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-
