Condensed translation by Sherwin Lu
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the ninth, and the last, excerpt in this series of postings, translated from the author’s book in Chinese 《中国拯救世界—应对人类危机的中国文化》 (China Saves the World – Chinese culture being the solution to current human crises, Chap 8, Section 3). The contents of many other passages in the book had already appeared, before this series was first posted, on this website in translations of separate essays discussing same topics.
Different academic approaches, as expressions of different thinking patterns in the field of learning, are embodiments, ultimately speaking, of different cosmic visions. While the Western universe is one divided between the Creator and the created, or mind and matter, between an infinite series or variety of polar opposites, between infinitely divisible “basic elements” (atoms, molecules, electrons…), all divisions being confrontational and ultimately unbridgeable, the Chinese cosmos is a Yin-Yang unity, Yin and Yang representing the two mutually complementary but alternately growing or declining aspects in each and every being, or each and every process of change, leaving no room for polar opposites. That is why, whereas the Western world has been evolving through never ending divisions into and irreconcilable confrontations between slaves and slave-owners, serfs and feudal lords, and labor and dominating capital, between 99% working people and 1% parasitic superrich, between the conquered and conquerors, colonies and colonialists, oppressed and oppressing nations, and between Nature and humanity hijacked by the dominating 1%, always externalizing internal imbalances into an ever expanding time-space – while this has been the case with the Western world, traditional Chinese civilization kept growing by keeping and promoting all-round balances between all different social groups with shared and conflicting interests, between all different social aspects, internal and alien, man and Nature, body and soul, etc. – or in other words, by internalizing and dissolving external imbalances on all levels of being and treating all-under-heaven as a dynamically balanced and all-roundly integrated whole. In view of this, a discriminative study of the Chinese way of thinking and learning in particular and of traditional Chinese culture in general as in contrast with those of the West is very important to a truthful understanding of human history, of the world’s current reality and of mankind’s future destiny.
THE TEXT
“Civilizations differ, and so are correlated academic cultures. The Chinese attach importance to integration while Westerners to differentiation,” said Qian Mu, a Chinese scholar. (钱穆：《现代中国学术论衡·序》，生活·读书·新知三联书店 ，2001，P. 1。)
While Classical Chinese learning was opposed to “talks of two extremes as the only alternatives” (两末之议), Western academic thought is based on absolute divide between two extremes, such as either “A” or “not A” and between all things. This way of thinking has led to over-specialization and fragmentization in academic studies.
An early 20th century Chinese thinker described the difference this way: “We Chinese are typically more practical and straightforward whereas Westerners more speculative and scholastic, good at abstract thinking and categorizing. They do synthesizing and analyzing to everything either tangible or intangible. So, it is only natural that they tend to be verbose. We Chinese are good at the practical side and in theoretical matters are satisfied with concrete knowledge, not going any further in categorizing things than necessitated by practical concerns. ” (王国维：《论新学语之输入》，《教育世界》Issue 96，April, 1905。)
Qian Mu pointed out that overspecialization and fragmentization in Western learning are detrimental to the cultivation of scholars into ones with both moral integrity and professional competency whereas traditional Chinese learning did not attach importance to specialization but emphasized all-round development in academic education, just as Chinese classic literature put it: “ One can see the general in the particular and thus be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, not to be misled – this is the highest achievement in learning.” (《礼记·学记第十八》：“知类通达，强立而不反，谓之大成。”) He went on to analyze how fragmentized Western learning was:
“Take for illustration modern Western universities, where the teaching of knowledge is divided into many, and increasingly more, branches and departments. For example, a liberal arts college is divided into departments of literature, history, philosophy, etc.; students of literature major do not need to be familiar with history, and vice versa; neither major requires a thorough understanding of philosophy, nor does the study of the latter a good knowledge of the former two – each specializing in its own area, not closely interrelated or interlinked with any others.
“And a law school is divided into departments of politics, sociology, economics, diplomacy, and law; its students do not have to pay attention to those disciplines belonging to liberal arts; those studying politics do not have to bother about literature, history or philosophy, nor about sociology, economics, diplomacy or law. Such is the case with all other disciplines. What is more surprising is that a police affairs major has been added to undergraduate programs and it takes as long, i.e., four years, for a future policeman to graduate, as it takes someone who intends to become a statesman. Also, a department of advertisement has been added to business colleges, which also requires four years of study, the same as a business department. And the further specialization in colleges of science and engineering is even more diverse and complicated.
“Modern Westerners glory in such slogans as ‘freedom’, ‘equality’ and ‘independence’ and they do put them into practice in the realm of knowledge, paying no attention to distinctions between the primary and the secondary, between a priority and a non-priority, between the more and the less significant, and between the more and the less profound, or in other words, no attention to ranking in importance, or proper order of things, or systemization, or overall organization. In a word, each focuses on one special tree but misses the whole forest. With such chaos in the field of learning, how can one talk about human affairs convincingly.” （钱穆：《现代中国学术论衡》，生活·读书·新知三联书店 ，2001, PP. 94~95。）
Concretely speaking, traditional Western learning has been based on Euclid’s Elements as its basic model, with “definition-axiom-deduction” as its core structure, whereas Chinese learning has been modeled on The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art (《九章算术》), which, as a collection of solutions for problems, centers on finding the most general methods for solving problems based on the core structure of “purifying the mind-(knowing) the way of things-illustration” (心术——事理——举类).
As recorded in the Chinese classic Analects, Confucius answered his students’ questions about “benevolence” without giving any definition about its essential attributes, but explains what it implies each time in a way that specifically suits the questioner. Here are three examples from the same passage:
When Yan Yuan asked about “benevolence”, Confucius replied: “To restrain oneself and restore the rites of old times is the way to promote benevolence. Once this is done, all-under-heaven will be ruled by benevolence. The practice of benevolence starts from oneself; surely it does not start from others.”
When Zhong Gong asked about “benevolence”, Confucius replied: “When away from home on a mission, be circumspect as if going to meet distinguished guests; when levying services from people, be deferentially considerate as if offering sacrifices to gods and ancestors. Do not do to others what you would not like others do to you. Do not incur resentment either at the court or at one’s home place. ”
When Sima Niu asked about “benevolence”, Confucius replied: “A benevolent person speaks with caution.” (《论语·颜渊篇第十二》)
If judged against modern Western criteria, it is obvious that what Confucius replied did not come up to basic academic standard and could not pass university admission examinations, not to mention passing as a graduation thesis.
As mentioned above, Chinese learning, with emphasis on the cultivation of human character, has been structurally based on “inner sanctification (purification) externalized into sage-kingcraft” (内圣外王). Inner purification guarantees a truthful understanding of the way of all things and hence the formulation of effective rules for solving problems, which can be illustrated by examples showing their flexible application. What Chinese learning strives for is not formal perfection but a higher level of achievement where “ingenious application of knowledge hinges on a right state of mind” (运用之妙，存乎一心).
The above saying about “ingenious application” originates from a story about Yue Fei (岳飞), a historically known army general of Song dynasty: After Yue Fei won victories in some battles, his superior, while praising him for his bravery, wisdom and skills, gave him a troop formations diagram, saying that fighting with no troop formations is not always a guarantee for victory. Then Yue Fei replied: “Fighting in formations is a general tactic in the art of war, but ingenious application of the tactic hinges on a right state of mind.” His superior agreed. (《宋史·岳飞传》)
If we compare the Chinese classic Sunzi on the Art of War with On War by a Westerner, we will definitely see the subtlety of this “ingenuity” in Chinese learning.
Chinese scholars advocate all-round integration of knowledge in the highest possible degree. Their approach for doing academic work, when projected onto qualifications for a scholar-official, corresponds to the following three dimensions: moral integrity, a strong sense of law, and tactical ingenuity. Only those who are outstanding in all these three aspects can be competent ministers for the state. As some historian put it: “If somebody is highly virtuous and can serve as models for others to follow in carriage and conduct, he is called a man of integrity, such as Yan Ling （延陵）and Yan Ying（晏婴）；If somebody is capable of instituting and enforcing laws so as to make the state strong and people prosperous, he is called a Legalist, such as Guan Zhong (管仲) and Shang Yang (商鞅); If somebody is resourceful in thought and ingenious in tactics and schemes, he is called a tactician, such as Fan Li (范蠡) and Zhang Liang (张良). If somebody is qualified in all three, i.e., his virtuous character can help change social morals for the better, his administration of law can put all-under-heaven in right order, and his tactical ingenuity can beat all schemes against the state, he can serve as a minister, such as Yi Yin (伊尹) and Lü Wang (吕望).” (刘邵:《人物志·流业第三》)
Nowadays, the superiority of Chinese learning in its all-round integration between literature, history and philosophy are receiving more and more attention from scholars, and Western learning is also starting a re-integration process, though it will take a longer time to accomplish, between literature, history and philosophy and between humanities and science. Professor Li Chuangtong wrote in his postscript note to his translation of Stephen Rothman’s Limitations of Reductionism: The admonition from the living cells: “Today, in regards to the solution of a problem, we have come to such an era in which departmentalized studies based on traditional industrial division of work can no longer handle the complicatedness of any problems. Or plainly speaking, no scholar can confine himself within boundaries set by the name of the department or research center he belongs to, but has to follow the steps necessitated by the nature of the problem to be solved, whatever other academic areas it might lead into. This especially applies to humanities and social sciences.” (斯蒂芬•罗思曼：《还原论的局限: 来自活细胞的训诫》，李创同，王策译，上海译文出版社，2006，PP. 253.) Well, “follow the steps necessitated by the nature of the problem” – this is exactly the essential characteristic of the Chinese academic approach.
This author does not mean to ignore the great achievements in Western humanities and social and natural sciences. What he means is that drawing from what is good in Western learning should not lead to the rejection of China’s own academic tradition. We should not be entrapped again by the hidden academic principle that prevailed after May 4th Movement, that implied that, without rejection of native culture, it is impossible to start the process of industrialization. Either native tradition or modern Western culture – this is typically the harmful way of thinking in terms of polar opposites.
As Chinese learning has its own systemic characteristics, it will cause serious problems to dissect it by applying the Western thinking pattern and academic approach. When this author was writing his book on the 36 strategies contained in classical Chinese economic thought (《国富策——中国古典经济思想及其三十六计》), he did not accept some of his friends’ suggestion to adopt the style and textual layout pattern used by Western economic theories, because, when he was translating from English to Chinese The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School written in 1911 by Chen Huan-chang, he found that in the book the Chinese thought system was fragmentized by its textual layout borrowed from Western economics books. This layout may help Westerners access the content of the book, but what they learn from it can hardly be said to represent the genuine Chinese economic thought.
This is why the author has all these years insisted on using the Chinese way of thinking and academic approach in research and writing. He keenly felt that some well-meaning critics of his work actually know very little about traditional Chinese academic thought system, and their way of thinking and academic approach are typically Western in nature. What he and people like him have been working on is where those critics’ inadequacy lies, but this is a fact they may not want to face up to.
A nation without her own thought system is a soulless one; a nation whose realm of thought is colonized by others would never enjoy independence in its real sense.
May the light of classical Chinese learning reawaken the many lost souls of today and brighten the world!
|
