Reflections On World Peace Through Peace Among Religions

·期刊原文
Reflections On World Peace Through Peace Among Religions --
A Confucian Perspective
By Liu, Shu-hsien
Journal of Chinese Philosophy
V. 22:2 (1995)
pp. 193-213
Copyright 1995 by Dialogue Publishing Company,
Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p. 193

In February, 1989 I accepted an invitation to participate in the Symposium on World Religions and Human Rights held in Paris, under the sponsorship of UNESCO. The Format of the symposium was very interesting: Hans Küng presented his views on the theme from a Christian perspective, his article was entitled: "Kein Weltfriede ohne Religionsfriede," then five scholars from other religious traditions: Mohammed Arkoun, Eugene B. Borowitz, Shu-hsien Liu, Masao Abe, and Bithika Mukerji, were asked to give their response to his views from the perspectives of Islamism, Judaism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Naturally I was asked to speak from a Confucian perspective. All the essays were translated into German afterwards, and the collection of essays along with other relevant materials was published in 1993. [1] But nothing appeared in English. Besides, the world situation has changed a great deal since that time: on the one hand there are hopes for transformation in South Africa and the Middle East, even Northern Ireland, on the other hand there was the Gulf War, and we are still watching the senseless killings in Bosnia and Rwanda on TV almost everyday. After the Cold War was over, the world did not seem to turn into a better place with less violence and conflict. The end of history and the new world order are not in sight, now that Samuel P. Hungtington has presented his views on the clash of civilizations and religions, [2] further reflections on world peace through peace among religions are certainly needed, this is why I have decided to write the present article. [3]

p. 194

Before I carry on my reflections, a certain background needs to be supplied. Hans Küng's article is thought-provoking The important problem he tries hard to deal with is: on the one hand religions aspire toward Absolute Truth, on the other hand there is the need for peaceful coexistence among them. If a balance cannot be found between the two, then conflicts are unavoidable. The struggle between Israel and Palestine, Iran and Iraq, India and Pakistan, Hindus and Sikhs, Irish Catholics and Protestants, are just a few examples. The name of God is often borrowed to provide justification for killings and violence. If situations like these cannot be improved, the future of mankind is in trouble. But conflicts are not unsolvable, if problems between France and Germany can be settled, there is no reason why we cannot hope for the future. All we need h to search for the wisdom to guide our actions. On the one hand, we must not be caught by our bias, on the other hand we must not be forgetful about the search for Truth. For religions to seek for mutual understanding, three strategies are not working: firstly, there is the fortress strategy, just holding on tenaciously to one's own beliefs; secondly, there is the defusing strategy, denying that there is any problem concerning truth here s each religion has it's own ways; finally, there is the embracing strategy, maintaining that other religions have got hold of certain partial truth, only one's own religion has the perfect Truth. Küng suggests that in order for us to overcome our bias, the best strategy is for each to have soul-searching criticisms of its own tradition. Then he set out to give his reflections on Christianity: even though Christians are all for the ideal of peace, yet in actuality they are seen to be aggressive, neither kind, nor peaceful; their other-worldly attitude is one-sided; their obsession with sin is disgusting: and the divinity of Jesus Christ is over-stressed. It is not an accident that in spite of vigorous missionary activities only five percent of the Asian population are Christian believers. No matter whether these criticisms are valid or not, religions cannot avoid the problem of truth and falsehood. For example, how can we allow human sacrifices, wasting vast resources just for personal enjoyment, etc. We have to say no to these things. True, each religion has to establish its own criteria of right and

p. 195

wrong, prevent itself from degeneration, and keep purifying itself. But Holy Scriptures and authorities of religions cannot extend beyond their traditions. We have to strive to find something universal accepted by different traditions, just as there are international laws accepted by nation-states all over the world. Küng's search finds that no transcendent religion can afford to be irrelevant to the human world. In the process of development, there has been a strong tendency towards secularization since the Renaissance. At first sight humanism seems to be in opposition to religious aspiration, in fact, this need not be so. The liberation process actually helps to open up new horizons for Christianity. Liberty, equality, love, and especially "human dignity" are rediscovered to be Christian values, even though they are realized in the world under the opposition by the Church. In the meantime, the secular world also finds that it needs the help of religion to maintain the sacredness of certain values rising beyond classes, races, and nations. Therefore Küng suggests that true humanity, or the humanum, is the universal ecumenical criterion we are looking for. In 1893 human rights were upheld in a conference of world religions held in Chicago. Now a hundred years have passed, people today have a heightened sense of human rights, they are supported by followers of different religions all over the world from all walks of life. It is in this way the problem raised in the very beginning can be solved. There is no need to destroy the plurality of religions, and there is no need to give up hope to find an ecumenical criterion of truth in the humanum. At the end of his article, Küng proceeds to make certain concrete proposals, and calls for following the ecumenical imperatives to search for mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence between religions and cultures.

Even though I have known Küng for some years, I must say that I was still caught by surprise when I first read his article. As a scholar with a Confucian background, I have no trouble in accepting the main thrust of his article. When the humanum is taken to be the ecumenical criterion of Truth, the distance between the Christian tradition and the Confucian tradition appears to be much less than I had thought existing between the two traditions. It should be pointed out that "Truth" (Wahrheit) for

p. 196

Küng does not refer to the kind of truths understood by the positivists as something established in terms of empirical verification, it has a much broader meaning as appreciated by religionists. I think Küng's discussion of strategy is illuminating. The rejection of the third one is especially instructive, as it simply does not pay to hold a condescending attitude toward other traditions. Under a pluralistic setting, his suggestion to start with self-criticism is very well taken. By coincidence I presented a paper: "Some Reflections on What Contemporary Neo-Confucianists may learn from Christianity" at the First Confucian-Christian Conference held at The Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1988 in which I had made strong criticisms of my own tradition. [4] I fully realize that the danger with a tradition of immanent transcendence like Confucianism lies in that it may completely lose sight of the aspect of transcendence; the precocious character of the Chinese culture has prevented it from fully developing the kind of creativity it constantly preaches in its philosophy; and the faith in the goodness of human nature could be misinterpreted to mean the belief that actual human behaviors are generally good, as a result China has not been able to develop the kind of check-balance mechanism in its political system as practiced in Western democracy. Ironically however, self-criticism seldom leads to self-despair or self-destruction, it shows the inner strength of a tradition and its ability to rejuvenate itself by taking in nutritive ingredients supplied by other sources. Today some of us are just lucky enough, to live in a free society in which we enjoy the freedom to choose our own ultimate commitment. There is no reason why we should not be converted to another religious faith, if our own tradition has proved to be utterly inadequate. There are as many anti-Confucius as anti-Christ. But if one does choose to stay within one tradition, then its pros must have been judged far outweigh its cons, as it is still believed to be much preferable to other traditions in spite of all its shortcomings. It is simply impossible to put all the traditions on exactly the same footing, if we do not want to deceive ourselves in bad faith. Furthermore, in a modern pluralistic society, dialogues between different traditions should be encouraged. One has to defend his own faith by

p. 197

stating the reasons why he has chosen such an ultimate commitment over the other faiths, and these reasons must be subjected to critical examination. By vigorously engaging in debating or having meaningful dialogues with other traditions, not only will one be able to strengthen one's own faith, but learn to appreciate the strengths from other traditions in order to incorporate them as much as possible into one's own tradition and make it an even better tradition.

Before one can give evaluation of a certain tradition, first there must be an understanding of that tradition. The Confucian tradition has often been subject to various kinds of misunderstanding. One prevalent view takes it to mean only a system of secular ethics which does not have a transcendent message. This view is definitely wrong. The contemporary Neo-Confucians have taken pains to show that there is religious import in Confucian philosophy. [5] I do not think there is any need to repeat the arguments here, but I do want to say something about certain ideas I have developed more recently. As Confucianism is such an ambiguous term that I would like to distinguish between three distinct but related meanings of the term:

(1) Spiritual Confucianism, [6] the tradition of Confucius, Mencius, Ch'eng-Chu, Lu-Wang, etc., which has been revived by contemporary Neo-Confucians as their ultimate commitment.

(2) Politicized Confucianism, [7] the tradition of Tung Chung-shu, Pan Ku, etc., which served as the official ideology of the dynasties and had taken in ingredients from Taoism, Legalism, the Yin-Yang School, etc.

(3) Vulgar Confucianism, [8] popular beliefs of the people that emphasize the values of the family, diligence, education, etc., and can hardly be separated from other beliefs in popular Buddhism, Taoism, including various kinds of superstitions, etc.

p. 198

Naturally, as a philosopher, I shall put emphasis on a discussion of the ideas of the spiritual tradition. I now believe that one major contribution of the Chinese philosophical tradition lies in that it gives expression to the so-called leung-hsing-chi-li, meaning the principle to follow two courses at the same time. [9] The term first appeared in Chuang Tzu's article: "On the Equality of Things.'' [10] Although Chuang Tzu did not give us a consistent use of the term, by using the art of creative hermeneutics, I interpret it to mean following the two courses of transcendence and immanence at the same time. On the one hand one is urged to transcend the narrow-mindedness of the self and identify with Tao, i.e., the infinite Way, which is not a thing and cannot be grasped by the senses and is therefore transcendent; on the other hand, Tao is not in the other world, in fact it is everywhere and is in this sense also immanent. Hence to follow one's own nature and not to try to be otherwise is to follow the Way of nature. At first sight the two advices appear to be contradictory to each other, on further reflection they are not. In fact each one of us has a dual identity. Using the metaphor of the circle to illustrate the situation, each one of us is like a point on the circle, if each insists it is the only right, then it is in irreconcilable conflict with the other. If, however, each realizes that it has only a limited perspective, and in the constant process of change, one will change into the other, like life changing to death and vice versa, then one would look beyond one's finite perspective, draw a line to connect to the center of the circle, hold on to the axis of Tao and thus be able to respond to infinite complexities. After one identifies with Tao, and allows Nature to take its own course, there is really no need to deny one's particular nature. On the contrary, realization of one's particular nature is an integral part of the operation of Nature. It is in this way we find Heaven and man in union in Chuang Tzu's thought. [11]

When Buddhism was introduced to China, we find some of the Buddhist ideas can be matched with the Taoist ideas. For example, Madhyamika or the Middle Doctrine School taught the Two Levels of Truth. On the one hand there is worldly truth (laukikasatya) or common or relative truth that things exist provisionally as dependent beings or tem-

p. 199

porary names, on the other hand there is absolute truth (paramarthasatya) that all dharmas (elements of existence) are empty. Truth does not lie in either extreme, and True Middle is beyond words. [12] Such insight is very close to the Taoist insight set forth by Chuang Tzu discussed in the above, only the Buddhist dialectics appears to be even more sophisticated. Although I have learned a great deal about the transcendent perspective from Buddhism and Taoism, I still feel dissatisfied as both traditions leave little room for creativity and cultural achievement, and have not done full justice to the immanent perspective. It is under such circumstances that I turn to Neo-Confucian philosophy for spiritual guidance.

After being attracted to Buddhism and Taoism for a number of years, the Sung philosopher Ch'eng Hao (1032-1085) finally returned to the Confucian Classics, and only then did he find the Way. [13] He was able to give creative interpretation to Classics such as the I-Ching (The Book of Changes) and the Doctrine of the Mean, and hit a balance between transcendence and immanence, as he said,

The operations of Heaven (Nature) have neither sound nor smell. Their substance is called Change; their principle, the Way; and their function, spirit. What Heaven imparts to man is called the Way (Tao). Cultivation according to the Way is called education... What exists before physical form [and is therefore without it] constitutes the Way. What exists after physical form [and is therefore with it] constitutes concrete things. Nevertheless, though we speak in this way, concrete things are the Way and the Way is concrete things. So long as the Way obtains, it does not matter whether it is present or future, or whether it is the self or others. [14]

Although "the Way of Heaven" is a common expression used by both Taoists and the Confucians, the Confucian understanding of the term is quite different from the Taoist understanding of the term. Heaven is the creative principle working incessantly in the universe. It is above physical

p. 200

forms and is in this sense transcendent. Things and human beings receive their natures in the creative process of transformation. Not only is there no separation between the Way and the concrete things, actually making effort to fully develop their nature is the best way to act according to the Way. There is no need to depart from our human ways in order to follow the Way of Heaven. It is here we find the so-called Union between Heaven and man in Confucian thought. Acting on such insight, Ch'eng Hao applied it to self-discipline. In his reply to Chang Tsai (1020-1077), he said,

The constant Principle of Heaven and Earth is that their mind is in all things, and yet they have no mind of their own. The constant Principle of the sage is that his Feelings are in accord with all creation, and yet he has no feelings of his own. Therefore, for the training of the superior man there is nothing better than to become broad and extremely impartial and to respond spontaneously to all things as they come...

....................

Everyone's nature is obscured in some way and as a consequence he cannot follow the Way. In general the trouble lies in resorting to selfishness and the exercise of cunning. Being selfish, one cannot take purposive action to respond to things, and being cunning one cannot be at home with enlightenment. For a mind that hates external things to seek illumination in a mind where nothing exists, is to look for a reflection on the back of a mirror... Instead of looking upon the internal as right and the external as wrong, it is better to forget the distinction. When such a distinction is forgotten, the state of quietness and peace is attained. Peace leads to calmness and calmness leads to enlightenment. When one is enlightened, how can the response to things become an impediment? [15]

p. 201

What Ch'eng Hao exposed was a profound paradox of life: when one is selfish and cunning, he appears to work for the benefit of the self, in fact however, he is working against his own nature; on the other hand, when he forgets the distinction between the internal and the external, just responds to things in an impartial way, following the model of Heaven and the sage, then he would find the calmness of his nature whether it is in the state of activity or in a state of tranquility. There is absolutely no need to escape to another world in order to find enlightenment or self-realization in this life.

In his famous essay "The Western inscription" Chang Tsai gave the classical expression of the Neo-Confucian view of the world and life. In the opening passages he said,

Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother, and even such a small creature as me finds an intimate place in their midst.

All men are my brothers and sisters, and all things are my companions. [16]

And he concluded his essay in the following way:

Wealth, honor, blessing, and benefits are meant for the enrichment of my life, while poverty, humble station, and sorrow are meant to help me to fulfillment.

In life I follow and serve Heaven and Earth. In death I will be at peace. [17]

After reading this essay, Yang Shih (1053-1135) felt puzzled, and asked his teacher Ch'eng I (1033-1107), the younger brother of Ch'eng Hao, if Chang Tsai was teaching the Moist doctrine of Universal Love. Ch'eng I denied such was the case. He pointed out that the Moist doctrine of Universal Love would fall into difficulties, as it had to rely on two founda-

p. 202

tions by separating theory from practice and fail to make all the necessary distinctions. Chang Tsai based his ideas on the Confucian insight of Graded Love by extending humanity to all; for the first time in history, he advanced the epoch-shaking theory that "Principle is one, but its manifestations are many." [18] Since then, li-i-fen-shu had become something commonly accepted by the Sung-Ming Neo-Confucian philosophers. Chu Hsi (1130-1200) identified the heavenly virtue as sheng (creativity), and its manifestation in man jen (humanity), the virtue that embraced all virtues. [19] And Chu Hsi loved to use the metaphor: "the moon reflecting itself in ten thousand streams" to illustrate the point. [20] Although Wang Yang-ming (1472-1529) criticized Chu Hsi in many respects, he also took humanity as his ultimate concern. In his "Inquiry on the Great Learning" he said, "The great man regards Heaven and Earth and the myriad things as one body. He regards the world as one family and the country as one person." [21] Here we find his one principle, but he never neglected the necessary distinctions. A disciple asked him, if as you said that the great man and things form one body, why does the Great Learning say that there is a relative importance among things? His answer was,

It is because of principles that there necessarily is relative importance. Take for example, the body, which is one. If we use the hands and the feet to protect the head, does that mean that we especially treat them as less important? Because of their principles this is what should be done. We love both plants and animals, and yet we can tolerate feeding animals with plants. We love both animals and man, and yet we can tolerate butchering animals to feed our parents, provide for religious sacrifices, and entertain guests. We love both parents and strangers. But suppose here are a small basket of rice and a platter of soup. With them one will survive and without them one will die. Since not both our parents and the stranger can be saved, by this meager food, we will prefer to save our parents instead of the stranger.

p. 203

This we can tolerate. We can tolerate all these because by principle these should be done." [22]

Having provided the background in Neo-Confucian philosophy, we can see clearly that li-i-fen-shu has the implication of following two courses at the same time. That the principle is one (li-i) pertains to the transcendent perspective, and that the manifestations are many (fen-shu) pertains to the immanent perspective. Even though I identify with the Way, I still have to make judgments according to my particular situation. In order to develop my nature, an endowment from Heaven, I have to be creative and act according to the principle of humanity through my limited perspective, this is the way I participate in the creative process of Heaven and Earth. [23] Through self-discipline, I must work hard to find my inner peace, then do every thing possible to help promote peace throughout the world. The Great Learning urges us to start with cultivation of personal lives, followed by regulation of families, with a view to bring order to the states, finally have hope for peace throughout the world. [24]

It is clear that Confucianism has taught a humanism which is totally different from Sartre's humanism that cuts itself off completely from transcendence by declaring that God is dead and has nothing to do with our human world. Confucius has served as a model for later Confucians. On the one hand he showed great faith in Heaven, as he said,

The superior man stands in awe of three things. He stands in awe of the Mandate of Heaven; he stands in awe of great men, and he stands in awe of words of the sages. The inferior man is ignorant of the Mandate of Heaven and does not stand in awe of it. He is disrespectful to great men and is contemptuous toward the words of the sages. [25]

It appears that the inferior man simply has no feeling or concern for what is transcendent as it cannot be captured by senses and help us to make a profit. On the other hand Confucius also emphasized the role of

p. 204

man to work with Heaven to promote the Way in this world, as he also said, "It is man who can make the Way great, and not the Way that can make man great." [26] Was Confucius contradicting himself? I do not think so. What he attempted to do was exactly what I characterize as following two courses at the same time. His ultimate commitment to the Way was unmistakable, as he said, "In the morning, hear the Way; in the evening, die content" [27] But for the Way to become manifest in the world, it has to depend on man's participation and creativity, not only it is an endless task, more often than not in spite of all our effort no visible effect can be seen, this is why Confucius had the reputation as one "who keeps working toward a goal the realization of which he knows to be hopeless." [28] And precisely because of his ultimate commitment to the Way, he was not bogged down by the frustrations he had to face in the world, as he told us that "I do not complain against Heaven. I do not blame men. I study things on the lower level but my understanding penetrates the higher level. It is Heaven that knows me." [29] It is in this way that Confucius has shown a deeply religious and at the same time thoroughly this-worldly sentiment, he has also combined a transcendent, infinite perspective (from the Way) with an immanent, finite perspective (from man).

With the above discussions we can easily see why the call for ecumenical criteria poses no problem for the Confucian tradition, the Chinese have always searched for something universal above racial barriers and regarded humanity and the world as a whole. There is never any doubt that the humanum has always been the main concern for Confucianism. Furthermore, as China never had a medieval age dominated by other-worldly-oriented church organizations, secularization had never become a serious problem for the Chinese in the modern era. As the Chinese have long been aware of the need to cultivate the mind-heart of humanity (jen) inherent in every human being through a life-long process of education, and they want to extend humanity to all under heaven, their experience must be treasured by the whole of mankind. But the Chinese experiences do not exhaust everything, they are only limited manifestations of the mind-heart of humanity which needs to seek ever anew expres-

p. 205

sions for entirely different external and internal environments. Besides, the commitment to the humanum is at best the necessary but certainly not the sufficient condition to bring about peace throughout the world. Ideally humanity (jen) is supposedly embodied in rites (li), in practice however, they oftentimes turn into merely a hard shell totally devoid of the spine of humanity. The government of jen has often degenerated into an empty name, worse still, an institute of suppression and domination. No wonder the New Culture Movement in 1919 demanded to remove the man-eating system of rites. The Chinese have simply failed to devise a check-balance system to contain the power of cruel and corrupt rulers, the only way to remove them is through revolutions which are drastic measures to take and do not happen very often. This is how we have the cycles of order and disorder in the so-called twenty-four dynasties history.

The limitations of the Confucian tradition become obvious when we compare it with the Western tradition. There is indeed a strong sense of human dignity in the Confucian tradition. But it seems to have put exclusive emphasis on the concept of duty in neglect of the concept of right. Sung-Ming Neo-Confucianism teaches primarily the learning to develop what is within the self. Hence what is important from their perspective is to spot the weaknesses within the self, and work hard to make improvements on them. It does not encourage people to fight for the rights entitled them against others. Certainly injustices are not condoned, but the motive to fight against injustices is primarily based on a sense of duty rather than a drive to defend one's natural rights. In the Chinese tradition politics is commonly regarded as an extension of ethics and does not seem to have developed into an independent area with rules of its own. Rulers are always urged to fulfill their moral duties as rulers, but what if they do not, the subjects are still obliged to fulfill their duties as subsets. Unless a revolution breaks out, otherwise people have to suffer through their bad luck or even lose their lives should they incur the anger of the rulers, hence the common saying that to accompany a ruler is like accompanying a tiger. Of course one can always argue that the assertion of human dignity would entail implicitly the assertion of human rights to

p. 206

some extent. But this is far short of the protection of the law which explicitly states what human rights are to be protected by the constitution. There is little doubt that the Confucian tradition lags far behind the West to work out the bill of rights and enact laws to protect the rights of common citizens.

Here the possible culprit is the Chinese faith in the goodness of human nature. There is nothing wrong if human nature in this context is understood as the endowment within every human being to do good, but when it is misinterpreted to mean man is not capable of wicked evil-doings in actuality, then terrible consequences follow. Here the Chinese must learn from the West to find out, when God is hidden, how depraved man can actually be! It is simply not enough to depend on man's good will to do good, there must be the protection of law. Politics and law must enjoy their relative autonomy. Although they must not be totally cut off from morality, yet they do belong in different areas and need to develop their own rules. The lesson we learn here is that the commitment to humanum may not bring out the best of the humanum. By the same token the absolute devotion to God does not always bring out the best deeds that please God. To sum up, I do not believe anything is above the examination or critical inquiry. When we make judgment, we do follow the broad guidelines of li-i, i.e., the humanum, and reject a radical relativism under which anything goes. I do believe that there is a distinction between civilization and savagery, and between what is for and against humanity. Only manifestations of humanity change according to time and circumstances. Fen-shu, i.e., the diverse manifestations of the Principle are not limited by our existing horizons of understanding, we must forever be prepared to open up ourselves to new horizons of understanding. We reject the traditional concept of Reason, not because we opt for what is irrational, but rather something even more reasonable than the outmoded manifestations of Reason that refuse to move along with time and new circumstances. If we elevate something finite to infinite, then we would practice idolatry as Tillich says. [30] We just have to learn to be truly humble, forever open ourselves to new truths, and ready to defend the

p. 207

manifestations of Truth glimpsed through our rather limited perspectives.

Now it is time for us to face the problems of our own times. Today the intellectuals have fully realized the necessity to separate the church and the state, no religious authorities are allowed to interfere with scientific investigation. This is certainly a great improvement upon the past. But the pendulum seems to have swung too far to the other end. They do not seem to be aware of the dangers inherent in a humanism totally cut off from transcendence. No scientific discoveries can provide meaning and value for human existence, and no contemporary ethical or metaethical theories can give us a satisfactory answer to the question: why should one be moral? The Confucian view is that man has to act morally because he has the mind-heart of humanity and because of his nature endowed from Heaven. Surely the distinction between ought and is and the distinction between ideal and fact must be maintained. But ought is still intimately related to is and must not be totally cut off from is. The Confucian view can indeed provide a solid foundation for morality, this is where we find the strength of the position. But the Confucian tradition seems to have put too much emphasis on the conscious effort on the part of the Confucian gentlemen to transform themselves into magnificent human beings and also on their vast influence on the society at large: it is believed that if able and virtuous leaders are put in the position to manage state affairs, then everything will be all right. Unfortunately however, this is an oversimplification. Nay, it is in fact a contrafactual statement, as Confucius was proclaimed to be the last sage in China and even he did not have the good fortune to occupy the position and hence was not able to solve the problems of his times. The glorious days of the Three Dynasties often dreamed of by Confucian scholars remained only dreams and never had a chance to turn into reality in a world dominated by real politik. The lesson we learn is that religious and moral ideals are only one factor to effect the outcome of what is actually going on in this world.

Now I am ready to address myself to our theme: no peace in the world without peace among religions. I do think such is the case, only I

p. 208

would like to add that religions here must not be understood as purely religious ideals but religious traditions which have become deep-seated beliefs of the masses on a large scale which are entrenched in social communities. I propose to analyse the difficulties confronting us in the following manner:

(1) Religions tend to forget that the meaning of transcendence cannot be exhausted by any limited manifestations bound by time and space. They have often absolutized what is only relative in nature. This is contradictory to the spirit of transcendence, because what is transcendent cannot be fully embodied in this world, it is precisely the vision of transcendence that exposes our limitations and keeps us going to strive for the better in the future. Our satisfaction does not come from the perfection of the product, but rather from developing to the utmost the creativity and humanity within ourselves and finding consonance with what is transcendent, the ultimate source of creativity. In the past different traditions became dominant in different geographical areas and conceived themselves as the sole agency to communicate with transcendence. Nowadays the whole world has turned into a global village, there is much better understanding and communication between different traditions, intellectuals have come to realize the relative nature of their own traditions and learn to accept the strengths and weaknesses of their own traditions. But such a trend does not entail an absolute relativism which is a contradiction in terms. In fact holding on tenaciously to relativism is practicing a reverse kind of dogmatism. The improvement of the modern man on their forefathers lies exactly in that they now know that they do net possess an absolute standard. But we still need the absolute as a regulative principle, it is by our commitment to Truth that we always look forward to transcend our present perspectives, give critical assessment of any given tradition's strengths and weaknesses, and have our own judgments checked by reflections on facts and ideas from other perspectives. Should the world community be composed of reasonable individuals with diverse backgrounds, surely they would not wage wars against one another, and there would not be religious wars. Unfortunately however, not all can

p. 209

keep pace with such changes in their mode of thinking as well as their behavior. In fact many still persist in promoting their bigotries which results in conflicts without possible solutions in the near future.

(2) When deep-seated barriers in thought are inextricably interwoven with practical interests, the situation becomes much worsened. For example, the conflict between Irish Catholics and Protestants is certainly not only one in ideology but also one in practical interest. Just too much is at stake and none would be willing to grant concessions that they think would hurt their own interests. Set patterns of habitual ways and behavior coupled with established interest of a closed community are the hardest to break.

(3) When conflicts are developed to the extent that any slight incident could trigger disproportional emotional outbursts from the masses, then irrationalism and fanaticism become the rule of the day. Such conflicts would result in ruin for all and gain for none. But under the given circumstances there is just no alternative but to carry on to the disastrous end. For an illustration, the hatred and enmity between clans were most vividly portrayed in Shakespeare's tragedy: Romeo and Juliet.

Now we know the ultimate source of all our troubles. All these are actually conflicts of man, but they are carried on in the name of God, while the true God is hidden completely, just nowhere to be seen. All the intellectuals can do is to let out a weak cry urging all the parties concerned to initiate a radical transformation that will eventually bring them out of the present quandary. I do agree with Hans Küng that wishful thinking is not entirely useless. But the hope that is let out of Pandora's Box is after all a tiny one. This is why I do not share Küng's optimistic tone, but I am definitely a follower of the tradition of Confucius who was said to have known that it would be impossible to accomplish much but kept trying.

As Hans Küng pointed out, religions have not disappeared in an age of science and technology; on the contrary they are in great demand in the post post-modern era. Surely tolerance is a must if we want to avoid conflicts among religions. But when pluralism in the name of multicultura-

p. 210

lism is carried to its extreme form, relativism becomes the fashion of the day, it could a so bring about disastrous consequences, and we must put it under the proper perspective. It is impossible for me to endorse the relativistic viewpoint for the simple reason that if relativism is accepted, then everything including cults promoting ignorance, drugs, sex and violence will be justified under the name of freedom of belief. Therefore I would like to submit that our commitment to Reason and to Truth must not be compromised, we must take them as our regulative principles to guide our thought and behavior. Today as ever our greatest enemies are still human greed and human ignorance. Seeking knowledge and wisdom is not contradicting our search for religious truth. Today we know very well that no one religious tradition can claim to be the perfect embodiment of Truth, they are all manifestations limited by time and space and cultural background. We must be guided by our vision of the Religion above all religions, and at the same time we must accept our destiny to be a finite human being within a given tradition. All great religions in the world are great precisely because they are manifestations of the Ultimate Truth. Within every religion we must seek to expand our horizon, and outside of one's own religious tradition one must seek to have creative interchange with other religious traditions. The relation between different religions should be one of friendly competition, not one of mutual hatred and destruction.

In a modern society theoretically one is free to choose his or her own religions faith. But our actual freedom is rather limited. Except for a few exceptional individuals most people would stay within the tradition they are raised in. There is nothing wrong with this fact. After all we must accept our finiteness and particularity, even those who renounce their own traditions are still bound in some ways by their traditions. The only thing we must not do is to absolutize our own tradition and adopt an intolerant attitude to others. It is best for each to work within one's own tradition and bring out its strengths so long as what is done is not against the guiding principles of Reason and Truth. Conformity is not always the best solution for all. Should the world becomes a landscape

p. 211

without any variation and people in the world are exactly like one another, then this world would be a much less interesting place to live in and there would be little room for creativity and novelty. What we need is a unity in diversity and a dynamic equilibrium instead of a stagnant homogeneous society that suppresses all particularity.

Hans Küng starts from Christianity in the West and I start from Confucianism in the East, but I do not find much difficulty meeting him in the middle. I like his formulation of the ecumenical imperatives. I would only like to add the following: let us honor the differences manifested in different traditions and seek for unity that is hidden among oppositions on the surface level. And I hope by openly identifying and discussing our problems, we would be able to move toward possible solutions with glimpses of hope in the future. I certainly do not think that our discussions are merely idle talk by intellectuals sitting on armchairs as all the great religious leaders are acting on ideas. Modern men do need legitimization for their actions. Somehow some of these ideas may touch some of the leaders, and their transformation may lead to new frontiers. To be sure, ideas alone do not solve any problems, but when ideas and actions work together to look for solution of concrete problems under changing circumstances, they may open up things and find breaks beyond our imagination. We can only work hard at the present with hopes for the future.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

p. 212

NOTES
1. Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel ed., Weltfrieden durch Religionsfrieden (München: Piper, 1993).

2. Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), 22-49. I think his methodology is faulty, understanding of civilizations superficial, his political strategy divisive, and he pays only lip service to peace and understanding between different traditions without making any real effort in thought and action to approach that goal probably because he has totally lacked a transcendent perspective. For a critique of Huntington's position, see articles by Jin Guan-tao, Liu Xian-fang, and F. C. Chen in Twenty First Century Bimonthly, No. 19 (October, 1993), 22-35.

3. It is beyond question that the problem is worth studying. I just found out that Ching Feng has published a special issue devoted co the Asian Conference on Religion and Peace (ACRP) East Asia Area Seminar on "Crises and Opportunities for Peace," held in Hong Kong, February 21-23, 1994, see Vol. 37, Nos. 1-2 (May, 1994).

4. See Peter K. H Lee ed., Confucian-Christian Encounters in Historical and Contemporary Perspective (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellon Press, 1991), pp. 68-81.

5. Cf. "Manifesto for a Re-appraisal of Sinology and Reconstruction of Chinese Culture," in Carsun Chang, The Development of Neo-Confucian Thought (New York: Bookman Associates, 2 volumes, 1957, 1962), Vol. II, pp. 455- 483, and Shu-hsien Liu, "The Religious Import of Confucian Philosophy: Its Traditional Outlook and Contemporary Significance," Philosophy East and West, Vol. 21, No. 2 (April, 1971), 157-175.

6. Prof. Mou Tsung-san calls it tao-tung (the tradition of the Way), see Shu-hsien Liu, "Postwar Neo-Confucian Philosophy: Its Development and Issues," in Chares Wei-hsun Fu and Gerhard E. Spiegler ed., Religious Issues and Inter-religious Dialogues (New York; Greenwood Press, 1989), p. 289.

7. Prof. Mou Tsung-san calls it cheng-tung (the tradition of politics), see ibid.

8. The term was used by the sociologist Peter Berger, see Peter L. Berger, "Secularity -- West and East", Kokugakuiv University Centennial Symposium on Cultural Identity and Modernization in Asian Countries, Sept. 11-13, Jan. l983.

9. I have tried to develop a dual-identity thesis in my article, "On the Problem of Identity from a Neo-Confucian Perspective," presented at Conference on

p. 213

Identity: Personal, Cultural and National, held at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, June 2-4, 1994, organized by National Humanities Center, North Carolina and CUHK.

10. Wing-tsit Chan, tr. and comp., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 179-191. Hereafter the book will be referred to as Chan, Source Book.

11. For the sake of convenience I am using the term "man" in a gender-neutral sense.

12. Chan, Source Book. p. 358.

13. Ibid., p. 519.

14. Ibid., p. 527.

15. Ibid., pp. 525-526.

16. Ibid., pp. 497.

17. Ibid., p. 498.

18. Ibid., pp. 499-500.

19. Ibid., pp. 593-594.

20. See Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy, tr. Derk Bodde (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2 volumes, 1952, 1953), Vol. II, p. 542.

21. Chan, Source Bock. p. 659.

22. Wang Yang-min, Instructions for Practical Living and Other Neo-Confucian Writings, Wing-tsit Chan tr. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 222.

23. Cf. The Doctrine of the Mean in Chan, Source Book, pp. 107-108.

24. Ibid., pp. 86-87.

25. Ibid., p. 45.

26. Ibid., p. 44, with slight modification.

27. Ibid., p. 26.

28. Confucius, The Analects, D. C. Lau, tr. (Hong Kong, The Chinese University Press, 1983), p. 145.

29. Chan, Source Book, pp. 42-43.

30. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951, 1957, 1963), Vol. I, pp. 13, 216.