, even so, I believe that Chinese scholars cannot ignore the realities of Chinese culture and the question of how to converge with the general trend of world cultural development, while still not ignoring the influence of ultra-​leftist dogmatism that hinders the progress of Chinese society. In my opinion, there

198  Reflection after the Cultural Fever are two different directions for “sinology studies”: one is to truly examine Chinese traditional culture in the context of the general trend of the development of world culture, and to bring the true spirit of Chinese culture in line with the demands of the present era. If we do not keep renewing our traditional culture, but just hold on to what is left, even if we repeat the very meaningful words of the ancients over and over again, it will be difficult to revive Chinese culture, and even more impossible to make Chinese culture contribute to the current era. Or we may even fall into “nationalism” or “narrow nationalism.” But judging from historical experience and the current trend, there is another possibility, which is that the study of traditional Chinese culture has left the academic track and ideologized, thus departing from the original intention of some scholars who are enthusiastic about “nationalism.” At present, it has been suggested that “we cannot rule out the possibility that some people are trying to use the dubious concept of ‘nationalism’ to achieve the purpose of rejecting the new socialist culture from Chinese culture.” There should be some norms for academic research on Chinese traditional culture (but also all academic research). For example, the citation of other people’s research results should be stated; quotations should be sourced; punctuation should follow the usual rules; arguments should be valid. These are obvious. However, there are some so-​called “academic norms” that go beyond the requirements of general “academic norms.” Some people think that only the Qianjia school or a Western school can meet those academic norms. I do not intend to deny the “norms” taken by the Qianjia school or any Western school, and I respect the “norms” of the Qianjia school or a great Western school. But it is probably inappropriate to use a particular school’s “norms” as a universal “academic norm.” I think such a demand is unreasonable. We know that the academic styles of Hu Shi, Chen Yinqian and Xiong Shili are very different, but which one is considered as an “academic norm”? I think that they are their own norms. Establishing a so-​called “norm” is impossible, and will only be harmful to the free development of academics. Now there is a saying, “In the mid-​1980s, when the ‘culture fever’ started, there were thoughts but no academics, while now there are academics but no thoughts.” In my opinion, this view is not only unrealistic, but also untenable to separate “academics” from “thought.” In the 1980s and 1990s, I believe that many scholars have tried to find a feasible way to revive Chinese culture and go global through academic and cultural research. There may be shortcomings in this process, but these are problems that will be overcome with the efforts of all of us as we help Chinese society move toward modernity. In my opinion, scholars who are engaged in academic and cultural work, despite our different academic views, styles, and methods, have desire to revive Chinese culture and to bring it in line with the general trend of the world’s cultural development in the present era. We should absorb the cultures of the West and other nations in the East not in a general way but in a serious way,

“Culture Fever” and “Sinology Fever”  199 and be broad-​minded, then Chinese culture will make a valuable and meaningful contribution to the world culture.

Note 1 This was originally published in Twenty-​first Century, Hong Kong, 1995(10), in Harmony in Diversity, Shenyang, Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 2001.

20 How Western Scholars in Reflection Look at Traditional Chinese Culture1

In the last two or three decades, especially since the 21st century, some prominent Western scholars have turned their eyes to the East, especially to China.

1  Reflect on the West, Turn to the East In 1988, dozens of Nobel Prize winners gathered in Paris, France, and Dr. Hannes Alvin, the Nobel Prize winner in physics, said at the closing session that if mankind is to survive, it must go back 25 centuries to absorb the wisdom of Confucius. That is to say. Western scholars are reflecting on their own culture and turning to the East, beginning to value traditional Chinese culture. For example, the contemporary American sinologist Roger T. Ames, in collaboration with the philosopher David Hall who didn’t speak Chinese, wrote three books in a row, Thinking through Confucius, Expecting China: Thinking through Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture, and Thinking from Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture. They point out that Western philosophy is undergoing a radical change, with philosophers and philosophical movements challenging our familiar views on the objectivity of theory and method from all sides. This general trend has forced us to abandon unanalyzed assumptions about certainty and has in fact set off a real revolution in Western thought.

2  Learning Eastern Wisdom In his book The Psychology of Eastern Meditation, the famous Austrian psychologist Carl Jung points out that Westerners should transform their paranoid minds and learn the Eastern wisdom of a holistic understanding of the world, and that they should give up some of their creepy techniques and dismantle the illusion that they have power, which has cost millions of lives. That is to say, Western scholars have begun to reflect on their own culture, demanding that Western culture be seen from the perspective of Eastern or Chinese culture. François Jurien, a leading contemporary French scholar, pays special attention to Chinese philosophy, saying, “I have thought for a long time that Chinese culture, which is antithetical to anthropology because DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-23

How Western Scholars Look at Traditional Chinese Culture  201 of its self-​reflective character, can lead us to real philosophy.” It is only from the “visionary thinking” and the “external view of the other,” that one can constitute a new understanding of oneself. That is to say. Some Western scholars have realized that in the process of recognizing their own culture, they should have “another” such as traditional Chinese culture as a reference system.

3  Draw New Conclusions from the Dialogue between Eastern and Western Cultures and Seek Development For example, Roger T. Ames and David Hall argue that the Confucian democracy they emphasize is the product of the dialogue between Dewey and Confucius: both Confucius and Dewey emphasized that “man is a person in a specific context” and did not accept the notion of a completely unrestrained liberal individual. Dewey believed that the mere pursuit of an “absolutely independent and free self ” had brought little benefit to the United States, and had in fact hindered the progress of American society. Similar ideas are expressed in Stephen Hinkman’s Celine and the Sage: Knowledge and Wisdom in Ancient Greece and China and Ancient China and Greece: Thinking by Comparison, Jean-​François Lévyre’s Monks and Philosophers: A Dialogue between Buddhism and Western Thought, and Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful.

4  Explore the Modern Significance of the Thought of “The Harmony between Man and Nature” We know that “the distinction between man and nature” has long existed in Western philosophy. As Russell said in his History of Western philosophy: Descartes’ philosophy completed or nearly completed the dualism of spirit and matter that began with Plato and developed through Christianity mainly for religious reasons. The Cartesian system suggests that spirit and matter are parallel and independent of each other, and that one can be studied without involving the other. However, Chinese philosophy’s idea of harmony between man and nature holds that one cannot study “nature” (the way of heaven) without involving “man” (the humanity). Therefore, the critique of the dualistic way of thinking by the contemporary Western “process philosophy” is in a sense influenced by the Chinese way of thinking of “the harmony between man and nature.” They argue that the environment, resources, and human beings should be considered as an intimately connected community of life in the composition of nature, which will be of great significance in solving the current ecological and environmental crisis.

5  A Multi-​perspective Study of the Book of Changes Western scholars attach great importance to China’s ancient Confucian classic, the Book of Changes. Not only have there been more than a dozen

202  Reflection after the Cultural Fever English translations of the book, but there are also works devoted to the study of it. For example, the American scholar John Hilliggs, in his book The Seven Wonders of Chaos-​Timeless Wisdom from the Book of Changes, co-​authored with a British scholar, says, “The Book of Changes is particularly enlightening to us. The scientific idea of chaos originated from researchers studying complex physical systems such as meteorology, electrical circuits, and turbulence.” It is clear that the authors and commentators of the book had long thought deeply about the relationship between order and disorder in nature and human activity, which they eventually called “Taichi.” The book goes on to say that societies in Europe, the United States, and China are in a time of great change, when, as the authors and commentators of the Book of Changes did in the past, people are trying to gain insight into the relationship between the individual and the collective, seeking stability in the midst of eternal change. We are in a time of great energy generated by ideas and perceptions from all sides. The social situation in the contemporary world is similar to a non-​equilibrium state in a physical system. New relative stability and unexpected structures sometimes arise suddenly. Perhaps the science of chaos will help us understand what is happening when societies move in directions we do not expect in the future. Traditional Chinese culture, especially traditional Chinese philosophy, has been valued by many Western scholars, so we should more systematically and comprehensively study our own culture. Besides, we should understand well the various views of Western scholars on traditional Chinese culture, including their criticism, so that traditional Chinese culture can make a greater contribution to human society.

Note 1 This was originally published in People’s Daily, February 4, 2005.

21 Economic Development Still Requires a Sense of Dedication and Moral Responsibility1

1  To Improve Academic Atmosphere and Establish China’s Academic Discourse Power First, policy guidance. Why the academic atmosphere goes wrong in the current academic circle? This is closely related to China’s over-​emphasis on economy and its policy guidance. I have read carefully the recommendations of the 12th Five-​Year Plan. The first sentence of the seventh part of the plan reads: “To drive China’s economic development, we will rely more on scientific and technological innovation...” To promote China’s economic development, we should not only rely on scientific and technological innovation, but also promote the spirit of dedication and moral responsibility. Without it, scientific and technological innovation is likely to fail. There is something wrong in our guiding ideology and policy guidance. I suggest that this paragraph should be added: “Each of us, scholars or citizens, must have a sense of dedication and moral responsibility to promote the country’s economic development,” so as to truly enliven our country. Relying only on science and technology to drive economic development is not enough. Second, quantitative assessment. Nowadays, job titles, applications for scientific projects, and evaluation of scientific achievements are often determined by quantification, rather than by academic values and the real significance. Tsinghua University has an assessment method to quantify education and evaluate the teachers’ performance by counting the number of papers and publications published, the number of appearances on CCTV, Beijing TV, Phoenix TV etc., and the number of academic conferences attended. I criticized it as a wrong approach at that time. Instead, we should focus on their achievements and the evaluation should be done by expert committees, not officials, especially the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Culture. Such quantitative education has lowered the quality of academics now, and the “academic bubble” has become too big. A friend from the General Administration of Press and Publication told me that China produces 200,000 to 300,000 books a year. How many of them are plagiarized? It is difficult to say. The reason why this situation has happened is because of quantitative assessment. Experts and scholars themselves are also responsible, but this DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-24

204  Reflection after the Cultural Fever is also related to the above-​mentioned problem. That is, we do not specifically require scholars and scientists to have a sense of dedication and moral responsibility for the motherland and society. If we do not promote this spirit, we will definitely face these problems. Third, academic values should be given priority. Academic culture should well implement Mao Zedong’s principle of “blossom of hundreds of flowers and contention of hundreds of schools” and not “abolish hundreds of schools and respect Confucianism” like Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty. Because “academic freedom” and “inclusiveness” are the most important creativity sources for scientific, cultural, and academic development. Here I would like to talk about the first issue. If the wrong academic atmosphere is not well improved, our academics, whether in the humanities or the natural sciences, will not be able to produce century-​old and world-​shaking theories. In terms of technology, such as the atomic bomb, we can catch up quickly, but in terms of scientific theories, we have not been able to produce world-​ shaking theories. In the field of humanities and social sciences, many theories, even those used by more influential scholars, are basically Western theories. For example, in philosophy, we have to use Western philosophical theories and hermeneutics to do well. Now hermeneutics has become a trend in the world, whether it is philosophy, religion or history, sociology etc., most of them are using Western hermeneutics to philosophically interpret these issues. We do not take into account that China has a history of 5000 years, and we have a longer history of interpreting classics than the West. As early as the Warring States period, we already had the Zuo Zhuan interpreting The Spring and Autumn Annals and the Yi Zhuan interpreting The Book of Changes, all of which were done 300 or 400 BC . Western interpretation of the classics also existed in ancient Greece, but mainly in the Bible, which is 2000 years old, at least 300 or 400 years later than us. Moreover, the Western interpretation of the classics became a discipline only in the late 19th century. However, although we have a great variety of methods and forms of interpreting the classics, we have not summarized them theoretically and made them an independent discipline, so we have no right to speak in this regard. We are perfectly capable of interpreting our culture with our own interpretation, and even our interpretation must contain some elements that can be shared with the whole world. India, too, has elements that can be shared by other countries and other cultures. Only in this way can the world truly become equal. Now we have set up the Confucian Institute, the first topic is “the study of the history of Chinese scriptures.” Before that, we have completed the History of Confucianism which has made some preparations for the study of the history of scriptures. It is hoped that the writing of the History of Chinese Scriptures will contribute to the Chinese classical interpretation and lay the foundation for the establishment of Chinese hermenological science. Now many of our interpretation theories are from the West. That’s because we haven’t summarized our interpretations of classics in the history and make further analysis which is probably related to our guiding ideology. All in all,

Economic Development Still Requires a Sense of Dedication  205 we should promote a sense of dedication and advocate “blossom of hundreds of flowers and contention of hundreds of schools” to create new theories.

2  Encourage People across Disciplines to Develop Powerful Theories The second problem is that our educational reform has two major failures. The first was the restructuring of faculties in 1952. At that time, we studied the Soviet Union comprehensively, thus interrupting our tradition studies. Our traditions should be inherited critically, as Mao Zedong said, rather than being Sovietized wholesale. For example, the study of philosophy was guided by Zhdanov’s Speech on the History of Western Philosophy and Stalin’s Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism. On the one hand, this affected our tradition, and on the other hand, the wholesale Sovietization and the use of Zhdanov’s and Stalin’s ideas as a guide actually distorted Marxism and affected our normal teaching. In terms of the school system, in order to learn from the Soviet Union, the original traditional and basic universities were arbitrarily merged. For example, Peking University had six colleges: science, arts, engineering, agriculture, law and medicine. Later, the engineering department was transferred to Tsinghua; the law department was transferred to the University of Political Science and Law; the agricultural department became the present agricultural university; and the medical department became a medical university. Tsinghua was also broken up, becoming an engineering university with humanities given to Peking University and law department taken away. Sociology was also discontinued because we were studying the Soviet Union and considered it a bourgeois subject. Now we are facing another problem. For example, Peking University is going to restore the original academic setting. Without the engineering department, it has to establish a new engineering college. It also needs to take back the medical department which has already become an independent Beijing Medical University. Such a process has wasted us much time and has hindered our progress for decades, hasn’t it? The second problem began in the 1990s when we decided to learn everything from the United States, for example, to seek greatness. Without serious arguments and research, an order was issued. First of all, Hangzhou University merged with Zhejiang University. The humanities department of Hangzhou University, which had solid foundation, was broken up, and some people left. Those who stayed could hardly play a role. The second change took place in Jilin University, which is bigger than Zhejiang University. Does our country need a university of this large size? Is it necessary according to our actual situation? And, do the disciplines have to be set up in the same way as in the United States? For example, some scholars now propose the establishment of a college or department for Chinese studies. This issue is still under debate. I think it is possible to consider Chinese studies as a discipline, and we can consider what kind of discipline it should be, whether it should be a primary or secondary discipline. Chinese “sinology studies”

206  Reflection after the Cultural Fever include literature, history, philosophy, politics, economics and law, and the world trend now is also advocating interdisciplinarity. To truly study cultural traditions or Chinese cultural issues, one needs to understand literature, history and philosophy; to truly pass on the lifeblood of Chinese culture, it is not enough to understand philosophy, history or literature, but must be interdisciplinary, because the study of national studies must understand Chinese history, philosophy, literature and art, legal system, political system etc. We have 5000 years of history, especially the lasting 2000 years, and what impact has our culture had on Chinese social life? Without promoting interdisciplinary research, it is difficult to truly know how Chinese culture has evolved to where it is today. Similarly, a true understanding of Western culture requires interdisciplinarity. For example, to study Aristotle, one needs to know philosophy, ethics and aesthetics; to study Hegel, one needs to know his spiritual phenomenology, aesthetics and logic. A true master is an interdisciplinary expert, and a truly powerful academic theory must have a very broad perspective. Why do we have to follow American disciplines, and why can’t we set up the discipline of “sinology studies”? All these are questions. In fact, schools that have the power and characteristics to run their own can do so. This involves the issue of de-​administration. Our universities are now too administrative to manage almost everything, such as setting subjects, enrolling students, declaring subjects and teaching evaluation. In my opinion, the main function of the education administration department should focus on inspecting and supervising, rather than direct management.

3  Change the Basic Pattern of Emphasizing Science over Literature The third problem is that economic stimulation has too much power. Today, the Ministry of Education and other institutions are setting up various programs for scholars and projects, and using economic incentives to stimulate these scholars to work better and hopefully innovate. It is fine to give more salary to scholars who have achieved something, but the creation of too many titles will create many problems and deepen the conflicts among the faculty. Teachers who do not get these titles and money will not be pleased with this, and will be resistant to teaching in schools, which will have an impact on their own teaching. They will find a way to deal with this by taking part-​time jobs, lecturing outside the school, or just doing a perfunctory job at school. What would happen if scholars were all eager to work part-​time and lecture outside? Therefore, we should promote the spirit of dedication, moral responsibility, should see their work as for the motherland and even for the whole of humanity. At the same time, the salary of teachers should refer to that in the national administrative ministries and large state-​owned enterprises. Of course, a large state-​owned enterprise can generate a lot of income for the country, but if a university student can create a theory that shocks the world, it is much more meaningful. Teachers should be able to concentrate on doing research.

Economic Development Still Requires a Sense of Dedication  207 The fourth problem is that we have not changed the basic pattern of emphasizing science over literature. Our investment in science, especially in technical science, is particularly large (the investment in scientific theory is often not very large). One may be more than 100 million, but the investment in humanities is very little. Like one of our departments, we used to get one or two million a year, but in 2011 it may be a little more, and compared to science, the funding is still much less. The common equipment and public housing for science are much larger. However, although the science department has such excellent conditions, it does not guarantee that it does not cause problems. The science department still creates the problem such as academic corruption. I read an article in the Beijing Evening News on November 23, 2010, which said that Peking University recently withdrew its Center for Economic Management because it was actually a business for training and selling insurance. More and more institutions want to affiliate with Peking University or other universities, mainly to generate income. In the case of Peking University, there are more than 200 institutions getting affiliated with it every year, which is certainly beneficial to Peking University or other universities. I am not opposed to the academic service of the college for the society. Of course, it can be used as a means of generating income, but only in a limited way. Otherwise, many teachers will go to those institutions, and the school can’t manage them well. Even when some institutions do things that are bad for society, the school cannot figure out. This will cause problems. Therefore, I think all these problems require us to promote the spirit of dedication and moral responsibility for the country and for all mankind. And I think it may be more comprehensive to add “the need to promote the spirit of dedication and moral responsibility” after “to promote our economic development relies more on science and technology innovation.” This article was originally an interview written by a reporter from the China Social Science Journal, but it became my signed article when it was published, and now I have made some textual changes to the interview, which I hereby state.

Note 1 This was originally published in China Social Science Journal, December 30, 2010.

Part IV

The Meaning of Cross-​cultural Dialogue

22 The Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Comparative Religion Regarding the Introduction of Indian Buddhism into China1 This article does not intend to analyze and study the whole history of the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China, but only to discuss the relationship between Buddhism and the original Chinese thought and culture after its introduction into China during the Han, Wei, Jin and North and South Dynasties, in order to illustrate the significance of studying comparative philosophy and comparative religion.

1  The Introduction of Indian Buddhism into China and the Popularity of Prajna in the Wei and Jin Dynasties There are various sayings about when Indian Buddhism was introduced into China. The dispatch of an emissary to the West to seek Buddhism in the middle of the Yongping period (58–​75) of Ming Emperor of the Eastern Han Dynasty is generally recognized as the beginning of Buddhism’s introduction into China. But let us disregard the legends that Zhang Qian went to the Western regions and “knew the existence of Buddhism” and that Yicun, the envoy of Great Rouzhi from the Western Regions once dictated the Buddha Sutra. The introduction of Buddhism into China was definitely before the middle of the Yongping period. In the eighth year of Yongping, Ming Emperor decreed that all the deadly sins could be atoned for by the payment of thick silk. Emperor Ying of Chu (the brother of Ming Emperor) sent 30 pieces of thick silk to atone for the crime, so Ming Emperor issued an edict saying: The emperor of Chu chanted the delicate words of the Yellow Emperor and Laozi, admiring the benevolence and compassion of the Buddha in his heart. He had fasted for three months and swore an oath to the Buddha. What suspicions and doubts would he have, and why did he need to repent? He returned those items of atonement to reward the Buddhist disciples. Emperor of Chu worshipped Yellow Emperor, Laozi and Buddha in the same way, indicating that Buddhism must have been introduced into China DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-26

212  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue some time before the eighth year of Yongping, so it is a little late to regard Yongping’s seeking for Buddhism as the beginning. Although we cannot say that Buddhism began to enter China since Yongping period, it is generally true that Buddhism became more influential after that. Later on, Buddhism flourished in the Eastern Jin Dynasty after several stages of spread and development. In the Eastern Han Dynasty, Buddhism was spread as one of the popular Taoist magic arts at that time. Since the two Han dynasties, Taoist magic art has been very popular, and both the art of Yellow Emperor and Laozi and the art of the alchemist were called Taoist magic art at that time. But the content of secret recipe was quite extensive, such as the rituals for immortality and the art for longevity. According to the Book of the Later Han –​Secret Recipe, there were so-​called studies of “yin-​yang calculation of astronomy and calendar,” “culture of Heluo Area,” “picture of divine dragon and tortoise,” “divination of Jizi,” “the theory of confucianist divination,” “Taoist signs of Ling Jue,” “books of Shi Kuang.” Besides, there were so-​called divination methods such as “Fengjiao,” “Dunjia,” “Qizheng,” “Yuanqi,” “Liuri,” “Qifen,” “Fengzhan,” “Rizhe,” “Tingzhuan,” “Xuyu,” “Guxu.” It was because “Emperor Hanwu favored secret recipe a lot. As a result, people who mastered Taoist magic arts all seized the momentum. Wangmang resorted to God’s sign foretelling the emperor’s order. Later, Emperor Guangwu especially believed in divination. Therefore, many people were eager to learn secret recipe and talked about it a lot.” According to the records of the time, “Yellow Emperor and Laozi” and “Buddha” were considered as the same “Taoist magic art.” Xiang Kai wrote a letter in the ninth year of Yanxi of Emperor Huan (166) saying that: I heard that the shrines of Yellow Emperor, Laozi and Buddha had been set up in the palace. Their doctrines advocate emptiness and inaction. They value life and hate killing, limit the desire and avoid extravagancy. However, now your majesty doesn’t limit your desire and avoid extravagancy, even resort to punishment unreasonably. Since you advocate these doctrines, how can you achieve the benefits without following their ways? Even Buddhism followers call themselves “Taoists.” Mouzi said in Theory of Confusion, “There are 96 kinds of Taoism, but there is no one greater than the Buddha’s Taoism.” The Forty-​two Chapters Sutra also calls itself the “Buddhist Taoism,” and its contents are consistent with Chinese Taoism, such as “Arahants are able to fly and change, live long lives, and shock the heaven and earth” (Chapter 1), and “Those who learn Taoism should remove the dirt from their minds, and then their action will be pure” (Chapter 35). All are like the words of Yellow Emperor and Laozi Immortals. At that time, the main content of Buddhism is “immortality of the soul,” “karma” and so on. Yuan Hong said in Later Han Chronicle:

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  213 It is also believed that the spirit of death is immortal and will reappear. There is retribution for all the good and evil done in life. Therefore, it is important to practice good and cultivate the spirit, and even do nothing, thus to become a Buddha. However, this kind of thinking is inherent in China. The idea of “soul immortality” is expressed in China as “theory of ghosts.” The Book of Songs·Daya·Xiawu says that “the souls of the three emperors are in the sky.” Zhuangzi –​Health Preservation says that when the firewood is burned out, the fire will be passed down. Huai Nan Zi –​Spiritual Training says that if someone’s spirit remains unchanged despite the wear and tear on his form, then such a person is able to respond to change with no change; he is able to respond to a thousand changes in external objects that become fruitless. Then, Huan Tan had the theory that “the form is exhausted and spirit will also disappear,” and Wang Chong held that “after death, human will not become a ghost,” which are criticism of the idea of “soul immortality.” The idea that “spiritual immortality” depends on “cultivation” is also an existing view in China. Although Buddhism and Central Plains differ in the concept of “karma,” the circulated concept in the Han Dynasty was actually consistent with the original Chinese saying “Bless those who do good, and bring disaster to those who do evil” (Book of Changes –​Kungua: “Those who do more good deeds will surely bless future generations; those who always do evil things will surely bring disasters for future generations”). At the end of the Han Dynasty and the beginning of the Wei Dynasty, there were increasing translations of Buddhist scriptures, including both the Hinayana and Mahayana scriptures. As a result, Buddhism was divided into two major systems to spread in China: One is the An Shigao sect which belongs to the Hinayana Buddhism and focuses on the Zen Buddhism. The second is the Lokaksema School, which belongs to Mahayana Buddhism and teaches Prajna. An Shigao came to Luoyang at the beginning of Emperor Huan’s Jianhe period (147) and translated many sutras, the most influential of which were Breath-​Mindfulness Discourse and Yin Chi Ru Jing. The former is the method of practicing Zen, which is about breathing and keeping the mind, which is similar to the breathing and exhaling techniques of the Chinese Taoists and Shintoists; the latter explains Buddhist nomenclature concepts, which is similar to the chapter and verse of the Chinese sutra commentary. An Shigao’s re-​passed disciple Kang Senghui was already in Wu Shi. This system’s theory on the life and the universe is based on “spirit,” using “Four Majors” (wind, fire, water, earth) to represent “Five Elements” (metal, wood, water, fire and earth), using “Five Precepts” to represent “Five Constants.” It says that “spirit” means “Five Elements,” that is, “Five Yin” (Five Aggregates). For example, the “Five Yin Zhong” in the Yin Chi Ru Sutra Notes explains: “Five Yin Zhong forms the body... It is also like the spirit... Since the spirit is contained, after the rise and fall, the recession and

214  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue the prosperity, and the ending and the beginning with no definite end, then it is called Zhong. Buddhism believes that people are formed by the accumulation of Five Yin, so An Shigao’s Yin Chi Ru Sutra said that “accumulation of Yin forms the appearance.” In China, the theory of “vigor” has been popular since the pre-​Qin period and flourished in the two Han dynasties. Vigor is related to appearance and spirit. The body is formed by rough vigor, while the spirit is formed by “refined vigor.” This doctrine is much related to the “health preservation” of the immortals. The Annals of Lu Buwei believed that in order to achieve longevity, “spirit” must be in constant circulation in the body, and “the refined vigor should be renewed every day, and the evil vigor should go away every day,” and “if the spirit is at peace with the form, life will be longer.” At that time, the Buddhists of the An Shigao also linked the “Five Yin” with “vigor,” saying that if the vigor was well coordinated, the mind would be peaceful and the body would be free of disease. If the vigor was not well coordinated, the Yin and Yang elements are not in harmony, the body will get sick. In the Buddhist Medical Sutra translated by Zhu Lvyan and Zhi Yue in the Wu Dynasty, it is said that There are four types of diseases in the human body. One is the earth, the other is water, the third is fire, and the fourth is wind. If the wind is strong, the breath will be panting; if the fire is strong, heat will be rising; if the water is strong, coldness will be increasing; if the earth is strong, the body will be heavy. The four our major diseases will cause four hundred and four sicknesses. Earth relates with the nose, water relates with the mouth, fire relates with the eyes, and wind belongs to relates with the ears. This is very similar to the medical theory that was popular during the Han Dynasty. In order to harmonize the internal vigor of the body, it is necessary to guide the vigor to the positive side and not to the evil side, so that the mind can be calm and not generate all kinds of desires and worries. When the mind is active and there are thoughts, then there are all kinds of worries. How to eliminate these worries, at that time, according to Hinayana Zen Buddhism, was to nourish the mind; and nourishing the mind was to “keep the mind.” “Keeping the mind” means concentrating on one mind so that no other thought arises. Anban Shouyi Sutra says, “If there is no thought that arises, it is keeping the mind. If any thought arises, it fails to keep the mind.” An Shigao’s translation of Buddha Sutra says: “Buddha believes that Bhikkhus should be able to sit peacefully, keep the mind and speaks Sanskrit language. Those who are unable to do so should close their eyes and listen well, and then they will be able to hear the Buddha’s words and understand them with joy, and then they will understand the doctrine of arhatship.” “Keeping the mind” is called “Anban.” “An” means breathing in (inhale) and “Ban” means breathing out (exhale) just like the breathing methods of Yellow Emperor, Laozi and other Immortals. Therefore, Dao’an’s Preface to Anban says,

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  215 “Anban means breathing in and out” and “Anban depends on breath to keep the mind.” If one can “keep the mind,” his mind and spirit will be clear and quiet, and then he will be able to become a Buddha. Therefore, Kang Singhui’s Preface to Anban says, Once a person who practices Anban Zen has a clear mind, there is nothing that he cannot see. He can see and hear all things near and far. In a trance, he comes and goes freely; his vastness can pervade the universe; his subtlety can penetrate the hair; he can control the changes of heaven and earth, and make people live for a long time; his miraculous and courageous merits can defeat the heavenly soldiers, shake the three thousand worlds, move the temples and pagodas, and have eight incredible effects that cannot be detected by Brahma. His miraculous merits and virtues are unlimited, and the six divine powers are thus generated. It can be seen that the Hinayana Zen preached by An Shigao’s system was obviously dependent on some thoughts of the Yellow Emperor, Laozi and other Immortals that were popular in our country at that time, and used their Taoism to explain Buddhism. Lokaksema School, which taught Mahayana Prajna, was different. Lokaksema (Zhiloujiachen)’s disciple was Zhi Liang, and his second disciple was Zhi Qian. They were known as the “Three Zhi.” Lokaksema came to Luoyang at the end of Emperor Huan (167) and translated the Prajna Paramita Sutra in 179, and he asked Zhi Qian to change it into the Great Wisdom and Original Nature Sutra. This name already shows that he made Buddhism cater to the metaphysics centered on Lao-​Zhuang’s thought at that time. “Prajna Paramita” was translated into “Great Wisdom,” which was taken from the meaning of “having the great wisdom to see hidden constants” in Laozi, and “Paramita” into “Original Nature” (reach the limitless) which means achieving the state of unity with “Tao” (“limitless”). Therefore, there is this statement in the original note of the Great Wisdom and Original Nature Sutra written by Zhi Qian: The teacher (referring to his teacher Zhi Liang) said, Bodhisattva understands Tao in mind and achieves the state of unity with Tao. Once the mind unites with Tao, they are invisible; they are also empty. Unity of mind and Tao is also reflected in other places such as “being united with Tao without regaining the body” in the Buddha’s Four Self-​ Inflicted Sutras translated by Dharmaraka and the so-​called “following the Tao” in Biography of Mr. Great Man written by Ruanji. According to Zhi Qian and others, one’s mind originated from the Tao, but due to various reasons (such as the temptation of greed), the mind is affected by them and cannot be united with the Tao. If the mind wants to free itself from these limitations, the key point is to recognize the Tao, and if it can recognize its origin, then one will become a Buddha again. This is in fact a Buddhist interpretation of the thought of Lao-​Zhuang.

216  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue During the Wei and Jin Dynasties, the metaphysical ontology thought based on the thoughts of Lao-​Zhuang was very popular. The central issue discussed in metaphysics was the question of “whether things exist or not,” while Buddhist Prajna and metaphysics were relatively close to each other, so the monks at that time mostly used metaphysics to explain Buddhism. And the method they adopted gradually changed from “geyi (using Chinese terms to interpret Buddhism)” to the metaphysical method of “getting the meaning without using the words” (expressing the meaning). There is a very noticeable phenomenon in this period. That is, famous monks and famous scholars have many similarities in the views of world affairs, and they are often advertised as being free and liberal, transcending the world. Famous scholars used three books to promote their metaphysics. Famous monks also used them to explain Buddhism. In the Western Jin Dynasty, Zhi Xiaolong made friends with famous scholars Ruan Zhan and Yu Kai at that time. They were called “Eight Da” by people. In the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Sun Choo wrote A Treatise on the Taoist Sages, comparing the seven monks with the seven sages of the Bamboo Forest. Many famous monks understood the thoughts of Laozi and Zhuangzi deeply. According to the historical books: Zhu Fazhu “has learned the six scriptures and the thoughts of many schools”; Zhi Zun praised Yu Falan for “having a comprehensive understanding of metaphysics”; Zhi Xiaolong, said he “follows the Tao and feels free, believing in nirvana”; Zhu Daoqian said he “has been lecturing for over 30 years, teaching both Prajna and Lao-​Zhuang”; Zhi Dun “advocated Lao-​Zhuang” and wrote notes for the Happy Excursion; Dao’an compared constantly changing Tao with two noble truths; Hui Guan annotate The Lotus Sutra to explore Lao-​Zhuang; Huiyuan was “an expert in the six scriptures, especially in the study of Lao-​Zhuang.” At that time, many famous monks were preaching Prajna, and they also understood the thought of Lao-​Zhuang. But most of the Buddhism introduced from India and the West at that time was about Prajna. It is no coincidence that Prajna became popular, as Dao’an’s Preface to the Nirvana says: Among twelve parts, the Vijayra part is the largest in number. They follow metaphysics of Lao-​Zhuang which is similar to Prajna. And they change their behaviors. “Vijayra” is also called Fangdeng (or Fangguang, the general term of Mahayana Sutra). Prajna belongs to Fangdeng, so it can be seen that the prevalence of Prajna in the two Jin Dynasties must be related to metaphysics. However, it was in the early years of the Eastern Jin Dynasty that the great works of the Prajna Sutra (the Fangguang Prajna Paramita Sutra and the Guangzan Prajna Paramita Sutra) really flourished, so the Narrative of the Gradual Preparation Sutra says. Although great works came out for decades, people didn’t know how to study them in a comprehensive way nor understand their contents… Great

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  217 works then were taught to people everywhere, and many scholars paid attention to them and live on them. The Guangzan Prajna Paramita Sutra of Dharmarakṣa was translated in the seventh year of Taikang (286), and the Fangguang Prajna Paramita Sutra of Dharmaratna was translated in the first year of reign of Emporer Yuankang (291). It was not until the beginning of the Eastern Jin Dynasty that they became prevalent. This has a lot to do with the social and historical conditions at that time. Since the Wei and Jin Dynasties, the power of the prestigious family with generations of officials in China has continued to develop, and it has reached its peak by the time of Yuankang. Then it began to decline. The Rebellion of the Eight Kings, the northwest minority nationalities’ entry into the Central Plains, and the southern migration of Jin Dynasty of Sima, which hastened the downfall of this ruling group. The group had neither the means nor confidence in their own fate and the future of society, so they were more concerned about their own “liberation from life and death.” That’s why Buddhism and Taoism became more popular after the Eastern Jin Dynasty. Ultimately, the purpose of religion is to find a surreal world for people, saying that in that illusory world, it can solve the ubiquitous but unsolvable sufferings of life and death in the real society. Buddhism is certainly no exception. After the introduction of Prajna into China, people just translated the scriptures before the Eastern Jin Dynasty and monks didn’t have their own systematic understanding of Prajna. While in the Eastern Jin Dynasty, schools with different understandings of Prajna appeared. Sengzhao wrote Not Real but Empty Theory that talked about three schools, namely “Benwu,” “Jise” and “Xinwu.” In the Liu Song dynasty, Tanji wrote Different Schools and Factions of Prajna, and Seng Zhao wrote Truth of Six Schools. All of them are about the Prajna School since the Eastern Jin Dynasty. We are not going to discuss these popular Prajna studies in detail here, but it is worth noting that the question of “whether things exist or not” discussed in metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties is actually a question discussed by various schools of Prajna studies that were popular at that time. Let’s take Sengzhao’s Not Real but Empty Theory as an example to illustrate this problem:

(1)  Let Go of Obsessions In Sengzhao’s Not Real but Empty Theory, he says, “Xinwu School lets go of all obsessions, but all things still exist there. One should empty his mind. If he loses, then he must have failed to recognize the falsehood of things.” According to Jizang’s Two Noble Truths: Xinwu School thinks that one should let go of all the obsessions, but things have always existed there. Before Shishi, Dao’an and Dharmarakṣa had expressed the same meaning. Xinwu School quoted the sutra, saying: Xinwu School knows that things are real. They let go of all

218  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue obsessions about things in order to prove their emptiness view. They know that all things are not real but things exist there actually. Zhaoshi reveals that one should empty his mind to achieve. If he loses, then he must have failed to recognize the falsehood of things. One can only comprehend something by letting go all of obsessions. If he holds the opposite view, then it should be considered a failure. “Mind emptiness” means emptying one’s mind but acknowledging the existence of all things. “Acknowledging the existence of all things” means that all things have always existed there. In the Tang Dynasty, Yuankang’s commentary on the The Corpus of Sengzhao says, “Things do exist, never disappearing,” and “it’s a failure not to know that the nature of things is emptiness.” This point is very similar to Guo Xiang’s thought, that “not knowing the nature of things is emptiness” recognizing the existence of nature of things. Guo Xiang opposes the idea that “nothing is the essence” and believes that “nothing” is not the essence of “all existence.” “Being” is the only existence, and the basis of existence lies in the “self-​nature” of all things, so he says “Each thing has its own nature.” “Empty mind” means “keeping nothing in mind.” Yuankang says, “But the mind doesn’t insist on certain things, so it is empty.” This point is also similar to Guo Xiang’s idea. Seven articles in Guo Xiang’s commentary on Zhuangzi have their brief introductions, among which three are about “empty mind.” The introduction of The World on Earth says, “Only the one who keeps mind empty and does not use it is able to adapt to changes without being burdened by them”; the introduction of The Great Master says, “Although the heaven and earth are large and all things are rich, the one who is the master of them keeps his mind empty”; The One that should be the emperor says, “The one who keeps mind empty and is free to change himself should be the emperor.” Accordingly, Guo Xiang believes that the sage keeps mind empty and adapts to things, so he can “follow the changes and not be burdened by them.” Although there are many similarities between “non-​existence mind” and Guo Xiang’s thought, we can say that “non-​existence school” was directly developed from Guo Xiang’s thought. Rather, it was under the influence of the metaphysical culture of the time, the issues discussed and attended to by metaphysics were often the same issues discussed and attended to by Buddhism.

(2)  Things without Substance Zhi Dun (Zhi Daolin) advocates “thing without substance.” It is said that he wrote nearly 20 books, including The Explanation of Thing without Substance, The Theory on the Thing without Substance, The Chapter on the Wonderful View, and The Treatise on the Happy Excursion, but most of them have been lost and only fragments have survived. A New Account of Tales of the World –​ Literature quotes his chapter of Wonderful View (the full text of which has been lost), saying:

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  219 The nature of thing does not come from the thing itself. Thing cannot be created by itself. Although it is still called thing, it is non-​existent. Therefore, it is said: thing is non-​existent despite its existence. Hui Da also said in The Corpus of Seng Zhao that: Master Zhi Daolin said in Thing Without Substance Theory that: “I think thing without substance is non-​existent, not the exclusion of non-​ existence by thing” (According to: Vimala Sutra) which is quite reasonable. Why? The nature of thing does not come from the thing itself. Thing cannot be created by itself. Although it is still called thing, it is non-​existent. The term “thing is not a substance” means that physical phenomena do not have self-​nature; “thing exists without substance” means that there is no self (support) or no essence (substance) behind things. Therefore, the term “self-​nature” here means “support” or “substance.” Since things do not have “support,” then although there are thousands of different phenomena, they are not real, so it is said that “things exist but without substance.” Although there are thousands of different phenomena but in fact there is no real self. In the Wei and Jin Dynasties, “non-​existence” could also be translated as “nothing” and metaphysicians (or Buddhists influenced by metaphysics) at that time often said that “non-​existence” or “nothing” was the essence of things (such as taking nothing as the basis that will be mentioned later). Therefore, Zhi Dun’s idea is similar to Guo Xiang’s in their belief that there is no “substance” behind things. “Non-​substance” means that there is no “non-​existence” (or “nothing”) behind things as the essence, although there are phenomena but no essence. Therefore, it is said that “things exist but without substance.” Since things have no essence, it is not “non-​existence” after “thing” is destroyed. From this point of view, it is appropriate to say that the theory of non-​existence of things is also called the non-​substance of things. In one way, Zhi Dun’s thought is similar to Guo Xiang’s, such as the idea that there is no real essence behind things; but in another way, his thought is not the same as Guo Xiang’s, such as the idea that things are “non-​existent” in the first place, since they have no real substance. If we look at the interpretation of Zhuangzi’s The Happy Excursion, we can see that Zhi Dun’s thought is different from Guo Xiang’s. According to The Biography of the Eminent Monk –​Zhi Dun: Talking about Zhuangzi· the Happy Excursion, Liu Xizhi and others said: being free means being at one’s own will. Dun reputed: It’s not true. If vicious and brutal people do whatever they want at their own will. How can other people get away with it and be free? So he then commented on the Happy Excursion.

220  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue “Being free means being at one’s own will” is exactly the idea of Guo Xiang’s commentary on the Happy Excursion. He said in his introduction of the Happy Excursion: There are differences in the size of all things, but if they are placed in the places where they belong, then everything acts according to its nature, everything is used properly, everything is the way it should be. They are the same free. Guo Xiang’s first note on the Happy Excursion says: Zhuangzi focuses on being happy and free. Even if doing nothing, one should enjoy oneself. Differences in size are inevitable but one should follow the nature and be free. It can be seen that Zhi Dun opposes the above-​mentioned view of Guo Xiang. Then how did Zhi Dun think about “the happy excursion”? The full text of his commentary on the Happy Excursion is no longer available, except for a passage in the commentary on A New Account of Tales of the World –​ Literature, which says: Freedom is the state of mind of the saint. Zhuangzi talks about the “Great aoism” and uses Roc bird and quail as an example. The Roc bird seems uncomfortable on the outside because the environment he lives in is too vast; the quail is proud of itself and jokes on those with high ambition despite its short-​sightedness. The sage is happy only when he conforms to the heaven and earth; the sage behaves uncontrollably and travels around freely, harnesses all things without being harnessed by them, then he will feel unstrained and free; he can perceive things quickly without a rush but interfere with nothing, then there is nothing uncomfortable about being free. This is the so-​called happiness and freedom. For those who want a lot and are satisfied with their abundance, they are happy as if they are naive, as if a hungry person had a full meal and a thirsty person had a full drink. Have they forgotten the humble food they once ate and the good wine they drank? Could they feel free and happy if they had not reached the most satisfying situation? According to Guo Xiang, although all things are different in size, they are all “free” in their own way. While Zhi Dun believes that whether one is free depends on how he views things. If one can “perceive the thing but not be restrained by it,” subjectively dominate all things without being burdened by them; “perceive things quickly without a rush but interfere with nothing,” only objectively sense all things but not force them, respond to all changes with no change, only then can one be “free.” If one pursues “freedom” just to satisfy his nature, it is just like a hungry man who only

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  221 wants a full meal or a thirsty man who only wants a drink. How can such a low demand be called “free”? Therefore, only the “highest level” can be called “free.” According to Zhi Dun, the so-​called “highest level” is the one who can “follow the nature of heaven and earth” (see Zhuangzi –​the Happy Excursion) and be happy, and swim endlessly in the wild, living in the world but not limited by its finiteness and is absolutely transcendent in his thinking and can be free and relaxed. Zhi Dun thinks that being free or not depends on whether one can transcend the limitations of time and space. The other article by Zhi Dun, The Theory on the Thing without Substance and Metaphysics, has been lost. But it is likely to be a combination of his “thing without substance” and “meaning of freedom.” If one can realize that “thing has no nature on its own,” then he can “perceive the thing but not be restrained by it,” “perceive things quickly without a rush but interfere with nothing,” and he will “be totally free in all aspects.” In other words, his mind can completely transcend the limitations of time and space. Therefore, “being a Buddha” of Zhi Dun is actually the pursuit of “freedom and liberalization” of the metaphysicians. In this way, his The Theory on the Thing without Substance and Metaphysics and The Explanation on Thing without Substance are ideologically consistent and do not contradict each other. From the above analysis, it can be seen that what Zhi Dun’s “thing without substance” discussed is also a metaphysical issue, and his view on “being free and happy” shows that he himself is a metaphysician. Although his view is different from Guo Xiang’s, it is closer to Zhuang Zhou’s original meaning.

(3)  Non-​existence School From Tanji’s Six Schools and Seven Sects and Jizang’s Middle Theory, there are two kinds of schools that focus on non-​existence. One is “non-​existence school” and the other is “non-​existence as an entity school.” The former is the doctrine of Dao’an, and the latter is the doctrine of Dharma Shen (Master Fashen is Zhu Daoqian). They are quite similar to each other, so I will not distinguish here. I will only analyze Dao’an’s “non-​existence theory” in order to clarify its relationship with metaphysics. According to Jizang’s Middle Theory: Before Luoshi entered the pass, there were three original non-​existence schools in China in Chang’an. Jizang pointed out that one representative was Dao’an who said that nothingness appeared before all existence. Non-​existence was the beginning of all appearances. The reason why people are stagnant and can’t move on is that they don’t believe in nothingness. If they keep nothingness in mind, then all the desires and troubles can be eliminated. In detail, Dao’an understood non-​existence theory and knew that all dharmas are empty in nature, so he called it nothingness in essence.

222  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue Here, Dao’an first proposed that what existed before all things with form and image was “nothingness” and “non-​existence.” But “nothingness” is not “non-​existence.” Therefore, he says, “Before the appearance of the universe, there was a state of nothingness. Non-​existence is the beginning of all things. Therefore, nothingness is the basis. But ‘non-​existence’ can’t give birth to all things.” (The Famous Monk’s Biographies, quoted in Tanji’s Theory on the Six Schools and Seven Sects). Therefore, the so-​called “nothingness” that produces “all existence” is not “non-​ existence.” Rather, “non-​ existence” or “nothingness” is the essence of “all existence,” and it exist before “all existence.” Dao’an’s reflection on the Buddhist Prajna Emptiness is that “non-​existence” means that “all dharmas have no self-​nature.” That is, there is no real existence in everything. (Details can be referenced later). Dao’an’s “non-​existence theory” is close to Wang Bi’s “nothingness as the basis” thought, and it is more in line with Zhang Zhan’s idea. Zhang Zhan also speaks of “nothingness as the basis,” but the “nothingness” he speaks of seems to be outside (above) the “existence.” As he says, “the pure nothingness is the master of all changes,” and “the non-​existent being is the origin of all existence.” That is to say, there must be a surreal absolute outside “all existence” as the master of “all existence.” This view is not quite the same as Wang Bi’s. Although Wang Bi thinks that “nothingness” is the essence of “existence,” “nothingness” is not outside “existence.” “Nothingness can’t be without existence, it must depend on existence”; “existence” can’t be without “nothingness,” “existence must rely on nothingness, and we can’t abandon nothingness for existence.” Dao’an talks about “non-​existence theory,” and regards “nothingness” as before “all existence,” so his thought is closer to Zhang Zhan’s. In addition, Dao’an even used the “theory of vital energy” to explain the composition of heaven and earth, as did Zhang Zhan. Tanji’s Six Schools and Seven Sects says: The first non-​existence theory suggested, “When Buddha first appeared, he preached Buddhism on the basis of nothingness.” Therefore, vaipulya all involves Five Yin and nothingness theory. The nothingness theory has already existed for a long time... What is it? Before the appearance of the universe, the world was empty and silent. Then, vital energy came into being and created much existence with various appearances. But ‘non-​existence’ can’t give birth to all things. The reason why people are stagnant and can’t move on is that they don’t believe in nothingness. If they keep nothingness in mind, then all the desires and troubles can be eliminated. That is why advocating nothingness can help resist desires. The so-​called “nothingness” of Dao’an also means the “vital energy” which is invisible and without any image. This view is the same as that of the monks of the Han and Wei Dynasties who explained the composition of heaven and earth and all things. In the Tang Dynasty, Seng Hui’s translation of Six Degrees Collection Volume 8 Chawei Emperor Sutra says, “He profoundly observes the primordial nature of life, which is originally lifeless. The

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  223 strongest of the mixed elements is earth, the softest is water, the warmest is fire, and the moving is wind. Only those with superior wisdom can realize the truth of this. By stopping the desires and making the mind empty and silent, we can return the divine consciousness to its original non-​existent nothingness... Divine consciousness and vital energy are too subtle to be seen.” In Yin Chi Ru Sutra, the Five Yin elements are also called “vital energy.” Therefore, “the nothingness basis” does not mean that “all things” arise from “emptiness,” but that “all things” evolve from the invisible and unimaginative vital energy. All things of all shapes and colors are created from the invisible and imageless energy, and human beings are no exception. Sengzhao’s Not Real but Empty Theory criticizes the “non-​ existence school,” saying: The person who believes in nothingness sets his heart on nothingness and reveres nothingness, so whenever talking about the issue, he centers around nothingness. Nothingness can also be said to be “non-​existence,” which is the way of looking at things from the perspective of existence. From the point of view of nothing, existence is also nothing, because no matter how much existence is put into nothingness, it is still nothing. Some people say that “existence” is “non-​nothingness” or “without nothingness,” in which case “not without nothingness is also “nothingness.” This means that the “nothingness school” prefers “nothingness” as the real essence and bases its arguments on “nothingness.” Therefore, they do not recognize “existence” and believe that “existence” is inseparable from “nothingness.” That is, “nothingness is the basis.” They do not regard “nothingness” as “non-​existence,” but think that “nothingness” is inseparable from “non-​existence.” “In other words, they insist on ‘nothingness’, and consider ‘nothingness’ as ‘true non-​existence’.” However, according to the original purpose of the Buddhist sutra, it just says that “non-​existence” is not really existence; “non-​nothingness” is not true nothingness. Why is this? It seems that Sengzhao saw from the original purpose of Prajna Emptiness Buddhism and criticized the “non-​existence theory” for that it insists on “nothingness” without understanding that “nothingness” is also a “false name” rather than actual existence, while “non-​existence and non-​nothingness” is the real principle of Buddhism. Sengzhao’s Not Real but Empty Theory not only criticizes the “non-​existence theory,” but also Wang Bi’s “nothingness as the basis” and Guo Xiang’s “existence theory,” and has developed the Wei-​Jin metaphysics.

(4)  Not Real but Empty Sengzhao’s criticism of the three Prajna studies that were popular in China at the time in his Not Real But Empty Theory is based on the original meaning and intention of Indian Prajna. The so-​called “not real but empty” doesn’t mean that everything is real, but that everything is not real, so things are

224  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue “non-​existence’, and “unreal” is “non-​existence.” This idea is the Chinese version of the basic proposition of Indian Buddhism, “All dharmas have no self-​nature.” According to Sengzhao, the Middle Theory holds that “all dharmas” (everything) are “non-​existent” from one side and “existent” from the other side. To understand this truth of “existence and non-​existence” is to realize the final truth. For although there are all kinds of things, when analyzed, they are all created by cause and effect, and have no “self-​nature” (no real substance), which means “non-​existence”; although the “dharmas” do not have real substance, there are still various phenomena, and in this respect, they are “existent,” so it does not mean that there are no things, but there are no real things. Why is there such a “false existence”? According to Sengzhao, the Middle Theory says that all things are formed by cause and effect, so there is no “self-​nature,” and since they are created by cause and effect, they are also “existent.” He argues that this truth is true, because if “existence” is “true existence,” then “existence” should always exist, and there is no need to wait for karma before it becomes “existence.” If “existence” is “true non-​ existence,” then it should be “non-​existent” from the beginning to the end, not waiting for cause to become non-​existent. If we think that “existence” cannot exist “on its own,” but by cause and effect, then we know that “existence” is not “real,” Therefore, we can’t call it a real existence since it is not real. If we say “existence,” because “it really doesn’t exist” means “non-​existence,” nothing will happen, and only then can you call it “non-​existence.” This is what can be called “nothing.” If we say that “everything” is “true non-​ existence,” then nothing should happen, and nothing will come into being by cause and effect; since it comes into being by cause and effect, we do not say it is “nothing” either. Sengzhao’s Not Real but Empty Theory is more in line with the original meaning of Indian Buddhist Prajna from its content to its method. The appearance of his theory was not accidental, for two conditions had already existed at that time: firstly, the translation of the Great Wisdom Theory, the Middle Theory, the Hundred Theories and the Twelve Doctrines that interpret the Prajna Sutra by Kumarajiva, enabling him to have a clear understanding of Indian Prajna; secondly, the development of metaphysics. The theory of “existence and non-​existence” might follow it and affect it. (See below.)

2  The Relationship between Buddhism, a Foreign Thought and Culture, and Our Original Thought and Culture The relationship between a foreign thought and culture and the original thought and culture is a very complex issue, yet it is very important to study it. During the Wei, Jin and Southern and Northern Dynasties, China’s philosophy (in fact, the whole culture and the whole society) underwent a great change, and the introduction of Indian Buddhism is one of the important reasons for

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  225 that. Buddhism is a kind of foreign thought and culture to China, and it is very meaningful to study how this foreign thought and culture combined with traditional Chinese thought and culture, how it went from being formally attached to Chinese thought and culture, to obviously conflicting with traditional Chinese thought and culture, and finally becoming a part of Chinese thought and culture. The formation of a thought and culture has its socio-​historical reasons, so there are different types of thoughts and cultures in the world history. To understand the characteristics of one thought and culture and its level of development, we must compare it with other thoughts and cultures. If we compare Buddhism introduced during the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties with traditional Chinese thought and culture, we can not only understand the characteristics and level of traditional Chinese thought and culture, but also learn how the foreign thought and culture can be absorbed by us. This method of analysis and research, which compares the thought and culture of one nation (a country or a region) with that of another one (a country or a region), is comparative philosophy. At present, we should conduct research in this area and establish comparative philosophy guided by Marxism. During the Wei, Jin and Southern and Northern Dynasties, an important phenomenon emerged in thought and culture. This is, Taoism, which emerged in the late Eastern Han Dynasty, had its theoretical system. Although Taoism is influenced or stimulated by the introduction of Buddhism, it is still the religion of our nation (mainly Han), so it has characteristics different from Buddhism. Before the Wei and Jin Dynasties, as Buddhism had just been introduced, being attached to the original Taoism in China, the conflict between these two religions did exist, but it was not very obvious and prominent. After the Wei and Jin Dynasties, the ideological and theoretical system of Taoism gradually took shape, and Buddhism, as a foreign thought and culture, had to gradually get rid of its dependence on Taoism, so the contradiction and struggle between Buddhism and Taoism became increasingly acute. If we analyze and compare these two religion controversies, we can clearly see the characteristics of Taoism and the mutual influence of these two religions in the conflict and struggle, which should be the task of comparative religious studies. At present, we should carry out research in this area and establish comparative religious studies guided by Marxism. After Buddhism was introduced to China, what are the phenomena that we should study in the process of its spread? And what laws can we draw for reference? Here are three questions for analysis. (1) When Buddhism was introduced to China, it was first attached to the original Chinese thought and culture, and then gradually developed and became influential. It did not have a great influence as soon as it was introduced.

226  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue After Buddhism was introduced to China in the Han Dynasty, it was first attached to Taoism, and then to metaphysics due to the popularity of metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties. During the Han Dynasty, the important tenets of Buddhism were “the immortality of the soul” and “karma,” which were inherent in traditional Chinese thought or at least similar to it. Besides, Zen of Hinayana was almost the same as the breathing and exhalation techniques of the Chinese Yellow Emperor, Laozi and other Immortals. In the Wei and Jin Dynasties, when metaphysics became popular, Prajna Emptiness was somewhat similar to metaphysics, so it could be attached to metaphysics and become popular. However, it was not until the translation of Madhyamika by Kumarajiva that our understanding of the Indian Buddhist idea of Prajna Emptiness became more consistent with its original meaning. It can be seen that Buddhism came to China firstly by attaching itself to Chinese original thought and then became popular. Here is a question that needs to be raised for discussion. Asahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra translated by Lokaksema in 179, in which there was already a school called “Benwu,” which was much earlier than the “Guiwu” (“to take nothing as the basis”) thought of He Yan (190?–​249) and Wang Bi (226–​249). Then did Wang and He’s “Guiwu” thought come up after they were influenced by Buddhism? It is historically incorrect to think that metaphysics came into being only under the influence of Buddhism. The emergence of metaphysics was due to the needs of the society at that time, and was the result of the natural development of thought in China from the viewpoint of the intertwined influences of the analysis of reasons, the debate about talent and nature and the re-​emergence of Confucianism, Taoism, the School of Logicians and Buddhism in the Han and Wei dynasties, and from the viewpoint of the inherent necessity of the development of thought.2 We cannot find any strong evidence to prove that Wang and He were influenced by Buddhism. Even if there are one or two materials to show that Wang and He came into contact with Buddhism directly or indirectly, metaphysics is still the result of the development of the original Chinese thought itself. And there are materials showing that scholar-​officials did not pay much attention to Buddhism during the Han and Wei Dynasties. For example, Mouzi says in Theory of Confusion, “People and scholars all slandered it,” and “we’ve heard of the rules of scholars and listened to the arguments of Confucianism, but we’ve never considered the practice of Buddhism as valuable. Buddhism has changed its contents and forms in order to be more popular.” What is more telling is that, although the term “nothing” was used in Buddhist Prajna at that time, it was not the same as Wang Bi’s idea of “taking nothing as the basis.” In the Prajna Sutra, the word “nothing” means that “all dharmas have no self-​nature” and that things have no real self, which actually denies that things have an “original substance.” In fact, it denies that there is an “essence” (substance), but Wang Bi’s “nothing as essence” means that “something” is based on “nothing.” “Nothing” is the real self of “something.”

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  227 Buddhism introduced to China in the Wei and Jin Dynasties was mainly the doctrine of Mahayana Prajna Emptiness, whose basic proposition was that “all dharmas have no self-​nature.” “Dharma” refers to all things. Whether material or spiritual, all things are called “Dharma” in Buddhist scriptures. In the 556 volumes of the Great Prajna Sutra, it says: All things do not exist but they have prajnapti with no self-​character. This is true of all things (dharmas) that are entitled to prajnapti with no self-​character. What is the dharma? It doesn’t exist without the four aggregates of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. According to Prajna wisdom, people wrongly believe that there is a self (body). But they do not know that the so-​called “self ” is merely the accumulation of the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, impulse and consciousness. Without the five aggregates, where exactly is the “self ”? Therefore, “self ” is just a hypothetical name and has no self-​nature. This is not only true of human beings, but also of all things (all dharmas). That is why Middle Treatise on the Four Noble Truths says that: All the dharmas arise from many causes and conditions. Buddha said that every dharma is non-​existent. Non-​existence is also a “prajnapti,” referring to the middle way. All things are born from causes, so there is no “self-​character” (no real self). And “no self-​character” means “空” (non-​existence), “Buddha said that every dharma has no existence.” Although things don’t have self-​nature, there are various phenomena in the world, and then what are they? Buddha said that things of no self-​character are empty of characteristics, but still various unreal phenomena. They are entitled to prajnapti for convenience. Fangguang Prajna Sutra says, “Buddha told Subhuti that the prajnapti is not true, only a symbol. Five aggregates are also a symbol. We create the character ‘people’ that is divided into men and women. They are also symbols.” Sengzhao in Not Real but Empty Theory Fangguang said that all dharmas are not real. For example, the illusionary people, who do exist but are not real.” Another question needs to be discussed: does the “non-​existence” in “Buddha said that every dharma is no existent” mean that things are not real phenomenally, but every dharma is “non-​existent” (such as Wang Bi taking nothing as the basis) is real? This is not the view of the Prajna Emptiness School, which believes that “non-​existence” means “all dharmas have no self-​character.” As “the dharma arises from causes and the Buddha says that every dharma is no existent” puts it, it is intended to dispel people’s insistence that things have a real self. But if they cling to the “non-​existence” in “Buddha says that every dharma is no existent,” won’t they consider that “non-​existence” can be insisted on and real? Therefore, it is necessary to add “non-​existence is also a

228  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue prajnapti” since even “non-​existence” is not real. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says in its volume 556: At that time, all emperors asked Shanxian (Buddha) that why Nirvana was also an illusion. Shanxian replied that if there is a dharma better than Nirvana, it is still an illusion, let alone Nirvana. Therefore, one should not only understand that “all dharmas” have non real self-​character, but also not cling to “non-​existence.” The Great Wisdom Theory says, It is similar to taking medicine. The medicine can cure the disease, and if the disease has been cured, the medicine should also disappear accordingly. If the medicine does not disappear, then the disease still exists. If non-​existence can mitigate all worries and people may also be afraid that non-​existence is a disease. To let go of non-​existence is to be non-​existent, called “emptyness.” “Non-​existence” is to get rid of the attachment to “existence.” If the “existence” has been broken, one would know that “emptyness” is also a “prajnapti.” One should not say that everything is nothing (because there are still illusory people). And it is of the “middle way view” to understand these two aspects. This idea of “existence and non-​existence” of Prajna-​Emptiness was not really understood and accepted in our country until the end of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, when the Middle Way Theory being translated by Kumarajiva. This is fully shown in Sengzhao’s Not Real but Empty Theory. Before Sengzhao, the understanding of Prajna of Chinese monks was largely based on the popular metaphysical ideas at that time, which has already been mentioned before. In order to further prove this point, we will do some analysis on Dao’an’s theory of “nothing as the basis” here. A passage in Jizang’s Middle Theory quoted above says, “Dao’an understood non-​existence theory and knew that all dharmas are empty in nature, so he called it nothingness in essence.” Isn’t this the same as “all dharmas have no self-​character”? Actually, they are different. “All dharmas are empty in nature” means that the nature of all dharmas is “empty,” or that all dharmas have “emptiness” as their nature (character). This view is presented in Huida’s The Corpus of Seng Zhao, where he criticizes Dao’an’s “nothingness as the basis,” saying, “He didn’t realize that all dharmas are originally nothing, so he thought that essence is true, while other things are mundane and empty.” It can be seen that Dao’an still considered “emptyness” (“nothingness”) as “the essence” of “existence.” An Cheng’s The Book of the Treatise on the Middle Theory also puts it in this way, “According to another record, Buddhism truth is the essence of the mundane truth, so nothingness existed before everything.” Therefore, Dao’an still regarded “non-​existence” (or nothingness”) as the “existent” ontology.

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  229 Why is the case? As Engels pointed out, tradition is a tremendous conservative force. It seems that any kind of ideology, culture and tradition is conservative at the same time, with its resistance to foreign ideology and culture. Therefore, foreign ideology and culture must first adapt to the requirements of its original versions, and be attached to them. The parts that are the same or similar to the original ideology and culture are easier to be spread, and then the different parts gradually penetrate into the original ideology and culture and change the original ideology and culture. (2) In addition to the needs of social reality, the reason why foreign thought and culture can have a great impact in the introduced country (nation or region) often correspond to the possible results of a certain aspect (part) of the original thought and culture’s own development. The Wei-​Jin metaphysics evolves from Wang Bi and He Yan’s “nothingness” focus of “nothingness as the basis” to Guo Xiang’s thought of “all things exist,” and then there was Zhang Zhan of the Eastern Jin Dynasty who thought that “If it suddenly comes into being, it is the same as nothingness,” followed by the thought of “emptiness and non-​nothingness,” that is, the not real but empty theory which is based on the doctrine of Prajna-​emptiness Sect. Why did the Wei-​Jin metaphysics continue to develop the idea of “non-​ existence and non-​nothingness”? It can be said that this is a possible result of the development of Wei-​Jin metaphysics, or this development does not contradict Wei-​Jin metaphysics, but enriches it. The Wei-​Jin metaphysics started with Wang Bi and He Yan, especially when Wang Bi made an in-​depth argument about the relationship between “existence” and “nothingness,” using “substance” (essence) and “use” (function, phenomenon) to explain the relationship between “nothingness” and “existence.” It is argued that “nothingness can’t be without existence. Therefore, ‘nothingness’ as the essence is expressed by ‘existence’ in ‘something’,” and therefore “substance” and “use” are regarded as one. However, in Wang Bi’s thought system, because of the absolute nature of “nothingness,” there is also the idea of “revering the fundamental and dismissing the specific,” which causes the contradiction of Wang Bi’s thought system itself. On the one hand, it can be said that the “reverence for the fundamental and the dismissal of the specific” can lead to the negation of “existence” and acknowledgement of “emptiness.” Wang Bi’s “nothingness” developed through Xiang Xiu and Pei Wei to Guo Xiang’s “reverence for existence.” According to Guo Xiang, “existence” is the only existence, and there is nothing above (outside) everything as its “essence” (Creator), and everything exists according to its “self-​ nature” that is “suddenly self-​generated.” Therefore, he said, “Nothingness is nothingness, and it can’t create existence,” which directly denies the “nothingness” of the essence, and contains the meaning of “non-​nothingness.” In the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Zhang Zhan’s commentary on Liezi attempted to accommodate both Wang Bi’s and Guo Xiang’s ideas in his system, saying on the

230  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue one hand that “the existence is based on the supreme void and emptiness” and that “nothingness” (the supreme void) is the basis for the existence of “substance” (the essence). On the other hand, he said that “nothingness” is unborn and undying, and there is no gathering and no scattering, while “group existence” is born and dying; there is gathering and scattering, while “all things will face the final destruction,” so it is “empty.” “The “group existence” is not purposeful and conditional, so it can lead to the idea of “non-​nothingness.” However, Zhang Zhan’s two points above are mechanically pieced together and are contradictory, so his system is not rigorous. It happens that the Prajna Emptiness Sect, which speaks of “non-​existence and non-​nothingness,” is much more rigorous than Zhang Zhan in terms of theoretical thinking, so it can be said that Seng Zhao’s “non-​vacuum” is a metaphysics developed after Wang Bi and Guo Xiang. Although Seng Zhao’s thought came from Indian Buddhism, it became an important part of Chinese philosophy and made the Wei-​Jin metaphysics a circle of development from Wang Bi, Guo Xiang to Monk Sengzhao. Why is the case? That’s because thought and culture feature inheritance. The development of a thought and culture is continuous, always following the development of the previous one, and there are often several possibilities of how the previous one develops, and the idea that continues to develop is always one of the possible developments of the previous one. If foreign thought and culture can conform to (adapt to) a certain aspect (or a certain possible development direction) of the original culture and thought, it will be developed, have a greater impact, and will directly become part of the original thought and culture, and even more or less can change the direction of the original thought and culture development. (3) If a foreign thought and culture has an impact on the original thought and culture, not just temporarily but in the long run, it must exceed the level of the original thought and culture in one aspect (or in all aspects) so as to stimulate the original thought and culture and thus influence the development of the original one. Whether Indian Buddhism Prajna Non-​existence Sect is overall better than the original Chinese thought and culture should be carefully studied before reaching conclusions. However, seeing from the thinking of the Prajna Non-​ existence Sect, from the analysis of the “existence” and “non-​existence,” it was proposed by the method of contradiction analysis, although it is the same as the thought of Wang Bi and Guo Xiang thought, theoretical thinking of which is undoubtedly far beyond. From the development point of view, although Sengzhao’s “not real but empty theory” was developed after Wang Bi and Guo Xiang’s metaphysical thought, it is indeed more in line with the original meaning of Indian Prajna Non-​existence Buddhism, and should be acknowledged as superior to Wang Bi and Guo Xiang’s thought. In my opinion, the idealism of traditional Chinese philosophy has truly become

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  231 an influential and meaningful philosophical system after being baptized by Prajna. The doctrine of the Creator (or the spiritual entity that created all things in heaven and earth) is no longer that important. The abstract concepts such as Reason and Tao are considered as the first nature, which determine the existence and evolution of everything in heaven and earth. Or the “mind” is taken as the primary nature, and it thinks that “mind is reason” and “the reason lies in mind,” and that the principles of heaven and earth and all things are in mind. This kind of idealism developed and became the basic form of traditional Chinese philosophy of idealism. This is true of both the Cheng-​ Zhu school and the Lu-​Wang idealistic Philosophy of the Song and Ming Dynasties. However, if a higher level of thought and culture is introduced into another country (nation or region) and wants to make a greater impact, in addition to the constraints of the economic and political conditions of the imported country (nation or region), the original thought and culture should not be interrupted in terms of thought and culture. Only based on above-​ mentioned two conditions can it have a great and long-​term impact. If not, it is difficult for the introduction of any kind of higher thought and culture to have a greater effect and to take root. For example, the introduction of Uniqueness of Consciousness by Monk Xuanzang and the introduction of Innomentia connected with it were also great in terms of the level of development of thought, but they were just very famous for a while, and did not play a great role in the development of Chinese thought. Although certain ideas of Uniqueness of Consciousness (e.g., the categories of “Neng” and “Suo”) were absorbed, in general it did not become part of traditional Chinese thought and culture, and we still regard it as an Indian thought. According to the above three points, a question can be raised. The significance of comparative philosophy is to reveal the laws of the influence of foreign thought and culture on the introduced country (nation, region), and to understand the characteristics and level of the original culture in the comparative analysis of two different traditional thoughts and cultures, as well as the similarities and differences, influence and absorption, conflict and reconciliation of these two different traditional thoughts and cultures. Does our study of the history of the introduction of Indian Buddhism after the 1st century A D have any relevance to real life today? Of course, it does. The current development trend of world thought and culture is characterized by the conflict and reconciliation of different traditional thought and cultures. In addition to other reasons (political and economic), the different traditional thought and cultures (including philosophy and religion) are also one of the reasons for the world’s turmoil and conflicts. The conflicts between the Arab world, Islam and the Western world partly resulted from philosophical and religious beliefs. However, due to the increasing interaction between the world and the mutual influence of thoughts and cultures, the tendency of reconciliation and absorption is also obvious. In particular, Marxism is widely spread all over the world, and it raises new issues for the relationship

232  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue between various traditional thoughts and cultures. Born in Western Europe under the historical conditions of Western Europe, Marxism is a foreign ideology and culture to many parts of the world in terms of ideological and cultural traditions. Therefore, there is a problem of the relationship between Marxism and the original traditional ideology and culture. Although Marxism is the philosophy of the proletariat, and the cause of the proletariat has no national boundaries, it is the weapon for the proletariat and revolutionary people of all countries to revolutionize. But in order for Marxism to take root in a country, it must be combined with the original traditional thought and culture or it must be critically inherited from the original traditional thought and culture. Otherwise, it will not really work. Therefore, will the study of the relationship between Marxism and our traditional thought and culture also enrich and develop Marxism? Yes, it can. Lenin said in The Tasks of the Youth League, “Only by knowing exactly the culture created by the entire development process of mankind, and only by transforming this past culture can we build a proletarian culture.” Marxism is undoubtedly the method that guides us in the correct treatment of traditional thought and culture. “It provides not a ready-​made dogma, but a starting point for further research and a method for such research.” All people have their special contributions in the history of human civilization, and if we study these cultures in the right way, we will be able to evaluate these contributions correctly and make it a part of the spiritual civilization of mankind that we will inherit. Marxism is not to reject the spiritual civilization that has contributed to human society, but to absorb it and transform it, so that Marxism can be constantly enriched and developed.

3  How to Study Comparative Philosophy and Comparative Religion? The world has entered the 1980s, and the development of science and technology and the progress of society have made the interaction between all countries (nations) in the world different from the feudal era in the past. The objective situation requires us to absorb foreign thoughts and cultures more quickly. In what way can we make the valuable parts of foreign thought become part of our own thought and culture more quickly? The study of comparative philosophy is one of the important methods. In the past, the absorption of foreign thought and culture was a spontaneous process, often slow, and some accidental factors could play a big role, but today, if we consciously carry out this work, we will definitely speed up the process of absorbing the best parts of foreign thought and culture. If we can correctly deal with the relationship between Marxism and our traditional thought and culture, make Marxism better suited to our national conditions, and create a Chinese Marxism, then not only will Marxism better take root in China, but also more effectively preserve the good parts of Chinese traditional thought and culture, and exclude the bad parts, so that excellent spiritual civilization of China will be carried forward. Therefore, the establishment of a comparative philosophy guided by

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  233 Marxism should be an important task for us. How should we study comparative philosophy? (1) Attention should be paid to identifying some common laws of the development of human thought and culture in the comparative study of two different traditional thoughts and cultures. Comparative philosophy and comparative religion, like comparative literature, have their specific meanings, not the comparison of two philosophers, such as Zhu Xi and Wang Shouren, or the comparison of two monks, such as Zhi Dun and Dao’an, which are called comparative philosophy or comparative religion. Comparative philosophy or comparative religion refers to the comparison of two different traditional philosophical systems of thought or two different sources of religious systems, so it must be a comparative analysis between two countries such as China and India, two regions such as the East and the West, two nations such as the Chinese nation and other nations. Since philosophy is the most general science that studies nature, society and human thinking, and the laws of development of human thinking are fundamentally the same or similar. Therefore, after understanding the laws of development of philosophical thought of one ideological and cultural tradition, it will be very helpful to analyze the philosophical thought of another ideological and cultural tradition. Lenin said in Talking about Dialectics: Philosophical “circles.” Antiquity: Dialectics from Democritus to Plato and Heraclitus. ... Modern: Holbach –​Hegel (via Beckley, Hume, Kant). Hegel –​Feuerbach –​Marx. In the book Summary of Hegel’s it is also said: Compare the history of philosophy to a circle... Each philosophical idea =​a circle on the greater circle (spiral) of the whole development of human thought. Although Hegel’s idea of “comparing the history of philosophy to a circle,” as pointed out by Lenin, is a summary of the law of the development of Western philosophy, it profoundly reflects the general law of the history of the development of philosophical thought. Using this idea as a guide to study the development of traditional Chinese philosophy, we can see that traditional Chinese philosophy is generally composed of three spiraling circles: the first circle is the Pre-​Qin philosophy, Confucius –​Mencius –​Xunzi (through other schools of philosophy); the second circle is the Wei and Jin metaphysics, Wang Bi –​Guo Xiang –​Seng Zhao; the third circle is the Song and Ming philosophy, Zhang Zai –​Zhu Xi –​Wang Fuzhi. Between these three circles, the sutra studies of the two Han Dynasties and the Buddhism

234  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue of the Sui and Tang Dynasties are shown as the transition from the previous circle to the next one. These three spiraling circles, in turn, constitute a large circle of traditional Chinese philosophy, namely, the philosophy of Confucianism from the Qin Dynasty to the Han Dynasty –​metaphysics with Lao-​Zhuang as the backbone and gradually sinicized Buddhism from the Jin to Sui and Tang Dynasties –​Neo-​Confucianism at a higher stage of development (i.e., Song and Ming Confucianism) that absorbed the ideas of Buddhism and Taoism. In Comparative Religion, F.B. Jevons gives an example that illustrates the general significance of the study of comparative religion. He says that in Babylon the Storm Gods was relegated to evil spirit. Why is this? It’s hard to find an explanation. But it can be explained by the method of comparative religion. In the history of many religions, usually when an old religion was overcome by an emerging religion, the gods of the old religion were relegated to evil spirits by the emerging religion. Therefore, the reason why Babylonian Storm God became evil spirit can be reasonably explained by the method of comparative religion. Currently, there are roughly two comparative research methods, the so-​ called parallels research and influence research. The former is to conduct a comparative study in two different traditional thought and cultures that have no influence on each other but have comparable points, to find out the common or different phenomena between them, and to explain the general laws or different characteristics. The latter is to conduct a comparative study in two different traditional thought cultures that are influenced by each other (directly or indirectly) or unilaterally, to find out the common or different phenomena between them, and to reveal the contradiction, conflict, absorption, reconciliation, etc. between them. However, any kind of comparative study should not be a simple analogy, and should not simply extract one or two sentences or one or two isolated phenomena from the thought and culture of different countries (nations, regions) for comparative study. Strictly speaking, a “piecemeal comparison” cannot be called comparative philosophy or comparative religion. The comparative study in two different traditional thoughts and cultures should be based on a more comprehensive study of a certain issue of them, so that we can find certain regular phenomena, as well as understand the laws of the development of human thought and culture from the unknown to the known, from the little known to the more known, from the individual knowledge to the general knowledge. (2) Attention should be paid to summarizing the characteristics of each thought and culture in the comparative study of two different traditional thoughts and cultures. To understand the characteristics of a thought and culture, we must compare it with different traditional thoughts and cultures. It is impossible to reveal the characteristics of a thought and culture by studying it on its own.

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  235 In the first and second parts of this article, we talked about the similarities between the Wei-​Jin metaphysics and Indian Buddhist Prajna. But they are not the same after all, and each has its own characteristics. This conclusion was reached only after a comparative study of the two different traditions of thought and culture. The Wei-​Jin metaphysics analyzes “nothingness” and “existence” from the aspect of “existence,” that is, from the aspect of “substance” and “phenomena” (the various manifestations of the substance); while the analysis of “nothingness” (non-​existence) and “existence” in Indian Buddhist Prajna is often done as a pair of abstract concepts. Therefore, although they both talk about “nothingness as the substance,” Wang Bi’s theory means that “nothingness is the essence,” and “nothingness” is the substance of “existence.” In contrast, the “nothingness as the basis” of Prajna is that “all dharmas have no self-​nature,” and “nothingness” (non-​existence) does not mean the essence, but that things have no real substance, so the existence of things is illusory. What’s more, the Wei-​Jin metaphysics is different from Indian Buddhist Prajna in terms of the argumentation. The latter focuses on the analytical reasoning while the former demonstrates its metaphysical system by applying the method of “tacit understanding” (“matching concepts without using words”). For example, when the Buddhist Prajna argues that “all dharmas have no self-​nature,” it adopts this method firstly to divide things to their very subtlety, and to their “paramanu” (which is close to nothingness). By following this way continuously, it concludes that there is nothing of itself, “When you look at things in the subtle, there is no substance in the subtle.” Secondly, when analyzing the time-​spatial relationship, it is clear that both the “physical phase” (physical phenomena) and the “mental phase” (mental phenomena) are unreal. Everything is born and dies unstopping in a moment; Rather than happening chronologically, it is born and dies at the same time, so that things do not have real self. Thirdly, concluding from the analysis results, things are the samyoga of cause and effect, which therefore have no real self. Since “all dharmas” have no real self, everything is non-​ subsistent in the first place, and “Formlessness means emptiness.” As Wang Bi mentioned, the Wei-​Jin metaphysics took a different methodology to argue that “nothingness is the essence.” He put it in “Commentary on Laozi” that The root of the creation of all things in nature and the basis for the accomplishment of social deeds must arise and pass through something that has no image and no name. And this invisible and nameless thing is the sovereign of all things. It is neither warm nor cold, and it is neither a high tone nor a low tone. It cannot be heard with the ears, it cannot be seen with the eyes, it cannot be perceived with the body, and it cannot be tasted with the tongue. Therefore, it is chaotic and indistinguishable as a so-​called thing, without any image as a so-​called elephant shape, subtle and inaudible as a so-​called sound, and unable to be presented as a so-​called flavor. It is for this reason that it can be the sovereign of all things and unify heaven and earth, and that there is nothing that can avoid it.

236  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue According to Wang Bi’s view, everything in heaven and earth comes in all shapes and sizes, and if it is this thing, it cannot be another thing, and if it has this form, it cannot have another form. Therefore, only “being formless” can become any form, only “being silent” can make any sound, and only “being nothing” (not something) can make become “existence” (which can be any “something”). Since “nothingness” can make “everything,” it is the basis for the existence of everything. “Everything in the world is born from something. The beginning of existence is based on nothingness. If we want to have everything, we must turn to nothingness” (Commentary on Laozi). All things in the world are concrete existence with shapes and images, and these things with shapes and images can happen because “nothing” is their essence before they are presented as concrete things of all kinds. For example, the water of the sea is presented as various colors and waves of different shapes. The reason why it can be presented as these phenomena is because it is originally water. Therefore, in order to preserve all kinds of things with shapes and images, it is necessary to grasp the essence of nothingness. But the “nothingness” of the essence is not something outside of all things. Although “image with form is not a great image,” but “four images without form can’t be expressed clearly.” Only through the concrete image without being constrained by the concrete image can we grasp the “imageless image” (“the scenery outside the painting”); only through the concrete sound without being attached to the concrete sound can we grasp the “silent sound” (“voice beyond the strings”); only through language without obsessing with limited language can we get wordless meaning (“meaning beyond words”). From here, we can see that Wang Bi’s method of arguing “nothingness as the basis” is very different from the analytical method used by the Prajna Non-​existence Sect, and that he used the metaphysical method of “getting the real meaning and forgetting the words.” After a comparative study of various aspects of the Wei-​Jin metaphysics, Wang Bi’s “reverence for nothingness” school and Indian Prajna’s Non-​ existence Sect, we can see the characteristics of each and the level of their development, on the basis of which we can clarify the relationship between Buddhism and the Wei-​Jin metaphysics after the introduction of Buddhism. In the article A Brief Discussion of Early Taoist Theories on Life, Death, and the Form of God in Philosophical Studies, No. 1, 1981, some comparisons are made between Taoism and Buddhism on the issue of “liberation from life and death” during the Han, Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties, pointing out the following three basic differences between the two religions in vogue during this period: First, on the issue of life and death, Taoism is characterized by its advocacy of “eternal life” (immortality), while Buddhism is characterized by its advocacy of “eternal death” (no life). Because Taoism demands liberation, it advocates that the physical body becomes immortal, which means that

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  237 the physical body and the spirit (soul) are united in immortality, so that one can leave the distressing present world and enter the illusory spiritual world. According to Buddhism, the root cause of suffering in life is “existence,” and “existence” means that the spirit and the body are linked together. The spirit must still be in reincarnation before attaining Nirvana. Only by transcending reincarnation, divorcing from form, and the spirit returning to nirvana, can we escape from suffering. Secondly, on the issue of spirit and form, Taoism advocates “the union of spirit and form” to become immortal, while Buddhism advocates “the separation of spirit and form” to become Buddha. Buddhism believes that if spirit does not leave form, he will inevitably be in reincarnation and cannot be liberated. To be liberated, spirit must be separated from form and complete and die. Taoism believes that the path to liberation from life and death is not to be in the circle of silence, but to become immortal in the physical body. Thirdly, in terms of liberation methods, Taoism advocates the cultivation of the form, while Buddhism advocates the cultivation of the spirit. Buddhism believes that Buddhahood depends on enlightenment, so the means to attain nirvana mainly depends on inner cultivation and the improvement of enlightenment. Taoism believes that attaining immortality depends on accumulation of merit, so the means to attain liberation mainly depends on the cultivation of body and mind and the help of external objects. From these three differences, we can generally understand the characteristics of Taoism and Buddhism in the Wei-​Jin and North-​South Dynasties. Since Taoism demanded to become immortal, which of course was impossible, it paid attention to the cultivation and maintenance of physical and mental functions (such as cultivation of vigor) and the study of external objects (such as the production of elixirs). Buddhism demands Buddhahood, which is of course impossible to achieve, but it is from this that we can pay attention to the analysis of mental activities and the study of the process of understanding. In this way, we can find that Taoist knowledge of “physics” and “body” has many materials for our analysis and research, such as the five or six thousand volumes of the book Daozang, which has not been sorted out and researched systematically yet. And the content about “Vigor,” “Medicine,” “Chemistry,” “Hygiene,” and “Physical Education” and so on is quite rich. There are tens of thousands of volumes of Chinese Buddhist scriptures (including commentaries), in which we can be inspired by the analysis of mental activities, the process of cognition, the relationship between subject and object, the analysis of concepts, and the science of causality (logic). It would be very meaningful if we exclude the non-​scientific and absurdly superstitious parts of these materials of Taoism and Buddhism and make a scientific analysis of the valuable parts of them. One of the purposes of studying comparative philosophy and comparative religion is to find out the characteristics of different traditional thoughts

238  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue and cultures through comparative analysis, clarify their peculiarities, and make people understand what kind of position and contribution this kind of thought and culture has had in the history of the world. The whole treasury of human thought and culture must be composed of the best parts of different traditional thought and culture with their own characteristics. If a thought and culture have no characteristics, it is hard for it to contribute to human thought and culture. As long as it becomes a national thought and culture, it must have its characteristics and will contribute to human thought and culture. (3) Attention should be paid to identifying problems and proposing new research topics in the comparative study of the two different traditional thoughts and cultures. Mr. Jin Kemu points out in his article A Discussion on “Being-​Existence” in Sanskrit that there are several roots for “being-​existence” in Sanskrit, usually two: √as, √bhu, both of which are usually translated as “有” in Chinese. For example, “Sattvad” in Chen Zhendi’s translation of Zhongbian Separate Discussion and Xuanzang’s Debate on Zhongbian Theory are both translated as “有.” While “有” in “twelve karma” is “bhava.” “√as refers to the existence of pure and abstract meaning, or the existence of static and absolute meaning; √bhu refers to the existence of the concrete meaning of change, or the existence of dynamic and relative existence.” As we know, in the philosophy of Aristotle in ancient Greece, entity (substance) is also divided into primary substance and secondary substance, and the two have different meanings; the former does not refer to mere matter, nor to the universal form shared by many substances, but to a single unit of matter and form; the second meaning of entity refers to the universal form (idea or class) that is individualized in each thing. The Indian Sanskrit word “existence” has different meanings depending on its root, and Aristotle’s “substance” also has two meanings, so do we get some inspiration from this? In Chinese Buddhist scriptures, “existence” with different meanings are translated as “有.” So does the concept of “有” also have different meanings in traditional Chinese philosophy? In Pei Wei’s Treatise on Existence, it is said that “there must be existence in the substance if it is self-​generated.” Does “existence” here mean “concrete existence” or “existence in general”? In Guo Xiang’s Note on Zhuangzi, whether “existence” sometimes refers to “concrete existence” or sometimes refers to “existence in general”? All these should be further studied, which requires us to analyze the meaning of the concept of “existence” in traditional Chinese philosophy. Mr. Xiong Shili in his book Theory of Body and Use suggests that the fundamental difference between traditional Chinese philosophy and Indian Buddhism lies in the fact that traditional Chinese philosophy speaks of “self and use as one,” while Indian Buddhism separates “self ” and “use” into

Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Religion  239 two. Whether Mr. Xiong’s conclusion is correct or not, we will not discuss it here, but the questions he raised in the comparison of the two different traditions of thought and culture may be of some significance to our study of the characteristics of traditional Chinese philosophy. As far as the general trend of traditional Chinese philosophy is concerned, it is mostly based on the idea that the “doctrine of Heaven” and the “way of Man” are consistent and combined, and that the ideal should and can be realized in reality. Although the metaphysics of the Wei and Jin Dynasties was based on the thought of Laozi and Zhuangzi, the final pursuit of the metaphysicians of the Wei and Jin Dynasties was still the “ay of the inner sage and the outer emperor,” which is “the happy place in the religion.” The Song and Ming scholars opposed Buddhism and Taoism mainly because they pursued an illusory super-​reality outside of reality, while the scholars fundamentally believed that the “feudal ethics” was the “heavenly truth.” Even the Chinese Buddhism Zen Buddhism believes that “becoming a Buddha” does not require leaving the real life, and that “carrying water and chopping wood is a wonderful path,” and that the wonderful path of becoming a Buddha can be realized in daily life. Comparing traditional Chinese philosophy with Indian Buddhism’s ascetic thought, can we say that it is indeed the same in “self and use,” and therefore “ascetic thought” cannot become the mainstream of traditional Chinese thought after all? In my opinion, this is something that should be further studied. If we use comparative methods to study the philosophical thoughts and religious doctrines of different traditional thoughts and cultures such as China, India and the West, I believe we can discover more new topics that can be researched. Marx and Engels pointed out more than a hundred years ago, “The bourgeoisie, by opening up the world market, has made the production and consumption of all countries universal. ... This is true of material production, but also of spiritual production. The spiritual products of each nation became public property, and the limitations of national unilateralism became increasingly impossible, so that a world literature was formed from many kinds of national and local literature.” “Literature” here uses the word “Literature,” the editor’s note: “The word ‘literature’ in German is ‘Literature’ in this sentence, and it refers to works in science, art, philosophy, etc.” in general. We are in the 1980s, and the era is much more advanced than in 1848 when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto. The ideological and cultural exchanges and mutual influence are more extensive and deeper. The study of comparative philosophy and comparative religion will definitely promote the study of the history of Chinese philosophy. Through the comparative study of different traditional thoughts and cultures, we can find the common law of the development of things, reveal the characteristics and development levels of different traditional thoughts and cultures, and expand the content of research. I think this is definitely the case.

240  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue

Notes 1 This article was originally published in Chinese Philosophy, 1982, No. 8, later included in Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism in Traditional Chinese Culture, Beijing, China Peace Press, 1988. 2 See the essay Reading the Characters’ History in Tang Yongtong’s Essays on Wei-​Jin Metaphysics.

23 On Matteo Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures1

In the past 40 years, scholars in mainland China have done little research on the introduction of Western culture into China in the 16th and 17th century, while scholars in Taiwan have done more. Not long ago, I read Professor Luo Guang’s biography of Matteo Ricci and biography of Xu Guangqi which are rich in material, and their arguments are plain and inspiring. I believe they will be very useful in studying the introduction of Western learning into China in the 16th and 17th centuries. But I think there is perhaps one issue that researchers should pay attention to, that is, the attempt by Western missionaries at that time to integrate Eastern and Western cultures. I think that the study of the phenomena and problems that emerged when two different traditional cultures met in history is undoubtedly still an important topic in the study of cultural issues today. In this article, I would like to make a preliminary analysis of how Matteo Ricci integrated Eastern and Western cultures, and to ask Professor Luo Guang and other Taiwanese scholars for their advice. Historically, when a foreign culture is introduced to another country or nation, it is bound to encounter the problem of how to treat the original cultural tradition. If a foreign culture wants to spread easily and make an influence in the introduced country or nation, it must be identified with the original culture. Although Matteo Ricci’s attitude toward traditional Chinese culture was related to his missionary work, in the process of his contact with Chinese culture (mainly Confucianism), he gained a good understanding of Chinese culture and a positive perception of its value. Thus, Ricci’s missionary work involved an important question in cultural history: how to reconcile two cultural traditions of different backgrounds, which not only came into contact but also merged into one. This is called cultural transplantation. Therefore, in general, Ricci took a positive attitude toward Confucian culture. We can look at this problem from two aspects: one is to look at what Ricci himself said about this problem; the other is to look at how the intellectuals (scholar-​bureaucrats) at that time or later viewed Ricci.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-27

242  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue

Matteo Ricci’s Identification and Evaluation of Confucian Culture Matteo Ricci was not only proficient in Chinese, but also knew Chinese etiquette and customs. He not only dressed in Confucian clothes and wore a square scarf on his head, calling himself a “Western Confucian,” but also used the etiquette of Xiucai(one who passes the imperial examination at the county level) when meeting guests. He studied Chinese texts thoroughly and believed that Confucius was a great and erudite man. He translated the Four Books and believed that the Book was “written by four very good philosophers, and there are many reasonable ethical thoughts in it.” Therefore, he believed that “it is useless to only know our academics without knowing others’.” So how did Matteo Ricci view Chinese culture? In a letter to another missionary dated February 15, 1609, he said, As I have explained step by step, they (referring to the Chinese) equally admire filial piety, although others may hold the opposite view. If we start from the beginning, they followed the laws of nature as faithfully in ancient times as in our country. In the middle of 1500, this nation had never worshiped idols, and the idols they worshiped were not as abominable as the idols of our Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Some gods are even very virtuous, and are famous for their good deeds. In fact, in the literati’s oldest and authoritative works, they only worshipped heaven and earth and the common lord of both. If we study all these works carefully, we will find that only very few of them is unreasoning. Their natural philosophers are no worse than anyone. From the above quoted passage, we can see that (1) Matteo Ricci had a deep understanding of traditional Chinese culture, mainly Confucianism. The ancient Chinese society was linked by the patriarchal system, so filial piety was emphasized and “kinship” was taken as the principle. Therefore, the “natural law” (translated as “heavenly principle” in Luo Guang’s Biography of Matteo Ricci) was a certain morality. And the Chinese worship of heaven and earth and ancestors was also only a certain morality. Therefore, it is “rational.” It is clear that Ricci had a good understanding of Chinese culture, so he did not view Confucianism as a religion, but as a philosophy based on “natural law,” saying, “Even if the Confucians do not talk about the supernatural, they are almost identical to us in morality.” (2) Ricci thought high of Chinese Confucianism. He thought that the ancient Chinese culture was not like the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans in the worship of idols. The ancient Chinese philosophy exceeded the Western antiquity in speaking about human nature and heavenly principles. In his reply to Xu Guangqi, there is a passage that can illustrate his view of Chinese culture, he said, “When I arrived in China, I see the flourishing of benevolence, righteousness, ritual and music as well as cultural relics, such as clearing the clouds and mist to see the blue sky.” I think this is related to the fact that Catholicism also emphasizes opposing idolatry and ethical and moral

On Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures  243 issues. That is why Matteo Ricci strongly opposed the idolatry of Buddhism and Taoism, but did not regard the worship of Confucius and the ancestors as idolatry. Therefore, we can say that Matteo Ricci was generally positive and appreciative of the orthodox Confucianism of Chinese culture. Xu Guangqi, who was converted to Catholicism because of his acquaintance with Matteo Ricci, respected Ricci’s knowledge and morality and said that “in the millions of words of Ricci, there is not a single sentence that is not in line with loyalty and filial piety, and no word that is useless to the people and the world.” Xu Guangqi’s emphasis on “loyalty and filial piety” was deeply influenced by traditional Chinese thought, and he said that the basic point of Catholicism taught by Matteo Ricci was also “loyalty and filial piety,” and it was true that Ricci accepted Chinese culture. Li Zhizao’s preface to The Divine Truth says, “The Europeans were so able to agree with the three generations of “heavenly studies.” The Jesuits’ learning is different from the Confucian scriptures after the Han Dynasty, but it is consistent with the ideas in Su Wen and Zhou Bi of the Pre-​Qin Dynasty. Wang Jiazhi’s Ten Small Quotations of the Title Freak says, “Ricci’s emphasis on kindness, ethics and heavenly principle were influenced by Yao, Shun, Duke Zhou and Confucius.” Even the Summary of the Four Books also says that Ricci’s book “is catering to Confucianism and metaphysics.” Xie Zhaoyuan in the Five Miscellaneous Banquets praised Matteo Ricci, saying, “He is a man of literature and reason, and his manner and grace is no different from that of Chinese. ... I am very happy to see that his words are close to Confucianism, and his advice is very friendly.” There is a passage in the Ten Books of the Monstrous that records Gong Dashen’s comments on Matteo Ricci’s words, saying: When I heard his words, I thought that the scriptures of China and the classics of your country are the same, and that those who believe in the true sages are the same from the east to the west and from the south to the north. Most of the above Chinese scholars believe that the doctrines preached by Matteo Ricci are compatible with traditional Chinese thought, especially Confucianism. And the most basic point of compatibility is the “loyalty and filial piety principle.” We know that although the Chinese intellectuals at the time valued Matteo’s knowledge of astronomy, calendar, science and technology, they paid more attention to his knowledge that is compatible with Chinese culture. This may be one of the earliest forms of expression of “Chinese knowledge as the self, Western learning for uses.” We will discuss this issue later.

An Attempt to Converge Catholicism and Confucianism From these two aspects, Ricci’s missionary work in China was in fact an attempt to converge Eastern and Western cultures. With this premise in mind,

244  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue we can move on to discuss Matteo Ricci’s concrete actions. In my opinion, Matteo Ricci made such an attempt in four main ways: “Combined with Confucianism” means that Catholicism is combined with Confucianism; “complementing Confucianism” means that Catholicism can supplement Confucianism; “exceeding Confucianism,” Catholicism exceeds Confucianism in some aspects; “attached to Confucianism,” means making some modifications to the Catholic doctrine, in order to be attached to Confucianism. Ricci generally looked for the fusion of Eastern and Western cultures from these aspects. (1)  Combined with Confucianism Matteo Ricci has three important works on Catholic doctrine: The Doctrine of God, The Book of the Monstrous, and The Twenty-​Five Words. It seems that Matteo Ricci initially avoided using the name “God,” which did not exist in China, and that “heavenly studies” itself was not very religious and was more acceptable in China. Feng Yingjing in his preface explains the book as follows: In The True Meaning of God, Ricci met fellow villagers and interviewed five Chinese people about what God is? It is God of Heaven. It is real and not non-​existent... To justify this, I will quote the sayings from Six classics and correct the misunderstandings. The Ming version of the meaning of God mostly named “上帝” or “天” with the name “天主” and “上主,” while the present version mostly used “天 主” and “上主” instead “上帝” and “天.” It is clear that Ricci adopted the original Chinese name of “上帝” or “天” to make it more acceptable to the Chinese. For the Chinese, in ancient times, there were sacrifices to heaven, to the gods, and to the ancestors, but there was no worship of the “God of Heaven,” and Ricci argued that the “God of Heaven” was the “God” of ancient China, citing the scriptures.” He said, Although it is not easy to understand the saying that heaven and earth are the supreme beings. Since supreme being should but one, not two such as heaven and earth... Our God is what is called God of Heaven in the ancient scriptures. The Doctrine of the Mean quoted Confucius by saying, “To follow the courtesy of the society, and serve God.” Zhu noted, “Confucius didn’t talk more about it and saved the text.” I think Confucius wanted to state that God should be one not two. Why did he save the text? The Ode to the Zhou said, “The emperor Wu who established the kingdom was so strong, and created glorious work. Emperor Cheng and Kang also shine, and God rewarded all these emperors.” It also said, “When the emperor comes to Mou, he will be enlightened and God will know it.” The Ode to the Shang said, “we are growing in wisdom and virtue, praying to God for a long time and worshiping God with the utmost sincerity.” Ya said, “This great and wise monarch is careful,

On Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures  245 respectful and humble. He is diligent and hardworking to serve that God.” Book of Changes said, “ ‘God’ is the only faith. Since ‘sky’ ‘holds all directions’ and cannot be derived from ‘one’, then ‘sky’ is not the object of faith.” Ritual says, “The feast is ready to serve the God.” It also said, “Although the emperor is supreme and noble, it is necessary to cultivate the land, produce harvest, and create a sacred scorpion to sacrifice to the sky.” Tang Oath put it, “Xia is guilty, fearing God, and dare not to be wrong.” It also said, “the God sends the will to the people.” Zhou Gong said in the Golden Cord, “It is the order of the God’s court to protect the world.” God has a court, and the sky is not regarded as God. Looking through the ancient books, and knowing God and God of Heaven, are special and unique in name. Ricci’s passage is only a few hundred words long, but the ancient Chinese texts he quoted include the Poems, the Book, the Rites, the Book of Changes, and the Doctrine of the Mean. There are many other references in The True Meaning of God, such as in the sixth chapter of the next volume, which answers the question of “rewarding the good and punishing the evil,” and also quotes many Chinese classics to prove that Catholicism is in line with Confucianism. I will not go into details here. The passage quoted above shows that (1) Matteo Ricci did perceive that there was a supreme personal deity “God” in China in ancient times, and he used this to argue that the Western Catholic “God” and the Chinese “God” were only different names, but in fact they were the same thing. (2) For this reason, he also argued that the “Supreme One” can only be one, not two (heaven and earth), and criticized Zhu Xi’s explanation. In his introduction to The True Meaning of God, he said, “To govern mediocrely, there should only be one emperor. The ancient sages advised the minister to be loyal. Loyalty means acknowledging only one ruler. Such loyalty is the most important one in the three moral ethics. ...State has an emperor, a heaven, and an earth have no master? The country is united in one, can there be two masters in heaven and earth?” These are the explanations of Catholicism in the light of Chinese Confucianism. (3) He also cited the classics to show that God has a will and can send fortune and misfortune to the world (4) Therefore, God has a “court,” which is not the same thing as the “heaven” of nature. From all this, Ricci was only trying to prove that Catholicism is compatible with Confucianism and the ancient Chinese classics... (2)  Complementing Confucianism The Notes of Matteo Ricci in China is a note written by Matteo Ricci in Italian in China. Later, a missionary Trigault translated it from Italian to Latin, and added some related missionary history and stories about Ricci. The contents of the note are accompanied by a description of the grief and mourning after Li Matteo’s death. There is a passage in this book:

246  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue When asked what the main content of the Christian law was, Xu Guangqi summarized it very precisely, “To expel Buddhism and to supplement Confucianism.” That is to say. It expels the idols of Buddhism and complements the teachings of Confucianism. The exclusion of other religions is a characteristic of any religion, so Ricci had to criticize Buddhism and Taoism, especially Buddhism, if he wanted to bring Catholicism to China, as shown in his various writings. St. Augustine had proposed that the subject of pagan beliefs should be firmly rejected, while the teachings of the pagans, who represented certain pagan philosophers, should be considered, accepted or approved, if they were rational. Ricci actually adopted this approach to Confucianism. He declared that Confucianism had nothing to do with religion, but was a philosophy. He especially admired Confucius and said that Confucius lived 500 years before Jesus and that he could not have known what would happen and what would be true 500 years later, so “Ricci took the Confucian classics for his own use and spoke only of what should be added after Confucius. In the Ten Books of the Monstrous Man, there is a passage in which Gong Dashen and Ricci discuss the question of ‘the retribution of good and evil lies behind us’. Gong Dashen first put forward that the Chinese classics were burned by Emperor Qin Shihuang after Confucius and the documents that recorded the retribution of heaven and hell were lost, while the Western classics always existed. Therefore, its doctrine of heaven and hell is very detailed.” In China, the later generations of retribution “are not well understood. Therefore, Confucianists are doubtful and half mixed up, between believing and doubting.” Although Gong Dashen also quoted the ancient classics to show that there could be a heaven, he still had doubts about whether “the great virtues will get people position and longer life.” Matteo Ricci explained it according to the Catholic doctrine. He believed that the reward for the virtuous does not lie in “position” or “life,” and that one should live in the world and toil for God, not asking for good rewards in this life, but believing that one can enter heaven in the end. Therefore, in his reply to Xu Guangqi, he said, “Those who are striving for righteousness... if they are for profit, for fame, for wickedness, and all kinds of injustices, they will suffer in vain. If they are striving for God, it will be a blessing and he will enter the heaven.” This is obviously an attempt to supplement Confucianism with Catholicism, but Ricci’s approach is not to deny the Confucian classics, but to play along with them, showing that the doctrine of the Chinese knowledge is not contrary to the Western doctrine, but can be supplemented. There is a lot of discussion about the “retribution of good and evil” in The True Meaning of God. The sixth chapter, On the Reward and Punishment of Heaven and Hell after Death, also corrects the Confucian concept that “a family that has accumulated goodness will have be blessed; a family that has accumulated badness will cause troubles According to Matteo Ricci, not only can there be rewards in the present life or rewards for children and grandchildren (Matteo Ricci seems to disagree with “rewards for children and

On Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures  247 grandchildren”), but the important thing is to receive rewards after death. If you do good deeds, you can go to heaven and avoid hell after death. Otherwise, you will go to hell, but doing good deeds is not only for “going to heaven and avoiding hell,” so Ricci said, There are three purposes of doing good deeds: the lower one is said to be for the purpose of entering heaven and avoiding hell; the middle one is said to be for the purpose of repaying the kindness of God; and the upper one is said to be for the purpose of obeying the holy will of God. The “lower will” is the bridge that leads people to the “upper will,” and people should ultimately do good deeds in obedience to God’s will. But Confucianism does not understand this point and criticizes the idea of heaven and hell because it does not understand the profound truth of it, “Confucians attack the idea of heaven and hell because they do not understand it. From here we can see that Catholicism is different from the Chinese Confucian tradition. Confucianism speaks of “good and evil retribution” in terms of personal moral cultivation, so that everyone should “cultivate one’s body,” or rather “better one’s virtue,” which is only to seek inner moral perfection of the individual in pursuit of an “inner transcendence.” But the Catholic Church’s ultimate goal of doing good deeds should be for the sake of God, and God is an “external transcendent” power, so what it seeks and worships is an “external transcendent” power. This issue will be discussed further below. (3)  Exceeding Confucianism While Chinese Confucianism aims at “inner transcendence,” Catholicism aims at “outer transcendence,” as pointed out by Matteo Ricci in his The Divine Truth through his criticism of the shortcomings of Confucianism, which states: “I think the problem of Confucians in your country is that although they often talk about moral cultivation, they do not understand that people are easily weakened in their will and lack the ability to practice self-​reliance. They do not understand that they should rely on God and pray for the God’s protection, so moral success was extremely rare.” We know that traditional Chinese philosophy (especially Confucian philosophy) is very different from Western philosophy and religion. In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle largely divided the world into a transcendent essence and the real world, and later Christianity is characterized by an external transcendent God, whereas traditional Chinese philosophy is characterized by “internal transcendence.” Confucius’s “nature and the way of heaven” is a question of inner transcendence, and Mencius’s thought “to keep the mind and know the nature, to understand the heaven” is also a question of inner transcendence from within; In The Book of Changes –​The System of Words, it is said that “one Yin and one Yang is called the Tao,

248  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue and the one who follows it will be good, and the one who succeeds in it will keep it as his nature,” which is about “inner transcendence” from transcendence to internalize. This question of “inner transcendence” holds that people can attain the state of convergence with the transcendent “heavenly path” through their inner moral cultivation (because human nature is good), and do not need an external transcendent force to motivate them to do so. But in the passage from Ricci quoted above, it is clear that he believed it was difficult to achieve perfection by one’s own inner moral cultivation alone, and that an external transcendent force, God, was necessary to motivate them to do so. And that belief in God was therefore entirely necessary. In other words, Ricci thought that Catholic doctrine was more complete than Confucianism. (4)  Attached to Confucianism The so-​called “attachment to Confucianism” means that in order to adhere to the traditional Chinese Confucianism, some changes are made to Catholicism to adapt to certain Confucianism thoughts. In the preface to the French edition of The Notes of Matteo Ricci in China, 1978, it is stated, As early as the end of Matteo Ricci’s life, the way he led his mission in China was the quite controversial in China and abroad. Two objections were raised. On the practical side, Ricci was accused of focusing too much on the development of relations with prominent Confucian figures rather than on the progress of the missionary enterprise; on the theoretical side, his positive assessment of Confucianism was also criticized. It was suggested that this would risk compromising the purity of Christian doctrine, and that a more explicitly religious approach would allow missionaries to spread the gospel directly to the people and to highlight Christian features. We have already mentioned above some of Ricci’s views on the Chinese Confucian tradition and some of his attempts to converge Eastern and Western cultures. Of course, Matteo Ricci knew that Confucianism had a lot of conflicts with Catholicism, which he could remedy by “complementing Confucianism” and “exceeding Confucianism.” But if his missionary work was to follow exactly the Catholic doctrine, it would certainly encounter more difficulties. Therefore, he had to modify certain aspects of Catholicism to suit Chinese tradition, so the criticism of him in the passage quoted above is not out of no reason. I think the following points should be noted about how Matteo Ricci attached Catholicism to Confucianism. (1) To justify the incompatibility of Chinese tradition with Catholicism in order to adapt it to Chinese society. In the original Italian version of The

On Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures  249 Notes of Matteo Ricci in China, there is a passage that gives a concise account of Confucian rituals, saying, However, according to an ancient law, in the major cities with many literati, a solemn temple was built for his statue, bearing his name and honorific title; at each new moon and four times a year, the literati had to offer him a sacrifice by lighting incense and candles and offering a slaughtered animal, although they did not recognize him as divine in any way and did not ask anything from him. Therefore, this ritual cannot be called a true sacrifice. Ricci talked a lot about Catholic opposition to idolatry in his books. For example, his criticism of idol worship in Buddhism and Taoism is severe. But Ricci never criticized the Confucian worship of Confucius, nor even the Chinese worship of their ancestors. The issue of sacrificial offerings was an important reason why China later banned Catholic missions. In 1704, the Holy See ordered the Chinese Catholics not to follow the traditional Chinese rituals which were not in line with Catholicism, the main issue being the worship of Confucius and ancestors, thus causing the Chinese government to restrict and prohibit Catholic missions at that time. It seems that Matteo Ricci understood the Chinese situation better and, and in order to adapt to Chinese society and to facilitate their missionary work, he compromised with Chinese traditions. Although this approach was not very consistent with Catholicism, Matteo Ricci still did so. (2) To adapt certain Catholic ideas to the Confucianism of the Chinese mission so that the Chinese could accept them. As we have already said, the Catholic “God” is of course the supreme personal God, but Matteo Ricci’s The Doctrine of God was originally called The Doctrine of Heaven. In his book, he often used the original Chinese name “Heaven” instead of “God.” According to Fang Hao’s Chinese Catholic History Series, he compared the Ming version with the later versions and found that the later versions changed the word in Chinese character “上帝” or “天” in the Ming version to “天主” or “上主” in 79 places. The original Chinese had the terms “God” and “Heaven,” but “Heaven” actually has many meanings in Chinese traditional thought. Although Matteo Ricci took the meaning of “God” and “Heaven” as the supreme personality God. But in the eyes of the Chinese, it can still have other meanings. After Ricci’s death, in 1715, Pope Crementius XI decreed that the word “天主” should be the legal name and that the names “上 帝” and “天” should no longer be used, because the words “上帝” and “天” might be interpreted differently. Another example is Matteo Ricci’s Twenty-​Five Words. Professor Luo Guang analyzed that “Twenty-​Five Words contains twenty-​five chapters. Each is short. The book persuades people to work all day long, restrain lust and happiness and always have a stable heart and are not affected by misfortune or blessing. The purpose of life is to serve God, and cultivate five virtues of benevolence,

250  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue righteousness, courtesy, wisdom, and faith every day.” It can be seen that Twenty-​Five Words was made deliberately to meet the needs of the Chinese at that time. (3) Some modifications have been made to the Catholic “original sin doctrine” so that it is close to the traditional Chinese Confucian doctrine of “good nature.” According to the Catholic doctrine of “original sin,” human nature cannot be considered “good,” which is very different from the traditional Chinese Confucian doctrine of “goodness of nature.” According to St. Augustine, the reason for man’s “original sin” is the result of his rational choice, but the root cause of his rational choice of sin is his pride, his self-​centered desire to put himself above God. This desire drives him to follow his own intentions in defiance of the will of God. It manifests itself especially in the desires of human nature. Augustine goes on to argue that since man has consciously chosen evil and committed the sin of disobedience to God, there is no possibility for him to recover his fallen state through his own efforts, because this “original sin” makes him fall irrevocably downward, always wanting to be self-​centered, obeying his own will and desires, and choosing only “sin” or tendency to “sin.” On this issue, in the seventh book of The True Meaning of God, On the Goodness of Human Nature and the Proper Study of the True Meaning of God, Ricci argues that the so-​called “human nature” is what distinguishes human beings from gold, stone, wood, birds and animals, as well as from ghosts and gods. That means human beings “can infer the theory.” He said, “Being able to reason makes human beings unique. What distinguishes them from other things is called human nature.” “Benevolence, justice, propriety, and wisdom come after reasoning. Reason, too, is a dependent product, not a human nature.” Therefore, the so-​ called “reasoner” means that there is such a “good ability” for goodness, and in this sense, “human nature is good.” This is a natural way to appeal to the Confucian viewpoint. However, Ricci could not go against the Catholic doctrine, and he thought that although people have this “ability to reason” (the ability to get reason means benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, etc.), but how to get it, according to him, should be like a farmer first plowing the ground, weeding, removing tiles and stones, irrigating water, and then sowing seeds, in order to have a good harvest. Therefore, “the scholar should first remove the evil and then be able to achieve the good.” This view is linked to the Catholic doctrine of “original sin,” which contradicts the so-​called “good nature.” It seems to be quite difficult to reconcile the two different cultural traditions. From these four points, we can see that Matteo Ricci’s attempt by spreading Catholicism was to achieve his goal by converging Eastern and Western cultures. Whether his attempt was successful or not, we won’t discuss it here. But he was one of the first Westerners to try it, and his attempt always has its historical significance.

On Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures  251

Debate on “Chinese Learning,” “Western Learning” and “Self ” and “Uses” When discussing the convergence or communication between Chinese and Western cultures, we often encounter the problem of the “body and use” of Chinese and Western learning. Matteo Ricci had to consider the relationship between Catholicism and traditional Chinese thought and culture when he spread Catholicism in China; similarly, the Chinese had to consider the relationship when they accepted it. We have already discussed how Matteo Ricci dealt with this problem, but let’s see how Chinese intellectuals accepted Catholicism at that time. I think that most of those who accepted Catholicism at that time, such as Xu Guangqi, Li Zhizao, and other intellectuals, actually accepted or understood Western learning with the attitude of “the Chinese knowledge as the body, the Western learning for uses.” We know that the Jesuits were active in China at that time. Although they entered the Beijing court, “the Chinese court only used their technology,” “such as Matteo Ricci’s entry into the palace to repair clocks and watches, along with Tang Ruowang, Nan Huairen and others’ participation in the calendar bureau to revise the calendar, etc., is just as what Chinese enlightened scholars really are interested in, and they are mainly limited to learning scientific knowledge from them.” Therefore, they did not have much success in naturalizing Chinese intellectuals. As for Catholicism, it was accepted by a very small number of Chinese intellectuals mainly because of its compatibility with traditional Chinese thought, especially Confucian ethics. Therefore, it can be said that it was an earlier form of “the Chinese knowledge as the body, the Western learning for uses” than it was after the 1860s. For a long time, there have been various arguments to prove the relationship between “Chinese learning” and “Western learning” by the relationship between “body and use,” such as “the Chinese knowledge as the body, the Western learning for use,” “the Western learning as the body, the Chinese knowledge for use” and “Chinese knowledge and Western learning are the body and use of each other.” The so-​called “Western learning as the body, the Chinese knowledge for use” means copying everything from the West which may be the “total Westernization” school of thought; “the Chinese knowledge as the body, the Western learning for use” means that all the good things in the West had existed in China in ancient times, which is probably the view of the “National Studies” school. Why are there different kinds of tatements and confusions about the relationship between “Chinese knowledge” and “Western learning”? I think it is mainly caused by the attempt to use the relationship of “body and use” to describe the relationship between “Chinese knowledge” and “Western learning.” Therefore, I think that neither of the above statements can be established. “Body” and “use” are important categories in the history of Chinese philosophy, but they are not a pair of substantive categories, but a pair of relational categories with fundamental nature. “Body” generally refers to

252  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue the “transcendental spirit of inner nature” or “transcendental essence,” the former referring to Mencius’ “conscience,” “good energy,” Wang Yangming’s “mind,” etc.; the latter referring to “heavenly destiny,” “Taichi,” “heavenly doctrine,” “Tao” and so on. “Use” refers to the functions performed by this “inner transcendental spirit” or “transcendental essence.” According to traditional Chinese philosophy, “body” and “use” are unified, and “use” is the expression of “body.” This point was already made by Wang Bi in the Wei and Jin Dynasties. “Although it is important to revere nothingness for use, we cannot consider nothingness as the body.” That is, without the “body” there is no corresponding “use.” The so-​called “Chinese knowledge as the body, the Western learning for use” is only to preserve the inherent Chinese spirit or transcendental essence in order to exclude the Western spirit, so how can “Western learning be used”? Likewise, “Western learning as body, Chinese knowledge for use” is also impossible. The former will in essence lead to “Chinese for use,” and the latter will only be “Western for use.” As for the “Chinese and Western learnings as body and use for each other,” it is said that Chinese good knowledge is the body and Western learning is for use; Western good learning is the body and Chinese knowledge is for use. This is obviously not valid and is very difficult to establish. It is only to include “Chinese knowledge as body with Western learning for use” and “Western learning as body with Chinese knowledge for use” in the so-​called “mutual body and use.” This is nothing but an eclecticism. In his article “Chinese Body and Western Use” and “Western Body and Chinese Use,” Fang Keli criticizes these two forms, but he himself falls into a very confusing eclecticism of “mutual body and use.” Therefore, I believe that using the “body–​use” relationship to explain the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures will only result in cultural “transposition.” If we do not improve the soil and other conditions of cultural growth, the root of the “transplanting” method will not work, and it will be difficult to grow into a big tree, so I think that for our modern society, this society should have its modern spirit and various systems that embody this modern spirit. If we want to use the relationship between “body and use” to illustrate this problem, then maybe we can say that “modern spirit is the body, ensuring that the system and its uses that embody the modern spirit are useful.” Some people may ask, “What is the ‘modern spirit’ ”? What are the “system and function that embody the spirit of modernity”? Here I would like to borrow the words of Yan Fu, who criticized “Chinese body and Western use” and pointed out that the body and use cannot be dual, but should be unified, especially emphasizing the significance of science. At the same time, he put forward a very meaningful proposition, “Freedom is the body, and democracy is the use.” In my opinion, this proposition may have modern significance. As I see it, “freedom” is the central embodiment of the modern spirit, or it is a modern inner spirit, a universal ideal pursued by people in modern society; while “democracy” is a variety of systems in modern society that guarantee people’s “freedom.” It should be a system that guarantees the “freedom” that everyone should have, not just a system that guarantees the

On Ricci’s Attempt to Integrate Eastern and Western Cultures  253 “freedom” of a certain person or several people. We live in today’s society in China. To make our society a modern society, the most important thing is to give everyone the “freedom” they deserve, and to ensure his realization with a set of democratic systems. Only in this way can people’s enthusiasm and creativity be brought into full play, and our country can not only embark on the road of “Four Modernizations,” but also the road of comprehensive modernization.

Note 1 This article was originally published in Religion, 1988(2), also published in China Forum, Taiwan, March 25, 1989.

24 On the Comparison of Chinese and Western Cultures Concerning the Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty1

What is the ultimate pursuit of human spiritual life? I think it’s the pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty, and the unification of the three in one system. Of course, different philosophers have different views on what are Truth, Goodness and Beauty, and on how the three virtues can be unified in one system. We cannot reach a consensus on such an issue, and there is no need to have a final conclusion. However, there is no doubt that people want to pursue the three virtues, and thinkers want to construct a unified system of them. The pursuit of realm of life in traditional Chinese philosophy can also be said to be the pursuit of the three virtues by traditional Chinese philosophers. I previously wrote an article, Research on the Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty in Chinese Traditional Philosophy,2 which mainly discusses Confucian thought on the issue, with the writing method of historical discussion. This article is not limited to Confucianism, and doesn’t use the writing method of historical discussion. Otherwise, this article will lose its focus and become very lengthy. Chinese traditional philosophy has a history of at least 2500 years, and from the beginning, it is divided into several schools, Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism, Mohism, the School of Logicians, the Yin-​Yang school, etc. It is difficult to make a historical discussion in one article, so this article will select a few representative philosophers for analysis. There were many important philosophers in the Pre-​Qin period of China, and their thoughts have always influenced the development of Chinese philosophy, among whom Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi have the greatest influence. If we take the three great philosophers as examples to discuss the issue of life realm of different types of philosophers in Chinese traditional philosophy, we may gain a general understanding of it. Forty years ago, while doing research at Oxford University, Mr. Shen Youding wrote a letter to a friend living in China. In this letter, he wrote, There is an important difference between Kant’s and Hegel’s axiology. Kant: Goodness ← Beauty ← Truth Hegel: Truth ← Beauty ← Goodness Therefore, it can be said that Kant is “Chinese” and Hegel is “Indian” (or Greek).3 DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-28

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  255 This view of Mr. Shen is very insightful and creative. It’s true from the perspective of the mainstream Confucianism of Chinese traditional philosophy, but not so from the perspective of different schools or philosophers of Chinese traditional philosophy. In my opinion, Chinese traditional philosophy can be divided into three systems on the issue of three virtues, which are the systems of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi. From the perspective of axiology, their standpoints of the issue are different as follows: Confucius: Goodness ← Beauty ← Truth Laozi: Truth ← Goodness ← Beauty Zhuangzi: Beauty ← Truth ← Goodness If we make some comparisons according to this, we can generally say that on this issue, Confucius is close to Kant, Laozi is close to Hegel, and Zhuangzi is close to Schelling or Aristotle in a limited way. Of course, comparison always has its limitations, it considers not all aspects, but it may inspire people.

1  Confucius’ Pursuit in the Realm of Life Confucius said, people who knows how to study is inferior to people who likes studying; people who likes studying is inferior to people who takes studying as joy. (Analects of Confucius-​Yongye) To gain knowledge, we need to have an object and seek truth, and the object and the subject are separated; when one has curiousness, the object enters the subject; and for taking studying as joy, “too elated to worry, fail to notice the pending old age” (Analects of Confucius, Shuer). We should transcend ourselves, secular affairs, and life and death, and be united with the heaven, which is the highest realm. “Knowledge” is about reason, “curiousness” involves emotion, while “taking studying as joy” is the combination of reason and emotion. In the Analects of Confucius, Confucius said, “At the age of 15, I was determined to study. At the age of 30, I had some achievement. At the age of 40, I no longer felt confused. At the age of 50, I knew what could not be controlled by human power and was happy to follow my destiny. At the age of 60, I could embrace all kinds of opinions. At the age of 70, I could do whatever I wanted without breaking the rules.” We know that both Confucius and Confucianism believe that people’s longevity and wealth cannot be pursued. However, people’s morality and knowledge can be cultivated by their efforts. The above quoted words of Confucius can be said to be Confucius’ description of his life, or the recount of his lifetime cultivation and the path to become a “saint,” that is, his own pursuit and understanding of “Truth, Goodness and Beauty.” From “being determined to study at the age of 15” to “no longer feeling confused at 40” can be said to be the preparation stage for him to become a saint, and from “knowing the destiny” to “could do whatever he wanted without breaking the rules” can be said to be the further stage of his becoming a saint. “Knowing the destiny”

256  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue can be interpreted as having understanding of “heaven” (the ultimate concern of the universe and life), which may be considered as “truth-​seeking,” because at this stage, Confucius still regarded “heaven” as an object for studying, and has not reached the stage of “being united with the heaven.” He was just pursuing the realm of “the unity of heaven and man.” In Comments on Zhuangzi, Guo Xiang wrote, “Zhuangzi can be said to know the root... He talks about nothingness but responds to nothingness. He talks nothing about material things that are supposed to be useless.” That is to say. Who corresponds to the essence of all things can be said to “know the root,” but in this way, they still regard the essence of all things as the object of studying, failing to integrate with the essence of all things. Therefore, although they “know the root,” they still cannot “do whatever they wanted without breaking the rules.” This realm is already very high, but “it’s not the supreme realm.” There have always been different interpretations of the sentence “at the age of 60, I could embrace all kinds of opinions.” Yang Bojun wrote in Notes for the Analects of Confucius, “The phrase ‘embrace opinions’ is hard to interpret. There are many attempts to interpret it, but they are all somewhat far-​fetched, and I will try to explain it in this way.” Mr. Yang explained it like this, “At 60, once you hear people’s words, you can immediately distinguish between true and false and determine whether they are right or wrong.” I think Mr. Yang’s explanation is probably in line with Confucius’ intention, but there have also been many explanations since ancient times. For example, Li Chong of the Jin Dynasty said that it’s “heart and ear that follow each other,” which may be the basis of Mr. Yang’s explanation. Sun Chuo of the Jin Dynasty explained it with metaphysical thought, “Those who embrace all kinds of opinions abandon the principle of listening. They can naturally and effortlessly understand people’s words, which is the so-​called principle of not striving but following.” This should be a realm of obtaining the principle of the universe from intuition beyond experience, and a realm of “absorption and transcendence.” According to the view of hermeneutics, all explanations of predecessors’ thoughts involve the opinions of the explainer, but there is always some connection between them. Otherwise, there will be no “explanation.” This applies to the interpretation of Confucius thought made by thinkers of all time. Here, I intend to quote Zhu Xi’s explanation of the sentence, “Sound enters the mind that have nothing against them, and the supreme knowledge is obtained without thinking.” (Notes to the Four Books). “Sound entering the mind” should be related to “sound” (both “sound with voice” and “sound without voice); “the supreme knowledge” should be a realm beyond “knowing destiny.” This realm is different from that of “knowing destiny,” “obtained without thinking,” so it is beyond knowledge. Then what kind of realm is it? I think it can be interpreted as an intuitive aesthetic realm, from which we get an intuitive image beyond experience. It is also fair to say a realm of art, and of “beauty.” This explanation of the sentence may be “far-​fetched,” but according to Bojun, most of the “explanations” of it since ancient times have been far-​fetched. Mine is nothing more than another

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  257 “far-​fetched” explanation. But my explanation cannot be said to be baseless. Especially, it may be creative from a philosophical point of view. Moreover, if an explanation is valuable, it must add something to the original meaning. Otherwise, it will be of no value. As we know, Confucius is very cultured in music. He “heard music in the state of Qi and didn’t know the taste of meat for more than three months.” “Not knowing the taste of meat for more than three months” is naturally a very high aesthetic realm of “obtainment without thinking.” Confucius also explained the realm he reached. He said, “I didn’t expect the beauty of music to reach such a realm.” This realm is a transcendental enjoyment of beauty. For “at the age of 70, I could do whatever I wanted without breaking the rules.” Zhu Xi noted, “Rules are the instruments of law. If one can follow his desire without breaching the law, then they can do everything with a peaceful mind.” This realm of “doing whatever one wanted without breaking the rules” is a state of integration with all things in the world, where a perfect realm of “supreme goodness” after “knowing the Truth” and “obtaining Beauty” exists. Confucius regarded “ultimate goodness and beauty” as higher than “ultimate beauty.” The Analects of Confucius recorded this remark of his, “Music is ‘ultimate beauty and goodness’; while martial art is ‘ultimate beauty but not ultimate goodness’.” The “ultimate beauty” here means “excellent,” but calling a thing “excellent” or “ultimate beauty” always involves moral value judgment to a certain extent (at least in Confucianism). Mencius said, “Enrichment is beauty.” The “beauty” here also involves some moral value judgment. Zhu Xi noted, “Practice goodness to achieve fullness and accumulation, then beauty is inside us, and there is no need to look for it in the outside world.” The “Goodness “is an internal personality “Beauty.” It seems that Zhu Xi believes that “Goodness” contains “Beauty” in some way. The reason why “ultimate goodness” is higher than “ultimate beauty” is that “ultimate goodness” is “ultimate goodness and beauty.” We can say here that Confucius’ realm of life (or the realm of sages) progresses from “knowing the Truth” and “obtaining the Beauty” to the realm of “ultimate goodness” of “doing everything with a peaceful mind without encouragement,” that is, from “Truth” to “Beauty” and to “Goodness.” “Goodness ← Beauty ← Truth” is the characteristic of Kant’s philosophy. According to Kant, practical reason is better than speculative reason. His Critique of Pure Reason studies the phenomenal world in which reason functions, which is dominated by the law of nature; Critique of Practical Reason studies the noumenon of reason’s function, which is not dominated by the law of necessity, and free. The former is nature and the latter is morality. The former belongs to theoretical understanding, and the latter belongs to moral belief. There is no direct link between the two. Therefore, how to build a bridge between theoretical cognition (epistemology) and moral belief (Ethics) is a problem that Kant’s philosophy must solve, so he wrote Critique of the Power of Judgement. At the beginning of this book, he wrote, “Although there is an insurmountable gap between the field of natural concept as the field of

258  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue sense, and the field of free concept as the field of beyond sense, the former cannot be transformed into the latter (through the application of rational theory). It seems that they are in two separate worlds. The former can never exert influence on the latter; but the latter should have influence on the former, that is to say, the free concept should realize the purpose given by its law in the perceptual world. Therefore, the natural world must be considered like this: the regularity of its form should at least coordinate with the possibility of those who follow the law of freedom to achieve their purpose. Therefore, we must have a foundation of the unity of the field of beyond sense as the basis of nature and those things contained in the concept of freedom in practice. Although our concept of foundation is known neither theoretically nor practically, and it has no unique field of its own, it still makes the transition between the thought form according to this principle and the thought form from that principle possible.”4 Kant believes that it is judgment that unites rationality (pure reason) and reason (practical reason), and judgment has some characteristics of rationality and reason, but is also different from the two. Kant divided human mind into three parts: knowledge, emotion and rationality. The cognitive ability of “knowledge” is rationality, which is pure reason; the cognitive ability of “meaning” is reason, which is practical rationality beyond experience; the cognitive ability of “emotion” is what Kant called “judgment.” Because “emotion” is between knowledge and meaning, it receives the stimulation of outside things like “knowledge,” and it also exerts certain impact externally like “meaning,” so judgment is between reason and rationality. On the one hand, judgment is like rationality, which faces individual and local phenomena; on the other hand, like reason, it requires individual things to conform to the common and general purpose. In this way, judgement can integrate the understanding of local phenomena and the reason of the whole. Judgment requires us to consider the individual as a part of the whole, so judgment link rationality and reason.5 By this theory, Kant constructed his philosophical trilogy of “Goodness ← Beauty ← Truth.” Of course, although there are similarities between Confucius’ philosophy and Kant’s philosophy from the perspective of axiology, their philosophical goals are different. Confucius wanted to construct a set of forms of his philosophy of life, while Kant wanted to establish a perfect theoretical system. This may be regarded as a difference between Chinese and Western philosophy. If we match Confucius’ transformation from “knowing destiny” to “embracing all kinds of opinions” to “doing whatever he wanted without breaking the rules” with the basic propositions of “Truth,” “Goodness” and “Beauty” in traditional Chinese philosophy, it may be said that “knowing destiny at 50” is pursuing “the unity of heaven and man,” “embracing all kinds of opinions at 60” is seeking “the unity of emotion and situation,” and “doing whatever he wanted without breaking the rules” is practicing the “unity of knowledge and action.” The “unity of heaven and man” belongs to the aspect of “wisdom” (knowledge), the “unity of emotion and situation” belongs to the aspect of “appreciation” (emotion), and the “unity of knowledge and action” belongs

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  259 to the aspect of “practice” (meaning). According to Confucianism, the three are inseparable. To be a man, we should not only understand the trend of the universe, but also appreciate the power of heaven and earth, and recreate the perfection of the universe in daily life. From the above analysis, Confucius’s “knowing destiny,” “embracing all kinds of opinions” and “doing whatever he wanted without breaking the rules” are all about the pursuit of the realm of life. It is a summary of Confucius’s own pursuit of the Truth, the Goodness and the Beauty.

2  Laozi’s Pursuit of the Realm of Life Laozi seems to hold a negative attitude toward the Truth, the Goodness and the Beauty pursued by ordinary people (including Confucians). For example, he advocated “abandoning cleverness” to oppose the pursuit of general knowledge; “five colors make people blind” to oppose the pursuit of beauty; and “when the natural principle ceased to be observed, benevolence and righteousness came into vogue” to oppose goodness as a moral concept. But does this mean that Laozi was against the pursuit of the realm of truth, goodness and beauty? I think he pursues a realm of truth, goodness and beauty beyond the secular sense, which is the realm of “being the same as the Tao.” It seems that Laozi regards the “Tao” as the unity of truth, goodness and beauty. “Man follows earth, earth follows heaven, heaven follows Tao, and Tao follows nature.” (Chapter 25 of Tao Te Ching). This can be said to be Laozi’s explanation of the pursuit of the realm of life. He believes that the highest ideal of man is to follow the “Tao,” and the “Tao” is natural. What is the so-​called “Tao” exactly? It has many meanings in Tao Te Ching, but its most basic meaning refers to the highest criterion of transcendence.6 “It’s colorless (Yi); silent (Xi); and invisible (Wei). These three cannot be explained clearly, so they are mixed into one. Its upper part is not bright, lower part not dark. It’s hazy and indescribable, so it returns to nothing. It is a state without shapes and an image without things (Hu Huang). Facing it, you can’t see its head; following it, you can’t see its tail. The ancient Tao is used to resist the existence today. Knowing the ancient origin is called Tao.” (Chapter 14 of Tao Te Ching). This passage’s three meanings are as follows: (1) “Tao” is superior to sensory experience. According to the passage, “colorless” (Yi), “silent” (Xi) and “invisible” (Wei) all aims to explain the transcendence of “Tao.” Shi Deqing of the Ming Dynasty noted, “Things that can be explained clearly are still graspable.” (Interpretation of Tao Te Ching). Things that cannot be explained clearly, on the other hand, are ungraspable. This “mixed one” of “things that cannot be explained clearly” is “Tao.” (2) Although “Tao” is transcendental, but it is the basis for the existence of the most real things. “It is a state without shape and an image without things.” Wang Bi’s noted, “If you say it doesn’t exist, it gives birth to everything; if you say it does exist, it’s invisible”; “the invisible and nameless Tao gives birth to everything.” “A state without shapes and an image without things” can be the basis for the existence

260  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue of all “shapes” and “things.” Wang Bi noted that “Tao is defining because it’s ungraspable.” That is to say. “Tao” is nonprescriptive. Those who are prescriptive exist in experience, while those who are nonprescriptive are beyond experience. Therefore, “Tao has no fixed entity. It is ‘Hu Huang’, but there are images and things in it. It is so profound and dark, but there is essence in it; the essence is the most real and there is faith in it.” (Chapter 21 of Tao Te Ching) “Tao” is nonprescriptive, but it can create all prescriptive “things,” so it is the most real existence. That is to say. “Tao” is the noumenon of things. (3) “Tao” is the highest criterion of transcendence, so it’s the basis for the existence of all things. “Tao is reason” (Baihutong, Three Principles and Five Disciplines). “Tao” is the highest criteria for all things in the world since ancient times. The above three arguments demonstrate that Laozi’s philosophy is to explore the origin and basis of existence of all things, so as to create an ideological system with “Tao” as the highest criterion of transcendence. Laozi’s theory of the noumenon of the universe belongs to the scope of “truth” seeking. Laozi regards “Tao” as the highest category of his philosophical system, and grasping “Tao” as grasping the Truth, which is the purpose of life. Therefore, Laozi considers “being the same as Tao” as the highest pursuit of life. He said, “People who follow Tao will be the same as Tao.” Wang Bi noted, “Tao is nameless and invisible, but nourishes all things. Therefore, people who follow Tao advocate non-​interference, and they are able to grasp the essence of things and become united with Tao, which is called ‘being the same as Tao’.” It seems that Laozi believes that the relationship between man and Tao cannot be explained by understanding “Tao.” In his opinion, “Tao” shouldn’t be regarded as the object of general understanding, because “Tao” is nameless and invisible. Instead, we should “practice the Great Way,” which means being one with “Tao,” so “being the same as Tao” is only a very high realm of life, a realm of “achieving Tao” beyond the secular world, which is exactly the highest realm pursued by Laozi. So how does Laozi view “Goodness” and “Beauty”? Does he completely deny the pursuit of “goodness” and “beauty”? I don’t think so. We know that the basic characteristic of Laozi’s “Tao” is “natural non-​interference,” so he also takes “natural non-​interference” as the standard of “goodness” and “beauty.” “When the natural principle ceased to be observed, benevolence and righteousness came into vogue.” That is to say. “Benevolence and righteousness” are all “man-​made” concepts that do not conform to the principle of “natural non-​interference,” but also destroys the “Tao” and man’s nature. Therefore, only by removing these “man-​made” concepts, can people achieve the real “goodness” that meets the requirements of “Tao.” Therefore, he said, “Abandon benevolence and righteousness, then people can restore their filial nature.” Only by abandoning all “man-​made” moral concepts such as “benevolence and righteousness,” can people restore natural interpersonal relationships. “A moral person is like water, which is beneficial to all things, but does not take credit for it. Water can be in the lower position, so it is close to the ‘Tao’.” (Chapter 8 of Tao Te Ching) (also, in Chapter 66, “The reason

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  261 why rivers and seas can become the destination where rivers flow is because they are in low places, so they can become the king of rivers.”) Moral people can only be close to the realm of “Tao,” not achieving the realm of “being the same as Tao.” If you use Feng Youlan’s theory of four realms in New Rational Man, “moral person” only achieves the realm of morality, while the person who is “being the same as Tao” achieves the realm of heaven and earth, so from the perspective of axiology, “goodness” is a level lower than “truth.” In Chapter 12 of Tao Te Ching, “Multiple colors dazzle people; noisy tones make people unable to hear; rich food numbs the tongue; indulging in hunting makes people wild.” Wang Bi noted that “all these pleasures do not conform to life, but harm nature, so they will make people blind, deaf, numb and crazy.” That is to say. The pleasures are “man-​made,” which makes people deviate from the “Tao” and lose their nature. Therefore, Laozi regards simplicity as the “beauty,” “maintain a pure and simple nature and reduce selfish desires and distractions.”7 Everything should act according to its nature. If there is interreference, it will lose its original “beauty,” and only if there is no interreference can it preserve its natural “beauty.” Therefore, “the greatest sound is silent, the ultimate shape is invisible, the Tao is obscure, and only the Tao can nourish everything” (Chapter 41 of Tao Te Ching). Wang Bi noted, “Great sound is hard to hear, which is called ‘Xi’. If a sound has a voice, then it’s different from other things and cannot unify all things, thus the greatest sound is silent”; “if a shape is visible, then it must be warm or cold, so the ultimate shape is invisible”; “these are features of the Tao, and it’s the ultimate shape and the greatest sound, which is invisible and silent.” The “sound” conforming to the “Tao” is the “greatest sound,” and the “shape” conforming to the “Tao” is the “ultimate shape.” The “greatest sound” can create all “sounds,” and the “ultimate shape” create all “shapes.” There must be sound in music and shapes in paintings, but Laozi thinks that the greatest music is silent and the ultimate painting is invisible, because without the two, there will be no sounds and shapes. The theory is in line with the principle of “non-​interference.” “Tao does nothing and everything,” Wang Bi noted, “obey the nature” and “everything is originated from Tao.” We can conclude that Laozi’s “goodness” and “beauty” are derived from “truth” (Tao), and are the expression of the features of “Tao.” The last chapter of Tao Te Ching, Chapter 81, wrote, Honest words are not beautiful, beautiful words are not honest; Kind people are not clever, clever people are not kind; A truly wise man does not seek to be broad-​minded, and he who seeks to be broad-​minded is not a wise man. In my opinion, the “beauty” (the standard of “beauty” in words is plain), “goodness” (the standard of “goodness” in behavior is honesty), and “truth” (the standard of “wisdom” is truth) here may be Laozi’s sequential arrangement of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty.” “Beauty” is about

262  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue words (which can be the representative of Literature), “goodness” is about behavior (which can be the representative of morality), and “truth” is about wisdom (which can be the representative of knowledge). “True knowledge” is higher than “true goodness” and “true beauty,” which constitutes an axiological sequence. This is Laozi’s mode of pursuing the realm of life. On “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty,” we say that Laozi’s philosophy has some similarities with Hegel’s philosophy, which only refers to some similarities on the axiological level of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty.” In Hegel’s philosophical system, “morality,” “art” and “philosophy” all belong to the category of spiritual philosophy. Spiritual philosophy is the third part of Hegel’s philosophical system, it describes the third stage of absolute spirit’s development, the spiritual stage. The spiritual stage is the unity of the logical stage and the natural stage, and it’s free and autonomous. However, there is also a complex development process from freedom to autonomy, which includes three stages: (1) Subjective spirit; (2) Objective spirit; (3) Absolute spirit. “Morality” belongs to objective spirit. The so-​called “objective spirit” means that the spirit expresses itself in the external objective world, which does not refer to nature, but to spiritual world, that is, different fields of human social life and history, including three development stages of abstract law (property law), morality and ethics (family, civil society and state). Objective spirit is lower than absolute spirit in the stage of spiritual development, so “morality” is lower than “art” and “philosophy” that belong to spirit in the field of spiritual development. According to Hegel, both subjective spirit and objective spirit are one-​sided; subjective spirit such as soul, feeling, consciousness, reason and will are all individual’s internal state of consciousness, which is not realized into existence; and objective spirit such as property, law, morality, politics, family, society and state, though existing objectively, are not aware of themselves. However, the nature of spirit is infinite, absolute and free. Due to this contradiction, it must continue to develop to overcome the one-​ sidedness of and opposition between subjective spirit and objective spirit, so as to rise to the highest stage of spirit. Absolute spirit is the spirit’s complete and full understanding of itself. It is both the subject and the object. It has no other purpose except to take itself as the object and consciously express its essence. Therefore, it is truly infinite, absolute and free, and “art,” “religion” and “philosophy” are the three stages of the development of absolute spirit, but the three stages are consistent in content, and differ only in form. Hegel said, “It is intuition and image in art, emotion and representation in religion, and pure free thought in philosophy.”8 Therefore, he defined “beauty” as “the emotional manifestation of ideas”9. Hegel arranged the three stages of the development of absolute spirit in this way to show that the understanding of “absolute spirit” of itself should also follow the process from perceptual intuition to abstract thinking through representation (which he also called “image thinking”). Therefore, “philosophy” is the highest, freest and wisest form of spirit. He said, “The most perfect way to understand truth is the pure form of thinking (pure concepts and logical categories). When people

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  263 adopt the pure form of thinking, they are the freest.”10 The perceptual form of art cannot fully reflect the infinity, absoluteness and freedom of “absolute spirit” (concept), because it is limited by its perceptual form. “Expressing truth in perceptual form is still not suitable for expressing the soul.”11 Only philosophy is the perfect form of understanding “truth.” From Hegel’s spiritual philosophy, he regards the perfect way for “philosophy” to obtain truth as the highest; the pursuit of “beauty” (art) as “perceptual manifestation of ideas,” which is a development stage lower than “philosophy”; “morality” as a subject’s internal belief of good and evil, which is a development stage lower than “art.”12 That is to say. From the perspective of axiology, Hegel’s view of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty” should be “Truth ← Beauty ← Goodness.” Although this is not completely consistent with Laozi’s view, they both regard “truth” as higher than “beauty” and “goodness.” However, as I said earlier when discussing Confucius, Chinese traditional philosophy focuses on pursuing a realm of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty,” while Western philosophy focuses on establishing an ideological system to demonstrate the value of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty.” The former can be said to pursue a kind of “consciousness,” while the latter is a discussion of “knowledge.”

3  Zhuangzi’s Pursuit of the Realm of Life In the first two sections, we discussed Confucius’s and Laozi’s view on “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty.” They both focus on the realm of life, which is very different from Western philosophers. In my opinion, on the issues of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty,” Zhuangzi wanted to pursue a transcendent realm of life instead of “seeking knowledge.” Like Laozi, Zhuangzi also regarded “Tao” as the highest category of his philosophy, but the focus of Zhuangzi’s philosophy is not to demonstrate the infinity, absoluteness and eternity of “Tao,” but to demonstrate the spiritual infinity, absoluteness and eternity of people who achieve the Tao (such as sages, divine men, and sages), although he also wrote lengthy passages on it. The first article of Zhuangzi is called Carefree Excursion. The main purpose of this article is to discuss how to achieve absolute spiritual freedom. According to Zhuangzi, the Peng bird could hit water for a space of three thousand li and mount to a height of 90,000 li, and Liehtse could ride upon the wind for 800 li a day. They seem to be free enough, but in fact they are not completely free. Peng’s flight requires a vast space; Liehtse’s journey depends on the wind. Their powers are “conditional.” Only “unconditional” powers can achieve the real freedom. “But suppose one who mounts on (the ether of) heaven and earth in its normal operation, and drives along the six elemental energies of the changing (seasons), thus enjoying himself in the illimitable –​ what has he to wait for?” (Zhuangzi-​Free and Easy Wandering). The “Free and Easy Wandering” is unconditional, so it’s absolutely free in spirit. But how can we achieve this realm of unconditional absolute freedom? Zhuangzi believes that it cannot be achieved by ordinary people, and only “sages,”

264  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue “divine men” and “saints” can achieve it, because “the sage ignores self; the divine man ignores achievement; the saint ignores reputation.” “Ignoring self ” is to “lose self.” Qiwulun wrote, “Today, I forget myself.” There is a paragraph in The Great Master about “sitting and forgetting” that can be said to be a description of the absolute freedom of “no self.” Yan Hui said, “I have made progress.” Confucius asked, “What is your progress?” Yan Hui said, “I have forgotten benevolence and righteousness.” Confucius said, “That’s good, but not enough.” A few days later, Yan Hui visited Confucius again and said, “I have made progress again.” Confucius asked, “What is your progress?” Yan Hui said, “I have forgotten etiquette and music.” Confucius said, “That’s good, but not enough.” A few days later, Yan Hui met Confucius again and said, “I’ve made progress again.” Confucius asked, “What is your progress this time?” Yan Hui said, “I’m sitting and forgetting.” Confucius asked in surprise, “What’s sitting and forgetting?” Yan Hui replied, “Forgetting one’s own body, abandoning one’s intelligence, getting rid of the shackles of one’s body and intelligence, and being integrated with Tao. This is called ‘sitting and forgetting’.” Confucius said, “If you are the same with all things, you have no preference. If you adapt to changes, you are not restricted by rules. Now you are really a sage! I should learn from you.” The realm of Zhuangzi’s “sitting and forgetting” is what he called the realm of “no self ” or “losing oneself.” The above quotation shows that Yan Hui began from denying secular morality, “forgetting etiquette and music” and “forgetting benevolence and righteousness”; then eliminating the various constraints of the body on the spirit, “forgetting one’s own body” and “getting rid of the shackles of one’s body”; eliminating the spiritual problems caused by knowledge, “abandoning one’s intelligence” and “losing wisdom,” so as to achieve the realm of being the same as nature that transcends eyes, ears and mind, utilitarianism, morality and life and death, in which we will not be limited by any internal and external judgements and preferences, and can be integrated with heaven and earth, “being the same as the Tao.” “Losing wisdom” is the most important part of this realm, and it requires us to remove the decomposed and conceptual knowledge activities, that is, the so-​called “seeking the internal communication of the ears and eyes, and expressing it by knowledge of heart” of Zhuangzi’s theory of “inner world.” We can regard this pure intuitive activity as an aesthetic activity. The “sages,” “divine man” and “saints” described in Zhuangzi are people who can transcend the secular world to achieve absolute spiritual freedom of “sitting and forgetting” or “inner world.” For example, Tianzifang wrote, “A sage can peep into the blue sky from the top and sneak into the netherworld from the bottom. His spirit is free and unrestrained, reaching all parts of the universe, and his expression will never change”; “riding on the boundless bird, getting outside of the universe, roaming in the realm of nothingness and wandering in the field of infinity” (The Philosopher-​King). And the so-​called “divine man” is like what Heaven and Earth said, “The divine man rides the light and disappears, which is called illuminating all things. They use their

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  265 destiny to volatilize true feelings and enjoy with heaven and earth, and everything returns to true feelings.” Keyi wrote, “Sages are born in the world and operate in accordance with nature. When they die, they change and go away like all things… They lose wisdom and follow natural conventions… They are empty and indifferent, which is in line with the truth of nature.” The reason why the “sages,” “divine man” and “saints” can transcend the limitations of time and space and travel outside the universe carefreely is precisely because they can “get rid of the shackles of one’s body and intelligence,” let nature decide everything for them, and they have no requirements for the real world, so they can carefreely travel in the “empty land.” This can only be a spiritual carefree excursion. This realm of absolute spiritual freedom can only be an aesthetic realm in art. Travel to the North wrote: Heaven and earth have great beauty, but they don’t express it in words. The four seasons have clear laws, but they can’t be evaluated. The changes of all things have existing rules, but they don’t need to be discussed. Sages explore the great beauty of heaven and earth and understand the truth of the growth of all things. Therefore, they comply with nature and do nothing. Sages will not act recklessly; they make detailed observations of heaven and earth. Tianzifang wrote: To reach such a state is supreme beauty and supreme joy. To realize supreme beauty is to roam in supreme joy, and people who can achieve this are called sages. “Such a state” refers to the realm of “wandering at the beginning of things,” which is the realm of unspeakable natural “non-​interference.” The highest beauty is “the great beauty of heaven and earth,” which is all-​inclusive and extreme, because heaven and earth cover everything, whose beauty is self-​evident, there is no need to prove its beauty. “Sages,” “divine men” and “saints” can “explore the great beauty of heaven and earth” (or “embrace the beauty”), because they follow nature to “get rid of the shackles of their body and intelligence,” so they can “realize supreme beauty to roam in supreme joy.” This realm of “supreme beauty and supreme joy” is also a very high aesthetic realm of art. Zhuangzi’s philosophy also discussed the relationship between “truth” and “beauty.” In Qiushui, it is said that: “Cattle and horses naturally have four feet; and it is man-​made to bring bridles to horses and nose ropes to cattle. Therefore, don’t destroy nature by man-​made things, don’t damage life with interference, don’t harm your nature in pursuit of fame. To cling to nature is to return to nature.” The so-​called “return to nature” is to return to the natural original state. Zhuangzi advocated that “follow the heaven and value the truth” and opposed all “man-​made things” that violate nature. “Eat grass, drink water and jump when getting excited” is the nature of horses, and “bringing bridles to horses and nose ropes to cattle” makes cattle and horses lose their nature and freedom, and thus lose their “beauty.” Therefore, “truth”

266  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue and “beauty” are consistent in Zhuangzi’s philosophy. And “truth” must “conform to the true feelings of nature.” Fisherman wrote, “The so-​called truth is the extreme of sincerity. If you are not sincere, you can’t move people.” To “move people,” we must have true feelings to make people enjoy beauty. “We should not take successful achievements and deeds as the only motivation, but take morality and truth as the purpose.” The most successful beauty is not man-​made, it can freely express its true nature. Therefore, Zhuangzi’s “pursuit of truth” is also for “pursuing beauty.” Without “beauty,” there is no “truth.” To “pursue truth” is also to pursue a free spiritual realm. Zhuangzi seldom affirms morality. Instead, he has an anti-​moral tendency. In his mind, all moral norms are “man-​made,” which destroys people’s true nature, so he opposes “changing people’s nature with benevolence and righteousness” (Pianmu). Zhuangzi believes that the realization of individual personality freedom is not only “great beauty,” but also the highest “virtue” and the highest “goodness.” In Keyi, Zhuangzi said, “If you can have noble behavior without sharpening your mind, have high self-​cultivation without advocating benevolence and righteousness, manage the world without pursuing merit and reputation, get leisure without living in seclusion, and live a long life naturally without guiding Qi and blood, then you can forget everything and own everything. If you are quiet and indifferent to the extreme, beautiful things in the world will follow. This is the Tao of heaven and earth and the virtue of sages.” In the “if you are quiet and indifferent to the extreme, beautiful things in the world will follow,” Cheng Xuanying noted, “The mind is not limited in one place, and the trace is all over the universe. It is so simple and empty that Tao is infinite, and the beauty of all virtues follows.” This means that if the mind has nothing to cling to, and if we can follow nature, sit and forget to lose oneself, and be free to reach the extreme realm, then the beauty of all will gather. This is the natural operation of heaven and earth and the path for sages to achieve goodness. Therefore, Zhuangzi’s “goodness” has been included in his highest and most complete beauty (great beauty). As mentioned above, in Zhuangzi’s philosophy, “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty” are unified in the aesthetic realm of spiritual freedom. Zhuangzi and Laozi both pursue “being the same as Tao,” but Laozi’s pursuit of it is to understand and feel “Tao,” which still belongs to “cognition” and philosophical consciousness; Zhuangzi’s pursuit of it is to appreciation and observe “Tao,” which is an aesthetic intuition. From here, we can see that Zhuangzi’s philosophy is different from Laozi’s philosophy in the axiology of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty.” Zhuangzi regards “beauty” as the highest virtue. From the perspective of axiology, there are two Western philosophers who may have some similarities with Zhuangzi on the issues of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty.” One is Aristotle and the other is Schelling. Schelling may have more similarities with them. We can ask a question first: can we say that Zhuangzi’s realm of life is similar to Aristotle’s philosophy? It is generally believed that there are no

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  267 similarities in many aspects. However, from a certain angle of axiology, can we find some “similarities” between them? Aristotle’s philosophy pursues the unity of truth, goodness and beauty. He said, “Beauty is goodness, which creates pleasure exactly because it is goodness,” and good behaviors and the artistic expression of beauty need to be based on the understanding of things. But from the axiological perspective, Aristotle did not give them the same meaning. In dividing human activities, he believes that among the three activities of cognition, practice and creation, cognition or observation is the highest, because only through it can people face the highest truth. From the perspective of the three activities of pursuing truth, goodness and beauty, the activity of seeking truth seems to have obtained the highest value in his philosophy. However, as for the outcomes of the three activities, their values are different in Aristotle’s view. The activity of “seeking truth” brings about theoretical science (such as mathematics, physics and metaphysics), which is only knowledge for knowledge’s sake; the activity of “seeking goodness” and “seeking beauty” beget practical science (including politics and Ethics) and creative science (including poetics and rhetoric), which have higher external purposes. The former guides behavior and the latter guides creation. Aristotle believes that the essence of art is creation. He said, “Art is a state of creativity, including the real process of reasoning.” Here, creative activity becomes the activity that can best reflect human essence, that is, rationality. Aristotle once defined human essence as rationality. Therefore, from this perspective, we may say that the artistic creation of expressing beauty. Therefore, beauty itself obtains the highest value in Aristotle’s philosophy, followed by action with external purpose (i.e., moral practice, which belongs to “goodness”), and then the activity of “seeking truth” which is only knowledge for knowledge’s sake.13 Schelling put forward the issue of “absolute identity.” According to him, “absolute identity” is neither subject nor object, but “the absolute undifferentiated identity of subject and object,” which can only be achieved in an “intellectual intuition.” The so-​called “intellectual intuition” is the activity that produces intuitive objects, and the two are the same. This is actually a supernormal activity. Through this intuitive activity, the “self ” integrates itself with the cosmic spirit that unconsciously created nature, and the unconscious cosmic spirit is objectified in the world and personified in the self. Therefore, this “rational intuition” is a spiritual artistic sense, which cannot be possessed by everyone, but only by philosophical genius. Moreover, Schelling believes that even the “intellectual intuition” activity does not completely achieve the absolute identity of subject and object, because there are still those who observe and who get observed (although the latter are produced by the free activities of former). Therefore, Schelling proposed that only in “artistic intuition” can the absolute undifferentiated and complete identity of subject and object be realized. This identity is very close to the realm of Zhuangzi’s “inner world” and “sitting and forgetting.” Schelling believes that “artistic intuition” comes from inspiration and the strong pursuit of an internal spiritual force.

268  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue That is to say. The so-​called “artistic intuition” can only be an intuitive and mysterious spiritual realm, which is higher than “rational intuition,” and Schelling regards “beauty” as the highest virtue. In his view, “truth” is an issue of inevitability and the moral behavior of “goodness” is comprehensively realized in art. He said, “I believe that the highest rational activity is the aesthetic activity that covers all theories. Truth and goodness can be approached only in beauty. Philosophers must have aesthetic ability like poets.” Therefore, from the perspective of axiology, Schelling regards “beauty” as higher than “truth” and “goodness,” which may be similar to Zhuangzi.14

4  Simple Conclusion (1) The above three different life realms that Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi pursued are three different philosophies, and the three different philosophies show three different value orientations. I think any valuable philosophical system always pursues the unity of “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty,” but the method and the process of the unification are not the same. Cultural development never follows the same path. In the Pre-​Qin period, China’s culture was rich and colorful because it had a diversified cultural orientation. At that time, scholars could discuss the ultimate concerns of the universe and life from a very broad field, which made China’s culture at that time not inferior in any respect than cultures in other parts of the world (such as Greece and India). The reason why this happened is that it’s “pluralistic” rather than “unitary”; it could discuss “truth,” “goodness” and “beauty” from different paths, instead of discussing the ultimate concerns of the universe and life in just one way. If the development of China’s Pre-​Qin philosophy can teach us something today, I think one of its meanings is “diversification.” Only when philosophy is diversified can it be fully developed, otherwise, its vitality will eventually be suffocated. Today’s world culture and philosophy are showing a trend of diversified development under the global consciousness. We should comply with this trend to create China’s modern culture and philosophy. (2) If we want to make philosophies in history have modern significance and play a role in today’s society, we must interpret them in a modern way. The above explanation of the thoughts of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi is an attempt to interpret their thoughts in a modern way. The explanation of the thoughts of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi can only be “the philosophy of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi, but also not the philosophy of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi.” Because the above explanation is “based on the philosophy of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi,” so it is “the philosophy of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi”; meanwhile, it is “extended from the philosophy of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi,” so it is not the philosophy of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi. In this way, we expand the significance of the philosophy of the three philosophers.

On Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty  269 Precisely because it is “developed from the philosophy of Confucius, Laozi and Zhuangzi” in the modern era, so it has modern significance. We compare the philosophies from the perspective of axiology to show that the philosophies have different orientations in axiology, which, in addition to explaining the significance of cultural pluralism, can also provide us with the patterns of different philosophical systems and the pursuit of life values with different orientations, and demonstrate our attention to and understanding of the meaning of “truth, goodness and beauty” today. (3) It is undoubtedly meaningful to use Western philosophy as a reference to understand (explain) Chinese philosophy. Although no Chinese philosopher has ever made a special discussion on the issue of “truth, goodness and beauty,” it cannot be said that the issue is not included in Chinese philosophy. Using Western philosophy as a reference to reveal the issue contained in the philosophy of Chinese philosophers, on the one hand, can expand the meaning of Chinese philosophy from the perspective of Western philosophy; on the other hand, it also can expand the meaning of Western philosophy from the perspective of Chinese philosophy. Although both Chinese and Western philosophy have their own meaning, their characteristics become more salient in their differences, so they may complement each other. If we say that Western philosophers’ discussion of “truth, goodness and beauty” basically belongs to the problem of knowledge (or belief), then Chinese philosophers’ discussion of it basically belongs to the problem of the realm of life. Therefore, they each have their own meaning and can complement each other. Karl Jaspers once put forward the concept of the Axial Age, which has attracted special attention in recent years. In the 1940s, Jaspers re-​studied the spiritual tradition that shaped human culture. He believed that great philosophers appeared in ancient Israel, Greece, India and China almost at the same time between 1000 BC and 500 BC . Socrates and Plato of Greece, Laozi and Confucius of China, Sakyamuni of India, the prophet of Judaism of Israel, all put forward unique views on the ultimate concerns of mankind. After two or three thousand years of development, these cultural traditions have become the main spiritual traditions of human civilization. In the 1970s, the Western academic circles once again discussed the Axial Age put forward by Jaspers. Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus, Socrates and Plato derived the concepts of “first cause” and “logos” from seeking the origin of the universe and the final basis of matter. Judaism in the Middle East emphasized the concept of “God” and believes that God is the source of all values. Brahmanism in India put forward the concept of “Brahma,” and Buddhism put forward the concept of “Nirvana,” that is, focusing mind on “transcending” values; great philosophers such as Confucius and Laozi in China proposed the concepts of “destiny” and “Tao” (the Tao of heaven) to explain the origin of the world and the basis of social life, and the different

270  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue cultures in these different regions were developed independently and had no influence on one another. Therefore, the development of human spiritual civilization has always been pluralistic rather than unitary. Due to the different paths of reflection on the universe and life, different cultural characteristics was formed, such as the Greek reflection on the natural roots; Jewish reflection on the monotheistic God (God, the only supreme God); Indian religious masters’ reflection on the secular world; and the reflection of Chinese philosophers on life problems. They are all important components of human spiritual civilization. Therefore, we can say that Jaspers’ concept of “the Axial Age” is one of the main theoretical pillars of the diversified development of cultures.

Notes 1 The original title of this passage was “Re-​discussion of the Issue of Truth, Goodness and Beauty in Chinese Traditional Philosophy,” originally published in Philosophy and Culture, Taiwan, 1989 (10), and also in Social Sciences, 1990 (3). 2 It was published in Social Sciences in China, 1984 (4). 3 The letter is published in Philosophical Review, Vol. 10, No. 6, August 1947. In commemoration of Shen Youding, who passed away in Beijing on March 30, 1989. 4 Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgement. Beijing, Commercial Press, 1964, p. 13. 5 See Li Zehou: Criticism of Critical Philosophy, pp. 368–​370, Beijing, People’s Publishing House, 1984; and Jiang Kongyang: German Classical Aesthetics, pp. 63–​68, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1981. 6 See my book Taoism in the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, pp. 56–​57, Xi’an, Shaanxi Normal University Press, 1988. 7 Zhuangzi, the Way of Heaven: “nothing in the world can compete with simplicity in beauty”; it can be the footnote of “maintain a pure and simple nature and reduce selfish desires and distractions.” 8 Hegel, Grundliniender Philosophiedes Rechts, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1961, p. 351. 9 Hegel, Philosophy of Fine Arts, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1979, Vol. I, p. 142. 10 Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik, Beijing, Commercial Press, 1980, p. 87. 11 Hegel, Philosophy of Fine Arts, Vol. I, p. 133. 12 For the above discussion on Hegel’s philosophy, see Chen Xiuzhai and Yang Zutao: A History of European Philosophy, Wuhan, Hubei People’s Publishing House, 1983, pp. 553–​558; Jiang Kongyang: German Classical Aesthetics, Xue Hua: Hegel and Artistic Problems, pp. 25–​27, Beijing, China Social Sciences Press, 1986, pp. 219–​220. 13 For discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy, see Zhu Guangqian: History of Western Aesthetics, Beijing, People’s Literature Press, 1963, Vol. 1, pp. 55–​56, 14 For Xie Lin’s philosophical exposition, see Chen Xiuzhai and Yang Zutao, A History of European Philosophy, pp. 481–​488; Jiang Kongyang: German Classical Aesthetics, pp. 140–​142.

25 Two-​way Choice of Cultures

The 21st century is coming, and the direction of world culture in the new century is undoubtedly an important issue concerned by the academic and cultural circles. Recently, I saw Huntington’s article The Clash of Civilizations in the 19th Journal of The 21st Century published by the Chinese University of Hong Kong. This article asserts that the fundamental cause of conflicts in the new century will no longer be the focus on ideology or economy, but on culture, which will separate mankind and cause conflict. The main conflicts in global politics will occur among ethnic groups of different cultures. This article has sparked heated discussion. Although I don’t agree with Huntington, this article raised an important question that we should pay attention to: will the development of world culture in the 21st century move toward conflict or integration? After the “cultural fever” since the mid-​1980s, there are few people who advocate overall Westernization and extreme “traditional Chinese culture as standard” in Chinese mainland. However, there are a lot of people who believe that in the 21st century, and the Western culture will still dominate the world culture, or that the oriental culture will replace the Western culture to be dominant. I think that the 21st century (or the development trend of the 21st century) will not be an era of confrontation between Eastern and Western cultures, but an era of mutual absorption and integration of Eastern and Western cultures at a high level. Western culture will improve itself in choosing eastern culture, and Eastern culture will also improve itself in choosing Western culture. They both have to consider the issue of two-​way choice, in such a development process, and a diverse and unified pattern of world culture may be formed gradually. In the mid-​1980s, influenced by the theory in Conflict and Reconciliation of Cultural Thoughts1 by my father, Tang Yongtong, I studied the history of the introduction of Indian Buddhist culture into China from the Han Dynasty to the Song Dynasty, and wrote two articles, The Significance of Studying Comparative Philosophy and Comparative Religion from the Perspective of the Introduction of Indian Buddhism into China and Some Issues on the Development of Chinese Culture from the Perspective of the Introduction of Indian Buddhism into China,2 which both discussed the two-​way choice of culture. Why did I want to study this issue? I aimed to address the issue of how Chinese culture DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-29

272  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue should develop after Marxism was introduced into China. I proposed that the development of Chinese culture may have two directions: one is a sinicized Marxism suitable for the requirements of China’s modernization; the other is a Chinese culture that meets the requirements of China’s modernization and absorbs Marxism3. Although I was inclined to the latter at that time, I did not express my opinion due to subjective and objective limitations. Now it seems that the Chinese culture in the 21st century will be a new Chinese culture facing the world on the basis of fully absorbing and integrating Western culture (including Marxism, of course). As for the development of Chinese culture, we’ve discussed the problems existing in Chinese traditional culture in the previous chapter. We can address most of the problems by learning from Western culture, so as to improve Chinese culture. Therefore, I intend to discuss two issues: one is, historically, whether Chinese traditional culture has the ability to absorb foreign culture. In an academic seminar in Shanghai in 1990, I discussed the issue of Chinese culture absorbing Indian Buddhist culture with the title of “Two-​way Choice of Culture –​Studying the Introduction of Indian Buddhism into China.” Later, I participated in a seminar in Guangzhou with the same title. The other issue is, theoretically, whether a culture should and can preserve its characteristics. I discussed this issue at “Unicorn and Dragon –​A Seminar on the Misunderstanding of the Universality of Eastern and Western Cultures,” which was jointly held by the Institute of Comparative Literature of Peking University and the European Cross-​Cultural Institute in June 1993. The title of my speech is Between Walls and No Walls –​Are Walls Necessary between Cultures?4 Examining Chinese history, there are two major introductions of foreign culture: one is the introduction of the Indian Buddhist culture around the 1st century A D ; the other is the introduction of Western cultures since the end of the 16th century. The latter is still in motion, so it’s impossible to make a comprehensive and systematic analysis, while we can make a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the former, so as to prove that Chinese culture has the ability to absorb foreign cultures and explain the general process of original culture absorbing foreign cultures. The introduction of Indian Buddhism into China basically went through the following process: (1) From the end of the Western Han Dynasty to the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Indian Buddhism was first attached to the “Taoism” of the Han Dynasty and then to the metaphysics of the Wei and Jin Dynasties. In the Han Dynasty, Buddhism generally discussed “immortality” (immortality of spirits) and “karma.” Yuan Hong wrote in The History of the Later Han Dynasty: Buddhism “believes that people’s spirit exists after they are dead in order to get a new body, and there would be retribution for good and evil deeds in their past lives.” There were already similar ideas in China, such as ideas of “ghost theory” and “spirit does not die.” Huainanzi, Spiritual Training wrote, “The body can disappear, but the spirit can still exist.” In Lun Heng, Wang Chong once criticized the “ghost theory” that “they

Two-way Choice of Cultures  273 say when people die, they will become ghosts, who have consciousness and can harm people.” As for “karma,” although Buddhism is different from the original theory in China, the thought of “karma” spread by Buddhism in the Han Dynasty is actually connected with China’s original theory that “blessed are those who do good, and cursed are those who do evil.” As stated in The Book of Changes, Kun Reading, “individuals and families who practice goodness will have more blessings, and those who do evil things will suffer more disasters.” In the Wei and Jin Dynasties, metaphysics based on Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s thoughts was very popular, and the central issue of it was the ontology of the relationship between “existence” and “non-​ existence.” At this time, Buddhist Prajna was introduced into China, and the relationship of “emptiness” and “being” discussed by Prajna is close to metaphysics. In the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Prajna was divided into the so-​called “six schools and seven sects,” and they often attached themselves to Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s thoughts through definition or concatenation. For example, the “Tathata sect” of Prajna is actually a copy of Wang Bi’s theory of “valuing non-​existence”; “Xinwu sect” is close to Ji Kang and Ruan Ji’s theory of “unintentional”; And “Jise sect” is related to Guo Xiang’s thought of “valuing existence.” At the end of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, Sengzhao criticized the three sects according Prajna, and also criticized various schools of metaphysics. However, in Sengzhao’s works, we can still see that most of the concepts are metaphysical concepts, and the problems discussed are also metaphysical problems. Therefore, we can regard Sengzhao’s thought as the end of metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties and the beginning of Chinese Buddhism. From this period, we can see that every culture has its conservative aspect and some resistance to foreign culture. Therefore, foreign culture often first needs to adapt to some requirements of the original culture and attaches itself to the original culture. The parts in the foreign culture that are close to the original culture are easier to be spread, and then other parts will gradually penetrate into the original culture and exert impact on it. (2) After the Eastern Jin Dynasty, the wide spread of Indian Buddhism in China led to the contradiction and conflict between Chinese traditional culture and foreign Indian culture, and promoted the development of Chinese culture in the process. At the end of the Eastern Jin Dynasty and the beginning of Liu Song Dynasty, the theories of various schools of Buddhism were introduced, and there were more and more translation works of Buddhist Scriptures, which led to the rise of various interpretations of Buddhist classics, and hence the rise of the so-​called “Sutra master’s lecture,” which helped monks have a deep understanding of the theories of various schools of Buddhism. However, Indian Buddhist culture and China’s original culture are two different traditional cultures. The former can’t be attached to the latter forever. Since the Eastern Jin

274  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue Dynasty, there was more systematic and accurate translation works of Buddhist scriptures, and people could see some aspects of Buddhist theory are superior to Chinese traditional culture. Therefore, contradictions and conflicts will inevitably between the two traditional cultures. In the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the conflicts between the two cultures were manifested in all aspects, including in politics, economy, philosophy, ethics and religious theories. From the two existing works, Hongming Collection and Guanghongming Collection, we can see some conflicts between the two cultures at that time: there was the debate on “whether Buddhists should abide by the emperors,” which involves “transcendental” and “mundane,” and whether they should have “loyal to the emperor” and “filial piety to their fathers”; there was the dispute about “the perish of the spirit and the immortality of the spirit”; there was the question about the existence of “karma,” which involves philosophical issues of karma and nature (life is natural); there was the discussion on the “relationship between man and all sentient beings.” According to The Book of Changes, He Chengtian juxtaposed “man” with “heaven” and “earth” as “the three talents,” and criticized Buddhism for juxtaposing “man” with “all sentient beings.” This discussion was related to the maintenance of Chinese tradition; there is also the so-​ called “dispute between China and Yi.” In Answering Zongbing, He Chengtian wrote that “Chinese people and foreigners have differences,” which lie in their nature. “Chinese people have a composed and peaceful nature, containing benevolence and righteousness, so Confucianism is taught. Foreigners are barbarian and greedy, so the strict five precepts were established.” (Volume III of Hongming Collection). Taoist Gu Huan wrote in On Yi and China that China is a country of etiquette and righteousness, so we shouldn’t give up our tradition to follow other countries. During this period, the Buddha exterminations of Emperor Taiwu of the Northern Wei Dynasty and Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou Dynasty also occurred. However, we should note that emperors’ attempts to destroy Buddhism by political power were all unsuccessful. On the contrary, when the situation changed, Buddhism would gain greater development. From the above, we can see that after a period of interaction of two different traditional cultures, there are bound to be contradictions and conflicts. The important thing is how to deal with the conflicts, whether to exclude foreign cultures with political force or to assimilate and integrate foreign cultures, which is a significant issue. Generally speaking, during this period, the Chinese nation embraced foreign culture, so it continuously absorbed Indian culture in the contradiction and conflict between the two cultures, which greatly promoted the development of Chinese culture. During this period, Chinese culture was full of vitality in philosophy, literature and art, architecture and sculpture, science and technology and even medicine.

Two-way Choice of Cultures  275 (3) After the Sui and Tang Dynasties, Indian Buddhist culture was gradually absorbed by Chinese culture. Firstly, there were Chinese Buddhist sects; after the Song Dynasty, Buddhist culture was integrated into Chinese culture, forming Neo-​Confucianism of the Song and Ming Dynasties. The Sui and Tang dynasties can be said to be the heyday of Buddhism in China. Several influential Buddhist sects appeared in China and got spread from China to North Korea, Japan and other places, where they also exerted great impact. Among the numerous Buddhist sects at that time, Tiantai Sect, Huayan sect and Zen sect were actually sinicized Buddhist sects. There was also the more Indian style Buddhism, Weishi sect. Although this sect was advocated by Xuanzang, it was out of fashion in just 30 years, while the sinicized Buddhist sects flourished greatly. The central issue discussed by the three Chinese sects is “mind nature.” The issue of “mind nature” was originally an important topic in Chinese traditional philosophy, which can be traced back to Confucius and Mencius, especially to Mencius and The Doctrine of the Mean. Mencius’s thought of “being dedicated, knowing your personality and knowing the heaven” laid the foundation for the mind nature theory of China. Tiantai Sect has the theory that “three thousand aspects are embodied in one thought” and “one mind generates ten thousand dharmas.” Huayan sect has the theory of integrating “Buddha nature” into “true nature,” while Zen sect believes that “Buddha nature” is man’s “original mind” (nature). It turned out that “Buddha nature” had been discussed in the late Northern and Southern Dynasties. According to Baoliang’s Nirvana Collection, there were ten schools of “Buddha nature” at that time, adding himself, the number hits 11. Since the Zen sect, people have regarded “Buddha nature” as human’s “original mind.” Huayan sect also proposed “integration of theories and things” and “integration of all things,” which is quite similar to Chinese’s thinking mode of “essence and utility as one.” The sinicization of Buddhism has made the sinicized Buddhist sects, especially Zen, greatly change the original appearance of Indian Buddhism. Buddhism has changed from “transcendental” to secularization in China, believing that people can become a Buddha in daily life. Therefore, the Confucian ideas of “loyalty to the emperor” and “filial piety to parents” originally excluded by Buddhism can also be included in Buddhism. At the same time, Zen also absorbed the thought of “conforming to nature” of Taoism. Therefore, we can say that Zen is a Buddhist sect combining the thoughts of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. In the Song Dynasty, Neo-​Confucianism rose. On the one hand, it criticized Buddhism; on the other hand, it absorbed Buddhist thought. Originally, the mainstream of Chinese traditional thought was “mundane,” attaching importance to real social life, which was very different from the “transcendental” thought of Indian Buddhism. Neo-​Confucianism criticized the “transcendental” and “emptiness” thought of Buddhism, but also absorbed and transformed the Buddhism’s theory of mind nature and idea of theories and things. Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi’s theories that “one reason in heaven

276  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue and earth, which can be reflected in all things” and “everyone and everything has its own reasons” are undoubtedly influenced by the theory of “integration of theories and things” of Huayan sect, and a metaphysical system based on “reason” was established; the Mentalism of Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming mainly absorbed the mind nature theory of Zen, and had the ideas that “my heart is the universe” and “nothing exists outside the heart,” and a metaphysical system based on “mind” was established. Cheng and Zhu’s “nature is reason” is different from Lu and Wang’s “mind is reason,” but they all want to find a metaphysical basis for their ideal of “governing the state and leading the world to peace,” which makes the Confucianism of the Song and Ming Dynasties more complete than that of the Pre-​Qin period. This development of Confucianism cannot but be attributed to the sinicized Buddhist sects since the Sui and Tang Dynasties. From the perspective of Zen, it also changed greatly from the Tang Dynasty to the Song Dynasty. In the Altar Sutra written by Qisong of the Song Dynasty, there is a passage “Ode to Wu Xiang”: “In gratitude, be filial to your parents; in righteousness, be kind to your subordinates and superiors. With modesty, everyone will be content with his place; with tolerance, there will be no turmoil.” Zen master Dahuigao expressed it more clearly, “Although you are a Buddhist, you can love the emperor and care about your country as much as the righteous scholars and officials do.” Therefore, Zen can “be loyal to the emperor,” “be filial to the father,” “cultivate the body,” and “govern the country.” Therefore, according to Zen, living in the secular world, we should not deliberately violate the secular rules, and of course, we should not be burdened by the rules either. We should be transcendental and mundane at the same time. This concept is difficult to be distinguished from the ideal that “while seeking to understand the highest things, he lives a plain life” in Chinese traditional thought. From the historical process of the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China, we can generally draw the following views to explain the “two-​way choice of cultures”: First, a culture always has features that are different from other cultures, and its most basic characteristics must be preserved for it to be a unique culture. Compared with Indian Buddhist culture, the most remarkable feature of the mainstream Confucian culture of Chinese traditional culture is to teach people how to realize the ideal of “governing the state and leading the world to peace” in real life. This spirit of “mundane” is very different from the thought of “transcendental” of Buddhism. After Indian Buddhism was introduced into China, although it had a profound impact on the society and life of the Chinese people, the basic spirit of “mundane” of Chinese culture had not been changed by it. On the contrary, Buddhism in China became more and more secular. Chinese Buddhism believed that the ideal of becoming a Buddha can be realized in daily life,

Two-way Choice of Cultures  277 as “the highest truth of life in the world is often hidden in the simplest life.” Therefore, one step forward along this path, “supporting parents and serving emperors” can also make people become sages. This is the fundamental reason why Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties can replace Buddhism in China. This shows that after Indian Buddhism was introduced into China, it had to adapt to the requirements of Chinese culture in its long-​term historical development process. Second, in comparison with other cultures, any culture can find that there are some shortcomings in itself. Therefore, if it wants to maintain its vitality in the development process, it must constantly absorb foreign cultures to nourish and enrich itself. From the Han Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty, Chinese culture has made great progress by constantly absorbing Indian Buddhist culture. Philosophically, Neo-​ Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties made Chinese philosophy have a more complete ontology, axiology and philosophy of life because it absorbed Indian Buddhist culture. It can be seen that foreign culture is a new stimulus for the development of the original culture. When a prosperous culture is challenged by foreign cultures, it will not reject but embrace other cultures, so as to develop more rapidly and healthily. Therefore, the so-​called “traditional Chinese culture as standard” or “nationalism” are not only harmful to the development of national culture, but also a manifestation of its decline. Third, it has taken hundreds of years (or even nearly a thousand years) for Chinese traditional culture to absorb and integrate Indian Buddhist culture. Therefore, the absorption and integration of a cultural tradition with a long history and another foreign culture can never be completed overnight. It requires some time and conditions. The introduction of Indian Buddhism into China generally went through the following process: first, it attached itself to Chinese traditional culture, then conflicted with Chinese traditional culture for a period of time, and finally was absorbed by Chinese culture through its own transformation. Whether such a process is a general process for one culture to absorb another culture can certainly be discussed, but it always has some reference significance. From the above analysis, we can see that when a culture is introduced to another cultural environment, on the one hand, the original culture will be changed due to the stimulation of the foreign culture; on the other hand, the foreign culture should also adapt to some requirements (characteristics) of the original culture. Therefore, in the interaction of the two different cultural traditions, there is a two-​way choice. The purpose of my study the history of the introduction of Indian Buddhist culture into China is to explain what attitude we should take toward Western culture today. Should we reject

278  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue the introduction of Western culture or embrace Western modern culture in order achieve our country’s modernization? However, some Chinese officials are often cautious of Western culture and lack a “pluralistic and open” mind, which not only hinders the renewal of Chinese culture and China’s comprehensive modernization, but also makes our culture deviate from the tide of cultural development in the world. In this case, our culture will fail to integrate with the general trend of world development and make due contributions to the development of human culture. If we really value our own cultural traditions, we must introduce more world culture into China while making the Chinese culture go to the world. When we are choosing foreign culture, foreign culture is also choosing us. The development of culture is often a two-​ way process. There must be exchanges between different cultures, which will inevitably impact both the cultures, and even change both the cultures to some extent. So, how can a culture maintain its characteristics? Or can we, based on a set of theories and methods, not only fully absorb foreign culture, but also maintain the characteristics of our own culture in the communication with foreign culture? At a seminar jointly held by the Institute of Comparative Literature of Peking University and the European Cross-​Cultural Institute in June 1993, I submitted a paper entitled Between Walls and No Walls –​Are Walls Necessary between Cultures? In this paper, I put forward a theory and method of “fully absorbing foreign cultures and maintaining our own cultural characteristics.” The theme of this seminar was “Unicorn and Dragon –​A Seminar on the Misunderstanding of the Universality of Eastern and Western Cultures.” Twelve Chinese scholars and ten European scholars attended it, including the famous Italian scholar and semiotics master Umberto Eco, the researcher of the French Academy of Social Sciences and famous historian Jacques Le Goff, the president of the French Pasteur Institute and biologist Antoine Danchin, and editor in chief of Roberts Dictionary Literature, A1ain Rey. First, a report meeting was held at the Italian Embassy on June 17, at which Eco delivered a speech of “Modern” Thought in Post-​industrialized Europe and Contemporary China, and I gave a speech of “Modern” in My Understanding. The seminar officially began on the 18th, in the morning, and Eco and I gave keynote speeches. His speech was entitled Semiotic Criticism of Western Science and Roman Catholicism, Who Think Themselves as Universal. My speech was the above-​mentioned Between Walls and No Walls –​Are Walls Necessary between Cultures? From the 18th to the 20th, we held seminar in the morning and visited places in the afternoon. In the morning of the 21st, we held a meeting at Peking University to announce the establishment of the “university without walls” jointly organized by some colleges and research institutions of Europe and China. In the afternoon, we visited the Great Wall and held a talk on “whether there should be walls between cultures” there. Since only more than 20 people attended the meeting, the discussion was very enthusiastic. In the evening, all the members attending the meeting held a small farewell banquet

Two-way Choice of Cultures  279 by the lake in the Suyuan courtyard of the Beijing Friendship Hotel. On the early morning of the 22nd, Le Daiyun and I flew to the United States. Originally included in Between Nonexistence and Non-​nothingness, Taipei, Zhengzhong Book Company, 1995

Notes 1 For this article, see Tang Yongtong’s Collection of Academic Papers, pp. 186–​190, Beijing, China Publishing House, 1983. 2 See my book Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism in Chinese Traditional Culture, Beijing, China Peace Publishing House, 1988, pp. 196–​242. 3 Ibid., p. 273. 4 The article was later published in the inaugural issue of Chinese Cultural Studies.

26 Between Walls and No Walls Are Walls Necessary between Cultures?1

When we are discussing the issue “Are walls necessary between cultures?” I think of a story in Zhuangzi, Shanmu. The main idea of the story is that a tree with a strange shape was not cut down by the woodcutter, but it had no use. In other words, if it’s useful, it wouldn’t be preserved. There’s also a goose that couldn’t cackle. It was killed to serve to Zhuangzi and his disciples. That is to say, if it can cackle, it wouldn’t be killed, but preserved. The goose was killed and eaten because it couldn’t cackle (not useful), so what should we do? Zhuangzi answered, “We’d better be between competence and incompetence, so that we can preserve ourselves. This story illustrates that things have only relative meaning, not absolute meaning.” When we discuss cultural issues, should one culture have “walls” or “no walls” to another culture? If we view this problem from the perspective of Chinese philosophy, “walls” and “no walls” seem to be contradictory, but in Chinese philosophy, they often complement each other. Therefore, from the overall development of Chinese culture, when Chinese culture meets foreign culture, it often presents a state of “between walls and no walls.” With a documented history of at least 4500 years, today’s Chinese culture is not the same as it was four or five thousand years ago, nor is it the same as it was two or three thousand years ago, especially after its absorption of Western culture in modern times, but it is still Chinese culture. Whether it is successful in absorbing foreign culture in every period is a question concerned by historians, while philosophers should discuss another question. The question we are discussing is the method for Chinese culture to absorb foreign culture and its significance. Although the story mentioned earlier is just a tale, it shows an important way of thinking in Chinese philosophy, which got integrated with the way of thinking of Indian Buddhism later (after the Wei and Jin Dynasties, that is, after the 4th century A D ). When we say “walls,” we mean “non-​nothingness” (not nothing), and when we say “no walls,” we mean “nonexistence” (nothing). In this way, in Chinese philosophy, there are concepts of “nonexistence and non-​nothingness,” “not constant and not intermittent,” “not material and not empty” and so on, which constitute a “non-​X and non-​Y” thinking mode. Applying this way of thinking to discuss whether there should be “walls” DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-30

Between Walls and No Walls  281 between different cultures may be of certain significance to the study of culture.

1  Nonexistence and Non-​nothingness “Nonexistence and non-​nothingness” are originally related to the Prajna of Buddhism, but after Buddhism was introduced into China, it has become a very important thinking mode in Chinese philosophy. In fact, it existed as early as in the thought of Laozi and Zhuangzi in the Pre-​Qin period (the 3rd and 4th centuries BC). For example, Laozi said, “Tao is always hidden and invisible to the naked eye” (Chapter 41 of Laozi), “the eternal Tao is nothingness” (Chapter 32 of Laozi), “Tao” is “existence” (non-​nothingness), but it is also “nonexistence.” Zhuangzi said, “If there is affirmation, there is negation, and if there is negation, there is affirmation” (Zhuangzi, Qiwulun). These thoughts all imply the meaning of “nonexistence and non-​nothingness.” If we regard it as a concept of space to explain the issues between cultures, we can get the following understanding: one culture should have “no walls” (nonexistence), but also “walls” (non-​nothingness) to other cultures. Viewing the relationship between cultures horizontal, that is, viewing them in the same period. If one culture builds a closed “wall” against other cultures, this culture can only become a museum for people to observe, it cannot communicate with other cultures, and it will struggle to affect other cultures, so it cannot get involved in the tide of the development of human culture (especially in modern times). If there is completely “no wall,” it cannot consciously maintain and apply its cultural characteristics, and there is a risk of losing its status as an independent culture. There are two prominent examples in Chinese history: one is the introduction of Indian Buddhism after the 1st century AD. Generally speaking, the Chinese people embraced the introduction, but they adopted the attitude of “having no walls but also having walls” toward this foreign culture. On the one hand, generally speaking, we were open to the introduction; on the other hand, we used standard culture to interpret it (of course, there was the problem of “misinterpretation”) and even transform it, and Indian Buddhist culture was also carried forward in China. Another example is the closed-​door attitude toward Western culture adopted by Chinese people from the end of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th century. Although there was a little input from the Western culture, it had little impact on China’s original culture. That is to say. At that time, people artificially built a “wall” to resist the Western culture. Of course, there are many reasons for such a mentality of resisting Western culture, but it deviates from the traditional Chinese thinking mode of “nonexistence and non-​nothingness,” which made Chinese culture lose its vitality. “Existence” and “nothingness” are a pair of relative concepts, and “nonexistence and non-​nothingness” is an important thinking mode in Chinese philosophy. “Walls” and “no walls” still cannot accurately express the characteristics of Chinese philosophy, and we should say “not no walls” (nonexistence) and “not walls” (non-​nothingness). We should not get

282  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue obsessed with “not walls,” nor should we get obsessed with “not no walls.” Each will be absolute, and we should find the direction of our culture in “between not walls and not no walls.”

2  Not Constant and Not Intermittent One of the Three Dharma Seals in Buddhism is “inconstancy,” which means that all physical and psychological phenomena constantly change in the flow of time. Therefore, Buddhist Sutra also talks about “not constant and not intermittent.” For example, “things seem to be changed to another place, and seem to not be changed to another place.” This is “not constant and not intermittent.”2 If we take this concept as an issue of time to understand things, and use it to discuss the relationship between two cultures (or multiple cultures) in the flow of time, we may say that when one culture meets other cultures, some changes will be bound to occur (not constant); at the same time, other cultures need to change to adapt to some requirements of the original c-​ulture (not intermittent), so as to exert their impact. We can also take the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China as an example: the integration of Indian Buddhism with Chinese culture took about 1000 years. At first, Indian Buddhism depended on China’s original culture to develop, and then in the Northern and Southern Dynasties (4th to 7th century A D ), there were contradictions and conflicts between the two cultures, and Buddhism only became very popular in the Sui and Tang Dynasties. According to The History of the Sui Dynasty, Jingji Records, the number of Buddhist scriptures was “hundreds of times” higher than that of the Confucian classics. Many ministers and scholars also believed in Buddhism. Chinese philosophy has been developed in Buddhism, so it seems that Buddhism replaced China’s traditional culture. But in fact, it was during this period that Chinese Buddhist sects appeared, such as Tiantai Sect, Huayan sect, and Zen sect, especially Zen sct. These sects became intermediaries, Confucianism gradually rose after the middle Tang Dynasty, and there was a new Chinese Confucianism that absorbed Buddhism in the Song Dynasty, that is, Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties. This process shows that a culture develops in the long-​term contact with another foreign culture. This culture sometimes seems to be interrupted, but it is not really interrupted, forming a general development trend of “not constant and not intermittent.” In modern times, Chinese culture was impacted by Western culture. After the May Fourth movement, a strong “anti-​tradition” power emerged, requiring to introduce “science and democracy” from the West. Some leaders of the May Fourth Movement and some later scholars put forward the theory of “overall Westernization,” so it seemed that Chinese culture was in a state of crisis and fracture again, and we can say this state continues to this day and still has a great impact. Therefore, in my opinion, when one culture encounters another powerful

Between Walls and No Walls  283 foreign culture, crisis and fracture will often appear for a period of time, but in the long term, this culture will always develop in a trend which is “not constant and not intermittent.”

3  Not Material and Not Empty How can we draw the moon in Chinese painting? The moon cannot be painted, but Chinese painters created a method to paint it, which is “depicting clouds to reflect the moon.” They only painted the clouds around the moon, so that the moon will appear naturally. The painters didn’t draw the moon, so the moon is “empty” (“not material”); but there is a moon on the painting, so it is “material” (not empty). In this way, “not material and not empty” became a very important feature of painting theory in Chinese painting. We can use this concept to explain a state of the relationship between cultures. Any culture has its characteristics different from other cultures because of its different environment, race, encounters, and even many accidental factors. Once the characteristics are formed, it becomes a tradition with solidifying force (“not empty”); but humans often want to break through this solidified tradition, especially with the impact of foreign culture, thus forming an anti-​tradition power. From the perspective of this power triggered by foreign culture, the material tradition is not real (“not material”), and it sometimes seems powerless in front of the powerful anti-​traditional power. From these two aspects, culture often presents a state of “not material and not empty.” In Chinese philosophy, there is an important concept called “nothingness,” which deeply reflects the concept of “not material and not empty.” “Nothingness” does not mean “nonexistence,” but “existence” without stipulation. According to Chinese philosophy, if the tone of music is “Gong,” then it cannot be “Shang,” but “no sound” can be both “Gong” and “Shang,” and it can facilitate all sounds; and if a shape of a thing is “square,” it cannot be both “round” at the same time, but “no shape” can be made into “square” and “round,” and it can become all shapes. So “nothingness” can become all “existence.” “Nothingness” is “empty” (not material) because it has no stipulation; but it is also “material” (not empty), because it can facilitate all “existence.” The “wall” between cultures we discussed is also only symbolic. It is symbolic from the relationship between one culture and other cultures or from the existence state of a culture. It is “not material and not empty.” A culture with vitality, on the one hand, shows stipulation (not empty), so that it can be sustained; on the other hand, it is non-​stipulative (not material), so it can facilitate everything in an appropriate time. In terms of culture, “traditional culture” and “cultural tradition” are two different concepts. The former refers to the established culture and the accumulation of past culture, solidified and stipulative, so it is “material” (not empty); “cultural tradition” refers to the flow of established culture in real life, and it is an

284  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue activity that is constantly changing and often appears as non-​stipulative, so it is “empty” (“non material”). In addition to culture, in fact, the existence of everything is “not material and not empty.” Culture is the life style of a nation, and the existence of a culture is a complex in terms of time, space and state. From the perspective of Chinese philosophy, when a culture with vitality interacts with other cultures, it often presents as “nonexistence and non-​nothingness,” “not constant and not intermittent” and “not material and not empty.” In Chinese philosophy, this method of explaining issues without affirmation is called “negative method.” The negative method only explains what something is not, but cannot directly state what something is, or cannot definitely explain things. Therefore, this method shows affirmation in negation. This method often uses “nonexistence” to express “nothingness” and “non-​nothingness” to express “existence.” According to this method, in Chinese philosophy, it is often required to find a “middle way” between the two poles, but this “middle way” is not a new “middle,” but appears in the negation of the two poles. If we view the issue of “wall” between cultures with this method, it is not accurate to state it as “between walls and no walls,” it should be “between not walls and not no walls.” According to Chinese traditional philosophy, it is more ideal for a culture or a culture in several cultural relations to develop in the state of “between not walls and not no walls.” It may be enlightening to use this thinking mode of Chinese philosophy to explain the “misreading” between cultures. In fact, there will be “misreading” not only between two different cultures, but also in the same cultural tradition in a time period of time. For example, Zhu Xi’s understanding of “benevolence” of Confucius and Mencius also has some “misreading.” In Confucius’ and Mencius’ philosophy, “benevolence” is an issue of human nature. In Zhu Xi’s philosophy, “benevolence” is not only an issue of human nature, but also an issue of “Heaven’s reason.” Did Zhu Xi “misread” the “benevolence” of Confucius and Mencius? Yes and no. That is to say. it is “non-​misreading.” The so-​called “non-​misreading” means that it is always based on the original text; the so-​called “not non-​misreading” means that it is expressed under the background of different times and individual creativity. If there is no “misreading” between cultures, there will be no dialogue between different cultures, or the necessity of dialogue between different cultures. It is precisely because of “misreading” (i.e., “not non-​misreading”) that there can be different opinions, and different opinions form a dialogue; it is precisely because of “non-​misreading” that we can have topics to discuss together, and common topics can form a dialogue. Therefore, “misreading” between cultural exchanges is not only inevitable, but also meaningful under certain circumstances.

Between Walls and No Walls  285

Notes 1 It was originally included in Unicorn and Dragon, Beijing, Peking University Press, 1995. 2 “The pair of constancy and inconstancy” is used in Tan Jing, and “not constant and not intermittent” is used in Xiong Shili’s On Essence and Utility. See On Essence and Utility, p. 5, Shanghai, Longmen United Publishing House, 1958.

27 Reflections on Cultural Issues1

Cultural issues are very complex. The first issue we encounter is the “definition of culture.” It is said that there are more than 100 definitions; the second is how to view the communication between different cultures; the third is the relationship between the nationality and modernity of culture; the fourth is the interpretation of cultural thought; the fifth is the relationship between strong cultures and weak cultures, and so on. Of course, we can only achieve something meaningful in all these issues by conducting serious theoretical research on the basis of a large number of materials and extensive social investigation. I can’t cover all these issues here, so I will just talk about my opinion on a few cultural issues.

1  Two-​way Choice of Cultures This issue can be divided into two aspects: one is the mutual choice between culture A and culture B; the other regards the original local culture and the foreign culture as two parties. There is a two-​way choice between the two cultures. Here I will take the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China. Indian Buddhism was introduced into China at the end of the Western Han Dynasty. By the middle of the Eastern Han Dynasty, first there was an An Shigao’s Mahayana Zen, which was dependent on China’s “Taoism” at that time. It matched the “four great” with the “five elements” and the “five precepts” with the “five constant virtues,” and equated “Yuan Qi” with the “five elements” (“five Yun”). Yin Chi Ru Jing explained “five Yin origins” that “the five Yin origins from the body... and it’s like Yuan Qi... Yuan Qi is contained. One rises, the other falls, which repeats all the time in the three worlds with no end, this is so called origin.” Using “Yuan Qi” to interpret the “five Yin” is far from Buddhism, and it is quite consistent with the “Taoism” at that time. Later there was the introduction of Lokaksema Mahayana Prajna, which explained Buddhist theories with metaphysics, which is called “Buddha metaphysics,” so it’s dependent on metaphysics. Since the Eastern Jin Dynasty, a large number of Buddhist sutras, vinaya and sastra have been translated into Chinese, making the differences between the two cultures increasingly salient, so there were conflicts between the two cultures such as whether Buddhists should abide by the emperors DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-31

Reflections on Cultural Issues  287 and the dispute about “the perishing of the spirit and the immortality of the spirit.” On the other hand, Buddhist Prajna followed “metaphysics of the Wei and Jin Dynasties,” and it was still discussing metaphysics. However, Nirvana arose after the Song and the Qi Dynasties, and reached its peak in the Liang dynasty. We can find that Nirvana and Prajna have a sequential relationship. The reason is that only after Prajna got rid of all illusions in the world, can “Buddha nature” be revealed, and can “Nirvana” be reached through practice and cultivation. Therefore, there was discussion on “Buddha nature” in the Liang Dynasty, and there were ten schools of the issue at that time. Although Sengzhao’s Zhaolun uses the theory of Indian Buddhist Prajna, it still discusses the issue of metaphysics. The issue of “Nirvana Buddha nature” is already related to the traditional Chinese theory of mind nature. After the Sui and Tang Dynasties, the sinicization of Indian Buddhism gradually arose. “One mind has ten thousand dharmas” of Tiantai sect, “there is no dharma outside of heart” of Huayan sect, and “knowing mind is seeing nature” and “becoming Buddha through seeing nature” of Zen followed the mind nature theory of the Pre-​Qin Dynasty and opened the “mind nature theory” of the Song and Ming Dynasties (or “nature is reason,” or “mind is reason”). In particular, Zen not only absorbed Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s (especially Zhuangzi’s) thought of “letting nature prevail,” but also incorporated the Confucian thought of “loyalty and filial piety” (such as Qisong’s Ode to Wu Xiang), Zen master Dahui of the Song Dynasty said, “The rule of the world is Dharma, and dharma is the rule of the world,” and “although you are a Buddhist, you can love the emperor and care about your country as much as the righteous scholars and officials do.”) Meanwhile, despite the advocation of Xuan Zang, the more Indian style Buddhism, Weishi sect, went out of fashion in just 30 years (it rose again in modern times, which will not be discussed here.) This shows that after two different cultures met, there was an issue of two-​way choice in the historical process. From the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China, there are many other examples to illustrate this problem. For example, why Esoteric Buddhism prospered and then declined in the land of Han people, but combined with Bon in Tibet, Northern Sichuan and other areas to produce Tibetan Buddhism. When two different cultural traditions meet (especially when they both have a long history), the original culture need to choose the foreign culture that can be absorbed and digested by it, but the foreign culture also need to change some of its components to meet the requirements of the original culture and society. This two-​way choice of culture has not only occurred in history, but also plays a role in today’s cultural exchange. That is to say, when a foreign culture is introduced, the original local culture will select it, and the foreign culture will also change itself to adapt to the original culture.

2  Development of a Culture in Other Places and One-​way Flow Russell wrote in Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted, “The exchanges between different cultures had proved to be milestones in the advancement

288  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue of human civilization in the past. Greece learned from Egypt, Rome followed the footsteps of Greece, Arabia imitated the Roman Empire, and the same thing happened between Europe and Arabia in the Middle Ages, and Europe and the Byzantine Empire during the Renaissance. In many exchanges like this, the backward countries (students) always surpass advanced countries (teachers). If China is a student, she will eventually surpass her advanced teachers.” Of course, today we are still trying to learn from the West. We lag far behind the West in many aspects, let alone surpass the west. Whether we can surpass the West in the future depends on our efforts on the one hand and the development and changes of human society on the other. However, in history, there are many cultures that developed in other places. The development of European culture mentioned by Russell above is an example, and the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China is also an example. We know that Indian Buddhism came into being 2500 years ago, and was introduced into China in the first century A D after long-​term development. In India, Buddhism declined in the 8th and 9th centuries, and almost disappeared in the 14th century. However, Buddhism reached its heyday in China in the 8th and 9th centuries. At this time, Indian Buddhism was gradually sinicized, and it absorbed Chinese culture and formed a number of sinicized Buddhist sects such as Tiantai sect, Huayan sect and Zen sect. We can say that Chinese culture once benefited from Indian Buddhism, and Indian Buddhism was promoted in China and spread from China to the Korean Peninsula, Japan and Vietnam. I think this situation is also the result of cultural exchange. When culture A is transplanted into culture B, some new factors are often added to culture A. These new factors either do not exist or has not been fully developed in culture A. When they are added, culture A will gain development in culture B. There are many reasons for the interruption of culture A’s development in its birthplace (such as foreign invasion and war), but one of the important reasons is that it cannot or does not add new factors to itself. Therefore, we say that there is an issue of development of a culture in other places. We mentioned that the two-​way choice of cultures can be divided into two issues. One is the mutual choice of culture A and culture B. Here I would like to talk about the other issue, the one-​way flow of culture. We know that there was a large amount of Chinese translation of Buddhist scriptures. According to Postscript on the Transfer of Scriptures in the Qian Fo Hall of the Southern Zen Temple in Suzhou by Bai Letian (Juyi) of the Tang Dynasty, this temple collected 5058 volumes of Buddhist scriptures. But Chinese culture (such as Confucianism, Taoism) did not spread to India in this period. According to the records of the Book of Tang, the New Book of Tang and the Biography of Eminent Monks of the Song Dynasty, Xuanzang, Tao Te Ching was translated into Sanskrit. However, Ji Xianlin said, “We have no evidence to decide whether Tao Te Ching was spread to India or not.”2 However, we can certainly say that the Sanskrit version of Tao Te Ching had no impact on Indian culture and was lost for a long time. This shows that there may be one-​way flows in

Reflections on Cultural Issues  289 cultural exchanges. If this situation is not discussed in an absolute way, the imbalance in cultural exchanges is more common. Today, China is absorbing a lot of Western culture, but Western countries are not doing the same, which is an indisputable fact. As for why India did not absorb Chinese culture in history, I think it may be related to its religion, because religions are generally exclusive, while Chinese culture is very inclusive. We can see that ancient Chinese scholar bureaucrats often acted in line with Confucianism, but they can believe in Buddhism or Taoism, which is probably rare in the world. Of course, the reasons for the one-​way flow of culture may be very complicated, which requires further study.

3  The “Take-​ism” and the “Give-​Away-​ism” of Cultures At the end of Lu Xun’s Give Me doctrine, there is such a paragraph: “In short, we have to take things. We can use, store, or destroy it. Then, the owner is the new owner, and the mansion will become a new mansion. However, first of all, this has to be composed, brave, discerning and unselfish. Without taking things, one cannot become a new man, and literature cannot become new literature.” The full text of Give Me Doctrine advocates to “think carefully to introduce.” Now we still need to take it by ourselves, take all the sound cultural (including philosophical) resources of the West and other nationalities in accordance with our requirements for modernization, and use them to nourish our modern new culture and new philosophy. This short article also mentions the give-​away-​ism. Lu Xun believes that what China “gives away” is often antiques and natural resources, and the so-​called “promotion of national glory” is nothing more than “kneeling down” to other countries, which has nothing to do with true cultural exchanges. Today, we should still advocate Lu Xun’s “take-​ism” and continue to introduce Western philosophy and the philosophy of other nationalities. Only when we have the ability and courage to take in the excellent culture of other nationalities and countries fully and systematically rather than piecemeal (with a narrow pragmatic attitude), can we revitalize our own culture. Only by observing our own culture through the perspective of cultures of other nationalities and countries as the “other,” can we better understand the strengths and downsides of our own culture. Recently, many scholars have delivered valuable opinions on the reason and the approach for introducing foreign cultures, so I intend to discuss more about “give-​away-​ism” here. China has thousands of years of history and a rich culture, but historically, we rarely consciously and actively spread our excellent culture. As mentioned earlier, while absorbing Indian Buddhist culture, we did not consciously and actively spread Chinese culture to India. Moreover, since the Sui and Tang Dynasties, although the Korean Peninsula and Japan have been greatly influenced by Chinese culture, it’s mostly because they sent students and monks to come to China to “learn knowledge.” By the end of the 16th century, Western missionaries came to China. On the one hand, they brought

290  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue Western religion, philosophy, art, science and technology into China; on the other hand, they introduced Chinese culture to Europe, causing enthusiastic reaction in the European intellectual circles. For example, Voltaire was called “the Confucius of Europe,”3 and Leibniz even said, “In China, to some extent, there is a morality that is extremely admired by mankind, and there is a philosophy or a deism, which is respected because of its antiquity.”4 However, their understanding of Chinese culture was almost never taught by the Chinese people, but mostly obtained from the introduction of Western missionaries. From the end of the 19th century to now, China copied many aspects from the West in natural science, social science and humanities. However, we still spread little Chinese culture to the West. There are some so-​ called cultural exchanges with other countries, but most of them are singing and dancing, acrobatics, dragon lantern dancing, stilt walking, Yangko dancing, or red lanterns. Apart from these, there are no meaningful resources in Chinese culture that can address the major problems of today’s human society. Now we all recognize “peace and development” as the theme of our era. “Peaceful coexistence” means to address the relationship among people, and can be expanded to address the relationship among countries, nationalities and regions; common and sustainable “development” should not only address the relationship among people, but also address the relationship between man and nature. I believe that the “benevolence” of Chinese Confucianism (Confucius) and the “non-​interference” thought of Taoism (Laozi) can undoubtedly help to address the relationship between among people. The “unity of heaven and man” of Confucianism and the “advocacy of nature” of Taoism are undoubtedly helpful to address the relationship of “man and nature.”5 However, we must interpret our traditional culture in a modern way to make it fit the requirements of modern society and life. At the same time, we must recognize that no thought can solve all problems of human society, and there is no absolute truth that is universal. If there is one, it’s likely to be “pseudoscience.”

4  On Cultural Extinction and Cultural Coexistence As long as there are human beings, there will be human culture, and as long as there are different nationalities, there will be different national cultures. However, not all nationalities can survive, so many national cultures disappeared in the long river of history, and some national cultures faded away even though the nationalities still exist, which happens in history and now. But the reasons for the extinction of cultures are different. Some are natural disasters, some are man-​made disasters, and there are also internal reasons and external reasons. We won’t discuss this issue here.6 What I want to say is that there are several major cultures that will not disappear in a short period of time, or even in a long period of time. They are European and American culture, East Asian culture, South Asian culture and Islamic culture. These cultures not only have a long history, but also affect

Reflections on Cultural Issues  291 more than one billion people. We know that since the Second World War, the Western colonial system gradually disintegrated, an urgent task for the previous colonial countries and oppressed nations was to consciously confirm their independent identity from all aspects, and their national independent culture was the most important factor in doing it. Therefore, we can say that in the 21st century, a new cultural Axial Age will be formed. German philosopher Jaspers proposed the concept of “Axial Age.” He believed that around 500 B C , great thinkers appeared almost simultaneously in ancient Greece, Israel, India and China, all of whom put forward unique views on the fundamental issues of human concern. Ancient Greece has Socrates and Plato, China has Laozi and Confucius, India has Sakyamuni, and Israel has Jewish prophets, forming different cultural traditions. After two or three thousand years of development, these cultural traditions have become major spiritual wealth of human culture, and the different cultures of these regions developed independently and did not affect each other. He also proposed in this book, “Mankind has always relied on everything created in the Axial Age to live, and every new leap looks back to this period and is rekindled by it.”7 History proved his conclusion to be true. For example, the Renaissance in Europe focused on its source, ancient Greece, so European civilization was rekindled and had a significant impact on the world. After the impact of Indian Buddhism, Chinese Neo-​Confucianism returned to Confucius and Mencius again, raising Chinese philosophy to a new level. Today, from many aspects, it can be said that there will be a new Axial Age, and the above mentioned four major cultural traditions will fully absorb other cultures to nourish themselves on the basis of confirming their own internal spirits, so as to achieve a new leap in culture. The new “Axial Age” will be very different from the “Axial Age” around 500 B C . The differences are as follows: (1) In this new “Axial Age,” the world is connected by economic globalization, scientific and technological integration and the development of information network. Therefore, the development of cultures will not be independent, but be under mutual influence. The various cultures’ contribution to human culture will be determined by their ability to absorb elements of other cultures and update themselves. Although several cultures of the original “Axial Age” had no mutual influence at first, they continued to absorb other cultures for more than 2000 years. As Russell wrote in Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted, by the 17th and 18th centuries, the West absorbed Indian culture and Chinese culture. It is no exaggeration to say that the reason why European culture has powerful vitality today is its ability to absorb elements of different cultures, constantly enriching and updating itself. Similarly, Chinese culture was also developed by constantly absorbing foreign cultures. As we all know, the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China promoted the development of many aspects of Chinese culture. Chinese culture benefited from

292  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue Indian Buddhism, and the latter was carried forward in China and spread from China to the Korean Peninsula and Japan, forming unique Buddhist cultures with local elements. With the impact of Western culture, modern Chinese culture constantly absorbs Western culture and updates itself. Over the past hundred years, various schools of Western culture have had or are still exerting a profound impact on Chinese culture and changed the landscape of Chinese society and culture. Undoubtedly, it is the exchange and interaction among different cultures that create the precious culture of today’s human society. Various cultures in the new “Axial Age” will develop along this existing trend of exchange and mutual absorption among cultures. Therefore, various cultures will be developed under the global consciousness. This is distinctively different from the culture of the “Axial Age” more than 2000 years ago. (2) Cross-​ cultural and interdisciplinary cultural research will become the engine of cultural development in the 21st century. The world is connected, cultures cannot develop in isolation, so cross-​cultural and interdisciplinary research will gain great development. Each culture’s understanding of itself is limited. “The true look of Lushan is lost to my sight, for it is right in this mountain that I reside.” If we view our own culture from another cultural system, that is, from the “other,” we may understand our culture more comprehensively. Therefore, cross-​cultural research has become a heated topic in cultural research today. Cultures that take “mutual subjectivity” and “mutual reference” as the core and emphasize self-​reflection from the perspective of the “other” have gradually been accepted by the academic circles at home and abroad, and have laid foundation for the diversified development of cultures. This also applies to different disciplines. Today’s science is significantly different from that of the West in the 18th century. Today, science has broken the original division of disciplines and developed many new disciplines and marginal disciplines. The original division of disciplines has become more and more blurred. In the past, physics is physics, and chemistry is chemistry, but now we have both physical chemistry and chemical physics, breaking the original boundary between natural sciences. Moreover, the boundaries between natural science, social science and humanities are also disintegrating. For example, economics must adopt mathematics, law must utilize high-​tech methods, and humanities even involve the Nobel Prize winner Prigogine’s “Dissipative Structure” theory. Therefore, according to the current trend, mutual penetration is forming between different cultural traditions and different disciplines. We can predict that in the 21st century, traditional cultures that can most consciously promote the exchange and integration between different cultural traditions and different disciplines will have a greater influence on the development of world culture. The new “Axial Age” in the 21st century will be a period of multi dialogue and mutual penetration between disciplines, which is significantly different from the “Axial Age” around the 5th century B C .

Reflections on Cultural Issues  293 (3) Unlike the culture of around 500 BC , the culture of the new “Axial Age” will not be dominated by a few great thinkers, but be directed by many ideological groups. Because today our society progresses much faster than in ancient times, ideology is changing with each passing day in the interaction of various cultures and disciplines. Cultures are already interconnected, so it is impossible to have an independent great thinker. Today’s ideology addresses not just one country or one nation, but the whole world, so it must absorb other national cultures and have a globalized vision. Therefore, truly successful thinkers will deliberate on both national and world issues. We can observe that in the West, various ideological trends have appeared for the past one or two hundred years, and even the most influential ones could only dominate for decades at most. So far, there is no one thought that can integrate the various popular factions in the West. In China, for the past more than a hundred years, we have been basically learning from Western culture and building a new Chinese culture. We can predict that there will be a new “contention of hundreds of schools” and a landscape of cultural diversity in China. Since the reform and opening up, various Western theories and schools have flooded into China, and to this day, we are still absorbing Western eagerly. We haven’t formed a modern new Chinese culture on the basis of fully absorbing Western culture, as we formed Neo-​Confucianism in the Song and Ming Dynasties on the basis of absorbing Indian Buddhist culture. However, after entering the 1990s, the division of China’s ideological and cultural circles is increasingly clear, and some small academic groups have been formed. These groups probably can only represent “the words of one school,” and there is no authoritative school to lead the ideological circles. Looking forward to the 21st century, there may be different academic factions that meet the needs of modern Chinese society in the near future, but a unified ideological system is unlikely. That is to say, whether it’s at home or abroad, with the mutual influence and continuous transformation of culture, it is probably impossible for great thinkers who represent a cultural tradition, have exerted impact for 2000 years and will continue to do so, like Plato, Confucius, Sakyamuni, to appear. Today nobody can present themselves as a savior anymore. Many ideological groups will work together to promote human culture, which is the requirement of multiculturalism. In my opinion, this situation may be related to the current transfer of elite culture to mass culture. With the fast pace of human social life, the traditional slow-​paced elite culture can no longer meet people’s emotional and spiritual needs. Therefore, there is a popular trend in all aspects of culture. In order to meet people’s fast-​paced spiritual and emotional needs, thoughts and cultures are also becoming more concise and popular. I think this is one of the reasons why there will be no “sages” such as Plato, Confucius, Laozi and Sakyamuni who have impacted human culture for more than 2000 years and will still exert an influence for a long time to come. It can be predicted that the philosophy

294  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue of the 21st century may be a combination of elite philosophy and popular philosophy. The above three characteristics are just my views and there may be more. The four cultural traditions will coexist for a long time under the trend of economic globalization and scientific and technological integration, and their contribution to today’s human society will be determined by their ability to update themselves. Therefore, in this new “Axial Age,” Chinese culture must fully develop its internal spiritual vitality, eliminate its outdated and wrong components, vigorously absorb the excellent culture of the West and other nationalities, and interpretate the traditional culture in a modern way, so as to adapt it to the requirements of modern human society and life, and “renew our culture day by day.” In this way, Chinese culture will not only get rejuvenated, but also contribute greatly to human society.

5  On “Cultural Consciousness” This is an issue proposed by Fei Xiaotong. It became the theme of the second meeting of the “21st Century Chinese Culture Forum” held at Hong Kong Baptist University in December 2001 –​“Cultural Consciousness and Social Development.” “Cultural consciousness” and “social development” are closely linked. Without the “consciousness” of “culture,” we cannot know the direction of our social development, and cannot consciously solve the problems existing in our society. In the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, there were constant wars, rites and elegance were ignored, and the world was in chaos. The scholar bureaucrats (intellectuals) saw that people would not be able to survive if the society went on like this, so there was a “contention of hundreds of schools,” all schools proposing their own methods of “governing the state and leading the world to peace.” Confucianism proposed that the country should be unified with “benevolent governance” and “kingly way” to make the world peaceful; Taoism proposed “governance by non-​interference,” requiring vassal states to take care of their own affairs and not to interfere in the lives of the people, forming a state of “small country and few people”; Mohism proposed that “loving each other and benefiting each other” should be implemented among vassal states and people, so as to make society peaceful; Legalism advocated the unification of all countries by annexing war and the implementation of “severe punishment and strict law” in internal affairs, in order to put society on the right track. All these show that they have a “cultural consciousness” to achieve social progress. But can all “cultural measures” promote social progress? It depends on whether the cultural measure fits the requirements of social development at that time. The May Fourth movement can be said to be another “cultural consciousness” of Chinese intellectuals. At that time, the movement required to break the old ideas, morality and culture that bound people, and introduce Western

Reflections on Cultural Issues  295 “science and democracy,” so as to modernize Chinese society. Although the May Fourth Movement has shortcomings, on the whole, it promoted the progress of Chinese society and put forward the concept of “Modern,” the subject of the times, to the Chinese people. Entering the 21st century, we must have a new “cultural consciousness” to promote the progress of Chinese society. In other words, we must seriously reflect on our culture’s origin, formation process, characteristics (including advantages and disadvantages) and development trend. Of course, it is also important to understand the cultures of other countries and nationalities and the problems currently existing in the human society. Then we can better understand the advantages and disadvantages of our own culture. In the era of economic globalization, the world is connected, in which every country and nation should not only pay attention to the problems existing in their own society, but also pay attention to the problems existing in the world. However, the so-​called “cultural consciousness” must be based on each nation and country’s understandings of its own culture. For more than a century, under the impact of Western culture, Chinese culture has almost lost its identity, trapped in the dilemma of how to understand Western culture and Chinese culture. There were constant debates between “overall Westernization” and “traditional Chinese culture as standard,” and the summary of this history will provide valuable lessons for our “cultural consciousness.” Now we should get out of the dispute between “ancient and modern China and the West” that has lasted for a century, and advocate the integration of “cultures of ancient and modern China and the West” to adapt to the new landscape of diversified development of world culture, so that our cultural tradition that has lasted for thousands of years can be developed and updated, realizing a new leap of Chinese culture. Now the Chinese nation is on the eve of great rejuvenation, so we must position Chinese traditional culture appropriately and seriously explore the true spirit of our ancient culture, so as to contribute our excellent culture to today’s human society; we should seriously reflect on the defects of our own culture so as to better absorb the essence of other countries and cultures, and we should also interpret our traditional culture in a modern way under the general trend of modern social development, so that our country can be truly in the forefront of world cultural development and create a beautiful world with other countries and cultures.

Notes 1 This article was originally published in Journal of Yunnan University, 2002 (1). 2 Roaming in the Sea of Knowledge, Ji Xianlin’s Autobiography, pp. 254–​255. 3 In Voltaire’s Epistles, a young man named Richard wrote to Voltaire: “you are the Confucius of Europe and the greatest philosopher in the world,” quoted from Meng Hua: Voltaire and Confucius, Beijing, Xinhua Press, 1993. 4 Translated by Pang Jingren: Leibniz’s Two Letters to Grimaldi, published in Research on the History of Chinese Philosophy, 1981 (3), 1982 (1, 2); Reichwein said: in the enlightenment movement, “Leibniz was the first to understand the great spiritual

296  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue impact of Chinese culture on Western development” (translated by Wang Zhaoren and Cao Qining, Culture during the German Enlightenment. 5 See my passage The New Axial Age and the Orientation of Chinese Culture in Cross-​ cultural Dialogue, Shanghai, Shanghai Culture Press, 2001, Vol. VII, pp. 18–​30. 6 Huntington wrote in The Conflict of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of The World Order: “as Melco concluded after reviewing the literature, there at least is a reasonable consensus on the following views: there are at least 12 major civilizations, of which 7 no longer exist (Mesopotamian civilization, Egyptian civilization, Crete civilization, Athenian civilization, Byzantine civilization, Central American civilization and Andean civilization), 5 still exist (Chinese civilization, Indian civilization, Japanese civilization, Islamic civilization and Western Civilization).” 7 Jaspers, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, p. 14.

28 Two Challenges Facing the Multicultural Development1

Nowadays, economic, scientific and technological development is becoming increasingly global. In this context, how will spiritual culture (philosophy, religion, ethics, literature, art, etc.) –​an important cultural component, evolve? Will it become as integrated as the economy and technology? Is it possible or necessary for such cultures to remain diversified? It is a historical fact for the development of multiculturalism. For over 2000 years, more than one culture, including Greek, Indian, Chinese, Hebrew, Islamic and African cultural traditions have been influencing human society today. Cultural traditions have been passed on from generation to generation, the process of which is both vertical and horizontal. The former is “convergence” of the dominant culture, while the latter is “divergence” from it. The former plays an integrative role, while the latter a pioneering one. Both are essential to the development of culture, and the latter is particularly important. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell put it, The exchange between civilizations has proved many times in the past to be a milestone in the development of human civilization. Greece learnt from Egypt, Rome from Greece, Arabia from the Roman Empire, medieval Europe from Arabia, and Renaissance Europe from the Byzantine Empire. Literally speaking, European culture has developed with such great vitality precisely because it has been able to absorb elements from different cultures to enrich and renew itself. Likewise, Chinese culture has developed through the continuous absorption of foreign cultures. It is well known that the introduction of Buddhism into China from India has greatly contributed to the development of Chinese philosophy, religion, literature, art and many other aspects. In modern China, the impact of Western culture has led to a great development and renewal of Chinese culture and society. Clearly, it is the exchange and interaction between different cultures that has enabled the cultural treasure trove of today’s human society to take shape, which constantly has inspired cultural transformations. Without cultural differences or DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-32

298  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue diversities, it would have been impossible for us to embrace such abundant humankind cultures. While cultural diversity has always existed, the widespread expression of “diversity” itself came from the globalization. Globalization generally refers to the integration of economic systems, the standardization of technology and, in particular, the high-​level telecommunications networks, which inevitably link the places worldwide into an indivisible organic whole. Globalization has led to the spread of certain powerful cultures throughout the world, which even tends to “assimilate” and “subsume” all other cultures, as globalization is unlikely to co-​exist with cultural diversity. In fact, this is only one side of the coin; on the other hand, without globalization, cultural diversity would not have come to light as this significant. It is globalization that has contributed to the dismantling of the colonial system, creating a globalized post-​colonial society. When the originally colonized countries gained their independence, the first thing they had to do was to identify themselves in various ways. Their own distinctive culture was the most important factor in identifying their distinctive identity. After the World War II, Malaysia insisted on using Malay as its national language in order to underpin its national unity. Since its founding, Israel have reverted to Hebrew that had long been used only for religious rituals as an everyday language. Some Eastern leaders and scholars put forward the concept of “Asian values” so as to highlight their cultural specificity, to name but a few. All these show that the cultural landscape of the world today is not “homogenized” by the integration of the world economy, but rather is developing toward a diversified direction. Post-​colonialism has clearly laid the foundations for the development of multiculturalism. How can the future development of culture in human society be rational and healthy in a situation where there is globalization on the one hand and pluralism on the other? In my opinion, we must oppose cultural hegemony and tribalism. At present, some developed countries, taking advantage of their economic, political and cultural advantages, are imposing themselves on others and trying to dominate the world with their own ideology, thus forming a kind of cultural hegemony. As Prof. Huntington put it in his book entitled The Clash of Civilizations, it is a fairly concentrated expression of a US centered cultural hegemony. He said: The source of conflict in the new century will no longer focus on ideology or economics, but that culture will be the main source that separates humanity and causes conflict. In world affairs, the nation-​state will still be important, but the main conflicts in global politics will be between communities of different cultures. The clash of civilizations will shape global politics, and the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. In the current world reality, although the “Cold War” period has emerged since the 1990s, the possibility of a world war has temporarily diminished

Two Challenges Facing the Multicultural Development  299 and there seems to be a recognition that “peace and development” should be the main theme pursued by human society. However, local wars, caused by differences in culture (e.g., religion, ethnicity, etc.), have emerged, so Huntington’s prediction of culturally motivated conflicts and wars is not unforeseeable, and it is impossible to rule out a world war in the 21st century that would destroy humanity itself. The question is how we can avoid culturally induced conflicts and wars, and how we can eliminate the factors that could lead to a world war. It seems that Professor Huntington, in order to maintain the hegemony of the West (mainly the United States), is adhering to the obsolete “Western-​centric” position and putting forward his theory of the “clash of civilizations.” Huntington divides present-​day culture into “Western culture” and “non-​Western culture,” and among the “non-​Western culture” he highlights that “a military union of Confucianism and Islam has taken shape.” There is no convincing basis for this assertion by Huntington, and we will not discuss it here. What we want to discuss is what his proposed strategy for avoiding conflict and war (especially world war) says. Huntington’s article proposes to “maintain Western military superiority in East and Southwest Asian states” by “curbing Islamic and Confucian military expansion”; “creating differences and conflicts between Confucian and Islamic states”; “consolidating and legitimizing international organizations that reflect Western interests and values, and promoting the participation of non-​Western states in these organizations,” and so on. Are these views of Professor Huntington consistent with the goals of “peace and development” that are being pursued today? Do they exacerbate conflicts between countries and people and lead to war, or do they eliminate them? Isn’t it clear? The views listed above reflect the insistence of some Western scholars (or politicians) on cultural hegemony and a “Western-​centric” position. To be more specific, Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory is a tactical book used by some US politicians to consolidate their hegemony. Therefore, when discussing cultural development in the 21st century, we must reject cultural hegemony. Another challenge in the development of multiculturalism is what we might call “cultural tribalism.” We can see that some people, who have been suppressed for a long time, have, out of their own protection, taken cultural relativism as a norm and placed too much emphasis on the preservation of their own inherited culture, which has resulted in a dangerous “cultural isolationism,” or “cultural tribalism.” Cultural relativism recognizes that each culture produces its own value system. People’s beliefs and codes of conduct result from a particular social context, and any kind of behavior, beliefs, customs, etc. can often only be evaluated by the value system which they are parts of. There cannot be an absolute standard of value that is recognized by all societies, let alone by those of one’s own group. It is impossible that the values of specific group can be applied as standard for evaluating other cultures. Even the seemingly impartial quantitative surveys, such as IQ surveys, are carried out featuring a clear cultural dimension and specific cultural content on the part of the surveyor.

300  The Meaning of Cross-cultural Dialogue Thus, cultural relativists emphasize respect for the differences between cultures and the value of multiple lifestyles, the search for understanding and harmony, as well as the refusal to easily judge and destroy what is incompatible with one’s own culture. They emphasize that any universal assumptions should be tested valid under the context of multiple cultures. Cultural relativism is undoubtedly a major step forward from the cultural conquest and plunder of the past and has had an important positive effect. On the other hand, however, cultural relativism has also revealed its own contradictions and weaknesses. For example, cultural relativism only emphasizes the superiority of the culture and ignores its possible shortcomings; it only emphasizes the “purity” of the culture and opposes interaction with other cultures, and even adopts a policy of cultural isolation; it only emphasizes the “unity” of the culture and fears new development. This leads to a policy of cultural isolationism and exclusion, which results in the stagnation of the culture itself. Furthermore, a total commitment to cultural relativism, which denies some of the most basic common standards of humanity, cannot but lead to the conclusion that certain negative cultural phenomena that have caused great harm to humanity must also be tolerated. Japanese militarism and German Nazism, for example, were also cultural phenomena that were more widely accepted at certain times in certain regions. In fact, it is also impossible to completely deny certain common human requirements, such as the universal biological requirement to be well fed and clothed, the common need to seek shelter and security, and so on. Even different groups and individuals within the same culture have different understandings of things, because people’s mindsets are interlinked with the specific circumstances of their lives. It is clearly contrary to the facts when ignoring such differences while emphasizing only the ‘unity’ of the culture. In short, cultural relativism provides a theoretical basis and a new dimension of thinking for the development of cultural pluralism, but its own weaknesses cannot but hinder the development of multiculturalism. There are also those who seek for a particular culture that remains unchanged, who disregard the history of cultural interaction and interaction between peoples over the centuries, who oppose cultural exchange and communication, and who demand a return to and the discovery of a culture that is “untouched by any foreign influence,” “articulated in the native language,” “original,” advocating slogans such as “the more national, the more global” without any analysis. In fact, such a local culture can only be a theoretical hypothesis. If we are not talking about cultural “relics” that are “already there” and will remain unchanged, but living cultural traditions that are constantly being reinterpreted and developed through generations of creations, then it is inevitable to contain the views of people who have been influenced by foreign cultures from time to time and to various degrees. It must then contain the selection, preservation and creative interpretation of various cultural phenomena by people of different generations with various foreign influence. The search for “origins” without all the mentioned prerequisites will reveal nothing of value.

Two Challenges Facing the Multicultural Development  301 Cultural isolationism is often blended with postcolonial studies of cultural identity, but there is a fundamental difference between them. Whereas the latter seeks to locate its own cultural identity in a post-​colonial context of intertwined cultural influences, cultural isolationism is an insistence on the fictionalization of its own cultural “originality” within a closed environment, regardless of historical developments and the interplay of current and intersecting factors. In fact, even within the same culture, different groups and individuals do not all understand things in the same way, and to seek uniformity and immutability will only result in the extinction of life and the closure and decline of one’s own culture. As a matter of fact, these two challenges of multicultural development correlate with each other. Cultural hegemonists even support cultural isolationism so that they can continue to maintain their cultural dominance. Cultural isolationism, on the other hand, places itself outside the tide of world culture and prevents it from participating in and influencing the development of global culture. Therefore, today we must criticize cultural isolationism while opposing cultural hegemony. On this basis, it may be possible for human culture in the 21st century to develop a general trend of multiculturalism in the light of global consciousness.

Note 1 It was published by Shandong Education Press in the 100 Issues of Social Sciences in the 21st Century, Jinan, 2005, August 14, 2000.

Part V

Ideology, Faith and Culture

29 Cultural Rescue, Preservation and Innovation1

Human culture is created by human beings, and the culture of different people is the pattern of their national life. For example, we eat with chopsticks while the Western people use knives and forks; for example, our writing is in square characters while the Western people (e.g., English, Latin) write phonetically. Many of our buildings have large roofs, while Western buildings are Gothic or Baroque, etc. These different cultural traditions have evolved over the course of history. In the course of human history, the cultures of different peoples have disappeared. Some have survived, and some have changed their form. Now that a national culture has been formed, its unique traditions have their own special value. Chinese Confucianism has a value that cannot be replaced by other cultures. The Christian culture of the West also has its own irreplaceable value for other cultures. It is therefore our duty to preserve, and in some cases to salvage, these various cultures which are of value to human society. This is based on the belief that it is better for human beings to live in a rich and varied cultural environment than in a monocultural one. It is therefore very important that the “oral and intangible heritage of humanity is protected and rescued.” Culture can be categorized into two types. One is in its material form (e.g., architecture, bronzes, etc.) and the other is culture in its oral and intangible form (e.g., oral folk creations). From this point of view, preserving oral or intangible culture is more difficult than preserving tangible culture, which requires more attention, and thus more meaningful rescue. I do not mean that the preservation of tangible culture is not that important, but only that it is more difficult to preserve either of these two different forms of culture. Why? Tangible culture is easier to be preserved for it is kept in a permanent tangible format, while oral and intangible culture is less easy to be preserved because people are its living carrier. There may be a dialectical relationship between preservation and innovation. But I hold the view that cultural heritage, such as music, theatre, dance, etc., and philosophy, may be things in common when it comes to preservation. Philosophically speaking, it is entirely necessary to preserve ancient texts in their original, high-​tech form, because we have lost so many of them (e.g., the Yongle Canon). However, if we simply preserve it without modern DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-34

306  Ideology, Faith and Culture interpretations, philosophy will not evolve, especially in the tide of globalization, and will not function, or even become obsolete. Melko, for example, after studying enormous literature, concluded that there have been at least 12 major civilizations in human history, seven of which no longer exist (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Cretan, Athenian, Byzantine, Mesoamerican and Andean) and five of which still exist (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Islamic and Western civilizations). The reasons for the disappearance of the mentioned seven civilizations may be very complex, but one of which might be their inability to evolve. Historically, Chinese philosophy has developed considerably due to the absorption of Indian Buddhist philosophy, and today we must consciously absorb Western philosophy in order to bring Chinese philosophy to a new stage of development. Why are there few people that can really appreciate kunqu, for example? Apart from the limited cultural knowledge of the general public, it also has to do with the fact that more attention has not been drawn to the conservation in the creation of kunqu. I learned, for example, that Professor Ye Xiaogang has performed kunqu with orchestral music, which was considered nonsense by many kunqu fans. But as a layman, I believe it is a very meaningful practice. Imagine, many of the instruments used in the various operas in mainland China did not originate from the Han region, which have been taken for granted in various Chinese operas. I recently read an article written by Wang Chunyu entitled The New Book of Ghosts –​A Tale of Dead Masters, which contains an account of Mr. Zhao Jingshen (1902–​1986). Mr. Zhao loved kunqu and founded the Kunqu Opera Society in Shanghai. It is said in the article, “On 15 February 1944, the Huang Opera Company was founded in Lihuang County (now Jinzhai County, Anhui Province) and made its debut with Meng Dacheng and Fan Huiying, performing the kunqu opera entitled The Palace of Eternal Youth –​A Small Banquet. It is worth noting that the instruments used to accompany Mr. Zhao and others included violins and mandolins, although the main instrument was still the flute of Professor Zhang Zonghe (Mr. Shen Congwen’s brother-​ in-​law). Mr. Zhao wrote, ‘To accompany kunqu with Western instruments is a bold experiment’. This spirit of innovation is worthy of study in today’s opera world, where audiences are getting smaller and smaller.” It seems that the use of Western instruments with kunqu had already been done before Professor Ye Xiaogang. Such innovative forms may fail, but they may also be unexpectedly successful. It is certainly important that some of the best traditional repertoire be preserved for the long term, as they are the foundation of kunqu. In a sense there can be no innovation without good preservation and rescue of the traditional repertoire, the two of which may be in a dialectical relationship. There is perhaps another phenomenon that can be noted in the evolvement of culture. In terms of literature and art, there may be a culmination after which it is difficult for the successors to surpass their predecessors. Is this also the case with kunqu? If it has passed its peak, then perhaps preservation and rescue are more important than innovation. But generally speaking, a

Cultural Rescue, Preservation and Innovation  307 cultural form can only be better preserved through innovation, of which we should be culturally aware. We should be aware of the origins and historical development of our own culture, its characteristics (including its strengths and weaknesses) and trends. This is true in philosophy, which I think may apply to the art like kunqu. If we wish the Chinese people and even the rest of the world can appreciate it, then we should have a conscious awareness of it and see how it can be better preserved in its development. Otherwise, it will hardly flourish.

Note 1 This article was originally published in China Literature and Art Daily, December 27, 2002.

30 “Edify the Populace to Achieve a Harmonious Society”1

In the Chinese tradition, special attention has been paid to humanism and humanistic education. It is said in the ancient Chinese classic titled The Book of Changes, “Edify the populace to achieve a harmonious society.” (Ben, Zhuan Ci) It means that by educating all the people the humanity, we can build up a harmonious society. It is evident that our ancestors already attached great importance to the humanism for enlightenment. Humanistic enlightenment means using the humanistic spirit to educate people. So where did humanism come from? According to The Book of Changes, it has been accumulated in the course of human history and cultural development. Throughout the long history, we have accumulated many valuable experiences of educating people in the spirit of humanism, which are undoubtedly assets that should be cherished. For example, Confucius, the great thinker and educator of China, said, “I will be worried if we do not cultivate virtue, or learn, or hear righteousness, or change badness.” (The Analects of Confucius-​Shu Er). Not cultivating virtue, learning, following what is said in accordance with morality and righteousness, or correcting mistakes when they are made, are all what Confucius was worried about. This passage from Confucius is a good summary of Chinese ancient “humanistic education.” What is the “humanistic spirit” of the Chinese nation? I think it is what Confucius said about being moral and educated, conforming one’s behavior to morality, and having the courage to correct one’s mistakes. In a word, “to be educated and to learn, one must first learn to ‘be human’.” In today’s world of advanced science and technology, we must be aware that while science and technology can benefit human society, they can also seriously harm it. Today, we can see that science and technology (and even its development) is sometimes utilized in a manner which is not benefiting humankind, such as the issue of cloning “human beings,” the use of biochemistry as a means of warfare, and so on. How should we orient the development of science and technology? It should be a very important question. At the same time, we can also witness a serious disregard for “morality” due to the temptation of money and power, and a “struggle for power and profit” by very immoral and self-​serving means. This has caused people to lose their “ideals” and “conscience,” turning human society into a disorderly and chaotic one. DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-35

“Edify the Populace to Achieve a Harmonious Society”  309 Now “humanism” should be utilized to guide people’s thinking and behavior. This may be a question of “benevolence for the benevolent and wisdom for the wise.” If we look at the history of our country, perhaps it is fair to say that Confucius’ idea of “benevolence” represents a “humanistic spirit.” His “benevolent learning” certainly includes the above-​mentioned “cultivating virtue,” “lecturing,” “changing idea to follow it,” “reforming” and so on. But I think the most fundamental thing is that people should have a spirit of “love for others.” So how should we understand and appreciate Confucius’ humanistic spirit of “loving people”? In my opinion, the best way is to read the Analects, which is not only a record of Confucius’ words (his thoughts), but also a glimpse into his actions. Here I would just like to say a few words about my learning of Confucius’ humanistic spirit of “loving people.” In The Analects of Confucius, it is said that Confucius replied “to love people” on Fan Li’s question about “benevolence.” Where did this idea of “loving others” come from? In The Doctrine of the Meanthere is a passage from Confucius that “Benevolence is the nature of humankind that attaches great importance to friends and family.” The spirit of “benevolence” is inherent in human beings, and loving one’s own family is the most fundamental. If one does not love his or her own parents, how can they love others? A survey was conducted with 1,005 students in 13 high schools in the United States, 1,303 students in 15 high schools in Japan, and 12,201 students in 22 high schools in Mainland China. In response to the question, “Who do you respect most?,” the American students ranked their fathers first and their mothers third; the Japanese students also ranked their fathers first and their mothers second; while none of the Chinese students ranked their parents in the top ten of the lists of people they respect. One is that there are indeed some parents who do not deserve respect; the other is that many Chinese students do not have any “love” for their parents. These problems should make us ponder over the need to educate students in the humanities of “benevolence.” Nevertheless, “loving others” in the spirit of “benevolence” should be more than loving only one’s own family. As it is said in the Bamboo Sketch from the Tomb of Guo Dian Chu that “to love one’s father wholeheartedly is only the practice of love, and also to love others is the practice of ‘benevolence’.” It is also said, “If you are filial, you should love the people of the world.” Only when filial piety for one’s parents is extended to all the people of the world is true “benevolence.” In other words, Confucian “benevolence” must extend from “kinship” (loving one’s own family) to “benevolence” (extending to loving all the people in general). In other words, we must do everything for ourselves and others, and we must be “kind to the old and the young.” It is not easy to do so. We must take it as our guidelines to be benevolent that “do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” To be “benevolent” is the benchmark. If we want to extend the spirit of benevolence to society as a whole, then we will achieve what Confucius said, “It is benevolent to restrain oneself and fulfill propriety. Once you have practiced the rites yourself, the world will be benevolent. To be benevolent is up to

310  Ideology, Faith and Culture oneself, but not to others.” Some scholars have interpreted the expression “restraining oneself ” and “fulfilling propriety” as two parallel aspects, which I think is not a desirable interpretation. The philosophy that “it is benevolence to restrain oneself and practice rites” means that you need to “restrain yourself ” (restraining one’s selfish desires) first and “practice propriety” before being benevolent. The term “benevolence” is based on “restraining oneself ” (restraining one’s selfish desires). Mr. Fei Xiaotong explained it, which I think is very meaningful, by saying, “Self-​restraint is the only way to practice propriety that is a necessary condition for entering society and becoming a social being. The promotion of oneself and the restraint of oneself is perhaps a key to the difference between Eastern and Western cultures.” “Benevolence is a virtue inherent in human beings, while propriety is an external system that regulates people’s social behavior, which is designed to regulate relations between people in society so that they can live together in precious harmony.” In order for people to observe the ritual system, they must bear conscious “benevolence” (an inner and sincere heart of “loving people”), which is in line with the requirements of “benevolence.” This is why Confucius said, “To be benevolent is up to you, but not to others.” Confucius has a very clear statement on the relationship between benevolence and propriety, as he put it, “If one is not benevolent, how will he follow the propriety? If one is not benevolent, how can he be contended with himself ?” Without benevolence, it is only a formality to “practice propriety” and it can even be used to deceive people, which is hypocritical. Therefore, Confucius believed that with a sincere heart of benevolence and love in daily life in accordance with certain norms, society would be harmonious and peaceful. “Once every man can control himself in conformity with the rules of propriety, the world will be in good order.” If we take this spirit of “benevolence and love” in the Analects of Confucius and apply it to solving the problems that exist in reality, we can help students to learn from the spirit of Chinese culture through reading cultural texts with their minds. And with a view to identify with the spirit of “benevolence and love” in Confucianism, it is essential to recite some of the most famous classical texts wholeheartedly. Through recitation, you will be able to “transform reason into emotion” and make it a guideline for your daily life, which will be of lifelong use. Mr. Fei Xiaotong raised the issue of “cultural self-​awareness,” by which we should seriously consider and reflect on the origins of our own culture, the process of its formation, its characteristics (including its strengths and weaknesses) and its development trends. Perhaps the most important way to become “culturally conscious” is to read or recite the cultural classics. For example, as for the above-​mentioned Confucian “benevolent learning,” we must read The Analects and other Confucian texts to get its inherent spirit. We should not only read the classics of Chinese culture, but also of other countries and nations to improve our humanistic qualities. Today’s China is a modern one instead of being ancient. It is in the economic globalization, technological integration and information networking, where the world has

“Edify the Populace to Achieve a Harmonious Society”  311 become integrated, like a global village. Therefore, we cannot be ignorant of the cultures of other nations and countries, and we should understand both Chinese cultural spirit and the cultures of other nations and countries. “The true look of Lushan is lost to my sight, for it is right in this mountain that I reside.” If we can look at Chinese culture from the perspective of the “other,” we can, on the one hand, deepen our understanding of it and cherish Chinese cultural traditions more; Besides, it is also possible to identify the shortcomings of our own culture by comparison, so that we can consciously absorb the other cultures to nourish our own. Therefore, in addition to reciting the Chinese cultural classics, young students should also be guided to learn a few classics of other cultures. Should we let students read Plato’s works, for example, some parts of his The Republic? According to Plato, the characteristics of a good life are (1) moderation; (2) balance, beauty, completeness; (3) reason and wisdom, i.e., truth; (4) knowledge, skill, sound judgement; (5) pure pleasure without pain, and a proper sense of appetite satisfaction. Such thoughts may be instructive to us. We could also read the Bible, for example Jesus “Sermon on the Mount” (Chapter 5, Matthew). There are certainly other Western classics to read, as well as some Indian classics (such as the Upanishads and the Buddhist texts) and parts of the Islamic Koran, etc. We’d better read some of the classics in English translation, which helps us to master a foreign language. The horizons of the young students should be broadened, as it is put in a common phrase, “Keep the entire motherland in mind and the whole world in view.” A prosperous China and the future of the world as a whole depends on the wisdom of young people. All these require our young students to be “culturally conscious,” which must be achieved through the learning of cultural classics, so as to have a good humanistic quality. This should be our inescapable responsibility as teachers to educate them in the humanities.

Note 1 This was originally published in the Journal of Capital Normal University, 2004 (1), October 6, 2003.

31 How to Cope with Mankind’s Misery Compared with Thousand Years Ago, Humans Are Struggling with Less or More Misery?1

July 15, 1997 Paris XAVIER LE PICHON: I

have just finished writing a book on the course of humanization from the perspective of human’s evolvement, more specifically, how we evolved in a way different from animals in terms of many aspects. Two factors are important in the course of evolvement. One is suffering and the other is death. When humans evolved from animals, the first concern was survival. When a certain form of production emerged, and humans began to think, they considered, “What is human? What is the misery that human faces?” The 6th century B C . was quite subtle, when the Western sages and prophets in the Old Testament and the Eastern sages of Confucianism and Taoism considered simultaneously the issue of suffering and death. YIJIE TANG:  It is true. The German philosopher Jaspers of the 20th century also spoke of the 5th and 6th centuries B C , when Greece, China, India and Judea witnessed many great thinkers at the same time, such as Plato, Confucius, Laozi, Siddhartha Gautama and the Jewish prophets, who laid the foundations for today’s civilizations worldwide. Indeed, the two issues of life and death and suffering have always been two of the most important concerns of philosophy and religion. XAVIER LE PICHON:  As a matter of fact, it was never a coincidence for such change to take place in the 5th or 6th century B C . Even before, mankind lived in an unstable structure of life, such as in the primitive hunting stage, where there was no complete social structure and life was getting harder. Besides, there were also man-​made evils. The Egyptians, in the second millennium BC ., also considered the problem of the evils brought by mankind, and their philosophy explored what human dignity was and what good and evil were.   In the history after agricultural society, mankind witnessed the first industrial revolution, which largely enhanced our thinking on this issue. Today, mankind is stepping into a new fault line. In fact, the development of high technology continues to increase human suffering. Therefore, DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-36

How to Cope with Mankind’s Misery  313 mankind needs to transcend and redefine himself or herself. This is a great misery. YIJIE TANG:  Yes, nature has caused mankind a lot of sufferings, such as the flood that took place in the 4000 BC . There have also been man-​made sufferings, such as Jie and Zhou, who brought many man-​made sufferings to the common people. Philosophers and thinkers had to consider how to solve these problems, and so did the religion. In the 5th and 6th centuries BC ., the main Chinese thinkers considered the question of how to relieve the suffering of the common people. At that time, society was in chaos and there was “no way out of the world.” They wanted to change the society of “no way” into the one of “way” in order to alleviate the suffering of the common people. XAVIER LE PICHON:  The question you raised earlier about the “world without justice” and the “world with justice” could be a theme for our dialogue today. It seems to me that it is impossible to completely eliminate human suffering, but we can alleviate it in a more humane way. It is interesting to compare how different cultures have sought to alleviate human suffering in a humane way. In particular, a comparative study of the concerns and approaches of people 2000 years ago with today’s panoramic view and today’s thinking on problem solving can be very helpful in considering problems on multiple levels, not unilaterally today. TANG YIJIE:  There are different doctrines for alleviating suffering. The first is to turn a society without a moral code into one with a moral code. Confucius believed that the ancient system of ritual and music had been destroyed by the end of the Spring and Autumn period and had become a hollow form without an inner spirit. Confucius believed that the key to alleviating social suffering was to have “benevolence.” “The benevolent person loves people”; “do not do to others what you do not want”; “help others to develop as you would help yourself to.” Man, as one party, is to treat the other party as a person like himself. He wanted to use this approach to solve the less reasonable matters in society (the society he was concerned with was between 550–​490 BC ). A little earlier, Laozi thought differently from Confucius in that he believed that the social system itself was the cause of corruption and suffering. For society to become better, the first step was to reduce human desire. If there is no strife, there will be less suffering. If those at the top have no desire, the people will suffer less. Today’s society is very different from that time, and the question of how to free it from all kinds of strife and achieve Confucius’ ideal of a society in which the world has a way of life is even more complex. It is a good sign that many scientists are now looking beyond their own disciplines and are concerned about the future of humanity XAVIER LE PICHON:  Indeed, the most important thing is to face today. I would like to know if there is any fundamental difference between Confucius and Laozi, given that they both advocated “loving people with kindness” and also faced suffering?

314  Ideology, Faith and Culture TANG YIJIE:  Confucius

faced suffering directly. He believed that if he could not rescue people or alleviate their suffering, then he would have to “float on the rafter” and leave the society. In contrast, Laozi believed that we should follow nature and not pursue what we should not or cannot pursue. For example, Zhuangzi told a parable about the Emperor of the South, the Emperor of the North and the Emperor of the Centre, who were good friends. As a result, the Central Emperor suffered greatly and died. This shows that it does not alleviate suffering, but even causes great suffering. Confucianism considers that it is the greatest suffering to fail to do one’s duty in society, while Taoism considers that it is the greatest suffering for the failure to follow nature. They both want to alleviate human suffering, but in very different ways. XAVIER LE PICHON:  This is an interesting question. In the face of suffering, Judaism and Christianity are not the same. They emphasize first and foremost the need for a “suffering man,” and the Jewish prophet must have been a “suffering man.” Only the “suffering man” has the means to rescue society. The modern proletarians are the “suffering people,” who are exploited and have nothing to lose. Only the proletarians can rescue the world. Is this view the same as the traditional Chinese philosophy of alleviating suffering? TANG YIJIE:  In addition to Confucianism and Taoism, there is a school of thought in China called Mohism. The Mohists believe that one should suffer for the sake of the world, and use one’s own suffering to rescue others, even if one has to do so. They advocated “mutual love and mutual benefit,” and many people regarded Mohism as a religion, who could not resist the traditions of Confucianism and Taoism, the mainstream of Chinese culture. The Confucian sages were also prophets who knew the reasons why they were suffering and could therefore save those who were suffering, but did not need to suffer on behalf of others. The Chinese cultural tradition is complex. When Buddhism was introduced to China in the 1st century A D , there was also an idea of suffering on behalf of the world. For example, when Buddha saw a tiger in labor with nothing to eat, he fed the tiger with his body. Later on, China accepted the influence of Buddhism and also promoted this spirit of compassion. Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism have all played a significant role in Chinese society.   The Chinese Communist Party embraced Marxism mainly on the basis of Confucianism. Mencius said, “When the heavens are about to give a great task to a man, he must first suffer his heart and mind, labor his muscles and bones, starve his body and soul, empty his body, and act in a way that disrupts his work, so that he can move his heart and endure his nature, in order to benefit from what he can do.” This means that those who aspire to redeem society must first suffer. XAVIER LE PICHON: It is worth studying whether Chinese Marxism is the original German Marxism, which has been clearly influenced by

How to Cope with Mankind’s Misery  315 Confucianism. The words of Mencius, as quoted earlier, can be extended from the ideal of rescuing society to the liberation of all mankind. In the light of the reality of Chinese society, it is probably very questionable whether most communists still have such social ideals. I am not saying that the CCP has lost its social ideals, but a considerable number of them have lost their original ideals. TANG YIJIE:  I would like to ask a question: Since the 20th century, technological development has been particularly rapid and has brought many benefits to people, such as medical development, treatment of diseases and reduction of human suffering, but has technological progress also brought many problems and increased people’s suffering in other ways? As a scientist, how do you think of this issue? XAVIER LE PICHON: Science has solved many problems, but I believe that human suffering today has increased rather than decreased. First of all, the demographics have changed, with the vibrant young being dominated by the old; while the old are physically oppressed and express anxiety about the future, even sometimes wondering: “Will I wake up tomorrow?” Their anxiety grows. Secondly, individualism is becoming more and more extreme, with young people feeling lonely, isolated and unsure of what to do with the freedom they have. Technology has opened up all sorts of possibilities, so that those who are infertile can conceive by all sorts of artificial methods, and those who conceive can terminate their pregnancy in all sorts of ways, and everything becomes unnatural. In general, I think that, thanks to technological progress, humanity is not happier but more anxious and less able to live with a common purpose.   There is a problem, and I don’t know how Chinese culture treats it. Pain has only a negative role in the West, being associated only with horror, and the unspeakable, etc. But if pain is seen as meaningful, would it be better to see suffering as meaningful? For example, the sudden illness of a family member can often change family relationships. Does suffering have a positive meaning in Chinese culture? TANG YIJIE: Generally speaking, Chinese tradition is about eliminating suffering. Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism all believe that human suffering should be overcome by their doctrines. Confucianism uses ritual and music with a humane content to overcome suffering, while Taoism uses nature as a way to eliminate suffering. Buddhism believes that birth, old age, sickness and death are all pains, but only if one recognizes their causes, and that they are merely the accidental combination of certain conditions, will the pain dissipate.   Has the development of science also brought with it the idea that it can solve all problems? This is not the case. It is good for a society to be scientifically advanced, but there should also be faith, not necessarily religious faith. The faith in the Confucian ideal of a commonwealth is also a faith. The problem facing Chinese society now is that most people have very little faith, and what they seek is mostly sensual and personal pleasure.

316  Ideology, Faith and Culture I think such a society is dangerous. Are there also many problems with faith (including religious faith) in Western societies? XAVIER LE PICHON: I totally agree with you. In our current society, faith (religious or non-​religious) is no longer valued and most people live for personal enjoyment. I believe that the salvation of a society is to help its members to relieve their suffering. At present, in the U.S, half of the population goes to church, and in France, only one tenth. But is Western society irreligious? No. There is a paradox: a society confined to personal enjoyment is no longer hopeful or of little hope, and should be pessimistic. But in the last decade there has been a very strong fraternity among young French people (fraternity as proposed by the French Revolution, not religious fraternity). They’ve shown an intolerance of social injustice, such as racial discrimination, human rights issues. There was a great progress in the definition of human rights, which was widely accepted. From this perspective, there was an intention to create a world community of citizens. YIJIE TANG:  Do these two tendencies have anything to do with the development of science and technology? XAVIER LE PICHON:  I think that fraternity, the improvement of human rights and the idea of a world community of citizens are directly linked to the development of high technology. Free communication is possible thanks to high-​tech means of communication that has made modern society a “society of relationships.” At the beginning of the 18th century, Kivière, an academician of the French Academy, put it, “The black man has no soul, who is only a remnant of history.” Today, there would not be any scientist seeing it that way anymore. The convenient transportation, the communicative freedom, and the establishment of relationships in certain network have enhanced the awareness of the others, which has decreased the fear of the others.   Why is there an increased awareness of suffering? Before the 17th century, humankind was essentially a member of nature which was considered the mother of man. The first industrial revolution caused a disconnection between man and nature. Humankind was isolated from other creatures and evolved in a belief of capable to conquer nature, which was transformed from mother to slave (embodying the death of nature). Humans urgently needed to reconceptualize and reposition themselves in history. YIJIE TANG:  Do you think that the 20th century has witnessed a renewed rupture between man and nature? XAVIER LE PICHON:  Actually, the first rupture dates back to around 7000 to 5000 B C , when humankind evolved from hunters living without fire nor the ability to cultivate, to the builders of an agrarian society. At that time, small groups of people lived together and the horizon of man was so narrowed that an Egyptian pharaoh said, “Humankind is the same everywhere.” The second rupture happed during the period from 17th to 18th

How to Cope with Mankind’s Misery  317 century, when the widespread industrial revolution witnessed the population increase from 5 million to 15 million (the figures are not necessarily accurate). Today’s electronic communications revolution is clearly far more profound and extensive than in the past. The global population has grown to 6 billion, whereas 5000 years ago the number was only about 100,000. It seldom occurs to people that the increase in population density has changed many things that we did not expect. I think that fraternity, human rights, and social community are issues that are well worth further discussion. TANG YIJIE:  Yes, I think that human beings have to be in a network of inter-​ relationships, each one is inseparable from others, and each country and nation is in various relationships. Under such circumstances, the absence of the most basic common principles that everyone is willing to abide by will engender new contentions. In traditional Chinese culture, there is a principle called “harmony despite the difference.” This principle emphasizes, above all, that everything cannot be the same. “If everything is the same, it is impossible to evolve. What is different is not static, isolated and closed, but is in a dynamic development, where it is complementary and mutually useful with other factors coexisting in harmony. I believe this could be a very useful principle for the future development of human society, and a common principle that we can apply when discussing fraternity, human rights and social community.

Note 1 This was originally published in Cross-​cultural Dialogue, Volume I, Shanghai Cultural Publishing, 1998.

32 On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures1

Translated by Chen Lichuan and Jin Siyan Recorded and arranged by Zhang Jin December 17, 2011 HOST YUE DAIYUN (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS YUE): 

Today, I’m very glad that Dialogue Transcultural invited Professor Léon Vandermeersch (Wang Demai), a famous French sinologist, and Professor Tang Yijie, President of the school of Confucianism of Peking University and chief expert of Confucian Conan, to have a dialogue. The two professors are both in their eighties, Mr. Tang Yijie is 85 and Mr. Wang Demai will turn 84 next month. They both researched on Chinese culture and have taught a lot of students. We are familiar with Professor Wang Demai and have met many times in France and China. In the near future, Dialogue Transcultural will publish the preface and postscript of Professor Wang Demai’s new book, Ideographic and Pinyin Characters. Mr. Wang’s ideas in this book are very creative. Today, it’s my pleasure to invite Mr. Chen Lichuan, an alumnus of Peking University, to interpret for us. Today, we also have Professor Jin Siyan of the University of Aldova in France, who was once the first teaching assistant of the Institute of Comparative Literature of Peking University; Dr. Gao Xiuqin, head of Peking University Press; Professor Qin Haiying from the Department of French of Peking University; Professor Dong Xiaoping, Beijing Normal University. Zhang Jin is my student and an editor of Foreign Literature Review. She will take notes for us. After sorting out the conversation records of the two professors, we will publish it in Dialogue Transcultural. The theme of today’s dialogue is the complementarity of Chinese and Western cultures. Let’s start now. Who will talk first? WANG DEMAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS WANG):  I’ll take the first turn. Recently, I gave a lecture at Huaqiao University in Fujian. Once I asked a student, “Who do you think is the thinker who can best represent Chinese thought?” He thought for a moment and said it was Mr. Tang Yijie. (everyone laughs) DOI: 10.4324/9781003318088-37

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  319 PROFESSOR TANG YIJIE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TANG):  Shall

I ask a question first? In his article The World Significance of Confucian Conan, Professor Wang Demai wrote, “The Western humanism, which once brought the perfect thought of human rights to the world, cannot give an answer to addressing the challenges of modern society. Then why not consider whether the world can be guided by Confucianism, such as the thought of respecting nature proposed by ‘the unity of heaven and man’, the rejection of religious fundamentalism advocated by ‘far away from God and close to man’ and the spirit of fraternity of ‘brotherhood of all human beings’ ”? After reading Mr. Wang Demai’s words, I wonder if we can say that Western cultures can be complemented by Chinese Confucian culture. Could Professor Wang Demai explain this sentence? WANG:  I think there are many treasures in Chinese humanism, but the spread of Chinese humanism in the West is limited by its expression method, because the method does not conform to the Western tradition. A key concept of Chinese humanism is “benevolence(仁).” “仁” has two parts, “亻” and “二,” which reflects the Chinese people’s understanding of “仁.” However, this concept of “benevolence” is foreign to the Westerners. Western humanism is based on theology, which comes from Judaism, Christianity and Platonism. After the elucidation of St. Thomas Aquinas, it formed the theological tradition of Western humanism. That is, the value of human came from God, and the image of human was created according to the image of God. In Chinese humanism, human is a part of nature, and a part of the universe. Like nature, human participates in the movement of the whole universe. Therefore, there is the concept of “the unity of heaven and man” in Chinese humanism. We have different values, and different understandings of people, which is a fundamental difference between Chinese and Western cultures.   In the Western humanism tradition, there is the concept of “equality.” Since man was created in the image of God, then everyone is equal before God. This is an important concept of Western humanism. According to the understanding of people in Chinese humanism, there are great differences between people. Because of their varying talents and social status, everyone is in a different position. For example, the concept of “father and son” puts father and son in different positions, and there is no equality between them. Therefore, the father should be amiable and the son should be filial, which is the basis for defining the relationship between father and son. Similarly, emperors, ministers and ordinary people are in different positions, so their responsibilities and obligations are different. This concept of social hierarchy in China can be easily misunderstood in the West. Many Westerners believe that China’s Confucianism thought denies equality between people. For a Chinese, the Western concept that “everyone is equal” is also difficult to understand, because Chinese people do not believe that father and son are equal, emperor and common people

320  Ideology, Faith and Culture are equal, and husband and wife are equal, because everyone has his own special social identity, status and obligations. Therefore, I think the concept of “equality” is one of the reasons why China and the West do not understand each other. In the West, everyone recognizes the concept of equality in theory, and takes equality as a means to promote human rights, but in reality, everyone knows that absolute equality does not exist, because equality is restricted by many subjective and objective conditions. This “theoretical equality and practical inequality” is a universal reality.   In the West, the principle of equality and human rights promoted Individualism: the individual is more important than the collective and personal interests are also more important than collective interests. The proliferation of individualism has led to a general crisis in Western society, which I think is a “social” crisis: people give unlimited space to their freedom, which destroys social connections and social spirit. In China, we also see some defects caused by ideas Just as we see in Ba Jin’s novel, Family, collectivism oppresses individuals, who are bound by various constraints and are not free, which is a problem in the East. I believe the value of each culture itself is good and worthy of respect, and both Western individualistic values and Eastern collectivist values have their own advantages and should be inherited. However, values cannot be pushed to extremes and cannot be distorted. No matter how good a value is, if it is pushed to the extreme or is distorted, it will also produce many side effects. TANG:  I think Professor Wang Demai’s opinion on the different traditions of China and the West is very meaningful. I want to talk about my views on Chinese traditional ideas. First, we must consider ideals or theories and the reality separately, because ideals or good theories cannot all be realized in reality, whether it’s in the West or in China. First, China focused on “etiquettes” at the earliest, which established the relationship between people, not between people and God. The original Confucianism believes that there are rights and obligations for each other in the relationship between people. That is, the father can ask the son to be filial only when he himself is amiable; and the son must be filial to ask the father for amity. Of course, there is inequality in this concept, especially the relationship between husband and wife, which requires the husband to be righteous and the wife to be obedient and submissive. I think Confucius later saw that the concept of “etiquettes” is flawed, so he said that “etiquettes” and “music” are meaningless without “benevolence.” Therefore, “etiquettes” and “music” must involve “benevolence,” which is mentioned in the Analects of Confucius. Therefore, Confucius defined “benevolence” as “the benevolent love people.” But this “benevolent love” has different levels. In the Doctrine of the Mean, there is a sentence that says, “Benevolence is humanity, and the greatest love for people is the love for one’s parents.” That is, the “benevolence” of benevolent love is human itself and the requirement of human nature, but where

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  321 does the original benevolence start from? It starts from loving relatives. It can be seen that Confucius believes that the starting point is to love relatives, but we should not stay at this point, but love others. Mencius stated it more specifically, “Loving your relatives and being benevolent to the people.” That is, from “loving relatives,” we must be “benevolent and kind to the people,” “love all things,” and extend the benevolence to all things. Such practice can lead to the concept of “the unity of heaven and man,” where you should not only love people, but also love things, love the whole nature, love the earth, flowers, and trees. There are reasonable and desirable things in this concept, but there is a hierarchical order, because it is from loving relatives to being benevolent to people to loving things. In real society, it is actually very difficult to achieve such a hierarchical order. However, theoretically, it is likely to be more suitable for the East, especially the agricultural society of China, because the society is family centered, and the family is both a living unit and a production unit. Therefore, you must first maintain the harmonious coexistence of the family, then you can live in harmony with the people around you, and love the land you cultivate. If you don’t love the land you live in, social chaos will ensue. So, I think Chinese thought features this logic.   This is different from the West, because the West has Christianity, which believes that everyone is equal before God. Why? Because according to the Bible, everyone is the son of God, but everyone is equal only when you are a Christian. What about non-​Christians? It seems that it does not address this problem because it is monotheistic. Therefore, religious conflicts arise, for example, the 200-​years war of 14 Crusades against Islam. The two religions are both monotheistic, so I think this is a troublesome issue. How to address this problem? Maybe China can provide some experience. Chinese Confucianism advocates that “Tao can coexist without contradictions.” All theories, including religious beliefs, can develop together without mutual exclusion, which is a thought of Confucianism. Taoism pays attention to “expansion through inclusion,” and a great thought must have a lot of capacity. Then Chinese Buddhism, especially Zen, has a complex relationship with Indian Buddhism, which opposes the caste system. Chinese Buddhism accepted but also developed the anti-​caste side of Indian Buddhism. So, the eminent monk Zongmi of Chinese Zen did one thing. There is a so-​called “Classification of Buddha’s teaching” in Buddhism: making a classification of various sects and ideas. Originally, it was limited to the Buddhism itself, because Buddhism has Mahayana, Mahayana Zen, Exotoric Buddhism, Esoteric Buddhism, etc. Classifying teaching is to arrange different sects in Buddhism, such as the superior and the secondary, but this classification is not mutually exclusive. Monk Zongmi included Confucianism and Taoism in the classification. I think this idea may have some significance, namely, not excluding other ideas. In this regard, I think Chinese culture may benefit Western monotheism.

322  Ideology, Faith and Culture   Of course, there are also many defects in Chinese culture, especially the development of “etiquettes.” Confucius said, “How can one practice etiquette without benevolence? How can one use music without benevolence?” But after the Qin and Han Dynasties, China’s “etiquettes” changed greatly, becoming the “three principles and six disciplines),” which evolved into a relationship of rule and obedience. Now we often describe China after the Qin and Han Dynasties as a feudal society. In fact, it is a centralized imperial autocratic society, which is completely different from the Western feudal society. History always needs to develop, but in its development, things that come later are not necessarily better than the previous ones.   Once, I talked to Xavier Le Pichon, a geologist and academician of the French Academy of Sciences. We discussed such a question: are modern people more painful or ancient people more painful? That discussion was translated by Jin Siyan. We have discussed for a long time, but we couldn’t reach a clear conclusion. Because we don’t live in the past, so we can’t understand the past. I have another idea. I think there are also a lot of changes in the West, for example, the process philosophy in the West. Whitehead has an important saying, “Man and nature are a community of life.” I think this expression is clearer than the “unity of heaven and man.” Why? Because it regards both heaven and man as alive, and believes that they are a co-​existent whole. The concept of “unity of heaven and man” is often misunderstood as “heaven” and “man” cannot be separated. Therefore, I think there are some changes in the West, I don’t know whether these changes are influenced by China or developed independently by the West. It is because Whitehead’s thought spread to China in the 1920s and 1930s. My teacher Professor He Lin was the first to introduce him. I think the Eastern and Western cultures are not only complementary, but also may have common views. We often talk about the issue of common values, to find some values recognized by human society, and the more we find, the more the human society will benefit. That’s my opinion. How to judge this value? We need to search for something acceptable to everyone in different cultures. The World Congress of Religions held in Chicago in 1993 issued Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, which chose “don’t do to others what you don’t want others to do to you” as the bottom line of ethics. In fact, we can find this idea in the Bible and the Buddhist scriptures. It is not unique to China. If we find more such common ideas and common values, today’s mankind will be better. Therefore, we have to admit that there are factors of universal value in all cultures. YUE:  I think Professor Wang Demai emphasizes differences. If there is no difference, there will be no comparison and no communication. WANG:  Yes, I emphasize differences. Of course, I think there is also common ground.

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  323 YUE:  How

should we understand this relationship? How should we understand differences and relationships? What are common and what are not common? WANG: As Professor Tang Yijie just mentioned, there have been some changes in Chinese history. These changes occurred after Buddhism was introduced into China. Similar situations also occurred in Europe, such as the religious reform brought about by the Enlightenment in the 18th century. The Western understanding of society has also changed. For example, according to Hobbes, a British political philosopher in the 17th century, “man is a wolf to man,” the relationship between people being the relationship between people and wolves. It is interests that regulate the relationship between people, not the ethical principles of “fraternity” or “loving others” advocated by Christianity. Hobbes’s thought is completely opposite to Mencius’s thought. In Mencius’s view, “man’s nature at birth is good.” If you see a baby fall into a well, you will instinctively save him, which is a manifestation of human’s kind nature. However, Hobbes believes that human beings are born without the kind nature, thinking they are profit-​seeking animals and pursue personal interests. Therefore, society can only be built on interest relations, not on the values of compassion and kindness. Therefore, Hobbes advocates an enlightened monarchy: a society should have authority, and the executor of this authority should be an enlightened monarch. In Hobbes’ view, everyone has his own interests, and different personal interests can direct to a certain public interest, and there should be a guarantor in this process, which is an enlightened monarch. Therefore, individuals should hand over their natural rights to this authoritative figure, and only absolute authority can guarantee the implementation of the social contract. Hobbes’ political thought was criticized later, and Rousseau was the first to criticize him. In Rousseau’s view, the social contract does not require individuals to hand over their natural rights to the authority, and it requires them to transfer all their rights to the whole collective. Rousseau does not deny the existence of personal interests (“everyone is guided by personal motives”), but common interests can bond all individuals to form a moral community and a public personality, which Rousseau calls “Republic” or “political body,” “state” or “sovereign.” In this way, the social contract established a kind of equality among citizens, and everyone abides by the same conditions and enjoys the same rights. After the French Revolution, European society began a long process of democratic construction.   Western democratic thought does have some opposition with Chinese thought: Chinese thought advocates harmony, and individuals are required to give up their own interests to protect collective interests, because collective interests are more important than individual interests. Only in this way can universal harmony in society be achieved. In the process of Western democracy, individual interests are protected, and everyone should protect their own interests. This is the norm of Western

324  Ideology, Faith and Culture democratic society, which can easily lead to individualism. China and the West also have some common values. There is no doubt about it. The problem is where China and the West put these values in their respective social construction and how they evaluate the values. In Western countries where democracy is dominant, “democracy” is naturally placed at the top of social values, which is not true in China. Since the mid-​19th century, China and the West have contacted and conflicted a lot. During the 1911 Revolution, Sun Yat-​sen recognized the value of democracy, but he believed that China did not have the conditions to implement democracy then, and China needed to prepare for democracy through education and material development. The thought lives on to this day, and those in power still believe that China does not have the conditions to implement democracy, and still needs to promote economy and education.   Now there is a democratic crisis in Western society. Why is there a democratic crisis? Because we are used to taking democracy as the highest value, and now we see “democracy” cannot address some problems encountered by mankind, such as resource allocation and environmental protection. When faced with such problems, every country and every enterprise have their own interests and will spare no effort to protect its own interests. Another example is the financial crisis. How can such a severe financial crisis break out after so many years of implementation of democracy in the West? This shows that democracy cannot control and adjust the crisis factors in the financial field. Now there are some Western scholars, such as Pierre Rosanvallon, who put forward such a question: today’s society is fundamentally different from the society in the 18th century, and the democratic system created back then is no longer suitable for our era. How to respect democratic values and solve the problems faced by today’s society is a topic worthy of study. One of the problems encountered by Western democracy is what we usually call parliamentary democracy, in which people elect representatives to govern the society. The crisis of parliamentary democracy or representative democracy is manifested in the crisis of party politics. Party politics is ostensibly safeguarding public interests, but actually competing for power through democratic manipulation. In this regard, I think China may have different traditions. China’s collectivism, or collective concept, may be meaningful for the West. What I want to emphasize is that the real problem is not whose situation is better and whose crisis is more serious. It is meaningless to determine which is better in the comparison between Eastern and Western societies. The real problem is neither that the Western democratic crisis makes the situation worse in the West than in China, which has no democracy, nor that China’s autocracy makes the situation worse in China than in Europe, which has democratic crisis. The real problem is that each of our societies is imperfect and flawed, and we indulge in our own traditions and can’t see our own problems and shortcomings. We need to learn from

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  325 the experience of others, not to imitate or copy others, but to find and correct our own problems. TANG:  I quite agree with what Professor Wang Demai said just now. Viewing our own cultural tradition from another cultural tradition will certainly help us understand ourselves. For example, democracy is not only an idea, but also a system. Why is democracy so difficult to achieve in China? It is because it cannot be formed into a system, which is related to our traditional culture. In the Bamboo Slips from the Chu Dynasty Tomb of Guodian, there is an article called Nature from Fate, which is called Theory of Feeling and Nature in Shanghai. The most important sentence in it is “Tao begins with emotion.” That is, the relationship between people starts with emotion. Why is it difficult to establish a democratic system in China? It puts emotion in the most important position. What is connected with emotion? Moral cultivation, or self-​cultivation. If you can self-​cultivate well, your morality will be high. So, there is a book in China called The Great Learning, which originally was an article in The Book of Etiquettes. It wrote, “Cultivate the self, regulate the family, govern the state, and then lead the world to peace,” following the sentence “from the emperor to ordinary people, all people take self-​cultivation as the foundation.” Since China regards self-​cultivation and emotion as the most important thing, it is difficult to establish the rule of law in China. It puts a lot of human relations in the system. Therefore, China has been basically a society ruled by man instead of the law since ancient times.   After the 18th century, the Western law-​based society improved constantly. There are certainly a lot of problems now, which are not caused by the rule of law itself, but its implementation. Tomorrow evening I’m going to give a speech at Peking University about “the difficult process of enlightenment in China.” The reason why the Enlightenment ideas since the 18th century, such as freedom, democracy and human rights, are difficult to implement in China is that it is difficult to establish the rule of law in China, because we base everything on self-​cultivation, and we can’t establish the rule of law through our emotions. This is the first problem I want to talk about. The second problem is that the slogan of the enlightenment is “rationality.” Kant said that we should greatly advocate “rationality.” I think rationality is very important, and rationality in the Enlightenment era is also a very good ideal. Marx and Engels wrote in The German Ideology that the bourgeoisie spoke of freedom and equality for all people, which was sincere at that time, not deceiving. I agree with it. However, later, as Professor Wang Demai mentioned, problems occurred, such as the problem of rationality. Weber believed that “rationality” should focus on instrumental rationality on the one hand and value rationality on the other, and the two should develop in balance. However, in the 18th century, especially the 19th century, science became scientism. People believed that science is omnipotent and can solve all problems. The development of instrumental rationality

326  Ideology, Faith and Culture marginalized value rationality. The problem in the West now may be that instrumental rationality is too powerful, it not only regards man as a tool, but also regards nature as a tool. It dominates both man and nature, causing problems. Therefore, I think we may need to emphasize more on the value rationality, the essence of the value rationality being its humanistic value. This value must be implemented in the system to be effective. If it cannot be implemented at the institutional level, it cannot make a difference. For example, the leaders of the Communist Party of China have been talking about democracy since the publication of On New Democracy, but democracy cannot be implemented to this day, which is not only closely related to our tradition, but also our lack of the concept of the rule of law, and to make matters worse, we fail to abide by the law when there is a law. Why is this? It is the problem of emotion, and human emotion is at play here. Therefore, the law cannot be implemented, and the emotion is higher than the law. From this, we can see that Western culture can greatly complement Chinese culture. For example, the concept of rule of law is very significant to China. Therefore, I think today we should continue to learn from the West rather than repel Western culture. This is what I would like to add. WANG:  Professor Tang Yijie has just explained the issue of the rule of law and self-​cultivation well. The reason why China has no rule of law and has not established a democratic system is indeed related to Chinese tradition’s emphasis on human emotions and self-​cultivation. I would like to add that under the Western democratic system, more and more people believe that all problems can be solved by institutions. Satisfying people’s desire is also regarded as a humanistic value. In fact, this is a misunderstanding of humanistic value, resulting in individualism’s constant pursuit of the satisfaction of personal desires. What is the consequence of this phenomenon? The consequence is that people have no self-​discipline, and talking about self-​discipline becomes as embarrassing as using vulgar language. Self-​discipline is replaced by desire, which is also a problem. TANG:  Let me put in a word. In fact, China also addressed desire. Confucius once said that “wealth and prominence are what people want,” but followed by “I do not want wealth and prominence obtained without Tao.” Confucius was not against desires. However, the self-​cultivation we just mentioned emphasizes self-​discipline rather than heteronomy. The balance between self-​discipline and heteronomy is very important and is also delicate, because heteronomy requires us to have laws. WANG: About this, I would like to quote the words of John Stuart Mill, a British liberal thinker in the 19th century: “I prefer the unfortunate Socrates to a happy pig.” John Mill’s words are worth pondering. The rapid development of China’s economy gave rise to a spirit of consumption, which is likely to cause the same problems as in the West. There are more “happy pigs” and fewer “unfortunate Socrates” now. There is also a

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  327 saying in the West, “bad money drives out good.” On the issue of value, there is the same danger. Many people did not take the good values of the West to supplement or correct their own culture, but took some wrong or bad things in the West to use. I think when viewing another culture, people will have a certain tendency that may also be a defect. That is, it is easy to notice strange and bizarre things in other cultures without recognizing the real value of the cultures. Therefore, people feel that their own culture is the most superior. In fact, this view is wrong because they are comparing the excellent things in their own culture with the bizarre things in other cultures.   Now there is a fashion in both the East and the West to talk about hot issues. What are hot issues? There are Political and economic issues. Can talking about them really solve our problem? Of course not. We must return to the essential value of culture to really solve problems. Hot issues are immediate issues, not essential issues. Let me give a personal example. I have been engaged in teaching all my life, and I often talk about Chinese culture, such as Chinese poetry. Someone once retorted, “You talked about Chinese culture and Chinese poetry. Do you know what is happening in Tibet? Do you know that there is imprisonment, torture and persecution? Why don’t you care about these problems in Tibet?” I replied: Yes, there are some evil acts in any country and any culture. I oppose any evil acts, but I want to talk about are essential things of culture. We can’t just talk about some perverse things when we mention the culture of other countries. We should recognize the real valuable things in other cultures in order to make up for the deficiencies in our own culture. In today’s society, not everyone has the right to testify. The original meaning of the word “testifiers” is martyr, that is, only those martyrs who really suffered have the right to testify. Now some testimonies we hear are not personal experiences, but some hearsay to support a person’s certain point of view. I don’t believe these people’s words. A person should stand on his own position and defend the value he believes with his own experience. Some people may do this with a heroic attitude. I think some things cannot be solved by heroism alone. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with heroism. It’s not my topic here. In my opinion, the most important thing is to return to the origin and foundation of culture. What is the origin and foundation of culture? It is the fundamental value of culture that I just mentioned. I know that some Europeans will consider my opinion as outdated, just like the outdated or meaningless values defended by Don Quixote, but I will stick to my opinion. In the field of culture, there is another problem: some people want to manipulate culture, which is alarming in my opinion. Yesterday, I told Ms. Jin Siyan that the French Ministry of Education decided to restore moral education and offer moral courses in primary and secondary schools. I think this decision of the French government is due to electoral considerations and has nothing to do with morality. I have also noticed that in China,

328  Ideology, Faith and Culture some people advocate Confucian values, which also should be carefully analyzed to see if there is any element of cultural manipulation. YUE:  The issue of cultural manipulation is indeed very important. TANG:  I will continue to talk about cultural integration and development. The introduction of culture is often omni-​directional, such as the introduction of Indian Buddhism into China. It takes a long time to know what contents of it fit China’s needs, and what doesn’t, what contents is valuable and what is worthless. It took China a thousand years to absorb Indian Buddhist culture, and to digest Indian Buddhism into China’s own culture. So, we now say that Chinese traditional culture is composed of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. For example, without the long process of digesting Indian Buddhist culture, it would be difficult to establish Neo-​Confucianism in the song and Ming Dynasties. because it has absorbed Indian culture in at least several aspects, for instance, a very important thought of Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi’s Neo-​ Confucianism is “there is a reason between heaven and earth, and this reason can be reflected in all things,” which believes that “reason” is a complete thing despite being divided among people. In fact, not everyone has obtained the complete “reason.” This concept came from India, and originally, from an image: “the moon shines on ten thousand rivers.” The moon shines on rivers, lakes and seas completely, not partially. Philosophically speaking, that’s what Buddhism called “one is many, and many is one.” The relationship between one and many is mutual, not fragmented or opposing, leading to the thought of “there is a reason between heaven and earth, and this reason can be reflected in all things.” Therefore, it takes a long time to really absorb Indian culture, really understand Indian Buddhism and make it fit our needs. In terms of transformation, for example, Indian Zen emphasized “peacefulness” to practice Zen, to achieve “the first, the second, the third and then the fourth states of Zen,” and to calm your mood to the extreme is the highest level. China considered this thought to be very meaningful, so it got accepted. The Neo-​Confucianism school of the Song and Ming Dynasties, especially Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, changed “peacefulness” into “respect.” That is, “self-​restraint requires one to practice respect.” When you cultivate yourself, it is not about “peacefulness,” but “respect,” which changed the original negative things of Buddhism. Because respect is dynamic rather than static, and it’s a changing feeling for objects.   China has only absorbed Western culture for more than 100 years, so how should we truly digest it and make it an important part of our culture? As Mr. Wang Demai said, we should understand the origin of Western culture, which will take a long time. Likewise, it will also take a long time for the West to understand the origin of Chinese culture. Although the West began to understand Chinese culture from the Enlightenment Movement, or even earlier, it knows only the surface, not the essence of Chinese culture. In addition, we should note that no

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  329 matter what kind of other cultures we want to understand, the subjectivity of our own culture is a must. If you lose the subjectivity and origin of your own culture, you will not be able to absorb the excellent things of other cultures, but easily absorb the superficial and unhealthy things just mentioned by Professor Wang Demai. I think when absorbing other national cultures, every nation must have its own subjectivity, that is, consideration based on the origin of its own national culture, which cannot be achieved in a short time. This can be proved by our absorption of Indian Buddhism. Now, we never think that Buddhism is not our own thing, and we regard it as Chinese. However, we have not yet digested the Western culture, nor have we completely turned it into a Chinese thing. The West also doesn’t regard Chinese things as their own, the most fundamental things, and things with original spirit. Therefore, this is a very long process that requires the conscience of intellectuals. Mrs. Le always says that I am often worried. Why am I worried? On the one hand, I’m afraid of losing the subjectivity of our culture; on the other hand, I’m afraid we can’t understand the basic spirit of Western culture. So, I have to worry, because the real society has so many problems. Politics and economy are often utilitarian, but cultural problems should not be utilitarian in origin, and they should beyond utilitarian. WANG:  I agree with Professor Tang Yijie, and I want to give two examples to illustrate this point. In 1957, I worked in Hanoi, Vietnam. I was invited to attend a conference in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. At this meeting, when an Indian expert, Jean Filliozat, was talking about Indian Buddhism, a French sinologist, Paul Demiéville stood up and said that India had no Buddhism, Indian Buddhism had disappeared, and now Buddhism was Chinese. Chinese Buddhism is represented by Zen, which is actually created because of the absorption of Buddhism by Chinese thought and Chinese philosophy. On the way here today, we talked about a French poet, Paul Claudel, who I think is one of the greatest poets in France. He served as a diplomat in China for several years, and absorbed the dramatic arts of China and Japan to created his play, le Soulier de satin, from which we can see how a writer deeply influenced by French tradition absorbs Chinese and Japanese dramatic art to create his own work. This is a successful example of cultural integration. TANG:  Let me tell you a story, too. In 1990, we held a seminar on Confucius in Los Angeles, USA. After the seminar, Hsing Yun from Taiwan invited us to his Xilai temple. As soon as we entered, we saw a large round table with a red envelope in front of each seat. There was a problem. He invited only scholars from the mainland and Taiwan, no foreigners. The problem is whether to take the red envelope not. I’m the leader of the group, so if I didn’t take it, everybody else wouldn’t take it too, and everyone would be unhappy after the visit. Because it was in the early 1990s, people were very poor, so I thought for a while, and said I wanted to say a few words: Chinese culture benefited from Indian Buddhism, but Indian

330  Ideology, Faith and Culture Buddhism was carried forward in China, and I hope Buddhism will take root here. These few words expressed my hope that Xilai temple can promote Buddhism. In this way, we could take the money as some contribution. Moreover, they attached great importance to the three sentences and immediately published them in their journals in bold font. Then why did I say these words? Sometimes there is an issue of development of a culture in other places. Buddhism declined and had little impact in India in the 8th and 9th centuries, and Hinduism developed from Brahmanism rose. By the 14th century, Indian Buddhism basically disappeared. Today, there are only a few million Buddhists in India, while the rest of Indians are basically Hindus. However, Buddhism got great development in China exactly in the 8th and 9th centuries. Zen was developed at that time, which enriched the thought of Buddhism, because it fully absorbed Taoism and Confucianism. YUE:  We may have to end our talk today. The two professors and Mr. Chen Lichuan must be very tired. I think today’s dialogue is very inspiring. Yesterday, I talked with Lichuan about the consciousness of the century. From the conversation of the two professors, I feel that the consciousness of the 21st century should be dialogue and harmony. Professor Wang Demai recently wrote a book on the relationship between ideographic and Pinyin characters and culture, involving the origin of written words and the differences between Chinese and Western ways of thinking. Professor Wang believes that the ideographic Chinese was develoed from divination and the Eight Diagrams, and it is not a tool to record spoken language, while Western Pinyin characters record language through syllable symbols, which is the fundamental difference between Chinese and Western languages and cultures. The preface and postscript of this book will soon be published in Dialogue Transculturel, and the whole book will be published by Peking University Press. On the relationship between ideographic and Pinyin characters and culture, I would like to propose a question for our next discussion. My idea is that ideograms from the Eight Diagrams and divination and phonetic characters recording spoken language are the sources of the two cultures. But I’m afraid there are more than one ways of thinking in China. Besides the Eight Diagrams and Yin-​Yang, there is also the tradition of the five elements and the combination of Yin-​Yang and the five elements. Of course, their combination is possibly very late, and the combined system is different from the system of divination and the Eight Diagrams mentioned by Mr. Wang Demai. TANG:  Yin-​Yang and the five elements were once two systems. The concept of “Yin and Yang” was first put forward in The Book of Changes, and the five elements was discussed in Grand Norm. The two systems were not combined until the Han Dynasty. This combined system had a great impact, giving birth to traditional Chinese medicine. China’s astronomical calendar and China’s politics are also related to Yin-​Yang and the five elements, so it impacted all aspects of Chinese society.

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  331 YUE: My

question is, what is the relationship between Yin-​Yang, the five elements and the original Eight Diagrams? Is it parallel or interactive? I hope we can discuss this problem next time. December 19, 2011

YUE:  Let’s

continue to talk about the relationship between language, culture and way of thinking. WANG:  Chinese characters, like Sumerian and Egyptian characters, are ideographic characters, and Western characters are phonographic. Chinese characters are very different from Sumerian and Egyptian characters, which is my personal opinion. Many linguists don’t agree with this opinion. I believe that Chinese Writing itself is a language, created by diviners with a pronunciation system. But if you use the pronunciation of oracle bone script to read it, no one can understand it, whether in ancient times or in modern times. Because this language is much more special. I think it’s similar to mathematics. Oracle inscription is not an ordinary language, but a scientific language related to divination and a record of divination of the ancients. My opinion is based on the philosophy of language, not archaeology or archaeological discoveries. After the invention of the oracle bone script, ancient Chinese thinkers gained a special thing: divination logic. In fact, bone divination has a long history, and other nationalities also have a history of divination. The people of these nationalities were originally hunters. When they got prey, they would offer sacrifices to their ancestors, gods, river gods and mountain gods, and after the flame of sacrifice died out, they searched for information based on the cracks on the burned bones. Divination in China is unique. It went through three stages of scientization. In the first stage, tortoise shells were used, instead of ordinary bones. The tortoise is not an ordinary animal, but a special one. Diviners used a very interesting method: drilling and chiseling to dig special “pits” on the back of the tortoise shell. Because of physical reasons, there would be only a few types of cracks shaped like the Chinese character “卜” on the oracle bone, probably no more than six. Therefore, a complex method was not necessary, and people drew lots to practice divination by changing the numbers of those marks. The tortoise shells were used in the first stage, the complex tortoise shell cracking method was employed in the second stage, and the numbers were used in. the third stage, which later became hexagrams. Numeral diagrams were discovered by Zhang Zhenglang, who understood that the numeral diagrams were the prototype of the divination in The Book of Changes, which he believed to be unrelated to divination. I can’t agree with the latter opinion. I think divination came from tortoiseshell divination. Although there is no sufficient evidence to back up my opinion, but I have my own reason. Otherwise, we cannot explain such numeral hexagrams. The emergence of numeral hexagrams required

332  Ideology, Faith and Culture thought and rationality, thus presenting the scientific feature. Without thought, there would be no progress in the material world. From oracle bone script to The Book of Changes, with thoughts and genius, the lower structure was connected to the upper structure. From numeral diagrams to the Eight Diagrams in The Book of Changes, it is a major process from the lower structure to the upper structure. China’s Qin Dynasty was in the past, but the influence of the Han Dynasty continues. Therefore, I think it’s very important for China to maintain its identity.   So far, we have found about 30 antiquities engraved with such numeral diagrams. Most of them are not oracle bones, but ordinary artifacts like weapons and ceramics. Why is that? This is because numeral diagrams originated from oracle bones and had symbolic significance. In today’s words, they are numbers coveted by people. In Hong Kong, if the number of a car’s plate is 999, then this plate will be very expensive, because people like it. In ancient times, numeral diagrams appeared around the end of the Yin Dynasty. I also have an explanation for it. Analytical Dictionary of Characters asserts that the Chinese character “卜” is a pictograph, but now some paleographer say that it may represent men’s genitals, which I disagree with. I think the Chinese character “卦” is a semasiography, which is composed of “卜” and the numeral diagram of 7171 (ancient Chinese for 7 is “+​,” so “圭” is composed of 7-​1-​7-​1). The character was not found before the Han Dynasty, so my interpretation is groundless, but by this logic, diagrams came from divination, so we can understand the very profound philosophy of The Book of Changes, and why Chinese divination has permeated China’s medicine and history.   The West’s cultural evolution is completely different. It depends on theology rather than divination, so it is fascinating to compare the two cultures. Today the Western cultures are dominant, because of rapid development of science in the West, but we cannot predict the future, because I think the idea of Chinese culture is also reasonable. So, in my books for Westerners, I put forward a question: Can there be a new way of cultural development led by Chinese culture, including areas of literature, writing and medicine. I admire Joseph Needham very much. He was a physicist and was also proficient in medicine. He said that there are still many things in Chinese medicine that cannot be explained. I think medicine is the most important science in China. In our culture, the most important science is mathematics. Our ideal is to explain everything with mathematics, which is not the case in China. After divination, the thought of Yin-​Yang and five elements was formed, which is very significant in the history of Chinese thought.   Classical Chinese in China is a special language because it is by no means a written form of spoken language. It was during the Yin Dynasty that words began to exist, and oracle bone divination inscriptions appeared which were used to study good or bad luck. Some people think that such “cracks” are interesting, as if they were morphemes, but this

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  333 language is entirely a “pattern,” not a “spoken language.” Dong Zuobin has a very reasonable opinion about why it is pronounced “Bu” (divination, “卜”in Chinese character), because the sound of “Bu” is made by knocking on a bone or tortoise shell which is the result of onomatopoeia.   In divination, the universe is the tortoise, and the tortoise is the universe. To foresee the physical world, one must know the metaphysical way of heaven. Thus, the concepts of time and present emerged. Words began to become very important, and language developed hereafter.   At that time, “pictographs” were used, but they were no longer Banpo or Dawenkou drawings. They did not represent things, but the concept of things. Around the end of the Yin Dynasty, there were relatively long passages, including not only divinations, but also bronze inscriptions. Most experts believe that words existed in China before the oracle bone inscriptions. However, only the oracle bones have traces of words because they are the only ones that can preserve them. They assume that the ancient writing on wood no longer exists. But this is their assumption, which has no basis. If writing existed before the oracle bone script, why did the inscriptions on bronzes appear only after the oracle bone script? The appearance of bronzes was earlier than that of the oracle bone inscriptions. If there were words before, why did the bronzes at that time have no inscriptions? Initially, the inscriptions were very simple, only the names of ancestors, the heavenly stems and earthly branches, one or two words. Gradually, the relatively longer inscriptions were developed. If there were words before, why did the inscriptions start with such simple words? I think that there were no words before the divination, and only after the divination did inscriptions or other words develop. Since then, diviners began to use these words to engrave inscriptions, and gradually the Classical Chinese began to develop. The Zhou Dynasty began to record the words and deeds of the emperor, and The Spring and Autumn Annals was also developed from oracle bone inscriptions. About 500 years later, in the era of Confucius, Classical Chinese was mature, but it was still not a spoken language. I don’t agree that ideographic words are oral words, which was the case in ancient Egypt and Sumer, but not in China. YUE:  What was the spoken language in China at that time? WANG:  In my opinion, there was no written form of Chinese spoken language at that time until the Tang Dynasty. In the Tang Dynasty, there was Bianwen, which was influenced by Indian phonetic words. The Chinese began to develop a spoken language from Classical Chinese. There was no such thing before, and it was not needed. This is a very important feature of Chinese words. I said that in the oracle bone inscription era, divination was a scientific language, similar to mathematical language. In the usual scientific languages, mathematics, physics, etc. also have these symbols. These symbols come from the spoken language, and the first stage of Western languages was born out of the spoken language by first symbolizing some words and then organizing the symbolized words

334  Ideology, Faith and Culture into the spoken language, which is not the case in China. The symbols Chinese used did not come from the spoken language, but from divination. These symbols were first “Bu” cracks created by divination on the oracle bones which were regarded as “words.” They created associative compounds with “卜,” such as “贞” and 占.” The former “贞” is a combination of “卜” and a “鼎.” The origin of the word “贞” is very interesting. As explained in Shuowen, “ ‘贞’ means divining and asking for diagrams. ‘卜’’s compound ‘贝’ means a gift to God. The character ‘鼎’ is used as a phonetic component, but it is not written in full.” I see that the word “贝” is a simplified ‘鼎’, but it is not just a phonetic component, and it is also an associative compound. “鼎” is a “container.” The original meaning of “贞” is to put the divination words (the “content” of “卜”) into the tripod, i.e., the “fate words.” The associative meaning of divination depends on writing rather than spoken language. The latter word “占” is a combination of the words “卜” and “口” (mouth), which refers to the words of divination. These two associative compounds are very good examples. When symbols and morphemes were connected and formed words (i.e., characters), Classical Chinese emerged.   I have no grounds other than semiotics and philosophy of language. Of course, I am a foreigner, and my teacher Rao Zongyi believes that foreigners have strange ideas and can see from other cultural perspectives what the learned Chinese do not see, because what they see is usually the traditional view of Chinese culture. Unlike Chinese experts who are interested in the meaning and historical context of oracle bone inscriptions, I am concerned with the form of oracle bone inscriptions and divinations itself, which I call the “equation of divination.”   Classical and spoken languages have a great influence on each other. But Classical Chinese developed from divination. Thinkers are unknowingly influenced by these words, just as we are unknowingly influenced by theology. At the end of the 19th century, “God is dead” was a famous saying by Nietzsche, but to this day the concept of God is still close to us, and there are still people who believe that the world was made by a Creator. This is also true in science, such as the Big Bang theory of cosmic physics, because according to our imagination, the universe should have a beginning and an end. I think the theory is very strange. I hope that Chinese physics will come up with new ideas in the future to correct it. That’s why I think associative compounds are so important. TANG:  I think that Prof. Wang’s research may be very important since he has discovered that there was a scientific language in China a long time ago which failed to develop. It would be better if there had been words two or three hundred years before the oracle bone inscriptions, but now we are not sure. However, I have another idea. According to the Chinese tradition, there should be language before the birth of words, not the other way around. There is a Chinese saying about the Book of Changes. It is said that the book was completed by three sages. Fuxi drew the Eight

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  335 Diagrams, Emperor Wen performed the Eight Diagrams, and Confucius wrote Xici to explain the Eight Diagrams. Why do we say that Fuxi drew the Eight Diagrams? According to “knotted rope to remember things” in the Book of Changes, Fuxi used ropes to record things. At the beginning, people only knew about right and wrong. If it was right, they used the symbol “—​” to record; if it was wrong, they would add a dot in the middle of the rope, thus the symbol would be”-​·-​,” a broken one. Later, they didn’t use the dot but split the line into two sections, or two symbols which were later called Yin and Yang. Yin means doing wrong while Yang means doing right. But there are not only two cases of right and wrong in a person’s memory, but also can be the situations of both right and wrong, neither right nor wrong, so there are at least four situations, including completely wrong and completely right. They are called four patterns. Things are getting more and more complex, and it is necessary to use more symbols to record. With these things, people need to give them a name. For example, this thing is called Yang, while that thing is called Yin. We don’t know how the ancients called them, so we can only assume. Fuxi only drew Eight Diagrams, and there were only eight situations. Later, there were more and more various situations. By the time of Emperor Wen of the Zhou Dynasty, 64 Diagrams were made. That is to say. There were so many different situations in society and Emperor Wen used 64 diagrams to express them. Of course, this is just my statement, and it is not certain whether it is so. Emperor Wen thought that the 64 Diagrams had expressed all the rights and wrongs in the world. Then in the Book of Changes, Confucius gave the 64 Diagrams an explanation and a general statement. There is a sentence in the Xici of the Book of Changes: “It summarizes the governance of the world without mistakes, and it covers everything in many ways without any omissions.” It is not certain whether the Book of Changes was written by Confucius or not, but there must be someone who had written Xici. What does the sentence mean? It means that the 64 Diagrams performed by the Emperor Wen have already contained all the world’s issues, so “it summarizes the governance of the world without mistakes..” The 64 Diagrams covers all the things of heaven and earth with no exception. For “it covers everything in many ways without any omissions,” there are various explanations for “曲”in it. It mainly refers to movement, which means that the changes of all things are included in the movement. Therefore, my idea is that the Book of Changes is a system, and the three sages are not necessarily three people, but three eras, or three stages. Fuxi is an era, Emperor Wen is an era, and Confucius is another era, so that China has a system of the Book of Changes. From a philosopher’s point of view, the saying that “it summarizes the governance of the world without mistakes, and it covers everything in many ways without any omissions” means in the time of Emperor Wen, a pattern has been made, that is, the pattern of the entire universe. No matter what exists, or what has existed, or what may exist

336  Ideology, Faith and Culture in the future, you can find its explanation in this pattern. Because the Eight Diagrams in the time of Emperor Wen already had its hexagram lines, which is already an explanation. All things in the universe can be explained in the 64 Diagrams. This explanation may be something that has already happened, and even some things that have not happened since it was later mentioned in the Xici, “It summarizes the governance of the world without mistakes, and it covers everything in many ways without any omissions.” It is because it has already created a pattern, and everything can be put in it. Whatever exists or does not exist now can find some explanation in it, and even what existed in the past but no longer exists now can also find an explanation in it. It is a system of explanation, and this is the reason why Chinese philosophy attaches importance to the Book of Changes. YUE:  What does this system have to do with language? What does it have to do with the spoken language or the Classical Chinese? TANG: There is no relationship. I did not talk about this issue from this aspect. WANG:  I agree with Mr. Tang. TANG:  At first, things could be named anything, “Yin” or “Yang,” or “Ri” (sun), “Yue” (moon), “Tian” (heaven), and “Di” (earth) because we do not know how things were named. Then things were named by later people but we don’t know how things were named in the beginning. Afterwards, people named things “Yin” and “Yang,” and then Shaoyin，Shaoyang, Taiyin, Taiyang . People also gave the Eight Diagrams and Qiankun Kanli a name, for example, water, fire or strong, vigorous. YUE:  Then this has something to do with language. TANG:  Yes, it has something to do with language when naming things “天” (heaven), “地” (earth), “风” (wind), “山” (mountain), “火” (fire), “雷” (thunder), “泽” (water), or “刚健” (strong) and “柔顺” (supple). YUE:  Is it spoken or Classical Chinese? Or are there two kinds? TANG:  I haven’t studied this. I just said that it might be the situation at that time. Of course, I don’t know how things were named. But they must be named. Otherwise it would be impossible to understand and communicate. But at first there must be two names for right and wrong, but we don’t know what they are. Then it became more complicated. There were four names, then eight names, and then 64. 64 Diagrams have names. As for what the name is and when it was named, it should be said that the Eight Diagrams was named by Fuxi and 64 Diagrams were named in the era of Emperor Wen. By the time of Xici, it became a philosophical doctrine, so what is the significance of the 64 Diagrams symbols? It is that it contains all things in heaven and earth, and there will be no more outside. I think this system has a great influence on China. Why? The Book of Changes actually contains the two most important philosophical systems in China. One philosophical system considers the 64 Diagrams to be a pattern which contains the various states of everything in the world so

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  337 that they can be explained and find their basis. Therefore, “it summarizes the governance of the world without mistakes, and it covers everything in many ways without any omissions.” From the perspective of space, “it summarizes the governance of the world without mistakes,” and everything is included in it; from the perspective of time, “it covers everything in many ways without any omissions,” and “movement” is fluid. Fluidity forms everything without leaving anything behind. In terms of time, it is also included in it. That is to say. Time and space are both included here, and can be explained here, so I think the Book of Changes is the source of Chinese philosophy since it gives a pattern. What is this pattern? Is the development of the universe really like this? We don’t know. This is the pattern given by human beings. This is a kind of philosophy, and this philosophy is like Western ontology, which is a system. I think that this system is different from the system of the ruins of Yin, which, as Professor Wang said, is an ideographic system, a system for recording. How did it come about? The emperor wanted to tell good or bad luck. We don’t know how it came about in the beginning, but when it comes to oracle bone inscriptions; there is at least one case. As Professor Wang said, people had to bake the turtle shell, or sheep’s shoulder blade with fire to form all kinds of cracks on them. What are these cracks? The general public could not explain. Only the wizard was able to explain, and his explanation was recorded in words. YUE:  What words did he use to record? TANG:  He recorded in pictographs, for example, the sun and the moon. YUE:  Is this the same as the Sumerian words? WANG: The Sumerian words were also like this at the beginning, but they turned different after two or three hundred years. TANG:  For example, the oracle bone inscription of human sacrifice is like a person kneeling there, and the “史”(Shi) of “历史” (history) is a person holding a pen to write something. So the oracle bone inscription of “史” was formed. YUE:  Was there already a language at that time? TANG:  I generally think that there is language first and then words, instead of words coming before language. The same goes for the Eight Diagrams. Something must go wrong first and then people give it a symbol. WANG:  I fully agree with the view that language came first and then words. However, I think that between the original Chinese language and the oracle bone inscriptions, there is another process that is unique to ancient Chinese culture, that is, the formation of the original scientific divination. The oracle bone inscription is the product of this process, so the divination was originally an equation. My question is: How did words become a tool for literature after the oracle bone inscriptions? In some cultures, written words are used to record the spoken language. My opinion is that China has Classical Chinese which is not used to record spoken language. I fully agree that there are many pictographs in the Classical Chinese, and

338  Ideology, Faith and Culture that the pictures of the prehistoric Chinese culture of Banpo are similar to pictographs. But when did pictographic structures with linguistic nature come into existence? First there was the “卜” form of crack, and then there was the “卜” word as a language. Why is the oracle bone inscription a language? Because divination combines various other symbols into a word system. If there is no word system, there may be symbols, without language. Language should have links, and I think the most important words in the divination are those that represent links, which are “卜,” “贞,” and “占.” TANG:  My understanding is that Mr. Wang thinks that the ancient language and Classical Chinese were developed later, because the earlier language is still spoken, and the later ancient language, on the contrary, is a language of science, which can develop Chinese science. But then the language became colloquial again, so our science did not develop well. I think this opinion should be studied and taken seriously. In fact, Zhang Zhenglang and others’ interpretation of The Book of Changes includes numeral diagrams and symbolic diagrams. Mr. Wang has perfected Mr. Zhang’s numeral diagrams. I think it can be studied well. My idea is that China does have two sets of things, one set developed from the Book of Changes, and the other set developed from divination. WANG:  There are no more than six such things, namely cracks. I think these cracks are similar to the Eight Diagrams. They later developed a lot and the Eight Diagrams became overlapping diagrams. This is a very important logical idea in China, even today which is not easy to understand. YUE:  We can take this question one step further. For example, the two cultures are so different from the beginning. Then how to make the two cultures complement each other now? WANG: Nowadays, cultures are influenced by each other, and I think we should take advantage of other cultures and preserve our own culture, but what will happen in the future? I hope that Chinese culture can preserve its own characteristics well, as many ancient cultures are now gone. The French poet Valéry said that culture could die out. TANG:  Many cultures have died out in history. YUE:  Sumerian culture and Mayan culture have disappeared. TANG:  I wonder if there is a situation that cultures with a long history and cultural traditions are more difficult to disappear. For example, Chinese culture that boasts 5000 years of history is very difficult to disappear and Indian culture also with a long history is very difficult to disappear. The Western culture and Islamic culture produced by the combination of Greek and Hebrew culture have a long history, and they are difficult to disappear. Any culture with a long history should protect its own cultural identity well. The better the identity is protected, the better it performs, and the more capable it is of absorbing foreign cultures; if the identity of its own culture is not well protected or does not perform well, the less likely it is to absorb foreign cultures. The problem of Chinese culture today is

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  339 that we have not protected our own culture well for a long time, and we have often absorbed only the superficial part of Western culture, instead of its spirit, because we have slowly lost our own culture. You must have your own cultural identity to be able to absorb the good sides of other cultures, instead of absorbing the messy things of them. Therefore, Mr. Wang said that we should protect our own culture, not in order to exclude other cultures, but in order to have the ability to absorb other cultures, which should be the right relationship. I am very encouraged and inspired by the conversation with Professor Wang, because he was looking for a very interesting thing. Chinese science should have developed very well, but then why did it not develop as well as Western science? YUE:  Does this have anything to do with ideographic and phonetic words? WANG:  This is hard to say. The foundation of science is mathematics. Maybe China’s mathematics is not as developed as Greek’s. Or maybe our mathematics is very advanced, but we can’t understand specific things. We rely too much on abstract methods. However, not all sciences can be mathematicized, such as medicine, neurology, and human science. There is no way to mathematicise them. TANG:  My idea is that Chinese mathematics, from the earlier Zhoubi Suanjing and The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art, which were great works in the Han Dynasty, is very clever in solving problems. Zhoubi Suanjing is a good solution to the problem, but it only explains the problem, and does not theorize the explanation into a system. Western geometry, such as the geometry developed from Euclid, has very clear arguments. However, the arguments in the Chinese works Zhoubi Suanjing and The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art are not very clear. They have completed calculation and the answer is correct. But their argumentation process is not clear, or they think it doesn’t need to be too clear. While Western argumentation is very clear step by step. We can solve problems very well, and the final answer is very correct, but the step-​by-​step logic is still not clear. This is the scientific difference between China and the West. So far, China has learned Western technology very quickly. If we want satellites to go to the sky, we make it to the sky, and we have learned to build spacecraft very quickly. However, China has not yet developed a theoretical system that shocks the world’s scientific community, like Einstein, Hawking and others. WANG:  Another characteristic of Einstein is that he represents Isaiah’s very unique history. This nation has been severely oppressed, but the oppression has made them the smartest people. The smartest mathematicians in the world are Jews. TANG: Culture often develops better when there is social turmoil, such as the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period in China, which was times of chaos, but there were so many schools of thought and everyone was trying to figure out how to solve the problem. The decline of the end of the Han Dynasty enabled the Wei-​Jin Metaphysics to develop

340  Ideology, Faith and Culture in the Wei, Jin and Southern and Northern Dynasties, and Buddhism could also be introduced and got highly developed. This is often the case.I think the current world is also a chaotic society, and perhaps there will be great thinkers in the future to sort out these problems. YUE:  Finally, I would like to ask Prof. Wang one more question. Do you think that there is necessarily a connection between phonetic words and theology, so there will definitely be non-​theological things that are different from the West? WANG:  I think there is a necessary connection. Phonetic words make thinking more independent. It is not closely related to form. When you read English and French, you see completely abstract things. You don’t think about the state of the original words. You only have concepts and will ignore other things such as specific things. But ideographs actually have a lot to do with form. When you read a word, you will feel it’s like something, and be affected unknowingly. But I don’t have much research in this area, so I should consult a neurologist. TANG:  I don’t know if Prof. Wang has ever encountered this situation, such as existence in English, which is a symbolic thing that will follow a strict process to work, and words with a process are easy to develop science. Chinese pictographs, such as “sun, moon, star, heaven, earth, and man,” give an overall image as soon as they appear, so it is not easy to develop a symbolic process, but to develop art. Chinese calligraphers write very beautiful things because it is easy to develop art and not easy to develop science. Our painting is different from Western painting. Western painting requires the same thing as the real thing, and painting a beauty is to imitate and resemble it, while we often paint imagery, so we can easily develop art, calligraphy, painting, and poetry, etc. WANG:  As I see it, Chinese ideas and words are not separate. In Classical Chinese, words are characters, and characters are concepts, so it is not easy to create a new conceptual word. While it is easy to create a new concept in phonetic words, we can just combine all kinds of phonetic words. But there is a danger, because there are many philosophers who talk about empty and abstract concepts that people cannot understand. For example, when some linguists see the phonetic side of Chinese words, they think that it is the same as that of Egyptian words. They created the concept of “connection with sound,” which represents the first stage of ideographic words becoming phonetic words. I think the two languages are completely different. Chinese words began to have pictophonetic characters in oracle bone inscriptions. After three thousand years, such germination has not yet opened! I think Chinese phonetic words are a very interesting and very particular method, because associative compounds are not easy to make, but pictophonetic words can be made a lot. It is also a kind of shape, which is relatively easy to make, and completely different from that of Egypt. Phonograms are too easy to create empty

On the Complementarity of Chinese and Western Cultures  341 concepts, but the problem with ideograms is that it is not easy to create new concepts. TANG: Many of our concepts came from India, such as Prajna, Nirvana, Bhikkhuni, etc. They are transliterated, but they are all concepts from India. We also have some concepts, for example, the words “Yi” (易) in “Zhou Yi” (《周易》,Book of Changes) and “Dao” (道) in “Daolu” (道 路, road) are very important concepts, which cannot be translated into English and can only be translated phonetically, because you can’t translate them into any word. For example, “心” cannot be translated as heart, nor can it be translated as mind, because our “心” is both heart and mind, which is very complicated. It can only be transliterated, but not translated. In fact, we also transliterate many things in the West, and in India. It is difficult to “be faithful and elegant.” Thank you, Mr. Wang. YUE:  That’s about all we can talk about today. Both professors have given very inspiring and enlightening opinions.

Note 1 This article was originally published in Intercultural Dialogue, No. 30, Beijing, Sanlian Bookstore, 2013.

Appendix Reflection on Cultural Fever: An Interview with Professor Tang Yijie1

Interviewer: Lai Yee Wah Collated by Qu Dacheng Editor’s Note: In late 1992, The Dharmasthiti College of Cultural Studies hosted an international conference on “Eastern Culture and Modern Business Management,” attended by scholars interested in Eastern culture. Our Director, Ms. Lai Yee Wah, interviewed Mr. Tang Yijie, Director of the Chinese Culture Institute and Professor of Philosophy at Peking University, to provide readers with a multi-​faceted understanding of the issues facing Chinese culture.

A Family of Scholars INTERVIEWER: Professor Tang’s father, Mr. Tang Yongtong, is a world-​renowned

historian of Chinese Buddhism, who was born in a literary family. My grandfather was a scholar in 1890, the 16th year of the reign of Guangxu emperor. He was a private school teacher, who researched the Han Dynasty’s studies on the Book of Changes. My father, Mr. Tang Yongtong, went to Harvard University to obtain his master’s degree and worked as a lecturer at Peking University, where he taught Buddhism, Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, the British empiricism of Western philosophy and the European rationalism. My father, with whom I spent thirty years, died in 1964. My father did not teach me anything particular, so to speak, but he was a role model for me. In his memoirs, Qian Mu (1895–​1990) wrote that my father often discussed issues with Xiong Shili (1885–​1968) and Meng Wentong (1894–​1968). Due to the differed views, the two scholars often argued with each other. However, my father never took part in their arguments. Therefore, Qian Mu said that my father was a selfless “peacemaker.” According to Professor Ji Xianlin, my father was only concerned with two things in his role as the Dean of the Department of Chinese Language and Literature: the appointment of professors and the selection of courses for students. My research career did not flourish before the Cultural Revolution started. After that, I began to do what my

TANG YIJIE:

Appendix  343 father had not yet finished. My father had written a manuscript on the Wei-​Jin metaphysics, so I went deeper into it and wrote my first book on it, entitled Guo Xiang and Wei-​Jin Metaphysics, published in 1983. My father was well known for his book entitled History of Buddhism in the Han, Wei, Jin and Northern and Southern Dynasties that was published when he was still alive. He left two lecture manuscripts on Buddhism in the Sui and Tang dynasties, which were collated with my assistance. I proofread each piece of information and added all the headnotes to the original manuscripts as many as possible, which led to the publication of the book entitled Manuscript on History of Buddhism in the Sui and Tang Dynasties. I also helped him collate the Notes on Biographies of Eminent Monks, which should be published in the following year (1993). My father later wanted to study Taoism, but he caught a cerebral haemorrhage after the founding of the People’s Republic of China and was unable to continue his research. Therefore, I fulfilled his wish to study Taoism, and in 1988, I completed the book entitled Taoism in the Wei-​Jin-​ Northern and Southern Dynasties, which was published simultaneously on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. “Cultural Fever” and Chinese Culture Institute INTERVIEWER: Apart from metaphysics and Taoism, you also contributed a lot

to Chinese culture and founded the Chinese Culture Institute in China. TANG YIJIE: In the 1980s, there was a “cultural fever” in China, when everyone

swarmed to study Chinese and Western culture in a rough way. This made me think about the situation, which started in the second half of 1984. At a meeting in Shanghai, we found that there were more than 200 books on Chinese culture between 1919 and 1949, but only one of them by Cai Shangshi between 1949 and 1979. His book was critical of and belittled Chinese culture, which was very frustrating. At that time China advocated the four modernizations in industry, agriculture, science and technology, as well as national defense. Nevertheless, the modernization of social mindset was missing, and therefore the four modernizations were incomplete concepts. Since then, I have been deep in contemplation over the issue in Chinese culture. Then, it occurred to me to set up a school to promote the fifth modernization. The mission of the academy was “to promote Chinese culture, to facilitate academic exchanges at home and abroad, and to modernize Chinese culture.” My research focus shifted to Chinese culture after 1985. In 1985, a workshop on Chinese culture and another one on the comparison of Chinese and Western cultures were held for one month, which were attended by scholars such as Du Weiming, Cheng Zhongying and Huo Taohui. Based on these efforts, I wrote four books of essays scheduled for publication. One was published entitled On Chinese Traditional Culture and On Comparative Chinese and Western Culture and another one entitled Culture and Science, which was not of

344 Appendix high quality and had to be revised before publication; and the fourth one entitled Culture and the Future was published. Later, the Chinese Culture Institute published several books, including the Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism in Chinese Culture and the Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism and Their Inner Transcendence, both of which address the characteristics of Chinese culture. These works are all simply essays, which do not constitute a complete system of thought. INTERVIEWER: How has the institute been doing since then? TANG YIJIE: In 1986, we held training courses on culture and future and culture and science courses, with about 400 to 500 participants. In 1987, we held a two-​year course on the comparative study of Chinese and Western cultures. In addition, we provided courses on environmental protection. As far as I’m concerned, environmental issue will be a major one for China to solve in the future. China is faced with very complex problems. We did not pay attention to the population problem in the 1950s, when China’s population expanded dramatically and became a huge obstacle to its modernization. Over 6000 signed up for it after the “political turmoil” of the spring and summer of 1989, nothing could be done. We are now planning to publish a series of books on the integration of Chinese culture, including eight categories, such as thought, folklore, literature and art, etc. One hundred volumes were expected to be published by 1993, 30 of which have already been published. In 1993, we held an international conference themed “The Interaction of Economy and Culture” in Quanzhou, Fujian province. To Promote Economic Development and Universal Education How do you feel about the previous and present Chinese culture? TANG YIJIE: The previous Chinese culture, as I think we can see from many books, has been a glorious achievement. Its present situation, on the other hand, is worth discussion. Chinese culture in the mainland and overseas is very different in many ways. After the “political turmoil” in 1989, mainland China was very cautious about foreign culture and opposed capitalist liberalization, so it had to raise the banner of culture to appeal to the people, and to promote patriotism and national pride. There are now many haphazard societies in China with little understanding of Chinese culture that is merely used as disguise. I have no objection to 100 million yuan to be allocated for the restoration of the Yellow Emperor’s tomb, but the intention is not to preserve these cultural relics, even having nothing to do with Chinese culture. INTERVIEWER: However, Chinese people nowadays are a bit morally alienated from those in traditional Chinese culture. TANG YIJIE: China is now concentrating on opening up its economy, which is of course good. Whereas from another point of view, people are taught INTERVIEWER:

Appendix  345 to glorify the ability of making money, which has a great impact on education and should not be promoted. The Peking University is more liberal where we can teach as we wish, but professors are not well paid, so they often have to work in other occupations. It is not so easy for them to continue their research. As a saying in Chinese culture goes, “when you are well fed and clothed, you know your honor and shame.” It is very meaningful that Hong Kong is now helping China’s education through the “Project Hope” program. In the future, Chinese culture will have a great role to play in the world. INTERVIEWER: Under what circumstances will Chinese culture be able to play a role in the world in the future? TANG YIJIE: When we understand and study Western culture carefully, only in this way can we know where the real strengths and weaknesses of our Chinese culture lie. We can look at Chinese culture from two different perspectives: one is from the perspective of our own culture, and the other is from an outside perspective, for example, from the Western perspective. Seeing from the later perspective, you will understand the values and problems of Chinese culture. Seeing from the former angle, you will “not know the true look of Mount Lushan for it is right in the mountain you reside,” as a very famous poem put it. Certainly, we are Chinese and our roots are in China. Therefore, we will never follow Western culture even when we view things from the Western perspective. As you may know, it took almost a thousand years for Chinese culture to absorb Indian Buddhism, resulting in the emergence of Chinese styled Buddhism, such as Tiantai, Huayan and Zen; and the introduction of Buddhism to China also stimulated the second phase of development of Confucianism. I think it will take about 400 or 500 years for China to absorb Western culture under normal circumstances, which has been a long time since the arrival of the priest Matteo Ricci in China. Unfortunately, this process has been interrupted several times, and China has never got a peaceful chance to learn from its foreign counterpart. However, now that cultural exchanges are frequent and convenient, it is only a matter of time before we can fully understand the Western way of life. But the most urgent task for China now is to improve universal education, for only when the people is better educated will our cultural foundation be secure. Otherwise, when the wind of cultural shock blows, we may not preserve our own culture. Chinese Culture and External Transcendence Professor Tang, you just said that Chinese culture will play a big role in the future world. Do you mean that Chinese culture is superior to its Western counterpart? TANG YIJIE: It is very difficult to draw a definite conclusion now, nor can we generalize on it. As we have our own inner cultural resources, Chinese culture may be more adaptable to the needs of modern people in the long INTERVIEWER:

346 Appendix run. This is true, for example, to the three main points of truth, goodness and beauty that we seek in life. Chinese culture speaks of truth as in the unity of heaven and man, of goodness as in the unity of knowledge and action, and of beauty as in the unity of situation. Chinese mindset values harmony. I will present three kinds of harmony at the conference held by your college, which are harmony of nature, harmony between humankind and nature and harmony between humankind. Modern people are not able to achieve such harmony, who often fight with each other. Therefore, I think Chinese culture must be of great benefit to the world, but it is not in a well-​established system. INTERVIEWER: What are the inner resources of Chinese culture that you are talking about? TANG YIJIE: The concept of universal harmony I mentioned earlier is very meaningful. Nowadays, people are living in disharmony with each other and having conflicts with each other; people and nature are also in disharmony, as people constantly destroy nature, so that they are in opposition. Chinese culture advocates the harmony between heaven and man, which is very different from the Western idea of the opposition between heaven and man. Which idea is more useful to mankind? Nowadays, many Westerners want to learn from Eastern philosophy to discuss over the harmony of heaven and man. In my new book entitled Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism and Their Inner Transcendence, I talk about how the three most important schools of thought in Chinese culture –​ Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism –​are all characterized by inner transcendence. For example, Buddhism is about recognizing one’s own Buddha nature, Confucianism about one’s inner goodness, and Taoism about the essence of nature. Western Christianity is about humankind to be salvaged by God, an external force, which is very different from Chinese culture. INTERVIEWER: How to make best use of the good? TANG YIJIE: Chinese philosophy attaches too much emphasis on inner goodness to easily lead to pan-​moralism. In the Four Books of ancient China, The Great Learning lectures on the cultivation of one’s own body, the reorganization of one’s family, the governing of one’s country and the pacification of the world. Western Christianity is about the power of external transcendence, and has an external transcendental ideology, which makes it easier to establish a political and legal system that suits objective needs. The inner transcendence in Chinese culture makes it unlikely to establish an objectively effective political and legal system, as much attention is attached to the inner dynamics. I hope to establish a philosophy that can encompass both internal and external transcendence, which would be perfect if it is possible. I have already mentioned this idea at the “Dialogue between Christianity and Confucianism” organized by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, at the “Conference on Confucianism” in Singapore and at the “6th Conference on Eastern

Appendix  347 and Western Philosophers” in Hawaii in 1989, where I repeated the mentioned viewpoints and all of us were very interested. INTERVIEWER: Mr. Mou Zongsan once used the phrase “conscience self-​ negation” to explain how Chinese culture can develop democracy and science. TANG YIJIE: I only studied a little of Mr. Mou’s theory, so I dare not criticize it. But why should we think that everything can be opened up in Chinese culture? And why should Chinese culture develop democracy and science? I think Mr. Mou views from a moralistic position; but a society needs two sets of tools, one being morality and the other system. It is not fair to say that morality results in the system nor system leads to morality. In fact, morality and system are inseparable and interdependent. My idea is simple. It is easy to go into pan-​moralism if we simply regard morality as the cause; and we may easily ignore morality if too much attention is attached to the system. In the West, the legal system works in parallel and intertwined with Christianity. Therefore, although the West has experienced a lot of turmoil, its culture and system have been well preserved. INTERVIEWER: Chinese philosophy emphasizes the subjectivity of humankind, where everything is developed from the human mind, so as the Lotus Sutra puts it, “The mind is lost to the Dharma Flower, and the mind is enlightened to the Dharma Flower.” TANG YIJIE: It is fair to say that there are two systems in China, namely, the ruling system and the Taoist system, both of which are equally important and mutually influential. INTERVIEWER: As Taoism and the ruling system work in parallel, then when they are in conflict, is there a final solution? TANG YIJIE: When there is a contradiction between the two, solution can be sought from the moral or the institutional aspect. It is not necessary to resort to morality. This is the way of society, where the two things in different functions can’t be forcefully combined into one. INTERVIEWER: In such case, how can the concept of “universal harmony” mentioned be put into practice in real life? TANG YIJIE: Your question is definitely what we have to focus on or must address, so to speak. But as a philosophical thinker, sometimes I have to detach myself from reality to focus on pure research. Otherwise, I will not be able to think clearly about anything if my mind is occupied by day-​to-​ day problems. Sometimes I believe that the weakness of Chinese scholars is due to their too much attention to secular life. Promoting Nongovernmental Lectures to Deliver the Spirit of the Chinese Culture Institute INTERVIEWER: What role do you think that Hong Kong, China should play in

promoting Chinese culture and how can it be effective?

348 Appendix TANG YIJIE: Hong Kong, China is a hub of

cultural exchange between the East and the West, with speech freedom and open-​mindedness, so it plays a fitting role in bridging Chinese and Western cultures. According to Mr. Fok, the magazine entitled Dharma Talks run by your college was initially to promote comparative studies between Chinese and Western cultures, which are the main intentions for the courses offered by your college. The Dharma Talks could be more of explaining Chinese philosophical issues from a Western cultural perspective, or addressing Western philosophical issues through the aspect of Chinese culture. The international conferences organized by your college are also excellent for cultural exchange between the East and the West. However, it would be better to invite foreigners to attend such international conferences, as their cultural and learning backgrounds are different from ours, whose views would be very enlightening. I hope your college can do this. INTERVIEWER: I heard that the Chinese Culture Institute is now re-​registered, but it has not yet been able to provide new courses. How will you continue this work? TANG YIJIE: We are now working hard to produce a series of books on Chinese culture, each with about 100,000 words, which can be understood by middle school students, with a view to popularize Chinese culture. Besides, we are planning to found a private vocational college in Suzhou supported by US sponsor. I have also been approached by the Japanese when the conditions were not mature. Now that we can do it, we have to seek for a large amount of investment in college building, facilities, etc. And someone will fund the infrastructure and I will develop the curriculum. We may start from a smaller scale at first, which will gradually develop. INTERVIEWER: I hope that your efforts will help to orient the future of Chinese culture. Thank you very much for your time.

Note 1 Originally published in Dharma Light, January 1, 1993.

Bibliography

Anderson, P et al. (2002) Three New Theories of Globalized International Relations, Reading (10). Bai Hu Tong Yi, Three Classes and Six Chapters. Ban Gu ed. Beijing, Zhonghua Book Company, 1994. Chen, D (1915) French People and Modern Civilization, Youth Magazine, Vol. 1, No.1, September. Chen, D (1987) Answer to Shizhi, Outlook on Science and Life, pp. 41–​42. Quoted in Yuan Weishi, Manuscript on the History of Modern Chinese Philosophy, p. 744, Guangzhou, Zhongshan University Press, 1987. Chen, G (2002) and the Question of De-​Imperialization. Reading (7). Chen Duxiu (1985) The Defense of the Crimes in the Book of Records, in Selected Essays on the Issues of Eastern and Western Cultures Around the May Fourth Movement, Beijing, China Social Sciences Press, p. 101. Chen, X (1990) The Way Out for Chinese Culture, From “Westernization” to “Modernization.,” Beijing, Beijing University Press, pp. 371–​372, 375. Cheng, F (1916) Static Civilization and Dynamic Civilization, Oriental Magazine. Chinese and French Scholars on Confucius Thought in Shanghai, Wenhui Reading Newspaper, 2009-​09-​18. Cobb, C (2008) Ecological Civilization Calls for an Organic Way of Thinking, World Cultural Forum, 2. Cobb, J (2002) For the Common Well-​being: An Interview with John Cobb, Shanghai Journal of Social Sciences, June 13, 2002. Cobb, C (2009) Thinking about Freedom: A New Perspective of Process Thinking, World Cultural Forum, (1). Cobb, J, Griffin, D, et al. (2002) Whitehead’s Harmonious Response to the East, Shanghai Social Science Journal, August 15, 2002. Cui, Z (2003) The Bush Principles, the Western Humanist Tradition, and Neoconservatism. Reading (8). Fan, K (2005) Huntington’s Worries. Reading (5). Fei, X (1999) Chinese Culture and Sociological Anthropology in the New Century: A Dialogue between Fei Xiaotong and Li Yiyuan, in Fei Xiaotong’s Collected Works, Beijing, Qunyan Publishing House, vol. 14, p. 395. Fei, X (2002) Re-​understanding the Relationship between Man and Nature in Cultural Theory, ISA Working Paper of China Center for Social Development, Department of Sociology, Peking University, Institute of Sociology and Anthropology, Peking University, February 2002.

350 Bibliography Guo, Z (1936) A History of Chinese Thought in the Last Fifty Years, Beiping, Humanities Bookstore. Hall, D and Ames, R (2005) Thinking through Confucius, Preface to Chinese version, Beijing, Peking University Press, p. 5. Hart, M and Negri, A (2000) Empire –​The Political Order of Globalization, cover and preface, Nanjing, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House. He, L (1989) Chinese Philosophy in the Past 50 Years, Shenyang, Liaoning People’s publishing house. Hegel, G (1978) Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Beijing, The Commercial Press, pp. 97, 119. Hu, S (1980) Introducing My Own Thoughts, quoted from Selected Materials of Chinese Modern Bourgeois Philosophy, Changchun, Jilin University Press, Vol. 1, pp. 64–​66. Hu, S (1980) Preface to Outlook on Science and Life, in Works of Hu Shi II, vol. 2, reprinted in Selected Materials on Modern Chinese Bourgeois Philosophy, 1st series, and pp. 89, 101–​102. Hu, S (1924) Reply to Mr. Chen Duxiu, in Outlook on Science and Life, Shanghai, Shanghai Yadong Library, p. 32. Hu, S (1990) A Review of the So-​Called “Chinese-​centered Cultural Construction,” in Luo Rongqu (Ed.), From “Westernization” to “Modernization,” Beijing: Peking University Press, pp. 425–​426. Huntington, S (1999) The Clash of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of World Order, Beijing, Xinhua Publishing House, 2nd edition, pp. 49, 348, 368. Huntington, S (2005) Who Are We? Challenges to American National Identity, Beijing, Xinhua Publishing House. Jaspers. K (1989) The Origin and Object of History, Beijing, Huaxia Publishing House, p. 14. Jaspers, K (1989) Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, Beijing, Huaxia Publishing House, p. 14. Ji Xianlin (2000) The Reverse Flow of Buddhism –​Ji Xianlin’s Anthology, Taiyuan, Shanxi People’s Publishing House, 2000, Vol. I, pp. 254–​255, 412–​422. Jiang, K (1981) German Classical Aesthetics, Beijing, Commercial Press, pp. 63–​68. Kennedy, P (2009) Capitalism Will Transform, Reference News. Leibniz, GW (1981/​1982) Leibniz’s Two Letters to Grimaldi, Research on the History of Chinese Philosophy, 1981 (3), 1982 (1, 2). Li, D (1959) The Problem of Labor Education, in Selected Works of Li Dazhao, p. 138, Beijing, People’s Publishing House. Li, D (1959) To the Youth, Youth Magazine, vol. I, p. 1. Li, L (1998) Proofreading Notes of Guodian Chu Slips, in Research on Taoist Culture, Vol. 17, Beijing, Sanlian Bookstore. Liang, Q (1985) Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe, in Selected Essays on the Issues of Eastern and Western Cultures around the May Fourth Movement, Beijing, China Social Sciences Press, p. 346. Liang, S (1987) Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies, photocopy, p. 206, Zhu Qianzhi ed. Laozi's Annotation, Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1984. Li, Z (1984) Criticism of Critical Philosophy, Beijing, People’s Publishing House, pp. 368–​370. Lu, X (1957) Demi-​Concession Studio Essays, the Complete Works of Lu Xun, Vol. VI, Beijing, People's Literature Publishing House, p. 33.

Bibliography 351 Meng, H (1993) Voltaire and Confucius, Beijing, Xinhua Press. Pan, D (2002) Gadamer’s Philosophical Heritage, Hong Kong’s 21st Century (4). Qian, M (1997) Essays on the History of Chinese Academic Thought (III), p. 138–​139, Taipei, Dongda Book Company. Reichwein, A (1991) China and Europe: Intellectual and Aristic Contacts in the Eighteenth Century, Beijing, Commercial Press, p. 69. Rifkin, J (2006) European Dream, Chongqing, Chongqing Publishing House. Russell, B (1988) The History of Western Philosophy, Beijing, Commercial Press, Vol. 2, p. 91, p. 143. Sa Mengwu, He Bingsong, et al. (1990) The Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture, quoted in Luo Rongqu, Ed., From “Westernization” to “Modernization,” Beijing: Peking University Press, pp. 399, 402. Sun, S (1994) Christianity and Confucianism in the Late Ming Dynasty, Beijing, Oriental Publishing House, p. 226. Tang, Y (1983) History of Buddhism in Han, Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Beijing, Zhonghua Book Company, ­chapters 13, 14. Tang, Y (1989) On Matteo Ricci’s Attempt to Merge Eastern and Western Cultures, China Forum, Taiwan, March 25. Tang, Y (1995) Twenty-​first Century, Hong Kong, Harmony in Diversity (10), Shenyang, Liaoning People’s Publishing House, 2001. Tang, Y (1996) The Dispute between Ancient and Modern China and the Development of Modern Chinese Culture, in Tang Yijie’s Academic and Cultural Essays, Beijing, China Youth Publishing House. Tang, Y (1998) The Value Resources of the Principle of “Harmonious but Different,” Dialogue Transcultural, Vol. 1, Shanghai, Shanghai Culture Publishing House. Tang, Y (1999) Discussion on the Establishment of Hermeneutics of the Book of Changes, Journal of Study of the Book of Changes (4). Tang, Y (1999) The Value Resources of the Principle of “Harmony in Diversity,” in Contemporary Scholars’ Selected Essays –​Tang Yijie Volume, pp. 695–​699, Hefei, Anhui Education Press. Vandermeersch, L (2009) The Global Significance of Confucius Canon Project, Guangming Daily. Wang, F (1975). Zhang Zi Zheng Meng Zhu, Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Wang, S (1985) New and Old Issues, Selected Essays on the Issues of Eastern and Western Cultures Around the May Fourth Movement, Beijing, China Social Sciences Press, p. 10. Wang, S (1915) Old and New Problems, Youth Magazine. Wang, Z (2007) The Post-​modernism Calls for the Second Enlightenment, World Cultural Forum. Yan Fu (1986) Collection of Yan Fu, Beijing, Zhonghua Book Company, Vol. 3, pp. 557–​558. Yan Fu (1986) Yuan Qiang –​The Collected Works of Yan Fu, Vol. 1, p. 5. Yu, Q (2002) The Philosopher’s Cultural Achievement, The 21st Century. Yue, D (2002). Cultural Relativism and Comparative Literature, and Cross-​cultural Bridge, Beijing, Peking University Press. Yue, D ed. (2005) Intercultural Dialogue, Fifth Series, Shanghai, Shanghai Culture Press, p. 146.

352 Bibliography Zhang, Y (1998) Zhang D. in the World Philosophy Series, Taipei, Dongda Book Company. Zhao, D (2002) Chinese Interpretation of Western Philosophy, Harbin, Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House. Zhu Qianzhi ed. (1984) Laozi's Annotation, Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Zi Si (1984). Doctrine of the Mean. In Chu His (ed.) Annotations on Four Books, Beijing, Zhonghua Book Company.

Index

Abolishing Zhuangzi’s Thoughts (Tanzhi) 86 absolute identity 267 absolute spirit 262 academic norms 198 Alvin, Hannes 200 Amane, Nishi 131 American neo-​conservatism 20 Ames, Roger T. 41, 54, 55, 200–​201 Analects of Confucius 157, 255, 257, 309–​310, 320 Analects on Taoism (Yuelin) 140 The Analysis of the History of Chinese Society (Xisheng) 97 Ancient China and Greece: Thinking by Comparison (Hinkman) 201 Annotation of the Book of Changes (Yi) 181 Annotations on Laozi (Bi) 127, 131 anti-​Buddhist persecution 8 anti-​traditionalism 91–​92, 106 Aquinas, Thomas 319 Aristotle 206, 267 artistic intuition 267–​268 Asian values 23 Axial Age theory 4, 21–​25, 65, 142–​147, 269–​270, 291–​294; cross-​cultural research 144; cultural issues 291–​294; dissipative structure theory 145; give-​ away-​ism 147–​148, 152, 161; mutual reference 144; mutual subjectivity 144; selectivity 151; take-​ism 147–​148, 152, 161 Bao, Gan 87, 88, 92, 105, 106 benevolence 26–​27, 53–​54, 153–​154, 182, 309–​310, 313, 319–​321 Bingsong, He 98, 109, 135 Bing, Yu 89

Biography of Eminent Monks (Jiao) 148 Biography of Mencius and Xun Qing in Historical Records 79 Bi, Wang 85–​86, 88, 91, 105, 127, 222, 226, 229–​230, 235–​236, 260 Blair, Tony 20 body–​use relationship 252 Bojun, Yang 256 Book of Changes 61, 71 Book of Documents: Canon of Yao 32 Book of the Later Han–​Secret Recipe 212 Bo, Shi 28 Buddha metaphysics 286 Buddha nature 275 Buddhism 8, 21, 88–​89, 236–​239 Bush, George W. Jr. 19 capitalist society 97 A Carefree Excursion (Zhuangzi) 104 Catholicism 133, 134, 243–​250 Cauchy, C. 11 Celine and the Sage: Knowledge and Wisdom in Ancient Greece and China (Hinkman) 201 Changtong, Zhong 84 Chengtian, He 274 China-​centralism 46 Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted (Russell) 5, 7, 13, 76, 143, 287, 291 Chinese Body and Western Use and Western Body and Chinese Use (Keli) 252 Chinese Buddhism 131 Chinese-​centered culture 97, 136 Chinese civilization 3–​5 Chinese classics 44–​45

354 Index Chinese Confucianism 8 Chinese culture 13–​14; challenges of Western culture 60–​61; Chinese/​Western/​ancient/​ modern controversies 117–​124; complementarity of 318–​341; development 59–​62; historical reflection 61–​62; ideology 44; Marxism integration 59–​60; pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty 254–​270; traditional see traditional Chinese culture; Western culture vs. 254–​270 Chinese Culture Academy 75–​76 Chinese Culture Institute 343–​344, 347–​348 Chinese learning 251–​253 Chinese monks 149 Chinese utility 180–​181 Chong, He 90 Chong, Li 256 Chong, Wang 29, 84, 131, 213, 272 Chong You Theory (Wei) 105 Choo, Sun 216 Christian Hominology 66 Christianity 66 The Chronicle of Jin (Bao) 106 The Chronicles of the Later Han Dynasty (Hong) 126 Chunde, Yan 114 Chunyu, Wang 306 Chuo, Sun 89 civilization 3–​5; Chinese 3–​5; definition of 3; human 3–​5, 65 Civilization Without Walls (Tagore) 11 Clash of Civilizations (Huntington) 6–​12, 18–​20, 173, 271, 298 The Clash of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of World Order (Huntington) 18, 20 Clash of Civilizations theory 18–​21, 29–​32 Claudel, Paul 329 Cobb, John 36, 42, 51, 55 “coexistence of civilizations” theory Axial Age theory and 21–​25; Chinese culture 25–​29; doctrine of benevolence 26–​29 Collection of Debates on Materialist Dialectics (Dongsun) 97 Collection of Luofan Building (Yao) 88 commercial capitalist society 97 commonality 121 Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels) 239

comparative philosophy and religion 232–​239; characteristics of thought and culture 234–​238; common laws 233–​234; identifying problems 238–​239; piecemeal comparison 234; proposing research topics 238–​239 Comparative Religion (Jevons) 234 The Comparison of Chinese and Western Civilizations (Russell) 21 comprehensive modernization 196 Confucian Association 134 Confucian Classics 131 Confucian-​Islamic connection 9 Confucianism 3–​4, 21, 23, 25, 41; authoritarian/​violent aspects 9; combined with 244–​245; complementing 245–​247; conservatism 79; exceeeding 247–​248; Five Classics of 44–​45; harmony in 9–​10; identification and evaluation of culture 242–​243; Pre-​Qin period 7, 79, 82, 104; as source of political conflict and war 9–​10 Confucius 255–​259 conscience self-​negation 347 constructive postmodernism 36, 37, 42, 51, 53–​54 Cooper, Robert 20 The Corpus of Seng Zhao (Da) 219 Critique of Pure Reason (Kant) 257 cross-​cultural research 14, 24, 43, 144, 292 cross-​reference 24 cultural coexistence 290–​294 cultural consciousness 25, 170–​176, 294–​295; harmony between inner and outer 175–​176; harmony between self and others 172–​174; man and nature contradictions 170–​172; mind and body contradictions 175–​176; unity of heaven and man 170–​172 cultural differences 28 cultural diversification 122 cultural diversity 13–​16; Chinese culture 13–​14; cross-​cultural research 14; economic globalization 15; Global Consciousness 15; “harmonious but different” principle 16; pluralistic community 15; recognition 16; world cultural development 14–​15 cultural exchange and communication 50–​56; first enlightenment 50–​51, 53; instrumental rationality 50; modern

Index 355 society 51; post-​modern society 51; second enlightenment 50–​51, 53–​54; traditional Chinese culture 52–​56; value rationality 50 cultural exclusion 78, 103, 117, 125 cultural extinction 290–​294 cultural hegemonism 115 cultural identity 78, 103, 117, 125 cultural isolationism 299–​301 cultural issues 286–​295; cultural coexistence 290–​294; cultural consciousness 294–​295; cultural extinction 290–​294; give-​away-​ism 289–​290; new Axial Age 291–​294; in one-​way flow 287–​289; in other places 287–​289; take-​ism 289–​290; two-​way choice 286–​287 cultural originality 301 cultural relativism 299–​300 cultural rescue 305–​307 cultural resultant force 78–​101 Cultural Revolution 118, 190–​191, 196 cultural self-​awareness 310 cultural self-​consciousness 170 cultural tradition 283–​284 cultural transformation 78–​101 cultural transplantation 241 cultural tribalism 115–​116, 152, 299 Cultural Views in the Records of Travels in Europe (Qichao) 93, 94, 107, 135 culture fever 119, 271, 342–​348; academic norms 198; Chinese Culture Institute 343–​344, 347–​348; economic development 344–​345; external transcendence 345–​347; May Fourth Movement 195–​197; modernization 196; nationalism 198; New Culture Movement 197; nongovernmental lectures 347–​348; sinology fever 193, 195–​199; universal education 344–​345 Dacheng, Meng 306 Da, Hui 219 Dainian, Zhang 75 Daiyun, Yue 190, 279, 318–​341 Dakou, Xu 134 Danchin, Antoine 278 Daolin, Zhi 218–​220, 233 Daoqian, Zhu 216, 221 Dasan, Li 133 Dashen, Gong 243, 246 Dazhao, Li 92, 106, 135, 192

Declaration on the Construction of Chinese-​centered Culture 98, 135 deconstructive postmodernism 36 Demiéville, Paul 329 Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate (Dunyi) 131 Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism (Stalin) 136, 205 dialectical thinking 71–​72 Discourses of the States, the Discourse of Zheng 28 A Discussion on “Being-​Existence” in Sanskrit (Kemu) 238 dissipative structure theory 145, 292 divine dictatorship 35 The Divine Truth (Zhizao) 243 doctrine of benevolence 26–​29, 53–​54 doctrine of rites 54–​56 Dongsun, Zhang 97, 99, 109–​110, 120, 122, 139, 141–​142, 147, 162 Dunyi, Zhou 131 Duxiu, Chen 92–​93, 96–​97, 106, 134–​135, 192 Eastern and Western Cultures and Philosophies (Shuming) 94, 107, 135, 139 Eastern civilization 5 East–​West cultural debate 59 economic development 203–​207, 344–​345; academic atmosphere 203–​205; developing powerful theories 205–​206; emphasizing science over literature 206–​207 economic globalization 15 Eco, Umberto 278 Emperor Yao 4 Empire–​The Political Order of Globalization (Negri and Hardt) 20 equation of divination 334 Esoteric Buddhism 287, 321 Espmark, Kjell 11 eternal death 236 eternal life 236 Eurocentrism 65 The European Dream (Rifkin) 36 European Renaissance 23 Europe-​centralism 46 Exotoric Buddhism 321 Expecting China: Thinking through Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture (Hall and Ames) 200

356 Index The Explanation on Thing without Substance (Dun) 221 external transcendence 189, 247, 345–​347 false existence 224 Family (Jin) 320 Family Commandment (Kang) 91 Fanji, Fu 130 Fazhu, Zhu 216 Fei, Han 82, 104 feudal ethics 239 Filliozat, Jean 329 First Enlightenment 36 five cardinal relationship 61, 70–​71 Five Classics of Confucianism 44–​45 Five Miscellaneous Banquets (Zhaoyuan) 243 foreign thought and culture vs. original thought and culture 224–​232 framework theory 140 freedom 252–​253 freedom and democracy 34 freedom of action 184 freedom of speech 184 freedom of thought 184 freedom right 54–​56 free market economy 35 fulfilling propriety 310 full universalization 98 full Westernization 98 Fu, Yan 34, 92, 106, 134, 138, 147, 162, 252 Fuzhi, Huwu 88 Fuzhi, Wang 158 Gadamer, Hans-​Georg 47, 174 Gautama, Siddhartha 22 ghost theory 272–​273 give-​away-​ism 147–​148, 152, 161, 289–​290 global awareness 63–​74; causes of 65–​67; Marxism with traditional Chinese culture 68–​69; traditional Chinese ideology and culture 69–​74; Western culture challenges 67–​68 global consciousness 10, 12, 15, 76, 116, 122, 164, 183 globalization 298 global multiculturalism 18 The Global Significance of Confucianism (Vandermeersch) 41 Gong, Zi 157

Great Wisdom and Original Nature Sutra (Qian) 215 Guangdi, Mei 95, 108 Guang, Luo 241–​242, 249 Guangqi, Xu 130, 134, 242–​243, 246 Guangxiao, Hu 108 Guodian Chu Slips 26 Guowei, Wang 146 Habermas, Jürgen 16, 174 Haiying, Qin 318 Hall, David L. 41, 54, 200–​201 Hao, Cheng 136, 275, 328 Hao, Fang 249 Hardt, Michael 20 “harmonious but different” principle 16, 47 harmonious society 308–​311 harmony 4, 16; identical and 27–​28; social 36; supreme 4, 9; unidentical and 28; universal 9, 14, 192, 347; harmony between inner and outer 175–​176; “harmony between man and nature” theory 52–​53, 201; harmony between self and others 172–​174; harmony in diversity 27, 29; Harmony of East and West (Yizhi) 131; harmony with difference 29; Hartshorne, Charles 66; hegemony 27; heteronomy 326; Hilliggs, John 202; Hinayana Buddhism 126; Hinkman, Stephen 201; History of Chinese Philosophy (Youlan) 100, 139; History of Chinese Political Thought (Xisheng) 97; The History of the Later Han Dynasty (Hong) 272; Hongming Collection 89; Hong, Yuan 126, 272; Huan, Gu 274; Hui, Pei 86; Hui, Yan 264; Huiying, Fan 306; human civilization 3–​5, 65; human cultural development 6–​9; humanism 35, 70–​71, 308–​309; humanistic education 308; humanistic spirit 308–​309; humanity 26; human moral values 72; human rights 54–​56; Hundred Schools 4; Huntington, Samuel 6–​12, 173; Confucianism 9–​10; non-​Western culture 7–​12; Western Centrism outdated theory 10–​12; Western culture 7–​12 idealism 69–​70 Ideographic and Pinyin Characters (Vandermeersch) 318

Index 357 Illustrated Annals of Overseas Countries (Yuan) 179 imperial dictatorship 35 inconstancy 282–​283 Indian Buddhism 7–​8, 21, 59, 88, 138, 211–​239, 272–​275; comparative philosophy 232–​239; comparative religion 232–​239; foreign thought and culture vs. original thought and culture 224–​232; historical stages 126–​130; Prajna popularity 211–​224; religious and philosophical culture 126; two-​way choice of cultures 275–​277 Indian Buddhist culture 13–​14, 21, 23 Indian Buddhist scriptures 13 Indian culture 11 individualism 320 individuality 121–​122, 163–​164, 183 individual liberation 53 industrialization 19 inner transcendence 247–​248 innovation 44, 305–​307 instrumental rationality 35, 50, 325–​326 intangible form culture 305 intellectual intuition 267 internal transcendence 189, 247 Isherwood, Christopher 185 Jaspers, Karl 4, 65, 269 Jevons, F.B. 234 Jiao, Hui 148 Jiazhi, Wang 243 Ji, Li 98, 133 Jin, Ba 320 Jingshen, Zhao 306 Jing, Zhang 150 Jin, Zhang 318 Ji, Ruan 84, 86–​88, 91–​92, 105, 273 Jiuyuan, Lu 100, 110, 136, 276 Jullien, Francois 42 Jung, Carl 200 Junmai, Zhang 92, 96, 106, 109, 135 Junping, Yan 84 Junyi, Tang 140, 147 Jurien, François 24, 200 justice, principle of 16, 29 Kai, Xiang 212 Kai, Yu 216 Kang, Ji 84–​86, 88, 91, 105, 131, 273 Keli, Fang 252 Kemu, Jin 238

knowledge monks 149 Kung, Chou 134 Laozi 259–​263 learning wisdom 200–​201 Legalism 4, 79 Le Goff, Jacques 278 Le Pichon, Xavier 312–​317, 322 Lévyre, Jean-​François 201 Liang, Bao 128 Liang, Zhi 215 Lichuan, Chen 318, 330 Lin, He 100, 110, 147, 322 Lokaksema Buddhism 127 Lun Heng (Chong) 29, 131 Lvyan, Zhu 214 Mahayana Buddhism 126, 213, 321 Mahayana Zen Buddhism 214, 321 man and nature contradictions 170–​172 Márquez, Gabriel José de la Concordia García 10 Marxism 73, 231–​232, 272; traditional Chinese culture 59–​60, 68–​69; Western 60–​61 Marxist dialectical materialism 97 material form culture 305 May Fourth Movements 8, 59–​60, 63, 67, 75–​76, 78, 92–​94, 98–​99, 103, 106–​107, 111, 118, 122, 135, 139, 163, 192, 195–​197, 282, 294–​295 Mencius 23, 53, 61, 66, 71, 73, 153 Mengwu, Sa 98, 109, 118, 135 Mill, John Stuart 326 mind and body contradictions 175–​176 mind emptiness 218 Mingjian, Luo 149 misreading 284 Mi, Wu 95, 108 modernistic diversity 34–​37; freedom and democracy 34–​35; free market economy 35; imperial/​royal/​divine dictatorship 35; modern society 34–​36; modern Western society 34; pluralistic pre-​modern society 35; postmodernism 35–​36; pre-​modern society 35; process philosophy 36; social harmony 36; universal values 37 modernization 19, 63, 196 modern society 34–​36 modern spirit 252 modern vs. pre-​modern 179–​187; characteristics of 182–​183; Chinese utility 180–​181; freedom 184; global

358 Index consciousness 183; individuality 183; overall Westernization 180; postmodernism 186–​187; transcendental principle 181; Western essence 180; modern Western society 34; Mohism 4, 314; Mohism debate notes (Sheng) 84; Monks and Philosophers: ; A Dialogue between Buddhism and Western Thought (Lévyre) 201; moral concept 72; moral cultivation 325; morality 262; Morrison, Toni 10; Moruo, Guo 97–​99, 110, 122–​123; multicultural development 297–​301; multiculturalism 18, 297–​301; cultural isolationism 299–​301; cultural originality 301; cultural relativism 299–​300; cultural tribalism 299 mundane vs. monastic Buddhists 90 Mu, Qian 88, 182, 342 mutual reference 43, 144, 292 mutual subjectivity 24, 43, 144, 292 My Learning and Thinking Experiences (Yijie) 193 Naipaul, V.S. 10 national awareness 63–​74 nationalism 198 natural non-​interference 30, 260 Needham, Joseph 332 Negri, Antonio 20 neo-​Confucianism 4, 8, 92, 129, 277 neo-​Humanism 95, 108 neo-​imperialism theory 18–​21 neo-​Kantianism 120 Nestorianism 125, 130, 133 New Culture Movement 96–​97, 108–​109, 118, 197 New Direction in Comparative Literature Studies (Dasan) 133 New Neo-​Confucianism (Youlan) 136, 140 New Original Tao (Youlan) 140 New Primitive Man (Youlan) 141 New Treatise on the Uniqueness of Consciousness (Shili) 110, 139–​140 nihilism 87 Ning, Fan 87, 88, 92, 105 Nirvana Buddha nature 287 Nirvana Collection (Baoliang) 128 non-​existence theory 221–​222, 227–​228, 281–​282 non-​interference 30–​31, 139, 153–​155, 160

non-​intermittent 282–​283 non-​misreading 284 non-​modernization 63, 196 non-​nothingness 281–​282 non-​substance 219 non-​Western culture 7–​12, 299 Notes for the Analects of Confucius (Bojun) 256 Notes on the Four Books (Xi) 26 nothingness 222–​223, 235 “not material and not empty” 283–​284 Not Real but Empty Theory (Sengzhao) 217, 223–​224, 227–​228 objective spirit 262 On Advocating Existence (Wei) 87 “one country, two systems” 64 On Tao (Yuelin) 99, 110 On the Jin Dynasty (Bao) 87 On the Memorial of Buddhist Bone (Yu) 91 On the Six Main Points of Thought (Tan) 131 On Yi and China (Huan) 274 Opium War 179 oral form culture 305 Oriental Culture (Chinese culture) 14 The Origin and Goal of History (Jaspers) 45 outer transcendence 247 Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy (Shi) 139 overall Westernization 60, 63, 180, 282, 295 Palestinian–​Israeli conflict 22 Pan Moralism 160, 189, 193 peace and development 9, 116, 153, 161, 290 peace and integration 16 peaceful coexistence 151, 153, 290 Pei, Yi 92 people-​oriented thought 71 philosophical issues 131–​132 philosophical propositions 131 philosophical thought 132 pioneering spirit 151 Plato 22, 311 pluralistic community 15 “Pluralistic Epistemology” (Dongsun) 97, 99, 110, 140 pluralistic pre-​modern society 35 post-​modern country theory 20

Index 359 postmodernism 35–​36, 137, 186–​187; constructive 36, 37, 42, 51, 53–​54; deconstructive 36 practical inequality 320 practice propriety 310 practicing propriety concept 26–​27 Prajna popularity 211–​224 pre-​emptive strike 20 Preface to Anban (Senghui) 215 Preface to Annotations on Zhuangzi (Xiang) 127 Preface to Outlook on Science and Life (Shi) 96 pre-​modern society 35 preservation 305–​307 prevalent sinology 56 problem consciousness 170–​176 process philosophy 36, 42, 51 Project Hope program 345 propriety disintegration 79 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Weber) 65 pseudoscience 290 The Psychology of Eastern Meditation (Jung) 200 Pu, Pang 75 pursuit in the realm of life Confucius 255–​259; Laozi 259–​263; Zhuangzi 263–​268 Qian, Hong 136 Qian, Sima 4, 9, 82, 146, 176 Qian, Zhi 127, 215 Qichao, Liang 93–​94, 96, 107–​108, 135, 146 Qing, Jiang 138 Qing, Ye 97, 109, 120, 162 Quixote, Don 327 Quyuan (Yue), Yu 146 radicalism 78–​79 rational intuition 267–​268 rationalism 72–​74 rationality 325–​326; instrumental 35, 50; value 50 recognition 16 Reform Movement (1898) 179 A Review of the So-​Called Chinese-​centered Cultural Construction (Shi) 98–​99 revolutionary approach 97 Rey, Alain 278 Ricci, Matteo 59, 130, 133, 149, 190, 241–​253, 345; attachment to

Confucianism 248–​250; Chinese learning 251–​253; combined with Confucianism 244–​245; complementing Confucianism 245–​247; exceeeding Confucianism 247–​248; identification and evaluation, Confucian culture 242–​243; self and uses 251–​253; Western learning 251–​253 Rifkin, Jeremy 36 ritualism 90–​91 root-​seeking awareness 63–​74; causes of 65–​67; Marxism with traditional Chinese culture 68–​69; traditional Chinese ideology and culture 69–​74; Western culture challenges 67–​68 royal dictatorship 35 Russell, Bertrand 5, 29, 297 Said, Edward 179 Schipper, Kristofer 22, 45 Scholasticism 105 School of Minor-​talks 4 science–​metaphysics debate 59 scientism 35, 36, 109 Second Enlightenment 36, 42 selectivity 151 self-​character 227 self-​cultivation 325–​326 self-​denial concept 26–​27 self-​discipline 326 self-​liberation 51 Senghui, Kang 213, 215 The Seven Wonders of Chaos-​Timeless Wisdom from the Book of Changes (Hilliggs) 202 Shao, He 86 Sheng, Lu 84 Shi, Hu 92–​94, 96–​97, 98–​99, 106–​107, 110, 122–​123, 139, 146–​147, 180, 198, 213 Shi, Hui 131, 135 Shikai, Yuan 134 Shili, Xiong 8, 100, 110, 120, 139–​142, 147, 162, 198, 238, 342 Shisheng, Zhong 134 Shixing, Zhu 149 Shouren, Wang 233 Shuming, Liang 8, 75, 92, 94–​96, 106–​108, 120, 123, 135, 139, 162, 192 Shun, Yu 80 Shu, Ren 97 sinology see Western sinology

360 Index sinology fever 188–​194; culture fever 193, 195–​199; external transcendence 189; internal transcendence 189; May Fourth Movement 192; transformation 192; universal harmony 192; Western centrism 191 Siqi, Ai 120, 162 Six Schools 4 Six Schools and Seven Sects (Tanji) 222 Siyan, Jin 318, 322, 327 social development 294 social harmony 36 society of relationships 316 Socrates 22 solidarity, principle of 16, 29 soul immortality 213, 226 Soyinka, Wole 10 Stalin 136, 205 The Study of Ancient Chinese Society (Moruo) 97 subjective spirit 262 subject–​object dichotomy 35, 47, 171 supernatural arts 126 supreme harmony 4, 9 Taiyan (Binglin), Zhang 146, 147 take-​ism 147–​148, 152, 161, 289–​290 Tan, Huan 213 Tan, Sima 4, 131 Tanzhi, Wang 86 Taohui, Huo 343 Taoism 4, 8, 21, 25, 44, 69, 72, 79, 80, 159–​160, 275 Taoist arts 126 Tao Te Ching (Laozi) 29–​31 Ten Crimes of Qin (Yi) 173 Ten Schools 4 Ten Small Quotations of the Title Freak (Jiazhi) 243 theoretical equality 320 Theory of Body and Use (Shili) 238 theory of ghosts 213 Theory of Knowledge (Yuelin) 99, 100, 110, 140 “Theory of Total Westernization” (Xujing) 110 The Theory on the Thing without Substance and Metaphysics (Dun) 221 Thing Without Substance Theory (Daolin) 219 Think as a Confucianist (Ames and Hall) 54

Thinking from Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture (Hall and Ames) 200 Thinking through Confucius (Hall and Ames) 200 Tibetan Buddhism 287 Titarenko 46 total Sovietization 111 total Westernization 96–​98, 107–​108, 136, 150 traditional Chinese culture 25, 36, 52–​56; constructive postmodernism 53–​54; doctrine of rites 54–​56; foreign Western cultures and 76; freedom right 54–​56; global awareness 68–​69; “harmony between man and nature” theory 52–​53; human rights 54–​56; “man and nature share a community of life” theory 52–​53; Marxism integration 59–​60, 68–​69; modernity vs. tradition 95; as standard 60, 63, 271; Western scholars 200–​202 traditional Chinese ideology and culture 69–​74; on dialectical thinking 71–​72; on humanism 70–​71; on idealism 69–​70; on rationalism 72–​74 transcendental principle 181 transformation 192 Treatise on Existence (Wei) 238 ATreatise on the Taoist Sages (Choo) 216 Truth of Six Schools (Zhao) 217 Twenty-​five Sentences (Ricci) 59 Twenty-​Five Words (Ricci) 249 two-​way culture 271–​279, 286–​287; Indian Buddhism 272–​275 united principle 29 unity of heaven and man 170–​172 universal education 344–​345 universal harmony 9, 14, 192, 347 universal values 37, 41–​42, 47–​48 value rationality 50 Vandermeersch, Léon 41, 318–​341 vigor 214 Vigourism 61, 72 Voice without Grief and Joy Theory (Kang) 131 Wah, Lai Yee 342 Wailu, Hou 99, 110 Walcott, Derek 10 Walter, Xavier 41

Index 361 The Warning of World Scientists to Mankind 52, 157 Weber, Max 65 Weiming, Du 343 Wei, Pei 87, 88, 105, 229, 238 Wende, Chen 92 Wenjiang, Ding 92, 96, 106, 109 Wenju, Kong 91 Wentong, Meng 342 Wenzhong, Pei 133 Western centrism 10–​12, 152, 191 Western civilization 5 Western Confucian 242 Western culture 7–​12, 125–​166; ancient/​ present philosophies 134; Axial Age theory 142–​161; challenges 60–​61; Chinese culture vs. 254–​270; complementarity of 318–​341; equality concept 319–​320; generalization 134; Nestorianism 125, 130, 133; new Axial Age 147–​161; philosophical issues 131–​132; philosophical propositions 131; philosophical thought 132; pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty 254–​270; static/​dynamic philosophies 134; Western learning 130, 132 Western essence 135, 180 Westernized Chinese style 181 Western learning 130, 132, 251–​253 Western Marxism 60–​61 Western scholars 200–​202 Western sinology 40–​48; Chinese classics re-​emphasis 44–​45; circuitous-​ return route 42–​44; cultural resources with universal value 47–​48; only through dialogue 46–​47; research approach 46; research of academic significance 40–​41; research of practical significance 40; universal values 41–​42 Western utility 135 Whitehead, A.N. 36, 42 Who Are We? –​Challenges to American National Identity (Huntington) 18 The World Significance of Confucian Conan (Demai) 319 world values 23 World War II 10, 15, 23, 152, 186, 298 Xiang, Guo 85–​86, 88, 91, 105, 127, 218–​220, 229–​230 Xianlin, Ji 122, 146, 188, 288, 342

Xiansu, Hu 95 Xianzhi, Zheng 105 Xiaofeng, Liu 137 Xiaogang, Ye 306 Xiaolong, Zhi 216 Xiaoping, Deng 136 Xiaoping, Dong 318 Xiaotong, Fei 24, 26, 170, 173, 294, 310 Xin, Liu 4 Xisheng, Tao 97 Xiuqin, Gao 318 Xiu, Xiang 229 Xi, Zhu 26, 52, 88, 136, 154, 156, 171, 175, 182, 233, 245, 256–​257, 275, 284, 328 Xuan, Huan 90 Xuanxue 4, 8 Xujing, Chen 98–​99, 110 Xun, Lu 91, 99, 110, 122–​123, 147, 151, 289 Yangming, Wang 100, 110, 136, 252, 276 Yang, Shang 81–​82 Yan, He 87, 226, 229 Yan, Wang 87 Yao, Shen 88 Yaquan, Du 92, 106, 134 Yat-​sen, Sun 324 Yi, Cheng 136, 156, 181, 275, 328 Yi, Dai 75 Yi, Jia 55, 173 Yijie, Tang 188–​194, 312–​348 Yingjing, Feng 244 Yinke, Chen 100, 110, 122, 146 Yinqian, Chen 123, 198 Yizhi, Fang 131 Yizi, Pu 80 Yongtong, Tang 95, 108, 100, 110, 141, 147, 342 Youding, Shen 147, 254 Youlan, Feng 37, 75, 100, 110, 139–​142, 147, 261 Yuan, Chen 146 Yuan, Hui 90 Yuan, Wei 179 Yuelin, Jin 99, 110, 120, 139–​142, 147, 162 Yue, Zhi 214 Yu, Han 91 Yun, Hsing 329 Zai, Zhang 70, 131, 175 Zang, Xuan 287

362 Index Zedong, Mao 60, 111, 139, 204, 205 Zehou, Li 75 Zen Buddhism 99, 126, 130, 213 Zhan, Ruan 216 Zhan, Zhang 222, 230 Zhao, Seng 217 Zhaoyuan, Xie 243 Zhenglang, Zhang 331, 338 Zhengmeng (Zai) 131 Zhenyu, Lu 97 Zhidong, Zhang 179 Zhizao, Li 130, 243 Zhongying, Cheng 343

Zhou, Zhuang 105 Zhuangzi 158–​159, 263–​268 Zhuangzi·Tianxia (Tan) 131 Zi, Yan 28, 86 Zonghe, Zhang 306 Zongsan, Mou 140, 147, 347 Zongyi, Rao 334 Zunxian, Huang 131 Zun, Zhi 216 Zuobin, Dong 100, 110, 333 Zuofeng, Yan 97 The Zuo Tradition: the 20th Year of Zhao Gong 27