Output:
part of the postmodern movement which was an analysis of the flaws of modernism,
in opposition to monism and its authoritative claims, and the smashing of all
authorities. Undoubtedly, this was a contribution to humanity; however, decon-
structive postmodernism did not provide any viable constructive alternative to what
it attacked. Because of this lack, at the end of the last century, through process
thinking, constructive postmodernism appeared on the scene, revealing the First
Enlightenment (i.e., the enlightenment trends since the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries) and its negative results. Integrated into the second enlightenment, these
process thinkers advocate that the postmodern period is a time for the harmony
of person to person and people to nature and for seeing the importance of a
postmodern world. At this new era, its purpose is to build constructive relations
between all life, sentient beings, and the natural order. They say that if the


Output:
watchword for the First Enlightenment was “to liberate self,” “to be concerned
about others, respect and honor diversity” should be the new watchwords for the
second enlightenment. At present, the influence of constructive postmodernism in
the West is still minimal, but I believe that, in time, it will be of great importance
in both East and West.
    The appearance of the quest for national character in China grew out of
the revival of the Chinese people. The revival of the Chinese people needs to be
grounded in the revival of their culture. Therefore, the task is to shift from the blind
criticism of cultural tradition of the past to the present struggle of how to preserve
the glorious 5,000 years of Chinese culture, so that it can be relevantly renewed for
our time. Such reappropriating of the values of culture can help to overturn the
continual destruction of the natural world. A group of Chinese scholars advocate
the classical Confucian notion of 天人合一 tian ren he yi “Heaven and


Output:
human united.” This can mean that the harmony between humans and nature is
the meaningful source of all relations. Confucius was for “knowing Heaven,” which
was also “to fear Heaven.” To know Heaven is to use the natural world properly.
To fear Heaven is to respect and protect the natural world as a responsibility. The
Chinese Confucian “Heaven and humans united” resonates well with constructive
postmodernism’s position that humans and nature are of one body. After more than
a century of distorting and denigrating Confucianism, the more knowledgeable
scholars of China today are advocating the revival of Chinese culture, including
284                               22   The Enlightenment and Its Difficult Journey in China


Output:
restoring the important status of Confucianism in China. In the human aim to
survive and develop, China inadvertently cut itself off from its own cultural
tradition. We all know that the central core of Confucius is 仁学 ren xue or
“learning to be human.” Fan Qi asked, “What is 仁?” Confucius answered 爱人
air en (“love people”). Whence come this type of love of people? (Great Learning).
Quoting Confucius, 仁者 ren zhi (“the human person”) is a human being, intimately
increasing circles of relationship. Loving in relationship is a virtue that is inherent
in humans. To love one’s own relatives is the foundation. But according to
Confucius, loving in relationship cannot be confined to one’s own personal
relations; it needs to be expanded from self to others in larger circles from intimate
relations to loving the whole populace. It was Mencius who said that love must be
extended to the populace and from the populace to the entire created order.


Output:
The Confucian spirit of “loving relations” is not exactly equivalent to constructive
postmodernism’s second enlightenment and its “concern of others.” The tunes may
not be the same, but the theme is. Together, these emphases can deal with the
manifold problems of modernism, preserving all the treasures of its thought and
goodness in society while eliminating all its flaws and ill consequences.
   We are fully aware that in China there are scholars who are not only in touch
with constructive postmodernism but also have begun friendly cooperation.
Representatives of constructive postmodernism are interested in traditional Chinese
culture and its value and also receptive to its contribution. At the same time,
scholars in China are already interested in constructive postmodernism as enabling
humanity to come out of its present difficult predicament. Under the guidance of
Marxism, these two intellectual trends can seek organic synthesis. If this hybrid


Output:
trend can take root in China and develop, perhaps China can complete its first
Enlightenment and with relative ease realize its modernization. Also, without
further delay, China will enter into its second enlightenment and become the
standard-bearer of a postmodern society. That is to say, if such is a reality,
then the result of China’s enlightenment will be most rich in the development of
human society.
Chapter 23
The Coexistence of Cultural Diversity:
Sources of the Value of Harmony in Diversity


Output: 23.1     Introduction


Output:
Though one cannot say that present world conflicts are mainly the result of cultural
clashes, they certainly are related to clashes between cultures. A debate taking place
in the world over cultural clashes and cultural coexistence might lead to greater
mutual understanding, tolerance, and peace or, as a result of cultural isolation and
hegemony, to political clashes. In either case, this debate will affect the destiny of
humankind in the twenty-first century. Owing to the collapse of colonialism after
the end of World War II, Western cultural imperialism gradually faded, and greater
cultural diversity emerged in the world. In the past half century, developments in
world trade and communication have led to ever more frequent cultural interactions
between different peoples, nations, and regions and have made the world an
increasingly indivisible whole. In the present stage of world culture, two different
tendencies have arisen: Some Western theoreticians, seeking to protect their tradi-


Output:
tional interests and customs, continue to maintain a Western-centric perspective.
Others, adopting an indigenous romantic feeling toward an independent or revital-
ized people, create a nationalism that seeks to return to roots and preserve native
culture and a conservativism that seeks to return to past traditions. Some East Asian
scholars, looking at the suffering wrought by Western culture throughout the world
and the oppression that they personally suffered, even suggest a cultural perspective
focused on East Asia. A great problem that we presently face is how we can prevent
these two conflicting tendencies from developing into a large-scale confrontation


Output:
Originally published in Kua wenhua duihua, Vol. l (Cross-Cultural Dialogue, I),
Yue Daiyun, ed., (Shanghai: Shanghai Wenhua Chubanshe, 1998). Translated from the
Chinese by Alan Thwaits. Translation published by permission of the author.
Cultural Interaction Studies in East Asia: New Methods and Perspectives,
March 31, 2012: 229–234

© Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing Co., Ltd                        285
and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Y. Tang, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Chinese Culture,
China Academic Library, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-45533-3_23
286           23 The Coexistence of Cultural Diversity: Sources of the Value of Harmony. . .

and how we can dispel confrontations that do arise. At the same time, we must be
careful about conflicts that may arise between the West and East Asia owing to
differences in cultures and traditions.

23.2    Harmony in Diversity


Output:
How do we enable peoples, nations, and regions of different cultural traditions to
develop together while remaining different and in this way create a globally
conscious environment for the development of cultural diversity? I think that the
Chinese principle of harmony in diversity (he er butong) provides us with a source
of positive value for doing precisely this.
    The Zuo Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals for the 20th year of Duke
Zhao of Lu (520 BCE) records the following conversation between Jing, marquis of Qi,
and Yan Ying: The marquis of Qi said to Yan Ying, “‘Does only Liangqiu Ju
[an official close to the marquis] act in harmony with me?’ Yan Ying replied, ‘Ju
conforms. How do you get harmony (he) from conformity (tong)?’ The marquis said,
‘Is harmony different from conformity?’ Yan Ying replied, ‘Yes. Harmony is like the
blending of ingredients of a good soup. The chef uses various condiments to cook a
thick meat soup over a blazing fire, blending them together, adjusting the flavor,


Output:
adding to make up for deficiencies, and draining off excesses. The gentleman eats the
soup to calm his mind. The relation between ruler and minister is similar. . . Now Ju
does not operate like this. Whatever you approve, Ju also approves, and whatever you
reject, Ju also rejects. This is like adding water to water. Who can eat such “soup”?
Again, this is like a zither that can produce only one note. Who can listen to such
“music”? In all such cases, sameness/conformity (tong) is unacceptable.’” Also,
Discourses of the States (Guoyu), in the chapter “Discourses of Zheng,” has Shi
Bo’s reply to Duke Huan of Zheng (d. 771 BCE): “NOW blending (he) various
substances can in fact produce many things, whereas things of the same (tong)
substance do not maintain well. Balancing one substance with another is called
blending. Things so produced are rich and long-lasting, and substances naturally
come together in this fashion. Supplementing one substance with the same substance


Output:
produces nothing but rubbish. Thus the kings of the past had clay mixed with metal,
wood, water, and fire to produce ceramics of all kinds.” These two passages make
clear that he and tong are completely different in meaning. Confucius said this even
more clearly: “The man of virtue harmonizes without conforming (he er butong). The
narrow-minded man conforms without harmonizing (tong er buhe)” (Analects,
“Zilu”). From the passages above, one can see that the significance of “harmony in
diversity” (he er butong) is that when two different cultural traditions achieve a
common understanding through cultural intercourse and dialogue, they are in some
sense attaining a commonality from their diverse perspectives. This commonality
consists not of one side vanquishing the other side, nor of one side converting the other
side, but of finding points in common in the two different traditions and on this
foundation advancing both traditions. Precisely herein lies the power of harmony.


Output:
We can see this effect in the development of Chinese culture.
23.2   Harmony in Diversity                                                           287


Output:
Confucians sought to establish propriety and create music to actively maintain (you
wei) the harmony of society. Daoists, in contrast, sought to follow nature to passively
maintain (wu wei) peace in society. These two originally very different cultural tradi-
tions, over the course of nearly 2,000 years of development, achieved a certain common
understanding through continuous dialogue. In the Western Jin period (265–317), Guo
Xiang, in an effort to harmonize the Confucian and Daoist traditions, proposed that
active administration of government (you wei) is a form of passive administration of
government (wu wei). In a comment on “Autumn Floods” in the Zhuangzi, he wrote,
“Can men, in eking out a living, forego plowing with oxen or riding horses? In plowing
with an ox and riding a horse, can one avoid ringing the ox in the nose or bridling the
horse? The ox does not resist being ringed in the nose, and the horse does not resist


Output:
being bridled, because Heaven wills it. If this is mandated by Heaven, then though
these beasts of burden are placed in the service of man, this circumstance is rooted in
the will of Heaven.” The point of this passage is that though the ox is ringed in the nose
and the horse is bridled, through the active efforts (you wei) of man, these relations
conform to what is natural (wu wei). Both Confucians and Daoists could accept this
perspective of Guo Xiang even though this view does not fit squarely within either the
original Confucian or original Daoist tradition. Active engagement (you wei) and
passive following (wu wei) are quite different concepts. If both perspectives are to be
accepted to some extent, both sides must find, through a process of negotiation, points
of commonality (points of harmony). These points of commonality can serve as
universal principles that both sides can accept. These universal principles are princi-


Output:
ples that both sides can accept without their negating the distinguishing features of
either side. This state of affairs would indeed be a case of harmony in diversity.
    We can also illustrate the significance of harmony in diversity with developments
resulting from the encounter of traditional Chinese culture and a foreign cultural
tradition. Originally, Indian Buddhist culture and traditional Chinese culture (Confu-
cianism, Daoism, etc.) were quite distinct, but from the Han (206 BCE–220 CE) to
Tang (618–907) dynasties, Chinese culture continuously strove to accept and adapt the
quite alien culture of Buddhism, and Indian Buddhism, for its part, continuously strove
to change aspects of itself ill-suited to the demands of Chinese society. As a result,
during the nearly 1,000 years in which Indian Buddhism was transmitted to China,
Chinese culture highly benefited from Indian Buddhism. Indian Buddhism profoundly
influenced Chinese philosophy, literature, art, architecture, and popular customs. At


Output:
the same time, Indian Buddhism was able to promote and perfect itself throughout the
immense Chinese empire. During the Sui (581–618) and Tang dynasties, for example,
there formed several more-Sinitie sects of Buddhism (the Tiantai sect, Huayan sect,
and Chan sect). Yet Chinese culture remained Chinese culture and did not lose its
distinctive features because it adopted Indian Buddhism. Such cultural exchange and
mutual influence serve as an excellent illustration of the principle of harmony in
diversity. As a matter of fact, the development of European culture also exemplifies
this principle. Bertrand Russell, in The Problem of China (1922), wrote, “Greece
learned from Egypt, Rome from Greece, the Arabs from the Roman Empire, medieval
Europe from the Arabs, and Renaissance Europe from the Byzantines.” The reason
that one culture could adopt another culture was often because the notion of harmony
in diversity was embedded in the interactions and negotiations of the two cultures.


Output: 288           23 The Coexistence of Cultural Diversity: Sources of the Value of Harmony. . .


Output: 23.3    Commonalities Across Cultural Traditions


Output:
There are various circumstances under which the principle of harmony in diversity
appears in the interactions of two different cultural traditions. One is that in the
negotiations between cultures, the two cultures discover that they have similar
concepts. For example, Christianity has the concept of love for humanity, Buddhism
has the concept of compassion, and Confucianism has the concept of concern for the
masses. In an abstract sense, all of these concepts signify love. Love can thus serve as
a universal principle that all these different cultural traditions can accept. At the same
time, love for humanity, compassion, and concern for the masses are concepts that
preserve the distinct features of their respective traditions. Another circumstance is
that one culture, in its intercourse with another culture, discovers that it lacks
important ideas present in the latter culture and that these ideas can be accepted
into the former culture. By accepting the new ideas through cultural interaction,


Output:
transforming them, and fitting them into its culture, the receiving culture can enrich
itself. For example, China originally lacked a clear notion of sudden enlightenment,
but by the Song (960–1127) and Ming (1368–1644) dynasties, Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi,
and Zhu Xi had adopted the notion of sudden enlightenment into their Rational
School of Neo-Confucianism, as did Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Shouren (Yangming) in
their School-of-Mind Neo-Confucianism. A third circumstance is that one culture, in
its intercourse with another culture, discovers that it lacks significant ideas present in
the latter culture and that though these new ideas are incompatible with some ideas of
the receiving culture, interactions with the other culture force it to forsake the old
ideas and accept the new foreign ideas in order to develop. For example, after the idea
of democracy penetrated China, it had to give up such traditional notions as the “three
guides” (san’gang; the ruler guides the minister, the father guides the son, and the


Output:
husband guides the wife). A fourth circumstance is that in the interaction of two or
more cultures, these cultures discover, through repeated discussions, significant new
ideas previously missing in their cultures—ideas such as peaceful coexistence and the
coexistence of cultural diversity—that, when incorporated into a system of diverse
cultures, are undoubtedly significant for the individual cultures. There may, of course,
be other circumstances leading one culture to adopt ideas from another, but here I will
say no more. When, as described above, different cultures create commonalities by
harmonizing their differences, when they find common principles in their differences,
and when they find common understanding in their different circumstances, such
indeed is realizing harmony in diversity through cultural interaction and negotiation.


Output:
23.4    Regional Diversity and the Bidirectional Nature
        of Cultural Selection

In this discussion of harmony in diversity as a principle of intercourse between
different cultures, there are two other points worth noting. One is the issue of
regional differences in cultural development. The other is the bidirectional nature of
23.4   Regional Diversity and the Bidirectional Nature of Cultural Selection       289


Output:
culture selection. Having persisted for a long period or having encountered some
special cause, a culture may decline or even die out in one particular region or
among a particular people and continue to develop in another region or among
another people. For example, Buddhism, having been transmitted in India down to
the fifth and sixth centuries, stagnated, but in China, having absorbed aspects of
Chinese culture and having been developed at the hands of eminent monks during
the Sui and Tang dynasties, it became more sinified. Then from China it was
transmitted to the Korean peninsula and Japan, where it blended in with the local
cultures. In Japan especially, there developed some distinctly local sects of Bud-
dhism. This is why I say that Chinese culture benefited from Indian Buddhism and
that Indian Buddhism was promoted and perfected in China. Such regional differ-
ences in development occurred not only in China but also in Europe. As Russell


Output:
said in the passage quoted above, present-day European culture arose in Egypt, was
transmitted to Greece, passed through Rome and Arabia, and reentered Europe.
Such regional development of culture thus laid down many milestones in the
development of human civilization. The reason for such development is that
when culture a is transplanted within culture b, it may acquire aspects of culture
b. These acquired aspects may be originally lacking in culture a or may have not
received much development. After being added to culture a, these aspects then lead
culture a to be developed within culture b. Such cultural development is perfectly
consistent with the principle of harmony in diversity and is a good example of the
idea that “blending various substances can in fact produce many things, whereas
things of the same substance do not maintain well” (“Discourses of Zheng”).
   As for the bidirectional nature of culture selection, as we know, it is not the case


Output:
that any alien culture transmitted to a region or a people at any time and under any
circumstances will always be accepted and developed. For example, during the Sui
and Tang dynasties, not only did Buddhism have a tremendous influence on
Chinese society; “Buddhist sutras were over ten times more common among the
populace than Confucian classics” (Sui shu [Book of Sui], Jingji zhi [Treatise on
Classics and Books]). At this time Nestorianism (a type of Christianity) was
transmitted to China and had a degree of influence, yet it could not establish itself.
This failure was due to the bidirectional nature of culture selection. Even different
sects of Indian Buddhism fared differently in China. For instance, Esoteric (Tantric)
Buddhism flourished for a while in the area of Han society after the mid-Tang—a
fact verified by the relics excavated from the underground palace at Famen Temple.
But later, Esoteric Buddhism fell into decline and had little lasting influence on Han


Output:
society. Yet in Tibet, Indian Esoteric Buddhism blended in with the local religion to
produce Tibetan Buddhism, which has persisted down to the present as the religion
of Tibetans.
   What brought about this difference? The first type of Buddhism to enter the area
of Han society consisted of the Theravada meditation techniques associated with
An Shigao (d. 168 CE). Later, Lokaksema (b.c. 147 CE) brought Prajna Buddhism
to China. From the Jin Dynasty (265–420) on, the form of Buddhism that spread in
China was Prajna Buddhism, not the Theravada meditation techniques. The reason
was that Prajna Buddhism was similar to Neo-Daoism (whose core teachings were
those of Laozi and Zhuangzi); that Chan Buddhism (which developed during the
290          23 The Coexistence of Cultural Diversity: Sources of the Value of Harmony. . .


Output:
Tang Dynasty after Prajna Buddhism was adopted during the Eastern Jin Dynasty
[317–420] and the Southern dynasties [420–589]) was different from Indian
meditation techniques, its philosophical foundation arising from Prajna Buddhism;
and that Chan Buddhism adopted not only some elements of Daoism but also some
elements of Confucianism in order to adapt to the needs of Chinese society. Here
we see mutual selection between cultures. Moreover, such mutual selection
between cultures is another typical manifestation of the principle of harmony in
diversity.

23.5    Conclusion


Output:
In the early Tang period, Xuanzang (602–664) propagated the Consciousness-Only
School of Thought, but this school of thought lasted only 30 some years. The reason
that it was not respected by the Chinese is that this mode of thought was thoroughly
Indian in style and thus quite different from the Chinese manner of thinking. In
contrast, Chan Buddhism spread quickly from the mid-Tang on because Chan
thought was similar to Chinese thought and jelled into a Signified sect of Buddhism.
It then went on to influence the Rational School of Neo-Confucianism during the
Song and Ming dynasties. This shows that in the intercourse between two different
cultures, there is often mutual selection, and this mutual selection is to some extent
a manifestation of the principle of harmony in diversity. For only if there is
diversity between cultures can there be selection among diverse elements. If the
thought of two cultures is entirely the same, there is nothing to select, and thought


Output:
that is completely alike cannot add to preexisting thought any new ideas and so
cannot stimulate or promote the development of the preexisting culture. We can
thus see that the principle of harmony in diversity has great significance for the
mutual selectivity of interacting cultures.
    We have seen that the principle of harmony in diversity can spur healthy cultural
exchange and promote rational development of culture, in accord with the present
world trend toward cultural diversity. If we want Chinese culture to develop for the
better, if we want it to make a contribution to future world civilization, then we
must approach the culture of other peoples, nations, and regions with an attitude of
harmony in diversity, sufficiently absorb the achievements of other cultures, and
renew our own traditional culture so that we can create a new culture suited to
modern social life.
Chapter 24
On the Clash and Coexistence
of Human Civilizations


Output:
24.1     “The Clash of Civilizations”
         and the “New Empire” Theory


Output:
In 1993, an essay entitled “Clash of Civilizations?” was published on the summer
issue of Foreign Affairs, USA, by Samuel Hungtington. In 1994, I criticized
the American Hegemonism represented by Hungtington in an essay titled as
“On Hungtington’s Clash of Civilizations?”, published in Philosophical Studies.1
Between the publications of the two essays, Hungtington’s theory was widely
discussed and criticized in all aspects by many scholars at home and abroad.
To respond to these challenges as well as to amplify and revise his own theory,
Hungtington published his chef d’oeuvre, The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking
of World Order, in 1996, which had marked some changes in his arguments; for
example, in the Foreword to the Chinese translation, he writes: “The global politics,
for the first time in human history, has become multipolar and multicultural.”2
In the section of “The Commonalities of Civilization,” he points out:
   Some Americans have promoted multiculturalism at home; some have promoted


Output:
universalism abroad; and some have done both. Multiculturalism at home threatens
the United States and the West; universalism abroad threatens the West and the
world. Both deny the uniqueness of Western culture. The global monoculturalists
want to make the world like America. The domestic multiculturalists want to make
America like the world. A multicultural America is impossible because a
non-Western America is not American. A multicultural world is unavoidable


Output:
Translated by Yang Zhiyi: Revised by Shen Hong
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010 (2): 7381–7391
1
  hh评亨廷顿<文明的冲突?>ii, 载hh哲学研究ii, 1994 年第 3 期。
2
  中文版序言ii, 亨廷顿: hh文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建ii, 周琪、刘绯、王圆译, 新华出版
社, 1999 年。

© Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing Co., Ltd                     291
and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Y. Tang, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Chinese Culture,
China Academic Library, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-45533-3_24
292                                   24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
because global empire is impossible. The preservation of the United States and the
West requires the renewal of Western identity. The security of the world requires
acceptance of global multiculturality.3
   Though there are still some arguable points in the above-quoted paragraph, the
opinion that “the security of the world requires acceptance of global multicul-
turality” is undoubtedly prudent enough. Why did this change occur in
Hungtington’s point of view? It was because he had felt the global challenges
and threats endangering the Western (or American de facto) hegemony, and the
domestic problems of racism and the like, that he proposed the “remaking of world
order.” In the section of “Renewal of the West?” Hungtington claims:
   The West obviously differs from all other civilizations that have ever existed in that it has
   had an overwhelming impact on all other civilizations that have existed since 1500. It also


Output:
inaugurated the process of modernization and industrialization that have become world-
   wide, and as a result societies in all other civilizations have been attempting to catch
   up with the West in wealth and modernity. Do these characters of the West, however, mean
   that its evolution and dynamics as a civilization are fundamentally different from
   the patterns that have prevailed in all other civilizations? The evidence of history and the
   judgments of the scholars of the comparative history of civilizations suggest otherwise.
   The development of the West to date has not deviated significantly from the evolutionary
   patterns common to civilizations throughout history. The Islamic Resurgence and the
   economic dynamism of Asia demonstrate that other civilizations are alive and well and at
   least potentially threatening to the West. A major war involving the West and the core states
   of other civilizations is not inevitable, but it could happen. Alternatively the gradual and


Output:
irregular decline of the West which started in the early twentieth century could continue for
   decades and perhaps centuries to come. Or the West could go through a period of revival,
   reverse its declining influence in world affairs, and reconfirm its position as the leader
   whom other civilizations follow and imitate.4


Output:
We conclude from the above quotation that, on the one hand, Hungtington has
felt “the gradual and irregular decline” of the Western leadership in the world and
the potential threat to the West coming from those countries undergoing or having
undergone the process of modernization and industrialization by imitating the
West. Surely, this is a reality unacceptable for him and some other Western
scholars, especially for certain political leaders (Mr. George W. Bush, the current
American president, for instance), involved with an unsolvable complex of theirs:
why do those resurgent Islamic movements or rising Asian countries which have
accepted the western way of modernization and industrialization become a threat to
the West instead? According to their reasoning, these countries should and could
only play the role of Western adherents or loyal subjects in all spheres, especially in
politics and culture. Nevertheless, the reality contradicts their expectations,


Output:
resulting consequently in an anxiety in the Western mind. On the other hand, the
deep-seated dream Hungtington really cherishes is the “renewal of the West,” to
“reconfirm its position as the leader whom other civilizations follow and imitate.”


Output:
3
  Samuel P. Hungtington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York,
1996, p.318
4
  Ibid., p. 302.
24.1   “The Clash of Civilizations” and the “New Empire” Theory                          293


Output:
The performance of the Bush administration after “9.11” incident can be regarded
from this standpoint as an attempt to reconfirm American hegemonic leadership
on other civilizations.
   After Hungtington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order, another book, Empire—A Global Political Order, coauthored by
Antonio Negri (Italy) and Michael Handt (USA), was published in 2000.
The basic judgment of this work on current global situation is as follows: “Empire
is materializing before our very eyes”; it presents its rule as a regime with no
territorial or temporal boundaries; “this new global form of sovereignty is what we
call Empire,” “the political subject that effectively regulates these global
exchanges, the sovereign power that governs the world.”5 Embracing this doctrine,
many scholars in the United States propagate the “New Empire” theories. For
example, John J. Mearsheimer, professor of politics in the University of Chicago,


Output:
put forward in his Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York, 2002) the following
theory: As every state seeks the maximization of its share of world power, no
balancing structure could exist, and the best defense is to offend (which provides
a theoretical basis for President Bush’s “Preemptive Strike” theory). Another
“postmodern state” theorist is Robert Cooper, Foreign Office adviser of British
prime minister Tony Blaire, who divides all states into three types: first, postmodern
states, e.g., North American and European countries and Japan; second, modern
states, i.e., nation-states like China, India, Brazil and Pakistan; and, third,
premodern states, e.g., African and Middle East countries and Afghanistan.
A concept put forward and reiterated by Cooper is “New Imperialism,” which
means postmodern states should use their national power (including military
power) to control modern states, meanwhile to contain the barbaric acts in


Output:
premodern states such as mass slaughter.6 More aggressive still, the American
neoconservatists in the twenty-first century have advocated three core creeds:
(1) the extreme adoration of military force, (2) the claim of an American “benign
hegemony,” and (3) the emphasis on the exportation of American democracy and
values. In accordance with this tone, President George W. Bush delivered his
speech at the commencement of West Point on June 1, 2002, which could be
summarized as three basic principles: First, America should maintain its power of
“preemptive strike”; second, American values are universal; and, third, the United
States should maintain an unchallengeable military force.7 This “New Empire”
doctrine would inevitably arouse “clashes” among the states and nations of other
civilizations, and its central rhetoric has already been echoed by Hungtington’s


Output:
5
  Michael Handt & Antonio Negri, Empire, “Preface”, Harvard University Press, 2000.
6
  C.f. 佩里·安德森 (Perry Anderson) 等: hh三种新的全球化国际关系理论ii (“Three Recent
Theories on International Relationships in Globalization Era”), hh读书ii 2002 年第10 期。
7
  C.f., 陈光兴: hh<帝国>与去帝国化问题ii (“Empire and the problem of de-empirization”), hh读书ii
2002 年7期:崔之元: hh布什原则、西方人文传统、新保守主义ii (“Principles of Bush, Western
humanity tradition and Neoconservatism”), hh读书ii 2003 年 8 期。hh布莱尔的自由帝国主义理论
奏效吗?ii (“Would Blair’s Liberal Imperialism work?”), originally Tony Blair’s speech: “The best
defense of our security lies in the spread of our values.” (Sunday Telegraph, May 30, 2004).
294                                  24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
theory of the “clash of civilizations.” Two basic proposals are made in the latter’s
“Clash of Civilizations?”: (1) to “limit the expansion of the military strength in
Islamic and Confucian states,” to “maintain the military superiority of the West in
East and Southwest Asia,” and to “exploit the differences and conflicts among
Islamic and Confucian states” and (2) to “strengthen international institutions that
reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement
of non-Western states in those institutions.”8 From these proposals, we conclude
that because of the “clashes of civilizations” kindled by the West, headed by the
United States, on cultural differences (values, for example), the world has become a
pandemonium with the upgrading of regional wars.
    Should civilizations survive only in “clashes,” in order to materialize the uni-
versal “New Empire” doctrine? Why couldn’t they “coexist” in peace?

24.2      “Coexistence of Civilizations” and New Axial Age


Output:
Human history has recorded enough cases of clashes caused by cultural
(or religious) differences among states, nations, or regions. Nevertheless, in view
of the general tendency of history, we find that the development of civilizations
among different states, nations, and regions should be dominated by mutual
absorption and convergence. In my opinion, most conflicts among these states,
nations, and regions were not provoked by cultural differences. As my knowledge
about Western culture (both civilization and culture concern with a comprehensive
lifestyle of a nation; thus civilization is a magnified culture) is limited, I am not
authoritative enough to speak on this issue; here I would like to quote Bertrand
Russell to justify a proposition that the present Western civilization is formed by
absorbing and syncretizing several cultural elements. In 1922, after Russell’s visit
to China, he wrote in an essay titled as “Chinese and Western Civilization
Contrasted” the following words:


Output:
Contrasted” the following words:
    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.9
    Though it might be arguable whether Russell was accurate enough on every point of his
    views, two of which, however, are undoubtedly correct: 1. contacts between different
    cultures are important dynamics for the progress of human civilizations; 2. the European
    culture today has absorbed many elements from other national cultures, including some
    from the Arabian. Another observation based on the progress of Chinese culture would be
    even more forceful to prove that clashes of civilizations are always temporal, whereas
    mutual absorption and convergence are far more important.


Output:
8
 Samuel P. Hungtington. “Clash of Civilizations?” p. 49, in Foreign Affairs, summer, 1993.
9
 Bertrand Russell. “Chinese and Western Civilization Contrasted”, in The Problem of China.
London. 1922.
24.2     “Coexistence of Civilizations” and New Axial Age                                          295


Output:
In Spring-and-Autumn and Warring States periods, different local cultures
existed in China, including Central Area (Henan) culture, Qi-Lu (Shandong)
culture, Qinlong (Shaanxi) culture, Jingchu (Southern) culture, Wu-Yue (Southeast)
culture, and Ba-Shu (Southwest) culture. All of them were amalgamated later into a
generally unified Chinese (Huaxia) culture. The possibility of the coexistence of two
cultures would be especially illuminated by the importation of Indian Buddhism in
the first century A.D. Buddhism culture spread in China peacefully; its cultural
differences with indigenous Confucianism or Taoism had never brought their
disciples into war. Only on three occasions had the Chinese imperial courts
suppressed Buddhism, which were caused without exception by political or
economic factors. Generally speaking, Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist cultures
coexist well in China. A famous French sinologist (Kristofer Schipper) once asked


Output:
me: “Why is China multicultural?” I pondered for a while and then answered,
perhaps there are two reasons: First, from the ideological point of view, the Chinese
always advocates “harmony in diversity” (和而不同), i.e., the harmonious coexis-
tence of diverse cultures. Secondly, in terms of political systems, the Chinese
emperor was the highest authority dominating the fates of religious, philosophical,
and ethical cultures in China. For the sake of social stability, the emperor did not
want to see conflicts or wars provoked by cultural differences. Thus, he usually
sponsored the “debate of three schools,” summoning the representatives of Confu-
cian, Taoist, and Buddhist scholars to debate in imperial court, arbitrating their
respective statuses according to the degree of success in debate, instead of allowing
any conflicts or even wars.
   From the above arguments and historical experiences, I conclude that
Hungtington’s “clash of civilizations” theory is, at any rate, ex parte, serving


Output:
merely for American international politics. He says as follows:
      It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in the 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.10


Output:
Hungtington’s observation is insightful in certain cases, such as Palestinian-
Israel conflict in the Middle East, Kosovo conflict, or even the Iraqi War, where
some cultural (religious and ethical) elements catalyzed the outbursts of wars.
Yet in closer analysis, the basic causes of wars or conflicts are not cultural but
political and economic: Palestinian-Israel conflict was a contest for regional
hegemony, Iraqi War was mainly for oil, and Kosovo conflict for the strategies of
power politics. But on the other hand, cultural differences have not provoked
conflicts between many nations, such as in Sino-Indian, Sino-Russian, or even
Sino-European relations. In fact, there have been no serious conflicts or wars
(for whatever reason) between them, especially in the last decade. Thus, the

10
     “Clash of civilizations?”, p. 22, op. cit.
296                               24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
“clash of civilizations” theory hardly fits the present global situation, nor will it be
the future perspective of mankind. Instead, the “coexistence of civilizations” should
be the only outlet for human society and a future goal we should strive for.
    Perhaps, a clearer picture of our age may help to illuminate this problem. In my
opinion, we find ourselves in a New Axial Age.
    The idea of Axial Age was proposed by German philosopher Karl Jaspers
(1883–1969). According to his theory, around 500 B.C., great thinkers appeared
almost simultaneously in Ancient Greece, Israel, India, and China, and they con-
tributed their original ideas to the solution of the problems which are of great
concern to humankind. Distinctive cultural traditions were then formed, respec-
tively, by Socrates and Plato in Ancient Greece, Laozi and Confucius in China,
Shakyamuni in India, and Jewish prophets in Israel, which, after more than 2,000
years of progress, have become the principle part of human intellectual wealth.


Output:
These regional cultural traditions were independent in their births and develop-
ments, without mutual influence. “Until today mankind has lived by what happened
during the Axial Period, by what was thought and created during that period. In
each new upward flight it returns in recollection to this period and is fired anew by
it. Even since then it has been the case that recollections and reawakenings of the
potentialities of the Axial Period—renaissances—afford a spiritual impetus.”11 For
example, the Europeans in Renaissance had traced the origin of their culture back to
Ancient Greece, which had rekindled the European civilization and left its mark in
world history. Similarly, the Song and Ming Neo-Confucian thinkers in China,
stimulated by the impacts of Indian Buddhism, rediscovered Confucius and
Mencius of the pre-Qin period and elevated the indigenous Chinese philosophy to
a new height. In a certain sense, the current development of world multiculturalism


Output:
might become a new leap forward on the basis of the Axial Age 2,000 years ago.
Has the contemporary human cultures created, or will create, a New Axial Age?
Judging from certain evidences, we may well draw such a conclusion.
    First of all, since World War II, with the gradual collapse of colonialism, the
once colonized and oppressed nations have taken upon themselves an urgent task to
reaffirm their independent identities by all means. Their unique cultures (such as
languages, religions, and social values) were the most important means for this
justification. We know that Malaysia after World War II insisted on using Malay as
their national tongue to emphasize the nation’s unification; and after the establish-
ment of Israel, the Israeli decided to revive Hebrew as a vernacular, though for a
long period of time in the past, Hebrew had only been used in religious ceremonies.
“The central elements of any culture or civilization are language and religion.”12


Output:
Some political leaders and scholars in Eastern countries also put forward the
“Asian values” centered on community to distinguish themselves from the Western
“universal values” centered on individual and so forth. Even Hungtington began to


Output:
11
   Karl Jaspers. The Origin and Goal of History. Michael Bullock (trans.). New Haven: Yale
University Press.1953, p. 7.
12
   The Clash of Civilizations and the Remarking of World Order, p. 59, op. cit.
24.2    “Coexistence of Civilizations” and New Axial Age                                         297


Output:
understand that “non-Western civilizations generally are reaffirming the value of
their own cultures.”13
   Secondly, the Axial Age around 500 B.C. was a time when axial civilizations
entered the Iron Age and a time of great leaps forward in productivity, which in
consequence produced great thinkers. Now, we have entered the Information Age,
when another great leap forward in human society is just happening. Because of the
economic globalization, the integration of science and technology, and the progress of
information network, different regions all over the world are tightly connected, and
local cultural progress could no longer be independent as they once were in the “Axial
Age” 2,000 years ago. Instead, they will be developed in the midst of discords,
conflicts, and through mutual influences or mutual absorptions. The self-
understanding of each culture is undoubtedly limited, as is described in a famous
poem of Su Shi (1037–1101):
     They know not Lushan Mountain’s real face;


Output:
They know not Lushan Mountain’s real face;
     So long as they continue to stay in her embrace.14


Output:
This couplet tells us a different perspective from another cultural system, i.e., from a
cultural “other,” might provide us with a more comprehensive view of our own culture.
In an essay entitled “Why Is China Necessary for Us Westerners in Studying Philos-
ophy?”, Francois Jullien, a French scholar, writes: “We have chosen departure, which
means a choice for leaving here, in order to create a space for thinking from a distant
perspective. This detour in steady steps distinguishes itself from exoticism. We have
made our trip traversing China in this manner in order to better understand Greece,
which, though curtained off from our knowledge by a lapse of time, is something inborn
and inherited by us through birthright. For the purpose of enhancing this perspective,
we have to cut off this umbilical cord and constitute an exterior viewpoint.”15 This kind
of intercultural study in the spirit of intersubjectivity and inter-reference, together with


Output:
its methodology of judging one’s own culture from the standpoint of a culture “other,”
is gradually accepted by scholars at home and abroad. Why, then, should we understand
our culture from another’s perspective? Just because we desire to inherit and develop
the cultural tradition of our own. In this case, it undoubtedly becomes a serious problem
in how to preserve the proper traits of a culture and pass on its lifeline. As we know,
economy can be globalized, science and technology can be integrated, but civilizations
can never be monoculturalized. In the history of the progress of human society to date,
it is neither possible nor wise enough for any culture to reject all external influences; but
only when the essence of the target culture is sufficiently digested could it better absorb
foreign cultures to nourish its domestic culture. “When we keep in contacts and
exchanges with Western world,” Mr. Fei Xiaotong said, “we should make our own


Output: treasures part of the world cultural heritage. Indigenization first, globalization


Output:
13
   Ibid., p. 20 op.cit.
14
   苏轼: hh题西林壁ii: “不识庐山真面目,只缘身在此山中。                             ”
15
   As the translator fails to find the French version of this essay, this translation is based on the
Chinese translation, hh为什么我们西方人研究哲学不能绕开中国?ii, published on hh跨文化对
话ii, 5th issue, p. 146, 上海文化出版社, Jan. 2001.—Translator’s note.
298                                  24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
second.”16 That is to say, our own cultural root should be protected when learning from
other cultures. Thus, the cultural progress in the twenty-first century concerning all
human societies should be both national and universal.
    Thirdly, judging from the status quo of human societies and cultures, a new
pattern of cultural diversity with a global consciousness has already been formed or
is still being formed. Perhaps the twenty-first century would be dominated by four
principle cultural systems: the Euro-American, the East Asian, the South Asian, and
the Islamic (Middle Eastern and North African). Each of the four cultures has a
long tradition and a population of over a billion. Of course, there are other cultures
influencing the future of human society in the twenty-first century as well, for
example, the Latin American and the African; nevertheless, at least in the present,
the influence of these cultures is far less than that of the four principle cultures


Output:
mentioned above. If human society hopes to terminate the present chaos, it should
especially criticize the cultural Hegemonism and cultural Tribalism; it should not
only face this new cultural Axial Age but also make unremitting efforts to promote
the dialogues among states or nations belonging to different cultural traditions, in
order to coordinate all the cultures into a project of solving the common problems
challenging human society. Undoubtedly, the four principle cultures are burdened
with a major responsibility for the current human society. At present, human society
is standing on a historic turning point, and every nation or country should seriously
reexamine its own culture in the historical perspective. This is especially true for
those nations in Euro-American, East Asian, South Asian, or Islamic cultural
regions, because of the crucial functions they perform in contemporary human
civilization. This kind of reexamination is surely quite necessary for the future of


Output:
human society. The culture tradition is a reality de facto for every nation or state,
especially for those nations and states with a long history and having crucial
influence on contemporary human society, for it is deeply rooted in the hearts of
its people, forming the spiritual prop of this particular nation or state.
    Let us return to our own cultural tradition, make it a starting point, and seek in it
the source of our power and our spiritual prop, in order to promote the development
of our contemporary culture and to solve the pressing problems existing in human
society. In this sense, the Euro-American, East Asian, South Asian, and Islamic
cultures, with their long historical traditions, might help to promote the human
society in the twenty-first century to the level of a “New Axial Age,” comparable to
the Axial Age 2,500 years ago. Different cultural traditions would subsist in this
New Axial Age, each with a population too large to be eliminated—even with wars,


Output:
there would be only little or temporary effects. Thus, in the long run, the coexis-
tence of civilizations is predictable.


Output:
16
   Fei Xiaotong. (1999). Fei Xiaotong wenji [Collected works of Fei Xiaotong] (Vol. 14). Beijing:
Qunyan chubanshe.
24.3   Can Chinese Culture Make Contributions to the Coexistence of Civilizations?   299

24.3     Can Chinese Culture Make Contributions
         to the Coexistence of Civilizations?


Output:
If Chinese people want to make contributions to the “coexistence of civiliza-
tions” in contemporary human society, they must first know their own culture
well, which means they must have a cultural self-consciousness. The so-called
cultural self-consciousness refers to the fact that people in a certain cultural
tradition can give serious consideration or make earnest reexamination of their
own culture’s origin, history, characteristics (including both merits and weak-
ness), and its tendency of progress. It is fair to say that the Chinese nation is on
the eve of a national renewal. To achieve this goal, we must have some self-
knowledge about Chinese culture, make a proper estimation of its place
in human civilizations, and try to ascertain the genuine spirit of this ancient
culture, in order to present its true essence to contemporary human society.
On the other hand, we must analyze the weak points of our own culture as well,


Output:
to better absorb other cultures’ essences, and to give a modern reinterpretation
of Chinese culture, so that it can adapt to the general tendency in the develop-
ment of modern society. Only in this way may our country become a vanguard in
the development of a global culture and create a brave new world together with
other cultures. Confucianism and Taoism were two principle schools of thinking
in traditional Chinese culture and generally considered to be complementary to
each other. Of course, since Indian Buddhism was introduced into China,
Buddhism has also played an important role in Chinese society and culture.
Now, I would like to discuss whether the Confucian and Taoist thinking
can provide meaningful resources to the doctrine of “coexistence of
civilizations.”


Output:
24.3.1 The Confucian Doctrine of Ren (仁, Benevolence,
       Virtue) Is a Resource of Thinking with a Positive
       Meaning for the “Coexistence of Civilizations”


Output:
“The Way originates in Emotion” (道始于性), as prescribed in “Destiny is the
resource of Human nature” (性自命出), a manuscript text in Guodian Bamboo
Slips (hh郭店竹简ii). “The Way” here means “the Way of Humanity” (人道), i.e.,
the principles in dealing with human (or in other words, social) relationships, which
is different from “the Way of Heaven” (天道), i.e., the laws of nature or of universe.
Human relationships are established on the basis of emotion, which is the starting
point of the Confucian doctrine of Ren. Once a disciple named Fan Chi asked
Confucius: “What is Ren?” The answer was: “To love people.” Where is the origin
of this idea—“to love people”? In The Doctrine of the Mean, a saying of Confucius
was quoted as: “Ren is the characteristic element of humanity, and the great
300                                 24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
exercise of it is in loving relatives.”17 The spirit of Benevolence and Love (仁爱) is
rooted in human nature, and to love one’s relative is the most basic exercise of it.
But the spirit of Ren goes far beyond this level. To quote Guodian Bamboo Slips:
“To love and love deep, that is love; but to enlarge the love for one’s father to the
love for human being, that is Ren.”18 “The enlargement of filial piety is to love all
the people below Heaven.”19 From these sayings, we observe that the Confucian
Doctrine of Ren demands to enlarge “the love for relatives” to “the benevolence on
people,” i.e., to “enlarge one’s self-concern to the concern for others” (推己及人),
to “treat with the reverence the elders in your own family, so that the elders in the
families of others shall be similarly treated; treat with the kindness due to youth
the young in your own family, so that the young in the families of others shall
be similarly treated”20—that is, Ren. It is not easy to practice the doctrine of


Output:
“enlarging one’s self-concern to the concern for others,” which requires a “practice
of Ren” rooted in “the Way of Loyalty and Forgiveness” (忠恕之道), i.e., “never do
to others as you do not wish done on yourself,”21 “wishing to be established
himself, he seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he
seeks also to enlarge others.”22 (“Loyalty is the complete devotion of oneself;
forgiveness is the deduction of one’s self-concern.” 朱熹: hh四书集注ii)
   If Ren is to be extended to the whole society, it would be as what Confucius once
said: “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue. If a junzi (君子:
gentleman, nobleman) can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, all
under heaven will return to Ren (after his example). Is the practice of Ren from a
man himself, or is it from others?”23 “To subdue one’s self” and “to return to
propriety” are usually interpreted as two parallel teachings, but I do not consider


Output:
this the best explanation of this doctrine. “To subdue one’s self and return to
propriety, is perfect virtue” actually means the behavior of “returning to propriety”
based on the “subduing of one’s self” can be regarded as Ren. Mr. Fei Xiaotong had
his own interpretation about this doctrine: “Only after one has subdued one’s self
could one return to propriety. The return to propriety is prerequisite for one to enter
the society and become a social man. Perhaps it is just on this point Western and
Eastern civilizations have parted, that is, whether to expand or to subdue one’s
self.”24 I think Mr. Fei’s remark makes a lot of sense. Zhu Xi also had an exegesis
on this doctrine. “To subdue means to conquer,” he said, “and the self’ means one’s


Output:
17
   hh中庸ii: “仁者, 人也, 亲亲为大。           ” C.f. The Doctrine of the Mean, Chapter 20.
18
   hh郭店竹简·五行ii: “亲而笃之, 爱也。 爱父, 其攸爱人, 仁也。                           ”
19
   hh郭店竹简·唐虞之道ii: “孝之放,爱天下之民。                    ”
20
   hh孟子·梁惠王上ii: “老吾老以及人之老, 幼吾幼以及人之幼。                              ” C.f. Mencius, Chapter 2.
21
   hh论语·颜渊ii: “己所不欲, 勿施于人。              ” C.f. The Analects, Chapter 12.
22
   hh论语·雍也ii: “己欲立而立人, 己欲达而达人。                    ” C.f. The Analects, Chapter 6.
23
   hh论语·颜渊ii: “克己复礼曰仁。. . .. . .” C.f. The Analects, Chapter 12.
24
   Fei Xiaotong. (2002, February). A reconsideration of the relationship between man and nature
in culturalism. Working paper of the Center for Sociological Research and Development Studies
of China (CSRDSC), Department of Sociology, Institute of Sociology and Anthropology, Peking
University, Beijing.
24.3   Can Chinese Culture Make Contributions to the Coexistence of Civilizations?          301


Output:
personal desires. To return means to restore, and the propriety’ means the laws and
patterns of the Principle of Heaven.” According to this exegesis, one should subdue
one’s personal desires to abide by proprieties and social criteria. Ren is one’s natural
virtues (“Love is born in nature”25); and propriety is exterior conventions to rule
one’s behavior, the function of which is to adjust social relationships so that people
could live in harmony, as is summed up in one of Confucius’s old saying:
“The most valuable function of propriety is harmony.”26 Only if one abides by
proprieties and social criteria willingly, i.e., by an innate will to love people, can
one fulfill the demands of Ren. Thus, Confucius asked: “Is the practice of Ren from a
man himself, or is it from others?” He made a distinction between Ren and propriety:
“If a man be without Ren, what has he to do with the rites of propriety? If a man be
without Ren, what has he to do with music?”27 He who performs the rites or music


Output:
without a heart of Benevolence and Love is a hypocrite and is serving a purpose of
cheating. It is in this sense that Confucius thought if people would pursue Ren self-
consciously and practice what a heart of Benevolence and Love demands according to
the proprieties in everyday life, then harmony and peace would be achieved in a
society—“If a junzi can for one day subdue himself and return to propriety, all under
Heaven will return to Ren.” In my opinion, this teaching of Confucius is not totally
meaningless for the political leaders of a state or the ruling class in developed countries
(the United States in particular). “The politics of Ren” (仁政), or “the Way of a
virtuous emperor” (王道) instead of “the Way of hegemony” (霸道), is indispensable
to “rule the state” (治国) and to “harmonize all under Heaven” (平天下). If “the
politics of Ren” or “the Way of a virtuous emperor” is practiced, different cultures
would be able to coexist and develop in peace, while “the Way of hegemony” will


Output:
bring forth the “clash of civilizations,” resulting in monoculturalism and cultural
Hegemonism. If Confucian doctrine of Ren is applied to the regulating of intercultural
relationships, clash or war of civilizations will be avoided and the coexistence of
civilizations achieved.
   Of course, even the Confucian doctrine of Ren is no miracle drug to solve
all the problems about the existence of civilizations in contemporary society.
Nevertheless, as a set of moral self-regulations based on Benevolence and Love,
it would undoubtedly be of some practical significance to harmonize the coexis-
tence of civilizations if practiced as a principle to regulate intercultural and cultural
relationships.
   It is not easy to make different cultures get along in harmony and thus to make
states and nations in different cultural traditions coexist in peace. Probably, the
Confucian doctrine of “Harmony in Diversity” (和而不同)28 could provide us with


Output:
25
   hh郭店竹简·语丛二ii: “爱生于性。              ”
26
   hh论语·学而ii: “礼之用, 和为贵。            ” C.f. The Analects, Chapter 1.
27
   hh论语·八佾ii: “人而不仁如礼何?人而不仁如乐何?” C.f. The Analects, Chapter 3.
28
   In this context, I translate this saying as “Harmony in Diversity,” instead of “Unity in
Diversity”-the latter is another popular translation of this term. Tong (同) means Agreement
when applied on human relationships, or Sameness/Homogeneity on material objects. Thus the
translator would use different translations according to the contexts, and translate the “不同” as
diversity, disagreement, or heterogeneity, etc.—Translator’s note.
302                                 24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
an illuminating resource of thinking. According to Confucius, “The virtuous ( junzi)
get on in harmony without agreeing to each other; the base (xiaoren) agree with
others without harmony.”29 Junzi, as intellectuals with moral discipline practicing
the Way of Loyalty and Forgiveness, should try to get on with others in harmony in
spite of their different opinions; but those with no morality or discipline always
force others to accept their opinions, thus could not maintain a harmonious
relationship with others. If this doctrine of “Harmony in Diversity” could be applied
as a principle in dealing with intercultural and cultural relationships, it can play a
very positive role in resolving the conflicts among states or nations. It would be
especially true in dealing with those discords and conflicts provoked by cultural
differences (e.g., the differences in religious beliefs or social values) among states
or nations, if we practice the teaching of “Harmony in Diversity” as principle to


Output:
resolve these conflicts.
    “Harmony” and “sameness” are generally regarded as two different concepts in
traditional Chinese thinking. There was even “a debate on the differences between
Harmony and Sameness” in China’s history. As a passage in Zuozhuan relates,
once the Duke of Qi asked Yan-zi: “Is there only Ju who can get along with me in
harmony?” The reply of Yan-zi was: “Ju merely expresses the same opinion with
Your Highness,—how can it be called harmony?” “Is there any difference between
Harmony and Sameness?” asked the Duke. “They are quite different,” replied
Yan-zi. “Harmony is like well-cooked dish, you must concoct fish and meat with
water, fire, vinegar, sauce, salt and plum, and then cook the dish with firewood.
The cook harmonizes these flavors to make it moderate. If it is too light, then salt
should be added; if too salty, then water. When Junzi dines with such a dish, his
heart would be pacified. This is analogous to the relationship between the King and


Output:
his magistrates. But Ju is different from it. When Your Highness say that something
is right, he agrees; when Your Highness say the opposite, he agrees as well. It is as if
to moderate water with water,—who could tolerate to eat such a dish? Or as if a
zither always plays the same tune,—who could tolerate to enjoy such music? This is
why Sameness differs from Harmony.” (hh左传·昭公二十年ii) Another saying of
Shibo (史伯) was recorded as follows: “In fact, only Harmony can activate the
growth of lives, and Sameness would stop it on the contrary. Harmony is to
moderate something with heterogeneous things—only in this way, the lives
would flourish and find their belongings. If something is supplemented by homo-
geneous things, it can only be abandoned after its exhaustion. Thus the ancient
virtuous emperors had concocted Earth with Metal, Wood, Water and Fire,30
to transform it into miscellaneous lives.”31 (hh国语·郑语ii) From the above quota-
tions, we understand that harmony and sameness are totally different concepts.


Output:
29
   hh论语·子路ii: “君子和而不同, 小人同而不和。                    ” C.f. The Analects, Chapter 12.
30
   In ancient Chinese philosophy, Metal, Wood, Water, Fire and Earth are Five Processes (五行),
i.e. five basic elements, to make up the world. —Translator’s note.
31
   hh国语·郑语ii: “(史伯曰:)夫和实生物, 同则不继。 以他平他谓之和, 故能丰长而物归之; 若
以同裨同, 尽乃弃之。 故先王以土、与金、木、水、火杂, 以成百物。                                       ”
24.3   Can Chinese Culture Make Contributions to the Coexistence of Civilizations?         303


Output:
Only under the presupposition of difference and correlation could things
“be moderated with heterogeneity,” and the diverse things progress together in
harmony with one another. “To supplement something with homogeneity” is to
aggregate the sameness, which would only suffocate the lives. The supreme ideal of
traditional Chinese culture is that “miscellaneous lives are nourished together
without harming each other; miscellaneous ways are practiced together without
counteracting each other.”32 The “miscellaneous lives” and “miscellaneous ways”
refer to diversity; and the “without harming each other” and “without counteracting
each other” refer to harmony. This doctrine would provide us with inexhaustible
resources of thinking for the coexistence of diverse cultures.
    Now in Western countries, people of insight have already admitted the possibil-
ity of coexistence of civilizations that the clash or war provoked by mere cultural


Output:
differences should be avoided. They believe that different nations and states should
be able to achieve common understanding through cultural exchanges, dialogues,
and discussions. This would be a process moving from “diversity” to mutual
understanding. This mutual understanding is neither to extinct nor to assimilate
the individual cultures, but to find a cross-point in two different cultures and to use
it as the basis to promote the progress of both cultures—such is the function of
“harmony.” It is just because of the differences of diverse cultures that human
civilizations have become so colorful and that the complementary and interactive
setup is formed gradually in the ever-flowing river of human history. Cultural
differences might lead to clashes or even wars, but not all differences are destined
to cause clashes or wars. Especially in an era when science and technology are
rapidly developing, a massive war, if it really happens, would easily destroy


Output:
humankind itself. Thus, we must endeavor to maintain a harmonious coexistence
through intercultural dialogues. Many scholars at home and abroad have recognized
the importance of mutual understanding achieved through dialogues between
different cultures. Habermas, for instance, begins to emphasize the concepts of
justice and solidarity. In my opinion, they are significant principles in dealing
with international cultural relationships. Habermas’s “Principle of Justice” can
be understood as follows: every national culture has a right to protect its indepen-
dence and autonomy and to develop freely according to the will of its people.
His “Principle of Solidarity,” on the other hand, can be interpreted as an obligation
to sympathize, understand, and respect other national cultures. By uninterrupted
dialogues and communication between different national cultures, there will be a
time, sooner or later, when a positive cycle of interactions can be formed.33 Another


Output:
advocator of this principle is Gadamer, the German philosopher who passed away
only recently. He proposed that “understanding” should be extended to the level of
“universal dialogue.” Because of this extension, the relationship between subject
and object (as cognitive or grammatical concepts) is possible to be transformed


Output:
32
  hh中庸ii: “万物并育而不相害, 道并行而不相悖。                    ” C.f. The Doctrine of the Mean, Chapter 30.
33
  Yue Daiyun. (2002). Cultural relativism and comparative literature. A bridge across cultures.
Beijing: Peking University Press.
304                                 24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
from inequality to equality; in other words, only when the dialogues are conducted
on equal basis can there be any meaningful dialogue and fruitful result. Gadarmer’s
consciousness of equality between subject and object and his theory of “cultural
dialogue” are important ideas urgently needed in our time,34 illuminating enough
for us to understand properly and thoroughly the cultural or national relationships
between China and other nations. Nevertheless, whether it is Habermas’ principles
of justice and solidarity or Gadamer’s theory of universal dialogue, their common
presupposition should be the principle of “Harmony in Diversity,” since only
when nations and states in different cultural traditions coexist in harmony through
dialogues can they acquire equal rights and obligations and only then the “universal
dialogue” between them may become meaningful and fruitful. Thus, the Confucian
principle of “Harmony in Diversity” based on the belief that “harmony is the most


Output:
valuable”35 should be practiced as one of the basic principles in dealing with
intercultural relationships. This principle, if adopted by all states and nations, would
become a positive factor not only in eliminating the discords, conflicts, and even wars
but also as a dynamics in promoting the development of all states and nations through
exchange and communication. It is just in this sense that Bertrand Russell said:
“Contacts between different civilizations have often in the past proved to be land-
marks in human progress.”36 The contemporary human society needs different cul-
tures to develop their traditional characters through mutual absorption and
convergence, in order to bring about the coexistence of civilizations on a new basis.


Output:
24.3.2 The Taoist Doctrine of the Way (tao) Can Provide
       Significant Resources of Thinking to Prevent “The
       Clash of Civilizations”

If Confucius is a “man of virtue” (仁者), then Laozi is a “man of wisdom” (智者).
The Way is the fundamental concept in Laozi’s Tao Te Ching, while “the sponta-
neity and doing-nothing” (自然无为: to obey natural laws without offences) are the
basic features of the Way. “The spontaneity and doing-nothing are the Way of
Heaven,” said Wang Chong in his Lun Heng.37 All kinds of conflicts in contempo-
rary human society are undoubtedly caused by the greedy desires for power and
wealth. Those great powers, in their pursuit of selfish gains and expansion of power,
exploit the resources of underdeveloped countries and practice power politics,
which is the fundamental cause of global chaos. Laozi’s doctrine of “spontaneity


Output:
34
   Pan Derong. “The Philosophical Heritage of Gadamer.” Twenty-First Century, HK, Apr. Issue,
2002; Yu Qizhi. “Humanisitic Cultivation of the Philosophers.” Twenty-First Century, HK, Aug.
Issue, 2002.
35
   hh论语·学而ii: “和为贵。      ” C.f. The Analects, Chapter 1. (Also: note 23.) —Translator’s note.
36
   Op. cit.
37
   王充: hh论衡·初禀ii。
24.3   Can Chinese Culture Make Contributions to the Coexistence of Civilizations?   305


Output:
and doing-nothing” could be interpreted as to do nothing against people’s will,
which will render the society and the world peacefulness. Laozi once quoted the
saying of an ancient sage: “As I do nothing, the people will reform by themselves;
since I like quiet, they will keep order by themselves; when I seek no trouble,
the people will prosper by themselves; when I have no desire, they will live in
austerity by themselves.”38 It means that the ruler with political powers should
neither interfere with his people (doing-nothing), nor disturb their everyday life
(liking quiet), nor act against their will (seeking no trouble), nor exploit them
insatiably (having no desire); thus, the people will reform by themselves, keep
order by themselves, prosper by themselves, and live in austerity by themselves.
If we give a modern interpretation of this teaching and apply it to the administration
of contemporary society, it will not only bring peace to a country but also function


Output:
significantly in eliminating the clash of civilizations. We can interpret the above-
quoted teaching as follows: In international politics, the more a country interferes
with the affairs of other countries, the more chaotic the world will become; the
more those great powers threaten others with military force, the more turbulent
and disorderly the world will become; the more those great powers exploit the
underdeveloped countries under the pretext of international aids, the poorer
those underdeveloped countries will become; the more those developed countries
desire and fight for the world dominance of wealth and power, the more immoral
and terrorized the world will become. Therefore, in my opinion, the doctrine of
“doing-nothing” may be an effective prescription for the leaders of the so-called
new empire. If they would accept this prescription, the world will enjoy peace.
Nevertheless, the “new empire” always bully other states and nations by means of


Output:
“willful acts” (有为), such as interference, exploitation, or military threat, which
are undoubtedly determined by its greedy nature as an empire. According to Laozi,
“No calamity is worse than to be discontented. Nor is there a sin more dreadful than
coveting. He who knows how to be content, truly he will always be so.”39 Isn’t the
“new empire” discontented and coveting? Laozi said again: “Isn’t the Way of
Heaven much like a bow bent? The upper part has been disturbed, pressed down;
the lower part is raised up from its place; the slack is taken up; the slender width is
broader drawn. For thus the Way of Heaven cuts people down when they have had
too much, and fills the bowls of those who are in want. But the way of man will not
work like this: the people who have not enough are spoiled, for tribute to the rich
and the surfeited.”40 Why is the human society in this world today in a state of
turbulence and disorder? Isn’t it totally caused by human beings themselves,


Output:
especially those leaders of the “new empire” acting against the “Way of Heaven”
and losing the “hearts of men,” practicing a policy of spoiling those who have not


Output:
38
   hh道德经ii第 57 章: “我无为而民自化, 我好静而民自正, 我无事而民自富, 我无欲而民自
朴。   ” C.f. Tao TeChing, Chapter 57.
39
   hh道德经ii第 46 章: “祸莫大于不知足, 咎莫大于欲得, 知足之足, 常足矣” C.f. Tao Te Ching,
Chapter 46.
40
   hh道德经ii第77章: “天之道”, 其犹张弓欤? 高者抑之, 下者举之; 有余者损之, 不足者补之。
天之道, 损有余而不足, 人道则不然, 损不足以奉有余。         ” C.f. Tao Te Ching, Chapter 77.
306                               24 On the Clash and Coexistence of Human Civilizations


Output:
enough, in order to pay tribute to the rich and the surfeited? Isn’t it the root of
discords, conflicts, and wars in contemporary world? Thus, we find that the “clash
of civilizations” theory is closely related to the theory of “new empire” hidden
behind its back.
    Laozi strongly opposed wars for the sake of preserving peace in the world.
In Chapter 31, Tao Te Ching, he said: “Weapons at best are tools of bad omen,
loathed by all. Thus those of the Way avoid them.”41 In wars, there are always
people killed, production interrupted, and social orders broken; thus Laozi thinks
that war is evil, because people hate it, and virtuous statesmen would not push the
country into war to solve their problems. Again Laozi said: “To those who would
help the ruler of men by means of the Way: let him not with his militant might try to
conquer the world; this tactic will be revenged by Heaven. For where armies have
marched, there do briers spring up; where great hosts are impressed, years of hunger


Output:
and evil ensue.”42 This is generally true in the history of all nations. In China, after
every major war, the population would be reduced dramatically, farmland disserted,
production interrupted, and robbers and thieves infesting. The two World Wars both
ended in this way, and the current war in the Middle East is no exception. Whenever
the leaders of the “new empire” provokes a war anywhere, they will surely be
bogged down there, since the people in the conquered countries will not surrender,
they will fight without the fear of death, as Laozi said: “The people do not fear at
all to die; what’s gained therefore by threatening them with death?”43 And: “As for
those who delight to do murder, it is certain they can never get from the world what
they sought.”44 We see from history that those who had initiated wars, though
momentary successes they might get, would finally fail and be dishonored. Hitler
was such an example, and Japanese Militarism, another. As a “man of wisdom,”


Output:
Laozi could observe the latent converse side with his wisdom, as he said: “On bad
fortune the good fortune always leans; in good fortune the bad fortune always
hides.”45 Now, people in some countries are suffering, but it would be a necessary
precondition prepared for their nation’s renewal in future. Take the past hundred
years of China’s history, for example, it is just after being beaten repeatedly that the
Chinese people had finally waken up. Today, we may say that the Chinese nation is
on the eve of a great renewal. In my opinion, leaders of every country, especially
those of the “new empire,” should learn some wise teachings from the Tao Te Ching
and realize that, in the long run, the politics of great powers and Hegemonism will
have no future. Therefore, I consider the thinking of Laozi valuable in refuting
the theories of “clash of civilizations” and of the “new empire.” We advocate the


Output:
41
   hh道德经ii第31章: “夫兵者, 不祥之器, 物或恶之, 故有道者不处。                    ” C.f. Tao Te Ching,
Chapter 31.
42
   hh道德经ii第 30 章: “以道佐人主者, 不以兵强天下, 其事好还。 师之所处, 荆棘生焉, 大军
之后, 必有凶年。    ” C.f. Tao Te Ching, Chapter 30.
43
   hh道德经ii第74章: “民不畏死, 奈何以死惧之?” C.f. Tao Te Ching, Chapter 74.
44
   hh道德经ii第31章: “夫乐杀人者, 则不可得志于天下矣。              ” C.f. Tao Te Ching, Chapter 31.
45
   hh道德经ii第58章: “祸兮, 福之所倚; 福兮, 祸之所伏。          ” C.f. Tao Te Ching, Chapter 58.
24.3   Can Chinese Culture Make Contributions to the Coexistence of Civilizations?   307


Output:
theory of “coexistence of civilizations” and are in agreement with Laozi’s idea of
“doing-nothing,” in the expectation of a world of Great Harmony, with peace and
security, general progress, and common wealth for humankind. Of course, as Laozi
was born 2,000 years ago, his philosophy cannot be used to solve all the problems
that contemporary human society is confronted with (including the discords and
conflicts among nations), but his wisdom should be of important value to illuminate
our way. Our task is to rediscover and develop the essence of his thinking, to give it
a modern interpretation, so that the general public can benefit from the edifications
in the treasury of ancient Chinese philosophy.
   Differences in religious beliefs, values, and ways of thinking may lead to
conflicts among nations and states; and conflicts can breed wars. However, we
may ask: Are these conflicts inevitable? Would it be possible that these conflicts


Output:
be resolved peacefully, without a war for cultural differences? We have to find a
common resource of thinking in all national cultures advocating the coexistence
of civilizations, in order to prevent any possible conflict or war. As argued above,
the Confucianism and Taoism in Chinese culture could provide significant
resources of thinking to bring about the peaceful coexistence of civilizations.
I believe that the same kind of resources can be found in cultures of other nations
and states as well. At the turn of the twenty-first century, we must make a careful
choice whether to practice the theory of “clash of civilizations” in dealing with the
problems among nations and states or the theory advocating the “coexistence of
civilizations” to bring peace to human society. It would be a blessing to humankind
if we choose not the clash but the coexistence of civilizations. The Book of History
teaches us: “All the states under Heaven should be harmonized.”46 Like many other


Output:
nations, the Chinese nation is a great one with a long and brilliant tradition of
history and culture. Chinese culture is undoubtedly one of the most valuable
treasures for mankind. With this cultural heritage, we should be able to make
contributions to the peaceful coexistence of human civilizations, promote cultural
exchanges, so that harmony might befall on this world of diverse cultures.


Output:
46
     hh尚书尧典ii: “协和万邦”。
Chapter 25
Constructing “Chinese Philosophy”
in Sino-European Cultural Exchange


Output:
In December 2002, I published a 14-volume series Ershi Shiji Xifang Zhexue
Dongjian Shi (History of the Dissemination of Western Philosophy to China in
the 20th Century).1 My reason for engaging in this study was to review the history
of the importation of Western philosophy into China in order to more fully
understand the development of the discipline of “Chinese Philosophy.”
   There was no such a word as “philosophy,” or zhexue, in the Chinese language.
The term zhexue was coined by a Japanese scholar Nishi Amane (1829–1897), who
borrowed the two Chinese characters zhe (“wisdom”) and xue (“study”) to refer to
“philosophy” originated in Ancient Greece and Rome. This new term was intro-
duced into China by a Chinese scholar, Huang Zunxian (1848–1905), and was
accepted by Chinese scholars. Although this term zhexue was accepted by Chinese
scholars late in the nineteenth century, the problem remained, regarding whether
China had “philosophy” or the sort that was comparable to Western philosophy.


Output:
Indeed, this issue is still being debated by contemporary scholars in the field.
   Western philosophy was imported into China at the end of the nineteenth
century. Its foremost and most influential introducer, Yan Fu (1853–1921), had
translated numerous Western philosophical texts into Chinese, especially those
pertaining to evolutionary theory. In quick succession, the texts of Kant, Descartes,
Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche were introduced into China. These movements
provided a perspective on the issue of whether there is philosophy in China.
Some Chinese scholars discovered that although “philosophy” was not an indepen-
dent discipline, there were ample philosophical themes and questions in the


Output:
Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 2007, 34 (supple): 33–42
1
  Tang Yijie, ed., History of the Dissemination of Western Philosophy to China in the 20th Century
[Ershi Shiji Xifang Zhexue Dongjian Shi], 14 vols. (Beijing: Shoudu shifan daxue
chubanshe, 2002).

© Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing Co., Ltd                                  309
and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Y. Tang, Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Chinese Culture,
China Academic Library, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-45533-3_25
310               25 Constructing “Chinese Philosophy” in Sino-European Cultural Exchange


Output:
classical Chinese canons, such as Shang Shu (Book of History), Yi Jing (Book of
Changes), LunYu (Confucian Analects), Laozi, and Zhuang Zi, which were compa-
rable to those in Western philosophy. There were also significant differences
between the inquiries in these canons and those in Western philosophy, and study
of these differences were invaluable to scholarship.
    We must acknowledge that, before the importation of Western philosophy, there
was no scholarly study of Chinese philosophy in its own right, as a field distinct
from “canon studies” ( jing xue) and “traditions of the masters” (zi xue). From the
first half of the twentieth century, there was a surge into China of the fields of
Western philosophy including Marxism, pragmatism, realism, analytic philosophy,
Ancient Greek philosophy, and nineteenth-century German philosophy. This had a
powerful impact on scholarship in China. As a result of their engagement with
Western philosophy and its frameworks, Chinese scholars attempted to compile


Output:
voluminous collections of classical canons and commentaries associated with
Kongzi (Confucius), Laozi, Zhuangzi, and so forth, in order to establish a discipline
of “Chinese philosophy.” In the early stages, such study focused only on the
thoughts of particular individuals or isolated topics. By the twentieth century,
however, the field of Chinese philosophy had been founded primarily through the
route of studies in Chinese intellectual history. During this period, several volumes
of “History of Chinese Philosophy,” including Hu Shih’s (Hu Shi) Zhongguo
Zhexue Shi Dagang (Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy2) and Feng
Youlan’s (Fung Yu-lan) Zhongguo Zhexue Shi (History of Chinese Philosophy3),
were authored by scholars who sought to demonstrate that Chinese philosophy had
pre-Qin (before 221 BCE) origins. In other words, these Chinese thinkers were
consciously separating philosophical study from studies in classics and studies


Output:
under masters and establishing Chinese philosophy as an independent disciplinary
field. Nevertheless, all these accounts of Chinese intellectual history were greatly
influenced and defined by the frameworks supplied by Western philosophy.
    From the 1930s, Chinese philosophers were absorbing and adapting Western
philosophy in their accounts of Chinese philosophy. This led to the articulation of
several modern versions of Chinese philosophy. The prominent thinkers of this
period include Xiong Shili, Zhang Dongsun, Feng Youlan, and Jin Yuelin.
Unfortunately, after 1949, such attempts to construct strains of modern Chinese
philosophy were abruptly halted, as were studies that sought to engage dialogue
between Chinese and Western philosophies.
    It was not until the 1980s, when China embraced reforms toward a more open
society, that the study of Chinese philosophy was again permitted. The doctrines of
existentialism, Western Marxism, phenomenology, structuralism, hermeneutics,


Output:
2
  Hu Shih, Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy (Beijing: Dong Fang Press, 1996),
originally entitled History of Pre-Qin Sophism [Xian Qin Mingxue Shi], written between 1915
and 1917 and first published in 1922.
3
  Feng Youlan, History of Chinese Philosophy, vol. 1 (first published in 1931) and vol. 2 (first
published in 1934) (Beijing: Zhong Hua Shuju, 1962).
25.1   Western Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy as an Independent Discipline                 311

postmodernism, and semiotics, to name a few, were introduced in China. This not
only broadened the horizons of Chinese philosophers but also provided many
different perspectives for richer, in-depth scholarship in Chinese philosophy.
   From this brief retrospective on the history of the importation of Western
philosophy into China, I would like to make the following proposals in order to
generate further discussion.

25.1     Western Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy
         as an Independent Discipline


Output:
There was neither an original Chinese term zhexue nor did Chinese philosophy as
an independent discipline which originates in China. It was only in engagement
with and response to Western philosophy that elements of philosophical ideas
and philosophical questions were identified in the Chinese classics. Hence, the
“Chinese philosophy” that had been developed through this period was primarily
constructed according to paradigms and frameworks provided by Western
philosophy. Take Feng Youlan’s History of Chinese Philosophy, for example.
Its structure, terminology, and perspectives were mainly borrowed from their
equivalents in Western philosophy. These include concepts such as idealism
and materialism, ontology and cosmology, monism and dualism (or pluralism),
empirical and transcendental, phenomenon and essence, universals and particulars,
thought and existence, and the like. These conceptual frameworks were employed
to explain certain notions in Chinese thought including dao, tian, and xin.


Output:
Existing ideas, issues, terminologies, concepts, and logic were shaped by Western
philosophy. Fortuitously, the result was greater clarity in the specification of issues
and outline of concepts as well as greater precision in logic. I suggest that this was a
necessary step in the creation of a viable “Chinese philosophy.”
   Modern Chinese philosophy of the 1930s and 1940s is comprised by scholarly
work that characteristically continues rather than follows the traditional discourse of
Chinese philosophy. That is to say, in the process of studying and adapting Western
philosophy, Chinese philosophers transformed Chinese philosophy from the tradi-
tional to the modern. This continued development in Chinese philosophy had to
meet the criteria of Western philosophy; attempt to “converge the Chinese and
the West” was primarily involved supplementing the shortcomings of Chinese
scholarship with those of Western scholarship. Let me demonstrate this with two


Output:
representative examples. The first is Xiong Shili’s doctrine of the Neo-Weishi Lun
(Yogācāra Buddhism),4 and the second Feng Youlan’s Neo-Confucianism
(xinlixue).5


Output:
4
  Tang Yijie and Xiao Jiefu, eds., Xiong Shili Lunzhu Ji Zhiyi: Xin Weishi Lun [Collected Works of
Xiong Shili [1]: New Doctrine of Consciousness Only] (Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1985).
5
  Feng Youlan, XinLi-xue [New Rational Philosophy] (Changsha: Commercial Press, 1939).
312                 25 Constructing “Chinese Philosophy” in Sino-European Cultural Exchange


Output:
Xiong Shili’s Neo-Weishi Lun is only partially complete. The completed
section, the “Doctrine of the Jing” ( jing lun), is a treatise that covers topics in the
field of ontology (benti lun) in Western philosophy, albeit with some Chinese
characteristics. The other section which he had originally planned to write was
the “Doctrine of the Liang” (liang lun). Had it been written, this section would
have covered a topic area roughly equivalent to epistemology (renshi lun) in
Western philosophy. His other works allow us a glimpse as well into his view of
Chinese philosophy as it stands in relation to Western philosophy. Xiong believes
that traditional Chinese philosophy tended to place more emphasis on experiential
wisdom (tiren) than rational judgment or analysis (sibian). For Xiong, this is
where discussions on epistemology in Western philosophy can benefit Chinese
philosophy: He envisaged an epistemological approach that synthesized experien-
tial wisdom with rational analysis.


Output:
tial wisdom with rational analysis.
    In his approach to Neo-Confucianism, Feng Youlan asserts that his vision was
not to follow, but to continue, the Neo-Confucianism of the Song (960–1280) and
the Ming (1368–1644) dynasties. Feng’s approach resulted in an introduction into
Chinese philosophy the “universals” (gong xiang) and “particulars” (shu xiang) of
Platonic philosophy as well as ideas in Neo-Realism (xin shizai lun). Using this
schema, the world is divided into “truth” (zhenji)—or principle (li) or great ultimate
(taiji)—and “reality” (shiji). Accordingly, things in reality become what they are
according to their essence or principle. In adapting the bipolar concepts of truth and
reality, Feng was able to continue the Neo-Confucian doctrine of the “many sharing
the one” (li yi fen shu). Another Neo-Confucian work of Feng Youlan, entitled A
New Understanding of Words (Xin Zhi Yan),6 discusses philosophical methodology
and its relation to epistemological questions. According to Feng, Western philos-


Output:
ophy excels in analysis, while traditional Chinese philosophy excels in intuition.
His treatment of Neo-Confucianism combines and reaps the benefits of both these
approaches.
    Both Xiong Shili and Feng Youlan drew from traditional Chinese thought to
articulate Chinese philosophy. However, they continued the tradition by taking on
Western philosophy as the fundamental framework. Unfortunately, such exciting
developments in Chinese philosophy were forestalled by external circumstances.
    From the discussion above, it is clear that whether we understand Chinese
philosophy in terms of its early forays into Chinese intellectual history or its
continuing development in the early modern period in Chinese history, we must
recognize that it was very much shaped by Western philosophy.


Output:
6
    Feng Youlan, Xin zhi yan [A New Understanding of Words] (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1946).
25.2   Paradigms and Frameworks of Western Philosophy and Potential Problems in. . .       313

25.2      Paradigms and Frameworks of Western Philosophy
          and Potential Problems in Chinese Philosophy


Output:
As humans, we inevitably share a number of common characteristics that cut across
different civilizations and cultures. Nevertheless, each civilization or culture is
unique in geographical, historical, and even accidental aspects. Naturally, we
expect that Western philosophy will have distinctive characteristics due to its
evolution within a particular sociocultural environment. Likewise, Chinese philos-
ophy will necessarily be influenced by social and cultural factors and hence will
possess certain particularities. Thus, injudicious and unrestrained construction of
Chinese philosophy according to the terms of reference in Western philosophy will
unavoidably be problematic. I believe there are at least two fundamental problems.
    The first problem concerns the obliteration of characteristics of Chinese philos-
ophy that may be of unique significance to philosophical inquiry. I will discuss two
key features of Chinese philosophy that will help to demonstrate this point. Western


Output:
philosophy from the time of the ancient Greeks and especially from Descartes on
has regarded more highly the systematic construction of philosophic knowledge.
By contrast, thinkers in the Chinese tradition have put more emphasis on the pursuit
of certain paths or goals in order to realize one’s virtue or efficacy ( jingshen
jingjie). A passage in the Confucian Analects portrays Confucius’ emphasis on
the “inner,” personal pleasure associated with learning: “The Master said,
‘They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it, and they who love
it are not equal to those who delight in it’” (Analects 6:18).7 The ultimate pursuit of
life is not merely to attain knowledge or acquire skills; Yan Hui, Confucius’ much
loved disciple, harmonized his love of learning and personal conduct (Analects
6:3). In Yan Hui, the body and mind, the exterior and the interior, were in harmony.
    The Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi pursued jingshen jingjie of spontaneous


Output:
wandering in his first chapter, “Xiaoyao you,”8 that was not cramped by conven-
tional aspirations and values. Similarly, a well-known Chan Buddhist poem artic-
ulates the jingshen jingjie of being comfortable in different environments:
    The spring flowers, the autumn moon;
    Summer breezes, winter snow.
    If useless things do not clutter your mind,
    You have the best days of your life.9


Output:
7
  James Legge, trans., The Four Books (Taiwan: Culture Book Company, 1981), 195. The
following quotations from this book will show chapter and page number(s) in parenthesis.
8
  Angus C. Graham, trans., Chuang-Tzu: The Inner Chapters (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), 43–47.
Graham translates “Xiaoyao you” as “Going Rambling with a Destination.”
9
  Wumen Huikai (Mumon Ekai), The Gateless Gate (Wumen guan in Chinese; Mumonkan in
Japanese). English translation by Katsuki Sekida, Two Zen Classics: The Gateless Gate and the
Blue Cliff Records (Boston: Shambhala Press, 2005, previously published in 1995 by Weatherhill
Press). Translation available online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm
(accessed on February 23, 2007).
314              25 Constructing “Chinese Philosophy” in Sino-European Cultural Exchange


Output:
The spirit of such a philosophy characterized by reflective personal engagement
with its insights is distinct from those predominant in Western philosophy, but its
value for humanity cannot be underestimated.
   Another distinctive and fundamental characteristic of traditional Chinese
thought is its balance of holistic and individual perspectives. The key notions in
traditional Chinese philosophy include “the unity of Heaven and humanity” (tian
ren he yi), “the myriad of things are one” (wanwu yiben), and “the unity of body and
mind, the exterior and the interior” (shenxin neiwai heyi). These fundamental
paradigms stand in contrast to the subject-orientated approaches and the subject-
object dichotomy that are dominant in (Western) Anglo-analytic philosophy. If this
subject orientation and its attendant dualistic frameworks are used as reference
points from which to understand Chinese philosophy, the distinctive characteristics


Output:
of the latter will not be sufficiently articulated. On the other hand, it is important to
note that the themes in Chinese philosophy outlined above are more closely aligned
in spirit and approach with those in continental European philosophy, such as,
for instance, in phenomenology, which emphasizes the intersubjective nature
(huzhutixing) of an individual’s engagement with the world. To bring to the
foreground, these features in traditional Chinese thinking will benefit both
Chinese and Western philosophies.
   The second source of potential problems is related to the translation
of Chinese terms and phrases into English. There are many notions in traditional
Chinese thought such as tian, dao, xin, xing, you, wu, and qi, with distinctive
meanings within specific philosophical frameworks that are difficult to express in
correspondence with Western philosophy. For example, tian (often “thinly” trans-
lated “Heaven”) has at least three meanings:


Output:
lated “Heaven”) has at least three meanings:
(a) Supreme and ultimate Heaven, sometimes expressed in terms of a
    personal god.
(b) Naturalistic Heaven that incorporates a sense of the natural environment.
(c) Heaven associated with a transcendent order; this is the ground of normative
    principles (yili) that may also have implications for ethical conduct.
   Another example is qi, which may be interpreted in at least three ways:
(a) Material existence
(b) Vitality and consciousness, as, for instance, in Mencius’ and energetic and
    dynamic qi (huo qi zhi qi) or the Guanzi’s essential qi ( jingqi)
(c) The ultimate, as, for instance, in the “one qi evolved into three” (yiqi hua
    sanqing) theme in Daoist thought
It is not easy to find parallels to all these meanings of qi in Western philosophy.
Strictly speaking, some of them cannot be translated, and I suggest in these cases to
use transliterations. Here, I refer to an example of successful use of transliteration in