The Two-Way Interaction between Chinese Philosophy and Marxist Atheism and Its Significance

In the field of research on the history of Chinese philosophy and the history of religion, Mr. Ren Jiyu (1916–2009) stands out for his distinctive Marxist theoretical stance and methodological self-awareness. His research on the “three histories” of Chinese philosophy and the “three religions” of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism has had a profound impact. Ren Jiyu’s writing on the history of philosophy was guided by Marxism and later significantly influenced by his own discourse on Confucianism as a religion, forming an interpretive path that merges the history of philosophy with the history of Confucianism as a religion. Ren Jiyu insisted on combining Marxist principles with the realities of Chinese philosophy, demonstrating the process by which Chinese philosophy advanced through its struggle with religion, thereby deepening the understanding of the history of Chinese philosophical cognition and its developmental laws. In his study of Chinese philosophy, he carried out the academic aim of unifying philosophical research with the critique of theology, expanding the “ideological front” of Marxist atheism, and achieving a two-way interaction between Chinese philosophical research and Marxist atheism. This also holds significant ideological and methodological implications for advancing the study and propaganda-education of Marxist atheism in the New Era.

在中国哲学史和宗教史研究领域，任继愈先生（1916-2009）以鲜明的马克思主义理论立场与方法论自觉独树一帜，其关于中国哲学“三史”和儒释道“三教”的研究产生了深远影响。任继愈的哲学史书写以马克思主义为指导，后又受到其儒教论说的显著影响，形成了哲学史与儒教史相融合的诠释路径。任继愈坚持将马克思主义原则与中国哲学实际相结合，展示出中国哲学在与宗教的斗争中发展前进的历程，深化了对于中国哲学认识史及其发展规律的理解。其在中国哲学研究中贯彻了哲学研究与批判神学相统一的学术宗旨，扩展了马克思主义无神论的“思想阵地”，实现了中国哲学研究与马克思主义无神论的双向互动，这对于新时期推进马克思主义无神论研究及其宣传教育，亦具有重要的思想与方法意义。

I. The “Three Histories” and the “Three Religions”: Ren Jiyu’s Research on the History of Chinese Philosophy and the History of Chinese Religion

一、“三史”与“三教”：任继愈的中国哲学史与中国宗教史研究

In terms of the research trajectory of the history of Chinese philosophy and the history of Chinese religion (especially since the founding of New China), Mr. Ren Jiyu occupies a unique position. Under the name “Chinese philosophy,” Ren Jiyu edited the “three histories”: *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four volumes, the first volume first published in July 1963), *A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy* (first published in July 1973), and, after reform and opening up, *A Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy* (the pre-Qin volume first published in October 1983). Among these, due to its special status as a national higher education textbook for the humanities, *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition) was reprinted and reissued many times, playing an important role in the teaching and research of the history of Chinese philosophy since the founding of New China. Chen Lai believes that Mr. Ren Jiyu’s “three histories” can be compared with Feng Youlan’s “three histories discussing the ancient and the modern.”[1]1 *Baihu Tong* (白虎通): A text compiled in 79 CE at the White Tiger Hall conference convened by Emperor Zhang of the Han dynasty, which codified the state-sanctioned interpretation of the Confucian classics and established the theological framework of Han Confucianism.

就中国哲学史与中国宗教史的研究历程（尤其是新中国成立以来）而言，任继愈先生具有独特的地位。以“中国哲学”之名而言，任继愈即主编有“三史”：《中国哲学史》（共四卷，其第一卷于1963年7月初版）、《中国哲学史简编》（1973年7月初版）以及改革开放后的《中国哲学发展史》（其先秦卷于1983年10月初版）。其中，由于作为全国高等学校文科教材的特殊地位，《中国哲学史》（四卷本）更是再版、再印多次，对于新中国成立以来的中国哲学史的教学与研究发挥了重要作用。陈来认为任继愈先生的“三史”可以与冯友兰先生“三史论今古”相媲美。[1]

In addition to the “three histories” of Chinese philosophy, Mr. Ren Jiyu also conducted in-depth research on the “three religions” of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, writing numerous works and editing *A History of Chinese Buddhism* and *A History of Chinese Daoism*.[2]2 Wang Chong (王充, 27 – c. 97 CE): A Han-dynasty philosopher known for his rationalist and critical thought, particularly his work *Lunheng* (Balanced Discourses), which attacked superstition and the theological claims of Confucianism. It is particularly noteworthy that at the beginning of reform and opening up, Ren Jiyu proposed the view that Confucianism is a religion, writing a large number of articles such as “On the Formation of Confucianism as a Religion” (1980) and “A Re-evaluation of Confucianism as a Religion” (1982) to argue this point. Under this view, he provided a new interpretation of the historical development of traditional Chinese Confucianism, outlining the developmental thread of the history of Chinese Confucianism as a religion. Ren Jiyu’s theory that Confucianism is a religion profoundly influenced the editorial characteristics of *A Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy*.[3]3 *Inner Canon* (《内经》): Refers to the *Huangdi Neijing* (Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon), a foundational text of traditional Chinese medicine compiled during the Han dynasty. Under the influence of Ren Jiyu’s theory that Confucianism is a religion, Li Shen wrote *A History of Chinese Confucianism as a Religion*, published at the turn of the century (the two volumes were published in 1999 and 2000 respectively), which further argued for and developed Ren Jiyu’s propositions. In terms of the research achievements and academic insights of the above “three histories” and “three religions,” Mr. Ren Jiyu’s diligence, the breadth of his coverage, the abundance of his results, and the depth of his influence are extremely rare even among the great scholars of the history of Chinese philosophy and the history of religion. He made an indelible and tremendous contribution to the disciplinary development and research advancement of Chinese philosophy and religion.

除中国哲学“三史”之外，任继愈先生对儒释道“三教”亦进行了深入研究，撰写了大量著作，并主编有《中国佛教史》、《中国道教史》。[2]尤其需要指出的是，任继愈在改革开放之初提出儒学是宗教的观点，撰写了《论儒教的形成》（1980）、《儒教的再评价》（1982）等大量文章进行论证，并在此观点下对中国传统儒学的历史发展进行了新的诠释，勾勒了中国儒教史的发展线索。任继愈的儒教是教说深刻地影响了《中国哲学发展史》的编写特点。[3]在任继愈儒教是教说的影响下，李申撰写了《中国儒教史》，并于世纪之交出版（上下两册分别出版于1999年和2000年），该书对任继愈的主张进行了进一步的论证和发展。就以上“三史”“三教”的研究成果与学术创见而言，任继愈先生用功之勤，涉猎范围之广，成果之丰硕，影响之深远，即便在诸中国哲学史和宗教史研究大家中亦是极其罕见的，其对于中国哲学与宗教的学科发展与研究的推进，做出了不可磨灭的巨大贡献。

II. Ren Jiyu’s Marxist View of the History of Philosophy and Its Further Development Based on the Theory That Confucianism Is a Religion

二、任继愈的马克思主义哲学史观及其基于儒教是教说的进一步发展

Mr. Ren Jiyu’s research on the history of Chinese philosophy exhibits a distinctive Marxist theoretical stance and methodological self-awareness, and its important status and profound influence have been widely recognized by the academic community. Chen Lai evaluates him as “the undisputed master of the 20th century in studying Chinese philosophy with Marxist methods.”[4]4 See note [1] above. Chai Wenhua, examining the entire developmental process of the discipline of the history of Chinese philosophy, considers Ren Jiyu to be “an important representative of the Marxist stage of the discipline of the history of Chinese philosophy.”[5]5 Chai Wenhua is a contemporary Chinese scholar of the history of Chinese philosophy. In his commentary on Ren Jiyu’s *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition), Qiao Qingju also believes that it “played a great role in promoting the understanding of the history of Chinese philosophy with Marxism as the meta-theory.”[6]6 Qiao Qingju is a contemporary Chinese scholar of philosophy.

任继愈先生的中国哲学史研究具有鲜明的马克思主义的理论立场与方法论自觉，其重要地位与产生的深远影响，已经得到学界的公认。陈来评价其为“20世纪以马克思主义方法研究中国哲学的当之无愧的大师”[4]。柴文华对整个中国哲学史学科的发展历程进行考察，认为任继愈是“中国哲学史学科马克思主义化阶段的重要代表”[5]。乔清举在评述任继愈《中国哲学史》（四卷本）时亦认为其对于“以马克思主义为元理论来理解中国哲学史起了极大的推动作用”。[6]

(I) History of Struggle and History of Cognition: The Basic Threads of Ren Jiyu’s Writing on the History of Philosophy

（一）斗争史与认识史：任继愈哲学史书写的基本线索

*A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition) was first published in 1963 and was reprinted multiple times in 1964, 1979, 1984, and 1996.[7]7 The years 1964, 1979, 1984, and 1996 are dates of reprints or revised editions. Although it underwent some revisions during this period, its view of the history of philosophy and basic content did not change significantly. The “change in viewpoint and progress in understanding”[8]8 This phrase is a quotation from Ren Jiyu’s own preface or introduction. is mainly reflected in *A Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy*.[9]9 *A Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy* (中国哲学发展史) was Ren Jiyu’s later, multi-volume project that revised his earlier views.

《中国哲学史》（四卷本）初版于1963年，曾于1964、1979、1984、1996年再版多次[7]，这期间虽有所修订，但其哲学史观和基本内容并未有大的变化，其“观点有了改变，认识有所前进”[8]则主要体现在《中国哲学发展史》中。[9]

In the introduction to *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition), Ren Jiyu clarifies the object and task of the history of philosophy. Ren Jiyu proposes that “the history of philosophy is the history of the struggle between materialism and idealism, dialectics and metaphysics, and is the entire history of the development of human cognition.”[10]10 This is a direct quotation from Ren Jiyu’s introduction to *A History of Chinese Philosophy*. This proposition can be divided into two sub-propositions: “history of struggle” and “history of the development of cognition.” Among these, the former is a typical view of the history of struggle, significantly influenced by Zhdanov’s definition of the history of philosophy.[11]11 Andrei Zhdanov (1896–1948) was a Soviet ideologist whose definition of the history of philosophy as a struggle between materialism and idealism was influential in Marxist-Leninist philosophy. However, simultaneously regarding the history of philosophy as “the entire history of the development of human cognition” reflects, to a certain extent, Ren Jiyu’s rational reflection on the essence of the history of philosophy. Revealing “the dialectical developmental process of the deepening of human cognition”[12]12 See note [10]. through “the study of the unity of opposites” is an important task of the history of philosophy.

在《中国哲学史》（四卷本）的绪论中，任继愈明确了哲学史的对象和任务。任继愈提出“哲学史是唯物主义和唯心主义、辩证法和形而上学斗争的历史，是整个人类的认识发展史。”[10]这一命题可以划分为“斗争的历史”和“认识发展史”两个子命题。其中，前者即是典型的斗争史观，受到日丹诺夫哲学史定义的显著影响。[11]不过，同时将哲学史视为“整个人类的认识发展史”，则在一定程度上体现了任继愈对于哲学史本质的理性思考，通过对“对立统一的研究”揭示“人类认识日益深化的辩证发展过程”[12]，则是哲学史的重要任务。

Ren Jiyu particularly emphasized “the exploration of the roots of philosophical thought,” believing that this is mainly achieved through the analysis of social productive forces and class struggle. He believed that class analysis is the basic method of Marxism and devoted considerable space in the introduction to explaining this.[13]13 The “introduction” refers to the introductory chapter of *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition). It can be said that the basic Marxist principles or meta-theory contained in *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition) are concentrated in adhering to the view of the history of philosophy as struggle and the method of class analysis. Regarding the relationship between the two, Ren Jiyu stated: “The struggle between the two lines of materialism and idealism in the history of philosophy is merely a reflection of class struggle in society.”[14]14 See note [10]. This judgment indicates that, compared to the analysis of the ideological attributes of the research object as materialist or idealist, revealing its “ideological roots” through class analysis holds a more fundamental status.

任继愈尤其重视“对哲学思想根源的探求”，认为这主要通过对社会生产力与阶级斗争的分析来实现。他认为阶级分析是马克思主义的基本方法，并在绪论用了较大篇幅对此进行说明。[13]可以说，《中国哲学史》（四卷本）其所蕴含的马克思主义的基本原则或者元理论集中体现在坚持哲学的斗争史观和阶级分析方法两个层面，而就二者的关系而言，任继愈说：“哲学史上唯物主义和唯心主义两条路线的斗争，只是社会上阶级斗争的反映。”[14]这一论断表明，相较于对研究对象的唯物主义或唯心主义的思想属性分析，通过阶级分析揭示其“思想根源”，更具有根本性的地位。

*A Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy* both implemented the view of the history of philosophy as struggle and the research method of class analysis, but to a certain extent it also contained a reflection on *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition), especially including a reflection on Zhdanov’s definition of the history of philosophy, as well as a reflection on the research methods and tasks of the history of philosophy.

《中国哲学发展史》既贯彻了哲学史研究的斗争史观与阶级分析的研究方法，但在一定程度上蕴含着对于《中国哲学史》（四卷本）的反思，尤其是包含着对于日丹诺夫哲学史定义的反思，亦包含有对哲学史的研究方法和研究任务的反思。

In the introduction to *A Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy* (pre-Qin volume), Ren Jiyu directly addressed a “bias” caused by studying the history of Chinese philosophy with Zhdanov’s definition, namely, “only seeing the battle between the two camps in the history of philosophy, using all attention to assign philosophers to camps,” while neglecting “the internal structure of each philosophical system and its position in the history of cognition” as well as the universal laws and lessons of the developmental process of human cognition.[15]15 This is a direct quotation from Ren Jiyu’s introduction to *A Developmental History of Chinese Philosophy* (pre-Qin volume). This is an important change in Ren Jiyu’s view of the history of philosophy. That is to say, the order of the two sub-propositions proposed in *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition)—that the history of philosophy is a “history of struggle” and a “history of the development of human cognition”—changed: while continuing to adhere to the view of the history of struggle, he emphasized its primary significance as a “history of the development of human cognition.” Ren Jiyu explicitly proposed that “the history of Chinese philosophy is the cognitive history of the Chinese nation” and pointed out: “It records in logical form the experience of the Chinese nation in understanding the world, and its historical experience provides extremely valuable and rich content for the history of human cognition.”[16]16 See note [15].

在《中国哲学发展史》（先秦卷）的导言中，任继愈直言以日丹诺夫的定义研究中国哲学史所造成的一种“偏向”，即“只看到哲学史上的两军对战，用全部注意力去给哲学家划分阵营”，其忽视的则是“每个哲学体系的内部结构和它在认识史上的地位”以及人类认识发展过程中的普遍规律与经验教训。[15]这是任继愈哲学史观的重要变化，也即是说，《中国哲学史》（四卷本）提出的哲学史是“斗争的历史”和“人类的认识发展史”两个子命题的顺序发生了变化：在继续坚持斗争史观的同时，强调其首先作为“人类认识的发展史”的意义。任继愈明确提出“中国哲学史是中华民族的认识史”，并指出：“它以逻辑的形式记录了中华民族认识世界的经历，它的历史经验为人类认识史提供了极可宝贵的丰富的内容。”[16]

(II) “Revealing the Laws of the Process by Which Human Cognition Breaks Free from Religion”: The Fusion of Horizons between the History of Philosophy and the History of Confucianism as a Religion

（二）“把人类认识挣脱宗教的过程的规律性揭示出来”：哲学史与儒教史的视域融合

Ren Jiyu’s distinctiveness also lies in his integration, to a certain degree, of the history of cognition and the history of struggle in the study of the history of philosophy, through his sorting out of the relationship between philosophy and religion. He distinguishes the essence of religion and philosophy from an epistemological perspective, pointing out that “religion is a distorted reflection of the real world by humanity.” Regarding philosophy, he states: “Philosophy differs from religion; it is rational thought generated by humanity through practice, and it is a summation of the knowledge of production struggle and class struggle.” According to Ren Jiyu, philosophy “must provide a regularive explanation of natural and social phenomena,” but due to differences in the cognitive line and explanation of the relationship between matter and spirit, it is divided into materialism and idealism. He meticulously sorts out the relationship between philosophy, science, and religion, arguing that religion “opposes scientific practice,” while idealism “distorts scientific practice,” and that historically the two have often “formed an alliance.” He emphasizes, “The philosophy that represents correct human thought is materialism.” From the perspective of historical development, philosophy, as “the history of the development of human cognition,” is a process of “gradually breaking free from the shackles of religion,” and “the task of the history of the development of philosophy is to reveal the regularities of the process by which human cognition breaks free from religion.” [17]17 The Three Cardinal Guides (三纲) are the principles of ruler guiding subject, father guiding son, and husband guiding wife, central to Han Confucian social ethics.

任继愈的独特之处还在于通过梳理哲学和宗教的关系对哲学史研究中的认识史与斗争史进行了一定程度上的融合。他从认识论的角度辨析了宗教与哲学的本质，指出“宗教是人类对现实世界的歪曲的反映”，关于哲学，他说：“哲学与宗教不同，它是人们通过实践而产生的理性思维，是生产斗争知识和阶级斗争知识的概括。”按照任继愈所述，哲学“必须对自然现象和社会现象做出规律性的解释”，但由于在物质和精神关系上的认识路线和解释的不同而划分为唯物主义和唯心主义，他细致梳理了哲学与科学、宗教的关系，认为宗教“反对科学实践”，唯心主义则“歪曲科学实践”，在历史上二者经常“结成同盟军”，他强调，“代表人类正确思维的哲学是唯物主义”。从历史发展的角度来看，哲学作为“人类认识的发展史”，其发展过程就是“一步一步摆脱宗教束缚的过程”，“哲学发展史的任务就是把人类认识挣脱宗教的过程的规律性揭示出来”。[17]

Regarding “the history of Chinese philosophy” as “the history of the cognition of the Chinese nation,” Ren Jiyu says: “It displays the course of Chinese philosophy’s development and progress in its struggle with religion… It also displays how philosophy has compressed the domain of religion, while religion constantly changes its form to maintain its position.” [18]18 *Chenwei* (谶纬) refers to a combination of prophetic texts (*chen*) and weft-texts (*wei*) that interpreted Confucian classics in a mystical and supernatural manner, popular during the Han dynasty. On this basis, Ren Jiyu summarizes the characteristics of the history of Chinese philosophy. Apart from “the longest history of philosophy in feudal society,” what he emphasizes are the two aspects: “the theology-ized Confucianism held an overwhelming advantage” and “there was a glorious tradition of materialism and atheism.” [19]19 The White Tiger Hall Conference (白虎观会议) was a scholarly council convened in 79 CE by Emperor Zhang of the Eastern Han dynasty to standardize the interpretation of the Five Classics, resulting in the *Baihu Tong*. Among these, “the theology-ized Confucianism held an overwhelming advantage” reflects the long-standing state in Chinese feudal society where “philosophy was subordinate to religion.” [20]20 The *Baihu Tong* (白虎通), or *Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall*, is a text that codified the official, state-sanctioned interpretation of Confucian classics, integrating them with *yin-yang* cosmology and *chenwei* theology. In this part, Ren Jiyu reiterates his main view that Confucianism is a religion, such as that Confucian religion “is a special form of religion suited to the historical characteristics of Chinese feudal society,” that although Confucian religion lacks the external features of general religions, it possesses all the essential attributes of religion, and that the development of Confucianism into a Confucian religion was completed through two major transformations in the Han and Song dynasties. [21]21 *Yin-yang* and the Five Elements (阴阳五行) are foundational concepts in Chinese cosmology: *yin* and *yang* represent opposing yet complementary forces, while the Five Elements (Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water) are phases in a cyclical process of cosmic change. “There was a glorious tradition of materialism and atheism” reflects the process and regularities of criticizing theology and breaking free from the shackles of religion in the history of Chinese philosophy. Ren Jiyu analyzes the social conditions that allowed for its development, such as the experiences and lessons of numerous social struggles, the development of natural science, and rich cultural classics.

就“作为中华民族认识史”的“中国哲学史”而言，任继愈说：“它展示出中国哲学与宗教的斗争中发展前进的历程……它也展示，哲学压缩了宗教的辖区，而宗教则不断地改变着自己的形式以维护它的阵地。”[18]在此基础上，任继愈总结中国哲学史的特点，除“封建社会的哲学历史最长”之外，其所强调的则是“神学化了的儒学占有极大优势”和“有光辉的唯物论和无神论传统”两个方面。[19]其中，“神学化了的儒学占有极大优势”体现了中国封建社会“哲学从属于宗教”[20]的长久状态，在这部分，任继愈重申了其儒学是教说的主要观点，如儒教“是一种具有特殊形态的适合于中国封建社会历史特点的宗教”、儒教虽缺少一般宗教外在特征但具有宗教的一切本质属性、儒学发展为儒教经过了汉代和宋代两次改造而完成等。[21]“有光辉的唯物论和无神论”则体现了中国哲学史上批判神学、挣脱宗教束缚的过程及规律，任继愈分析了其得以发展的社会条件，如大量社会斗争的经验教训、自然科学的发展、丰富的文化典籍等。

As seen above, Ren Jiyu combined the Marxist view of the history of philosophy with the ideological doctrine that Confucianism is a religion, achieving a fusion of the horizons of the history of philosophy and the history of the Confucian religion. In addition to the history of the struggle between philosophy and religion in the history of Chinese philosophy, Ren Jiyu also emphasized the close connection between philosophical thought in Chinese history, especially feudal ideology, and the feudal system, and regarded “criticizing feudalism” as a task that those engaged in the study of the history of Chinese philosophy should consciously undertake. [22]22 The Three Cardinal Guides and Five Constant Virtues (三纲五常) are core Confucian ethical principles: the Three Guides are the hierarchical relationships between ruler and subject, father and son, and husband and wife; the Five Constant Virtues are benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness. These new characteristics profoundly influenced the narrative thread of *The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy*.

以上可见，任继愈将马克思主义哲学史观与儒教是教的思想学说相结合，实现了哲学史与儒教史的视域融合。除了中国哲学史上哲学与宗教的斗争史，任继愈亦强调中国历史上的哲学思想尤其是封建意识形态与封建制度的密切关联，并将“批判封建主义”视为从事中国哲学史研究所应自觉担负的任务。[22]这些新特点深刻影响了《中国哲学发展史》的叙述线索。

The philosophy of the Han dynasty is a key area in the study of the history of Chinese philosophy and is also a central focus of Ren Jiyu’s discourse on the Confucian religion and his research on the history of philosophy. Ren Jiyu’s interpretive path of integrating the history of philosophy with the history of the Confucian religion was practically implemented and vividly embodied in his interpretation of Han dynasty philosophy. Through a comprehensive comparative study of works on the history of philosophy such as *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four volumes) and *The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy*, as well as Ren Jiyu’s ideological propositions such as the doctrine that Confucianism is a religion, and by sorting out the exposition of Han dynasty philosophical thought concerning Dong Zhongshu, the *Baihu Tong* [1]1 *Baihu Tong* (白虎通): A text compiled in 79 CE at the White Tiger Hall conference convened by Emperor Zhang of the Han dynasty, which codified the state-sanctioned interpretation of the Confucian classics and established the theological framework of Han Confucianism., Wang Chong, etc., it holds certain theoretical significance for demonstrating the “course of the development and progress of Han dynasty philosophy in its struggle with religion” and for further understanding Ren Jiyu’s view of the history of philosophy and his discourse on the Confucian religion.

汉代哲学是中国哲学史研究的重镇，亦是任继愈儒教论说与哲学史研究的重点内容。任继愈哲学史与儒教史相融合的诠释路径在关于汉代哲学的诠释中得到了切实的贯彻和生动体现。通过对《中国哲学史》（四卷本）、《中国哲学发展史》等哲学史著作以及任继愈的儒教是教说等思想主张进行综合性的比较研究，梳理其中关于董仲舒、《白虎通》、王充等汉代哲学思想的阐述，对于展现汉代哲学在“与宗教的斗争中发展前进的历程”，以及进一步理解任继愈的哲学史观与儒教论说，均具有一定的理论意义。

III. The Interpretation of Han Dynasty Philosophy from the Perspective of Ren Jiyu’s History of Philosophy

三、任继愈哲学史视域下的汉代哲学诠释

According to Ren Jiyu’s historical analysis of the formation and development of the Confucian religion, the development of Confucianism into a Confucian religion was completed through two major transformations of Confucius’s teachings in the Han and Song dynasties. Among these, the theological teleology of Han dynasty Confucianism, from Dong Zhongshu to the White Tiger Hall Conference [2]2 Wang Chong (王充, 27 – c. 97 CE): A Han-dynasty philosopher known for his rationalist and critical thought, particularly his work *Lunheng* (Balanced Discourses), which attacked superstition and the theological claims of Confucianism., was precisely the key link in the “theology-ization” of Confucianism and the formation of the Confucian religion. [23]23 *Qi* (气) is a fundamental concept in Chinese philosophy, often translated as "vital energy" or "material force," understood as the basic substance constituting all things in the universe. The interpretation of Han dynasty philosophy from the perspective of Ren Jiyu’s history of philosophy contains the theoretical development and historical demonstration of this view. Additionally, through the ideological interpretation of the “militant atheists” represented by Wang Chong and the natural science of the Han dynasty, it reveals the process and regularities of criticizing theology and breaking free from the shackles of religion during this period.

按照任继愈关于儒教形成发展的历史分析而言，儒学发展为儒教是经过汉、宋两次对孔子学说的大的改造而完成，其中汉代儒学由董仲舒到白虎观会议的神学目的论则正是儒学“神学化”与儒教形成的关键环节。[23]任继愈哲学史视域下关于汉代哲学的诠释，则包含着对于这一观点的理论展开与历史论证，另外则通过对以王充为代表的“战斗的无神论者”和汉代自然科学的思想阐释，来揭示这一时期批判神学、挣脱宗教束缚的过程及规律性。

(I) The Theology-ization of Han Dynasty Confucianism and the Completion of the “State Religion of Feudal Society”

（一）汉代儒学的神学化和“封建社会的国家宗教”的完成

Dong Zhongshu is the most creative and influential philosopher in Han dynasty philosophy. The interpretation of Dong Zhongshu’s thought in *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four volumes) is clearly influenced by the concepts of the history of struggle and the history of cognition. From the perspective of the view of the history of struggle, Dong Zhongshu belongs to the “teleological idealist philosophical system,” whose “purpose” is determined by his class attributes, namely, serving autocratic centralism and meeting the needs of the rising landlord class to consolidate the autocratic rule of the central government. As for Dong Zhongshu’s method of argumentation, it is “to combine theology with philosophy” [24], constructing a theological idealist worldview and systematic theory based on the “interaction between Heaven and humanity” [3]3 *Inner Canon* (《内经》): Refers to the *Huangdi Neijing* (Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon), a foundational text of traditional Chinese medicine compiled during the Han dynasty.. “Starting from Dong Zhongshu, Confucius was deified, Confucius’s teachings were religionized, and the theory of the feudal autocratic system was systematized.” [25] Thus, his idealist philosophical system contains a strong religious theological color. In the text of this book, philosophy and theology are intertwined, such as “abstract theological idealist moral theory” [26] and “theological idealist worldview.” [27] Specifically, the section on Dong Zhongshu in *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four volumes) is divided into six parts. The first part is political theory, which reflects the basic Marxist method of the view of the history of struggle and class analysis, emphasizing the social and political background of the formation of Dong Zhongshu’s philosophy, his class attributes, and his theoretical task of “demonstrating the sanctity and supremacy of ‘imperial power’.” [28] The second part is the “worldview of the theory of the interaction between Heaven and humanity,” which centers on “Heaven” to discuss the foundational part and core content of Dong Zhongshu’s philosophical system, presenting the religionized characteristics of his worldview. The third to sixth parts are the concrete manifestations of his theological idealist worldview in epistemology, morality, historical view, etc. The basic structure of Dong Zhongshu’s thought system established in *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four volumes) was inherited in *The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy*, but with some adjustments.

董仲舒是汉代哲学中最具创造性和影响力的哲学家。《中国哲学史》（四卷本）对于董仲舒思想的诠释明显受到斗争史和认识史观念的影响。在斗争史观的视域下，董仲舒属于“目的论的唯心主义哲学体系”，其“目的”由其阶级属性所决定，即为专制集权主义服务，满足的是新兴地主阶级巩固中央集权的专制统治的需求。而关于董仲舒的论证方式，则是“将神学与哲学结合起来”[24]，构建了以“天人感应”为基础的神学唯心主义世界观和系统化理论，“从董仲舒开始，把孔子神圣化，把孔子的学说宗教化，把封建专制制度的理论系统化。”[25]由此，其唯心主义哲学体系即蕴含着浓厚的宗教神学色彩，在该书的行文中，哲学与神学亦相互交织，如“抽象的神学唯心主义的道德论”[26]、“神学唯心主义的世界观”[27]等。具体而言，《中国哲学史》（四卷本）的董仲舒部分共分为六节。其第一节为政治理论，这体现了斗争史观和阶级分析的马克思主义基本方法，强调了董仲舒哲学形成的社会政治背景、阶级属性及其“论证‘君权’的神圣和至高无上”[28]的理论任务。第二节为“天人感应论的世界观”，以“天”为中心论述了董仲舒哲学体系的基础部分和核心内容，呈现了其世界观的宗教化特点。其第三至六节则是其神学唯心主义世界观在认识论、道德观、历史观等方面的具体体现。《中国哲学史》（四卷本）所确立的董仲舒思想体系的基本结构在《中国哲学发展史》中得到了继承，但亦有所调整。

*The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* was clearly influenced by Ren Jiyu’s doctrine that Confucianism is a religion, defining Dong Zhongshu’s thought as a “theological system of the interaction between Heaven and humanity.” The study of Dong Zhongshu in this book is divided into ten parts, the first six of which introduce Dong Zhongshu’s theory of the interaction between Heaven and humanity, thereby highlighting Dong Zhongshu’s “mission” to “consolidate and strengthen the feudal autocratic centralist rule of the Han dynasty” and the “essence” of “feudal theology.” [29] *The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* more clearly defines the religious significance of Dong Zhongshu’s “Heaven” as “the master of all gods, governing both heaven and the human world” [30], comprehensively explaining Dong Zhongshu’s theory of yin-yang and the five elements under his theological system, emphasizing its significance as a “rigid format of the interaction between Heaven and humanity” [31] for Dong Zhongshu’s theological theory. “Dong Zhongshu mystified yin-yang and the five elements as the will of Heaven… The originally dialectical idea of yin-yang, which belonged to naive dialectics, was completely transformed into theological theory through his transformation.” [32]

《中国哲学发展史》明显受到任继愈儒教是教说的影响，将董仲舒思想界定为“天人感应神学体系”，该书的董仲舒研究共分为十部分，其前六节均是介绍董仲舒的天人感应学说，从而凸显了董仲舒“为了巩固和强化汉代封建中央集权统治”的“使命”以及作为“封建神学”的“本质”。[29]《中国哲学发展史》更加明确了董仲舒“天”作为“诸神的主宰，统辖着天堂和人世”[30]的宗教意义，全面阐释了董仲舒神学体系下的阴阳五行学说，强调的是其作为“天人感应的一种僵化的格式”[31]对于董仲舒神学理论的意义，“董仲舒将阴阳五行神秘化为天的意志……本来属于朴素辩证观念的阴阳思想，经过他的改造，完全变为神学理论。”[32]

This book also focuses on discussing the moral attributes of Heaven, namely: on the one hand, Dong Zhongshu emphasizes Heaven's "perfect goodness" in "nourishing people with clothing and food, and teaching people with rites and righteousness," displaying Heaven's benevolence toward all things, especially toward the people, "Heaven gives birth to and nourishes all things, ceaselessly generating life, hence Heaven's benevolence is infinite. … Heaven's purpose is to benefit and sustain the people, making them prosperous and sufficient, which determines that all its activities are manifestations of goodness." On the other hand, it emphasizes the significance of humans "taking Heaven as their model." Dong Zhongshu's so-called "system of benevolence and righteousness" and "Three Cardinal Guides of the Kingly Way" [17]17 The Three Cardinal Guides (三纲) are the principles of ruler guiding subject, father guiding son, and husband guiding wife, central to Han Confucian social ethics. thereby obtain the legitimate basis of being "entirely derived from Heaven" and "seekable from Heaven," "reversing this, it attributes the ethical relationships of the human world to Heaven, which also shows that the goodness of Heaven spoken of by Dong Zhongshu is not a purely abstract concept, but embodies feudal human ethics." [33] According to the *History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy*, Dong Zhongshu's theory of the interaction between Heaven and humans is not a general relationship between Heaven and humans; one of its "theoretical cores" is that "the king acts according to Heaven's will, therefore he relies on moral education and not on punishment." The object of moral education is the people, thus what is reflected here is the relationship among Heaven, the sovereign, and the people. The *History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* places great importance on Dong Zhongshu's idea of "bending the people to exalt the sovereign, bending the sovereign to exalt Heaven," believing that the former "uses Heaven's authority to strengthen sovereign power," reflecting the "class essence" and "historical mission" of his doctrine, while the latter "uses the Mandate of Heaven to constrain the ruler," reflecting the "practical significance" of his doctrine. [34] This book argues that Dong Zhongshu, through "the Son of Heaven receives the mandate from Heaven, and all under Heaven receives the mandate from the Son of Heaven," constructed a "theological chain of subordination of Heaven—Son of Heaven (sovereign)—people," which became the "format of theocratic power in China's later long feudal society." [35] The discussions of Dong Zhongshu's theory of human nature, epistemology, and political views introduced in sections seven, eight, and nine are also unfolded within this interpretive framework, such as explaining Dong Zhongshu's theory of human nature and his "regulatory system" propositions through "the king follows Heaven's will to complete the people's nature" and "Heaven gives birth to the people not for the king, but Heaven establishes the king for the people."

该书亦重点论述了天的道德属性，即：董仲舒一方面强调天“以衣食养人，以礼义教人”的“完美至善”，展示天之于万物尤其是之于民的仁德，“天生养万物，生生不息，故天之仁德无穷。……天的目的是以利活民，使民赡足，这就决定了它的一切活动都是善的体现。”另一方面，则强调人“取法于天”的意义，董仲舒所谓“仁义制度”“王道之三纲”即获得了“尽取之天”“可求于天”的合法性依据，“反转来又将人世间的伦常属性说成来源于天，这也说明董仲舒所说天之善并非纯粹抽象观念，而是体现了封建的人伦道德。”[33]按照《中国哲学发展史》所述，董仲舒天人感应论并非一般的天人关系，其“理论核心之一”是“王者承天意以从事，故任德教而不任刑”，德教的对象即是民，因此这里体现的是天、君、民三者之间的关系。《中国哲学发展史》非常重视董仲舒“屈民而伸君，屈君而伸天”思想，认为前者“借天的权威强化君权”，体现了其学说的“阶级实质”和“历史使命”，后者是“用天命约束人君”，体现了其学说的“实践意义”。[34]该书认为董仲舒通过“天子受命于天，天下受命于天子”构建了“天——天子（君）——民的神学统属关系”，这成为中国“后来长期封建社会的神权的格式”。[35]第七、八、九节所介绍的董仲舒的人性论、认识论与政治主张，亦是在这一诠释框架下展开，如通过“王者承天意以成民之性”和“天之生民非为王也，而天立王以为民也”分别阐释董仲舒的人性论和“度制”主张。

From the above, it can be seen that the *History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* continues the Marxist principles and methods of the *History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition), sorting out the basic content of Dong Zhongshu's ideological system through detailed philosophical argumentation, and, within the perspective of Ren Jiyu's theory that Confucianism is a religion, reveals the "significant change" in the image of Confucianism brought about by the "theologized Confucianism" shaped by Dong Zhongshu. [36]

以上可见，《中国哲学发展史》延续了《中国哲学史》（四卷本）的马克思主义原则和方法，通过条分缕析的哲学论证梳理了董仲舒思想体系的基本内容，并在任继愈儒教是教说的视域下展现出董仲舒塑造的“神学化了的儒家”对于儒家形象的“重大改变”。[36]

According to the *History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy*, the theological system constructed by Dong Zhongshu brought about a "significant change" in the image of Confucianism, but for the complete theological theory needed by the feudal ruling class—that is, to form a state religion where "sacrificial rituals and theological theory are closely integrated"—it was merely a "beginning." Only after the enrichment and development of *chenwei* theology [18]18 *Chenwei* (谶纬) refers to a combination of prophetic texts (*chen*) and weft-texts (*wei*) that interpreted Confucian classics in a mystical and supernatural manner, popular during the Han dynasty., and when Confucian classical studies overcame its internal contradictions and differences, was it "completed" by the White Tiger Hall Conference [19]19 The White Tiger Hall Conference (白虎观会议) was a scholarly council convened in 79 CE by Emperor Zhang of the Eastern Han dynasty to standardize the interpretation of the Five Classics, resulting in the *Baihu Tong*. personally presided over by Emperor Zhang of Han and its resulting document, the *Baihu Tong* [20]20 The *Baihu Tong* (白虎通), or *Comprehensive Discussions in the White Tiger Hall*, is a text that codified the official, state-sanctioned interpretation of Confucian classics, integrating them with *yin-yang* cosmology and *chenwei* theology.. [37] "The religious theological system of the *Baihu Tong* is the summary of this historical process, marking the completion of the establishment of a state religion in feudal society." [38] Regarding the distinct characteristics of this state religion, the book points out: "Its sacrificial rituals were a privilege enjoyed by the ruling class, reflecting the power structure of feudal society, while completely excluding the powerless masses, forbidding any transgression. Its theological theory focused on resolving issues of the divine right of kings and the transfer of dynastic fortunes, caring only for the interests of the feudal state, and completely ignoring the suffering of the masses in real life. Its main function was merely to deify the state system and the monarch, providing a theological basis for the autocratic monarchy, without paying attention to pointing out a path of liberation for the masses." It can be found that these characteristics embody the "state nature" and "feudal nature" of the "state religion"; its "religious nature" did not exceed Dong Zhongshu's theory, still forming a "relatively crude" theoretical form through deifying the Son of Heaven, deifying *yin-yang* and the Five Elements [21]21 *Yin-yang* and the Five Elements (阴阳五行) are foundational concepts in Chinese cosmology: *yin* and *yang* represent opposing yet complementary forces, while the Five Elements (Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water) are phases in a cyclical process of cosmic change., and deifying the Three Cardinal Guides and Five Constant Virtues [22]22 The Three Cardinal Guides and Five Constant Virtues (三纲五常) are core Confucian ethical principles: the Three Guides are the hierarchical relationships between ruler and subject, father and son, and husband and wife; the Five Constant Virtues are benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness.. "It inherited Dong Zhongshu's method, almost without any speculative mediation, directly deriving a heavenly order from the actual order of the feudal state of the time." In summary, according to this book, although the *Baihu Tong* lacked theoretical innovation, being "a miscellany of classical commentaries appended with *chen* prophecies," it represented "an important historical stage in the development from Confucian studies to Confucianism as a religion" because it served as the "state religion of feudal society." [39]

按照《中国哲学发展史》所述，董仲舒所构建的神学体系对儒家形象形成了“重大改变”，但对于封建统治阶级需要的完整的神学理论，即形成“祭祀仪式和神学理论紧密结合”的国家宗教而言，仅仅是一个“开始”，在经过了谶纬神学的充实和发展，当儒家的经学克服了内部的矛盾分歧后，才由汉章帝亲自主持召开的白虎观会议及其作为会议成果的《白虎通》来“完成”[37]，“《白虎通》的宗教神学体系就是这个历史过程的总结，标志着封建社会建立国家宗教的完成。”[38]关于这个国家宗教的明显特点，该书指出：“它的祭祀仪式是统治阶级所享有的一种特权，反映了封建社会的权力结构，而把无权的广大民众完全排除在外，不许僭越。它的神学理论着重于解决君权神授和国运转移的问题，只关心封建国家的利益，而完全漠视广大民众现实生活的苦难。它的主要职能只是努力神化国家制度和君主，为君主专制主义的政体提供神学的依据，并不注意为广大民众指出一条解脱苦难的出路。”可以发现，这些特点体现的是“国家宗教”的“国家性”与“封建性”，其“宗教性”并未超出董仲舒的的理论，依然是通过神化天子、神化阴阳五行、神化三纲五常而形成的“比较粗糙”的理论形态，“它继承了董仲舒的手法，几乎没有通过什么思辨的中介，直接就从当时封建国家的现实秩序中引出来一套天国秩序。”总之，按照该书所述，《白虎通》虽然理论上缺少创见，“杂论经传，傅以谶记”，但因其作为“封建社会的国家宗教”而代表了“由儒学发展为儒教的一个重要历史阶段”。[39]

(2) The Course of Han Dynasty Philosophy "Advancing in Struggle with Religion"

（二）汉代哲学在“与宗教的斗争中发展前进的历程”

As mentioned earlier, Ren Jiyu regarded "revealing the laws of the process by which human cognition breaks free from religion" as the task of studying the history of philosophy. Therefore, in addition to revealing the process of the theologization of Han dynasty Confucianism and its development into a state religion, the *History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* also introduces the development of thought during this period that criticized theology and broke free from religious shackles. "Just as the *Baihu Tong* was completing its religious theological system, Wang Chong was in Kuai-ji, far from the capital, vigorously writing to 'denounce falsehoods.' This was a struggle between reason and faith in China's Middle Ages, holding extremely important significance in the history of thought." [40] The book provides a detailed introduction to Wang Chong's critique of "Han dynasty Confucianism as a religion," specifically including: restoring Heaven to a natural object, using *qi* [23]23 *Qi* (气) is a fundamental concept in Chinese philosophy, often translated as "vital energy" or "material force," understood as the basic substance constituting all things in the universe. and *qi*-transformation to explain the relationships and various phenomena of nature, society, and the human body, using materialism to explain Heaven and nature, and criticizing theological teleology and the theory of stimulus-response. This was "a powerful negation of the Heavenly God," shaking the basic tenet of "Heaven worship" in Confucianism as a religion, and can be said to have "struck at the heart of Confucianism as a religion." His in-depth critique of the theory of ghosts and spirits with the argument that "people do not become ghosts after death" "removed the theoretical basis for ancestor worship in Confucianism as a religion," thereby acquiring "anti-ritual significance." He proposed that "sages are not divine," opposing the worship of sages and the worship of classical texts. [41]

如前文所述，任继愈将“把人类认识挣脱宗教的过程的规律性揭示出来”视为哲学史研究的任务，因此除揭示汉代儒学神学化及其发展为国家宗教的过程外，《中国哲学发展史》还介绍了这一时期批判神学、挣脱宗教束缚的思想发展，“就在《白虎通》完成它的宗教神学体系的同时，王充正在远离京师的会稽奋笔‘疾虚妄’。这是中国的中世纪的理性与信仰的斗争，在思想史上具有极为重要的意义。”[40]该书详细了介绍了王充对于“汉代儒教”的批判，具体包括：将天还原为自然物体，以气、气化解释自然、社会和人体的关系及各类现象，以唯物主义解释天和自然，批判了神学目的论和感应说，是“对天神的有力否定”，动摇了儒教“天神崇拜”的基本信条，可谓“击中儒教要害”；以“人死不为鬼”对鬼神之说展开深入的批判，则“抽掉了儒教祖先崇拜的理论依据”，从而获得了“反礼教意义”；提出“圣者不神”，反对圣贤崇拜和经传崇拜。[41]

Importantly, the book analyzes Wang Chong's thought methods and their gains and losses, and on this basis reveals the laws of the struggle between reason and faith during this period. According to the book, as a "militant atheist," Wang Chong's "discussions never departed from facts, and facts never departed from discussions," adopting an empiricism containing rational elements: "Simply repeating the general theory of Heaven's natural inaction could no longer effectively counter the proliferation of theology. Against the various theological views and superstitious taboos prevalent in society, militant materialists had to rely on a large number of facts to systematically and concretely refute their main arguments, in order to deliver a powerful blow to theistic trends. From the laws of ideological struggle, this step was inevitable; it was Wang Chong who excellently undertook this historical task." [42] From the perspective of the history of cognition, in the "ideological struggle" of explaining natural and social phenomena and criticizing theology and secular superstitions, Wang Chong promoted the concretization of the materialist worldview, "deepening materialist theory." [43] From the perspective of the history of Chinese atheism, Wang Chong erected a "monument linking the past and the future," absorbing the essence of atheism since the pre-Qin period, and also exerting a significant influence on subsequent eras such as the Wei-Jin period and the late Ming to early Qing dynasties.

重要的是，该书分析了王充的思想方法及其得失，在此基础上揭示了这一时期理性与信仰斗争的规律。按该书所述，作为“战斗的无神论者”，王充“论不离事，事不离论”，采取的是包含理性因素的经验论：“单靠重复天道自然无为的一般理论已不能有效对付神学的泛滥。对于充斥于社会上的形形色色的神学观点和迷信禁忌，战斗的唯物主义者必须依据大量的事实对其主要论点加以系统的具体的批驳，这样才能给予有神论思潮以有力的打击。从思想斗争规律来看，这一步必定要走的；正是王充出色地承担了这一历史任务。”[42]从认识发展史来看，在解释自然与社会现象、批判神学与世俗迷信的“思想斗争”中，王充推动了唯物主义世界观观的具体化，“深化了唯物主义的理论”。[43]从中国无神论史来看，王充树立起“一座承先启后的丰碑”，既吸收了先秦以来无神论之精华，亦对魏晋及明末清初等历代产生了重大影响。

The book analyzes, from an epistemological perspective, the limitations and weaknesses of Wang Chong's empiricism due to insufficient theoretical thinking. Within his thought, there existed contradictions such as advocating the natural way of Heaven while simultaneously asserting the fatalism of "human fate," "state fate," and "kingly fate," and opposing the theory of stimulus-response while also advocating for "responses from auspicious objects." Therefore, he failed to become a thorough atheist. "To adhere to thorough atheism, one must adhere to an epistemology that combines perception and reason, and must adhere to a dialectical method of thinking." [44]

该书从认识论的角度分析了王充经验论因理论思维不足而存在的局限性和弱点，其思想内部存在着论述天道自然同时主张“人命”“国命”“王命”的命定论、反对感应论又主张“瑞物之应”等矛盾，因此未能成为彻底的无神论者，“要坚持彻底的无神论，必须坚持感性与理性相结合的认识论，必须坚持辩证的思想方法。”[44]

Apart from summarizing the laws of criticizing theology from the history of philosophical cognition and the realm of “thought methods,” *The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* devotes a separate chapter to introducing the relationship between philosophy and science in the Han dynasty: “Only where science has truly taken hold is there no room for theology to stand.” [45] This section is not a history of Han-dynasty science and technology, but rather a comprehensive analysis of the intellectual relationship among philosophy, religion, and science in the Han dynasty, which also contains a critique of Confucian theology. The book offers an overall characterization of the features of scientific development in the Han dynasty: “Han-dynasty natural science formed a system, and it moved in step with the trend toward unification in politics, economics, and ideology. The people of the Han dynasty sought to link all natural phenomena, as well as natural and social phenomena, into an all-encompassing cosmic system, and the intellectual basis for doing so was the idea of the unity of heaven and humanity.” [46] This passage contains two aspects: first, Han-dynasty natural science was significantly influenced by state politics, or rather, it was “a direct or indirect projection of the real life of the feudal patriarchal clan system”—astronomical observation, for example, was used to verify political gains and losses. Second, Han-dynasty natural science took the unity of heaven and humanity as its guiding ideology, “regarding heaven, earth, and humanity as a unified whole in every possible domain.” [47] In this regard, there is a clear tension between the Han-dynasty Confucian doctrine of the mutual resonance between heaven and humanity and Han-dynasty natural science: the doctrine of heavenly-human resonance extended certain concrete relationships among heaven, humanity, and things, along with the relatively simple natural-scientific knowledge of the time, into more universal connections. For instance, Dong Zhongshu expanded the principle that “things move according to their kind” to the mutual movement of heaven and humanity, thereby “swallowing up and capturing the scientific knowledge people had gained through practice, and incorporating this knowledge into the component parts of theological teleology.” [48] More importantly, the understanding of the relationship between heaven and humanity formed through the various fields of natural science also revealed a struggle against Confucian theological teleology. In the section on “Agriculture, Agronomy, and Philosophy,” *The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* states at the outset: “The influence of agriculture and agricultural science on philosophy is mainly manifested in the understanding of the relationship between heaven and humanity.” [49] It also emphasizes: “Agriculture can be said to be the arena where heaven and humanity directly interact. … In agricultural production, people saw that through their own efforts they could obtain better harvests, which helped to break down superstition about the will of heaven.” [50]

除了从哲学的认识史和“思想方法”领域总结批判神学的规律性之外，《中国哲学发展史》专列一章介绍汉代哲学与科学的关系，“只有科学真正占领了的地方，才没有神学立足之地。”[45]这部分并非汉代科学技术史，而是对汉代哲学、宗教与科学的思想关系的综合性分析，其中亦蕴含着对于儒家神学的批判。该书对汉代科学发展的特点有一个整体性的论述，“汉代自然科学形成体系，同它在政治上、经济上、思想上的统一趋势是步调一致的。汉代人力图把各种自然现象之间，以及自然现象和社会现象都联系起来，构成无所不包的宇宙体系，而他们这么作的思想根据就是天人一体思想。”[46]这段文字蕴含着两个方面内容：其一，汉代自然科学受到国家政治的显著影响，或者说“是封建宗法制的现实生活或直接或间接的投影”，如天文观测是为验证政治得失；其二，汉代自然科学以天人一体为指导思想，“在一切可能的领域，都把天地人看作一个统一的整体。”[47]就此而言，汉代儒教的天人感应论与汉代自然科学之间存在着明显的张力：天人感应论将天、人、物之间的一些具体关系和当时较为朴素的自然科学知识推广为更为普遍的联系，如董仲舒将“物之以类动”扩展至天人相动，从而“吞食、俘虏了人们在实践中得来的科学知识，并把这种知识构成神学目的论的组成部分。”[48]而更为重要的是，由自然科学诸领域所形成的对于天人关系的认识，亦显示出对于儒教神学目的论的斗争。《中国哲学发展史》在“农业、农学和哲学”部分开篇即指出：“农业和农业科学对哲学的影响主要表现在对天人关系的认识。”[49]亦强调：“农业可说是天人直接相互作用的场合。……在农业生产中，人们看到通过自己的努力，可以获取较好的收成，这就有助于破除对天意的迷信。”[50]

However, the book devotes the most ink and the most detailed discussion to the section on medicine, especially its detailed introduction to the Han-dynasty medical absorption and development of the theory of yin-yang and the five phases [wuxing], as well as its basic concepts of health preservation and treatment, demonstrating its consistent emphasis on placing medical practice first. This is entirely different from Dong Zhongshu’s theological teleology: “If we say that Dong Zhongshu mainly grasped heaven as the highest object of religious worship, and that his talk of the unity of heaven and humanity and the resonance between heaven and humanity was theology, then in the *Inner Canon* [of the Yellow Emperor], heaven was mainly grasped as a natural thing … It can be said that no science at the time could make people feel the close connection between humanity and the natural world as deeply as medicine did … and it held that adapting to changes in the natural world was the best way to maintain health.” [51] According to the book, the contribution of Han-dynasty medicine was also reflected in its study of *qi*, holding that the *qi* formed in Han-dynasty medical practice was a perceptible objective reality and that *qi* was the medium through which things interacted with one another. These views “provided the basis for the philosophy of *qi* monism,” which was the “most important” influence that Han-dynasty science had on philosophy. [52]

不过，该书着墨最多和论述最为细致的是在医学部分，尤其是详细介绍了汉代医学对于阴阳五行学说的吸纳和发展以及关于养生和治疗的基本理念，展现了其始终坚持医疗实践为第一位的特点，这与董仲舒的神学目的论截然不同，“如果说董仲舒主要是抓住了天作为宗教崇拜的最高对象这一方面，讲天人一体、天人感应是神学，那么在《内经》中则主要是抓住了天作为自然物的一面……可以说，当时没有一种科学能象医学那样使人最深刻地感到人类同自然界的密切联系……认为顺应自然界的变化是保持身体健康的最好办法。”[51]按照该书所述，汉代医学的贡献还体现在对于气的研究，认为汉代医疗实践中形成的气是一种可以感觉到的客观实在、气是事物相互联系相互作用的中介等观点，“为气一元论哲学提供了根据”，这是汉代科学对于哲学产生的“最主要”的影响。[52]

IV. The Two-Way Interaction between Chinese Philosophy and Marxist Atheism and Its Significance

四、中国哲学与马克思主义无神论的双向互动及其意义

Ren Jiyu’s research on Han-dynasty philosophy from the perspective of the history of philosophy, centered on Dong Zhongshu and the *Baihu Tong* [White Tiger Hall Discussions], elaborates in detail on the theological development of Han-dynasty Confucianism and the completion of its historical process of becoming the “state religion of feudal society.” This contains the theoretical exposition and historical argumentation for his theory that Confucianism is a religion. In addition, through his interpretation of the “militant atheists” represented by Wang Chong and the natural science of the Han dynasty, he summarizes the process and laws of their critique of theology and their breaking free from the bonds of religion, revealing the relationship among philosophy, religion, and science in this period and the “struggle between reason and faith.” Overall, Ren Jiyu’s interpretive approach, which integrates the history of philosophy with the history of Confucianism as a religion, has been effectively implemented and vividly demonstrated in the study of Han-dynasty philosophy. It embodies the two-way interaction between Chinese philosophy and Marxist atheism and possesses important significance in terms of thought and methodology.

任继愈哲学史视域下关于汉代哲学的研究，以董仲舒和《白虎通》为中心详细阐述了汉代儒学的神学化发展及其完成“封建社会的国家宗教”的历史过程，其中包含着对于其儒教是教说的理论展开与历史论证，另外则通过对以王充为代表的“战斗的无神论者”和汉代自然科学的思想阐释，总结其批判神学、挣脱宗教束缚的过程及规律性，揭示出这一时期哲学、宗教与科学的关系及其“理性与信仰的斗争”。总体而言，任继愈哲学史与儒教史相融合的诠释路径在汉代哲学研究中得到切实的贯彻与生动展现，体现了中国哲学与马克思主义无神论的双向互动，具有重要的思想和方法论意义。

First, Ren Jiyu insisted on combining Marxist principles with the concrete reality of Chinese philosophy, demonstrating the process by which Chinese philosophy advanced in struggle against religion, and deepening the understanding of the history of cognition in Chinese philosophy and the laws of its development. In Ren Jiyu’s view, whether the history of Chinese philosophy can truly become a science depends on “how well historical materialism is applied” [53], that is, “how to correctly understand the basic principles of Marxism and how to combine these principles with the concrete reality of the development of Chinese philosophy.” [54] Ren Jiyu also proposed specific methods such as “placing the problem within a definite historical scope” and “conducting a concrete class analysis.” [55] Taking the interpretation of Dong Zhongshu’s thought as an example, *The History of Chinese Philosophy* (four-volume edition) and *The History of the Development of Chinese Philosophy* embody a dual perspective of the history of philosophy and the history of Confucianism as a religion, and these two perspectives achieve integration. On the one hand, by analyzing the attributes and methods of thought in Dong Zhongshu’s philosophy—materialism versus idealism, dialectics versus metaphysics—his position in the history of cognition of the Chinese nation is clarified. On the other hand, through the interpretation of Dong Zhongshu’s theological system of heavenly-human resonance and the analysis of his class attributes, the intrinsic connection between Dong Zhongshu and the social and political life of the Han dynasty and subsequent Chinese society is further clarified, thereby presenting the basic features and historical influence of a typical form of Confucian theological thought. Therefore, adopting an interpretive approach that integrates the history of philosophy with the history of Confucianism as a religion has important implications for understanding the ideological characteristics and historical status of Dong Zhongshu and even traditional Confucian philosophy.

其一，任继愈坚持将马克思主义原则与中国哲学实际相结合，展示出中国哲学在与宗教的斗争中发展前进的历程，深化了对于中国哲学认识史及其发展规律的理解。在任继愈看来，中国哲学史能否真正成为科学，关键在于“历史唯物主义运用得好不好”[53]，即“怎样正确理解马克思主义的基本原则，怎样把这些原则和中国哲学发展的具体实际相结合。”[54]任继愈还提出了“把问题提到一定的历史范围”“进行具体的阶级分析”等具体方法。[55]以关于董仲舒思想的诠释来看，《中国哲学史》（四卷本）和《中国哲学发展史》体现了哲学史和儒教史的双重视域，且二者实现了融合。一方面，通过辨析董仲舒哲学中唯物主义和唯心主义、辩证法和形而上学的思想属性与思想方法，明确了其在中华民族的认识史中的地位。另一方面，通过对董仲舒天人感应神学体系的阐释和对其阶级属性的分析，进一步明确了董仲舒与汉代以及汉代以来中国社会政治生活的内在关联，并以此呈现出一种具有典型形态的儒家神学思想体系的基本面貌与历史影响。因此，采取哲学史和儒教史相融合的诠释路径，对于理解董仲舒乃至传统儒家哲学的思想特点与历史地位，具有重要的启示意义。

Second, Ren Jiyu insisted on “revealing the laws of the process by which human cognition breaks free from religion,” implementing in his study of Chinese philosophy an academic tenet that unified philosophical research with the critique of theology, thereby expanding the “ideological front” of Marxist atheism. This also carries important ideological and methodological significance for advancing research on Marxist atheism and its propaganda and education in the New Era. In a 1977 article commemorating the first anniversary of Mao Zedong’s death, Ren Jiyu revisited Mao’s directives on criticizing theology. He highly praised Mao’s assertion that “without criticizing theology, one cannot write a good history of philosophy,” calling it “extremely profound,” and argued that scholars of philosophy, literature, and history should bear “greater responsibility” for criticizing theology.[56]56 Ren Jiyu, “Criticizing Theology and Writing the History of Philosophy,” in *Collected Works of Ren Jiyu*, vol. 4 (Beijing: National Library of China Press, 2014), p. 3. In Ren Jiyu’s view, religious theology possesses characteristics such as an idealist and metaphysical worldview, the promotion of obscurantism, and the advocacy of “introspection” and “confession” as paths to “liberation,” providing justification for “the rationality of exploitation and oppression.” In Chinese history, it had consistently been “a spiritual yoke used by feudal autocracy to rule the people.”[57]57 Ren Jiyu, “Criticizing Theology and Writing the History of Philosophy,” p. 4. Therefore, it was necessary to thoroughly expose the class roots and epistemological roots of religious theology, thereby fully implementing the principle of materialism and “expanding the ideological front of Marxism.”[58]58 Ren Jiyu, “Criticizing Theology and Writing the History of Philosophy,” p. 4. As noted earlier, among the characteristics of the history of Chinese philosophy that Ren Jiyu summarized, besides “the longest history of philosophy under feudal society” and “the overwhelming predominance of a theologized Confucianism,” he particularly emphasized the important aspect of “a glorious tradition of materialism and atheism.” Consequently, criticizing theology and feudal autocracy, and promoting materialism and atheism, became prominent features of Ren Jiyu’s research on the history of philosophy. From his interpretation of Han dynasty philosophy, it can be seen that Ren Jiyu insisted on unifying the study of philosophy with the critique of theology, unifying the critique of theology with the critique of feudal autocracy, and unifying the exposure of the class roots of theology with the exposure of its epistemological roots, thereby fulfilling his “political responsibility.”[59]59 Ren Jiyu, “Criticizing Theology and Writing the History of Philosophy,” p. 5. Xi Wuyi believes that “studying religion and criticizing theology” was Ren Jiyu’s “lifelong academic conviction,”[60]60 Xi Wuyi, “Ren Jiyu’s Academic Path of Criticizing Theology,” *Science and Atheism*, no. 4 (2009), p. 19. an assessment that is objective and precise. In fact, the concept of criticizing theology consistently ran through all of Ren Jiyu’s philosophical research work.

其二，任继愈坚持“把人类认识挣脱宗教的过程的规律性揭示出来”，在中国哲学研究中贯彻了哲学研究与批判神学相统一的学术宗旨，扩展了马克思主义无神论的“思想阵地”，其对于新时期推进马克思主义无神论研究及其宣传教育，亦具有重要的思想与方法意义。在1977年为纪念毛泽东逝世一周年而作的文章中，任继愈重温了毛泽东关于批判神学的指示，他对毛泽东“不批判神学就不能写好哲学史”的论断评价很高，认为“极其深刻”，而哲学、文学、史学工作者对于批判神学应该担负“更大的责任”。[56]在任继愈看来，宗教神学具有唯心主义和形而上学的世界观、提倡蒙昧主义、宣扬“内省”“忏悔”的“解脱”之道等特征，为“剥削有理、压迫有理”提供论证，就中国历史而言，一直是“封建专制主义统治人民的一个精神枷锁”。[57]因而必须分揭露宗教神学的阶级根源与认识论根源，从而全面贯彻唯物主义原则，“扩大马克思主义的思想阵地”。[58]如前所述，任继愈总结的中国哲学史的特点除“封建社会的哲学历史最长”“神学化了的儒学占有极大优势”之外，还特别强调“有光辉的唯物论和无神论传统”这一重要方面。因此，批判神学与封建专制、弘扬唯物论与无神论成为了任继愈哲学史研究的显著特点。从关于汉代哲学的思想诠释中可以发现，任继愈坚持研究哲学与批判神学相统一、坚持批判神学与批判封建专制相统一、坚持揭示神学的阶级根源与认识论根源相统一，从而践行了自己的“政治责任”。[59]习五一认为“研究宗教、批判神学”是任继愈“一生坚持的学术理念”[60]，可谓是客观精当的评价，而实际上，批判神学的理念亦始终贯穿于任继愈的哲学研究工作。

As a university liberal arts textbook, *A History of Chinese Philosophy* (four volumes) was first published in 1963 and went through multiple reprints. As late as 2003, Mr. Ren Jiyu still presided over its revision. Although *The Development of the History of Chinese Philosophy* remained an unfinished project (the volumes on the Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing, and modern periods were never completed), it still played an irreplaceable role in the research and teaching of the history of Chinese philosophy in the early period of reform and opening up. It can be said that Ren Jiyu’s leadership in the study of the history of Chinese philosophy was unparalleled in terms of its time span, number of editions, print runs, and the number of authoritative experts who participated in writing the manuscripts. His distinctive Marxist philosophical view of history and his academic tenet of criticizing theology and promoting atheism influenced generations of scholars and young students.

作为大学文科教科书，《中国哲学史》（四卷本）于1963年初版后再版多次，至2003年，任继愈先生仍主持了修订工作。《中国哲学发展史》虽是未竟之业（宋元明清和近代哲学发展史未完成），但其对于改革开放初期的中国哲学史研究与教学，仍发挥了不可替代的作用。可以说，任继愈主持中国哲学史研究的时间跨度、版次、印数以及参加书稿撰写的权威专家的数量，都是首屈一指的，其鲜明的马克思主义哲学史观及其批判神学、弘扬无神论的学术宗旨，影响了一代又一代的学人和青年学生。

Therefore, from the perspective of criticizing theology and promoting Marxist atheism, Ren Jiyu’s study of the history of Chinese philosophy not only fulfilled his “political responsibility” but also genuinely expanded the “ideological front” of Marxist atheism, embodying an interdisciplinary perspective and a comprehensive research approach. In fact, within the context of the Confucianism debate, Ren Jiyu advocated examining the issue from a “broader perspective” (such as sociology, anthropology, etc.), rather than being confined to “arguing right and wrong based solely on Confucianism’s own explanations.”[61]61 Ren Jiyu, “Several Issues Concerning Confucianism,” in *Collected Works of Ren Jiyu*, vol. 7 (Beijing: National Library of China Press, 2014), p. 229.

因此，从批判神学、弘扬马克思主义无神论的角度而言，任继愈的中国哲学史研究则不仅践行了自己的“政治责任”，且真正扩大了马克思主义无神论的“思想阵地”，体现的是一种跨学科的视野和综合性的研究方式。其实在儒教论争的视域下，任继愈即主张放在“更广阔的视野”（如社会学、人类学等）来考察，而不必拘泥于“从儒教本身的解释去争是非”。[61]

Currently, the integrative characteristics of the new liberal arts are becoming increasingly prominent. The Party and the state are also continuously introducing new measures concerning the construction of ideological and political theory courses in the New Era, the integration of curriculum-based ideological and political education, and the construction of the grand ideological and political education framework. Therefore, how to align with the current disciplinary system and trends in disciplinary development, and how to integrate with the curriculum system and textbook system, in order to further implement the Party’s and the state’s policies and guidelines, should be an important direction to focus on when advancing research on Marxist atheism and its propaganda and education in the New Era.

当前，新文科的融合性特征逐渐凸显，党和国家亦围绕新时期的思想政治理论课建设、课程思政和大思政课建设不断出台新的举措。因此，如何与当下的学科体系和学科发展趋势相结合，如何与课程体系和教材体系相融合，以进一步贯彻落实党和国家的方针政策，当是新时期推进马克思主义无神论研究及其宣传教育所应当着力思考的重要方向。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心