Several Cognitions on Atheism and the Sinicization of Religion from the Perspective of the “Second Integration”

[Editor’s Note] General Secretary Xi Jinping, at the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, first put forward the important viewpoint of integrating the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture. The resolution of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC and the report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC reaffirmed these “Two Integrations.” The most crucial theoretical breakthrough of the “Two Integrations” lies in the “Second Integration.” On June 2, 2023, at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The ‘Second Integration’ is another ideological emancipation, enabling us to fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture within a broader cultural space, and to explore theoretical and institutional innovations oriented toward the future.” He emphasized that Chinese culture has a long and continuous history, and Chinese civilization is extensive and profound. Only by comprehensively and deeply understanding the history of Chinese civilization can we more effectively promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, more forcefully advance the construction of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, and build the modern civilization of the Chinese nation. To study and implement the spirit of this important speech, the editorial department of *Science and Atheism* organized a symposium on “The ‘Second Integration’ and Atheism” on July 9. Among the contributions, the speech by Researcher Zhang Xinying, former Deputy Director of the Institute of World Religions at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was titled “Several Cognitions on Atheism and the Sinicization of Religion from the Perspective of the ‘Second Integration’.” The main content is as follows.

【编者按】习近平总书记在庆祝中国共产党成立100周年大会上首次提出把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合的重要观点。党的十九届六中全会决议和二十大报告重申了这“两个结合”。“两个结合”最关键的理论突破在于“第二个结合”。2023年6月2日,习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上指出:“‘第二个结合’是又一次的思想解放,让我们能够在更广阔的文化空间中,充分运用中华优秀传统文化的宝贵资源,探索面向未来的理论和制度创新。”他强调,中国文化源远流长,中华文明博大精深。只有全面深入了解中华文明的历史,才能更有效地推动中华优秀传统文化创造性转化、创新性发展,更有力地推进中国特色社会主义文化建设,建设中华民族现代文明。为了学习贯彻这一重要讲话精神,《科学与无神论》编辑部于7月9日组织了“‘第二个结合’与无神论”专题座谈会。其中，中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所原副所长张新鹰研究员的发言是《“第二个结合”视角下对于无神论与宗教中国化问题的几点认知》，主要内容如下。

At a time when the entire Party is deeply engaged in studying and implementing the theme education of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, earnestly studying and comprehending the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development, and truly understanding the profound meaning that “the ‘Second Integration’ is another ideological emancipation,” is equally an unshirkable responsibility for researchers of Marxist religious studies in China. Moreover, it provides us with a rare opportunity to further contemplate and resolve a series of theoretical issues. These issues relate to how, in the construction of the modern civilization of the Chinese nation, we can achieve the mutual unity of inheriting and promoting fine traditional Chinese culture with the popularization and dissemination of Marxist atheism, and how to promote mutual reinforcement with the persistence of the direction of sinicization of religion in China. They have practical significance for enriching and deepening the theoretical and practical innovations of the “Second Integration.” The key points among these include: Under the general view that Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism are regarded as the “three pillars” of traditional Chinese culture, can it be considered that fine traditional Chinese culture contains certain religious components? How should we understand the role and significance of atheistic factors within fine traditional Chinese culture? Can the belief concepts and belief forms in traditional Chinese culture provide beneficial historical and cultural resources for the future sinicization of religion in China? And so on.

在全党深入开展学习贯彻习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想主题教育的今天，认真学习领会习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上的重要讲话精神，切实体悟“‘第二个结合’是又一次的思想解放”的深刻含义，对于我国马克思主义宗教学研究工作者同样责无旁贷，而且给了我们进一步思考解答一系列理论问题的难得机遇。这些问题关系到在中华民族现代文明建设中如何做到传承弘扬中华优秀传统文化与宣传普及马克思主义无神论相互统一、与坚持我国宗教中国化方向相互促进，具有丰富和深化“第二个结合”理论创新与实践创新的现实意义。其中的重点包括：在一般将儒释道三家视为中华传统文化“三根支柱”的情况下，能否认为中华优秀传统文化包含一定的宗教性成分？如何认识中华优秀传统文化中无神论因素的作用和意义？中华传统文化中的信仰观念及信仰形态能否为今后我国宗教中国化提供有益的历史文化资源？等等。

Each of the above questions could be elaborated into a lengthy treatise; here I can only offer a cursory glimpse, presenting some fragmentary cognitions.

上面每个问题都可以写成长篇大论，我这里只能浮光掠影地发表一点片断的认知。

First, we should recognize that the representative concepts and emblematic spirits of fine traditional Chinese culture, repeatedly cited by General Secretary Xi Jinping, almost all originated from the pre-Qin thinkers of the “Axial Age,” primarily Confucian scholars. Many of these are the results of their refinement and summarization of the developmental path and historical experience of the Chinese nation since the Three Dynasties [Xia, Shang, Zhou]. General Secretary Xi Jinping repeatedly emphasizes the excellent characteristics of China’s civilization spanning over five thousand years and places great importance on tracing the civilizational achievements of Chinese ancestors through archaeological discoveries. This is to illustrate that the excellent connotations of traditional Chinese culture gradually took shape from ancient times, and to demonstrate that “fine traditional Chinese culture is extensive, profound, and the crystallization of the wisdom of Chinese civilization.” To be fair, the basic concepts of the core values that the Chinese nation still upholds and follows today were largely defined and commonly recognized two to three thousand years ago. At that time, neither Buddhism nor Daoism had yet appeared on Chinese soil as complete religions; rather, it was Confucian thought that pre-set the principles and norms of political ethics and social morality for the future development of Buddhism and Daoism in China (these principles and norms were later solidified under the name of the supernatural “Heaven” and the transcendental “Way of Heaven” into the dogmas and sacrificial systems of a “religion of rites” with the nature of a state religion, beginning to serve as a “theocratic” rope binding the people and gradually turning into their opposite—that is a separate issue). It also prepared Confucianism with the potential for openness and inclusiveness to absorb epistemological and methodological nutrients from Buddhism and Daoism. Therefore, saying that the “three teachings” of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism are the “three pillars” of traditional Chinese culture is actually conditional and presupposed; it cannot be simplistically understood transcending time and space. One must not sever the roots of intellectual history, nor confine oneself merely to the conditions of the middle and late periods of Chinese feudal society when discussing “traditional Chinese culture,” nor identify “fine traditional Chinese culture” within the scope of a partial historical situation, nor even uncritically uphold the cultural dregs reflecting the backward and decadent state of feudal society as “fine traditional culture.” That would not be the inheritance and promotion of fine traditional Chinese culture, but merely a farce by a few individuals to fish in troubled waters and gain reputation under false pretenses. Of course, Buddhism and Daoism played a profound and immense historical role in expanding and reinforcing the unitary-yet-pluralistic structure of Chinese thought and culture. Buddhism, in particular, provided a successful example of “latecomers surpassing the early starters” in how a foreign religion, steeped in traditional Chinese culture, could eventually become part of its religious representation. Fundamentally, the receptive existence of Buddhism and Daoism over the long historical period of Confucian China since the Han Dynasty was mainly due to their use of their “sacred” and “mysterious” qualifications to assist and protect the dissemination and consolidation of the political and social ethical and moral norms of Confucian interaction between Heaven and humanity and the unity of family and state. In the later part of this same historical path, Chinese religions, from theory to practice, increasingly and spontaneously moved toward the “unity of the three teachings.” To a certain extent, this reflects the objective effectiveness of Confucianism’s efforts in the late feudal period to further maintain its mainstream ideological status. Therefore, if one seeks religious components within fine traditional Chinese culture, one might conditionally mention the Confucian religion’s belief in Heaven, which established the rationality and authority of customary and daily-used norms for the social life of the Chinese people. But what should first be discovered is the positive adaptation made by “late bloomers” like Buddhism and Daoism to establish and perfect belief forms that submit to and assist the national political system and mainstream ideology and culture, adapting to the times. This is the most valuable excellent tradition of Chinese religions within the system of traditional Chinese culture. In the New Era of the development of Chinese civilization, critically inheriting and creatively developing this tradition, endowing it with new content aligned with the direction of historical progress, and facilitating a new leap in the sinicization of religion, will be a qualified answer that the work in the field of religion in China should deliver to the country and the people under the guidance of the “Second Integration” policy.

第一，我们应该看到，被习近平总书记多次例举的中华优秀传统文化的代表性观念和标志性精神，几乎都是产生于“轴心时代”以儒家为主的先秦思想家群体，很多又是他们对三代以来华夏民族发展道路和历史经验提炼概括的结果。习近平总书记反复强调中华五千多年文明的优长特质，十分重视通过考古发现追溯华夏先民的文明成就，就是要说明中华传统文化的优秀内涵从上古时期已逐渐成形，说明“中华优秀传统文化源远流长、博大精深，是中华文明的智慧结晶”。平心而论，中华民族至今崇奉和遵循的核心价值，其基本理念多是在两三千年前就得到厘定和公认的。当时，佛教道教都还未曾以完整的宗教面貌出现于中华大地；倒是儒家思想为佛道教在中国的未来发展预置了政治伦理和社会道德的原则规范（这些原则规范后来在超自然的“天”和先验的“天道”名义下固化为具有国家宗教性质的“礼教”信条和祀典制度，开始作为束缚国人的“神权”绳索而逐渐走向自己的反面，那是另外的问题），也为自身从佛道教那里吸收认识论、方法论养分准备了开放包容的潜能。所以，说“儒释道”三教是中华传统文化的“三根支柱”，其实是有条件、有前提的，不可超时空地简单化理解。不能割断思想史的根脉，仅仅自限于中国封建社会中晚期的状况去谈论“中华传统文化”，在局部历史的格局范围里去认定“中华优秀传统文化”，甚至把反映封建社会落后腐朽态势的文化糟粕原封不动地捧为“优秀传统文化”；那不是对中华优秀传统文化的传承弘扬，而只是少数人浑水摸鱼、冒名取利的闹剧。当然，佛道教对中国思想文化一尊多元结构的扩展补强发挥了巨大深远的历史作用，特别是佛教，对外来宗教在中华传统文化浸润下终于融为其宗教表象的一部分，提供了“后来居上”的成功范例。而从根本上说，佛道教在汉代以降之儒教中国的漫长历史年代中获得受容性存在，主要是由于它们运用自己的“神圣性”“神秘性”资质，对传播和巩固儒教天人感应、家国一体的政治社会伦理道德规范发挥了襄助、护持功用。在同一条历史道路的后段，中国宗教从理论到实践越来越明显地、自发地走向“三教合一”，一定程度上正体现出儒教在封建社会晚期力求进一步维护其主流意识形态地位的客观成效。因此，如果要在中华优秀传统文化当中寻找宗教性成分，固然可能有保留地提到儒教宗天信仰为国人社会生活准则树立了约定俗成、日用不知的合理性、权威性，但首先发现的应该是佛道教这样的“后起之秀”为建立健全服膺、辅翼国家政治制度和主流思想文化的信仰形态，而做出的与时更化的积极调适。这是中国宗教在中华传统文化体系内最富有现实价值的优秀传统。在中华文明发展的新时代批判继承、创意发扬这个传统，赋予其符合历史前进方向的新内容，促成宗教中国化的新跨越，将是“第二个结合”方针指引下我国宗教领域工作对国家和人民应该交出的一份合格答卷。

Second, one understanding proposes that the underlying tone of traditional Chinese culture is humanism, not "theism." In this sense, it can be considered that traditional Chinese culture possesses a "natural" tendency toward atheism. As mentioned earlier, the core value concepts of fine traditional Chinese culture were basically established and elucidated by the group of pre-Qin thinkers, primarily the Confucians. At that time, institutional religions that were widely accepted by society had not yet emerged; the religious consciousness of the pre-Qin philosophers, including their "views on deities," presented a situation relatively belonging to the "pre-institutional religion" stage. Since the corresponding religious theistic system was not yet complete, if one insisted on speaking of so-called "atheist" thought at this time, it could only manifest as a dissenting "theory of deities." The precious quality of this "view of deities" or "theory of deities" lay not, and could not lie, in transcending the stage of historical development to completely negate the existence of supernatural "gods" and "divine power," but rather in degrading the "relationship between gods and humans" into an ideal orientation of real social relations by eliminating the boundary between "gods" and "humans," establishing different forms of identity between "human nature" and "divine nature," "human will" and "divine blessing," ultimately completing the function of serving human life in the present world. "Teaching through the Way of the Spirits" [1]1 "Teaching through the Way of the Spirits" (神道设教) is a classical Chinese concept originating from the *Book of Changes* (Yijing), referring to the use of spiritual or religious teachings and rituals by rulers to educate and guide the people, often interpreted as a pragmatic, state-oriented approach to religion. was the manifestation of this "view of deities" in official policy. Moreover, these "views of deities" and "theories of deities" accumulated from the "pre-institutional religion" period of Chinese civilization were used by later Confucian scholar-officials in the era when Buddhism and Daoism were emerging as a hidden guide to question and refute some religious theological theories and the secular superstitious behaviors attached to these religions, and they still felt entirely natural. It is precisely in the formation, interpretation, and application of the Chinese nation's unique "view of deities" that traditional Chinese culture reveals its humanist underlying tone in shaping the belief forms of the Chinese people. This spiritual phenomenon reflects the objective fact that "humans create gods" more directly and clearly than Western religions, and it also prompted traditional Chinese religions to pay increasing attention to cultivating their own "worldliness" and "humanity" to cater to the cultural psychology of the believing subjects. The historically characteristic Chinese "theory of deities" was thus incorporated into the development process of ancient Chinese atheist thought, thus influencing the theoretical and practical paradigms of traditional Chinese religions, and always maintained the dynamism of participating in the construction of characteristic Chinese "non-theistic" religions by sustaining the traditional "human-to-god transformation model." Overall, even without examining the "view of deities" in traditional Chinese culture from the perspective of atheist research, one cannot deny that it sparkles with the light of original humanism, vastly different from the "theism" of monotheistic religions in heterogeneous cultures. This is the unique belief character of the Chinese nation, which, while possessing religious historical and cultural components no less than other ethnic groups, determines that the social standard for choosing religious matters is to prioritize meeting the actual needs of "humans," rather than driving people to serve as slaves of "gods." Those traditional Chinese religions that have continued from the depths of history to the present day, because they can manifest and respond to this unique character, have evolved into an organic structure of traditional Chinese culture. If one believes that this character possessed "the premise for developing towards atheism" (Engels's words) [2]2 This refers to a comment by Friedrich Engels, likely from his writings on the history of early Christianity or German peasant wars, suggesting that certain conditions or belief systems contained the seeds for the development of atheism. earlier than Western Protestant Christianity, and by promoting the "non-theisticization" of traditional Chinese religions, it confirms from the field of religious belief that "for thousands of years, the Chinese nation has walked a path of civilizational development different from other nations and countries," [3]3 This is a quotation from a speech or writing by Xi Jinping, characterizing the unique developmental path of Chinese civilization. then it certainly qualifies to enter the threshold of "fine traditional culture." Under the intangible influence of such a value belief that real life is more important than the otherworldly realm, when Marxism, which calls on the masses to rely on their own strength to change their exploited and oppressed status, was transmitted to China, compared to some foreign national conditions and popular sentiments burdened with heavy "theistic" historical baggage, it was indeed more conducive to inspiring the resonance and pursuit of the working and peasant masses for the Marxist ideal of social revolution. Although we cannot say that traditional culture containing a humanist underlying tone directly equates to an ally of Marxism, without the support from the fine cultural spirit and cultural wisdom of the Chinese nation, the Chinese Communists could not have combined Marxism with China's specific realities and overthrown the "three mountains" [4]4 "Three mountains" (三座大山) is a standard Chinese Communist Party historical term for the three oppressive forces that the Chinese revolution sought to overthrow: imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism. within just one generation. Even the American Christian theologian Paul Tillich sensed some convergence between Confucianism and communist belief. In his 1957 book *Dynamics of Faith*, he argued that Confucianism "was a positive condition for the victory of secular communist faith." [5]5 Paul Tillich, *Dynamics of Faith* (1957). The exact quote and its context in Tillich's work may vary; the author here presents it as an observation on Confucianism as a facilitating condition for the acceptance of secular communist faith. Historical experience can become an incremental source of cultural confidence. By comprehensively evaluating the shaping ability of fine traditional Chinese culture on the Chinese nation's humanist "view of deities" and "view of religion," and dialectically viewing and making good use of the Chinese civilization genes carried by its subsequent spiritual and cultural products, we will be more confident in promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture in the field of contemporary Chinese religion, more confident in advancing the integration of Marxist religious studies research on characteristic Chinese religious phenomena with the propaganda and education of Sinicized Marxist atheism, so that the grand project of the "Second Integration" in the New Era can be continuously expanded to new realms.

第二，有一种认识提出，中华传统文化的底色是人本主义的，而不是“神本主义”的。在这个意义上，可以认为中华传统文化具有“天然”的无神论倾向。前已述及，中华优秀传统文化的核心价值观念基本上是由儒家为主的先秦思想家群体确立和阐扬的。当时，受到社会广泛接纳的制度性宗教还没有问世，先秦诸子的宗教意识包括“神观”呈现出相对属于“前人为宗教”的状况。由于相应的宗教有神论体系还不完备，此时如果一定说有所谓“无神论”思想，也只能表现为一种异见“神论”。这种“神观”或“神论”的宝贵特质，不在于也不可能在于超越历史发展阶段彻底否定超自然“神”和“神力”的存在，而是在于通过消弭“神”与“人”的界限，把“神人关系”降解为现实社会关系的一种理想取向，让“人性”与“神性”、“人愿”与“神庥”建立起不同形式的同一性，最终完成为人的现世生活提供服务的功能。“神道设教”就是这种“神观”在官方政策上的显现。而且，这些从中华文明的“前人为宗教”时期就积累起来的“神观”“神论”，被后世儒家士大夫在佛道教崭露头角的时代，用作质疑破斥一部分宗教神学理论以及附丽在这些宗教上的世俗迷信行为的隐性指导，仍然全无违和感。正是在中华民族特有“神观”的形成、诠释和应用上，中华传统文化展露出自己在模塑国人信仰形态方面的人本主义底色。这种精神现象，比西方宗教更直接、更清晰地反映了“神为人造”的客观事实，也促使中华传统宗教越发注重培植本身的“人间性”“人文性”，以迎合信仰主体的文化心理。历史上的中国特色“神论”就是这样被纳入古代中国无神论思想的发展进程，就是这样影响了中华传统宗教的理论和实践范式，并且始终以维系传统“人神转化模式”的能动性，保持着参与建构中国特色“非神本主义”宗教的活力。总起来看，中国传统文化中的“神观”，即使不站在无神论研究的角度去审视，也不能否认其闪烁着原生的人本主义光芒，与异质文化中一神教的“神本主义”大相径庭。这是中华民族与其他民族一样不乏宗教性历史文化成分的同时所独有的信仰品格，这种品格决定了社会选择宗教性事物的标准是优先满足“人”的实际需求，而不是驱使人充当“神”的奴仆。从历史深处延续至今的那些中国传统宗教，由于能彰显、呼应这种独特品格，得以演进为中华传统文化的有机结构。如果认为这种品格比西方基督新教更早地“拥有向无神论发展的前提”（恩格斯语），并且以推动中华传统宗教的“非神本主义化”而从宗教信仰领域印证了“数千年来，中华民族走着一条不同于其他国家和民族的文明发展道路”，它当然有资格迈入“优秀传统文化”的门庭。有这样一种现实生活重于彼岸世界的价值信仰的无形笼罩，一当号召人民群众依靠自己的力量改变被剥削压迫地位的马克思主义传到中国，相比于某些“神本主义”历史包袱沉重的域外国情民情，确实更有利于激发工农大众对马克思主义社会革命理想的共鸣与追求。虽然我们不能说包含人本主义底色的传统文化径直等于马克思主义的同盟军，但如果没有中国共产党人借助来自于中华优秀文化精神、文化智慧的顶托，马克思主义不可能与中国具体实际相结合仅仅一代人时间就推翻了“三座大山”。连美籍基督教神学家保罗·蒂利希都觉察到了儒家思想与共产主义信仰之间有所契合，他1957年在《信仰的动力》一书中认为，儒家“是世俗性的共产主义信仰获胜的积极条件”。历史经验可以上升为文化自信的增量来源。我们全面地评价中华优秀传统文化对中华民族人本主义“神祇观”“宗教观”的塑造能力，辩证地看待和善用其后续精神文化产品所携带的中华文明基因，将会更有信心推动中华优秀传统文化在当代中国宗教领域的创造性转化、创新性发展，更有信心推进对中国特色宗教现象的马克思主义宗教学研究与中国化马克思主义无神论宣传教育的统合交融，使新时代“第二个结合”的这项宏伟工程不断拓展到新的境界。

Third, based on the above understanding, a logical affirmative answer can be given to the question of "whether the belief concepts and belief forms in traditional Chinese culture can provide beneficial historical and cultural resources for the future Sinicization of religion in our country." The direction of adhering to the Sinicization of religion in our country, which we now propose, is not only a natural extension of the historical path but also a mission upgrade under the new situation of the New Era: it requires both that traditional religions, which have already become part of traditional Chinese culture, open a new chapter of "Sinicization" and comprehensively keep pace with the development of the New Era, and that foreign religions that entered China later learn from fine traditional Chinese culture and enhance their survival skills for coexisting harmoniously with the mainstream politics and leading ideology of Chinese society. This includes recalibrating the important position that the traditional Chinese value system once occupied in the "contextualization" and "localization" history of these religions, a position later weakened or interfered with by various external factors, and smoothly docking with the core socialist values. For these foreign religions, learning from traditional Chinese culture also includes drawing lessons from and imitating the instrumental rationality development path in the historical inheritance of traditional Chinese religions, consciously realizing and playing their social role in the construction of Chinese-path modernization. Doing so does not mean that these traditional Chinese religions have already met the new requirements of "Sinicization" in the New Era, or that they can complete the new tasks of "Sinicization" in the New Era through superficial measures. The key is to inspire foreign "monotheistic religions" to actively seek some possibility of acculturation and co-construction with these traditional Chinese religions that have historically carved out a "Sinicized" realm in terms of belief concepts and belief forms, so as to evolve into true "Chinese religions" in terms of cultural characteristics and social functions, eventually becoming a vivid corner of the modern civilization of the Chinese nation. This is the far-reaching goal to be achieved by the Sinicization of religion in our country, and it is also the historic and global achievement that the "Second Integration" will surely attain.

第三，根据以上认知，可以对“中华传统文化中的信仰观念及信仰形态能否为今后我国宗教中国化提供有益的历史文化资源”问题，做出合乎逻辑的肯定回答。我们现在提出的坚持我国宗教中国化方向，既是历史道路的自然延伸，更是新时代新形势下的使命提升：既要求已经成为中华传统文化一部分的传统宗教翻开“中国化”新篇章，全方位跟上新时代的发展步伐，又要求较晚进入中国的外来宗教从中华优秀传统文化中学习和增益与中国社会主流政治、主导思想和谐相处的生存之道，包括对中华传统价值体系在本宗教“处境化”“本土化”历史上曾经占有而后来被各种外部因素干扰削弱的重要地位进行重新标定，并与社会主义核心价值观顺畅对接。对于这些外来宗教而言，从中华传统文化当中学习，也包括借鉴效法中华传统宗教传承史上的工具理性发展路径，自觉地在中国式现代化建设中意识到和扮演好自己的社会角色。这样做，不是表示这些中华传统宗教已经满足新时代“中国化”的新要件，或者依靠表面文章就可以完成新时代“中国化”的新任务，是要重点启发外来“一神教”在信仰观念和信仰形态方面，与这些已经在历史上闯出一片“中国化”天地的中华传统宗教主动寻求某种涵化、共构的可能，以从文化特征、社会功能上衍变为真正的“中国宗教”，直至一道成为中华民族现代文明的生动一角。这是我国宗教中国化将要达到的远大目标，也是“第二个结合”必将取得的历史性、世界性成果。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心