The View of Humanity and Nature in Traditional Chinese Philosophy

Abstract

As everyone knows, ecological ethics arose in the West in the mid-twentieth century; yet in traditional Eastern culture, especially in ancient Chinese agricultural civilization centered on Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, there is a great deal of wisdom in ecological ethics. This article makes a preliminary exploration of ancient Chinese ecological ethical wisdom and emphasizes its valuable significance for the present.

Abstract

It’s known to all that ecological ethics originated in the west in mid-20^th century, yet, there are great thoughts of it in traditional eastern culture especially in ancient Chinese agricultural civilization which is centered on Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. This paper makes a elementary study of ancient Chinese ecological ethics and emphasizes these wisdom’s significance for modern times.

Introduction——The Environmental Crisis Calls for Ancient Wisdom

We are in crisis!

The author is not a pessimist. Crisis does not necessarily lead to tragedy. Crisis contains two meanings: “danger” and “opportunity.” “Crisis manifests itself as follows: uncertainty will increase and become generalized; the regulation or negative feedback used to eliminate anomalies will be interrupted; positive feedback, that is, runaway growth, will develop; and both the danger of regression and death and the chance of survival and rescue will increase.”[①]

Faced with crisis, if we remain indifferent, do nothing, and refuse to change, then crisis will ultimately become disaster; however, if under the pressure of crisis we can reflect and make some major adjustment in the way we think and act, then crisis is not without being an opportunity: it impels us to turn back from the mire and the abyss, to find new perspectives, new goals, and to open up new roads.

The ecological and environmental crisis is one of the major problems confronting humankind in the world today. Yu Mochang points out in Contemporary Society and Environmental Science: “Ecological crisis is a concept specifically used to indicate the relationship between human activity and nature, referring mainly to the phenomenon whereby unreasonable human behavior leads to the destruction of basic ecological processes, namely ecological structure and function, and to the collapse of the life-support system, thereby endangering human existence.”^[②] The environmental crisis is caused by human beings; in the final analysis, it is a crisis in the relationship between human and nature.

The crisis situation itself cannot create a public that is good at embracing new ideas unless there is a spiritual foundation that provides moral resources for taking purposeful action.^[③] Thus, beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, the new discipline of “environmental ethics” emerged. People not only devoted themselves to reflecting on and criticizing the cultural tradition of opposition between human and nature since industrial civilization, but also sought wisdom from older thought in order to rebuild the spiritual foundation needed to overcome crisis and emerge from difficulty. As Devall and Sessions say in Deep Ecology: “What we need is not just reform. Many philosophers and theologians are calling for a new ecological philosophy for our time. Yet, we believe that what we may need is not a new philosophy, but a reawakening of very old philosophies, a reawakening of our wise understanding of the earth.”^[④] Whether or not we need to create a new philosophy, it is beyond doubt that looking back to ancient philosophy will bring profound inspiration to those of us who are lost.

Eastern thought differs sharply from Western thought in all respects—modes of thinking, objects of thought, theoretical forms, and so on. Western thought is characterized by the subject-object split, emphasis on reductive and mathematical methods of analysis, and a focus on abstraction and isolated experiments; in all these respects, Eastern thought is exactly the opposite.

Mr. Qian Mu points out: “Eastern people place moral life first, whereas Western people place religious life first. The Western people’s strength lies in being able to forget the self and throw themselves into external events, pursuing a kind of purely objective quest. … The main spirit of the Chinese people, however, lies in being able to grasp the self intimately and directly merge the self with external things.”[⑤] The strong point of Westerners lies in being able to “forget the self,” that is, to distinguish the thinker from the object of thought, the investigator from the object of investigation, and human from nature, splitting them into two parts that do not affect one another. This mode of thinking has played a certain role in promoting the development of Western science, but from the standpoint of the modern ecological outlook and the new scientific outlook, its negative impact is equally enormous. Thus, more and more Westerners have begun to pay attention to Eastern thought, hoping to draw inspiration from traditional Eastern ideas.

Yet the cultural crisis of the West must ultimately be resolved through the rebuilding of Western culture itself; Eastern culture can at most offer them reference and inspiration. As Wu Guosheng said: “The overcoming of cultural crisis usually depends mainly on activating one’s own internal mechanisms of repair and healing; other cultures may play an auxiliary role, and such an auxiliary role can only be brought into play through creative interpretation of the mother culture.”[⑥] But for China, the significance of these traditional cultures is by no means ordinary, because this is our “mother culture,” the source of our abundant wealth and our unique advantage.

Russell put it well: if Chinese civilization were completely Westernized, it would result in “all the national characteristics they have possessed up to now being effaced, and the world merely gaining one more tireless, clever, industrialized, militarized state, among those now tormenting this unhappy planet.”[⑦] Under the impact of Western thought, Chinese people ought to remain calm and actively explore and carry forward the valuable treasures of their own culture.

Below, I will simply sort through the precious idea of the “unity of Heaven and humanity” in Chinese tradition.

Main Text——The Idea of the Unity of Heaven and Humanity in Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism

Ideas of harmony between Heaven and humanity have a long history in Chinese thought. In ancient Chinese mythology, almost all the deities are half-human, half-beast: Pangu had a dragon’s head and a snake’s body, Nuwa had a human face and a snake’s body, the Queen Mother of the West had a leopard’s tail and tiger’s teeth, the Yellow Emperor had an ox’s head, and Yu was a “Double-Illumined Bird.” In Chinese mythology, “it seems that divinity is a combination of humanity and animality.”[⑧] There are mountain gods for mountains and river gods for rivers; all things in nature possess divinity, and the entire universe is also an incarnation of the god Pangu. Compared with ancient Greece, this simple thought of animism occupies a firmer position and has a more far-reaching influence.

As early as the Xia, Shang, and Zhou periods, ecological morality in harmony with nature was already part of the “virtues of the former kings.” The Xia dynasty proposed the famous ancient injunction: “In the spring months, the third month in particular, axes and hatchets are not taken into the mountains and forests, so as to foster the growth of plants and trees; nets and traps are not set in rivers and marshes, so as to foster the growth of fish and turtles.”[⑨] And King Tang of Shang won the respect of the feudal lords precisely because of the “supreme virtue” of “opening the net on three sides.” “Wanton waste of the gifts of Heaven” became one of the crimes cited by the Zhou king in his punitive expedition against King Zhou of Shang. It can thus be seen that in Chinese tradition, extending moral concern to all things in nature has from the very beginning been a perfectly natural matter.

Of course, Confucianism is the main body of traditional Chinese culture, so any examination of the ancient Chinese view of nature should begin with Confucianism.

People generally believe that Confucian thought is human-centered, and this is not wrong; but it cannot be said that Confucianism is therefore “anthropocentrism.” A human-centered mode of thinking does not necessarily lead to “anthropocentrism,” just as believing in science does not necessarily lead to “scientism.” A mode of thinking and perspective and an “-ism” are entirely different concepts. In fact, Confucian thinking is not fixated on what should be at the center, because Chinese philosophy has never had much of a habit of dualistic subject-object opposition. Confucianism emphasizes the “unity of Heaven and humanity”: to place human beings at the center is also to place Heaven at the center. Indeed, even Xunzi, who proposed “to regulate Heaven and make use of it,” was not an “anthropocentrist”; he also proposed the doctrine that “ritual has three roots”: “the root of life” (nature) is no less important than the other two roots, “the root of kinship” (the ancestors) and “the root of governance” (the ruler and teacher).[⑩] If we look at Confucian thought through the “framework” of Western dualistic opposition, then its “human-centeredness” will seem somewhat one-sided.

Since Confucianism is organized around the “human,” let us first examine related topics in Confucianism concerning “human beings’ status in nature.”

Human beings are the most honored among Heaven and Earth. As for the difference between humans and other natural things, Xunzi states it very clearly: “Water and fire have qi but no life; plants and trees have life but no awareness; birds and beasts have awareness but no righteousness. Human beings have qi, life, awareness, and righteousness; therefore they are the most precious in the world.” (Xunzi, “Kingship”) Yet human nobility does not lie in possessing some supreme benefit or unique sovereign position, but in having “righteousness.” Human beings are able to “embrace the myriad things and thus be the spirit of all things.” (The Great Comprehensive Calendar, “Outer Chapter on Observing Things”) If a human being is “heartless and unrighteous,” then he is unfit to be the spirit of all things; “worse than birds and beasts” refers precisely to such unrighteous people. “The difference between humans and birds and beasts is slight indeed; the common people throw it away, the gentleman preserves it.” (Mencius, Li Lou II) — humans and birds and beasts differ by very little, and it is precisely this slight difference that, when preserved and cultivated by the gentleman, becomes the key to human nobility.

The benevolence and righteousness emphasized by Confucianism can naturally be extended to other living beings. Mencius said, “Treat your kin with affection and then extend benevolence to the people; extend benevolence to the people and then love things.” (Mencius, “Jin Xin I”[⑪]) Of course, in Mencius there is a distinction between “benevolence” and “love”; nevertheless, there is no doubt that a gentleman ought, quite rightly, to care for and cherish living beings. On the saying “benevolence toward the people and love of things,” Wang Yangming’s explanation is more detailed: “Birds and beasts and plants and trees are all loved; then to use plants and trees to nurture birds and beasts, one can bear it. Human beings and birds and beasts are both loved; then to slaughter birds and beasts to support one’s parents, and to provide for sacrifices and entertain guests, one can bear it. One’s own parents and passersby are both loved; if there is only a bowl of rice and a bowl of soup, one person gets it and lives, another does not get it and dies—both cannot be preserved, so one can rescue one’s closest kin and not rescue a passerby, and one can bear it. This is because the principle ought to be this way. Even in regard to my own body and my parents, there must not be any distinction of this and that, or of more and less; for benevolence toward the people and love of things all come forth from here.” (Instructions for Practical Living, Part II) Here Wang Yangming expounds the ethical principle of “love with distinctions”; here, plants, trees, birds, and beasts are all objects of “love,” only the degree of human concern for them differs in levels and ranks.

The reason human beings are able to cherish birds, beasts, plants, and trees is not because they possess some kind of right or because human beings bear some kind of duty toward them, but because of human nature itself—namely, the sympathy and compassion inherent in being human. On this point, Wang Yangming’s wording is the most incisive: “That a great man is able to take Heaven and Earth and the myriad things as one body is not a matter of intention; rather, his heart’s benevolence is originally like this. Its being one body with Heaven and Earth and the myriad things—how could this be only for the great man? Even the hearts of petty men are all like this; they merely despise themselves. Therefore, when they see a child about to fall into a well, they will inevitably have a startled and compassionate heart; this is because their benevolence and the child are one body. The child is still of the same kind; when they see birds and beasts crying mournfully and trembling, they will inevitably have a heart that cannot bear it; this is because their benevolence and birds and beasts are one body. Birds and beasts still have awareness; when they see plants and trees being cut and broken, they will inevitably have a heart of pity and regret; this is because their benevolence and plants and trees are one body. Plants and trees still have the vitality of life; when they see tiles and stones being destroyed, they will inevitably have a heart of cherishing and regret; this is because their benevolence and tiles and stones are one body. This is the benevolence of one body; even the heart of a petty man must certainly possess it. This is rooted in the nature conferred by Heaven, and is naturally luminous and not obscured; therefore it is called ‘bright virtue.’” (Inquiry into the Great Learning) Compassion is not something deliberately fashioned by human beings; it is intrinsic to human nature. Human beings possess a “startled and compassionate heart,” and this is true of both the gentleman (the great man) and the petty man alike. The virtue of the gentleman (the great man) lies in being able to bring this human nature to light and give it full expression, thereby “taking Heaven and Earth and the myriad things as one body.”

What is said here concerns the Confucian view of nature, namely “taking Heaven and Earth and the myriad things as one body.” This is the meaning of the “unity of Heaven and humanity.”

Statements about the “oneness of Heaven and humanity” are very common in ancient Chinese philosophy, such as: “As for ultimate benevolence, Heaven and Earth are one body, and between Heaven and Earth the myriad forms of beings are the four limbs and hundred bodies; how could a person look upon his four limbs and hundred bodies and not love them?” (Collected Sayings of the Chengs of Henan) “Heaven, Earth, and human beings are the root of the myriad things. Heaven produces them, Earth nourishes them, human beings bring them to completion… The three are like hands and feet to one another; joined together, they form a body, and none can be absent.” Chengs and Scholars on Spring and Autumn Annals, “Establishing the Original Spirit”

And within this “body of Heaven and Earth,” the human being occupies the position of “heart” — “Human beings are the heart of Heaven and Earth, the beginning of the five phases.” (Book of Rites, “Liyun”). Zhang Zai spoke of “establishing the heart for Heaven and Earth.” Note that “establishing the heart for Heaven and Earth” is different from “setting laws for nature,” as Ge Zhaoguang points out: “‘The unity of Heaven and humanity’ actually means that all the rationality of ‘Heaven’ and ‘humanity’ is fundamentally built on the same basic basis.”[⑫] In other words, “the way of humanity” and “the way of Heaven” are unified; “establishing the heart for Heaven and Earth” does not mean establishing a law to dominate nature. As Meng Peiyuan puts it: “‘Human beings establishing the heart for Heaven and Earth’ presupposes that ‘Heaven and Earth take producing beings as their heart.’”[⑬] Zhu Xi expressed this point: “Heaven and Earth take producing beings as their heart, and the lives of people and things each receive that heart of Heaven and Earth and regard it as their own heart.” (The Doctrine of the Mean, “Essay on Benevolence”), while Cheng Hao said: “The constant of Heaven and Earth lies in their heart spreading throughout the myriad things and yet being without a heart.” (Collected Sayings of the Chengs of Henan) — Heaven and Earth are both “with heart” and “without heart”; the heart of Heaven and Earth is precisely established through human beings.

Lu Feng believes that “as Mr. Tang Yijie has explained, the Confucian idea of the unity of Heaven and humanity does not regard Heaven and humanity as two separate things, nor does it regard the relationship between Heaven and humanity as an external relationship. It believes that Heaven is fully manifested through human beings; without human beings, Heaven has no meaning. Therefore human beings must establish the heart for Heaven and Earth. The core of Confucian thought lies in emphasizing that the relationship between Heaven and humanity is internal rather than external. The way of Heaven is the way of humanity… It can be seen that Chinese Confucianism comparatively lacks a clear recognition of human finitude, and lacks awe toward powers and orders beyond humankind.”[⑭] The first half of this statement is very precise; however, I do not agree that Chinese philosophy is limited because it “lacks awe toward powers and orders beyond humankind.” This is because Chinese Confucianism extends human self-recognition to oneness with Heaven and Earth, and this is precisely a profound insight that transcends human finitude. As Mr. Zhang Dainian pointed out in Culture and Philosophy: “Only by acknowledging that among Heaven and Earth and the myriad things ‘none is not myself’ can one truly know oneself.”[⑮] In Confucianism, respect for human nature is also awe toward nature. This idea of the “unity of Heaven and humanity” corresponds, without prior consultation, to modern deep ecology’s holistic view of “human-nature” and its theory of self-realization, embodying the profound wisdom of ancient Chinese culture.

In fact, Western environmental ethics has paid more attention to Chinese culture’s Daoist thought and Zen Buddhist thought. The significance of Confucian thought for ecological philosophy has not yet received sufficient attention in the academic world, including in Chinese academic circles. That is why, earlier, I devoted more ink to introducing the ecological thought in Confucianism. Limited by space and by my own abilities, the following introduction to Daoism, Buddhism, and other Chinese philosophies will have to be much briefer.

Clearly, Laozi, who was the first to propose “returning to nature,” and Zhuangzi, who was the first to propose “all things are one,” seem more like naturalists than the Confucians. Of course, it is also inappropriate to regard Daoism as “non-anthropocentrism.” What Daoism emphasizes—“nourishing all things without dominating all things”—does not mean only that humans cannot dominate all things; it equally points to nature, saying that all things originally have no center or ruler at all. Confucianism and Daoism start from different angles—the former emphasizes benevolence and righteousness, the latter emphasizes the way of Heaven; the former stresses the human way, the latter stresses the way of Heaven—yet in the end they arrive at the same destination by different routes, and their common essence is the unity of the human way and the way of Heaven.

Laozi said, “The Dao follows what is natural,” which in fact also means “human beings follow what is natural,” and “following what is natural” is the “wu wei” of “letting things take their course.” “The Dao is ever without action, yet nothing is left undone; if lords and kings could keep to it, the myriad things would transform of themselves.” (Laozi, Chapter 37) “To produce and nourish, to produce yet not possess, to act yet not rely on it, to grow yet not dominate—this is called mysterious virtue.” (Laozi, Chapter 10) To abide in the Dao is to be without action, but the “wu wei” emphasized by Laozi is not doing nothing at all; rather, it includes “producing and nourishing.” “Wu wei” means “not contending”: “The way of the sage is to act without contending.” (Laozi, Chapter 81) The attitude of following nature and acting without contending is precisely the precious feature of Laozi’s ecological thought.

Zhuangzi, even more so, put forward many far-reaching ecological-philosophical ideas, such as the equalitarian notion that “all things are one and the same”: “From the standpoint of the Dao, things are neither noble nor base; from the standpoint of things, each esteems itself and despises others.” (“Autumn Floods”) Human beings are also one kind of thing, and the reason things are noble or base is that humans look at things from their own standpoint; if one transcends the human realm and “views them from the standpoint of the Dao,” then “all things are one and the same; who is short, who is long?” (“Autumn Floods”). In addition, Zhuangzi may already have touched in substance on what environmental ethics calls the discussion of instrumental value and intrinsic value: “All people know the use of the useful, but none knows the use of the useless.” (“In the World of Men”) Zhuangzi’s philosophy of equality, in fact, is about breaking down the boundaries between subject and object, inside and outside, and raising the spiritual realm of humans and all things to that of “a single body.” Therefore, he opposed the human heart of profit-seeking, opposed setting humans against all things, and even more opposed “using” all things. [⑯] “The heart of utility and clever contrivance must be forgotten in favor of the heart of man.” (“Heaven and Earth”) Zhuangzi’s warning still sounds deeply thought-provoking today!

Buddhism, which originated in India and flourished in China, has drawn close attention from Western environmental ethicists. For example, Rolston holds that: “Zen Buddhism has an enviable reverence for life. In this Eastern way of thinking there is no boundary between fact and value, or between humans and nature. In the West, the natural world has been stripped of its intrinsic value; it has only instrumental value, a value that has increased with the development of science and technology. Nature is merely a resource for human exploitation, but Zen is not human-centered; it does not isolate and exploit resources. Zen Buddhism understands that we must give completeness to all things without depriving the individual of his special meaning in the cosmos; it understands how to unite the science of life and the sanctity of life.” [⑰] Of course, to say that Buddhism “is not human-centered” does not mean that Buddhism is biocentric or ecocentric; in Buddhism, humans and nature are also an organic whole. Buddhism emphasizes that “the dependent and the 正 are not two,” and opposes ways of thinking that set humans against nature.

When thinking of Buddhist ecological ideas, people often first think of Buddhism’s notion that “all sentient beings are equal.” Buddhism not only upholds vegetarianism and the protection of animals, but also extends compassion to all things in the cosmos. “Heaven and earth share my roots; all things and I form one body.” (“Recorded Sayings of the Venerable Masters of the Ancient Monastic Line,” juan 9) Here, the idea that “all things and I form one body” converges with Confucianism and Daoism. From this it is quite natural to extend further to “all grasses and trees likewise possess Buddha-nature.” (“Great Vehicle Xuanlun,” juan 3) Thus Buddhism further gives rise to the spirit of “universal deliverance of all sentient beings,” as in the *Diamond Sutra*, “Section Three: The Right Teaching of the Great Vehicle”: “As for all sentient beings whatsoever, whether born from eggs, whether born from wombs, whether born from moisture, whether born by transformation, whether with form, whether without form, whether with perception, whether without perception, whether neither with perception nor without perception, I shall cause them all to enter Nirvana without residue and lead them to extinction.”

Although Buddhism emphasizes “the equality of all sentient beings,” it does not collapse humans and natural things into indistinction. Human beings are still different from animals. Among the “six realms,” humans are “most endowed with Buddha-nature.” In the *Agama Sutras*, the Buddha taught his disciples: “All Buddhas and World-Honored Ones arise from among humans, not through the heavens do they attain it.” So where, then, does human superiority lie? Buddhism believes that humans have the following advantages: “superior memory, superior pure conduct, superior courage.” [⑱] That is, human beings possess thought and memory and are able to create and transmit; they possess a sense of shame and conscience and thus morality; and they have strong perseverance. These “superiorities” are incomparable to those of other sentient beings. Human beings therefore occupy a pivotal position among the ten realms; if people cannot cherish and uphold what is unique to being human, they may fall into the realms of beasts, hell, or hungry ghosts; but if humans can preserve the self-respect proper to being human and strive to do good, only then can they become sages or Buddhas. The *Miscellaneous Agama Sutra* even uses the image of “a blind turtle floating with a piece of wood” to illustrate how difficult it is to obtain a human body: in the depths of the sea lives a blind turtle that surfaces once every hundred years, and drifting with the waves in the sea is a piece of floating wood with a round hole in its center. “The difficulty of obtaining a human body is just like the blind turtle entering that hole.” Buddhism speaks of the “suffering” and “emptiness” of life, but it does not simply negate the meaning of life; rather, it emphasizes the preciousness and rarity of human existence, and warns people that they should cherish this precious life in order to accomplish sacred work.

Buddhism believes that the root of today’s ecological crisis lies in a crisis of the human mind and in spiritual pollution. [⑲] “When the mind is pure, the land is pure.” Buddhism regards “mind and environment as mutually conditioned by one another.” Buddhism has always seen “greed” as the chief culprit harming the human spirit, and as the sinful root cause of today’s ecological crisis.

In juan 13 of the *Five Lamps Meeting at the Source* there is such a story: a monk once asked the Chan master Caoshan Benji, “What thing in the world is the most precious?” Caoshan said, “The head of a dead cat is the most precious.” “Why is this thing the most precious?” “Because no one assigns it a price.” [⑳] —In satirical form, this story exposes the vanity of secular value judgments. Seen in this light, from the Buddhist perspective, the modern mentality of measuring value by money is even more shallow than shallow.

Another thing worth mentioning is Buddhism’s view of nature, in which the individual and the whole interpenetrate and reflect one another, and all things in the world mutually contain and permeate one another. This idea is deeply expressed in the Buddhist metaphor of the “Indra’s Net”: “What is now called Indra’s Net is used as a metaphor by taking the net in the palace of Emperor Shakra. To use the net in Emperor Shakra’s palace as a metaphor, one must first recognize what the appearance of this imperial net is like. It is like many mirrors reflecting one another, with the images in many mirrors appearing in one mirror. Within such images, many images appear again; within each image, many images appear again—thus layer upon layer of reflected images, making it endlessly yet again endlessly.” *Huayan Sutra One Vehicle Ten Mysteries Gate* In Indra’s Net, every jewel reflects all the other jewels, just as all things in the world do not exist in isolation, but are always in a complex and interwoven network of relationships in which “you are in me, I am in you”; in each part one can glimpse the whole, but if part and whole are split apart, not only can the whole no longer be glimpsed, the part is no longer the original part either. No wonder Rolston exclaimed: “The metaphor of the Buddhist Indra’s Net helps people understand the integrity of the concept of the biotic community.” [21]

Conclusion——The present significance of actively promoting traditional culture

The Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist currents of ancient Chinese philosophy certainly differ in theory, but they also share many points in common. In the ecological wisdom of “the unity of Heaven and humanity,” these commonalities are especially prominent. As Needham pointed out: “For many centuries, the Chinese mind as a whole has not felt any need for metaphysics: physical nature and everything it contains at the highest level were already enough. The Chinese have been extremely unwilling to separate the ‘one’ from the ‘many,’ or the ‘spiritual’ from the ‘material.’ Organic naturalism has been their ‘ever-green philosophy.’” [22]

These features of Chinese philosophy are inseparable from the environment in which Chinese civilization has existed. China’s agricultural civilization is the basis for ideas such as “the unity of Heaven and humanity” and “acting naturally and non-coercively”: farming activities require interfering with nature as little as possible; to pull up seedlings in the hope of helping them grow will only bring losses outweighing the gains. For Western maritime civilization, by contrast, it is hard to imagine a boatman saying, “let things take their course” and allowing a vessel to drift in wind and waves. Thus, “Chinese traditional philosophy has a profound sense of awe toward nature and a mentality of gratitude.” [23]

Many people have pointed out that the ecological ideas of ancient China are, in the final analysis, one-sided — which seems to be a common abuse of “dialectics”: no matter how much one praises the thought of the ancients, in the end one must habitually add, “…after all, it is one-sided….” Regarding China’s traditional ecological thought, people have noted that its reverence for nature was, after all, merely a submission and obedience to powerful natural forces stemming from the weakness of the ancients’ capacity to transform nature, or else can simply be reduced to a kind of primitive mystical worship. But when we are confronted with the ancients’ ideas of “leaving the net open on three sides,” “all things are one and the same,” and “universal deliverance of all sentient beings,” can we still, with complete arrogance, dismiss the ancients’ humility as submission and denounce their spirit of universal love as mysticism? Of course, traditional culture will certainly contain some outdated ideas, but we need to understand what attitude we ought to take toward traditional culture: if one adopts the mentality of “picking faults,” one may certainly seize on those dross elements and go on about them endlessly; yet the “problem” now lies with us modern people, for it is we who are facing an environmental crisis, while ancient wisdom is a source and treasure-house of illumination for us. Only if we hold the mentality of “seeking treasure,” “seeking roots,” and “inheriting” can we better preserve what is valuable while discarding what is worthless and carrying forward what is excellent.

Whether out of profound thought and insight, or out of intuitive experience and realization, the profound significance of traditional Chinese philosophy cannot be denied. Mr. Ji Xianlin once pointed out: “In short, I believe that Western metaphysical analysis is nearing its end, and Eastern synthetic searches for wholeness will surely replace it; Western culture, based on analysis, will likewise decline, and what will rise to take its place will surely be Eastern culture based on synthesis…… The 21st century is the age of Eastern culture!” [24] I am not as optimistic as Old Ji. Even if Western culture declines somewhat, after all it is almost impossible to expect Westerners themselves to accept Eastern culture; Westerners will also seek a way out from within their own traditions. The key issue is this: as Chinese, can we carry forward our own precious culture and make it flourish?

Main references

（1）       Meng Peiyuan/author Man and Nature——The Ecological View of Chinese Philosophy People’s Publishing House, August 2004

（2）       Ren Junhua, Liu Xiaohua/authors Cultural Interpretation of Environmental Ethics——An Exploration of Ancient Chinese Ecological Wisdom Hunan Normal University Press, March 2004

（3）       Yu Zhengrong/author Interpretation and Reconstruction of the Traditional Chinese Ecological Ethic People’s Publishing House, October 2002

（4）       He Huaihong/editor Ecological Ethics——Spiritual Resources and Philosophical Foundations Hebei University Press, May 2002

（5）       Wang Zhengping/author Environmental Philosophy——An Interdisciplinary Study of Environmental Ethics Shanghai People’s Publishing House, December 2004

（6）       Yu Mouchang/author Ecological Ethics——From Theory to Practice Capital Normal University Press, March 1999

（7）       Li Peichao/author The Ethical Dignity of Nature Jiangxi People’s Publishing House, September 2001

（8）       Wu Guosheng/author The Science of Freedom Fujian Education Press, August 2002

（9）       [U.S.] David Ray Griffin/editor The Postmodern Spirit translated by Wang Chengbing Central Compilation and Translation Press, March 2005

（10）   [France] Edgar Morin, Anne Brigitte Kern/authors Earth Homeland translated by Ma Shengli Sanlian Bookstore, April 1997

（11）   Lu Feng/author Applied Ethics——Philosophical Reflections on Modern Lifestyles Central Compilation and Translation Press, April 2004

（12）   Qian Mu/author Random Thoughts from the Lake Sanlian Bookstore, September 2000

（13）   Zhong Kezhao, Ji Fengwen, Mi Shoujiang, Huang Changlun, Wang Hongpu/authors Dialogue Between Man and Nature——Viewing This Shore from the Other Shore (Religion and Nature Volume) Sichuan People’s Publishing House, March 1999

（14）   Liu Yuanchun/author Mutual Coexistence and Mutual Prosperity——A Buddhist View of Ecology Religious Culture Press, November 2002

Department of Philosophy, Peking University

Hu Yilin 00423019

June 2005

---

[①] [France] Edgar Morin, Anne Brigitte Kern/authors *Earth Homeland*, p. 97

[②] Cited in Liu Xiangrong/author *Moral Discourse on Man and Nature——The Development and Reflection of Environmental Ethics*, p. 11

[③] [U.S.] David Ray Griffin/editor *The Postmodern Spirit*, translated by Wang Chengbing, Central Compilation and Translation Press, March 2005, p. 183

[④] He Huaihong/editor *Ecological Ethics——Spiritual Resources and Philosophical Foundations*, p. 511

[⑤] Qian Mu/author *Random Thoughts from the Lake*, p. 90

[⑥] Wu Guosheng/author *The Science of Freedom*, p. 5

[⑦] Cited in Li Peichao/author *The Ethical Dignity of Nature*, p. 216

[⑧] Ren Junhua, Liu Xiaohua/authors *Cultural Interpretation of Environmental Ethics——An Exploration of Ancient Chinese Ecological Wisdom*, p. 3

[⑨] Cited in Yu Mouchang/author *Ecological Ethics——From Theory to Practice*, p. 110

[⑩] Meng Peiyuan/author *Man and Nature——The Ecological View of Chinese Philosophy*, p. 28. For discussion of how Xunzi did not establish an “anthropocentric” value theory in which humans dominate nature, see Chapter 9 of the same book (pp. 162–187).

[⑪] I have not yet undertaken a systematic reading of the canonical works of Chinese philosophy. Many quotations from the classics are cited secondhand from various related books, and the sources are too miscellaneous to list here in detail.

[⑫] Cited in Yu Zhengrong/author *Interpretation and Reconstruction of the Traditional Chinese Ecological Ethic*, p. 18

[⑬] Meng Peiyuan/author *Man and Nature——The Ecological View of Chinese Philosophy*, p. 420

[⑭] Lu Feng/author *Applied Ethics——Philosophical Reflections on Modern Lifestyles*, pp. 479–480

[⑮] Wang Zhengping/author *Environmental Philosophy——An Interdisciplinary Study of Environmental Ethics*, p. 74

[⑯] Meng Peiyuan/author *Man and Nature——The Ecological View of Chinese Philosophy*, p. 225

[⑰] Yu Mouchang/author *Ecological Ethics——From Theory to Practice*, p. 6

[⑱] Liu Yuanchun/author *Mutual Coexistence and Mutual Prosperity——A Buddhist View of Ecology*, pp. 87–88

[⑲] Liu Yuanchun/author *Mutual Coexistence and Mutual Prosperity——A Buddhist View of Ecology*, p. 9

[⑳] Cited in Zhong Kezhao, Ji Fengwen, Mi Shoujiang, Huang Changlun, Wang Hongpu/authors *Dialogue Between Man and Nature——Viewing This Shore from the Other Shore*, p. 149

[21] Ren Junhua, Liu Xiaohua/authors *Cultural Interpretation of Environmental Ethics——An Exploration of Ancient Chinese Ecological Wisdom*, p. 208

[22] Yu Zhengrong/author *Interpretation and Reconstruction of the Traditional Chinese Ecological Ethic*, p. 153

[23] Meng Peiyuan/author *Man and Nature——The Ecological View of Chinese Philosophy*, p. 19

[24] Li Peichao/author *The Ethical Dignity of Nature*, p. 218

May 30, 2005