Chen Liang’s Atheist Thought and His Critique of Confucian Religion

As a typical figure of utilitarian Confucianism in the Song Dynasty, Chen Liang received widespread attention in Confucian studies during the 20th century, with the academic community generally regarding him as a representative of ancient Chinese materialism. Compared with his Confucian contemporaries, Chen Liang’s thought exhibits distinct atheist characteristics. Chen Liang’s atheist thought played an important role in correcting the direction of ancient Chinese Confucian development, preventing it from deviating toward religious theology.

作为宋代儒学功利主义的典型人物，陈亮曾在20世纪的儒学研究中受到广泛关注，学界均将其视为中国古代唯物主义的代表。与其同时期的儒家学者相比，陈亮的思想中表现出明显的无神论特征。陈亮的无神论思想对修正中国古代儒学发展的方向，使其不至于偏向宗教神学方向发展发挥着重要作用。

Current academic discussions of Chen Liang’s atheist thought mostly examine it from the perspectives of “the relationship between Heaven and man” and “the concept of ghosts and spirits.” Most scholars believe that Chen Liang’s atheism is mainly reflected in his view of the Heaven-man relationship. For example, Wang Yousan points out that in Chen Liang’s eyes, “such things as the Mandate of Heaven, ghosts, and spirits are all beneath consideration, displaying a combative spirit of atheism” [1]1 “Participating with Heaven and Earth” (yu tiandi can) is a Confucian ideal from the *Doctrine of the Mean* (Zhongyong), describing the sage who, by fully realizing his nature and the nature of things, assists in the transformative processes of Heaven and Earth and forms a triad with them.; Wang Ditang also holds that “in the Heaven-man relationship, he opposed the Mandate of Heaven, broke down superstition about the Mandate of Heaven, and emphasized human agency… On the issue of ghosts and spirits, although he did not deny their existence, he did not regard them as particularly exalted… He emphasized that man can conquer Heaven” [2]2 “Respecting ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a distance” (jing guishen er yuan zhi) is a saying from the *Analects* (Lunyu 6.22), attributed to Confucius, indicating a reverent but non-interventionist attitude toward spiritual beings.. Such judgments have already acknowledged the atheist tendency in Chen Liang’s thought, but they have not clearly pointed out the exposure and critique of ancient Chinese Confucian religion contained in Chen Liang’s atheist thought. Hou Wailu and others directly state: “In Zhu Xi’s view, the human heart must submit to the Way-heart, and human desires must submit to the Heavenly Principle; this is actually a relatively concealed form of theism; in Chen Liang’s view, man and nature are opposed, but man can grasp and harness nature. The ‘Heaven and Earth’ he speaks of is nature without any added concepts. It can be said that Chen Liang’s theory was a combative atheism under the historical conditions of his time.” [3]3 “Dao School” (Daoxue) is a term for the Neo-Confucian movement of the Song dynasty, particularly the Cheng-Zhu school, which focused on the cultivation of moral principle (li) and was often criticized by contemporaries like Chen Liang for its otherworldly tendencies. Hou Wailu and other senior scholars directly summarized the essence of the debate between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi, arguing that Chen Liang’s emphasis on human desires was in fact a rebellion against feudal tradition, precisely reflecting the challenge of ancient Chinese atheists to theistic thought. In short, from within Confucianism, the essence of this atheist thought lies in its attack on the religious-theological content within Confucian thought (i.e., Confucian religion).

目前学术界探讨陈亮的无神论思想，多以“天人关系”“鬼神观”为角度进行考察。大多数学者认为，陈亮的无神论主要体现在他的天人关系上。例如，王友三指出，在陈亮眼里，“什么天命鬼神皆不在话下，颇具无神论的战斗气概”[1]；王棣棠也认为其“在天人关系上反对天命，破除对天命的迷信，强调人的作为……在鬼神问题上，他虽然没有否定鬼神的存在，但他并不把鬼神看得多么高明……他强调人定胜天”[2]。此种论断已然承认了陈亮思想中的无神论倾向，但他们都未明确指出陈亮无神论思想对中国古代儒教的揭露与批判。侯外庐等人则直接指出：“在朱熹，人心必须屈服于道心，人欲必须屈服于天理；这其实是一种比较隐蔽的有神论；在陈亮看来，人和自然是对立的，但人可以掌握并驾驭自然。他说的‘天地’就是不附加任何观念的自然。可以说，陈亮的理论是当时历史条件之下的战斗的无神论。”[3]侯外庐等前辈学者直接概括了陈亮与朱熹论战的本质，认为陈亮对人的欲求的重视，实际上是对封建传统的一种反叛，正反映出中国古代无神论者对有神论思想的挑战。要言之，从儒学内部来看，这种无神论思想的实质在于对儒家思想中的宗教神学内容（即儒教）进行攻击。

Taking Ren Jiyu’s theory that “Confucian religion is a religion” as a theoretical foundation, scholars have conducted extensive and profound discussions on the relationship between Confucianism and Confucian religion. How should one understand and distinguish between Confucianism and Confucian religion? The answer to this question is of great significance for promoting the excellent traditional Chinese culture based on the present. Viewed from the developmental course of ancient Chinese Confucianism itself, the self-reflection within Confucianism and the critique and attack by atheists on religious theology suffice to reveal the divergence between Confucianism and Confucian religion. This article intends to take Chen Liang’s atheist thought as an entry point, examining the theoretical tendency contained in his atheist thought to negate the mysterious elements of Confucian religion and affirm the value of human beings, thereby highlighting the scientific components and positive factors of Confucianism in ancient Chinese traditional culture.

以任继愈提出的“儒教是教”说为理论基础，学者们对儒学与儒教的关系进行了广泛而深刻的讨论。如何认识与区分儒学与儒教？其答案对立足当下，弘扬中华优秀传统文化具有重要意义。从中国古代儒学自身的发展历程来看，儒学内部的自我反思，无神论者对宗教神学的批判攻击，足以显示儒学与儒教的分野。本文拟以陈亮的无神论思想为切入点，考察其无神论思想中所蕴含的否定儒教神秘因素、肯定人之价值的理论倾向，以此彰显中国古代传统文化中儒学的科学成分与积极因素。

I. “The Boundary Between Heaven and Man Is Clearly Observable”: Chen Liang’s Negation of the Mysterious Elements of Confucian Religion

一、“天人之际，昭然可察”：陈亮对儒教神秘因素的否定

In the development of the history of Chinese atheism, the Heaven-man relationship has always been a focus of research, with its core proposition being to resolve the struggle between the “Mandate of Heaven” and “opposition to the Mandate of Heaven” [4]4 The *Western Inscription* (Ximing) is a famous essay by the Northern Song Neo-Confucian Zhang Zai, which expounds a Confucian cosmology of universal kinship and moral duty, later interpreted by some as having religious overtones.. Looking at the whole, the Confucian “Heaven” has both the meaning of nature (i.e., natural Heaven) and the meaning of “Supreme Deity” (i.e., sovereign Heaven, willful Heaven). Since Dong Zhongshu of the Han Dynasty established the Confucian religious theory of the interaction between Heaven and man and the correspondence between the human body and the number of Heaven, the meaning of “sovereign Heaven” in the Confucian theory of “Heaven” was heavily emphasized. The Daoists of the Song and Ming dynasties, each adept at reforming Confucian classics, attempted in this way to construct a new Confucian religious order. For example, Zhou Dunyi, by borrowing the Daoist “Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate,” endowed the “Non-Ultimate” substance with the status of “Supreme Deity,” re-establishing standards for society. Cheng Yi, Zhu Xi, and others elevated “Heavenly Principle” as a “metaphysical” substance, but the essence was still to combine “Heavenly Principle” with “Supreme Deity,” thereby highlighting the mystery and transcendence of “sovereign Heaven.” This ensured that all standards of order and rules of conduct in the world would be arranged by this willful “Heaven”; these theories all possess a strong theistic color.

在中国无神论史的发展中，天人关系始终是研究重点，其核心命题就是要解决“天命”与“反天命”的斗争问题[4]。纵观之，儒家的“天”既有自然界（即自然之天）的含义，又被赋予“上帝”（即主宰之天、意志之天）的含义。自汉代董仲舒建立起天人感应、人副天数的儒教理论，儒家“天”论中“主宰之天”的含义便被着重强调了。宋明时期的道学家们，纷纷以改造儒家经典为能事，试图以此种方式构建起一套新的儒教秩序。如周敦颐借助道教《太极图说》，赋予了“无极”本体以“上帝”的地位，为社会重立标准。程颐、朱熹等人抬出“天理”作为“形而上”的本体，其实质仍是要将“天理”与“上帝”结合起来，以此突出“主宰之天”的神秘与超然。由此保证世间的一切秩序标准、行为规则都将由此具有意志的“天”所安排，这些理论都具有强烈的有神论色彩。

Correctly understanding the Heaven-man relationship is not only the basic starting point of ancient Chinese philosophy but also one of the main markers of the divergence between ancient Chinese theists and atheists. Chen Liang’s atheist thought is established on the basis of his materialist epistemology. He negates the mysterious and unknowable discourse between Heaven and man, emphasizing that “the boundary between Heaven and man is clearly observable and knowable” [5]5 Chen Liang, “Jing shu fa ti” [Exposition of the Classics and Books], in *Chen Liang ji* [Collected Works of Chen Liang] (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1974), vol. 10, p. 100.. For Chen Liang, exploring the “clearly observable” boundary between Heaven and man actually means understanding the physical laws of nature. Chen Liang points out that “the principles of Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things have never been anything but clearly observable” [6]6 Chen Liang, “Yang Xiong du yue zhu zi” [Yang Xiong Surpasses the Various Masters], in *Chen Liang ji*, vol. 11, p. 115., emphasizing that exploring the Heaven-man boundary must use scientific understanding to examine the changes of the myriad things in nature; this is the foundation of Chen Liang’s materialist epistemology. Therefore, in Chen Liang’s view, “the movement of Heaven, Earth, yin and yang, the mechanism of opening and closing and coming and going, the trouble is only that people lack sharp eyes, hard shoulders, and a tough head. The great river and long stream flowing a thousand li in one go is nothing to marvel at” [7]7 Chen Liang, “Yu Zhang Ding sou” [To Zhang Ding Sou], in *Chen Liang ji*, vol. 20, p. 260.; the movement of Heaven and Earth and the changes of the myriad things in nature are nothing strange; these are all natural phenomena. “Whether it rains or not is not something that human effort can control” [8]8 Chen Liang, “Yu Zhang Ding sou” [To Zhang Ding Sou], in *Chen Liang ji*, vol. 20, p. 260.; these natural phenomena are also not controlled by human power. On the basis of such a materialist epistemology, understanding concepts such as “Heaven,” “the Way,” and “Heavenly Principle” from an atheist standpoint is Chen Liang’s primary task in breaking down the religious-theological components of Confucian religion.

正确认识天人关系既是中国古代哲学的基本出发点，也是中国古代有神论者与无神论者分野的主要标志之一。陈亮的无神论思想建立在其唯物主义认识论的基础之上。他否定天人之间神秘而不可知的论调，强调“天人之际，昭然可察而知也”[5]。在陈亮那里，探究“昭然可察”的天人之际，实际上就是要认识自然界的物理规律。陈亮指出“天地万物之理，未尝不昭然也”[6]，就是强调探究天人之际必须以科学的认识去考察自然万物的变化，这即是陈亮的唯物主义认识论的基点。因此，在陈亮看来，“天地阴阳之运，阖辟往来之机，患人无毒眼精硬肩胛头耳。长江大河一泻千里，不足多怪也”[7]，天地的运转，自然万物的变化都不足为怪，这些都是自然的现象，“雨不雨，皆非人力所能为也”[8]，这些自然现象也并不受人力所控制。在这样唯物主义认识论的基础之上，从无神论的立场认识“天”“道”“天理”等概念，是陈亮破除儒教宗教神学成分的首要任务。

First, Chen Liang uses materialist epistemology to understand “Heaven” (nature), and thereby negates the sacredness and mystery of Confucian sages and classics. Chen Liang wrote the essay “Yang Xiong Surpasses the Various Masters,” highly praising Yang Xiong, pointing out: “By relying on numbers to clarify principles, this is how Yang Xiong himself communicated with the sages. How could he not surpass the various masters!” [9]9 Chen Liang, “Yang Xiong du yue zhu zi,” in *Chen Liang ji*, vol. 11, p. 115. [9a] The *Tai Xuan* (also *Taixuanjing*, “Canon of Supreme Mystery”) is a philosophical work by Yang Xiong (53 BCE–18 CE), modeled on the *Book of Changes* and using a system of symbols and numbers to explore cosmic and human principles. He believes that the reason Yang Xiong was able to “surpass the various masters” lies in his ability to achieve “clarifying principles through numbers.” What is “clarifying principles through numbers”? Chen Liang points out: “Fuxi first drew the eight trigrams, using images to clarify principles, further teaching the sages, setting up lines and establishing images, deducing meanings and arranging words, to develop and manifest the images of the *Book of Changes*, making them brilliant and grand and impossible to conceal… Confucius and Mencius were the great developers of this. Yang Xiong, especially fearing that the people of the world would not be able to fully understand its changes, therefore relied on the natural numbers of Heaven and Earth, delved deeply into the subtle and profound, and wrote the *Tai Xuan* [9a], to elucidate the inexhaustible subtleties of physical principles and the ultimate extremes of the Way of Heaven and human affairs. The people of the world only know it as numbers, but how could they know that the refinement of its investigation of principles reaches such a point!” [10]10 Chen Liang, “Yang Xiong du yue zhu zi,” in *Chen Liang ji*, vol. 11, p. 115. “Clarifying principles through numbers” means “relying on the natural numbers of Heaven and Earth” to attain the realm of “elucidating the inexhaustible subtleties of physical principles”; that is to say, one must examine the natural changes of Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things, and from them discover the natural laws of the myriad things. It is precisely from this kind of naive materialist epistemology that Chen Liang examines Confucian sages such as Confucius and Mencius, believing that the reason they are respected and celebrated by later generations is that they were able to develop such materialist understanding and formulate rules for human society. Moreover, Chen Liang attributes Yang Xiong’s “surpassing the various masters” and surpassing thinkers since Confucius and Mencius to Yang Xiong’s ability to interpret Confucian classics such as the *Book of Changes* with a natural understanding.

首先，陈亮以唯物主义认识论认识“天”（自然界），并以此来否定儒家圣人与经典的神圣性与神秘性。陈亮作《扬雄度越诸子》一文盛赞扬雄，指出：“因数以明理，是雄之所以自通于圣人者也。安得而不度越诸子哉！”[9]他认为扬雄能够“度越诸子”的原因就在于其能够做到“因数明理”。何为“因数明理”？陈亮指出：“伏羲氏始画八卦，假象以明理，更教圣人，设爻立象，推义陈辞，以发挥《易》象，使之光明盛大而不可掩……孔孟盖发挥之大者也。扬雄氏尤惧天下之人不足以通知其变，故因天地自然之数，覃思幽眇，著为《太玄》，以阐物理无穷之妙，天道人事之极。天下之人知其为数而已，而乌知其穷理之精一至于此哉！”[10]“因数明理”就是“因天地自然之数”而达到“阐物理无穷之妙”的境界，这也就是说，要考察天地万物的自然变化，从中发现万物的自然规律。正是从这种朴素的唯物主义认识论出发，陈亮对孔孟等儒家圣人进行了考察，认为他们之所以为后人所敬重传颂，就是因为他们能够发挥这样的唯物主义认识，为人类社会制定规则。不仅如此，陈亮称扬雄“度越诸子”、超越自孔孟以来的思想家，归功于扬雄能够以自然的认识去解读《易》等儒家经典。

On the one hand, Chen Liang negates the sacredness of the sages, aiming to eliminate the idol worship of Confucian religion. The deification of Confucius began in the Han Dynasty, with the worship of Confucius in temples and the veneration of Confucian teachings, all treating Confucius as the spokesperson of the “Supreme Deity” in the human world, establishing Confucius’s identity as the founder of Confucian religion. The Daoists contemporary with Chen Liang—Zhu Xi and others—further deified Confucius, exclaiming that “if Heaven had not given birth to Zhongni [Confucius], the ages would have been an eternal night” [11]11 Zhu Xi, “Zhu Zi yu lei” [Classified Conversations of Master Zhu], vol. 93, in *Zhuzi quanshu* [Complete Works of Master Zhu] (Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House; Hefei: Anhui Education Publishing House, 2002), vol. 17, p. 3112.. It can be seen that in the eyes of the Daoists, Confucius was no longer merely a sage surpassing ordinary people, but an unattainable “god”; Confucius’s words thus became doctrines that followers of Confucian religion were obliged to implement. Chen Liang, however, points out: “In the past, the sages used the Way to measure the changes of past and present, selecting a hundred chapters that were in line with the Way, and bequeathed teachings for ten thousand generations; their literary structure was meticulous, and the root and branches were fully presented; this awaited later gentlemen.” [12]12 Chen Liang, “Jing shu fa ti,” in *Chen Liang ji*, vol. 10, p. 100. Chen Liang believes that Confucius does not possess sacredness; the reason Confucius could become a sage lies in his ability to set social rules based on the laws of nature and society, making pioneering contributions to the order of human society.

一方面，陈亮否定圣人的神圣性，旨在消除儒教的偶像崇拜。孔子的神化过程在汉代便已开启，祭孔庙，拜孔教，无不将孔子视为“上帝”在人间的代言人，确立了孔子儒教教主的身份。与陈亮同时代的道学家们——朱熹等人进一步神化孔子，发出“天不生仲尼，万古如长夜”[11]的感叹。可见，孔子在道学家那里，已不仅是只会超越普通人的圣人，而是不可企及的“神”，孔子的言论因此成为儒教信众必须执行的教义。而陈亮指出：“昔者圣人以道揆古今之变，取其概于道者百篇，而垂万世之训，其文理密察，本末具举，盖有待于后之君子。”[12]陈亮认为孔子并不具有神圣性，孔子之所以能够成为圣人是在于他能够根据自然与社会规律，设定社会规则，为人类社会秩序做出开创性贡献。

On the other hand, Chen Liang denied the mystical coloring of the Confucian classics, aiming to break the Confucian authority and sacralization of those classics. Chen Liang once wrote *Jingshu Fati* (Expositions on the Classics) to discuss the main themes of Confucian classics such as the *Book of Documents*, the *Book of Songs*, the *Rites of Zhou*, and the *Analects*, and emphatically stressed their practical utility and significance. Chen Liang pointed out: “The meticulous discernment of patterns and principles reached such perfection that after Yao there was no flaw in the minds of the sages. Therefore, one can judge by the ‘Canon of Yao’ without doubt. From this it follows that the editing of the *Book of Documents* was not the intention of the sages, but the common will of the world.” [13]13 Chen Liang, “Preface to the *Book of Documents*,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 10, p. 99. In his view, the Confucian classics did not originate from the subjective will of the sages; rather, the sages compiled and edited them according to the actual conditions of society at the time, making them works that conformed to social reality. As mentioned earlier, Chen Liang praised Yang Xiong for “clarifying principle through numbers,” [14]14 Chen Liang, “Preface to the *Book of Changes*,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 10, p. 100. his purpose being also to negate the mystical elements of the *Book of Changes*. He believed: “After the Supreme Ultimate there came yin and yang, therefore the *Book of Changes* uses yin and yang to clarify principle; after yin and yang there came the five phases, therefore the *Hongfan* (Great Plan) uses the five phases to clarify the way of governance. The transformations of yin and yang and the five phases can be exhausted in principle but not in practice, yet scholars still harbor lingering thoughts about them. Thus Yang Xiong’s clarifying principle through numbers was something unavoidable for his time and inevitable in the course of events.” [15]15 Ibid. In his view, concepts such as “yin and yang” and “the five phases” were not mysterious and unknowable; they were merely symbols used by the ancient sages to describe the operations and changes of the world. Yang Xiong, by discovering the hidden principles of governance behind these classics, had truly grasped the real purpose of the sages in writing and compiling the classics. Taking the *Book of Songs* as an example, Chen Liang emphasized: “The sage’s purpose for the *Book of Songs* was certainly to restore the correctness of human nature and emotions throughout the world, and to enable people to apply it properly in their daily affairs.” [16]16 Chen Liang, “Preface to the *Book of Songs*,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 10, p. 100. He pointed out that the sage’s compilation of the *Book of Songs* aimed to regulate people’s self-discipline in concrete practical matters, and to restrain and regulate their biological instincts and natural emotions. Following objective laws and arising from the need to serve social reality—this was the original meaning and value of the Confucian classics.

另一方面，陈亮否定儒家经典的神秘色彩，旨在打破儒教对儒家经典的权威化与神圣化。陈亮曾作《经书发题》对《书》《诗》《周礼》《论语》等儒家经典的主旨进行论述，并着重强调其事功作用与意义。陈亮指出：“文理密察之功用，至于尧而后无愫诸圣人之心。是以断诸《尧典》而无疑。由是言之，删《书》者，非圣人之意也，天下之公也。”[13]在他看来，儒家经典并非出自圣人的主观意志，而是圣人根据当时社会的实际情况进行编写与删定的，是符合社会实际情况的著作。如前所述，陈亮以“因数明理”称赞扬雄，其目的也在于否定《周易》的神秘因素。他认为：“有太极而后有阴阳，故《易》以阴阳而明理，有阴阳而后有五行，故《洪范》以五行而明治道。阴阳五行之变，可穷而不可尽也，而学者犹有遗思焉。则雄之因数明理也，是其时之不可已，而事之不得不然者也。”[14]在他看来，所谓“阴阳”“五行”等概念并不是神秘而不可知的，这些都是先圣用以描述世界运行变化的符号，扬雄能够从这些经典中发现背后隐藏的治世的道理，这才是体会到了圣人著述与编定经典的真正目的。陈亮以《诗经》为例，强调“圣人之于《诗》，固将使天下复性情之正，而得其平施于日用之间者”[15]，指出圣人编订《诗经》的目的是为了规范人在具体的实际事务之中对自己进行规范，抑制与调控人的生物本能与自然情感。遵循客观规律，为服务社会现实而产生，这才是儒家经典本来的意义与价值。

Secondly, Chen Liang offered an atheist interpretation of the “Way” (dao), in order to restore the essence of the Confucian sage’s Way. During the Song and Ming periods, Zhu Xi and others were often called “Daoists” (daoxuejia) by later generations, precisely because they were influenced by the religious theories of Daoism, elevating the status of the “Way” and treating it as a ruler like “Heaven,” asserting that all human order was arranged by this “Way.” Chen Liang, however, disagreed. He believed that the Confucian “Way” did not possess supreme sacred status. Chen Liang pointed out: “If the profound and correct principle is not realized through things and affairs, then the learning of Confucius and Mencius is truly pedantic—it is not the fault of rulers of the time for failing to employ it.” [17]17 Chen Liang, “Letter in Reply to Zhu Xi,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 20, p. 178. That is to say, if the “Way” were profound and sacred, it would be completely separated from human society, which clearly does not accord with the purpose of Confucianism. In Chen Liang’s view, the “Way” was not something mysterious: “The Way does not exist outside the realm of form and qi, but constantly operates among things and affairs.” [18]18 Chen Liang, “Preface to the *Book of Changes*,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 10, p. 100. This indicates that the “Way” cannot exist apart from concrete things. Specifically, “What else is the Way? It is simply that joy, anger, sorrow, pleasure, love, and hate are kept in their proper measure. What else is practicing the Way? It is simply examining the beginnings of joy, anger, sorrow, pleasure, love, and hate.” [19]19 Chen Liang, “Preface to the *Book of Songs*,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 10, p. 100. Applied to the concrete level of life practice, the “Way” requires people to constantly regulate their natural emotions, so that the “already manifested” emotions conform to human social attributes. Chen Liang further stated: “The Way in the world is evenly distributed in daily life; those who attain the correctness of their nature and emotions naturally know it.” [20]20 Ibid. Through his exposition of the main theme of the *Book of Songs*, Chen Liang concluded that the meaning of Confucian classics like the *Book of Songs* was to transmit this “Way,” using Confucian methods to guide people in self-cultivation so that they could “become fully human” (chengren). Chen Liang said: “If the theories of vulgar Confucians are not refuted, then the Way of the sages will never be clarified, and the chaos of the world will never cease. Alas!” [21]21 Chen Liang, “Preface to the *Book of Songs*,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 10, p. 101. This was clearly a critique of the theories of mind and moral nature held by Confucian scholars of his time. He believed that the Daoists’ mystical interpretations of the classics obscured the true Way of the sages, and that the ultimate goal of the true Way of the sages was to teach people to “become fully human,” that is, to realize their social personality.

其次，陈亮对“道”进行无神论诠释，以恢复儒家圣人之道的本质。宋明时期朱熹等人被后世常称之为道学家，也就在于他们受道教宗教理论的影响，抬高了“道”的地位，将“道”视为同“天”一样的主宰者，认定人间秩序都由这个“道”进行安排。陈亮则不然，他认为儒家的“道”并没有至高无上的神圣地位。陈亮指出，“夫渊源正大之理，不于事物而达之，则孔孟之学真迂阔矣，非时君不用之罪也”[16]，就是强调“道”如果是深奥的、神圣的，那么就与人类社会完全割裂了，这显然不符合儒学的宗旨。在陈亮看来，“道”并不是什么神秘的事物，“夫道非出于形气之表，而常行于事物之间者”[17]，即表明“道”并不能离开具体的事物而存在。具体而言，“夫道岂有他物哉！喜怒哀乐爱恶得其正而已。行道岂有他事哉！审喜怒哀乐爱恶之端而已”[18]，落实在人生实践的具体层面，“道”就是要人不断去调控自身的自然情感，使“已发”的情感符合人的社会属性。陈亮进一步指出，“道之在天下，平施于日用之间，得其性情之正者，彼固有知之矣”[19]，通过对《诗经》主旨的阐发，陈亮进一步得出结论：《诗经》等儒家经典的意义就是传承这样的“道”，以儒学的方法去指导人进行修养，使人得以“成人”。陈亮说：“世儒之论不破，则圣人之道无时而明，天下之乱无时而息矣。悲夫！”[20]这显然是对当时儒家学者的心性道德学说展开批评，他认为道学家对经典的神秘化诠释遮蔽了真正的圣人之道，而真正的圣人之道的最终目标就是教人“成人”，即成就人的社会人格。

Finally, on the basis of his atheist interpretation of the “Way,” Chen Liang further launched a fierce attack on the Daoists’ concept of “Heavenly Principle” (tianli), declaring the basic stance of ancient Chinese atheists. Li Shen pointed out: “Treating Heaven as principle did not eliminate the divinity of God; on the contrary, it extended reverence for Heaven or God into every aspect and every moment of life. At the same time, Zhu Xi still devoutly maintained the Han-dynasty concept of the interaction between Heaven and humanity.” [22]22 Li Shen, *A History of Chinese Atheism* (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1999), p. 718. Although the debate between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi centered on the distinction between “Heavenly Principle” and “human desire,” it indirectly reflected Chen Liang’s opposition to Confucian asceticism. In his letters to Zhu Xi, Chen Liang stated: “Recent Confucians assert that the Three Dynasties [Xia, Shang, Zhou] exclusively followed Heavenly Principle, while the Han and Tang dynasties exclusively followed human desire, and that only when they occasionally coincided with Heavenly Principle could they endure. If this statement is true, then for fifteen hundred years, Heaven and Earth have been patched up in a leaky way, and human hearts have been barely mended from day to day. How could the myriad things flourish and the Way endure forever?” [23]23 Chen Liang, “Letter in Reply to Zhu Xi,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 20, p. 179. He opposed the absolute authority of “Heavenly Principle” in suppressing or even eliminating people’s basic desires, emphasizing the rationality and necessity of “human desire.” Therefore, Chen Liang advocated “pursuing both righteousness and profit, and employing both kingly and hegemonic ways,” which was the core of his utilitarian thought and also reflected his emphasis on practical utility. By opposing the absolute authority of “Heavenly Principle” and emphasizing the rationality of “human desire,” Chen Liang actually highlighted the subjective position of human beings in the realm of practical philosophy. This reflected the basic stance of ancient Chinese atheists on the issue of the relationship between Heaven and humanity: emphasizing human value and function.

最后，陈亮在对“道”的无神论诠释基础上，进一步对道学家的“天理”思想进行了猛烈的攻击，宣布了中国古代无神论者的基本立场。李申指出：“把天视为理，没有取消上帝的神性，反而是把对天或上帝的敬畏贯彻到了生活的每一方面和每一时刻。同时，朱熹仍然虔诚地保持着汉代以来的天人感应观念。”[21]陈亮与朱熹的论争虽集中于“天理”“人欲”之辩，但却从侧面映射出陈亮对儒教禁欲主义的反对。陈亮在与朱熹的书信中指出：“近世诸儒遂谓三代专以天理行，汉唐专以人欲行，其间有与天理合者，是以亦能长久。信斯言也，千五百年之间，天地亦是架漏过时，而人心亦是牵补度日，万物何以阜蕃而道何以常存乎！”[22]他反对儒教以“天理”的绝对权威压制乃至消灭人的基本欲望，强调“人欲”存在的合理性与必要性。因此，陈亮提倡“义利双行，王霸并用”，这是他功利主义思想的核心内容，也体现了其对实际功用的重视。陈亮反对“天理”的绝对权威，强调“人欲”的合理性，实际上突出了人在实践哲层面中的主体地位，这反映了中国古代无神论者在天人关系问题上的基本立场就是注重人的价值与作用。

In summary, based on materialist epistemology, Chen Liang analyzed from an atheist perspective the Confucian “metaphysical” concepts such as “Heaven,” the “Way,” and “Heavenly Principle.” In his view, these metaphysical concepts must exist within concrete things—that is, what is called “the Way does not depart from concrete vessels” (dao bu li qi). Chen Liang opposed the Confucian overemphasis on mystical factors, aiming to reject the absolute authority of the Confucian “Mandate of Heaven.” Chen Liang did not believe in “fate”; he criticized the scholars of his time for “ultimately not trusting in fate enough, and not yet being at ease with righteousness.” [24]24 Chen Liang, “Letter in Reply to Chen Tongfu,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 20, p. 180. This understanding also promoted Chen Liang’s opposition to superstitious ideas. Chen Liang once wrote “Preface to the Diviner Xuan Dian,” expressing much doubt about the predictions of “diviners” (fortune-tellers). He concluded: “Whether it hits or misses is still unknown—can the course of Heaven really coincide with human intentions!” [25]25 Chen Liang, “Preface to the Diviner Xuan Dian,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 15, p. 140. Chen Liang’s denial of the theological authority of “Heaven” in the relationship between Heaven and humanity demonstrated his emphasis on practical philosophy. Chen Liang pointed out: “All that fills the universe are things; all that occurs in daily life are affairs.” [26]26 Chen Liang, “Preface to the *Book of Changes*,” in *Collected Works of Chen Liang*, vol. 10, p. 100. He believed that the formation of the universe came from objective material things, not from the will of “God.” Therefore, concrete “metaphysical” things were what Confucian scholars should focus on.

总之，基于唯物主义认识论，陈亮从无神论的角度分析儒家的“天”“道”“天理”等“形而上”概念，在他看来，这些形而上的概念必定是存在于具体的事物之中的，也就是所谓的“道不离器”。陈亮反对儒教过分强调神秘因素，目的是反对儒教“天命”的绝对权威。陈亮不信“命”，他批评当时的学者“终是信命不及，尚未暇其安于义也”[23]，这样的认识也促进了陈亮对迷信思想的反对。陈亮曾作《赠术者宣颠序》，对“术者”（算命师）的预测表达了诸多怀疑，他总结道：“中不中皆未可知，而天运果能与人意合乎！”[24]陈亮对“天人之际”中“天”的神学权威的否定，显示的正是对实践哲学的注重。陈亮指出：“夫盈宇宙者无非物，日用之间无非事。”[25]他认为宇宙的形成是由客观的物质形成的，并非来源于“上帝”的意志，因此“形而下”的具体的事物才是儒家学者应当去关注的内容。

II. “The Existence of the Way Lies in Humanity”: Chen Liang’s Affirmation of Human Value and Function

二、“道之存亡在人”：陈亮对人之价值与作用的肯定

Chen Liang’s denial of Confucian mysticism was in fact aimed at liberating humanity and restoring the essence of Confucianism as a “study of humanity.” Marx pointed out: “Atheism is the negation of God, and through this negation it posits the existence of man.” [27]27 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 305. Engels also emphasized: “Truth is not to be sought in the illusory beyond, in time and space, in some ‘God’ that seems to be deep within the world or opposed to it, but in the human breast that is close at hand.” [28]28 Friedrich Engels, “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 4, p. 410. Chen Liang’s critique of Confucianism highlighted human value and capability, which was both a manifestation of the essence of Confucianism as a “study of humanity” and a glory of ancient Chinese atheist thought.

陈亮对儒教神秘主义的否定实则是为了解放人，恢复儒学“人学”的本质。马克思指出：“无神论是对神的否定，并且正是通过这种否定而设定人的存在。”[26]恩格斯也强调：“不应当到虚幻的彼岸，到时间空间以外，到似乎置身于世界的深处或与世界对立的什么‘神’那里去找真理，而应当到近在咫尺的人的胸膛里去找真理。”[27]陈亮对儒教的批判，凸显的正是人的价值与能力，这既是儒学“人学”本质的体现，又是中国古代无神论思想的光辉。

In ancient Chinese Confucian thought, disasters and calamities in the human world were all punishments imposed by “Heaven” on humanity. This theory of “the interaction between Heaven and humanity” fettered human development. Especially under the constraint of the “Heavenly Principle” of Song-Ming Daoists, those who believed in Confucianism were like ascetic monks, having to act according to Confucian moral standards and behavioral norms. In contrast to Zhu Xi’s view of the relationship between Heaven and humanity—“Humanity has not been able to overcome Heaven for a long time. Disasters and disorders in ancient and modern times are all the doings of Heaven” [29]29 Zhu Xi, *Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi*, vol. 1, p. 15.—Chen Liang emphasized human function and value, highlighting the subjective initiative that humans exert in practice.

在中国古代儒教思想中，人间的灾异与祸乱都来自于“天”对人施加的惩罚，这种“天人感应”学说禁锢了人的发展。尤其是在宋明道学家的“天理”约束下，信奉儒学的人就像是禁欲的僧侣，必须按照儒教的道德标准与行为规范行事。与朱熹“人不胜天久矣。古今祸乱，莫非天之所为”[28]的“天人关系”相反，陈亮更强调的是人的作用与价值，强调人在实践中发挥出的主观能动性。

In other words, Chen Liang’s “investigating the relations between Heaven and man” meant “to encompass the changes of Heaven and Earth, so that their affairs can be investigated… even within a single day, a single hour, a single minute, a single calculation, there is nothing that does not contain the most profound principle and inexhaustible function. To open up thought and deliberation, to give play to undertakings and achievements, to communicate this mind with the myriad things of Heaven and Earth, and to interweave, open and close everything from the self” [29]29 Zhu Xi, *Classified Conversations of Zhu Xi*, vol. 1, p. 15.. That is to say, one must fully exert human subjective initiative, and through human practical ability, investigate the laws of natural things, thereby utilizing these laws to carry out practical activities that transform the world. Chen Liang believed: “To say that the survival or extinction of the Way is something in which man cannot intervene — that is going too far.” [30]30 Liu Zongyuan (773–819) was a Tang-dynasty writer and thinker who argued in his essay “On Heaven” that Heaven and man do not intervene in each other’s spheres. “Intervene” (预) means to interfere. Chen Liang absorbed Liu Zongyuan’s atheist idea that “Heaven and man do not intervene in each other,” emphasizing that the Confucian “Way” depends on human activity to exist, i.e., “the survival or extinction of the Way lies in man.” “The survival or extinction of the Way lies in man” was Chen Liang’s response to Zhu Xi’s claim that “the Way under Heaven has never perished… all this is the doing of the Mandate of Heaven, beyond the reach of human intelligence and strength” [31]31 Zhu Xi (1130–1200) was the leading Song-dynasty Neo-Confucian philosopher who systematized the concept of “Heavenly Principle” (tianli) as the ultimate moral and cosmic order..

换言之，陈亮的“究天人之际”也就是要“该括天地之变，是其事之可究者也……虽一时一日，一分一算之间，莫不有至赜之理，无穷之用。开启思虑，发挥事业，通此心于天地万物，而错综阖辟无不自我”[29]，这就是说，要充分发挥人的主观能动性，通过人的实践能力，去探究自然万物的规律，从而利用规律进行改造世界的实践活动。陈亮认为：“谓道之存亡非人之所能预，则过矣。”[30]“预”即干预，陈亮吸收了柳宗元“天人不相预”的无神论思想，即强调儒家的“道”依赖人的活动而得以存在，即“道之存亡在人”。“道之存亡在人”就是陈亮对朱熹“道之在天下者未尝亡……是皆天命之所为，非人智力所能及也”[31]的回应。

Starting from “the survival or extinction of the Way lies in man,” Chen Liang further argued that the development of history and society is not the work of “Heaven”; rather, man is the core driving force advancing history and society forward. According to Wang Yinglin’s *Kunxue Jiwen*: “‘What the general trend of the world tends toward cannot be changed even by Heaven, Earth, ghosts, or spirits; but what changes it is man.’ This is from Chen Longchuan’s civil examination essay, which ranks alongside the works of the ancients without shame.” [32]32 Wang Yinglin (1223–1296) was a Song-dynasty scholar; *Kunxue Jiwen* is his collection of notes on classical texts. “Chen Longchuan” is another name for Chen Liang. That Chen Liang expressed this in the civil examination hall fully demonstrates his affirmation that man can transform the world. In his debate with Zhu Xi, Chen Liang pointed out: “The reason man stands alongside Heaven and Earth as the three powers is not that Heaven and Earth constantly operate alone while man is at rest. If man does not stand, then Heaven and Earth cannot operate alone; if we discard Heaven and Earth, then there is no Way.” [33]33 The “three powers” (san cai) is a classical Chinese concept from the *Yijing* (Book of Changes) referring to Heaven, Earth, and man as the three fundamental components of the cosmos. Among the “three powers” (Heaven, Earth, man), he emphasized the core role of man. Furthermore, interpreting Xunzi’s phrase “(The Way) does not exist for Yao nor perish for Jie,” Chen Liang stated: “If one says that the survival or extinction of the Way is not something man can participate in, then the Way can exist apart from man, and the words of the Buddhists would not be false. If every man could become a Yao, and for ten thousand generations all were Yao, then would not the Way shine brightly and greatly throughout the world! If every man were no different from Jie, then human principles could not be cultivated, Heaven and Earth could not stand, and the abolition of the Way would have long since occurred.” [34]34 Yao and Shun are legendary sage-kings in ancient Chinese tradition, often held up as models of virtuous rule; Jie is the last, tyrannical ruler of the Xia dynasty, traditionally seen as a negative example. Using Yao and Shun as examples, he argued that the quality of the “Way” comes from human action; man is the determining factor in social development. If the “Way” could function apart from man, it would sink into the Buddhist view that “everyone can become a Buddha.” Based on this, Chen Liang expressed his feelings: “I dare not hope for anything from the Confucian scholars of this age; what I deeply resent is that words are abandoned because of the man, and the Way is bent because of the man, causing later gentlemen to weep at the end of the road for fifteen hundred years. Even if I die, my eyes will not close!” [35]35 “Weeping at the end of the road” alludes to the story of Ruan Ji (210–263), a Wei-Jin period poet who would weep when his carriage reached a dead end, symbolizing despair at the state of the world. He particularly hated the Dao-ists’ [Neo-Confucians’] view of “abandoning the Way because of the man,” sighing: “That the Way is obliterated and extinguished without harming the constant operation of Heaven and Earth, while I alone stand out with insight — is this not too lofty and solitary! It is right that I cannot be convinced in my heart.” [36]36 “Dao-ists” (daoxuejia) refers to the Neo-Confucian school of “the Way and learning,” which Chen Liang criticized for its abstract moral theorizing. Here “I” refers to the Dao-ists who engage in empty speculation. Chen Liang opposed using the “Way” (or the Confucian “Heaven,” “Heavenly Principle,” etc.) to fetter human thought. In his view, it is not the “Way” that determines man, but man that determines the “Way.” This argument of his directly exposed the defect of Dao-ists using concepts like “Way” and “Heavenly Principle” to constrain human thought. Therefore, Zhu Xi said: “In what I agree with, there is nothing more than this passage; and in what I disagree with, there is also nothing more than this passage.” [37]37 This passage is from Zhu Xi’s letter in response to Chen Liang’s arguments. This shows Zhu Xi’s great dissatisfaction with the content of this letter from Chen Liang.

从“道之存亡在人”出发，陈亮进一步论证了历史与社会的发展并非“天”的作用，人才是推动历史与社会前进与发展的核心动力。据王应麟《困学纪闻》记载：“‘天下大势之所趋，天地鬼神不能易，而易之者人也。’此龙川科举之文，列于古之作者而无愧。”[32]陈亮在科举考场上有如此表述，足见他对人可以改造世界的充分肯定。在与朱熹论辩中，陈亮指出：“人之所以与天地并立而为三者，非天地常独运而人为有息也。人不立则天地不能以独运，舍天地则无以为道矣。”[33]他在天、地、人“三才”中强调人的核心作用。此外，陈亮解读《荀子》“不为尧存，不为桀亡”一句，指出：“若谓道之存亡非人所能与，则舍人可以为道，而释氏之言不诬矣。使人人可以为尧，万世皆尧，则道岂不光明盛大于天下！使人人无异于桀，则人纪不可修，天地不可立，而道之废亦已久矣。”[34]他以尧舜为例，认为“道”的好坏来自于人的作为，人才是社会发展的决定因，如果“道”可以离开人而发挥作用，那便沦溺于佛教“人人皆可成佛”的观点。基于此，陈亮有所感怀：“亮不敢有望于一世之儒先，所深恨者，言以人而废，道以人而屈，使后世之君子不免哭途穷于千五百年之间，亮虽死而目不瞑矣！”[35]他尤其痛恨道学家“以人废道”的观点，叹息道：“道泯息而不害天地之常运，而我独卓然而有见，无乃甚高而孤乎！宜亮之不能心服也。”[36]这里的“我”即指代谈玄弄虚的道学家们。陈亮反对以“道”（或以儒教的“天”“天理”等）来禁锢人的思想，在他看来不是“道”决定人，而是人决定“道”。他的这一论述，直揭道学家以“道”“天理”等概念来禁锢约束人之思想的弊端，因此朱熹言：“鄙意所同，未有多于此段者也；而其所异亦未有甚于此段者也。”[37]可见朱熹对陈亮这封书信的内容多有不满。

Chen Liang believed that the Confucian “abandoning the Way because of the man” was precisely the fettering of man. Therefore, he expressed strong dissatisfaction with Zhu Xi’s admonition to “discipline oneself as a pure Confucian.” He said: “Therefore I say that learning is about learning to become a complete person, and the Confucian is merely one major category within a school. The Secretary [Zhu Xi] does not teach the way of becoming a complete person, but teaches self-discipline as a pure Confucian. Is it that he measures my capacity and stops here?” [38]38 “Secretary” (mishu) was Zhu Xi’s official title at the time. Chen Liang opposed Zhu Xi’s use of Confucian cultivation methods to forcibly fetter individual thought, believing this did not conform to the essential meaning of Confucianism’s “way of becoming a complete person.”

陈亮认为儒教“以人废道”就是对人的禁锢，因此他对朱熹“醇儒自律”的告诫表达了强烈不满。他说：“故亮以为学者，学为成人，而儒者亦一门户中之大者耳。秘书不教以成人之道，而教以醇儒自律，岂揣其分量则止于此乎？”[38]陈亮反对朱熹以儒教的修行方式去强行禁锢个人的思想，认为这与儒学“成人之道”的要义不相符合。

Specifically, Chen Liang opposed the theory of mind-and-nature concerning morality and destiny, emphasizing a practical philosophy of utility. He criticized the contemporary theory of mind-and-nature, saying: “I have come to realize that the Confucian scholars of today who claim to have mastered the learning of rectifying the mind and making the will sincere are all people numb with paralysis, unaware of pain or itch.” [39]39 “Rectifying the mind and making the will sincere” (zhengxin chengyi) is a key concept from the *Great Learning*, a Confucian classic, referring to inner moral cultivation. Chen Liang’s dissatisfaction with contemporary Confucian scholars all sinking into the theory of mind-and-nature of “rectifying the mind and making the will sincere” precisely stemmed from the perspective of practical philosophy. Chen Liang pointed out: “Ever since the theory of morality and destiny arose, ordinary, stale people who understand nothing have taken refuge in it, taking dignified stillness and profound depth as their substance, and slow walking and gentle speech as their function, striving to be unfathomable in order to cover up their lack… deceiving each other to completely abolish the reality of the world, and in the end, they simply leave all affairs unattended.” [40]40 “Quiet sitting” (jingzuo) was a Neo-Confucian meditative practice for self-cultivation, akin to Buddhist meditation. He believed that the Dao-ists’ theory of morality and destiny caused people to depart from the Confucian social practice of “seeking truth,” making Confucian scholars only know “quiet sitting” cultivation without participating in practical affairs. This “quiet sitting” effort aimed to reflect on one’s own deficiencies in moral practice through “self-restraint.” However, once detached from concrete practical activities, it degenerated into a religious cultivation ritual for Confucian followers, leading to the evil consequence of self-fettering out of reverence for “Heavenly Principle,” which was detrimental to the long-term development of the individual.

具体而言，陈亮反对道德性命的心性学说，强调功利的实践哲学。他批评当时的心性学说道：“始悟今世之儒士自以为得正心诚意之学者，皆风痹不知痛痒之人也。”[39]陈亮对当时的儒家学者都陷入到“正心诚意”心性学说的不满，正是从实践哲学的角度出发。陈亮指出：“自道德性命之说一兴，而寻常烂熟无所能解之人自托于其间，以端悫静深为体，以徐行缓语为用，务为不可穷测以盖其所无……相蒙相欺以尽废天下之实，则亦终于百事不理而已。”[40]他认为道学家道德性命学说理论使人脱离了儒学“求实”的社会实践，使得儒家学者只知“静坐”修养而不知参与到实际事务中去。这种“静坐”工夫旨在通过“克己”来反省自身在道德实践中的不足，然而一旦脱离具体的实践活动，就沦为了儒教教徒的宗教修行仪式，导致了因敬畏“天理”而进行自我禁锢的恶果，不利于个人的长期发展。

As mentioned above, in his attack on the Dao-ists’ concept of “Heavenly Principle,” Chen Liang affirmed the rationality of human desires. Facing Zhu Xi’s claim that “before the Three Dynasties there was no desire for profit,” Chen Liang refuted: “The *Book of Songs* and *Book of Documents* record things so cleanly — this is precisely the orthodox great text. I believe that as soon as there is a human mind, there are many unclean things. The way of reform only reaches the surface, and there are also things that do not fully capture the sage’s mind. The sages and worthies established things before, later generations inherited and sheltered under them, and after Confucius gave them a wash, they became so clean.” [41]41 The Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang, Zhou) were the earliest dynasties in traditional Chinese historiography, often idealized by Confucians as a golden age of moral rule. In his view, everyone has desires; this is a natural attribute of biological instinct. That the Confucian classics do not reflect human desires is because these classics were edited and processed by Confucius; one cannot conclude that people before the Three Dynasties had no desire for profit. Chen Liang’s words were not meant to praise human desires, nor to advocate unrestricted satisfaction of desires. The fundamental difference between Chen Liang and Confucianism lay in how to treat human desires. For Chen Liang, human desires were the foundation of cultivation; one should rationally guide human desires to enable people to possess morality. Confucianism, on the other hand, emphasized using the absolute authority of “Heavenly Principle” to suppress or even eliminate human desires, thereby entering the “otherworldly realm” of the ideal personality. Chen Liang emphasized: “Man is just this man, *qi* is just this *qi*, talent is just this talent… Therefore, the flood-like *qi* is the blood-and-*qi* tempered a hundred times.” [42]42 “Flood-like qi” (haoran zhi qi) is a concept from Mencius, referring to a vast, nourishing moral energy cultivated through righteous action. That is, he denied the mystery of the “flood-like *qi*,” believing that this “flood-like *qi*” is a temperament formed by man constantly regulating his own emotions and desires and continuously self-improving. Guo Shiwang of the Ming Dynasty, in his preface to *The Collected Works of Chen Longchuan*, said: “Tongfu’s words: ‘The flood-like *qi* is the blood-and-*qi* tempered a hundred times.’ This saying strikes at the vital point of Mencius’s doctrine. Can one still say it is not refined?” [43]43 Guo Shiwang was a Ming-dynasty scholar; Mencius (c. 372–289 BCE) was the second most important Confucian philosopher after Confucius himself. Guo Shiwang praised Chen Liang’s interpretation of the “flood-like *qi*” as “blood-and-*qi* tempered a hundred times” for directly hitting Mencius’s ailment. This example reflects Chen Liang’s affirmation of man’s natural attributes and his critique of the religious coloring of Confucianism, which uses “principle” to fetter man.

如前所述，陈亮在对道学家“天理”思想的攻击中肯定了人欲的合理性。面对朱熹“三代以前无利欲”的说法，陈亮反驳道：“今《诗》《书》载得如此净洁，只此是正大本子。亮以为才有人心便有许多不净洁，革道止于革面，亦有不尽概圣人之心者。圣贤建立于前，后嗣承庇于后，又经孔子一洗，故得如此净洁。”[41]在他看来，人人都有欲望，这属于生物本能的自然属性，儒家经典中不体现人欲的内容，是因为这些经典经过了孔子删改加工，并不能以此断定三代以前的人没有利欲之心。陈亮此言，并非要称赞人欲，也并不是要提倡不加限制地满足欲望。陈亮与儒教的根本分歧就在于如何对待人欲，在陈亮那里，人欲是修养的基础，要合理引导人欲来使人拥有道德；儒教则强调以“天理”的绝对权威压制乃至消灭人欲，以此来进入理想人格的“彼岸世界”。陈亮强调，“人只是这个人，气只是这个气，才只是这个才……故浩然之气，百炼之血气也”[42]，也就是否认“浩然之气”的神秘性，他认为这种“浩然之气”就是人不断调控自己的情欲，不断进行自我提升而形成的一种气质。明代郭士望为《陈龙川集》作序称：“同甫之言曰：‘浩然之气，百炼之血气也。’此语当入孟氏膏肓，犹谓不精乎？”[43]郭士望赞扬陈亮以“百炼之血气”解“浩然之气”直击孟子病症，这一事例反映出陈亮对人的自然属性的肯定，及其对儒教以“理”禁锢人的宗教色彩的批判。

Furthermore, Chen Liang’s emphasis on the value and role of man was also manifested in his vigorous promotion of human subjective initiative. Chen Liang did not believe in the Mandate of Heaven but emphasized the importance of human strategy. History records that he “once examined the traces of success and failure in the use of troops by the ancients and wrote *Zhuogu Lun*” [44]44 *Zhuogu Lun* (Discourses on the Ancients) is a work by Chen Liang analyzing the military strategies of historical figures.. Through examining historical figures, Chen Liang wrote *Zhuogu Lun*, praising the role of heroes in history. He believed that “heroic men can do what the wise cannot” [45]45 This is a quote from Chen Liang’s *Zhuogu Lun*., pointing out that heroic figures are the core factor in transforming the world and advancing history, i.e., “When the world has great upheavals, that is the opportunity for merit and fame. If one seizes that opportunity but there is no man to control it, how can the great upheaval ever be pacified?” [46]46 This is another quote from Chen Liang’s writings. Chen Liang also praised Emperor Guangwu of Han, saying that “his achievement of restoration far surpassed that of the ancients; although it was the Mandate of Heaven, it was also human strategy” [47]47 Emperor Guangwu (r. 25–57 CE) was the founder of the Eastern Han dynasty, known for restoring Han rule after a period of civil war., believing that Guangwu’s restoration was precisely the result of fully exerting human strategy. This shows that Chen Liang particularly admired ancient military strategists. In his view, in the process of ancient warfare, victory or defeat was closely related to human strategy, not determined by the Mandate of Heaven. This reflects the atheist thought of Chen Liang, who opposed the Mandate of Heaven and strongly advocated human strategy.

除此之外，陈亮强调人的价值与作用还表现在其对人主观能动性的大力推崇上。陈亮不信天命而强调人谋的重要性，史载其“尝考古人用兵成败之迹，著《酌古论》”[44]，陈亮通过对历史人物的考察著《酌古论》，盛赞历史中英雄的作用。他认为“英雄之士，能为智者之所以不能为”[45]，指出英雄人物是改造世界、推动历史前进的核心因素，即所谓“夫天下有大变，功名之机也。抚其机而不有人以制之，岂大变终已不得平乎”[46]。陈亮还称赞汉光武帝“中兴之功远过古人者，虽天命，抑人谋也”[47]，认为光武中兴就是充分发挥人谋的结果。由此可见，陈亮尤为赞赏古代的军事家，在他看来正是因为在古人的用兵过程中，战争胜败与人的谋略息息相关，而非由天命所左右，这体现了陈亮反对天命而强烈人谋的无神论思想色彩。

In summary, Chen Liang criticized Confucian religion, advocated for “becoming a full person” (chengren), and demanded the realization of the role and value of the human being in the sphere of practice. This is both a manifestation of Chen Liang’s utilitarian thought and an expression of his atheist thought, which, by negating the divine, posits the existence of the human being in his desire to liberate humanity from Confucian religion.

综上所述，陈亮批判儒教、提倡“成人”，要求实现人在实践层面中的作用与价值。这既是陈亮功利主义思想的体现，又是陈亮渴望从儒教中解放出人，以否定神而设定人的存在的无神论思想。

III. Evaluation: Chen Liang’s Atheist Thought and the Self-Correction of Confucianism

三、评价：陈亮的无神论思想与儒学的自我修正

Unlike the medieval Western situation in which ecclesiastical power was superior to royal power, Confucian religious thought always appeared in the purview of the ruling class as an appendage of Confucianism; the rulers used Confucian religious thought as a tool to consolidate feudal rule. Confucianism itself is not a religion, and ancient Chinese Confucianism never developed into a complete religion. As a form of “human studies” thought, the positive significance and core thrust of Confucian thought still lie in exploring the question of how human beings “become full persons.” On the one hand, individuals must improve their own qualities and morality through self-cultivation; on the other hand, they should actively participate in practical activities to manifest their own value. This is what Confucianism emphasizes as “participating with Heaven and Earth.” [1]1 “Participating with Heaven and Earth” (yu tiandi can) is a Confucian ideal from the *Doctrine of the Mean* (Zhongyong), describing the sage who, by fully realizing his nature and the nature of things, assists in the transformative processes of Heaven and Earth and forms a triad with them. Generally speaking, Confucianism has both an “inner sage” aspect and an “outer king” aspect; these are core elements of Confucian thought and also the essence of the excellent traditional Chinese culture.

与西方中世纪教权高于王权不同，儒教思想始终作为儒学的附属品而出现于统治阶级的视野之中，统治者将儒教思想作为巩固封建统治的工具。儒学本身并不是一种宗教，中国古代的儒学也并未发展成为一种完全的宗教。儒学思想作为一种“人学”思想，其积极意义与核心主旨仍旧在于探讨人如何“成人”的问题。个人一方面要通过修养提升自身的素质与道德，另一方面还应积极参与到实践活动中以体现自身价值，此即儒学强调的“与天地参”。总的来说，儒学既有“内圣”的一面，又有“外王”的一面，这些都是儒学思想中的核心内容，亦是中华优秀传统文化中的精华。

The establishment of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism pushed the “inner sage” aspect of Confucianism to its extreme. The Neo-Confucians constructed a system of “moral metaphysics,” regulating human words and deeds from the perspectives of ontology and self-cultivation theory, and demanding that individuals discipline themselves with morality as the yardstick. Its core remains a manifestation of the Confucian essence of “human studies.” However, it is undeniable that Confucianism, and even Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, was exploited by the feudal rulers of ancient Chinese feudal society. The feudal rulers deified royal power in the manner of a state religion and used Confucian religion to govern, with Confucian thought instead becoming the “cannibalistic rites” that imprisoned people. Ren Jiyu pointed out: “The establishment of the Song-Ming Neo-Confucian system marked the completion of China’s Confucian movement to create a god.” [48] By deifying Confucius, establishing idol worship, and promoting the ideal spiritual realm (the otherworldly world) of “preserving Heavenly principle and extinguishing human desire,” Confucianism thus inevitably moved toward becoming a Confucian religion. Wang Yousan pointed out: “They did not explicitly speak of God’s will or the Mandate of Heaven, but used ‘principle’ (li) and ‘mind-heart’ (xin) to replace the dominant position of God or Heaven. In fact, whether it is vulgar theology or idealist speculative philosophy, both affirm that there is a supreme ruler outside of matter; one school calls this a personal god, the other a super-material spirit.” [49] It can be said that the development of ancient Confucianism was not only limited by the level of scientific understanding of the ancients but was also influenced by the confluence of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucian thought. It was precisely under such social currents of thought that Confucian religion emerged and gradually grew stronger.

宋明理学的建立，将儒学“内圣”的一面发挥到极致。理学家们建构起“道德形而上学”的体系，从本体论、工夫论等角度对人的言行做出规范，要求个人以道德为准绳约束自身，其核心仍旧是儒学“人学”的本质体现。然而不可否认，儒学乃至宋明理学的思想在中国古代封建社会中被封建统治者所利用，封建统治者以国教的方式神化王权，利用儒教进行统治，儒家思想反成为禁锢人的“吃人的礼教”。任继愈指出：“宋明理学体系的建立，也就是中国的儒学造神运动的完成。”[48]理学家们通过神化孔子，建立偶像崇拜，宣扬“存天理、灭人欲”的理想精神境界（彼岸世界），儒学就这样不可避免地走向儒教。王友三指出：“他们不明讲上帝的意志与天命，而以‘理’与‘心’代替上帝或天的主宰地位。实际上，不管粗俗的神学或唯心主义的思辨哲学，都肯定物质之外有个最高的的主宰，这个主宰者，一说是人格神，一说是超物质的精神。”[49]可以说，古代儒学的发展既受限于古人的科学认识水平，还受到佛教、道教与儒家思想合流的影响，正是在这样的社会思潮下，儒教应运而生并逐渐壮大。

Since its founding by Confucius, Confucianism has manifested the awakening of the humanistic spirit in ancient China. In its early period, it dealt a fatal blow to the shamanistic beliefs of human society. The exploration of natural knowledge and the cognition of “the human being” advocated by Confucianism objectively promoted the dissemination of scientific knowledge and culture among the people. Since Confucius emphasized “respecting ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a distance,” [2]2 “Respecting ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a distance” (jing guishen er yuan zhi) is a saying from the *Analects* (Lunyu 6.22), attributed to Confucius, indicating a reverent but non-interventionist attitude toward spiritual beings. the content of Confucianism has been continuously self-correcting and reforming. Whenever Confucianism was sacralized into an unquestionable faith, a group of insightful individuals would emerge to engage in academic reflection, which fundamentally prevented Confucianism from developing into a complete religion. “The ultimate reason Confucianism failed to develop into a religion… also lies in the attacks on religious theology by atheist scholars among the Confucians, such as Wang Anshi.” [50] Chen Liang’s critique of the religious and theological elements in the thought of the Dao School [3]3 “Dao School” (Daoxue) is a term for the Neo-Confucian movement of the Song dynasty, particularly the Cheng-Zhu school, which focused on the cultivation of moral principle (li) and was often criticized by contemporaries like Chen Liang for its otherworldly tendencies. thinkers, especially Zhu Xi, played precisely such a role. Chen Liang recognized that “the Way of the Confucians and the Way of the Buddhists are two clearly distinct paths; this is right and that is wrong, this is wrong and that is right.” [51] He saw that “Daoists and Buddhists wearing Confucian robes and caps had infiltrated the gate of the Confucian school,” [52] and recognized that religious and theological elements had been mixed into Confucian thought. Therefore, he spared no effort in criticizing Confucian religion. Especially in the debate between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi, this embodied the challenge of ancient Chinese atheists to theists. This challenge directly attacked the theological coloring of Confucian religion, aiming to oppose a willful “Heaven,” demanding the elimination of the mysticism under the system of “Heavenly principle,” and dissolving ascetic monasticism, thereby liberating human beings from the shackles of a transcendent deity.

儒学自孔子开创以来，便彰显着中国古代人文精神的觉醒，其早期就对人类社会巫术信仰给予了致命的打击，儒学所提倡的对自然知识的探索、对“人”自身的认知，客观上促进了科学知识与文化在民众之中传播。自孔子强调“敬鬼神而远之”而后，儒学内容一直在进行自我的修正与革新，每当儒学被神圣化为一种不可怀疑的信仰时，都会涌现出一群有识之士来进行学术的反思，这从根本上防止了儒学发展成为一种完全的宗教。“儒学之所以最终未能发展成为一种宗教……也在于儒家学者中如王安石等无神论者对宗教神学的抨击”[50]，陈亮对当时儒学，尤其是对朱熹等道学家思想中宗教神学因素的抨击就发挥了这样的作用。陈亮认识到：“儒释之道，判然两涂，此是而彼非，此非而彼是。”[51]他看到了“儒衣儒冠的道家和佛家混进儒家的大门”[52]，认识到儒学思想中掺入了宗教神学因素，因此他对儒教展开了不遗余力的批判。尤其是在陈亮与朱熹的论辩中，体现出了中国古代无神论者对有神论者的挑战。这种挑战直击儒教的神学色彩，旨在反对有意志的“天”，要求革除“天理”体系下的神秘主义、消解禁欲的僧侣主义，从而将人从超现实的神的桎梏中解放出来。

It is worth noting that Chen Liang’s atheist thought had an incomplete character; he did not completely negate the authority of the Confucian “Mandate of Heaven.” Zhou Guitian, for instance, believes that the mainstream of Chen Liang’s thought is idealist Mandate of Heaven theory, [53] and Li Shen also sees that Chen Liang’s Confucian thought still contains elements of Confucian religion, such as taking “Heaven” as an object of faith and praying to spirits. [54] For example, Chen Liang’s interpretation of the *Western Inscription* [4]4 The *Western Inscription* (Ximing) is a famous essay by the Northern Song Neo-Confucian Zhang Zai, which expounds a Confucian cosmology of universal kinship and moral duty, later interpreted by some as having religious overtones. states: “Trembling with fear and awe, this is fearing Heaven and revering one’s parents; being broad-minded and at ease, this is delighting in Heaven and serving one’s parents.” [55] Moreover, his repeated composition of rain-prayer texts, praying to spirits for rain, and other words and deeds show that he was not entirely without “fear of the Mandate of Heaven.” Although Chen Liang’s thought retained superstitious elements and his atheist thought had an incomplete character, the flaws do not obscure the virtues. This does not detract from Chen Liang’s position in the history of ancient Chinese atheist thought. He recognized that Confucian religion was incompatible with real social life and devoted himself to criticizing the irrational components within Confucian religious thought, correcting traditional Confucianism. His attack on the religious theology within Confucian thought displayed the spirit of an ancient Chinese atheist.

值得注意的是，陈亮的无神论思想具有不彻底性，他并未完全否定儒学“天命”的权威。周桂钿即认为陈亮思想主流是唯心主义的天命论[53]，李申也看到陈亮的儒学思想中仍有以“天”为信仰，祈神等儒教因素[54]。如陈亮解读《西铭》言“慄慄危惧，畏天也，敬亲也；心广体胖，乐天也，事亲也”[55]，并多次作祈雨文，向神求雨、祷告等言行可以看出，他并非全然不“畏天命”。尽管陈亮思想中残存有迷信的因素，其无神论思想也有不彻底性，但瑕不掩瑜，这并不妨碍陈亮在中国古代无神论思想史中的地位，他认识到了儒教与现实的社会生活不相符合，并致力于批判儒教思想中的不合理成分，对传统儒学进行修正，其对儒学思想中的宗教神学的攻击显示了中国古代无神论者的气概。

Conclusion

结语

In brief, Chen Liang, starting from his materialist epistemological perspective, reflected and re-investigated the “relationship between Heaven and man.” In reality, he aimed to show that the “relationship between Heaven and man” is not mysterious and inscrutable. Standing on an atheist ground, Chen Liang analyzed concepts such as “Heaven,” “the Way” (dao), and “Heavenly principle” (tianli) in order to attack Confucian religion and its religious and theological elements. His goal was to liberate human beings from theological shackles and to affirm the value and role of human beings in social practice. Ancient Chinese atheists represented by Chen Liang devoted themselves to making corrections from within Confucianism, which to a certain extent prevented the religionization of Confucianism and had a positive impact on the history of Chinese Confucianism. As Ren Jiyu said: “What Confucian religion brought us was disaster, shackles, and a malignant tumor, not any fine tradition.” [56] Today, as we vigorously promote the excellent traditional Chinese culture, we must not give up eating for fear of choking. Instead, we must strive to eliminate the religious and theological elements within Confucian thought, excavate the excellent components of Confucianism, and hope to provide intellectual nourishment for the flourishing development of culture in the New Era.

简而言之，陈亮从其唯物主义认识论角度展开反思，重新对“天人之际”进行探究，实际是要说明“天人关系”并非是神秘而不可察的。陈亮站在无神论的立场去分析“天”“道”“天理”等概念，以此来攻击儒教及其宗教神学因素，目的则在于从神学束缚中解放出人、肯定人在社会实践中的价值与作用。以陈亮为代表的中国古代无神论者致力于从儒学内部进行修正，一定程度上阻止了儒学的宗教化，在中国儒学史上产生了积极影响。正如任继愈所说：“儒教带给我们的是灾难，是桎梏，是毒瘤，而不是什么优良传统。”[56]在大力弘扬中华优秀传统文化的今天，我们不能因噎废食，而是要着力剔除儒学思想中的宗教神学因素，发掘儒学的优秀成分，以期为新时代文化繁荣发展提供思想养分。

Web Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心