Compete and Integrate: The Artery of the History of Chinese Academic Thought

Author: Yin Jizuo, edited by Zhou Shan
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2003-08-01
Features: Modern scholars dedicated to the study of academic history have surpassed the ancient in terms of broader perspectives and have undergone a modern transformation in concepts and methods. For example, they analyze academic disciplines, pay attention to the political, economic, and social backgrounds of academic production, examine the interaction and comparison between Chinese and foreign academia, and so on. Among those who made outstanding contributions to the study of academic history was Liang Qichao. With the purpose of "saving modern China, nothing is more urgent than changing its thoughts with new doctrines," he focused on re-evaluating traditional academia and introducing new academic ideas. He planned a sixteen-chapter work titled "On the Great Trend of Changes in Chinese Academic Thought," discussing the evolution of Chinese academic thought from ancient to modern times, but only wrote the first six chapters before stopping. In his later years, Liang established the ambition to write a "history of Chinese academic thought," producing works such as "Case Study of Mohism," "History of Pre-Qin Political Thought," "General Theory of Qing Academic Thought," and "Three Hundred Years of Academic History in a Small Country." The latter two are particularly refined works, clearly outlining the origins and evolution of Qing studies, with creative judgments. Although Liang did not leave behind a complete history of Chinese academic thought, he certainly possessed extraordinary ability in grasping the macroscopic process of its transformation. Today's popular view—that Chinese academic thought has undergone the transformation of "Confucianism in the Han and Tang dynasties—Neo-Daoism in the Wei and Jin periods—Buddhism in the Sui and Tang dynasties—Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties—Qing textual research"—originates from Liang's "General Theory of Qing Academic Thought." Based on this, modern scholars often tend to divide the evolution of Chinese academic thought into seven consecutive stages: "Pre-Qin Confucianism—Han Confucianism—Neo-Daoism—Tang Buddhism—Song, Yuan, and Ming Neo-Confucianism—Qing Textual Research—Modern New Learning." Of course, this refers to the main trend, while each stage retains the lineage of earlier academic thought and coexists with various side schools that diverge from the main trend. Another prominent academic historian of the modern era was Zhang Taiyan. Before the Xinhai Revolution, he vigorously advocated "the revolution to expel the Manchus" and placed great importance on the study of academic history, referring to Chinese academic thought as "national essence" and "using national essence to stimulate national character." He proposed new insights on Confucian classics, historiography, textual criticism, and ethics, and had a unique perspective on the causes of academic transformation. When discussing the divergence of Chinese academic thought, Zhang said, "Looking at the vast sky, those who establish academia have no foundation. Each develops its own school based on geographical environment, political customs, and talent quality." He believed that "geographical environment," "political customs," and "talent quality" together contribute to the formation of schools and the evolution of academic thought. Zhang further pointed out that as times progress, interactions expand, and geniuses are rare, the influence of geographical environment and talent quality diminishes, while social factors become the decisive force in academic transformation. "Thus, ancient times had three causes, while modern scholars observe and reflect on society, considering its political customs to clarify the direction." This is indeed a valid argument—the causes of academic transformation should consider not only "geographical environment" and "talent quality" but more deeply explore "political customs," i.e., social factors. Another modern scholar, Wang Guowei, explored the transformation of Chinese academic thought from the perspective of "the influence of external forces on academia." He referred to the late Zhou period as the "dynamic era of Chinese thought," the Han and Tang dynasties as a period of stagnation, and the period from the Southern and Northern Dynasties to the Song and Tang dynasties as the "era when Chinese thought was influenced by Buddhism." Due to the harmonization of Indian and Chinese thought by Song Confucian scholars, this era "also had a slightly dynamic nature." After the Song dynasty to the Qing dynasty, "the stagnation of thought was similar to that of the Han dynasty." "Today, the second Buddhism has appeared again: Western thought." Wang believed that if Chinese thought could be harmonized with Western thought, it could achieve a dynamic state. This is an open and forward-looking view of academic transformation. Following this line of thought, modern academic historians often focus on the academic evolution during the periods of the Zhou and Qin transition, the Ming and Qing transition, and the late Qing and early Republican transition, using them as key points to explore the transformation of Chinese academic thought. The discussions of ancient and modern scholars on the transformation of Chinese academic thought may be good or bad, deep or shallow, but they are all precious. They provide us with lessons in thinking and lay a solid foundation for future progress.
Regarding the development of ancient Chinese academic thought, there is a common saying that it began with Wang Bi in the Wei dynasty, establishing a metaphysical system through new interpretations of Daoist thought. This view is partly influenced by the continuous introduction of Western thought history (especially the history of philosophy) since modern times, and partly related to Chinese scholars' special understanding of the dialectical nature of Daoist metaphysics. If we regard Aristotle's philosophy as a complete metaphysical system in Western thought history and use it to standardize our understanding of "philosophy," then the journey from the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece to Parmenides, Plato, and finally Aristotle at least superficially resembles the rise of Wang Bi's metaphysics in terms of comparable stages. However, from the perspective of modern cultural philosophy, we cannot afford to overlook the need for more substantive considerations; for a specific academic thought, there is an hermeneutic cycle between its form and content. This reminds us to delve into history and pay attention to the fact that culture not only has characteristics but also inertia. In other words, the intellectual changes during the Wei and Jin period still require an explanation from the history of academia itself. In the early 20th century, the philologist Huang Kan wrote an article discussing the intellectual history of the Wei and Jin period, saying, "The term 'philosophy' is not originally from our land; using it as a borrowed term creates a contradiction between name and reality; therefore, we follow the old name and call it 'metaphysics.'" He also said, "Since the time of Fu Xi, down to this day, there have been many who spoke of metaphysical principles." This shows that Huang Kan viewed the metaphysics of the Wei and Jin period from the perspective of the continuity of the entire history of Chinese academic thought. His broad perspective is even reflected in the title of his paper—"On Wei and Jin Metaphysics." Yan Ruoshi, with his "Proofreading," demonstrated precise attacks and thorough research, surpassing all predecessors. However, opponents still criticized him, with the most prominent being Mao Qiling. Historical records show that the Western River "placed great emphasis on Confucian classics and regretted his inability to fully annotate the Book of Documents, the Rites, the Analects, and the Doctrine of the Mean due to old age and illness." He also resented the trend of doubting and altering ancient texts since the Song and Yuan dynasties, often speaking out against it. After the "Proofreading of the Ancient Texts of the Book of Documents" sparked a wave of textual criticism, Mao completely changed his attitude (Mao Qiling considered himself highly accomplished and looked down upon other scholars, except for Yan Ruoshi, whom he respectfully called "I am far inferior to Qianqiu in my life's learning"). He took up his pen like a sword, ready to attack, and wrote "On the Determination of the Ancient Texts of the Book of Documents" in four volumes, refuting all arguments since the Song and Yuan dynasties that doubted the authenticity of the ancient texts of the Book of Documents. When about to publish, he "removed the title 'On the Determination' and renamed it 'Wrongful Accusations,' adding four more volumes to make eight, and further examined and annotated them," believing that the title "On the Determination" was "not sharp enough to change customs," while the name "Wrongful Accusations" "not only could stir up a trend and attract scholarly attention" but also emphasized the calls for appeal and vindication. Mao Qiling's arguments on the authenticity of the ancient texts of the Book of Documents primarily appeared in the eight-volume "Wrongful Accusations" and the "Questions on Classics" (Volume 18, attached with the "Supplementary Record of Wrongful Accusations of the Ancient Texts of the Book of Documents"). The content of the entire work can be categorized into ten types: "General Discussion," "The Modern Texts of the Book of Documents," "The Ancient Texts of the Book of Documents," "The Wrongful Accusation of the Ancient Texts Starting with Zhu Xi," "The Wrongful Accusation of the Ancient Texts Formed by Wu Xie," "The Wrongful Accusation of the Titles of the Texts," "The Wrongful Accusation of the Prefaces," "The Wrongful Accusation of the Short Prefaces," "The Wrongful Accusation of the Texts," and "The Wrongful Accusation of the Records." In terms of structure, it can be divided into two parts: the first two volumes are the main arguments, citing a large number of documents to explain the origins of the modern and ancient texts of the Book of Documents, as well as the origins of the hundred, one hundred and twenty, and fifty-eight chapters of the Book of Documents, to correct misunderstandings; the third to the eighth volumes are rebuttals, refuting all doubts about the ancient texts of the Book of Documents since the Song and Yuan dynasties, strongly arguing for their authenticity. In the main argument section, Mao primarily relied on the record in the "Annals of the Sui Dynasty" that "the imperial library in the Jin dynasty preserved ancient texts of the Book of Documents, none of which are transmitted today" to claim that the ancient texts submitted by Mei Ze were "Confucius' transmission, not the original text." He also stated the scholarly conventions of the past, saying, "When I interpret classics, I dare not dare to comment on a single word of the original text, even though I have had many debates. The debates are about the transmission, not the original text. Even if there are differences in the original text, they must be verified by the original text." From this, he concluded, "Now, to dare to comment on the ancient text based on Confucius' transmission, and to dare to comment on the authenticity of the ancient text based on the authenticity of Confucius' transmission." Here, Mao downgraded the untenable ancient texts of the Book of Documents submitted by Mei Ze to the interpretation of the Book of Documents (Confucius' transmission), using a deceptive tactic to avoid weaknesses, demonstrating excellent debate skills. Throughout the entire "Wrongful Accusations," similar tricks are used repeatedly. Qian Mu criticized them as "exploiting weaknesses to attack the soft," likening them to "the cunning of military strategists." As a result, the defenders became the accusers, and with great authority, they concluded: "The ancient texts were stored in the imperial treasury," "after the chaos of the Yongjia era, the book still existed but was not transmitted," "Mei Ze submitted Confucius' transmission to fill the gaps in the Book of Documents. What Mei Ze submitted was An Guo's transmission, not the ancient text. An Guo's transmission began in the Eastern Jin dynasty. The ancient text did not begin in the Eastern Jin dynasty. Therefore, the dynastic histories of the Tang and Song dynasties did not record Mei Ze's submission, considering it unrelated to the main text and insignificant. However, the old dynastic history and the Catalogue of the Sui dynasty each recorded it. Yet, they still feared that people would mistake Confucius' transmission for the ancient text, so they first said that the imperial library in the Jin dynasty preserved ancient texts, and then mentioned that it was only until Mei Ze of the Yuzhang Prefecture in the Eastern Jin dynasty that An Guo's transmission was obtained. This is clear. Yet, the ignorant claim that Mei Ze submitted the ancient text, leading to one error after another and making it a." In the rebuttal section, Mao first exposed "the wrongful accusation of the ancient texts starting with Zhu Xi," because he "once suspected that Confucius' transmission of the Book of Documents was a fake." Since the Song and Yuan dynasties, the academic climate has declined, and scholars have "overly followed Zhu Xi, willing to offend the sages, but daring not to say a single word about Zhu Xi's mistakes. Moreover, since the Ming dynasty to the present, the establishment of learning and the selection of officials have all used his annotations, even if Confucius were to return, there would be nothing he could do. As a result, ignorant people have searched for and quoted in all directions, blowing the hair and searching for scars, forging cases, and the reverence for teachers has led to the spread of the theory of the fake Book of Documents." Mao then traced the origins and refuted the reasons for Zhu Xi and Wu Xie's doubts about the Book of Documents, using the explanation that "the style of the Book of Documents has no difficulty or ease," and "each is divided into easy and difficult based on style" to deny Wu Xie's statement that "all easy texts in the Book of Documents are ancient texts, and all difficult texts are modern texts." He also refuted Zhu Xi's statement that "the style of the Book of Documents has no difficulty or ease, and Fu Sheng's transmission is all difficult to remember, while the easy texts are all forgotten." He said, "The style of the Book of Documents has no difficulty or ease, only the classics are profound and mysterious, the edicts are grand and harmonious, the instructions are clear, and the oaths are fierce, each being divided into easy and difficult based on style. This is because the high halls and grand texts are different from those shown to teachers and the public. Therefore, there are those who say that Pan Geng's great edict is straightforward in meaning but crooked in intent, combining simplicity and wildness, and it is also the result of the rise and fall of the times. The "Zuo Zhuan" is concise, while the "Guo Ce" is fierce and elegant, the great and small "Ya" have changed, and their words are, different from the former. It is enough to say that Yu's oath and Gan's oath are still slow and gentle, while Shang and Zhou added the spirit of Jie and Zong. Han Yu said, "The edicts and plates of Zhou and Shang are tortuous and difficult to pronounce," referring to Shang and Zhou, not to mention others. Now, with one-tenth of the style, small distinctions of time, and comparing the ancient and modern texts based on difficulty, and saying that the modern texts are difficult and the ancient texts are easy, is it because the ancient texts do not have Pan Geng's great edict and the many and the many? Or is it that the modern texts, except for Pan Geng's great edict and other chapters, do not have Yao Dian, Gao Mo, Hong Fan, and Wu Yi, which are easy to remember?" Moreover, "scholars should discuss the classics in terms of reason, not in terms of writing, even if they want to discuss writing, they should discuss the writing that is close to reason, and the difficulty or skill of the writing can be ignored." From this, he concluded that Zhu Xi and Wu Xie's methods of doubting the Book of Documents are not acceptable. Subsequently, Mao Qiling presented detailed points on "the wrongful accusation of the titles of the texts," "the wrongful accusation of the prefaces," "the wrongful accusation of the short prefaces," and "the wrongful accusation of the texts," with meticulous attention and extensive content, focusing on "the wrongful accusation of the texts," almost including all the important arguments of scholars since the Yuan and Ming dynasties and even the present day who questioned the authenticity of the Book of Documents, and refuting them. Those who challenged him most fiercely were the Qing scholars, among whom Bai Shi was the first. Reading the entire "Wrongful Accusations," all those prefixed with "or said" refer to Qing scholars. Upon closer examination of the content, most of the items come from the "Proofreading."