冯友兰中国哲学简史中英文版之第十六章世界政治和世界哲学

冯友兰中国哲学简史中英文版之第十六章世界政治和世界哲学 CHAPTER 16 WORLD POLITICS AND WORLD PHILOSOPHY 第十六章 世界政治和世界哲学 IT is said that "history never repeats itself," yet also that "there is nothing new under the sun."Perhaps the whole truth lies in a combination of these two sayings. From a Chinese point of view, so far as international politics is concerned, the history of our world in the present and immediately preceding centuries looks like a repetition of the Chinese history of the Ch'un Ch'iu and Chan Kuo periods. 有句话说:“历史决不会重演”。又有 句话说:“日光之下无新事”。这两句 话结合起来也许含有全面的真理。从 中国的观点看，在国际政治的范围 内，当代的世界史以及近几百年的世 界史就像是重演春秋战国时代的中 国史。 Political Conditions Preceding the Unification by Ch' in The ch'un ch'iu period (722-479 B.C.) is so named because it is the period covered by the Ch'un Ch'iu or Spring and Autumn Annals. And the Chan Kuo period (480-220 B.C.) derives its name, which means Warring States, from the fact that it was a period of intensified warfare between the feudal states. As we have seen, men's conduct during the feudal age was governed by li (ceremonies, rituals, rules of proper conduct). Not only were there li governing the conduct of the individual, but also those for the state as well. Some of these were to be practiced in time of peace, but others were designed for use in war. These peacetime and wartime li, as observed by one state in its relations to another, were equivalent to what we now would call international law. 秦统一前的政治状况 春秋时代(公元前722—前481年) 是由《春秋》所包括的年代而得名。 战国时代是由当时各国战争激烈而 得名。我们已经知道，封建时代人的 行为受礼的约束。其实，礼不仅约束 个人行为，而且约束各国行为。有些 礼适用于和平时期，有些礼适用于战 争时期。一个国家在对外关系中遵循 的平时和战时的礼，等于我们现在所 谓的国际法。 We see that in recent times international law has become more and more ineffective. In late years there have been many instances in which one nation has attacked another without first sending an ultimatum and declaring war, or the airplanes of one nation have bombed the hospitals of another, while pretending that they did not see the red cross. And in the periods of Chinese history men- tioned above, we see a similar decline in the effectiveness of the li. 我们看到，在现代，国际法越来越无 效。近年以来，已经有许多实例:一 国进攻别国而事前不发最后通牒，不 宣战。一国的飞机轰炸别国的医院， 却装做没有看见红十字。在春秋战国 时代，我们也看到相似的“国际法”无 效的局面，这就是礼的衰微。 In the Ch'un Ch'iu period, there were still people who respected the international li. The Tso Chuan reports a famous battle of Hung that took place in 638 B.C. between the states of Ch'u and Sung. The old-fashioned Duke Hsiang of Sung personally directed the Sung forces. At a certain moment, the ch'u army was crossing a river to form its lines, whereupon the commander under Duke Hsiang immediately asked for permission to attack the army during its crossing. To this the Duke replied, however, that he would not attack an army before it had formed its lines. The result was a disastrous defeat of the Sung army, in which the Duke himself was wounded. In spite of this, however, he defended his original decision, saying: "A superior man does not inflict a second wound on one who has already been wounded, nor does he take prisoner any one who has gray hair." This infuriated one of his commanders, who told the Duke: If it is good to refrain from inflicting a second wound, why not refrain from inflicting any wound at all? If it is good to refrain from taking prisoner any one who has gray hair, why not surrender to your enemy? (Tso Chuan, twenty-second year of Duke Hsi.) What the Duke said accorded with the traditional li, which represented the chivalrous spirit of the feudal knights. What the commander said represented the practice of a changing age. 春秋时代，还有人尊重国际的礼。《左 传》记载了公元前 638 年宋国与楚 国的泓水之战。古板的宋襄公亲自指 挥宋军。在楚军正在渡河的时候，又 在楚军渡了河还未排列成阵的时候， 宋军司令官两次请求襄公下令攻击， 襄公都说“不可”，还说不攻击不成阵 势的队伍。结果宋军惨败，襄公本人 也受伤。尽管如此，襄公仍然辩护他 原来的决定，还说“君子不重伤，不禽 二毛”。宋军司令官恼怒地说:“若爱 重伤，则如勿伤;爱其二毛，则如服 焉～”(《左传》僖公二十二年)宋襄 公所说的符合传统的礼，代表封建武 士的骑士精神;宋国司令官所说的代 表动乱年代的实际。 It is interesting though discouraging to note that all the known methods which statesmen of today use in an effort to keep peace among nations are much the same as those which the statesmen of these early periods of Chinese history attempted without success. For example, a conference for the limitation of armaments was held in 551 B.C. (Tso Chuan, twenty-seventh year of Duke Hsiang.) Some time later a proposal was made to divide the "world" of that time into two "spheres of influence"; one in the east, to be controlled by the King of Ch' i with the title of Eastern Emperor; the other in the west, to be controlled by the King of ch'in with the title of Western Emperor. (Historical Records, ch. 46.) There were also various alliances of states with one another. During the Chan Kuo period these fell into two gen-eral patterns: the "vertical,' which ran from north to south, and the horizontal," which ran from west to east. At that time there were seven major states, of which ch'in was the most aggressive. The vertical type of alliance was one directed against ch'in by the other six states, and was so called because Ch'in lay in the extreme west, while the other six states were scattered to the east of it, ranging from north to south. The horizontal type of alliance, on the other hand, was one in which Ch'in combined with one or more of the other six states in order to attack the remainder, and therefore was extended from the west toward the east. 今天各国政治家用来维持国际和平 的方法。与春秋战国时各国政治家试 用过而未成功的方法，何其相似。注 意到这一点是有趣的，也是令人丧气 的。例如，公元前 551 年在宋国召 开过十四国“弭兵”会议(《左传》襄公二十七年)。后来，将当时的“天下”划分为两个“势力范围”，东方归齐国控制，西方归秦国控制，公无前 288 年齐王为东帝，秦王为西帝(《史记?田敬仲完世家》)。各国之间也有各种联盟。战国时代，联盟归结为两大类型:由北而南的“纵”，由西而东的“横”。当时有七个主要的国家，其中的秦国最富于侵略性。纵的联盟是六国对付秦国的，由于秦国在最西，六国分布在东，由北而南，故名合纵。横的联盟是秦国与六国中的一国或数国结成以进攻其余国家的，所以是由西而东地扩张，放名连横。 Ch'in's policy was "to make alliance with distant states, but attack the ones that were near." In this way it always eventually succeeded in breaking up the vertical alliances that opposed it. By its superiority in 'agriculture and war" and extensive use of "fifth column' techniques among the other states, Ch'in, after a series of bloody campaigns, succeeded in conquering the other six stales one by one, and finally unified the whole of China in 221 B.C. Thereupon the King of ch'in gave to himself the grandiose title of First Emperor of ch'in (ch'in Shih-huang-ti) by which he is known to history. At the same time he abolished feudalism and thus for the first time in history created a centralized Chinese empire under the ch'in dynasty. 秦国的政策是“远交近攻”。用这种方法它总是终于破坏了反秦的合纵而获胜。秦国以其“耕战”优势，又在六国内广泛运用“第五纵队”战术。经过一系列的血战，胜利地一个一个地征服了六国。最后于公元前 221 年统一了全中国。于是秦王自定尊号为“秦始皇帝”，以此名垂于青史。同时他废除了封建，从而在历史上第一次创建了中央集权的中华帝国，号称秦朝。 The Unification of China Though the First Emperor was thus the first to achieve actual unity, the desire for such unity had been cherished by all people for a long time previous. In the Mencius we are told that King Hui of Liang asked: How may the world be at peace? To which Meneius replied: "When there is unity, there will be peace." "But who can unify the world?" asked the King. "He who does not delight in killing men can unify it, answered Mencius. (la, 6.) This statement clearly expresses the aspiration of the time. 中国的统一 中国的实际统一虽然是到秦始皇才 实现，可是这种统一的愿望全国人民 早就有了。《孟子》记载梁惠王问孟 子:“天下恶乎定,”孟子回答说:“定 于一。”王又问:“孰能一之,”孟子回 答说:“不嗜杀人者能一之。”(《梁惠 王》上)“一”就是“统一”。这段对话清 楚地表现了时代的愿望。 The word "world" used here is a translation of the Chinese term t'ien-hsia, which literally means "all beneath the sky." Some translators render it as empire, because, so they maintain, what the Chinese in ancient times called the t ien-hsia was confined to the limits of the Chinese feudal states. This is (juite true. But we should not confuse the intension of a term with its extension as it was understood by the people of a particular time. The latter usage is limited by the knowledge of facts possessed by these people, but the former is a matter of definition. For instance, we cannot say that the word jen (persons) should be translated as "Chinese, simply because in ancient times what the Chinese meant by the word was confined to people of Chinese blood. When the ancient Chinese spoke about yen, what they meant was re-ally human beings, even though at that time their knowledge of human beings was limited to those of China. In the same way, when they spoke about the t ien -hsia, they meant the world, even though in early times their knowledge of the world did not extend beyond the Chinese states. 这里用 world (世界)翻译中文的“天 下”，“天下”的字面意义是“普天之下”。有些人将“天下”译为 empire(帝国)，因为他们认为，古代中国人称之为“天下”者，只限于中国封建诸国的范围。这完全属实，但是我们不可以把一个名词的内涵，与某个时代的人们所了解的这个名词的外延，混淆起来。就外延说，它限于当时的人所掌握的对事实的知识;就内涵说，它是个定义的问题。举例来说、古代汉语的“人”宇，当时所指的实际是限于中国血统的人，可是并不能因此就在把它译成现代汉语时译作“中国人”。古代中国人说“人”意思确实是想说人类，不过当时对人类的了解只限于在中国的 人。同样的道理，古代中国人说“天 下”，意思是想说“世界”，不过当时对 世界的了解还没有超出中国的范围。 From the age of Confucius onward, the Chinese people in general and their political thinkers in particular began to think about political matters in terms of the world. Hence the unification of China by Ch'in seemed, to the people of that time, very much as the unification of the whole world would seem to us today. Since the unification of 221 B.C., for more than two thousand years, with the exception of certain periods which the Chinese have considered as abnormal, they have lived under one government in one world. They have thus been accustomed to a centralized organization that would operate for world peace. But in recent times they have been plunged into a world with international political conditions similar to those of the remote pe-riods of the ch'un ch'iu and Chan Kuo. In the process they have been compelled to change their habits of thinking and acting. In this respect, in the eyes of the Chinese, there has been a repetition of history, which has contributed much to their present suffering. (See note at the end of the chapter.) 从孔子时代起，一般的中国人，特别 是中国政治思想家，就开始考虑世界 范围内的政治问题。所以秦朝的统一 中国，在当时人的心目中。就好像是 今天在我们心目中的统一全世界。秦朝统一以后的两千多年，中国人一直在一个天下一个政府之下生活，只有若干短暂的时期是例外，大家都认为这些例外不是正常情况。因此中国人已经习惯于有一个中央集权的机构，保持天下太平，即世界和平。但是近几十年来，中国又被拖进一个世界，其国际政治局面，与遥远的春秋战国时代的局面相似。在这个过程中，中国人已经被迫改变其思想和行动的习惯。在中国人的眼里，这一方面又是历史的重演，造成了现在的深重的苦难。(参看章末的注) The Great Learning To illustrate the internationalistic character of Chinese philosophy, let us turn now to some of the ideas of the Ta Hsueh, or Great Learning. The Ta Hsueh, like the Chung Yung, is a chapter in the Li Chi (Book of Rites), and like the Chung Yung, it was, during the Sung dynasty (960-1279), grouped by the Neo-Confucianists with the Confucian Analects and the Mencius, to form the Four Books which comprised the primary texts for Neo-Confucian philosophy. 《大学》 作为中国哲学的国际性的例证。我们 现在举出《大学》的某些观念。《大 学》和《中庸》一样，也是《礼记》 中的一篇。到了宋朝( 960 —1279)， 新儒家把《大学》、《中庸》和《论语》、 《孟子》放在一起、称为“四书”，作 为新儒家哲学的基本经典。 The Great Learning was attributed by the Neo-Confucianists, though with no real proof, to Tseng Tzu, one of the chief disciples of Confucius. It was considered by them to be an important manual for the learning of Tao. Its opening section reads: 新儒家说《大学》是曾子所作，曾子 是孔子的得到真传的学生。不过说它 是曾子所作，并没有实际证据。新儒 家认为《大学》是道学的重要的入门 书。它的第一章说: "The teaching of the Great Learning is to manifest one' s illustrious virtue, love the people, and rest in the highest good....The ancients who wished to manifest illustrious virtue throughout the world, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their own states, they first regulated their own families. Wishing to regulate their own families, they first cultivated their own selves. Wishing to cultivate their own selves, they first rectified their own minds. Wishing to rectify their own minds, they first sought for absolute sincerity in their thoughts. Wishing for absolute sincerity in their thoughts, they first extended their knowledge. This extension of knowledge consists in the investigation of things. 大学之道，在明明德，在亲民，在止 于至善。……古之欲明明德于天下 者，先治其国;欲治其国者，先齐其 家;欲齐其家者，先修其身;欲修其 身者，先正其心;欲正其心者。先诚 其意;欲诚其意者，先致其知;致知 在格物。 "Things being investigated, only then did their knowledge become extended. Their knowledge being extended, only then did their thought become sincere. Their thought being sincere, only then did their mind become rectified. Their mind being rectified, only then did their selves become cultivated. Their selves being cultivated, only then did their families become regu-lated. Their families being regulated, only then did their states become rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, only then could the world be at peace." 物格而后知至，知至而后意诚，意诚 而后心正，心正而后身修，身修而后 家齐，家齐而后国治，国治而后天下 平。 These statements have been known as the three "main cords" and eight minor wires of the Ta Hsueh. According to later Confuciarnsts, the three eords really comprise only one cord, which is to manifest one s illustrious virtue." "To love the people" is the way "to manifest one s illustrious virtue, while to rest in the highest good is to manifest one s illustrious virtue" in the highest perfection. 这些话又叫做《大学》的“三纲领”，“八 条目”。照后来的儒家说，三纲领实际 上只是一纲领，就是“明明德”。“亲民” 是“明明德”的方法。“止于至善”是“明 明德”的最后完成。 The "eight wires" are likewise really only one wire, which is the cultiva-tion of one' s own self. In the above quotation, the steps preceding the cultivation of the self, such as the investigation of things, extension of knowledge, etc., are the ways and means for cultivating the self. And the steps following the cultivation of the self, such as the regulation of the family, etc., are the ways and means for cultivating the self to its highest perfection, or as the text says, for "resting in the highest good." Man cannot develop his nature to perfection unless he tries his best to do his duties in society. He cannot perfect himself without at the same time perfecting others. 同样，八条目实际上只是一条目，就 是“修身”。格物，致知，诚意，正心 这些步骤，都是修身的道路和手段。 至于齐家，治国，治天下这些步骤， 则是修身达到最后完成的道路和手 段。所谓达到最后完成，就是“止于至 善”。人只有在社会中尽伦尽职，才能 够尽其性，至于完成。如果不同时成 人，也就不可能成己。 "To manifest one's illustrious virtue ' is the same as "to cultivate one s self. The former is merely the content of the latter. Thus several ideas are reduced to a single idea, which is central in Confucianism. “明明德”与“修身”是一回事。前者是后 者的内容。于是几个观念归结成一独 个观念，这是儒家学说的中心。 It is unnecessary that one should be head of a state or of some world or-ganization, before one can do something to bring good order to the state and peace to the world. One should merely do one s best to do good for the state as a member of the state, and do good for the world as a member of the world. One is then doing one s full share of bringing good order to the state and peace to the world. By thus sincerely trying to do one's best, one is resting in the highest good. 一个人并不一定要当了国家或天下 的元首，然后才能作治国平天下的 事。他仅仅需要作为国家一分子，为 国尽力而为;作为天下一分子，为天 下尽力而为。只要这样，他就是尽到 了治国平天下的全部责任。他如此诚 实地尽力而为，他就是止于至善了。 For the purpose of the present chapter, it is enough to point out that the author of the Ta Hsileh was thinking in terms of world politics and world peace. He was not the first to think in this way, but it is significant that he did it so systematically. For him, the good order of one' s own state is neither the final goal in terms of politics nor in terms of the spiritual cultivation of the self. 按本章的要求，只要指出《大学》的 作者是为世界政治和世界和平着想， 也就够了。他并不是第一个为此着想 的人，但是很有意义的是，他竟做得 如此地有系统。在他看来，光是治好 自己本国，并不是为政的最后目的， 也不是修身的最后目的。 Here we need not discuss the problem of how the investigation of things can be the ways and means for the spiritual cultivation of the self. This problem will return to us when we take up Neo-Confucianism later. 也不必在这里讨论，格物怎么能够成 为修身的道路和手段。这个问题到以 后讲新儒家的时候再来讨论。 Eclectic Tendency in the Hstin-tzu In the world of Chinese philosophy, the latter part of the third century B. C. saw a strong tendency towards syncretism and eclecticism. The major work of the School of Eclectics, the Lu-shih Ch'un-ch'iu, was composed at that time. But, although this work devoted chapters to most of the schools of its time, it failed to give a theoretical justification for the idea of eclecticism as such. Both Confucianist and Taoist writers, however, did present such a theory, which shows how, despite their other differences, they both reflected the eclectic spirit of the time. 《荀子》的折中趋势 在中国哲学的领域里，在公元前三世 纪后半叶有一个强大的调和折中的 趋势。杂家的主要著作《吕氏春秋》 就是这时候编著的。但是这部著作虽 然把其时的各家大都涉及了，偏偏没 有对于折中主义自己的观念予以理 论的根据。可是儒家、道家的著作家 都提出了这样的理论，它表明两家尽 管备有不同之处，然而都反映了那个 时代的折中精神。 These writers agreed that there is a single absolute Truth which they called the Tao. Most of the different schools have seen some one particular aspect of the Tao, and in this sense have made some contribution to its manifestation. The Confucianist writers, however, maintained that it was Confucius who had seen the whole Truth, and so the other schools were sub-ordinate to the Confucian school, though in a sense complementary to it. The Taoist writers, on the contrary, maintained that it was Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu who had seen the whole Truth, and therefore that Taoism was superior to all other schools. 这些著作家都同意有一个唯一的绝 对的真理，名叫“道”。各家大都有所 见于“道”的某一方面，在这个意义上 对于“道”的阐明都有所贡献。可是儒 家的著作家主张，唯有孔子见到了全 部真理，所以其他各家都在儒家之 下，虽然在某种意义上也是儒家的补 充。道家的著作家则相反，主张只有 老子、庄子见到了全部真理，因而道 家应当在其他各家之上。 In the Hsun-tzu there is a chapter titled On Freedom from Blindness,' in which we read: In the past, the traveling scholars were blinded, so they had different schools of thought. Mo Tzu was blinded by utility and did not know the value of culture. Sung Tzu [a contemporary of Mencius, who maintained that the desires of men are really very fewj was blinded by desire, but did not know [that men seek for] gain. Shen Tzu [Shen Tao, a member of the Legalist school] was blinded by law but did not know [the value ofj talent. Shen Tzu LShen Puhai, another member of the Leyalist school] was blinded by authority but did not know wisdom. Hui Tzu [Hui Shih of the shool of Names] was blinded by words but did not know facts. Chuang Tzu was blinded by what is of nature but did not know what is of man. 《荀子》有一篇题为《解蔽》，其中 说: 昔宾孟之蔽者，乱家是也。墨子蔽于 用而不知文，宋子蔽于欲而不知得， 慎子蔽于法而不知贤，申子蔽于势而 不知知，惠子蔽于辞而不知实，庄子 蔽于天而不知人。 From the point oi view of utility, the Tao is nothing more than seeking for profit. From the point of view of L fewness of] desires, the Tao is nothing more than satisfaction. From the point of view of law, the Tao is nothing more than regulations. From the point of view of authority, the Tao is nothing more than caprice. From the point of view of what is of nature, the Tao is nothing more than laissez-faire. From the point of view of words, the Tao is nothing more than argumentation. 故由用谓之，道尽利矣;由欲谓之， 道尽慊矣;由法谓之，道尽数矣;由 势谓之，道尽便矣;由辞谓之，道尽 论矣;由天谓之，道尽因矣;此数具 者，皆道之一隅也。 These different views are single aspects of the Tao. The essence of the Tao is constant and includes all changes. It cannot be grasped by a single corner. Those with perverted knowledge who see only a single aspect of the Tao will not be able to comprehend its totality....Confucius was human-hearted and wise and was not blinded. Therefore he comprehended the Tao and was sufficient to be ranked with the early rulers." (Ch. II.) 夫道者，体常而尽变，一隅不足以举 之。曲知之人，观于道之一隅而未之 能识也。……孔子仁知且不蔽，故学 乱术足以为先王者也。 In another chapter Hsun Tzu says: Lao Tzu had vision regarding acqui-escence, but did not see exertion. Mo Tzu had vision regarding uniformity, but did not see individuality. Sung Tzu had vision regarding [the fact that the desires of some men are] few, but did not see [the fact that those of other men are] many." (Ch. 17.) According to Hsun Tzu, the vision and blindness of a philosopher go together. He has vision, yet usually at the same time is blinded by his vision. Hence the excellence of his philosophy is at the same time its shortcoming. 荀子又在《天论》篇中说: 慎子有见于后，无见于先;老子有见 于诎，无见于信;墨子有见于齐，无 见于畸;宋子有见于少，无见于多。 照荀子的看法，哲学家的“见”和“蔽” 是联在一起的。他有所见，可是常常 同时为其见所蔽。因而他的哲学的优 点同时是它的缺点。 Eclectic Tendency in the Chuang-tzu The author of the last chapter of the Chuang-tzu, T ien Hsia or "The World," gives the Taoist view of syncretism. This chapter is really a summarized account of ancient Chinese philosophy. We are not sure who the author was, but he was certainly one of the best historians and critics of early Chi-nese philosophy. 《庄子》的折中趋势 《庄子》最后一篇《天下》篇的 作者，提出了道家的折中观点。这一 篇实际上是先秦哲学的。我们不 能肯定这位作者是谁，这并不妨碍他 真正是先秦哲学的最好的历史家和 批评家。 This chapter first makes a distinction between the whole Truth and partial truth. The whole Truth is the Tao of "sageliness within and kingliness without," the study of which is called "the Tao method.' Partial truth is a particular aspect of the whole Truth, the study of which is called the art method." This chapter says: "In the world there are many who use the art method. Each one considers his own L thought J as perfect without need of any addition. Where is there then what the ancients called the Tao method?...There is that by which the sage flourishes; there is that through which the king completes his achievement. Both originate in the One." 这一篇首先区分全部真理和部分真 理。全部真理就是“内圣外王之道”， 对于它的研究称为“道术”;部分真理 是全部真理的某一方面，对于它的研 究称为“方术”。这一篇说:“天下之治 方术者多矣，皆以其有为不可加矣。 古之所谓道术者，果恶乎在,……圣 有所生，王有所成，皆原于一。” The One is the "Tao of sageliness within and kingliness without." The chapter goes on to make a distinction between the fundamental and the branch, the fine and the coarse, in the Tao. It says: How perfect were the men of old....They understood the fundamental principles and connected them with minute regulations reaching to all points of the compass, embracing the great and the small, the fine and the coarse; their influence was ev-erywhere. "Some of their teachings which were correctly embodied in measures and institutions are still preserved in ancient laws and the records of historians. Those teachings that were recorded in the books of Poetry; History, Rites, and Music were known to most of the gentlemen and teachers of [the states of] Tsou and Lu [i.e., the Confucianists]. The Book of Poetry describes aims; the Book of History describes events; the Rites direct conduct; Music secures harmony. The Yi [ Book of Changes J shows the principles of the Yin and Yang. The Ch'un Ch'iu [Spring and Autumn Annals] shows names and duties." 这个“一”就是“内圣外王之道”。这一篇 继续在“道”内区分本、末、精、粗， 它说:“古之人其备乎～……明于本数， 系于末度。六通四辟，小大精粗，其 运无乎不在。其明而在数度者，旧法 世传之史，尚多有之。其在于诗书礼 乐者，邹鲁之士，缙绅先生，多能明 之。诗以道志，书以道事，礼以道行， 乐以道和，易以道阴阳，春秋以道名 分。” Thus the T'ien Hsia chapter maintains that the Confucianists had some connection with the Tao. But what they knew is confined to "measures and institutions. They knew nothing about the underlying principle. That is to say, they knew only the coarser aspects and lesser branches of the Tao, but not what is fine and fundamental in it. 因此《天下》篇以为儒家与“道”有某 些联系。但是儒家所知的限于“数度”， 而不知所含的原理。这就是说，儒家 只知道“道”的粗的方面和细微末节， 而不知其精，不知其本。 The T'ien Hsia chapter continues by saying: Now the world is in great disorder. The virtuous and the sage are obscured. Tao and virtue lose their unity and many in the world get hold of some one aspect of the whole to enjoy for themselves. The case is like the senses of hearing, sight, smell, and taste, which have specific functions, but cannot be interchanged. Or like the skill of the various artisans, which are each excellent in its kind and useful in its turn, yet are not comprehensive. Each is a student of some one aspect....Thus the Tao of sageliness within and kingliness without becomes obscured and loses its clearness; it becomes repressed and loses its development. 《天下》篇继续说:“天下大乱，贤圣 不明，道德不一。天下多得一，察焉 以自好，譬如耳目鼻口，皆有所明， 不能相通。犹百家众技也，皆有所长， 时有所用。虽然，不该不遍，一曲之 士也。……是故内圣外王之道，暗而 不明，郁而不发。” Then the same treatise makes a classification of the different schools, granting to each that it has "heard" of some one aspect of the Tao, but at the same time making sharp criticisms of the school s shortcomings. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are greatly admired. Yet, remarkably enough, these two leaders of Taoism, like the other schools, are by implication criticized by the remark that they, too, have merely "heard some one aspect of the Tao." 《天下》篇接着作出了各家的分类， 肯定每一家都对于“道”的某一方面有 所“闻”，但是同时尖锐地批评了这一 家的缺点。老子和庄子都受到高度地 赞扬。可是很值得注意的是，这两位 道家领袖的道术，也和别家一样，被 说成“古之道术有在于是者”，也只是 “道术”的一方面。这是含蓄的批评。 It thus seems to be the implication of the T ien Hsia chapter that the Confucianists knew the concrete "measures and institutions" but not their underlying principle, whereas the Taoisls knew the principle but not the measures and institutions. In other words, the Confucianists knew the "branches" of the Tao, but not its fundamental aspect, while the Taoists knew its fundamental aspect, but not its branches. Only a combination of the two constitutes the whole Truth. 由此看来，《天下》篇的含意似乎是 说，儒家知道具体的“数度”，而不知 所含的原理;道家知道原理，而不知 数度。换句话说，儒家知道“道”之末， 而不知其本;道家知其本，而不知其 末。只有两家的结合才是全部真理。 Eclecticism of Ssu-Ma Tan and Liu Hsin This eclectic tendency was continued in the Han dynasty. The Huai-nan-tzu or Book of the Prince of Huai-nan is a book of the same nature as the Ltt-shih Ch'un-ch'iu, though with a stronger tendency towards Taoism. In addition to this book, the two historians, Ssu-ma Tan (died 110 B.C.) and Liu Hsin (ca. 46 B.C-A.D. 23), who have been quoted in chapter three, also display eclectic tendencies. Of them, Ssu-ma Tan was a Taoist. In the es-say quoted in chapter three,"On the Essentials of the Six Schools," he says: "In the 'Great Appendix' ['Appendix III'] of the Yi, there is the statement: 'In the world there is one purpose, but there are a hundred ideas about it; there is a single goal, but the paths toward it differ.' This is just the case with the different schools of thought,...all of which seek social order but follow widely different paths in their words of explanation, some of which are clear and others not." (Historical Records, ch. 130.) He then goes on to mention the excellencies and shortcomings of the six philosophic schools, but concludes by considering Taoism as combining all the best points of the other schools, and therefore as being superior to all. 司马谈、刘歆的折中主义 这种折中的趋势一直持续到汉朝。 《淮南子》，又名《淮南王书》，与《吕 氏春秋》一样具有折中性质，只是更 倾向于道家。除了《淮南子》，还有 两位历史家司马谈和刘歆，本书第三 章曾提到他们，也表现出折中的趋 势。司马谈是一位道家，他的《论六 家要指》说:“《易大传》:‘天下一致 而百虑，同归而殊途。’夫阴阳，儒、 墨、名、法、道德，此务为治者也， 直所从言之异路，有省不省耳。”(《史 记?太史公自序》)他往下指出了六家 的优点和缺点，但是结论以为道家兼 采了各家的一切精华，因此居于各家 之上。 Liu Hsin, on the other hand, was a Confucianist. In his Seven Summaries, as quoted in the chapter on literature contained in the History of the Former Han Dynasty, he lists ten schools of thought, and quotes the same passage from "Appendix III" of the Book of Changes as does Ssu-ma Tan. Then he concludes: Each of the schools developed its strong points; and each developed knowledge and investigation to the utmost in order to sel forth clearly its main purposes. Although they had prejudices and shortcomings, still a summary of their teachings shows that they were branches and descendants of the Liu Yi (Six Classics)....If one were able to cultivate the Liu Yi and observe the sayings of the nine schools [omitting that of the Story Tellers as of no philosophical importance J, discarding their errors and gathering their good points, it would be possible to master the manifold aspects of thought. (History of the Former Han Dynasty, ch. 30.) 刘歆则不同，是一位儒家。他的《七 略》，基本上保存在《汉书?艺文志》 里。他论列了十家之后，写了一段结 论，其中也引用了司马谈引过的《易 大传》的那句话，然后接着说:“今异 家者各推所长，穷知究虑，以明其指。 虽有蔽短，合其要归，亦六经之支与 流裔。……若能修六艺之术，而观此 九家(十家中略去小说家)之言。舍 短取长，则可以通万方之略矣。”(《汉 书?艺文志》) All these statements reflect the strong desire for unity that existed even in the world of thought. The people of the third century B.C., discouraged by centuries of inter -state warfare, longed for a political unification; their philosophers, consequently, also tried to bring about a unification in thought. Electicism was the first attempt. Eclecticism in itself, however, cannot build a unified system. The eclectics believed in the whole Truth, and hoped by selecting from the various schools their "strong points," tn attain to this Truth or Tao. What they called the Tao, however, was, it is to be feared, simply a patch-work of many disparate elements, unconnected by any un-derlying organic principle, and hence unworthy of the high title they attached to it. 这一切说法反映了，甚至在思想领域 里，也存在着强烈的统一愿望。公元前三世纪的人，苦于长期战祸，渴望政治统一;他们的哲学家也就试图实现思想统一。折中主义是初步尝试。可是折中主义本身不可能建立一个统一的系统。折中主义者相信有全部真理，希望用选取各家优点的得到这个真理，也就是“道”。可是他们由此而得的“道”，只怕也只是许多根本不同的成分凑成的大杂烩，没有任何有机联系和一贯原则，所以与他们所加的崇高称号——“道”，完全不配。 Note on the Chinese concept of Nationalism(seezp.297) Dr. Derk Bodde writes: I would question this statement. The Six Dynasties (third through sixth century), Yuan (1280-1367) and Ch'ing (1644-1911) periods, for example, were in actual fact of so long duration as to accustom the Chinese to the idea of disunity or foreign domination, even though such a situation was in theory regarded as abnormal. Moreover, even in the normal periods of unity, there was often extensive political maneuvering and military action against a succession of outside peoples, such as the Hsiung-nu, as well as against occasional rebels within the empire. I would hardly re-gard the present conditions as presenting an unfamiliar situation to the Chinese, therefore, even though their effects are accentuated by the fact that they operate on a truly worldwide scale. 【注】关于中国人的民族观念 对于“中国的统一”这一节末段的论断，布德博士提出怀疑。他写道:“六朝(三至六世纪)，元朝 (1280—1367)，清朝(1644-1911)实际上为时之久，足以使中国人在思想上对于分裂或异族统治感到司空见惯，尽管这种局面从理论上讲也许不是‘正统’。况且即使在‘正统’的统一时期，也还是常有怀柔或征服一系列的外族，如匈奴等，以及镇压国内叛乱的事。所以我不认为目前的内忧外 患是中国人在春秋战国以后所不熟 悉的局面，当然目前的忧患的确具有 世界规模，其后果更加严重。” The historical facts which Dr. Bodde mention are no doubt correct, but what concerns me in this paragraph is not these historical facts themselves, but what the Chinese people up to the end of the last century, or even the beginning of this century, have felt about them. The emphasis upon the foreign domination of the Yuan and Ch'in dynasties is one made from the point of view of modern nationalism. It is true that from early limes the Chinese have made a sharp distinction between Chung Kuo or hua hsia (Chinese) and yi ti (barbarian), but the emphasis of this distinction is more cultural than racial. The Chinese have traditionally considered that there are three kinds of living beings: Chinese, barbarians, and beasts. Of these, the Chinese are most cultured, the barbarians come next, and the beasts are completely uncultured. 布德博士所提到的历史事实无疑都 是对的。不过我在这一节所要讲的不 是历史事实本身，而是中国人直到上 世纪，甚至本世纪初，对于这些历史 事实的感受。强调元朝、清朝是外来 的统治，这一点是用现代的民族主义 眼光提出来的。从先秦以来。中国人 鲜明地区分“中国”或“华夏”，与“夷 狄”，这当然是事实，但是这种区分是 从文化上来强调的。不是从种族上来 强调的。中国人历来的传统看法是， 有三种生灵:华夏、夷狄、禽兽。华 夏当然最开化，其次是夷狄，禽兽则 完全未开化。 When the Mongols and Manchus conquered China, they had already to a considerable extent adopted the culture of the Chinese. They dominated the Chinese politically, but the Chinese dominated them culturally. They therefore did not create a marked break or change in the continuity and unity of Chinese culture and civilization, with which the Chinese were most concerned. Hence traditionally the Chinese have considered the Yuan and Ch' ing as simply two of the many dynasties that have followed each other in Chinese history. This can be seen from the official arrangement of the dynastic histories. The Ming dynasty, for instance, in one sense represented a nationalistic revolution against the Yuan; nevertheless, the official History of the Yilan Dynasty, compiled under the Ming, treated the Yuan as the normal successor of the purely Chinese Sung dynasty. Likewise Huang Tsung-hsi (1610-1695), one of the nationalistic scholars who opposed the Manchus, in his Sung Yilan Hsueh-an or Biographical History of Confucanist Philosophers of the Sung and Yilan Dynasties, found no moral fault in such scholars as HsuHeng (1209-1281) and Wu Ch'eng (1249-1333), who though Chinese had served under the Yilan with high official rank. 蒙古人和满人征服了中国的时候，他 们早巳在很大程度接受了中国文化。 他们在政治上统治中国，中国在文化 上统治他们。中国人最关切的是中国 文化和文明的继续和统一，而蒙古人 和满人并未使之明显中断或改变。所 以在传统上，中国人认为，元代和清 朝只不过是中国历史上前后相继的 许多朝代之中的两个朝代而已。这一 点可以从官修的各朝历史看出来。例 如，明朝在一定意义上代表着反元的 民族革命，可是明朝官修的《元史》， 把元朝看作是继承纯是中国人的宋 朝正统的朝代。同样，在黄宗羲 (1610—1695)编著的《宋元学案》 中。并没有从道德上訾议诸如许衡 (1209—1281)、吴澄(1249—1333) 这些学者，他们虽是汉人，却在元朝 做了高官，而黄宗羲本人则是最有民 族气节的反满的学者之一。 The Chinese Republic has similarly compiled an official History of the ch'ing Dynasty, in which this dynasty is treated as the normal successor of the Ming. This history was later banned by the present government, because the treatment of certain events connected with the revolution of 1911 was regarded as unsatisfactory. Hence it is possible that the new official History of the Ch'ing Dynasty will eventually be written in a quite different way. What I am here concerned with, however, is the traditional view. So far as tradition is concerned, the Yuan and ch'ing were just as "normal" as other dynasties. One may say that the Chinese lack nationalism, but that is precisely my point. They lack nationalism because they have been accustomed to think in terms of t ien hsia, the world. 民国也有一部官修的《清史稿》，把 清朝看作继承明朝正统的朝代。它对 于有关辛亥革命的一些事情的处理， 政府认为不妥，把它禁了。如果再有 一部官修的新的《清史》，写法就可 能完全不同。可是我在此要讲的，是 传统的观点。就传统的观点而论，元 朝、清朝正如其他朝代一样，都是“正 统”。人们或许说中国人缺乏民族主 义，但是我认为这正是要害。中国人 缺乏民族主义是因为他们惯于从天 下即世界的范围看问题。 As to the fact that the Chinese have had to fight such non-Chinese groups as the Hsiurig-nu, etc., traditionally what the Chinese have felt is that sometimes it was necessary for them to fight the barbarians, just as sometimes it was necessary to fight the beasts. They did not feel that such people as the Hsiung-nu were in a position to divide the world with China, just as the American people do not feel that the red Indians are in a position to divide America with them. 中国人历来不得不同匈奴等等非华 夏人搏斗，对于这件事，中国人历来 觉得，他们有时候不得不同夷狄搏 斗，正如有时候不得不同禽兽搏斗。 他们觉得，像匈奴那些人，不配同中 国分享天下，正如美国人觉得红印地 安人不配同他们分享美洲。 Because the Chinese did not greatly emphasize racial distinctions, it re- sulted that during the third and fourth centuries A.D. various non-Chinese peoples were allowed to move freely into China. This movement constituted what is called the "inner colonization," and was a primary cause for the political troubles of the Six Dynasties period. Such inner colonization is precisely what Hitler, in his Mein Kampf criticized from a super-nationalistic point of view. 由于中国人不太强调种族区别，结果 就造成公元三、四世纪期间，允许各 种外族自由移入中国。这种移入现在 叫做“向内殖民”，是六朝政治动乱的 一个主要原因。希特勒在《我的奋斗》 中从超等民族的观点批评的，正是这 种“向内殖民”。 The introduction of Buddhism seems to have given many Chinese the realization that civilized people other than the Chinese existed, but traditionally there have been two kinds of opinion regarding India. Those Chinese who opposed Buddhism believed that the Indians were simply another tribe of barbarians. Those who believed in Buddhism, on the other hand, regarded India as the "pure land of the West." Their praise of India was that of a realm transcending this world. Hence even the introduction of Buddhism, despite its enormous effect upon Chinese life, did not change the belief of the Chinese that they were the only civilized people in the human world. 佛教的输入似乎使许多中国人认识 到除了中国人也还另外有文明人存 在，不过在传统上对印度有两种看 法。反对佛教的中国人相信印度人不 过是另一种夷狄。信仰佛教的中国人 则认为印度是“西方净土”。他们对印 度的称赞，是作为超世间的世界来称 赞。所以佛教的输入，尽管对中国人 的生活产生巨大影响，也并没有改变 中国人自以为是人世间唯一的文明 人的信念。 As a result of these concepts, when the Chinese first came in contact with Europeans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, they thought that they were simply barbarians like preceding barbarians, and so they spoke of them as barbarians. As a consequence they did not feel greatly disturbed, even though they suffered many defeats in fighting with them. They began to be disturbed, however, when they found that the Europeans possessed a civilization equal to, though different from, that of the Chinese. What was novel in the situation was not that peoples other than the Chinese existed, but that their civilization was one of equal power and importance. In Chinese history one can find a parallel for such a situation only in the Chun Ch'iu and Chan Kuo periods, when different but equally civilized states existed that fought with one another. That is why the Chinese now feel that there is a repetition in hislory. 由于有这些看法，所以中国人在十 六、十七世纪开始与欧洲人接触时， 就认为他们也是与以前的夷狄一样 的夷狄，称他们为夷。因此中国人并 不感到多大的不安，即使在交战中吃 了败仗也是如此。可是一发现欧洲人 具有的文明虽与中国的不同，然而程 度相等，这就开始不安了。情况的新 奇之处不在于存在着不同于中国人 的人群，而在于存在着不同于中国文 明的文明，而已有相等的力量和重要 性。中国历史上只有春秋战国时期有 与此相似的情况，当时的各国虽不相 同，但是文明程度相等，互相攻战。 中国人现在感觉到是历史重演，原因 就在此。 If one reads the writings of the great statesmen of the last century, such as Tseng Kuo-fan (1811-1872) and Li Hung-chang (1823-1901), there is much evidence that they felt about the impact of the West precisely in this way. This note attempts to describe the reasons for their feeling. 如果读一读十九世纪的大臣如曾国 藩(1811—1872)、李鸿章 (1823—1901 )的文章，更能够证 实他们对于西方冲击的感受，的确是 如此，这个注试图说明他们如此感受 的原因。