Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century

Home > Other > Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century > Page 3
Sixth Century BCE to Seventeenth Century Page 3

by Ying-shih Yü


  cial Kang Sheng

  and

  scholars such as Guo Moruo

  , serving at the time as the head of the Chinese Acad-

  emy of Sciences. The second refers to Chinese offi

  cial responses to a series of Professor

  Yü’s articles discussing Chen Yinque’s inner landscape published in 1983 and 1984

  ( later reworked into his 1984 book on Chen). This time, Hu Qiaomu

  , the head of

  the Chinese Acad emy of Social Sciences was involved. For this development, see Yü

  Ying- shih, “Chen Yinque yanjiu de fansi he zhanwang”

  , in

  Chen Yinque yanjiu

  , ed. Zhou Yan

  (Beijing: Jiuzhou chubanshe,

  2013), 1–19, esp. pp. 4–6, 11–15; see also Zhang Qiuhui

  , “Xia Nai riji li de ‘Chen

  Yinque huati’ ”

  “

  ,” and Xu Qingquan

  , “Chen

  Yinque Lun Zaisheng yuan chuban fengbo”

  . Both articles are

  included in Zhou Yan’s book; see 48–61, esp. pp. 57–58, and 195–208, esp. pp. 205–207.

  These three articles and some other essays in Zhou Yan’s book, including Zhou Yan’s

  own editorial comments (4–5), all demonstrate the impact of Professor Yü’s works on

  the rise of this extensive trend.

  13. For further explanation of this view, see Yü Ying- shih, “Cong jiazhi xitong kan Zhong-

  guo wenhua de xiandai yiyi”

  , in his Zhongguo sixiang

  chuantong de xiandai quanshi

  (Taipei: Lianjing, 1987), 46–48.

  14.

  Renwen yu lixing de Zhongguo

  , by Yü Ying- shih, ed. and trans. (from

  En glish to Chinese) Cheng Nensheng

  , Luo Qun

  , and He Jun

  (Taipei:

  Lianjing, 2008), was very useful for us in completing the endnotes in spite of the few

  errors and omissions it contained.

  15. The fi rst citation is provided in Dr. Billington’s remarks on awarding Professor Yü the

  Kluge Prize in 2006 and also quoted by the Tang Prize Award Committee made in late

  June 2014. See http:// www . tang - prize . org / ENG / Publish . aspx ? CNID = 300.

  The second quote is from the title of a scholarly article by Li Xianyu

  , “Renwen

  zhuyi de dianfan— Yü Ying- shih de xueshu jingshen chutan”

  —

  , Tongshi jiaoyu yu jingcha xueshu yantaohui lunwenji

  (2007): 131–137. See http:// gec . cpu . edu . tw / ezfi les / 91 / 1091 / img / 388

  / 1967 41845 . pdf.

  The third citation is by the late Professor Anthony C. Yü (Yu Guofan

  , 1938–

  2015) in his “Yü Ying- shih jiaoshou de xueshu chengjiu yu shixue gongxian”

  , Dangdai, no. 232 (2006): 29–33, esp. p. 33. It was also cited by

  one of the members of the Tang Prize Award Committee. See “Yü Ying- shih huo ban

  xx edi tor i a l not e

  ‘Tang jiang’ Hanxue jiang”

  ‘

  ’

  , Radio Free Asia (Mandarin branch),

  June 20, 2014, http:// www . rfa . org / mandarin / yataibaodao / gangtai / al - 06202014095122

  . html.

  Hao Chang (Zhang Hao

  ) made a similar comment describing Professor Yü as

  a “public intellectual” for the Hong Kong tele vi sion documentary series on “Jiechu

  Huaren

  ,” or “outstanding Chinese.” The program on Professor Yü was pro-

  duced by the late Mr. Weng Zhiyu (1968–2015)

  and aired on January 6, 2008.

  See http:// app1 . rthk . org . hk / php / tvarchivecatalog / episode . php ? progid = 554 & tvcat = 2.

  16. It is in ter est ing to note that fensi, the Chinese word for fan (supporter, admirer, etc.), is

  a kind of noodle made from meng bean fl our. It sticks together in a ball ( tuan) and is

  diffi

  cult to separate; thus, fensi tuan also symbolizes the solidarity of such fans. We have

  found from 16,800 to 85,200 results when we googled “Yü Ying- shih fensi tuan” in

  Chinese several times in July 2015.

  ab b r e v i at ions

  AM

  Asia Major

  BPZ

  Baopuzi

  CASS

  Chinese Acad emy of Social Science

  CBETA

  Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association

  Chan, SB Wing-

  tsit

  Chan,

  A Source Book in Chinese

  Philosophy (Prince ton: Prince ton University

  Press, 1963)

  CSJC

  Congshu jicheng

  CUHK

  Chinese University of Hong Kong

  DNP

  Dai Dongyuan xiansheng nianpu

  DWJ

  Dai Zhen wenji

  GXCK

  Guoxue congkan

  GXJB

  Guoxue jiben congshu jianbian

  GXJBCS

  Guoxue jiben congshu

  HHS

  Hou Hanshu

  HJAS

  Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies

  HKU

  Hong Kong University

  HS

  Hanshu

  xxii ab b r e v i at ions

  JAOS

  Journal of the American Oriental Society

  JAS

  Journal of Asian Studies

  JTS

  Jiu Tangshu

  KG

  Kao Gu

  LHJJ

  Lunheng jijie

  LSCQ JS

  Lüshi chunqiu jishi

  LSYJ

  Lishi yanjiu

  MRXA

  Mingru xue- an

  MZS

  Mengzi ziyi shuzheng

  QHHW

  Quan Hou Han wen

  QSW

  Quan shanggu sandai Qin Han Sanguo Liuchao

  wen

  QTW

  Quan Tang wen

  SBBY Sibu

  beiyao

  SBCK Sibu

  congkan

  SBE

  Max Müller, ed., The Sacred Books of the East

  (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1879–1910)

  SGZ

  Sanguo zhi

  Shangwu Commercial

  Press

  SJ

  Shiji

  SKQS Siku

  quanshu

  SMZY

  Sanmin zhuyi

  SYXA

  Song- Yuan xue- an

  TP

  T’oung P’ao

  TPJHJ

  Taipingjing hejiao

  WSTY

  Wenshi tongyi

  WW

  Wenwu

  WWCKZL

  Wenwu cankao ziliao

  WYWK Wanyou

  wenku

  XTS

  Xin Tangshu

  Zhonghua Zhonghua

  shuju

  ZJS

  Zhuangzi jishi

  ZJSNXS

  Zhonguo jin sanbai nian xueshu shi

  ZLQS

  Zongli quanshu (

  )

  ZSCS

  Zhongshan congshu ( )

  ZYL

  Zhuzi yulei

  ZYYY

  Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo

  jikan

  ZZ

  Zuozhuan

  ZZTJ

  Zizhi tongjian

  c h ronolo g y of d y na s t i e s

  Xia 2000?–1600?

  b.c.e.

  Shang 1600?–1027?

  b.c.e.

  Zhou 1027?–256

  b.c.e.

  Western

  1027?–771

  b.c.e.

  Eastern

/>   771–256

  b.c.e.

  Spring and Autumn Period

  771–481 b.c.e.

  Warring States Period

  481–221 b.c.e.

  Qin 221–206

  b.c.e.

  Former (Western) Han

  202 b.c.e.–8 c.e.

  Xin (Wang Mang)

  9–23 c.e.

  Later (Eastern) Han

  25–220 c.e.

  Three Kingdoms

  220–280

  Wei

  220–265

  Shu

  221–263

  Wu

  222–280

  Western Jin

  265–316

  Sixteen Kingdoms

  301–439

  North- South Dynasties

  317–589

  Eastern Jin

  317–420

  Northern (Tuoba) Wei

  386–535

  Sui 581–618

  xxiv c h ronolo g y of d y na s t i e s

  Tang 618–907

  Five Dynasties

  907–960

  and Ten Kingdoms

  Song 960–1127

  Northern

  960–1127

  Southern

  1127–1276

  Mongol Yuan

  1271–1368

  Ming 1368–1644

  Manchu Qing

  1636–1911

  Republican Era

  1911– pres ent

  Chinese History and Culture

  volu m e 1

  1. Between the Heavenly and the Human

  The idea of the “unity of Heaven and man” ( tian ren heyi

  ) has been

  generally regarded as a feature uniquely characteristic of Chinese religious

  and philosophical imagination. The tian- ren polarity as a category of thinking

  was already essential to Chinese philosophical analy sis in classical antiquity.

  Thus, in the Zhuangzi, the question of where the fi ne line is to be drawn between

  “the heavenly” and “the human” is often asked. Zhuangzi’s emphasis on the no-

  tion of tian was later sharply criticized by Xunzi (ca. 312–230 b.c.e.) as being

  blinded by the heavenly and insensitive to the human. For his own part, how-

  ever, Xunzi also insisted that true knowledge of the world must begin with a

  clear recognition of the distinction between the two realms.

  By the second century b.c.e. at the latest, the tian- ren category had been fi rmly

  established as a basic way of thinking due, in no small mea sure, to the pervasive

  infl uence of the yin- yang

  cosmology in general and Dong Zhongshu (ca. 179–

  ca. 104 b.c.e.) in par tic u lar. Throughout the Han dynasty (206 b.c.e.–220 c.e.),

  belief in the mutual interaction between the Way of Heaven ( tiandao

  ) and

  human aff airs in both elite and popu lar cultures was nearly universal. It was in

  such a climate of opinion that Sima Qian (145–90? b.c.e.), the Grand Historian

  of China, devoted his entire life to the writing of his monumental Shiji

  (Rec ords of the Grand Historian), which was intended, in his own words, “to

  examine all that concerns Heaven and man.” Thus, he set an example for histo-

  rians of later centuries to follow. It is by no means a mere coincidence that Liu

  2 b e t w e e n t h e h e av e n l y a nd t h e h u m a n

  Zhiji

  (661–721), the great Tang offi

  cial historiographer, was praised by

  his contemporaries as a man “whose learning joined together the realms of

  Heaven and man.” In the eigh teenth century, Zhang Xuecheng

  (1738–

  1801), arguably the most philosophically minded of all historians in the Chinese

  tradition, also took great pride in the purpose he set for his work, which was

  “to show the interrelatedness of the heavenly to the human, thereby throwing

  light on the Great Way.” In both cases, the allusion to Sima Qian

  is

  unmistakable.

  The tian- ren polarity also fi gured prominently in both Wei- Jin Neo- Daoism

  and Song- Ming Neo- Confucianism. He Yan

  (?–249) and Wang Bi

  (226–249) enjoyed each other’s com pany because they could always discuss

  “ matters concerning the interrelationships between Heaven and man” with per-

  fect understanding. Needless to say, complex metaphysical issues arising from

  the basic distinction between the “Heavenly princi ple” ( tianli

  ) and “ human

  desires” ( renyu

  ) constituted the very core of Neo- Confucian discourse. The

  story is too familiar to require further elaboration here.

  The notion of “unity of Heaven and man” proved to be so surprisingly resil-

  ient that it continues to haunt the Chinese mind in the twentieth century. Dur-

  ing the early 1940s, Chin Yueh- lin (Jin Yuelin

  , 1895–1984), a leading

  Chinese metaphysician thoroughly trained in Western philosophy, and Fung

  Yu- lan (Feng Youlan

  ) made a concerted philosophical eff ort to develop

  the idea of tian ren heyi each in his own way, with the explicit purpose of ex-

  ploring the possibility of its relevance to the modern world. In a comparativist

  context, Chin singled out tian ren heyi as the “most distinguishing characteris-

  tic” of Chinese philosophy. Fully aware of the comprehensiveness and complex-

  ity of the thesis, he nevertheless tended to interpret it in terms of the “unity of

  nature and man” and contrasted it to the dominant Western idea of “conquest

  of nature.”1 On the other hand, Fung applied this thesis to what he called “the

  transcendent sphere of living,” the highest ideal in his philosophy of life. In his

  own words, “the highest achievement of the man living in this sphere is the

  identifi cation of himself with the universe, and in this identifi cation, he also

  transcends the intellect.”2

  Since the early 1990s, a great controversy has fl ared up in the Chinese intel-

  lectual world around the notion of tian ren heyi. In this ongoing debate, many

  questions have been raised regarding the exact meanings of this classic thesis.

  Some are continuous with Chin’s interpretation but focus more sharply on the

  dilemma of how to achieve oneness with nature and si mul ta neously accommo-

  date science and technology in Chinese culture. Others echo Fung’s metaphysi-

  cal, ethical, or religious concerns but go beyond him by drawing modern, and

  even postmodern, implications from this thesis for Chinese spirituality. The

  details of this current debate need not concern us here. I mention it only to show

  that tian ren heyi is by no means a fossilized idea of merely historical interest.

  b e t w e e n t h e h e av e n l y a nd t h e h u m a n 3

  Instead, it remains a central component of the Chinese frame of mind to this

  very day. Indeed, it may hold the key to one of the doors leading to the World of

  Chinese spirituality.

  As a historian, however, I do not feel at ease with pure speculation. In what

  follows, I propose fi rst to off er an account of the genesis and development of this

  idea and then to endeavor to explain how it eventually evolved into one of the de-

  fi ning features of Chinese mentality. My approach is essentially historical.

  To begin with, let me introduce the ancient myth of the “Separation of

  Heaven and Earth” ( Jue di tian tong

  ). Briefl
y, the myth runs as fol-

  lows: In high antiquity, humans and deities did not intermingle. Humans, for

  their part, held the gods in reverence and kept themselves in their assigned

  places in the cosmic order. On the other hand, deities also descended among

  them from time to time through the intermediaries of shamans ( wu

  ). As a

  consequence, the spheres of the divine and the profane were kept distinct. The

  deities sent down blessings on the people and accepted from them their off er-

  ings. There were no natu ral calamities. Then came the age of decay, in which

  humans and deities became intermingled, with each house hold indiscrimi-

  nately performing for itself the religious observances that had hitherto been

  conducted by the shamans. As a result, the people lost their reverence for the dei-

  ties, the gods violated the rules of the human world, and calamities arose. It was

  at this point that the sage- ruler Zhuanxu

  (traditionally dated to the twenty-

  fi fth century b.c.e.) intervened, presumably with the approval of the God- on-

  High (Shang Di

  ); he rearranged the cosmic order by cutting the communi-

  cation between Heaven and Earth.3

  This myth is very rich with meanings and can be interpreted in a variety of

  ways. In the pres ent context, I wish to make only a simple historical observation:

  it may have served as a justifi cation for the fact that in ancient China, only the

  universal king had direct access to Heaven. According to tradition, under the

  Three Dynasties of Xia

  , Shang , and Zhou , making sacrifi cial off erings

  to Heaven was a prerogative exclusively reserved for the king. The local feudal

  lords were entitled to communicate with the earthly deities through sacrifi cial

  rites within their domains but not with the celestial ones. In other words, the

  “unity between the Heavenly and the human” was strictly confi ned to the Son

  of Heaven, who, as one modern interpretation suggests, was also the head

  shaman.

  Here, however, a diffi

  culty inevitably arises: the idea of the “unity between

  the heavenly and the human” mentioned in the beginning of this chapter is

  built on an assumption diametrically opposed to the myth of the “Separation of

  Heaven and Earth”; it presupposes that every individual person on earth is, in

  princi ple, able to communicate with Heaven. Admittedly, the exact meanings

  of the concept “Heaven” are quite diff er ent in these two theses. Nevertheless,

  structurally speaking, the two must be viewed as each other’s negation. The

  4 b e t w e e n t h e h e av e n l y a nd t h e h u m a n

  very notion that every one can communicate with Heaven without the assis-

 

‹ Prev