>> From the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. ^M00:00:03 ^M00:00:19 >> Edward Widmer: Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to LJ 119. We're so happy to see so many friends, so many current Kluge fellows and my predecessor, Carolyn Brown, who joins us as a friend of mine and also of our speaker. And it was under her directorship that Peng Guoxiang was recruited to the Kluge Center. And we're so happy to present his lecture tonight as the result of a lot of happy years of research here and in many other places. Tonight's introduction draws for me on deep childhood anxieties, because I grew up as the child of two sinologists. My mother is still teaching Chinese literature at Wellesley College. My father was a Chinese historian. And my form of adolescent rebellion was to refuse to speak Chinese. And unfortunately, I cannot refuse to speak Chinese in this introduction. Although, you may wish that I have. I want to remind you that this program is being recorded, so when you ask your questions afterwards, if you could speak clearly. We're so happy to welcome Peng Guoxiang for many reasons. He's been a wonderful colleague here at the Kluge Center. He's a very deep scholar of Confucianism and its many incarnations. He's currently professor of Chinese philosophy and intellectual history and religion at Zhejiang University, has taught also at Peking University and has held many visiting appointments at universities around the world, including in Singapore, in Germany, in Taiwan and several visiting fellowships at Harvard University where he used the Yenching Library, which was basically the unpaid babysitting facility where my parents dropped off my brother and me, just about every day of the 1970s. If you read his recent interview with Dan Turello in the Kluge Center blog, you'll see what a special scholar he is, because he has gone so deep into the Library's collection. He's made a special home in the Asian reading room here. And we're all happy that digitization has arrived, and it facilitates our research in so many ways. But as he has proven, and as I think we all know intuitively, there's a lot more to the Library of Congress than what is available on the surface, the digital surface. And while here, he discovered that we have 41,000 books that have not been, that are early Chinese books that have not been digitized. And so, he has made rich use of those collections and has added to his already amazing output as a scholar. The CD I have is a couple of years old, but it lists no fewer than 70 articles that he has printed, published over the years. And he has written seven books, and I'm sure there will be many more. They include, let me just say a few of them. This Worldly Concern of the Wise, a Political and Social Thought of Mou Zongsan, The Unfolding of Innate Knowledge of the Goodness, Wang Ji and the Young Ming Learning of the Mid-Late Ming, Confucian Tradition Between Religion and Humanism, Confucian Tradition and Chinese Philosophy Retrospect and Prospect in a New Century and Interpretation and Speculation of Confucian Philosophy. So he has taken a very old topic, Confucianism, and made it ever new. And tonight, he will do that once again with his lecture. And I'm especially proud to say that we have a sinologist, a scholar of China who is holding the Kluge chair in the countries and cultures of the north. We have never had that before, never had a China specialist in that particular position. And even though the word north implies a certain kind of Eurocentrism, obviously, China is north of the equator. And we're very happy to expand our horizon in that sense. So please join me in welcoming Peng Guoxiang, who will speak on understanding Confucianism as a religious tradition, salient features and significance. Thank you. >> Peng Guoxiang: Thank you Ted. Thank you for your introduction. It's my great pleasure and honor to be appointed as the Kluge chair in countries and cultures of the north. And I would like to express my gratitude to Professor [Inaudible]. Unfortunately, he cannot be here. And Dr. Karen [inaudible], the former director of the Kluge Center, and Dr., of course, Dr. Billington [phonetic] and Dr. [Inaudible] head of Asian Division. Unfortunately, he's not here too. Anyway, just one word. My thanks to all of the people who have been supporting me. As a professor of Chinese philosophy, international history and religion and of Confucianism, in particular, I would like to introduce Confucianism, one of the great traditions in the world to everyone here. Confucianism is not something exclusively Chinese. It has been introduced to developed and [inaudible] in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, and other regions of East Asia. And now, it is even accepted by Western people as an integral part of their spirituality and value system. Example is that two Christian theologians of Boston University, Rob Neville and John Bersome [phonetic], who were the dean and vice-dean of divinity school, respectively. And publicly claim that they are Boston Confucians. It's very [inaudible] But Chinese tradition is no doubt the matrix of Confucianism. So what I'm going to say about Confucianism is based upon Chinese tradition. Before we enter into that subject, I need to clarify that religiousness or spirituality is only one perspective from which to look at Confucianism as a tradition. Confucianism cannot be exclusively classified into any single modern discipline, philosophy, religion or ethics and so on. Let me give you a story. In the 1930s, when asked if Buddhism can be called a religion or philosophy, to [foreign name], a modern Chinese Buddhist master, and he replied, Buddhism is neither a religion nor a philosophy. On the other hand, it is both a religion and a philosophy. And [foreign name]'s answer seems paradoxical, but the meaning is actually simple. The classification system of modern western scholarship is not adequate for defining Buddhism. Either religion or philosophy is just one dimension of Buddhism. The case of Confucianism is the same. Accordingly, when we look at it from one perspective, it does not mean there are no other dimensions. Simply put, although we, although the talk here and now is about Confucianism as a religious or spiritual tradition, other dimensions, philosophical, ethical, historical, institutional and so on, are also meaningful. I actually have more or less tackled these various aspects too in my work. And my talk includes three parts. Firstly, I will explore the question of whether or not Confucianism can be understood or can be defined as a religious tradition. And if so, in what sense this understanding is meaningful. Secondly, I will demonstrate there has been a strong dialogical dimension in the Confucian tradition all along. And this dialogicalness [phonetic] should be understood as one of the distinctive features of Confucianism. Finally, I would like to point out there are three contributions that Confucianism as a dialogical tradition can make to religious dialogue, a dialogue of most civilization in a global context. These three contributions are number one, a principle of dialogue that [inaudible] harmony without uniformity. Number two, a religious pluralism that refrains from those absolutism and relativism. And number three, a theoretical and practical resource that entails multiple religious participation and multiple religious identities. ^M00:10:28 Confucianism has been taught in departments of religious studies at universities in the US for many years. Yet, for some people, it is still controversial to see Confucianism as a religion. And the controversies even the fears and are prolonged in Chinese-speaking world. I published a book called Confucianism Between Religion and Humanism by Peking University Press in 2007. And a revised version is going to come out this year too. And for me, I think I have already made this issue clear. Unfortunately, there are still some, if not many, ambiguous understandings and debates. So let me first offer answers to the question of whether Confucianism is a religious tradition. Whether or not Confucianism can be called a religion depends primarily upon what understanding of religion we have. No doubt, as religion as a modern western term is written early from the Abraham tradition, as you know, including Christianity and Judaism and Islam. Accordingly, a transcendental personal god, institution of church and a single scripture become indispensable defining characteristics of being a religion. During the 20th century, however, some Western scholars realized that religion encompassed much more than the traditional Abrahamic model. An increasing contact with the East suggested to them that religion need not be monotheistic or even theistic to serve as a civilization in the same fashion as Abrahamic tradition served in the West. Examples are Buddhism and Hinduism in South Asia and Confucianism and Daoism in East Asia. So those Western scholars with global consciousness revised the traditional definition of religion and made it more comprehensive. Paul Tillich's ultimate concern, John Hick's human responses to the transcendent, and Frederick Streng's means of ultimate transformation and so on, are all examples of this kind of revision. And the reason that Wilfred Cantwell Smith tried to replace religion by religiosity or religiousness is exactly to stress that religiosity is one while various religions in the world are just different manifestations of this one. Therefore, if we realize that the call of a religion lies in its religiousness, religiosity of spirituality, which intends to make people have an ultimate and creative transformation rather than in its particular form, such as those features that simply belong to Abrahamic tradition. Our understanding of religion should be revised and enlarged. If we know that Buddhism is originally an atheism that strives for personal liberation, and Daoism has never accepted the separation between this world and the world of all kinds of spirits between body and heart mind, and if we cannot deny that both Buddhism and Daoism are two kinds of religion in the world, we must embrace the idea that Confucianism should be considered as a religion. Why? Because it has provided a resource, both spiritual and practical, for human beings to become great persons, [inaudible] and noble persons [inaudible] and [inaudible] in Chinese by [inaudible] and strenuous self-cultivation. Distinctively, a Confucian way of ultimate transformation, the achievement of becoming a great person, a noble person, and a sage through self-cultivation does not mean a leap of faith from humanity to divinity in [inaudible]. Rather, it precisely links the full and perfect realization of our achievement of humanity itself. So Confucianists, together with some other spiritual traditions in the world, should be understood as a religious tradition, although it does not necessarily have the features of monotheism, nor is it necessarily institutional. In addition to the definition of religion, there are still two criteria of judgment that make us consider Confucianism as a religious tradition. First, Confucianism has already been accepted by other religious traditions as an indispensable counterpart in the religious dialogue around the world. Internationally, for many scholars, treating Confucianism is a spiritual and religious tradition has been an unquestioned starting point for further relevant discussions. A few books in the English-speaking world on Confucianism from the perspective of religious studies have been published since the 1970s. Quite a few international conferences on the dialogue between Confucianism and Christianity have been held in Hong Kong, Boston, and Brooklyn. And all these are exactly reflections of this point. Secondly, we usually acknowledge that the insiders of a tradition have priority in defining their own traditions. A consensus shared by representatives of contemporary Confucian scholars is acknowledgement of the religious dimension of the Confucian tradition. For example, [foreign name], a noted Confucian philosopher of 20th century China, clearly articulated that Confucianists should be understood as religious tradition. And he has once even claimed that Confucianists should be reestablished as an institutional religion. And the [inaudible] a contemporary of [Foreign Name] and another distinguished Confucian philosopher, delivered a lecture entitled Confucianism as a religion, in 1959, many years ago, which was included as a chapter in his book, Characteristics of Chinese Philosophy. A well-known manifesto of contemporary Confucianism drafted by these scholars [Foreign Name] and jointly signed by [Foreign Name] and [Foreign Name] was published in 1958. I think it particularly stressed the religious nature of Confucian tradition. So when we carefully scrutinize the history of Confucianism, we should be aware that the development of the Confucian tradition is actually a process of dialogue, including those dialogue with other traditions and a dialogue among different schools of ramifications within the Confucian tradition itself. It is this dialogical dimension of dialogicalness that enables Confucianism to be more and more enriched. Here, let me take Confucianism in the Chines and East Asia context as an example of this dialogical dimension. When it emerged in the preaching period, roughly the 6th century BCE, Confucianism was only one of various intellectual trends among the so-called [inaudible] in Chinese. Literally, many masters and hundreds of schools. But through dialogue with other masters and schools, Confucianism, which started locally, you know, in [inaudible] Province, eventually became the dominant value system of Chinese civilization. Furthermore, even the thought of Confucius himself was shaped and developed from his dialogue with his students. If we look both at the [inaudible], which is without doubt the authoritative record of Confucius' thought, and at some newly unearthed Confucian text he scribed on some bamboo sticks found in the 1990s, we can recognize that almost all Confucius said was in a dialogue with others, including his students, friends, acquaintances, passersby, strangers, and even his rivals. ^M00:20:50 From the Han Dynasty to the Ming and Qing Dynasties, namely from the 7th century to the 18th century, the development of Confucianism was particularly characterized by a dialogue process inside China after a long and productive dialogue with Buddhism and Daoism. Classical Confucianism was transformed into a new paradigm known as neo-Confucianism, N-E-O/Confucianism, which have solved the many Buddhist and Daoist ideas without giving up its own identity. Also, through invalid dialogue with local civilizations, various new Confucian traditions with their own cultural characteristics, was shaped in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and other East Asian regions after Chinese Confucianism was introduced into these areas. In this period, it is no exaggeration to say that Confucianists, in general, played an important or evening leading role in the whole of East Asian civilization. If East Asian civilization can be differentiated from Western civilization, West Asia civilization and its Abrahamic religions and from South Asia civilization and its Hinduism and Buddhism, the defining religious tradition in East Asia civilization is nothing but Confucianism. Briefly, throughout the process in which Confucianist was transformed into assuming a leading role of East Asia civilization from simply Chinese, a striking feature of Confucianism [inaudible] is dialogicalness. From the late Qing Dynasty until now, Confucianist has emerged into another period. In this period, one of the most important features of new Confucianism is also its dialogical dimension, compared with the previous dialogue among different branches inside the Confucian tradition and its dialogue with Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and Islam. The dialogue of Confucianism is with the whole of the Western spiritual world is omnidirectional and multilevel. In contrast to traditional Confucian scholars, modern Confucius, I mean Confucius from the 20th century until now, have to face and understand the complexity and diversity of various traditions in the world. In this sense, the burden is much heavier than ancient Confucius. For example, both [inaudible] engaged in lifelong dialogue with Western philosophical tradition, especially German idealism. Their understanding of Western philosophy not only goes far beyond the teacher [foreign name], the initiator of modern Confucianist, but also surpasses some Chinese scholars who are specialized in Western philosophy. As for [foreign name], a great Confucian historian and Kluge prize winner in 2006, his understanding of Western culture, in general, and Western history, in particular, surpasses that of his teacher [foreign name], a great master of Chinese traditional learning in the 20th century China. Now, as we know, religious dialogue can be further divided into two types, interreligious dialogue and intrareligious dialogue. The former refers to the dialogue among different religious traditions. For example, the dialogue between Confucianism and Christianity. The dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism. The dialogue between Hinduism and Islam, and so on. The latter refers to the dialogue among different branches or schools within one religious tradition. For instance, the dialogue among Baptists, Methodists and Evangelicals in Christianity. But whatever perspective we take, it is pretty clear that the history of Confucianism is a dialogical process. First, let us look at the development of Confucianism from the perspective of intrareligious dialogue. I already mentioned the dialogical feature of Confucius thought. After Confucius, Confucianists even in preaching period was already complicated. Different branches were always in a state of dialogue and sometimes conflict. Typically, two different orientations initiated respectively by [inaudible] were developed into an enduring dialogue by latter Confucians. Although Confucianists in the Han Dynasty, in general, focused on commentary on the classics, a different approaches and their debates, especially [foreign name] and [foreign name], among others, were also reflections of the dialogue within Confucianism. As for neo-Confucianists, a well-known debate occurred in 11/75 between [foreign name], probably the most important Confucius scholar after Confucius. And [foreign name] another brilliant Confucian scholar and [inaudible] contemporary, reflected two different approaches to the Confucian learning in new Confucian tradition, and was not only polemic, but also dialogical. Furthermore, the leading, the learning of the [foreign name] School was particularly shaped, not only through dialogue with the learning of [foreign name] but also through dialogue among many brilliant students and followers of [foreign name] basically in 16th and 17th century. And most works recording the thought of almost all new Confucian masters recount the discussions and correspondence with their students, colleagues, friends, or even rivals. This is an outstanding feature that indicates the strong dialogical dimension of new Confucian tradition. Secondly, from a perspective of interreligious dialogue, the dialogue between Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism reached a peak in the late Ming Dynasty. And new Confucianists per se was the result of this interreligious dialogue, which lasted hundreds of years. The so-called East Asian consciousness was precisely shaped by the dialogue of Chinese Confucianism, with local cultures in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and so on. This has already been mentioned previously. Now I would like to add a couple of examples to highlight the fruitful products resulting from the dialogue between Confucianism and Christianity and Islam in China. And those great Confucian Christians such as [foreign names], who all lived in the late Ming Dynasty, namely the 16th and 17th century. Or even the Confucianized [inaudible] missionary [foreign name], also of the late Ming Dynasty, have already been studied. Recently, the thought of [foreign names], which represents some of the most important achievements of the dialogue between Confucianism and Islam, also in the 16th and 17th century have also received global scholarly attention. I do not need to particularly stress this biological dimension of Confucianism. Some great Western minds have already realized its point. For instance, William de Bary, a 97 years old distinguished professor of Columbia University, believes that the dialogical imperative has always been embodied in the Confucian tradition, as an integral part of East Asian civilization. Actually, when we look at Chinese history, we should realize that the Chinese people have embraced almost every world religious tradition. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, let along Confucianism and Daoist and the various indigenous popular religions. ^M00:30:16 It is precisely because of this intrinsic dialogicalness of Confucianism and the arrival of globalization that religious dialogue, as I've been trying to argue, must be a leading project of the 21st century Confucianism in a global context. As a matter of fact, one of the [inaudible] features for the development of contemporary Confucianists is moving in this exact direction. Now, with the wave of globalization, religious dialogue has become one of the most striking issues in the world. Globalization means not only a process of homogenization but also a process of heterogeneity. The reason for the latter is the differences among various religious traditions. Therefore, how to treat those differences and try to alleviate the clash of civilization caused by religious conflict through dialogue instead of confrontation has become an urgent issue for the good life of every people in the world. Actually, an essential aspect of the clash of civilization, even in [inaudible] is still more religious than political, economic and so on. In [inaudible] statement, there can be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. And no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religious has been validated by history and become a consensus among people of religion. So in my view, according to what is has done in history, a dialogical Confucianist can make at least three contributions, both conceptually and practically to a global religious dialogue. The first is a principle of dialogue [foreign word] in Chinese. Which, from Confucius, means harmony without uniformity. Until now, most participants offer religious dialogue in the world already have realized that the purpose of dialogue should not and cannot be to transform others' beliefs into their own. Otherwise, the result is monologue rather than dialogue and [inaudible] and unavoidably leading to conflict. Dialogue should be a process of mutual learning. The minimum purpose of dialogue should be to deepen mutual understanding. Although mutual understanding does not necessarily mean a mutual appreciation, it is a precondition for minimizing the possibility of the large-scale clash of civilization caused by religious conflict. In the Confucian tradition, the principle harmony without uniformity advocated by almost every Confucian throughout history, has always been respected as a way of coexistence. This principle means every individual shares a stance of togetherness and integration, while his or her individuality is fully developed. Obviously, this should be a base principle for global religious dialogue at present and in the future. Maybe the based state that we can hope to achieve. There are two extremes about religious dialogue. One is a particularism that believes dialogue is fruitless, and there cannot be helpful communication between different religions. The other is a universalism that believes dialogue is the [inaudible] that can lead people with different religious backgrounds to a homogeneous state. By contrast, the Confucian principle of harmony without uniformity which goes beyond excessive pessimism and optimism can provide a reasonable and visible [inaudible] for global religious dialogue. The second contribution is Confucian pluralism. Now we know that the attitude a religion takes toward other religious tradition can be pathologically divided into three categories. Exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. An exclusivist denies the value of other religious traditions and acclaims as a monopoly of religion truth. An inclusivist concedes that other religions can have truth, but he or she will say the truth other religions have is already included in his or her own religion, and this truth is not ultimate. Only his or her religion can reveal the ultimate truth. Anonymous Christians is an example of this standpoint. The third one is the religious pluralism. It is now a very influential trend which not only accepts that other religions can reveal truth but also realizes the particularity or limitation of every religious tradition. A [inaudible] to inclusivism, this standpoint does not presuppose the priority of a certain religion. A religious pluralist believes that every religion can provide a way of ultimate transformation. As John Hicks' metaphor suggested, all religions in the world should be considered as a rainbow of humans' face. They are different reflections of the same light of divinity. Of course, every religion cannot be simply and absolutely clarified into any one of these three types, while every religion can simultaneously include these three attitudes toward other religions. Because of its openminded standpoint, religious pluralism has been increasingly accepted by more and more liberal minds. But, pluralism in general, has to face the danger of becoming a kind of a relativism. Pluralism with an implication of relativism apparently can't accept every religion. But actually denies there can be a unified truth of the argument in the cosmos. It is not willing to or cannot seriously consider that different religions can treat the unified truth of the ultimate in different ways and stress different aspects of the same truth. It consequently undermines the necessity of dialogue among religions. So the significance of a Confucian pluralism is that Confucianists throughout its history has developed a middle ground. As a dialogical tradition, Confucian religious pluralists advocates that on the one hand, every religious tradition is a manifestation of the way all a unified truth of the ultimate, while the absolute truth that every religion claims is only a convenient way [inaudible] in Buddhism or relative absolute. Not the absolute per se, at the ultimate truth. On the other hand, the ultimate and the unified truth of the ultimate should be acknowledged, no matter whether or not this ultimate reality and truth can be clearly uttered with one accord. I've named this distinctive feature of Confucian pluralism as the [foreign language] in Chinese, a term from the new Confucianism, which literally and roughly means one principle, many manifestations. The third contribution a Confucianist can make is a conceptual and practical resource of multiple religious participation and multiple religious identity. And multiple religious participation means a believer in a religion fully getting involved in another religion or other religions and eventually becomes an inner participant rather than an outer observer. ^M00:40:01 Accordingly, once one becomes not only an inner participant but also a believer in another religion or other religions, while not giving up his or her original religious faith, this person already has multiple religious identities. Both multiple religion participation and multiple religious identities were issues raised by contemporary Western theologians or scholars in religious studies against a background of global dialogue, global religious dialogue. For a conventional believer in Abrahamic tradition, multiple religious participation is a very difficult, if not totally impossible. And multiple religious identities are basically, I think, beyond this author ability to imagine. But religious dialogue in academia or real religious dialogue motivated by globalization, especially as part of the wave of integration, compel this issue to become a focal awareness of Western religious people. Intriguingly, in China or East Asia, there has been a long history of multiple religious participation and multiple religious identities. In the dialogical history of Confucianism, a rich experience about multiple religious participating and multiple religious identities has already been accumulated. In other words, for the Confucian tradition, multiple religious participation and the multiple religious identities have already been at preconditioned or starting point for further consideration of relevant questions instead of a problem still needing to be wrestled with. For example, there were many brilliant Confucians who went back and forth with ease among Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism in the late Ming Dynasty. They, on the one hand, deeply engaged in the spiritual growth of both Buddhism and Daoism, including frequently communicating with Buddhists and Daoists, establishing deep and lasting friendships with them. Making commentaries on publishing Buddhist and Daoist classics. And even practicing Buddhist meditation and Daoist inner alchemy. On the other, they still had their strong Confucian commitment and identity. Or they still defined themselves as Confucian rather than Buddhists or Daoists. And even now, many temples established in different dynasties in Chinese history still offer sacrifices to Confucius. Laozi, as you might know, the founder of Daoism, and Buddha, in one house at the same time. And all this exactly reflections of multiple religious participation and multiple religious identities. As Paul [inaudible] observed, the life of the Chinese people has always been with diversity of religious experience and history, and a positive attitude toward this diversity has accordingly been developed. In this sense, we can say that the ease of multiple religious participation and religious identity has already acquired its answered, both conceptual and practical in a dialogical Confucian tradition with a plural vision. So I do believe that more resources from Confucianism if primarily transformed can contribute to the global religious dialogue in an age of dialogue or death. The story of the so-called Boston Confucianism, which I mentioned at the very beginning, is very inspiring. Both Robert Neville and John Bersome, who are sincere Christian Methodist ministers and professors of Christianity have claimed that they are also Confucians since they also espouse the core values of Confucianism. Robert Neville even published a book exactly called Boston Confucianism, Portable Tradition in the Late-Modern World. No doubt, the emergence of Boston Confucianism is the newest example of, I think it's the newest example demonstrating that multiple religious participating and multiple religious identities have already been happening between Confucianism and Christianity in the US. This case also indicates that the leading project of contemporary Confucianists in a global context is primarily the development for the religious and spiritual dialogue. Last, but not least, I would like to say, and I do believe that the dialogicalness and the contributive resources discussed just now are not exclusive to the Confucian tradition. We can definitely find similar virtues, more or less the other religious or spiritual traditions in the world as well. If this part of every tradition in the world can be jointly advocated and promoted, a good life for all human beings based upon solidarity, harmony and common good, would be eventually realized. And it's not an unreachable idea anymore. So let me stop here. Thank you all. ^M00:46:32 [ Applause ] ^M00:46:36 >> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress. Visit us at loc.gov. ^E00:46:42