Chen Lai, "A Century of Confucianism"

Chen Lai, A Century of Confucianism: Looking Back and Looking Forward[1]
  
Translated by Craig A. Smith and Jun Deng
 
Introduction

Originally published in the social sciences edition of the Shenzhen University Journal in May 2014, this essay, “A Century of Confucianism: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” presents Chen Lai’s 陈来 methodical approach to the twentieth century history of Confucianism, as well as his advocacy for its future development. Dividing this history into periods of challenge and opportunity,
Chen charts the various major changes to the system of thought from the late-Qing dynasty to the end of the twentieth century. Through brief explanations of major historical events from the perspective of Confucianism, including the fall of the imperial system to the reform and opening-up period, as well as the responses by Chinese philosophers ranging from Kang Youwei 康有为 to Xiong Shili 熊十力, Chen charts the religious, educational, cultural, and philosophical developments that have led to contemporary New Confucianism. Paying little heed to Confucianism beyond China, Chen grounds the system of thought in China, the Chinese people, and mainland Chinese nationalism, finding its perseverance throughout Chinese thought despite a century of decay, and identifying the myriad opportunities for Confucianism through the twenty-first century rise of China. This article then offers readers an example of a Confucian-centred modern history to contextualize the movement from the perspective of one of its leading proponents.

A renowned professor at the prestigious Qinghua University, Chen is an extremely influential intellectual in contemporary China, even lecturing Xi Jinping and the Politburo on nationalism and Confucianism in December, 2015. Since earning his Ph.D. from Peking University’s Philosophy Department in 1985, he has written prolifically on Chinese thought and tradition, particularly upon Zhu Xi and Song dynasty Neo-Confucianism. Numerous translations of Chen’s works have already appeared in many languages, and since 2009 English-language readers have access to an entire volume of his writing through Edmund Ryden’s translation of Tradition and Modernity: A Humanist View.

The rise in popularity of Confucianism that has accompanied the new confidence in Chinese traditions and nationalism since the 1980s has greatly benefitted Chen Lai’s career, yet in some ways he remains on the margins of the New Confucianism movement. Despite having considerable influence upon the movement, Chen Lai remains an academic figure. He does not subscribe to the religious New Confucianism of Jiang Qing 蒋庆, nor to the popular folk Confucianism of Yu Dan 于丹, yet his approach inevitably supports and draws upon both.

Beginning in the 1990s, but growing considerably in the early period of the twentieth-first century, Mainland New Confucianism made efforts to formulate a more Chinese path to development, rejecting both liberalism and socialism as foreign ideologies. It is this rejection that differentiates “Mainland” New Confucianism from that found in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and elsewhere. In the last decade, myriad groups and individuals have been labelled as part of this movement for their adherence to Confucian values or support for educational and intellectual elements of Confucianism, but the movement remains varied and lacking in cohesion. Jiang Qing may be the best known of the intellectuals for his spirited and consistent support of a return to the religious aspects of Confucianism, including ancestral worship and ritual sacrifice, but also extending to the adoption of a Confucian political system for the entire country. Intellectuals who dare to comment on political matters, such as Chen Ming 陈明 have also made waves in China. Chen has argued for the primacy of Confucianism as a civil religion, one that would transcend other systems of religion and thought as a cultural basis for the Chinese people. Chen Lai does not join in such advocacy, but remains supportive of the development of Confucianism and nationalism for China’s future.

Cementing the connection between China’s intellectual future and past is a focus of Chen Lai’s work. However, although primarily interested in the intellectual forms of Confucianism, in this article he also considers the “subconscious” aspects of Confucianism which have survived in the daily lives of the Chinese people. Chen is supportive of the reform and opening up period’s acceleration in the popularity of academic, folk, and cultural Confucianism, a popular movement that Chen is both a product and proponent of. He argues for the reestablishment of all elements of Confucianism, a reconstruction of the philosophical system, and a promotion of the cultural and intellectual elements as the rise of China proceeds hand-in-hand with the revival of Confucianism.
 
Translation
 
In this essay, I examine the development of Confucianism in the twentieth century.[2] The term “development” might give the impression that Confucianism has progressed effortlessly throughout this period, but this examination of the past century reveals a tortuous course through various crises and challenges.
 
I: Challenges and Responses in the Modern Era
 
Chinese Confucianism faced four periods of challenge in the twentieth century. The first was the political and educational reforms in the late Qing and early Republican era. The Qing government announced the “Edict on the Establishment of Schools” 兴学诏书 in 1901 to launch the establishment of new institutions across the country. This was an extremely important initiative, leading to the gradual decline of the old form of Confucianism, a form dominated by a particular type of school that trained scholars to enter the system of imperial civil service examinations. 
 
Officials opened these new schools in great number all across China. This move posed a clear challenge to the civil service examination system before the Qing government decided to end the examinations entirely in 1905. The examination system was of utmost significance to the continued existence of the Confucian scholar. In total there were three important bases for the existence of the thought and culture of Confucian scholars in premodern Chinese society. The first was the state, as the imperial court declared Confucianism to be the official ideology and proclaimed the Confucian classics to be the classics of the state. Confucianism was therefore promoted through imperial rule. The second base was the educational system, particularly the civil service examination system, which stipulated that the Confucian classics be the primary subject of the exams. And the third base for Confucianism was the prevalent social foundations of family and rural governance systems that have existed in China for several thousand years.
 
The strategic reforms of the late-Qing period played an important role in determining the ways in which Confucianism would continue to exist. Despite the abolition of the examinations in 1905, one of the most radical of the early reforms, the Qing government was still resolved to preserve the study and curriculum of the classics in all schools, and also required schools to continue to offer sacrifices to Confucius on his birthday. This, however, also changed with the advent of the 1911 Revolution. Once the Ministry of Education fell under the control of Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培 in 1912, the state resolved to do away with sacrifices to Confucius and to discard the study of the classics. Therefore, in the years after the revolution, the system of “honoring Confucius and reading the classics” suffered a fundamental setback.  During this process, Confucian scholars experienced the first significant period of “challenge and response”—that is, their first, fundamental predicament.[3]
 
From the late Qing to the early Republic, although the Confucian scholar already found himself removed from the center of politics and education, the role of Confucian thought and culture continued in the realm of ethics.[4] Not long after this, from 1915 to 1919 the New Culture Movement arose and Confucianism encountered its second challenge. The New Culture Movement raised banners of criticism, reflection, and enlightenment. This was a cultural enlightenment, drawing upon modern Western culture, posing Chinese traditional culture as its binary opposite, and particularly posing Confucian rites and culture as its primary and critical opponent. This seemed reasonable to many at the time, and they raised the slogan “Down with Confucius and sons!” From the late Qing to the 1911 Revolution, Confucianism maintained it ethical influence even while it stepped down from the political stage, but in the years shortly after this it suffered its second crucial reverse. The 1911 Revolution forced Confucianism into a form of exile which extended through the New Culture Movement. The New Culture Movement then inherited the late Qing-early Republican movement to exile Confucianism, and expanded the mission by banishing Confucianism from the realm of ethics.  The New Culture Movement left Confucianism fragmented and drifting.
 
The third major predicament was from the 1949 revolution through the “Cultural Revolution.” I view this period as a whole because the collectivization movement, the organization of the people’s communes, and the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” all changed the system of rural governance and made the collective the foundation of society. The people`s commune system, based on the brigade and the three levels of ownership,[5] thoroughly transformed the old lineage-based village order.
 
Scholars in the modern era have argued that once the Confucian social system was severed from its base, Confucianism became a “lost soul 游魂.”[6] This image of a lost soul suggests that the changes of modern culture cut off Confucian thought from its ancient roots. The revolution in and of itself had political significance, and moreover the transformations it wrought in the countryside were extremely important.  In addition, another important factor was the Cultural Revolution, especially the movement to criticize Lin Biao and Confucius. Successive campaigns of absurd political criticisms of Confucianism and Confucius wrought havoc with people’s thinking. This was an even greater attack on Confucian culture.
 
The fourth period of challenge for Confucianism in the twentieth century was the first twenty years of the reform and opening from the late 1970s. The mobilization of the reform period in the 1980s brought about a form of enlightenment thinking echoing that of the New Culture Movement in the May Fourth period, embracing a principal theme of the twentieth century in its critique of tradition. Confucianism therefore emerged as the antithesis of modernization. As the vigorous development of the market economy brought utilitarian thought into prominence in the 1990s, it also provided a powerful challenge for the traditions of Confucianism and Chinese culture.
 
Dividing the attacks on Confucian thought and culture in the twentieth century into four principal periods, we find that all four had a profound influence upon the fate of Confucian culture. However, it would be untrue to argue that Confucianism only suffered attacks and never experienced progress in the twentieth century. Sometimes, challenges can present opportunities for advancement. In this historical context, there was only one significant period of development for Confucianism:  the period stretching from the Mukden Incident of 1931 to the end of the War of Resistance against Japan (1937-1945), particularly the wartime period. The Chinese people as a whole united during this period, and national defense and revival became matters of critical importance. This was the central theme of the period, and was a rare historical opportunity for the advancement of Confucianism.
 
II: Philosophical Responses and Development 

I have roughly divided one hundred years of the history of Confucianism into four periods of challenge and one of opportunity, five periods all together. We can see the history of Confucianism in the twentieth century as a response to these challenges, which unfolds in the following five stages.

The first stage, or rather the first person, to be discussed is Kang Youwei 康有为 (1858-1927). Although Kang had been about thinking about Confucian religion long before the 1911 Revolution, he placed even more stress on this issue after it. On a number of occasions, Kang himself, or his students, proposed that Confucian religion be the state religion. These were positive proposals. Political and educational reforms—from the 1901 “Edict on the Establishment of Schools,” to the 1905 abolition of the civil service examinations and the beginning of Cai Yuanpei’s leadership of the Ministry of Education in 1912—had already robbed Confucianism of the institutional bases upon which it had relied. In response, as a way to preserve and develop Confucian thought, Kang Youwei looked to religion. He saw that Christianity had a place within the framework of modern Western culture. And there were examples of it being established as the state religion in Western countries. So, he thought that a new China needed new institutions and Confucianism could play a role. Kang’s argument to establish Confucianism as state religion represents the first response.[7] This was a religious response to the difficulties faced by Confucianism and, of course, it failed. All of Kang’s various projects and proposals failed to pass, and history made clear that this was not the path to follow. Despite its failure, we can take this episode as the first active Confucian response to a century of challenges.

The second stage covers the New Culture Movement. By the end of the New Culture Movement, new developments had occurred. These were the result of cultural reflections by Western intellectuals on World War I and the emergence of socialism in the Soviet Union.  These events in turn led a few outstanding intellectuals to reconsider the question of Chinese culture. The representative figure from this period was Liang Shuming 梁漱溟 (1893-1988). In the early 1920s, Liang wrote 東西文化及其哲學 (Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies). This book is representative of the second response to the predicament faced by Confucianism in the twentieth century. Rather than being a religious response, it was a cultural response. Liang believed that, although Chinese society should undergo complete Westernization, Confucian culture and its values were still necessary: “In the very near future of our world, in the wake of the Western cultural period in which Europeans and Americans have conquered and exploited nature, it will be time for the revival of Chinese culture.”[8] This “very near future” referred to the culture of a Confucian socialism, because in Liang’s assessment Confucianism already embodied the values of socialism. He believed that Western culture’s identifying characteristic was that it resolved the relationship between humanity and the natural world, the relationship between humanity and the material realm. Confucian culture, however, resolved the relationship between human beings, the relationship between the individual and society, much as socialism could resolve issues between labor and capital.  In the modern period, the challenges encountered by Confucianism were all posed by modern Western culture to Chinese society and culture. The response by Confucianists could only be directed towards this macro level cultural challenge.

The philosophical response during the third stage, from the 1931 Mukden Incident to the end of War of Resistance in 1945 was not only the product of the surging nationalism of the period, but was also a response to the onslaught of modern Western culture. Among the intellectuals involved were Xiong Shili 熊十力 (1885-1968), Ma Yifu 马一浮 (1883-1967)，Feng Youlan 冯友兰 (1895-1990), and He Lin 贺麟 (1902-1992). Xiong Shili’s system of philosophical Confucianism, 归本大易 (Returning to the Yijing) can be seen as a form of “New Studies in the Book of Yijing.”[9] Ma Yifu focused on the Six Classics and the Six Arts. His system of Confucianism can be termed “New Classical Learning” 新经学. Feng Youlan called his own philosophical system the “New Philosophy of Principle” 新理学. He Lin’s was the “New Philosophy of Mind” 新心学.[10]

Xiong Shili upheld the philosophical concept of “original mind” established by Mencius.[11] Based on the principles of the Yijing, he established the original mind as an absolute entity and established a cosmology concerning Xipi chengbian 翕辟成变.[12] He then named his cosmology “the inseparability of substance and function” 体用不二.[13] His philosophical thinking was a Confucian system that emphasized cosmological constructions.
 
Ma Yifu was a scholar who tenaciously defended the entirety of traditional culture. He synthesized or unified the traditional study of the Classics 经学 and Neo-Confucianism 理学. He argued: “All the techniques of the dao are governed by the Six Arts, and the Six Arts are actually governed by One Mind 一心.”[14] “All the techniques of the dao” refers to the various fields of study or “disciplines” as we refer to them today. And by the “Six Arts,” Ma Yifu is actually referring to the Six Classics. This is the terminology used by a classical Confucianist. This approach emphasizes the Classics for the reconstruction of New Confucianism.
 
Feng Youlan’s philosophy was what he himself referred to as the “New Philosophy of Principle.”[15] He hoped to continue the work of the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianists, stressing the world of li (principle) 理.[16] By assimilating the new realism of the West, he established a world of principle within philosophy, establishing an important segment of the metaphysics of Confucian philosophy. Feng Youlan’s philosophy was a modern Confucian philosophy that concentrated upon metaphysical constructions.
 
He Lin openly professed himself to be a follower of the Lu-Wang School.[17] He argued that “xin (心 heart/mind) is the substance 体 of the material 物, while the material is the function 用 of xin. Much of what he wrote placed this School of Mind as the foundation of Confucian philosophy. But more importantly, we find that He Lin played an important role through his formation of a plan for the Confucian revival. His slogan was: “Confucian thought as substance; Western culture as function,” which could also be read as: “National spirit (民族精神) as substance; Western culture as function.”[18] He constructed an elaborate design for the Confucian revival.
 
In addition to his early contributions to the ideas of cultural identity, Liang Shuming spent much of the 1940s to 1970s writing his Psychology and Life 人心与人生. From this book we can see that Liang Shuming’s philosophical system emphasized a construction of modern Confucian philosophy based in psychology.
 
The work of these philosophers illustrates how a new and constructive form of Confucianism emerged during this period. Their response was primarily a philosophical one. This was the time that I have identified as the only period of historical opportunity in this century of Confucianism, and it is related to the surge of national cultural identity accompanying the war against Japan. This emphasis on national culture made important progress.
 
The fourth stage stretches from 1949 to the end of the Cultural Revolution. We cannot say that there was no Confucian thought in China during this period. If we examine the changes displayed by Xiong Shili and other intellectuals from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, then we see it was a period of adaptation for modern Confucianism, as well as one of integration with and absorption of socialism. In Xiong’s On Confucianism 原儒,  published in the early 1950s, he calls for the abolition of private ownership and leveling of class differences, an approach borrowed from socialism. Liang Shuming wrote a book late in his career entitled China: A Rational Country 中国：理性之国, in which he focuses on the question of the transition from a class society to a classless society, and of socialism to communism. These examples all indicate that these philosophers were not passively acquiescing to the times, but were instead attempting to integrate their own thought with the questions of the day. They never faltered in their belief in Confucian thought and culture.
 
New Confucians in Taiwan and Hong Kong were left rootless and drifting yet carried forward the legacy of the third stage of Confucian thought.  In other words, in the face of the changes, adjustments, and challenges of twentieth century society, and confronted with a general spiritual anomie, they developed a new path in Confucian thought that was in accord with conditions of the time, a new Confucian philosophy that absorbed Western culture, and developed national spirit as well a guiding philosophy for universal issues facing the world and human condition from a Confucian perspective. All of this contributed to the revitalization of mainland culture from the late 1980s.
 
III: Latent and Manifest Forms of Confucianism
​ 
The existence of Confucianism cannot be regarded simply as commensurate with the existence of the philosopher, nor can we say that Confucianism exists because there is a Confucian philosopher. This would be a superficial point of view. From the 1950s to our current day, the existence of Confucianism has, as Li Zehou 李泽厚 (1930- ) has explained, not merely been limited to a set of commentaries on the Confucian Classics, but at the same time evident within the psycho-cultural construction of the Chinese people.[19] Therefore, once all contact with the old system of Confucianism had been severed, it became a tradition that lived on intrinsically within the populace. Confucian values continue to exist, particularly among the common people, where they may even be more deeply engrained than they are within the intellectual strata, which have been more infected by Western culture.
 
The Confucian tradition within the common people exists in a “subconscious form in daily life.” Even in the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese concepts of morality have continuously and unwaveringly been profoundly influenced by traditional Confucian morality. However, as this role resides within the subconscious, it is constantly influenced by the environment of different times. Therefore, the existence of Confucianism cannot be confidently elucidated nor can we say much about its present state. At times it is quite distorted.
 
Here I must emphasize the fact that in this fifth period—the period of reform and opening up—or even since the fourth period, the concept of Confucianism had certainly undergone a transformation. We cannot contend that only with the existence of the Confucian philosopher does Confucianism exist.
 
And now I would like to discuss the existential forms of Confucianism that have endured since the reforms that began in 1978. Over the past thirty years on the Chinese mainland, we have not seen Confucian philosophers of the likes seen in the 1930s and 1940s. There are, however, a number of aspects of this period that are worthy of our notice.
 
The first is academic Confucianism. The past thirty years of research into Confucianism has created a culture of academic Confucianism. This culture to which I refer stems from the thorough research conducted on traditional Confucianism and grasps the contexts of its historical evolution, combs through its doctrine, explicates the various schools of thought, and includes thorough research into the thought of contemporary New Confucianism. This set of studies is what I refer to as academic Confucianism. It has undergone more than thirty years of development, offering up many new horizons. In the academic world of contemporary China, it occupies an important position and has produced considerable influence.
 
The second form of Confucianism in the reform era is cultural Confucianism. Over the past thirty years, there have been a great number of cultural trends and discussions that are of direct relevance to Confucianism, such as discussions of the relationship between Confucianism and democracy, human rights, globalization, modernization, the clash of civilizations, and, of course, the relevance of Confucianism to the construction of a harmonious society, which we are discussing today. Many scholars commend the positive significance of Confucian values from the perspective of cultural Confucianism. They discuss the ways in which Confucianism can have an effect upon contemporary society, expounding upon the valuable cultural concepts and ideas, and interacting with contemporary trends in a number of ways. This has provided a noticeable effect upon the socio-cultural strata of contemporary China. I believe that these discussions and activities have also created a distinctive existential form for Confucianism, which I have called cultural Confucianism.
 
Therefore, we cannot say that these thirty years have not seen major Confucian philosophers, nor can we say that Confucianism disappeared. Aside from the latent forms of existence, we must acknowledge that there are many more manifest forms of Confucian culture. We need to define these manifest forms of Confucian culture that have adapted to survive in the past thirty years. I therefore use ”academic Confucianism” and ”cultural Confucianism” to summarize this period’s manifestations of Confucianism. In fact, although the philosopher is still of importance, compared with the systems of abstract metaphysics that have appeared, it is really academic and cultural Confucianism that have proven to have an even more penetrating and extensive influence on society, culture, and thought. These forms have constructed the foundations for the new developments of Confucian thought.
 
The third form of Confucianism that exists today is folk 民间 Confucianism. This includes both latent aspects, in daily and subconscious existence of the common people–a Confucianism in the psyche of the masses—and also manifest aspects seen in overt activities, much like those of academic and cultural Confucianism. The new century has seen an unceasing development of folk Confucianism and popularized Confucianism. This cultural form first appeared near the end of the last century and continues to develop today, including all kinds of courses on national studies 国学, in schools, academies, and lecture halls; various digital magazines, readers for common people, children’s courses on the classics, and on the like. The majority of events on the level of academic and cultural Confucianism are activities aimed at the intelligentsia, but those on the level of folk Confucianism receive a much more extensive and active participation of Chinese people from all levels of today’s society. This is a cultural manifestation on the level of folk practice, and I therefore term it “folk Confucianism.” In the last ten years, national studies have received a great amount of encouragement from folk Confucianism.
 
Conclusion: Opportunities for Revival and  Visions for the Future 

I believe that the second period of opportunity has arrived for a modern Confucian revival with the advent of the twenty-first century. The first period of opportunity was during the War of Resistance, a time marked by a surge in national consciousness and a consciousness of a national revival. Beginning in the late 1990s, and accompanying the rise of China and the deepening and development of China’s modernization, China had entered an early phase of modernization. It is with this background, under the conditions of the people’s enormous recovery of confidence in their national culture, with the arrival of the great revival of the Chinese nation and Chinese culture, that the second period of opportunity has arisen for the modern revival of Confucianism. And how can Confucianism grasp this opportunity? How can Confucian scholars take part in this revival of Confucianism? Apart from the continued efforts of academic and cultural Confucianism, there are at least a few things to be done, such as the reconstruction of the national spirit 民族精神, the establishment of moral values, the organization of an ethical order, the formation of educational principles, the forging of a common value system, the cohesion of the nation-state, and the further promotion of our cultural and ethical progress.[20] These aspects are all important tasks for our participation in the movement for a Confucian revival. If only Confucianism consciously participates in the great revival of the Chinese nation, integrating itself within the mission of our times and our social and cultural needs, its prospects for development will be open wide.
 
In addition, there is a central task that needs our attention – the reconstruction and development of the philosophical system. A new Confucian philosophy should and undoubtedly will emerge alongside the further development of the China’s modernization, and this philosophy must be a cornucopia. On the foundations of traditional Confucianism and contemporary New Confucianism, alongside the revival of Chinese culture, this philosophy will march out into the world, proliferate and manifest itself. Just as in the culture controversies at the time of the May Fourth Movement, through the work of resolving issues of our national heritage in the 1920s, and as in the development of the national philosophy in the 1930s, the Chinese mainland experienced a trend of cultural fever in the 1980s and a snowballing trend of national studies fever from the late-1990s until now. We can hope that new theories of Confucian thought and new Confucian philosophy are poised to leap onto the stage alongside the revival of the Chinese people and Chinese culture.


[1] 陈来, “百年来儒学发展的回顾与前瞻”, 深圳大学学报（人文社会科学版）[Shenzhen University Journal (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition)], Vol. 31: 3 (May 2014), pp. 42-46.

[2] All note are by the translators, unless otherwise indicated. There is a large number of Chinese terms which are translated as “Confucianism” in English. Ruxue 儒学 generally refers to the system of learning and study of classical texts. Rujia 儒家 refers to the scholars or philosophers that studied Confucianism as a system of thought. And Rujiao 儒教 refers to Confucianism as a religion, including rites, ceremonies and sacrifices to Confucius, a system promoted by Kang Youwei in the modern period. With a number of exceptions, particularly when he is referring to scholarly thought or Kang Youwei’s ideas, Chen Lai uses the term ruxue in this article.

[3] The language Chen Lai uses here is related to the understanding of Chinese history being “responses” to “challenges” from the West. This mode of understanding is associated with the work of mid-twentieth century Sinologist, John K. Fairbank, and his students.

[4] Here and below Chen Lai uses term lunlide jingshen 伦理的精神 or lunli jingshen 伦理精神 which refers to both the ethical and the spiritual domains in an intellectual rather than a religious understanding of “spiritual.” See its use by scholars on Confucianism and New Confucianism, such as Tu Wei-ming, “Hsiung Shih-li’s Quest for Authentic Existence,” in Charlotte Furth, (ed.) The Limits of Change (Cambridge Mass. and London: Harvard University Press), 1976.

[5] Here Chen is referring to what in Chinese is called the “three levels of ownership”. The three levels are the commune, the production brigade and the production team.

[6] John Makeham translates youhun as “lost soul” and has provided an analysis of this narrative in Lost Soul: "Confucianism" in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008).

[7] [Chen Lai]: Mentioned in the following articles: Kang Youwei, "请尊孔圣为国教立教部教会以孔子纪年而废淫祀折" [A memorial) to establish respecting the sage Confucius as state religion, to establish churches which memoralize Confucius and discard the unorthodox religions], "中华救国论" [On saving China], "孔教会序·一" [A preface to the church of Confucius: 1], "孔教会序·二" [A preface to the church of Confucius: 2], "以孔教为国教配天议" [The church of Confucius as state religion is in accordance with  Heaven`s Will], "陕西孔教会讲演" [A speech at the Shanxi church of Confucius congregation], in 康有为政论集 [Kang Youwei’s political writings]。北京；中华书局，1998.

[8] [Chen Lai]: 梁漱溟，东西文化及其哲学。 北京：商务印书馆，1999, p. 244.

[9] See Tu Wei-ming’s translation and explanation of Xiong’s meditations on the Book of Changes in Tu 1976, op cit., 266-268.

[10] Chen Lai expands on these four thinkers on p. 44 of the Chinese text in extremely technical language which is not translated here.

[11] For Xiong, the original mind determines understandings of reality and is in the constant flux of the great transformation. It is the humanity ren 仁 common to humanity and all things.

[12] Xipi chengbian 翕闢成變is utilized to explain how, through contraction (xi) and expansion (pi), an entity can transform into different phenomenon within the mind. “Contraction” is the process of focusing, while “expansion” expands from phenomenon to create a semblance of order for the mind. Tu 1976, 269. Wing-Tsit Chan, however, explains Xiong’s thesis as follows: “reality is perpetual transformation, consisting of ‘closing’ and ‘opening’ which are a process of unceasing production and reproduction. The ‘original substance’ is in perpetual transition at every instant, arising anew again and again, thus resulting in many manifestations. But reality and manifestation, or substance and function, are one. In its ‘closing’ aspect, it is the tendency to integrate—the result of which may ‘temporarily’ be called matter—while in its ‘opening’ aspect it is the tendency to maintain its own nature and be its own master—the result of which may ‘temporarily’ be called mind. This mind itself is one part of the ‘original mind,’ which in its various aspects is mind, will, and consciousness.” Wing-Tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 763. See his translation of Xiong, 765-767.

[13] See Jésus Solé-Farràs, New Confucianism in Twentieth-Century China:  Theh Construction of a Discourse, (New York:  Routledge 2014), 112. Translated by Chan 1969, 769-772.

[14] 马一浮， 马一浮集（第一册） 杭州：浙江古籍出版社, 1996, p. 20. [Trans]: One Mind (一心, Sanskrit: ekacitta) refers to a unified metaphysical mind, a concept particular to Mahayanan Buddhism.

[15] Wing-Tsit Chan translates this as “The New Rational Philosophy” in Chan 1969, 751.

[16] The Cheng-Zhu School or Cheng-Zhu lixue 程朱理学 refers to the central branch of Neo-Confucianism typified by Zhu Xi, Cheng Yi and Cheng Hao in the Song Dynasty which was adopted for the imperial state exams.

[17] The Lu-Wang School or Lu-Wang xuepai 陆王学派 refers to the School of Mind xinxue 心学 that was represented by Lu Jiuyuan 陆九渊 and Wang Yangming 王阳明. The School of Mind became popular in the Ming Dynasty and Chinese scholars and intellectuals viewed it in opposition to the School of Principle lixue 理学.

[18] He Lin 賀麟, 贺麟全集.文化与人生 [The Complete Works of He Lin: Culture and Life], 上海：上海人民出版社, 2011, p. 13.

[19] [Chen Lai]: 李泽厚. 李泽厚学术文化随笔 [Li Zehou's Notes on Scholarship and Culture] 北京：中国青年出版社, 1998.

[20] Although the term also means “spiritual civilization,” the Chinese government officially translates 精神文明 as “cultural and ethical progress,” as it has officially called the Central Commission for Guiding Cultural and Ethical Progress 中央精神文明建设指导委员会. See, Delia Lin, Civilising Citizens in Post-Mao China: Understanding the Rhetoric of Suzhi (New York: Routledge, 2017), p. 132, n. 30.