The Chinese Nation’s Tradition of Great Unity Thought and Its Modern Development

In Xi Jinping’s thought on culture, the Chinese nation’s tradition of great unity thought occupies a very important position, and it is embodied in various aspects such as China’s modern governance system, the sense of community of the Chinese nation, and the creation of modern Chinese civilization. To deeply study the discourse on great unity in Xi Jinping’s thought on culture, it is particularly necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation from the perspective of the continuity and developmental nature of Chinese civilization. Only then can we profoundly understand the significant meaning of these thoughts in terms of the historical inheritance and modern development of Chinese civilization.

在习近平文化思想中，中华民族大一统思想传统具有十分重要的地位，并分别体现在有关中国现代化治理体系、中华民族共同体意识、现代中华文明的创建等各个方面。为了深入学习习近平文化思想中对大一统的论述，特别需要从中华文明连续性和发展性的视角作深入考察，我们才能够深刻理解这些思想在中华文明的历史继承和现代发展等方面的重要意义。

The Chinese nation created the great unity thought of diversity in unity, which laid the ideological foundation for the historical transmission and modern development of Chinese civilization. Tracing the formation of great unity thought requires not only focusing on the great unity thought finalized in the Han Dynasty but also returning to the diverse yet unified thought of the various schools of thought during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. The thought of the various schools not only had to meet the pluralistic needs for ideology and culture arising from the transition from the Zhou to the Qin but also deeply contained the ideological core that promoted the formation of a great unity Chinese civilization.

中华民族创造出多元一体的大一统思想，为中华文明历史传承和现代发展奠定了思想基础。而追溯大一统思想的形成，不仅要关注汉代定型的大一统思想，还应该回到春秋战国诸子百家的多元一体思想。诸子思想不仅要满足周秦之变对思想文化的多元化需要，同时还深刻蕴含着推动大一统中华文明形成的思想内核。

I. The Plurality and Interconnectedness of Pre-Qin Thought

一、 先秦诸子思想的多元化与相通性

The Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods were a glorious era in the history of Chinese thought, an era that required giants and produced them. The thinkers of this period created core traditional Chinese ideas and concepts that influenced the subsequent two thousand years. On the basis of the spiritual civilization created during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, the pre-Qin thinkers deeply reflected on the historical development trends of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods and constructed a series of ideological systems and academic systems for the future China. The Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods were an era of ideological plurality. The transition from the unified thought of “learning in the官府” [1]1 “Harmonizing all the states” (协和万邦): A phrase from the “Canon of Yao” in the *Book of Documents*, referring to the ideal of bringing all political communities into peaceful coexistence under a single civilizational order. of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties to the ideological plurality of the pre-Qin various schools marked a new historical period in the history of Chinese thought. Works from the Warring States period, such as “The World of Zhuangzi,” “Critiquing the Twelve Masters” by Xunzi, and “The Eminent Schools” by Han Feizi, all contain ideological critiques of the various schools. These works all discuss the ideological plurality of the various schools and provide corresponding explanations of their propositions and characteristics.

春秋战国是中国思想史的光辉时代，是一个需要巨人也产生巨人的时代，这一时期的思想家创造了影响后来两千多年的中国传统核心思想理念。先秦诸子在夏商周三代创造的精神文明基础上，深入思考春秋战国历史发展趋势，为未来中国建构出了一系列思想理念与学术体系。春秋战国时期是一个思想多元的时代，从夏商周三代“学在官府”的思想一统，转型为春秋战国诸子的思想多元，表明中国思想史进入到一个新的历史时期。战国时期《庄子·天下篇》《荀子·非十二子》《韩非子·显学》等，均有对诸子学的思想评论。这些著作都论述诸子的思想多元性，并对诸子多元思想的主张和特点，作出了相应的解释。

Sima Tan’s article “The Essential Points of the Six Schools” further divided the pre-Qin various schools into the six schools of Confucianism, Daoism, Mohism, the School of Names, Legalism, and the Yin-Yang School, and analyzed and examined the ideological characteristics of each school. Sima Tan’s purpose in critiquing the various schools was not merely to summarize the academic thought of his predecessors; his main aim was to excavate ideological resources for the national governance and social culture of the Han Dynasty. Sima Tan’s evaluations of each school were actually based on the practical political need of “devoting oneself to governance.” He simplified the complex and diverse schools of thought into “six schools”—Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism, Legalism, the Yin-Yang School, and the School of Names—and provided a concise overview and critique of the main tenets of each school’s thought. Ban Gu, in the “Treatise on Literature” of the *Book of Han*, further expanded the academic critique of the various schools. He not only introduced the ten schools of thought, including Confucianism, Daoism, the Yin-Yang School, Legalism, Mohism, the School of Diplomacy, the Eclectic School, the School of Agriculture, and the School of Fiction, but also attempted to explain the reasons for the ideological differences among the various schools. The “Treatise on Literature” of the *Book of Han* proposed the view that the pre-Qin various schools originated from the royal officials, arguing that the emergence of different schools during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods was closely related to the system of royal officials in the three dynasties. For example, Confucianism originated from the official in charge of education, Daoism from the official historian, the School of Names from the official in charge of rites, Mohism from the official in charge of the ancestral temple, Legalism from the official in charge of justice, the Yin-Yang School from the official in charge of astronomy, the School of Diplomacy from the official in charge of envoys, the Eclectic School from the official in charge of deliberation, the School of Agriculture from the official in charge of agriculture, and the School of Fiction from the minor official. Later scholars may not necessarily agree with the claim that the various schools originated from the learning of royal officials, because tracing the personal identities and specific knowledge sources of the various masters does not necessarily show a clear connection to their experience as royal officials. However, the specialized knowledge backgrounds of different officials under Western Zhou civilization could indeed have influenced the formation of the pre-Qin various schools. Moreover, the claim that the various schools originated from the learning of royal officials may also reveal that the pluralistic thought of the various schools had a common origin in civilization.

司马谈《论六家要旨》一文，进一步将先秦诸子分为儒、道、墨、名、法、阴阳六家，并分析考察了诸家各家的思想特点。司马谈评论诸子学的目的，不只是总结前人的学术思想，其主要目的是为汉代的国家治理与社会文化挖掘思想资源。司马谈对各家思想所作评点，其实是立足于“务为治者也”的现实政治需求。他将纷繁复杂的诸子学派简化为“六家”,即儒家、墨家、道家、法家、阴阳家、名家，并对六家思想学说的主旨逐一作了精要的概述和评论。班固在《汉书·艺文志》中对诸子学派的学术评论又有拓展，他不仅介绍了儒家、道家、阴阳家、法家、墨家、纵横家、杂家、农家、小说家等诸子十家，并试图说明诸子学思想差异的原因。《汉书·艺文志》提出了先秦诸子出于王官的观点，认为春秋战国时期之所以出现不同学派，与三代王官制度有密切联系。如儒家出于司徒之官，道家出于史官，名家出于礼官，墨家出于清庙之官，法家出于理官，阴阳家出于羲和之官，纵横家出于行人之官，杂家出于议官，农家出于农稷之官，小说家出于稗官。后来的学者也可能不一定认同诸子出于王官之学的说法，因为追溯诸子个人身份和知识具体来源，不一定与他们的王官经历有明确联系。但是西周文明下的不同职官的专业知识背景，确实有可能影响春秋战国诸子之学的形成；而且，诸子出于王官之学的说法，还可能揭示诸子学多元思想有着文明的同源性。

The pluralistic thought of the pre-Qin various schools can be examined in terms of its plurality from two aspects: outer kingship and inner sagehood. On the one hand, there was the plurality of political means and governance methods of outer kingship. The plurality of pre-Qin thought first manifested in the plurality of paths to unify the realm and means to govern the state. After the Zhou royal house moved its capital east to Luoyang, the feudal lords actively recruited talents to help them achieve hegemony, and the commoner scholars of the time racked their brains to offer strategies and advice to the feudal lords. This is what is meant by “each drawing on one aspect, exalting what they were good at, and using this to lobby and win over the feudal lords,” thus forming the different governance techniques of the various schools. The “Treatise on Literature” of the *Book of Han* states: “Now the different schools each promote their own strengths, exhaust their knowledge and deliberation to clarify their aims, although they have shortcomings and biases.” Ban Gu, based on the principle of “discarding the short and taking the long, one can thereby penetrate the strategies of all directions,” evaluated the strengths of each school’s teachings in terms of governance. On the other hand, there was the plurality of value ideals and cultural concepts of inner sagehood. The various schools proposed different paths to inner sagehood. Confucianism inherited the patriarchal clan system and blood-based concepts of the Western Zhou, placing great emphasis on filial piety, fraternal duty, rites and music, and benevolence and righteousness based on the family, hoping to establish the family-state system and the order of the realm on the foundation of these blood-based emotions and moral virtues. Daoism, in contrast, revered nature, holding that the “Way of Heaven” is “naturalness,” meaning that all things in heaven and earth are as they are of themselves, without any external human purpose making them so. Any human purpose must follow “naturalness,” as Laozi said: “Man models himself on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Way, and the Way models itself on what is natural.” Legalism upheld a statist value position that broke with blood-based clans. It advocated ruling by law and revered power and statecraft, which was in fact based on statist values of enriching the state and strengthening the military. Mohism’s advocacy of non-aggression and frugality in governance also stemmed from its value concepts of universal love and mutual benefit.

先秦诸子的多元化思想，可以从外王与内圣两个方面来考察其多元性。一方面是外王的政治手段、治理方法的多元性。先秦诸子思想的多元性，首先是统一天下路径与治理国家手段的多元性。周王室东迁洛阳之后，各诸侯国君在积极招揽帮助自己实现争霸的人才，那些民间士人也是费尽心机为诸侯国君献计献策，即所谓“各引一端，崇其所善，以此驰说，取合诸侯”,故而形成了诸子学派的不同治术。《汉书·艺文志》说：“今异家者各推所长，穷知究虑，以明其指，虽有蔽短。”班固根据“舍短取长，则可以通万方之略”的原则，对各家学说在治理方面的优长作了评议。另一方面是内圣的价值理想、文化理念的多元性。诸子百家提出不同的内圣之道，儒家上承西周宗法制度与血缘理念，对以家族为本位的孝悌、礼乐、仁义十分重视，希望将家国制度、天下秩序均建立在这些血缘情感、仁义道德的基础上。而道家崇尚自然，认为“天道”就是“自然”,即天地万物均是自己而然，并没有一个外在的人为目的使之然，任何人为的目的都必须遵循“自然”,正如老子说的“人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然”。法家秉持一种打破血缘氏族的国家主义价值立场，他们宣扬以法治国并崇尚权势与治术，其实是立足于富国强兵的国家主义价值观念。墨家之所以主张非攻、贵俭的治术主张，也是源于其兼相爱、交相利的价值理念。

Although the pre-Qin various schools exhibited great ideological differences in areas such as outer kingship and inner sagehood, thus displaying a plurality of thought, they shared a common origin in civilization and interconnectedness in thought. Their pluralistic thought also possessed a unity of coordination and complementarity. Therefore, these pluralistic thoughts could each leverage the advantages of their respective ideas. Especially in the late Warring States period, when the struggle for hegemony among the feudal lords was about to end and the trend toward unification was becoming increasingly clear, a distinct trend emerged in the academic and intellectual world: far-sighted scholars devoted themselves to synthesizing the thought of the various schools, aiming to establish a pluralistic yet unified ideological system for future history. Why did the pre-Qin various schools, which were originally pluralistic in thought, not lead to the fragmentation of the civilizational entity, but instead ultimately construct a unified and self-consistent ideological system, and ultimately promote the construction and continuation of a great unity Chinese civilization?

先秦诸子尽管在外王与内圣等领域存在巨大思想差别，故而体现出一种思想多元性。但是，先秦诸子具有文明的同源性与思想的共通性，他们的多元思想又具有协同互补的一体性。所以，这些多元思想都可以发挥其各自思想的优势，特别是在战国晚期诸侯争霸即将结束、天下统一趋势日益明朗时，学术思想界出现一个明显趋势：那些有远见的学人致力于对诸子百家思想的综合，以为未来历史建立一个多元一体的思想体系。本来是思想多元的先秦诸子，为什么其思想的多元性却不会导致文明体的分裂，最终可以建构出一体性与自洽性的思想体系，最终推动大一统中华文明的建构与延续?

First, we should attend to the fact that behind the diversity of pre-Qin masters’ thought there also exists a very important civilizational homology and ideological interconnectedness; these homologies and interconnectednesses are precisely the fundamental conditions that ultimately enabled the masters’ thought to move toward unity. The reason the ideologically diverse pre-Qin masters could ultimately move toward unity and become components of the Chinese thought-and-culture system after the Qin and Han dynasties is that the prerequisite condition was that these diverse masters’ thoughts possessed civilizational homology—that is, they all originated from the civilization of the three ancient dynasties [Xia, Shang, Zhou] and shared the same civilizational foundation. Beginning with the Xia dynasty, the Central Plains region gradually formed a situation of unified China in the form of a league of regional states [fangguo], establishing the orthodox dynasties of ancient Chinese history. The many regional states that had once spread across the Chinese land, through the dynastic changes of Xia, Shang, and Zhou, continuously promoted the construction of a political community of “harmonizing all the states” [xiehe wanbang], while also continuously strengthening the construction of a unified ideology and culture. The diverse ideological creations of the pre-Qin masters during the Axial Age of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods actually originated from the pre-Axial Age “learning shared by the three dynasties”—that is, the unified Huaxia civilization of Xia, Shang, and Zhou. The “ancient ways and arts” [gu zhi daoshu] formed during the three dynasties became the ideological foundation for the homology of the hundred schools. From the expression in the “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi that “the Way and its arts will be torn apart under heaven,” it can be seen that the academic diversity of the masters was not the original state of Chinese thought; hence it was necessary to transcend the ideological differences among them and ultimately return to the homologous so-called “Way of inner sagehood and outer kingship.” Although the ideological divergences among the masters during the Warring States period were very pronounced, the author believes that the ultimate possibility of achieving ideological unity lies precisely in the fact that the diverse masters’ thoughts all originated from the “ancient ways and arts” based on this unified civilization. Ban Gu, in the “Treatise on Literature” of the Book of Han, further affirmed that the masters’ learning was closely connected with the learning of the royal officials of the three dynasties, attempting to explain the relationship between the masters’ learning and the civilization of the three dynasties as well as the reasons for their ideological differences. When summarizing the masters’ learning, Ban Gu deeply considered that the reason for the rise of the masters’ learning was that “it all arose after the kingly Way had already declined”; he believed that the masters’ learning had a common source, and hence would ultimately return to unity—that is, the genealogical relationship between the masters’ learning and the civilization of the three dynasties became an important condition for the ultimate completion of the unity of pre-Qin masters’ thought.

首先，应该关注先秦诸子思想的多元性背后，还存在十分重要的文明同源性与思想相通性，这些同源性与相通性恰恰是诸子思想最终可以走向一体性的根本条件。思想多元的先秦诸子最终之所以能够走向一体，成为秦汉以后中华思想文化体系的组成部分，其前提条件就是这些多元化的诸子思想具有文明同源性，即都是来源于上古三代文明，具有相同的文明基础。从夏代开始，中原地区逐渐形成以方国联盟为形式的统一中国局面，建立了中国古代历史的正统王朝。原来遍及中华大地的诸多方国，经过夏商周的朝代更替，不断推动“协和万邦”的政治共同体建设，同时也在不断强化统一的思想文化建构。作为轴心时期春秋战国诸子的多元化思想创造，其实源于前轴心时代“学则三代共之”即夏商周的统一性华夏文明。三代时期形成的“古之道术”,成为诸子百家同源的思想基础。从《庄子·天下》关于“道术将为天下裂”的表述可以看出，诸子的学术多元并不是中国思想的本来状况，故而需要超越彼此之间的思想差异，最终回归同源的所谓“内圣外王之道”。尽管战国时期诸子的思想分歧十分突出，作者相信最终可以实现思想统一，恰恰是多元的诸子思想其实源于这一个统一文明基础上的“古之道术”。班固在《汉书·艺文志》中，进一步认定诸子学与三代王官之学有密切联系，试图说明诸子学与三代文明的关系以及思想差异的原因。班固在总结诸子之学时，深入思考诸子学兴起的原因是“皆起于王道既微”,他相信诸子之学有一个共同来源，故而最终又会归宗于一统，即诸子学与三代文明的渊源关系，成为先秦诸子思想最终完成统一性的重要条件。

Second, the consistency of the masters’ goal of great unity thought. The pre-Qin masters, as thinking subjects, can be examined from two dimensions of social identity: first, the dimension of thought as members of a specific stratum or class; second, the dimension of thought as members of a national community. When examining any thinker’s thought, one must consider both their particular class and stratum standpoint—their thought is related to their social identity as members of a class and stratum—and also that thinkers are members of a national community, and they will fully reflect the perspective of thought as members of that community. When ancient thinkers summarized the diverse academic interests and ideological propositions of the pre-Qin masters’ schools, they discovered that behind the diverse masters’ thought there was actually a common ideological goal: the hope that Chinese thought must ultimately return to great unity; this thought in fact reflected the interests of the Chinese national community. The most influential important schools of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods—such as the Confucians, Daoists, Mohists, and Legalists—all hoped to end the situation of divergent governance and ideological fragmentation caused by the struggles among the feudal lords during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, and they all took the unification of all under heaven as the ideal for the future world. The Confucians were like this: Confucius yearned for “the Way prevailing under heaven,” hoping that there could be a unified thought under heaven. Mencius, in the “King Hui of Liang, Part I” chapter of the Mencius, states: “[King Hui] abruptly asked: ‘How can the world be settled?’ [Mencius] replied: ‘It will be settled through unity.’” Mencius hoped that thought under heaven could be unified. Xunzi went further in advancing this demand for ideological unity: the “Correct Naming” chapter of the Xunzi says: “Therefore the king establishes names; when names are fixed and realities distinguished, when the Way is practiced and intentions communicated, then he cautiously leads the people and unifies them. Hence those who split phrases and arbitrarily create names to confuse correct names, causing the people to be doubtful and many to engage in disputation, are called great villains; their crime is like that of those who forge tallies and measures.” The Daoists also hoped that all under heaven could be unified in the “Way.” The “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi, when commenting on the differences among the masters’ thoughts, not only profoundly points out their cultural homology—that is, “the sage has his place of birth, the king has his place of achievement, both originate from the One”—this “One” is both the historical condition of the unified Huaxia civilization of the pre-Axial Age and an expression of the common ideological goal of the hundred schools: that future China should have a great unified “Way of inner sagehood and outer kingship.” The Mohist school’s great unity thought is mainly embodied in what Mozi called “conforming upward” [shangtong]. Mozi believed that the fundamental cause of great disorder under heaven was often that people’s thoughts were not unified, leading to “each person taking their own view as right and rejecting others’ views as wrong, hence mutually condemning each other.” Therefore Mozi considered that “conforming upward” was “the foundation of governance and the key to order”—that is, achieving ideological unity and unifying it under the highest political authority. He proposed: “What the Son of Heaven considers right, all consider right; what the Son of Heaven considers wrong, all consider wrong. Abandon your bad words and learn the Son of Heaven’s good words; abandon your bad deeds and learn the Son of Heaven’s good deeds. Then how could there be disorder under heaven? Examine why the world is orderly: it is because the Son of Heaven alone can unify the standards of all under heaven, and thus the world is orderly.” The Legalists’ promotion of “great unity” emphasized the unity of political and legal significance. The Legalist representative Li Si advocated: “Within the seas, [all territories] become commanderies and counties; laws and decrees are unified.” This is clearly the great unity of the political and legal system. Han Feizi also believed that the centralization of power by the monarch was for the purpose of more effectively governing the state; he pointed out: “Affairs are in the four quarters, the key lies in the center. The sage holds the key, and the four quarters come to serve.” He believed that state governance depended on the monarch establishing unified laws for the state and all under heaven. In short, the ideologically diverse hundred schools all hoped to unify all under heaven with the academic thought they promoted and the political system they endorsed. As a political doctrine, the masters’ learning almost all promoted the political concept of unifying all under heaven; although they had different views on the specific path to achieving great unity, they all hoped to establish a unified political community and all hoped to unify all under heaven with their own thought. Therefore, after the establishment of the unified Qin-Han empire, the thoughts of different schools from the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods—Confucians, Mohists, Daoists, Legalists, Military Strategists, Yin-Yang School, etc.—could all be preserved and integrated into the state governance system and ideological system of the two Han dynasties, thereby playing their different roles. Because the diverse masters’ thoughts of the Confucians, Mohists, Daoists, Legalists, Military Strategists, and Yin-Yang School could complement each other within the framework of great unity, playing their respective roles in political guidance and cultural function, it was possible to achieve the diversified integration and complementarity of the masters’ thought.

其次，诸子大一统思想目标的一致性。先秦诸子作为思想主体，其社会身份可以从两个维度来考察：第一，特定阶层阶级成员的思想纬度；第二，民族共同体成员的思想纬度。考察任何思想家的思想，既要考虑其特殊的阶级与阶层的立场，他们的思想与其阶级与阶层的社会身份相关；同时思想家还是民族共同体的成员，他们还会充分反映其作为共同体成员的思想视角。古代思想家在总结先秦诸子学派的多元学术旨趣、思想主张时，发现多元诸子思想背后其实有共同的思想目标，即希望中国思想最终必须回归大一统，这些思想其实是反映了中华民族共同体的利益。春秋战国时期最有影响的一些重要学派如儒家、道家、墨家、法家等学派代表人物，都希望结束春秋战国因诸侯争霸而导致政令不一、思想分裂的局面，他们纷纷以天下一统作为未来世界的理想。儒家是如此，孔子向往的“天下有道”,就是希望天下能够有一个统一的思想。《孟子·梁惠王章句上》提出：“卒然问曰：天下恶乎定?对曰：定于一。”孟子希望天下思想能够统一起来。荀子更进一步提出这种追求思想统一的要求，《荀子·正名》说：“故王者之制名，名定而实辨，道行而志通，则慎率民而一焉。故析辞擅作名以乱正名，使民疑惑，人多辩讼，则谓之大奸，其罪犹为符节、度量之罪也。”道家也是希望天下能够统一于“道”,《庄子·天下篇》在评论诸子思想的差别时，不仅深刻指出它们的文化同源，即所谓“圣有所生，王有所成，皆原于一”,这一个“一”既是前轴心时代的华夏文明一统天下历史状况，同时也是表达诸子百家的共同思想目标，未来中国应该有一个大一统的“内圣外王之道”。墨家学派的大一统思想，主要体现在他所谓的“尚同”。墨子认为天下大乱的根本原因，往往是由于人们的思想不一致，出现“人是其义，以非人之义，故交相非也。”所以墨子认为尚同是“政之本，治之要”,即实现思想统一，并统一到最高政治权威那里。他提出：“天子之所是皆是之，天子之所非皆非之。去若不善言，学天子之善言；去若不善行，学天子之善行。则天下何说以乱哉?察天下之所以治者何也?天子唯能壹同天下之义，是以天下治也。”法家推崇的“大一统”,就是强调政治法律意义的统一性。法家代表人物李斯主张：“海内为郡县，法令由一统。”这显然就是政治法律制度的大一统。韩非子也认为，君主集权的目的是更加有效地治理国家，他指出：“事在四方，要在中央。圣人执要，四方来效。”他认为国家治理依赖君主制定统一国家与天下的法令。总之，思想多元的诸子百家，其实都希望以自己推崇的学术思想与认可的政治制度一统天下。作为一种政治学说，诸子之学几乎均推崇一个统一天下的政治理念，尽管他们对具体实现大一统的路径有不同看法，但是他们均希望建立一个统一的政治共同体，并且均希望以自己的思想去统一天下。所以，秦汉统一帝国建立以后，春秋战国时期的儒家、墨家、道家、法家、兵家、阴阳家等不同学派的思想都可以保留下来，融入两汉的国家治理体系与思想体系中，从而发挥其不同的作用。由于儒、墨、道、法、兵、阴阳诸家的多元化诸子思想能够在大一统的框架下相互补充，发挥各自政治指导与文化功能的作用，也就能够实现诸子思想的多元化融合和互补。

Thus it can be seen that because the diverse thoughts of the masters’ schools possessed the above-mentioned civilizational homology and cultural interconnectedness, although they had ideological differences they could still complement each other, promoting the establishment of the great unity thought system, and enabling the masters’ learning of different thoughts ultimately to merge into a diverse yet complementary unified ideological and cultural system. For example, the Daoist thought of the Way following nature and governing by non-action; the Confucian thought of governing by virtue and benevolent governance and kingly Way; the Mohist thought of universal love, non-aggression, conforming upward, and honoring the worthy; the Legalist thought of enriching the state, strengthening the military, and governing by law; the Guanzi school’s thought of governing the state and enriching the people, and ruling by both virtue and law—all ultimately played their respective roles within the unified Chinese governance system and Chinese ideological system, forming a complementary great unity Chinese ideological and cultural system that had differences yet could be unified. Later summarizers also pointed out the complementary relationship among the pre-Qin masters’ thoughts. The Book of Changes once asserted: “All under heaven reach the same destination by different paths; there is one consistent principle amid a hundred considerations.” In fact, this view should have long foreseen the possibility of the formation of China’s pluralistic and unified thought. The “Treatise on Literature” of the Book of Han says that the ten schools of masters “are like water and fire—they destroy each other yet also give life to each other,” and “being opposite to each other, they yet complete each other.” The author believes that although the ideological propositions of the hundred schools of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods were different, they all originated from the early holistic Western Zhou civilization; and constructing the Chinese civilizational system required academic learning with different political functions and different thoughts. The “learning of the royal officials” of different political functions and ideological systems, although traceable to specific individuals’ different understandings and cognitions of history and reality, can on the whole be seen as the ideological expansion of Chinese civilization in different fields. Therefore, the pluralistic and unified thought of the masters’ schools ultimately exerted an extremely profound historical influence on the construction of the Chinese civilizational community.

可见，由于诸子学派的多元思想具有上述的文明同源性与文化相通性，故而他们虽有思想差异又能够相互补充，推动了大一统思想体系的建立，使得不同思想的诸子之学最终会融汇成多元互补的统一性思想文化体系。诸如道家的道法自然、无为而治思想；儒家的以德治国、仁政王道思想；墨家的兼爱非攻、尚同尚贤思想；法家的富国强兵、以法治国思想；管子学派的治国富民、德法兼治等，最终均在统一的中华治理体系与中华思想体系中发挥各自的作用，形成了既有差别又能够统一的互补型大一统中华思想文化体系。后来的总结者也指出先秦诸子思想的互补关系，《周易》曾经断言：“天下同归而殊途，一致而百虑。”其实，这一看法应该早就预见了中国多元一体思想形成的可能性。《汉书·艺文志》说，诸子十家，“譬犹水火，相灭亦相生也”,“相反而皆相成也”。作者认为，春秋战国的诸子百家的思想主张虽然不同，但均源于早期中国的整体性西周文明；而建构中华文明体系需要不同政治职能、不同思想的学术。不同政治职能、思想体系的“王官之学”,虽然可以追溯具体个人对历史和现实的不同理解和认知，但是从总体上可以看作是中华文明在不同领域的思想开拓。所以，诸子学派的多元一体思想，最终对中华文明共同体的建构产生极其深远的历史影响。

II. The Integration of the Masters’ Thought by Han Dynasty Great Unity Thought

二、 汉代大一统思想对诸子思想的整合

The ancient Chinese concept of “great unity” (dayitong) was fully established during the Western Han period, but its intellectual origins can be traced back to the pre-Qin era, especially the Warring States period’s Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals. The Spring and Autumn Annals records the first year of Duke Yin: “First year, spring, the king’s first month.” The Gongyang Commentary explains: “Why speak of the king’s first month? It is great unity.” Textually, this is the earliest extant documentary source of “great unity.” The original meaning of “great unity” in the Gongyang Commentary refers to the unification of the calendar, that is, the calendar of the realm must be unified under King Wen of Zhou’s calendar. However, the reason the Gongyang Commentary draws “great unity” from “the king’s first month” is by no means merely a matter of calendar unification; rather, it extends from this to the significance of the political great unity of the Western Zhou. In fact, when the Gongyang Commentary put forward the idea of “great unity” at this time, it touched upon a major political proposition of the era. During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, feudal lords contended for hegemony and wars were incessant. Confucius hoped to restore the ritual order of the Son of Heaven unifying the realm: “When the Way prevails under Heaven, rites, music, and punitive expeditions issue from the Son of Heaven; when the Way does not prevail under Heaven, rites, music, and punitive expeditions issue from the feudal lords.” [5]5 A passage from the *Analects of Confucius* (季氏, Book 16, Chapter 2), expressing the ideal of centralized political authority under the Zhou royal house. What the Confucians yearned for as “the Way prevailing under Heaven” first and foremost referred to this kind of political order under Heaven characterized by “great unity.” The Gongyang Commentary developed Confucius’s thought, hoping to restore the Western Zhou ritual system of honoring the king and re-establish a great unity political order.

中国古代“大一统”完全定型是在西汉时期，但是其思想来源，则可以追溯到先秦，特别是战国时期的《春秋公羊传》。《春秋》记载隐公元年：“元年，春，王正月。”《公羊传》解释说：“何言乎王正月?大一统也。”从文本上看，这是现在能够见到最早文献来源的“大一统”。《公羊传》的“大一统”原义是指统一历法，即天下历法必须统一到周文王的历法。但是，《公羊传》之所以要从“王正月”引出“大一统”,绝不仅仅是一个历法统一问题，而是由此引申出西周政治的大一统意义。其实《公羊传》此时提出“大一统”思想，涉及当时的一个重大政治主张。春秋战国时期诸侯争霸而战争不断，孔子希望恢复周天子一统天下的礼制秩序：“天下有道，则礼乐征伐自天子出；天下无道，则礼乐征伐自诸侯出。”儒家向往的“天下有道”,首先就是指这种具有“大一统”意义的天下政治秩序。《公羊传》发挥了孔子的思想，希望恢复西周尊王的礼制，重新建立起大一统的政治秩序。

Further examination of the Confucian “great unity” reveals that it contains a dual meaning of kingly institutions (wangzhi) and the kingly way (wangdao). “Kingly institutions” pertains to governance (zheng), while “the kingly way” pertains to moral teaching (jiao), and during the Three Dynasties period, governance and moral teaching were integrated and mutually sustaining. On the one hand, “great unity” is embodied in kingly institutions that take unity as great. The Gongyang Commentary’s advocacy of “great unity” calls for a return to the Western Zhou feudal system of honoring the king, a system that stipulates the political power of the Son of Heaven over the feudal lords, particularly requiring all feudal lords to obey the Son of Heaven’s commands for unifying the realm. On the other hand, “great unity” also refers to a kingly way that takes “unity” as great. The content of this “kingly way” is the ideological principle of honoring the honorable (zunzun) and cherishing the close (qinqin) that the Son of Heaven, feudal lords, and high officials should follow. Dong Zhongshu, inheriting and promoting the Gongyang Commentary’s advocacy of “great unity,” developed it into a centralized great unity kingly institution and a consistent great unity kingly way. In short, Dong Zhongshu hoped to re-establish a great unity system of governance and moral teaching and a great unity civilizational system.

进一步考察儒家的“大一统”,会发现其中包含着王制和王道的双重意义。“王制”属于“政”,“王道”属于“教”,而三代时期的政教是一体相维的。一方面，“大一统”体现为以一统为大的王制，《公羊传》推崇的“大一统”主张回归西周封建制的尊王制度，这一制度规定天子对诸侯拥有的政治权力，特别要求各诸侯必须服从周天子一统天下的号令。其次，“大一统”又是指一种以“一统”为大的王道，这一“王道”的内容就是天子、诸侯、卿大夫应该遵循的尊尊、亲亲的思想原则。而董仲舒继承、弘扬的《公羊传》“大一统”主张，已经发展为中央集权的大一统王制，以及与之一致的大一统王道。总之，董仲舒希望重建一个大一统的政教体系与文明体系。

The Western Han dynasty inherited the centralized political system of the Qin dynasty, but Han Confucians realized that a matching ideological system had to be established. When interpreting the phrase “first year, spring, the king’s first month” from the Spring and Autumn Annals, the Han Confucian Dong Zhongshu put forward the concept of “valuing the origin” (guiyuan). He said: “Why does the Spring and Autumn Annals value the origin and speak of it? The origin is the beginning; it speaks of the root being correct. The Way is the kingly way; the king is the beginning of the people.” Dong Zhongshu linked “valuing the origin” with “the kingly way,” in fact emphasizing the political principle of “honoring the honorable.” He further pointed out: “The Spring and Autumn Annals speaks of the meaning of the one origin. The one is that from which the ten thousand things begin. The origin is what the text calls the great. Calling the one the origin is to regard the great beginning and to desire to rectify the root. The Spring and Autumn Annals deeply explores its root, and instead returns to valuing the beginning. Therefore, the ruler of men rectifies his mind to rectify the court, rectifies the court to rectify the hundred officials, rectifies the hundred officials to rectify the myriad people, rectifies the myriad people to rectify the four directions.” The “one origin” that Dong Zhongshu spoke of is not merely a “kingly institution” stipulation for rectifying the court and the hundred officials; it also further highlights the “kingly way” significance of “valuing the origin” and “rectifying the mind.”

西汉王朝继承了秦朝的中央集权政治制度，但是汉儒意识到还必须建立一个与之配套的思想体系。汉儒董仲舒通过诠释《春秋》“元年春王正月”时提出“贵元”,他说：“《春秋》何贵乎元而言之?元者，始也，言本正也；道，王道也；王者，人之始也。”董仲舒将“贵元”与“王道”联系起来，其实是要强调“尊尊”的政治原则。他又进一步指出：“《春秋》谓一元之意，一者万物之所以始也，元者辞之所谓大也。谓一为元者，视大始而欲正本也。《春秋》深探其本，而反自贵者始。故为人君者，正心以正朝廷，正朝廷以正百官，正百官以正万民，正万民以正四方。”董仲舒所讲的“一元”,不仅仅是正朝廷、正百官的“王制”规定，同时还进一步突显“贵元”“正心”的“王道”意义。

It should be said that compared with the kingly way of the Three Dynasties’ former kings, the Han dynasty’s “kingly way” thought had already undergone tremendous changes. Dong Zhongshu not only inherited the great unity kingly way doctrine of the Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals, but also needed to vigorously enrich its ideological content to meet the needs of the Qin-Han political system and ideological reconstruction. Examining the characteristics of Dong Zhongshu’s great unity thought, it is particularly evident in his full effort to complete a comprehensive synthesis of pre-Qin masters’ thought. The “Yiwen Zhi” (Treatise on Literature) of the Book of Han, when commenting on the “nine schools,” once pointed out that the various schools “though their words differ, are like water and fire—they destroy each other yet also give birth to each other… opposites complete each other.” [6]6 The “Yiwen Zhi” is the bibliographical monograph of the *Book of Han* (Hanshu), the official history of the Western Han dynasty, compiled by Ban Gu in the 1st century CE. The “nine schools” (九流) refer to the major pre-Qin philosophical currents: Confucianism, Daoism, Yin-Yang, Legalism, Logicians, Mohism, Political Strategists, Syncretists, and the Agricultural School. The thought of the masters was originally “mutually destructive yet mutually generative,” hence it could “discard the short and adopt the long” to be reorganized into an ideological community. Therefore, after Emperor Wu of Han “dismissed the hundred schools and revered only Confucianism,” [7]7 A reference to the policy adopted by Emperor Wu of Han (r. 141–87 BCE) of elevating Confucianism to the status of state orthodoxy while suppressing other schools of thought, a key moment in Chinese intellectual history. the thought of the masters outside Confucianism—Daoists, Mohists, Legalists, Yin-Yang school, Military strategists, and others—did not perish but was integrated and reorganized into a Chinese ideological system with Confucianism as its main body.

应该说与三代先王之道相比较，汉代“王道”思想已经发生了巨大变化，董仲舒不仅仅继承了《春秋》公羊学的大一统王道学说，而且需要极力丰富其思想内涵，以满足秦汉的政治制度、思想重建的需要。考察董仲舒大一统思想特色，特别体现在他全力完成对先秦诸子思想的综合发展。《汉书·艺文志》在评论“九流”时，曾经指出诸家“其言虽殊，辟犹水火，相灭亦相生也……相反皆相成也”。诸子思想本来是“相灭亦相生”,故而可以“舍短取长”而重组为一个思想共同体。所以，汉武帝“罢黜百家”之后，儒家之外的道家、墨家、法家、阴阳家、兵家等诸子思想并没有消亡，而是被整合、重组到一个以儒学为主体的中华思想体系之中。

Dong Zhongshu’s great unity thought clearly absorbed Mohist learning. Mozi’s “conforming to the superior” (shangtong) emphasized establishing the Son of Heaven as the supreme ideological authority under Heaven, which is precisely the core content of ideological “great unity,” and thus was compatible with and integrated by Dong Zhongshu. The reason Dong Zhongshu proposed to “dismiss the hundred schools” was that “now teachers follow different Ways, people hold different theories, the hundred schools have different methods, and their intentions are not the same, so the sovereign has no way to uphold unity.” This actually originates from Mozi’s thought, completely consistent with Mozi’s claim that through “conforming to the superior,” thought is unified under the Son of Heaven. At the same time, Mozi affirmed that the political authority of the Son of Heaven comes from the religious authority of the spiritual “Heaven” (tian), stating: “If the hundred surnames under Heaven all conform to the Son of Heaven but do not conform to Heaven, then calamities will still not be removed.” Dong Zhongshu also proposed that the Son of Heaven governs the three dukes, feudal lords, scholars, and the people, while the Son of Heaven’s power comes from a personified Heaven, that is, “Heaven governs the Son of Heaven.” Dong Zhongshu believed: “The king is what Heaven bestows; what he punishes is what Heaven takes away.” Taking a personified, willful Heaven as the source of the Son of Heaven’s power, while affirming that the Son of Heaven represents Heaven’s will—these ideas all originate from the Mohist school.

董仲舒的大一统思想明显吸取了墨学。墨子的“尚同”强调确立天子作为天下的最高思想权威，恰恰是思想“大一统”的核心内容，故而为董仲舒所兼容与整合。董仲舒之所以建议“罢黜百家”,其理由就是“今师异道，人异论，百家殊方，指意不同，是以上亡以持一统”。这其实源于墨子的思想，与墨子通过“尚同”而实现思想统一到天子的说法完全一致。同时，墨子肯定天子的政治权威性来自宗教权威的神灵之“天”,提出“天下之百姓皆上同于天子，而不上同于天，则灾犹未去也”。董仲舒也提出天子治理三公、诸侯、士人和百姓，而天子的权力来自人格意义的天，即所谓“天之为政于天子”。董仲舒认为：“王者，天之所予也；其所伐，皆天之所夺也。”以人格意志的天作为天子的权力来源，同时肯定天子代表天的意志，这些思想均来源于墨家。

Dong Zhongshu also integrated Legalist great unity thought, especially in the political-legal sense. Han Feizi advocated that a strong ruler could control state power, and effective state governance could not do without strong ruler power: “The ruler holds the handle and occupies the position, so orders are carried out and prohibitions are enforced. The handle is the power over life and death; the position is the resource for overcoming the multitude.” Therefore, Han Feizi consistently regarded “ruling the world through power” as his most important political proposition. Dong Zhongshu’s thought of “elevating the ruler” (shenjun) clearly inherited the Legalist political thought of honoring the ruler. Hence he also emphasized monarchical centralization while belittling the political role of scholars and the people. He said: “The king who receives the mandate is what Heaven’s will bestows… Scholars are functionaries; the people are the benighted.” Dong Zhongshu not only used “what Heaven’s will bestows” to explain the sacredness of monarchical power, but also, when discussing the relationship between ruler, scholars, and people, did his utmost to belittle scholars and the people, clearly expressing his Legalist thought of “subordinating the people and elevating the ruler.” Dong Zhongshu also used the heavenly principle of “the earth serving Heaven” to demonstrate the political principle of why subjects must be loyal to the ruler. He said: “Serving the ruler is like the earth revering Heaven—this can be called having proper conduct.” In fact, this is Dong Zhongshu’s political thought of hoping to “subordinate the people and elevate the ruler,” which is very close to the Legalist thought of maintaining monarchical centralization, thus showing the profound influence of Legalist thought on Dong Zhongshu. Dong Zhongshu wrote to Emperor Wu of Han, saying: “Now teachers follow different Ways, people hold different theories, the hundred schools have different methods, and their intentions are not the same, so the sovereign has no way to uphold unity; laws and regulations change frequently, and subordinates do not know what to abide by. I foolishly think that all those not within the scope of the Six Arts and the techniques of Confucius should be cut off from their path and not allowed to advance together. When deviant and perverse doctrines are extinguished, then the guiding principles can be unified and the laws can be made clear, and the people will know what to follow.” These propositions of Dong Zhongshu also absorbed Legalist political thought.

董仲舒也整合了法家的大一统思想，特别是在政治法律意义上的大一统思想。韩非子主张强势的君主能够控制国家权力，有效的国家治理离不开强势的君主权力：“君执柄以处势，故令行禁止。柄者，杀生之制也；势者，胜众之资也。”所以，韩非子一直将“以势治天下”作为自己最重要的政治主张。董仲舒的“伸君”思想，明显继承了法家尊君的政治思想。所以他也强调君主集权，同时贬低士人和民众的政治作用，他说：“受命之君，天意之所予也。……士者，事也；民者，暝也。”董仲舒不仅以“天意之所予”来说明君权的神圣性，同时在讨论君、士、民关系时尽量贬低士与民众，明显表达出其“屈民而伸君”的法家思想。董仲舒还从“土之事天”的天道原理，论证臣民为何必须忠君的政治原理，他说：“事君，若土之敬天也，可谓有行人矣。”其实，这是董仲舒希望“屈民而伸君”的政治思想，与法家维护君主集权思想十分接近，由此可见法家思想对董仲舒的深刻影响。董仲舒上书汉武帝说：“今师异道，人异论，百家殊方，指意不同，是以上亡以持一统；法制数变，下不知所守。臣愚以为诸不在六艺之科、孔子之术者，皆绝其道，勿使并进。邪辟之说灭息，然后统纪可一而法度可明，民知所从矣。”董仲舒这些主张，也是吸收了法家的政治思想。

Dong Zhongshu also absorbed the ideas of the Huang-Lao Daoist school—the Way of Heaven and Nature (tiandao ziran), the mutual nourishment of punishment and virtue (xingde xiangyang), and action through non-action (wuwei er wu bu wei)—to construct a view of the Way of Heaven that unifies through the primordial (yi yuan tong tian), a view of punishment and virtue that takes yang as virtue and yin as punishment, and a theory of governance that advocates non-action and letting things take their course. Dong Zhongshu’s doctrines such as “human beings correspond to the number of Heaven” (ren fu tian shu) and “Heaven and humanity respond to each other” (tian ren gan ying) clearly originated from the Jixia Academy’s Huang-Lao Daoism. The Huang-Lao Daoists had long proposed ideas such as “like categories respond to each other” (tonglei xiang gan) and “the Way models itself on nature” (dao fa ziran). While introducing these ideas, Dong Zhongshu transformed them into a belief system of celestial worship, correspondingly proposing the concepts of “human beings correspond to the number of Heaven” and “Heaven and humanity respond to each other.” For example, he stated: “Heaven uses the number of days in a full year to form the human body; therefore, the minor joints number 366, corresponding to the number of days; the major joints number twelve, corresponding to the number of months; internally there are five viscera, corresponding to the number of the five phases; externally there are four limbs, corresponding to the number of the four seasons.” Here he draws analogies between the human body and Heaven in terms of form and quantity, demonstrating the close relationship between humans and Heaven. Dong Zhongshu’s view of punishment and virtue also originated from Huang-Lao Daoism. The *Four Classics of the Yellow Emperor* (Huangdi sijing), a representative work of Huang-Lao Daoism, advocates the combined use of punishment and virtue. Huang-Lao Daoism used yin and yang to analogize punishment and virtue, differing from early Confucians like Confucius and Mencius, who particularly revered moral education. On the basis of absorbing the Huang-Lao Daoist idea of “mutual nourishment of punishment and virtue,” Dong Zhongshu also proposed the concept of yang virtue and yin punishment. At the same time, Dong Zhongshu’s ideas on the monarch’s exercise of power were also influenced by Daoism. He stated: “The ruler of men occupies the position of non-action, practices the teaching without words, is silent and without sound, still and without form, holds to the One without beginning, and serves as the source of the state. He takes the state as his body, takes his ministers as his heart, takes his ministers’ words as his voice, and takes his ministers’ affairs as his form.” Dong Zhongshu’s belief that the ruler should “occupy the position of non-action and practice the teaching without words” originates from Chapter 2 of the *Laozi*: “Therefore the sage manages affairs through non-action and practices the teaching without words.”

董仲舒还通过吸收黄老道家天道自然、刑德相养、无为而无不为的思想，建构起以元统天的天道观、阳德阴刑的刑德观、垂拱无为的治术论。董仲舒提出的“人副天数”“天人感应”等学说，明显来自稷下黄老道家。黄老道家早就提出了“同类相感”“道法自然”的思想观念，董仲舒在引入这些思想的同时，将其改造为天神崇拜的思想信仰，相应提出了“人副天数”“天人感应”的思想。如他提出“天以终岁之数，成人之身，故小节三百六十六，副日数也；大节十二分，副月数也；内有五脏，副五行数也；外有四肢，副四时数也。”这里将人与天作外形、数量的比拟，论证人与天的紧密关系。董仲舒的刑德观也来源于黄老道家，《黄帝四经》是黄老道家的代表作，该书提出刑德并用的主张。黄老以阴阳比附刑德，不同于孔孟等原始儒家特别推崇德教，董仲舒在吸收黄老道家“刑德相养”的思想基础上，也提出阳德阴刑的思想。同时，董仲舒关于君主掌控权力的思想也受道家影响，他提出：“为人君者居无为之位，行不言之教，寂而无声，静而无形，执一无端，为国源泉。因国以为身，因臣以为心，以臣言为声，以臣事为形。”董仲舒认为人君应“居无为之位，行不言之教”,就是源于《老子》第二章“是以圣人处无为之事，行不言之教”。

Dong Zhongshu also extensively absorbed the ideas of the Yin-Yang school. To uphold the political authority of the Han dynasty monarchs, he adopted the theories of the Three Cycles (santong) and the Three Correct Beginnings (sanzheng) from the Warring States Yin-Yang school, thereby demonstrating the celestial significance of the Han dynasty replacing the Qin dynasty and strengthening the political order of great unity under the Western Han. Dong Zhongshu absorbed Zou Yan’s “theory of the Five Virtues’ Cyclical Succession” (wude zhongshi shuo) and further constructed the “theory of the Three Cycles” aimed at reinforcing the great unity of the Western Han. The “Three Cycles” recognized by Dong Zhongshu refer to history cycling through the black, white, and red cycles. The celestial “Three Cycles” correspond to dynastic changes: the Xia dynasty was the black cycle, the Shang dynasty was the white cycle, and the Zhou dynasty was the red cycle. The Son of Heaven of these three dynasties received the mandate of Heaven to rule, and therefore had to follow the celestial movement to rectify the calendar, change ceremonial colors, and fix institutions. This expressed that the Son of Heaven was acting in accordance with Heaven’s will. This idea of Dong Zhongshu clearly came from Zou Yan’s “theory of the Five Virtues’ Cyclical Succession,” which he transformed into the theory of the Three Cycles and the Three Correct Beginnings to meet the needs of the Western Han. This theory of Dong Zhongshu also included various doctrines such as the interaction between Heaven and humanity and statecraft, making his ideological system more capable of satisfying the Western Han’s need to establish a new world order of great unity.

董仲舒还大量吸收阴阳家的思想。为了维护汉代君主的政治权威，他吸收了战国阴阳家的三统、三正学说，以论证汉朝代替秦朝的天道意义，以强化西汉的大一统政治秩序。董仲舒吸收了邹衍的“五德终始说”,进一步建构了旨在强化西汉大一统的“三统说”。董仲舒认可的“三统”,是历史按黑、白、赤三统循环，天道的“三统”与朝代更替相配合，即夏朝是黑统，商朝是白统，周朝是赤统，三代天子受天命而王，故必须按天运而改正朔、异服色、定制度，这就是表达天子是在顺从天意。董仲舒的这一思想显然来自邹衍的“五德终始说”,他改造成满足西汉需求的三统、三正说。董仲舒的这一理论还包括天人感应、治国方略等各种学说在内，使他的思想体系更能够满足西汉建立大一统的新天下格局。

Dong Zhongshu absorbed and integrated the ideas of the above-mentioned schools—the Mohist, Legalist, Huang-Lao Daoist, and Yin-Yang schools—and incorporated them into a Confucian ideological system centered on great unity. Although the sources of Dong Zhongshu’s thought were highly diverse, there remained a main body and core: Confucian doctrine. The core idea of Dong Zhongshu’s great unity was first of all an inheritance and development of pre-Qin Confucian thought. From Confucius to Mencius and Xunzi, all advocated the ritual spirit of honoring the king from the Western Zhou, hoping to rebuild a political order in which the Son of Heaven unified the realm. Of course, Dong Zhongshu’s thought of great unity more directly inherited the Confucian ideas of Xunzi and the *Gongyang Commentary* on the *Spring and Autumn Annals*. Among the political ideas of early Confucianism, Xunzi particularly esteemed the great unity of thought and politics. In his “Critique of the Twelve Masters” (Fei shi’er zi), he criticized the Warring States philosophers for each holding their own views, resulting in “chaos under

董仲舒吸收兼容了上述墨家、法家、黄老道家、阴阳家等不同学派思想，并将其整合到以大一统为中心的儒家思想体系之中。尽管董仲舒思想的来源十分多元，但仍然有一个思想主体与核心，就是儒家思想学说。董仲舒的大一统的核心思想，首先是对先秦儒家思想的继承和发展。从孔子到孟子、荀子，其实都是倡导西周尊王的礼制精神，希望重建天子一统天下的政治秩序。当然，董仲舒的大一统思想，更多传承了荀子、《春秋》公羊传在内的儒家思想。在早期儒家的政治思想中，荀子尤其推崇思想和政治的大一统。他在《非十二子》中，指责战国时期诸子百家各执己见的结果是“枭乱天下”,故而推崇“总方略，齐言行，一统类”的政治一统与思想一统的天下。

The great-unity ideological system established by Dong Zhongshu of the Western Han dynasty was closely integrated with the centralized great-unity political system, laying the foundation for the great-unity Chinese civilization. This civilizational system was able to continue, survive, and develop independently for more than two thousand years, becoming a rare historical phenomenon in world history.

西汉董仲舒确立的大一统思想体系，与中央集权的大一统政治体系密切结合，奠定了大一统的中华文明。这一文明体系能够延续两千多年而独立生存和发展，成为世界文明史上罕见的历史现象。

III. The Historical Continuity and Modern Transformation of the Great-Unity Thought Tradition

三、 大一统思想传统的历史延续和近代转型

Because the diverse thoughts of the pre-Qin masters were all integrated into the great-unity Chinese thought and culture after the two Han dynasties, and through the inheritance and development by successive generations of thinkers, statesmen, and scholars, the construction of a pluralistic and unified Chinese civilizational system was ultimately completed. To examine the formation and influence of the masters’ thought on great-unity Chinese civilization, one can conduct further analysis through the core concept of “the Way” (dao) in traditional Chinese thought. In traditional Chinese thought, “the Way” generally refers to the constant and universal principles that people must follow, and the various schools of the pre-Qin period always called the principles or concepts they recognized the “Way.” Because the pluralistic thought of the pre-Qin masters contained the tradition of great-unity thought, it often transformed into a thought-and-culture form of the Way of pluralistic unity, thereby promoting the construction and development of the great-unity Chinese civilizational form.

由于先秦诸子多元思想均整合到两汉以后的大一中华思想文化之中，经过一代代思想家、政治家、学人的传承和发展，最终完成多元一体中华文明体系的建构。考察诸子思想对大一统中华文明的形成与影响，可以通过对中国传统思想核心的“道”来作进一步分析。在中国传统思想中，“道”一般是指人们必须遵循的恒常而普遍的法则，而诸子百家总是将自己认可的法则或理念称之为“道”。由于先秦诸子的多元化思想蕴含大一统思想传统，往往会转化为多元一体之道的思想文化形态，进而推动着大一统中华文明形态的建构和发展。

According to the “Tianxia” chapter of the Zhuangzi, the “Way of the inner sage and outer king” (neisheng waiwang zhi dao) [8]8 “Way of the inner sage and outer king” (neisheng waiwang zhi dao): A classical Chinese ideal of governance, originating in the Zhuangzi, holding that a ruler must first cultivate inner moral perfection (the sage) in order to effectively govern the realm (the king). mastered and applied by the sage-kings of the Three Dynasties was the complete and comprehensive Way of Chinese civilization. Although the pre-Qin masters developed this ancient Way, they could each only grasp one partial aspect. Nevertheless, the various schools shared a common point: they all firmly believed that the ideas and concepts they proposed originated from the sage-kings of high antiquity and ultimately served the unification of the world under Heaven. The “Bu’er” chapter of the Lüshi Chunqiu once stated that Lao Dan valued softness, Confucius valued benevolence, and Mozi valued universal love; yet all the various schools without exception insisted that the “values” they upheld were the Way of the inner sage and outer king derived from high antiquity. Because the Ways of the pre-Qin masters during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods each held to one extreme, and each single master’s Way had both strengths and weaknesses, they could never support the inheritance and development of a pluralistic and unified Chinese civilization. After the Qin and Han dynasties, a centralized great-unity political system was established, which necessarily demanded a great-unity ideological and cultural system, thereby establishing a great-unity Chinese civilization. Therefore, beginning with Emperor Wu of Han, the centralized Han political system ultimately established an ideological system with Confucianism as the main body while accommodating the various masters’ schools, reconstructing a new Way of the inner sage and outer king, and further developing it into a pluralistic and unified civilizational system. Because behind the learning of the pre-Qin masters there was a foundation of great-unity thought, their pluralistic ideas could enter the great-unity Chinese ideological system, thereby constructing the great-unity Chinese civilization that influenced the subsequent two thousand years. The great-unity Chinese civilization, which began to evolve and develop in the Western Han dynasty, underwent more than two thousand years and gave rise to different academic and ideological forms. In fact, these were all the pluralistic thoughts and their complementary structures governed by the great-unity thought of the pre-Qin masters. In the historical evolution of more than two thousand years of Chinese intellectual history, what actually dominated the inheritance and development of Chinese civilization was never any single one of the pre-Qin masters, but rather a system with Confucian thought as the core, while simultaneously accommodating Daoist, Legalist, Mohist, Military Strategist, Yin-Yang, and other schools. The rich thought of the various masters could play their respective important roles in different aspects and different fields, but they were ultimately unified within the Confucian civilizational system that possessed the function of ideological and cultural integration, becoming an important component of great-unity Chinese civilization.

按照《庄子·天下篇》所说，三代先王所掌握与运用的“内圣外王之道”,才是完整而全面的华夏文明之道；而先秦诸子虽然对此古之道有发展，但只能够各得其一偏。尽管如此，诸子百家们又有一个共同点，就是均坚信自己提出的思想理念来自上古的圣王，最终服务于走向统一的天下。《吕氏春秋·不二》曾经提出老聃贵柔、孔子贵仁、墨子贵兼，然而诸子百家无不坚称他们所“贵”之道，就是源于上古的内圣外王之道。由于春秋战国诸子之道各执一端，而单一的诸子之道均是既有所长又有所短，决不能够支撑起多元一体中华文明的传承和发展。秦汉以后确立了中央集权的大一统政治体系，必然要求大一统的思想文化体系，进而建立起大一统中华文明。所以从汉武帝开始，中央集权的汉代政治体系最终确立了以儒学为主体而兼容诸子之学的思想体系，重新建构了新的内圣外王之道，进一步发展为多元一体的文明体系。由于先秦诸子之学背后都有大一统的思想根基，他们的多元化思想能够进入大一统中华思想体系中，从而构建成影响后世两千多年的大一统中华文明。西汉开始不断演变发展的大一统中华文明，历经两千多年而衍化出不同的学术思想形态，其实都是先秦诸子以大一统思想统摄的多元思想及其互补结构。在两千多年的中国思想史的历史演变过程中，实际主导中华文明传承发展的从来不是先秦诸子的某一家，而是以儒家思想为核心，同时兼容道家、法家、墨家、兵家、阴阳家等各家思想在内，丰富的诸子思想能够在不同方面、不同领域发挥着各自的重要作用，但是最终统一在具有思想文化统合作用的儒家文明体系之中，成为大一统中华文明的重要组成部分。

Why could the diverse thoughts of the pre-Qin philosophers be revered and emulated by later generations, jointly functioning within the civilizational system after the Han and Eastern Han dynasties, and ultimately completing the historical construction of a great-unity Chinese civilization? The historian Sima Qian has a passage that fully explains the principle by which the Way of the Three Dynasties’ sage-kings and the Way of the pre-Qin philosophers of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods could be transmitted and developed. He said: “Living in the present age, one records the Way of antiquity in order to use it as a mirror for oneself; it need not be entirely the same.” [9]9 Sima Qian (c. 145–c. 86 BCE), author of the *Records of the Grand Historian* (*Shiji*). The quotation is from the “Preface to the Hereditary House of the Grand Historian” (*Taishigong zixu*). Unlike other peoples who take “divine oracles” as the supreme norm that must be followed, the Chinese nation insists on taking “recording the Way of antiquity” as its own value ideal and civilizational model. This “Way of antiquity” is a historical experience and intellectual tradition that includes everything from the Way of the Three Dynasties’ sage-kings to the Way of the philosophers. At the same time, the Chinese do not blindly treat the “Way of antiquity” as dogma; rather, they combine the “Way of antiquity” with the actual conditions of their own social practice (“a mirror for oneself”). Such a “Way of antiquity” is in fact constantly changing and developing through keeping pace with the times. Because the pre-Qin “Way of antiquity” also included the Way of inner sagehood and outer kingship, which encompassed the thought of great unity, the cultural spirit of “recording the Way of antiquity” enabled the tradition of great-unity thought to be perpetuated within the Chinese civilizational system. Because of the Chinese nation’s intellectual tradition of “a mirror for oneself,” the tradition of great-unity thought would constantly change its specific ideological and institutional forms in accordance with changes in historical conditions. What is called the “Way of antiquity” is not merely academic thought and ideology; it is also embodied in spiritual temperament and cultural psychology. The pre-Qin philosophers generally recognized a “virtue” that was connected to the “Way.” The “Way” of the philosophers’ scholarship had to be sedimented into people’s inner “virtue” before it could have an effect on people’s social actions. The relationship between the Way and virtue discussed by the pre-Qin philosophers is in fact the relationship between traditional cultural thought and cultural genes. The Way of the pre-Qin philosophers existed not only in external texts, documents, and state institutions, but also in humanized cultural psychology and cultural genes. From the perspective of intellectual history, the interaction between the Way and virtue is the interaction between cultural thought and cultural psychology; together they promote the continuation and development of Chinese civilization. The diverse ideological concepts of great unity among the pre-Qin philosophers were also sedimented into the individual personality and cultural genes of every Chinese person.

先秦诸子的多元思想为何能够得到后世的尊崇和效法，共同在两汉以后的文明体系中发挥作用，最终完成大一统中华文明的历史建构?历史学家司马迁有一段话，能够充分说明三代圣王之道、春秋战国诸子之道得以传承和发展的原理。他说：“居今之世，志古之道，所以自镜也，未必尽同。”中华民族不同于其他民族以“神谕”作为必须遵循的最高准则，而是坚持以“志古之道”作为自己的价值理想、文明典范，这一“古之道”就是一种包括从三代圣王之道到诸子之道的历史经验与思想传统。同时中国人并不是盲目以“古之道”为教条，而是将“古之道”与自己的社会实践境况(“自镜”)结合起来，这样的“古之道”其实是在与时俱进中不断变革发展。由于先秦的“古之道”,其实也是包含大一统思想在内的内圣外王之道，故而“志古之道”的文化精神使得大一统思想传统，能够在中华文明体系中延续下来。由于中华民族的“自镜”思想传统，使得大一统思想传统会依据历史条件的变化，不断改变其具体的思想形态与制度形态。所谓“古之道”不仅仅是学术思想、意识形态，还会体现为精神气质与文化心理。先秦诸子普遍认同一个与“道”相通的“德”,诸子学术之“道”必须积淀为人的内在之“德”,才会对人的社会行动产生作用。先秦诸子讨论的道与德关系，其实就是传统的文化思想与文化基因的关系。先秦诸子之道，不仅仅存在于外在的文献典籍、国家制度之中，同时还存在于人性化的文化心理、文化基因之中。从思想史的角度来看，道与德的相互作用就是文化思想与文化心理的相互作用，它们共同推动中华文明的延续与发展。先秦诸子大一统的多元化思想理念，也积淀为每一个中国人的个体人格与文化基因。

To examine the transmission of the Chinese great-unity thought, one must closely link it to the Chinese nation, which is the main body of traditional Chinese thought. The Chinese nation itself is a nation constructed on the basis of diversity in unity. Mr. Fei Xiaotong, tracing the early form of the Chinese nation, the Huaxia nation, emphasized that this was a nation constructed in a mode of diversity in unity. He pointed out: “The formation of this pattern of diversity in unity of the Chinese nation also has its own characteristics: at a fairly early period, three thousand years ago, a core formed in the middle reaches of the Yellow River, where several ethnic groups converged and gradually merged, called Huaxia. It grew larger and larger like a snowball, absorbing surrounding alien groups into this core.” [10]10 Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005), a pioneering Chinese sociologist and anthropologist. The quotation is from his 1988 lecture “The Pattern of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nation” (*Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti geju*). After the establishment of the unified state system, thought, and culture of the Qin and Han dynasties, the Han people and other ethnic minorities continuously exchanged and merged, and ethnic groups from different regions also continuously exchanged and merged, enabling the ethnic community to develop and grow continuously, becoming the Chinese nation with the most prominent characteristics of diversity in unity in the history of human civilization. In this process, the Chinese nation’s tradition of great-unity thought, which originates from diversity and returns to unity, formed a close isomorphic relationship with the formation of the Chinese national community. Thereafter, whether it was the exchange and integration of different ethnic groups on the Chinese land, or the entry of some ethnic minorities into the Central Plains to rule, they all took the great-unity thought of Huaxia culture as their guide, regarded unifying the realm as their own responsibility, and claimed the orthodox status of Chinese culture.

考察中华大一统思想传承，必须紧密联系中国传统思想主体的中华民族。中华民族本身就是多元一体而建构起来的民族，费孝通先生追溯中华民族早期形态的华夏民族，强调这是一种以多元一体方式建构起来的民族。他指出：“中华民族这个多元一体格局的形成还有它的特色：在相当早的时期，距今三千年前，在黄河中游出现了一个若干民族集团汇集和逐步融合的核心，被称为华夏，它像滚雪球一般地越滚越大，把周围的异族吸收进了这个核心。”秦汉大一统国家制度、思想文化建立之后，汉族与其他少数民族不断交流融合，不同地域的族群也在不断交流融合，使得民族群体得以不断发展壮大，成为人类文明史上最具多元一体突出特征的中华民族。在此过程中，中华民族那种源于多元性、归于统一性的大一统思想传统，与中华民族共同体形成密切的同构关系。以后，无论是中华大地上不同民族交流融合，或者是其中的少数民族入主中原，都会以华夏文化的大一统思想为指导，以统一天下为己任，并以中华文化的正统自居。

Therefore, the Chinese tradition of great-unity thought is inseparably linked to the formation of the Chinese national community, and the consciousness of the Chinese national community has made important contributions to the consolidation and development of great-unity thought. The Chinese nation and the great-unity ideological concepts and civilizational forms it created have undergone a long process of historical construction and stages of transmission and development. Although there were recurring periods of unification and division in Chinese history, great-unity Chinese civilization was continuously transmitted under different historical conditions, and different forms of great-unity civilization were constructed, including both the “tianxia system” [11]11 *Tianxia* (天下), literally “all under Heaven,” refers to the traditional Chinese conception of a universal political and moral order centered on the Chinese realm. form of great-unity civilization of the Han and Tang dynasties and the civilizational forms of the Yuan dynasty’s “Mongol-Han unity” and the Qing dynasty’s “Manchu-Han unity.” In the more than two thousand years of history after the Qin and Han dynasties, great-unity Chinese civilization promoted the formation and development of a multi-ethnic community, enabling the tradition of great-unity thought to be deeply rooted in the cultural bloodline of the Chinese nation and to sustain the continuous development of the Chinese nation through successive dynasties. Because the Chinese nation was constructed on the basis of diversity in unity, this further strengthened the Chinese ideological form, which, while advocating great unity, was also constructed as an ideological system in a mode of diversity in unity. Examining the history of ancient China over nearly two thousand years, the core concept of the Chinese nation’s great-unity thought is the advocacy of unity, the promotion of integration and commonality under conditions of diversity and difference. Hence, great-unity thought not only became the main thread running through traditional Chinese thought and culture, the core concept sustaining the consciousness of the Chinese national community, but also became the ideological root for constructing great-unity Chinese civilization.

因此，中华大一统思想传统与中华民族共同体的形成有密不可分的联系，中华民族共同体意识对大一统思想的巩固和发展做出了重要贡献。中华民族及其创立的大一统思想理念和文明形态，经历了漫长的历史建构过程和传承发展的阶段。尽管中国历史上有不断出现的统一和分裂，但是大一统中华文明在不同历史条件下不断传承，并建构起不同的大一统文明形态，既包括汉唐的“天下体系”的大一统文明形态，也包括元朝“蒙汉一家”和清朝“满汉一家”的文明形态。在秦汉以后两千多年历史上，大一统中华文明促进了多民族共同体的形成和发展，使得大一统思想传统能够深入根植于中华民族的文化血脉，维系着中华民族历朝历代延续发展。由于中华民族是多元一体建构起来的，进一步强化了中华思想形态在推崇大一统的同时，又以多元一体方式建构起来的思想体系。考察近两千多年的中国古代史，中华民族大一统思想的核心理念就是崇尚统一，主张多元差异下的一体化和共同性，故而大一统思想不仅成为贯穿中国传统思想文化的主线，成为维系中华民族共同体意识的核心理念，也成为建构大一统中华文明的思想根脉。

As a political and cultural concept, “the Chinese nation” developed and grew in a self-existing state in ancient China, but from modern times onward, it became the civilizational self-consciousness of all Chinese people, thereby promoting the formal proposal of important concepts such as the Chinese nation and Chinese civilization. In 1902, Liang Qichao emphasized cultural integration and first proposed the important concept of “the Chinese nation,” its connotation expanding from the Han people to include ethnic minorities such as the Manchu, Mongol, Hui, and Tibetan. [12]12 Liang Qichao (1873–1929), a leading reformist intellectual and journalist in late Qing and early Republican China. Later, the revolutionary Sun Yat-sen put forward the ideological concept of “five-race republic,” [13]13 “Five-race republic” (*wuzu gonghe*), a slogan adopted by Sun Yat-sen and the revolutionary movement after 1911, advocating the equal union of the five major ethnic groups (Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, Tibetan) within a single republic. recognizing the equality of Han, Manchu, Mongol, Hui, and Tibetan. Thus, the connotation of Chinese great-unity thought in modern times also underwent important changes in the course of historical transmission. It can be seen that, in the process of the gradual awakening of modern Chinese national consciousness, the revolutionaries represented by Sun Yat-sen, when considering and handling issues of territory and ethnic groups, hoped to inherit the Chinese nation’s tradition of great-unity thought. Although the Chinese people made the greatest efforts in actively exploring new great-unity political systems and governance systems, including attempts to complete the reconstruction of a new great unity through a constitutional monarchy system and a bourgeois republic system, in the end, due to various historical reasons, none of these achieved the historical task of modernizing Chinese civilization. Clearly, the Chinese nation’s long-standing tradition of great-unity thought needed to be based on a new political foundation and transformed into a new ideological form before it could complete its mission of historical transmission and modern development.

“中华民族”作为一个政治和文化概念，在中国古代是以自在的状态形成和发展，而到了近代以后，开始成为全体中国人的文明自觉，进而推动了中华民族、中华文明等重要概念的正式提出。梁启超1902年强调文化融合，首次提出“中华民族”的重要概念，其内涵由汉族扩展为包括满蒙回藏等少数民族在内。以后，革命派孙中山提出“五族共和”的思想理念，承认汉满蒙回藏平等。这样，近代以来的中国大一统思想内涵也在历史传承中发生重要变革。可见，在近代中国国家意识逐步觉醒的过程中，以孙中山为代表的革命党人在思考和处理疆域与族群问题时，希望传承中华民族大一统思想传统。尽管中国人民在积极探索新的大一统政治制度和治理体系的过程中，作出了最大的努力，包括通过君主立宪制度、资产阶级共和制度以完成新大一统重建，但是终因种种历史原因均未实现中华文明现代化的历史任务。显然，中华民族悠久的大一统思想传统，需要立足于新的政治基础，转化为一种新的思想形态，才能够得以完成其历史传承和现代发展的使命。

The Communist Party of China led the Chinese people in establishing New China, and finally it became possible to endow the tradition of great-unity thought with new meaning and to provide powerful institutional resources and ideological foundations for the Chinese nation, which had stood up, grown rich, and become strong. In the process of constructing a modern state system, the Communist Party of China also promoted the modern transformation of the Chinese nation’s tradition of great-unity thought. New China established the system of people’s congresses, the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and the system of regional ethnic autonomy, completing the establishment of a unified multi-ethnic state system. This is a modern state system that has absorbed the Chinese tradition of great unity, and it is also a form of Chinese-path modernization constructed under the modern Chinese goals of national self-strengthening and civilizational rejuvenation. It should be said that the state system and state governance system established by New China clearly inherited the Chinese nation’s tradition of great-unity thought, but in the process of inheritance, it also absorbed the achievements of modern human institutional civilization.

中国共产党领导中国人民建立了新中国，终于可以重新赋予大一统思想传统的新意义，并对能够对站起来、富起来、强起来的中华民族，提供强大的制度资源和思想依据。中国共产党在构建现代国家体制构建的过程中，也在推动中华民族大一统思想传统的现代转化。新中国确立了人民代表大会制度、中国共产党领导的多党合作和政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度，完成了一个统一的多民族国家制度的建立，这是一个吸收了中华大一统传统的现代性国家体制，也是近代中国在民族自强、文明复兴目标下建构起来的中国式现代文明形态。应该说，新中国建立的国家制度和国家治理体系，明显继承了中华民族的大一统思想传统，但是在继承中又吸收了人类现代制度文明的成果。

IV. Xi Jinping’s Inheritance and Development of the Tradition of Great-Unity Thought

四、 习近平对大一统思想传统的传承与发展

Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly expounded in depth on the Chinese nation’s tradition of great unity thought and its modern significance; these related ideas are an important component of Xi Jinping’s cultural thought. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s discourse on the Chinese nation’s great unity thought not only inherits the rich tradition of great unity thought of the Chinese nation but also develops this tradition of thought into a series of cultural ideas for China’s modern governance system, the sense of community for the Chinese nation, and the creation of modern Chinese civilization. The discourse on the great unity tradition within Xi Jinping’s cultural thought can only be profoundly understood from the perspective of the continuity and developmental nature of Chinese civilization. The following further explores General Secretary Xi Jinping’s inheritance and development of the Chinese nation’s great unity thought tradition from three aspects: China’s modern governance system, the sense of community for the Chinese nation, and the construction of modern Chinese civilization.

党的十八大以来，习近平总书记多次深入阐述中国大一统思想传统及其现代意义，这些相关思想是习近平文化思想的重要组成部分。习近平总书记对中华民族大一统思想的论述，不仅继承了中华民族丰富的大一统思想传统，并且将这一思想传统发展为中国现代化治理体系、中华民族共同体意识、创建现代中华文明的一系列文化思想。习近平文化思想中的大一统传统的论述，只有从中华文明的连续性和发展性视角，才能够深刻理解其重要意义。以下从中国现代化治理体系、中华民族共同体意识、现代中华文明建设三个方面，进一步探讨习近平总书记对中华民族大一统思想传统的传承和发展。

First, the construction goal of China’s modern governance system inherits and develops the Chinese nation’s tradition of great unity thought. China’s modern state system and state governance system are both conditions for and goals of advancing Chinese-path modernization. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes that the state system and state governance system a country chooses are determined by that country’s history and culture, social nature, and level of economic development. “The socialist system with Chinese characteristics and the state governance system have profound historical foundations. Over thousands of years of historical evolution, the Chinese nation created a splendid ancient civilization and formed a wealth of ideas concerning the state system and state governance.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Uphold and Improve the Socialist System with Chinese Characteristics and Advance the Modernization of China’s System and Capacity for Governance” (2019). Since modern times, countless people with lofty ideals, in order to change China’s future and destiny, continuously sought new state systems and state governance systems, once attempting constitutional monarchy, parliamentary systems, multiparty systems, presidential systems, and so on, but all ended in failure. The Chinese people ultimately chose the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and the state governance system; this system and governance system clearly inherit the Chinese nation’s tradition of great unity thought. At the Symposium on Cultural Inheritance and Development, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “We did not adopt a federal system or a confederation; we established a unitary state form and implemented the system of regional ethnic autonomy. This is precisely to comply with the great trend of the Chinese nation’s development toward inward cohesion and diversity in unity, and to inherit the Chinese cultural tradition of great unity, where ‘all within the nine provinces are connected, the six directions share the same customs, and the four seas are one family.’” [15]15 Xi Jinping, speech at the Symposium on Cultural Inheritance and Development (June 2, 2023). The quoted phrases are classical allusions: “九州共贯” (all within the nine provinces are connected) and “六合同风” (the six directions share the same customs) originate from the *Book of Han* (《汉书》), while “四海一家” (the four seas are one family) appears in the *Records of the Grand Historian* (《史记》). The ideological essence of the “great unity tradition of the six directions sharing the same customs and the four seas being one family” listed here is an important component of the excellent traditional Chinese culture, embodying the ideological essence of the diverse and integrated Chinese civilization. As mentioned earlier, the great unity of Chinese civilization was founded in the Qin and Han periods. The Qin Dynasty established a centralized and commandery-county system, becoming a great unity state system that implemented effective governance over the entire country; the Western Han began to establish the ideological concept of great unity, and through the synthesis of diverse and integrated thought and culture, established a diverse and integrated Chinese civilization system. General Secretary Xi Jinping has developed the Chinese nation’s tradition of great unity thought from the perspective of perfecting the modern state system and state governance system.

其一，中国现代化治理体系的建设目标，继承发展了中华民族的大一统思想传统。中国现代国家制度和国家治理体系，是推动中国式现代化的条件与目标。习近平总书记强调，一个国家选择什么样的国家制度和国家治理体系，是由这个国家的历史文化、社会性质、经济发展水平决定的。“中国特色社会主义制度和国家治理体系具有深厚的历史底蕴。在几千年的历史演进中，中华民族创造了灿烂的古代文明，形成了关于国家制度和国家治理的丰富思想。”近代以来，无数仁人志士为改变中国前途命运，不断探寻新的国家制度和国家治理体系，曾经尝试了君主立宪制、议会制、多党制、总统制等，但都以失败而告终。中国人民最终选择了中国特色社会主义制度和国家治理体系，这一制度和治理体系明显继承了中华民族的大一统思想传统。习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上指出：“我们没有搞联邦制、邦联制，确立了单一制国家形式，实行民族区域自治制度，就是顺应向内凝聚、多元一体的中华民族发展大趋势，承继九州共贯、六合同风、四海一家的中国文化大一统传统。”这里列举的“六合同风、四海一家的大一统传统”的思想精华，就是中华优秀传统文化的重要组成部分，体现出多元一体中华文明的思想精髓。如前所述，中华大一统文明奠基于秦汉时期。秦朝建立起中央集权和郡县制度，成为实施对全国开展有效治理的大一统国家体系；西汉开始确立大一统思想理念，通过多元一体的思想文化综合，建立起多元一体中华文明体系。习近平总书记从完善现代国家制度和国家治理体系的角度，发展了中华民族的大一统思想传统。

Second, the thought of the sense of community for the Chinese nation inherits and develops the Chinese tradition of great unity thought. The Chinese nation is a national community composed of 56 ethnic groups living on the land of China. The Chinese nation as a natural national entity was formed over several thousand years of history; as a self-conscious national entity, it was further developed over the past century in confrontation with the Western great powers. When tracing the Chinese tradition of great unity thought, General Secretary Xi Jinping said: “Our long history was jointly written by all ethnic groups. As early as the pre-Qin period, China gradually formed a pattern of integration with the Yan-Huang and Huaxia as the cohesive core and the ‘five directions’ peoples’ sharing the world. The Qin state ‘unified the written script, standardized the axle length of carriages, unified weights and measures, and unified social conduct,’ initiating the development of a unified multi-ethnic state in China. Thereafter, no matter which ethnic group entered the Central Plains, they all took unifying the world as their own mission and regarded themselves as the orthodox inheritors of Chinese culture. Even during periods of division like the Northern and Southern Dynasties, each side claimed to be the orthodox inheritor of China.” [16]16 Xi Jinping, speech at the National Conference on Ethnic Affairs (September 27, 2014). “五方之民” (the five directions’ peoples) is a classical term from the *Book of Rites* (《礼记》), referring to the peoples of the east, south, west, north, and center. “书同文，车同轨，量同衡，行同伦” (unified the written script, standardized the axle length of carriages, unified weights and measures, and unified social conduct) describes the standardization policies of the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BCE). Thus it can be seen that great unity and the formation of the Chinese national community are closely linked. On the basis of absorbing the Chinese tradition of great unity thought and the modern thought of diversity in unity, General Secretary Xi Jinping further put forward the contribution of the sense of community for the Chinese nation to the formation of great unity thought. This tradition of great unity thought, which originates from diversity and returns to unity, in fact has a close isomorphic relationship with the formation of the Chinese national community. Some ideas concerning ethnic integration that appeared in Chinese history, including the Yuan Dynasty’s “Mongols and Han as one family” and the Qing Dynasty’s “Manchus and Han as one family,” objectively promoted the Chinese nation’s tradition of great unity thought, constructed over thousands of years, which originates from diversity and returns to unity. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “A history of China is a history of the integration and convergence of various ethnic groups into a diverse and unified Chinese nation, a history of all ethnic groups jointly creating, developing, and consolidating the unified great motherland. The reason why all ethnic groups are united and integrated, and why diversity converges into unity, stems from the mutual absorption of cultures, the mutual dependence of economies, and the mutual closeness of emotions among all ethnic groups, and stems from the endogenous driving force of the Chinese nation’s pursuit of unity and unification.” [17]17 Xi Jinping, speech at the National Conference on Ethnic Affairs (September 27, 2014). General Secretary Xi Jinping particularly pointed out that to realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, it is necessary to forge a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation. Thus it can be seen that emphasizing that the Chinese nation is a diverse and unified national community formed through the integration and convergence of all ethnic groups is not only an inheritance of the Chinese civilization’s tradition of great unity thought but also an expression of the development trend of the Chinese nation’s great unity civilization system under new historical conditions. Under the current international situation of changes unseen in a century, further strengthening the Chinese nation’s endogenous driving force for pursuing unity and unification is the fundamental guarantee for the Chinese nation to be able to cope with any complex and volatile situation.

其二，中华民族共同体意识的思想，继承和发展了中华大一统思想传统。中华民族是生活在中华大地56个民族组成的民族共同体。中华民族作为一个自在的民族实体是几千年历史过程中形成的，作为一个自觉的民族实体则是近百年来与西方列强对抗中得以进一步发展。习近平总书记在追溯中华大一统思想传统时说：“我们悠久的历史是各民族共同书写的。早在先秦时期，我国就逐渐形成了以炎黄华夏为凝聚核心、‘五方之民’共天下的交融格局。秦国‘书同文，车同轨，量同衡，行同伦’,开启了中国统一的多民族国家发展的历程。此后，无论哪个民族入主中原，都以统一天下为己任，都以中华文化的正统自居。分立如南北朝，都自诩中华正统。”由此可见，大一统与中华民族共同体的形成是密切联系的。习近平总书记在吸收中国大一统思想传统、近代中国多元一体思想的基础上，进一步提出中华民族共同体意识对大一统思想形成的贡献。这一种源于多元性、归于统一性的大一统思想传统，其实与中华民族共同体形成有密切的同构关系。中国历史上出现的一些有关民族融合的思想，包括元朝“蒙汉一家”和清朝“满汉一家”等思想，客观上促进了中华民族数千年建构的源于多元性、归于统一性的大一统思想传统。习近平总书记指出：“一部中国史，就是一部各民族交融汇聚成多元一体中华民族的历史，就是各民族共同缔造、发展、巩固统一的伟大祖国的历史。各民族之所以团结融合，多元之所以聚为一体，源自各民族文化上的兼收并蓄、经济上的相互依存、情感上的相互亲近，源自中华民族追求团结统一的内生动力。”习近平总书记特别指出，实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦，必须铸牢中华民族共同体意识。由此可见，强调中华民族是由各民族交融汇聚成的多元一体民族共同体，既是对中华文明大一统思想传统的继承，更是对新的历史条件下中华民族大一统文明体系发展趋势的表达。在当前百年未有之大变局的国际形势下，进一步强化中华民族追求团结统一的内生动力，是中华民族能够应对任何复杂多变的局势的根本保证。

Third, constructing modern Chinese civilization thought has inherited and developed the Chinese nation’s tradition of great unity thought. Chinese civilization can refer both to the classical Chinese civilization that has continued for five thousand years without interruption and to the modern Chinese civilization that is currently undergoing modernization. Because Chinese civilization is a continuous existence, it is closely related to the great unity thought that lies at the core of civilization; great unity thought not only played an important role in the continuation of classical Chinese civilization but will also promote the development of modern Chinese civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development that 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. He proposed that we must deeply grasp the outstanding characteristics of Chinese civilization, including continuity, innovation, unity, inclusiveness, and peace, and elaborated on the relationship between unity and great unity: “Chinese civilization has outstanding unity. The long tradition of great unity in Chinese civilization has formed a unified nature of diversity in unity, solidarity, and centralization.” [18]18 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development” (June 2, 2023). It can be seen that the Chinese tradition of great unity thought can promote the formation of the outstanding characteristic of “unity” in Chinese civilization. In fact, the characteristic of unity in Chinese civilization and the characteristic of continuity are also closely related civilizational features: great unity is both a necessary condition for the continuity of Chinese civilization, and the continuity of Chinese civilization further consolidates and strengthens the Chinese tradition of great unity thought. In addition, the unity of Chinese civilization is closely linked to diversity and inclusiveness. General Secretary Xi Jinping summarized this as a “great unity tradition of ‘the same customs across the six directions, the whole world as one family.’” [19]19 “Six directions” (liuhe) refers to heaven, earth, and the four cardinal directions, i.e., the entire realm; “the whole world as one family” (sihai yijia) is a classical expression for universal unity under a single rule. That is to say, the great unity of Chinese civilization has never been a singular ideology and culture; it must never replace diverse ideologies and cultures with a singular one, but rather diverse ideologies and cultures should converge into a common unified ideology and culture. The dialectical unity of great unity and diversity in Chinese civilization is precisely a prominent feature of the civilizational form of Chinese-path modernization. Thus, it can be seen that the great unity discussed by General Secretary Xi Jinping is not only a historical characteristic of traditional Chinese civilization but also a main feature and development direction of the construction of modern Chinese civilization. In the process of the modernization of Chinese civilization, the Chinese people chose Marxism as the guiding ideology for Chinese-path modernization, and Marxism adapted to the Chinese context has become a component of modern Chinese civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s proposal of the major proposition of the Second Integration [20]20 The Second Integration refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture, as distinct from the first integration with China’s concrete practice. is a manifestation of the cultural consciousness of the Chinese nation. This important thought transforms the spontaneous integration practice of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture into a conscious construction of Chinese culture, which has the important significance of consolidating the subjectivity of Chinese culture. Therefore, the path of Chinese-path modernization has become a modernization completed under the centralized and unified leadership of the Communist Party of China; the modern civilizational form of Chinese-path modernization has become a new modern civilizational form that inherits and develops the tradition of great unity thought.

其三，构建现代中华文明思想，继承发展了中华民族大一统思想传统。中华文明既可以指那个延续五千年而没有中断的古典中华文明，也包括正在开展现代化建设的现代中华文明。由于中华文明是一个连续性存在，与居于文明核心的大一统思想有密切关系，大一统思想既对古典中华文明延续产生重要作用，也会对现代中华文明发展产生推进作用。习近平总书记在文化传承发展座谈会上指出，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的创造性转化、创新性发展，提出要深刻把握中华文明的连续性、创新性、统一性、包容性、和平性等突出特性，并对其中的统一性与大一统关系作了深刻阐述：“中华文明具有突出的统一性。中华文明长期的大一统传统，形成了多元一体、团结集中的统一性。”可见，中华大一统思想传统，能够推进中华文明“统一性”突出特征的形成。其实，中华文明的统一性特征与连续性特征，同样也是密切相关的文明特征：大一统既是中华文明连续性的必要条件，中华文明连续性也在进一步巩固强化中华大一统思想传统。另外，中华文明的统一性与多元包容性是紧密联系的，习近平总书记将其概括为一种“六合同风、四海一家的大一统传统”。也就是说，大一统中华文明从来不是单一性思想文化，绝不能够用单一性思想文化代替多元性思想文化，而应该是由多元思想文化汇聚成共同的统一性思想文化。中华文明的大一统与多元性的辩证统一，恰恰也是中国式现代化文明形态的突出特征。由此可见，习近平总书记论述的大一统不仅仅是传统中华文明的历史特征，更是现代中华文明建设的主要特征和发展方向。在中华文明现代化过程中，中国人民选择了马克思主义作为中国式现代化的指导思想，中国化马克思主义成为现代中华文明的组成部分。习近平总书记提出“第二个结合”的重大命题，是中华民族文化自觉的体现。这一重要思想使马克思主义同中华优秀传统文化的自在结合实践，发展为一种中华文化的自觉建构，具有巩固中华文化主体性的重要意义。所以，中国式现代化道路，就成为中国共产党集中统一领导而完成的现代化；中国式现代文明形态，就成为继承发展大一统思想传统的现代新文明形态。

Author’s brief biography: Zhu Hanmin, Professor at Yuelu Academy, Hunan University.

作者简介：朱汉民，湖南大学岳麓书院教授。