of the Field Report VI
Chinese Studies of XIONG Shili (熊十力)
publication of XIONG Shili’s New Doctrine of Consciousness Only《 新唯識論》 in
classical Chinese in 1932 marked the formal establishment of his
philosophical system. Since then, it has always held interest for the
academic community in China. GUO Qiyong 郭齊勇summarized
studies of XIONG at home and abroad before the 1980s in “A Review of
Studies of XIONG Shili in China and Overseas in the Past Decades” (in
Guo 1985: 118-144). The period from the 1980s to the present witnesses a
climax of research on XIONG Shili. More and more scholars in China and
overseas have interacted with one another, exchanged views, and pursued
further their studies of Xiong’s philosophy. In particular, scholars
from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao have communicated the latest
developments of their independent and unique research works. A significant
number of publications on Xiong have followed. This review intends to
provide a general picture of the representative research works on Xiong
done during the past twenty years. In this sense, it can be regarded as a
follow-up of Guo’s above-mentioned review article on the same topic.
the past two decades, tremendous progress has been made in collecting,
collating, and publishing Xiong’s works. The Collected Works of XIONG
Shili 《熊十力論著集》 includes New Doctrine of Consciousness Only,
On Substance and Function 《論體用》, and Key Sayings of XIONG Shili 《十力語要》 (see Tang and Xiao 1985, 1994, 1996). This is one
of the earliest and most authoritative compilations of Xiong’s works.
The Collected Works of the Eight Prominent Contemporary New Confucians《當代新儒家八大家集》includes
the volume of XIONG Shili’s Collected Works《熊十力集》 (see Huang 1993). Scholarly Records of
Contemporary New Confucians《現代新儒家學案》 includes the volume of XIONG Shili’s Scholarly
Record 《熊十力學案》 compiled by GUO Qiyong (see Fang and Li). In addition to “Selected
Materials of XIONG Shili’s New Confucian Thoughts,” the volume also
anthologized some of Xiong’s work on Confucian ontology and methodology,
as well as some of his works on comparative studies of Chinese, Indian,
and Western cultures. GUO Qiyong also compiled a volume, The Foundation
of Contemporary New Confucianism: A Synopsis of XIONG Shili’s New
1996), in which some important book chapters and separate articles
representing Xiong’s thought are selected according to certain
hermeneutic and theoretical frameworks. Later, Guo compiled another
volume, XIONG Shili’s Academic and Cultural Essays《熊十力學術文化隨筆》(Guo
1999), including some of Xiong’s brief comments and letters on
philosophy and Chinese culture and his ideas on learning from and dealing
with people. The most important and influential achievement in this aspect
is The Complete Works of XIONG Shili《熊十力全集》,
edited, collected, and collated by XIAO Jiefu 蕭萐父, GUO Qiyong, JING Haifeng 景海峰, WANG Shouchang 王守常,
CAI Zhaohua 蔡兆華,
and others. It has the following ten volumes:
An Outline of Doctrine of Consciousness Only《唯識學概論》(1923), appendix: Chapter on Mirror Image《境相章》(1925),
Deletion and Commentary on the Great Collation of the Buddhist Logic《因明大疏刪注》(1926),
An Outline of Doctrine of Consciousness Only 《唯識學概論》(1926), Doctrine of Consciousness Only 《唯識論》(1930),
and Respectful Records of the Predecessors《尊聞錄》(1930);
New Doctrine of Consciousness Only《新唯識論》(in classical Chinese, 1932), Deconstruction of the “Deconstruction of
New Doctrine of Consciousness Only”《破〈破新唯識論〉》(1933), A Short Compilation of XIONG Shili’s Saying
On Learning 《十力論學語輯略》(1935),
A General Interpretation of Buddhist Proper Nouns《佛教名相通釋》(1937),
Talks on Chinese History《中國歷史講話》(1938),
and An Outline of Chinese History《中國歷史綱要》(written during the anti-Japanese war);
New Doctrine of Consciousness Only《新唯識論》(in modern Chinese, 1944), and Essential Guide for Reading Confucian
Key Sayings of XIONG Shili《十力語要》(1947), Chinese Philosophy and Western Science《中國哲學與西洋科學》(1946),
and Reading and Transcribing Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra《讀智論鈔》(1947-1948);
A Preliminary Supplement to Key Sayings of XIONG Shili《十力語要初續》 (1949),
Commentary on Hanfeizi《韓非子評論》(1949),
Record of Attacking the Wrong Ideas, Solving Puzzles, and Manifesting
A Talk with Friends on ZHANG Jianglin《與友人論張江陵》(1950), and On Six Classics《論六經》(1951);
New Doctrine of Consciousness Only《新唯識論》(Revised Version, 1953), and An Inquiry on Confucianism《原儒》(1966);
On Substance and Function《體用論》(1958), Treatise on Brightening the Mind《明心篇》(1959),
The Evolution of the Cosmos《乾坤衍》(1961),
and Cunzhai Essays《存齋隨筆》(1963);
XIONG Shili’s Other Articles and Letters《熊十力論文書劄》;
Appendix Volumes: Collection of Comments on XIONG Shili’s Philosophy《熊十力哲學評論集粹》.
Complete Works of XIONG Shili,
totaling 5,000,000 words, displays a comprehensive picture of Xiong’s
scholarly ideas and charismatic personality. In the appendixes, readers
will find representative comments and debates concerning his thought
during different periods. The work was compiled under the tenet of
“authenticity, comprehensiveness, and meticulousness,” representing
the highest standard in collecting and collating Xiong’s works.
exchanges of studies of Xiong in the academic community have become more
and more frequent. The most important events are the two symposia on Xiong.
The first was the four day “Academic Symposium Commemorating the One
Hundredth Anniversary of XIONG Shili’s Birthday,” held in Xiong’s
hometown Huangzhou 黃州 in
Hubei Province, sponsored by Beijing University, Wuhan University, and
others in December 1985. More than one hundred scholars, as well as
Xiong’s friends, students, and family members from China, the United
States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the former Soviet Union were invited
to attend the conference. All the participants reaffirmed their reverence
for Xiong’s personal charm, his devotion to learning, and his
outstanding contribution to modern Chinese philosophy. They commented
highly on the world-wide significance of his efforts to merge Chinese,
Western, and Indian philosophical thinking into one system to create a
philosophical system of his own. Participants also specifically analyzed
the cultural background from which his philosophy was produced, the
sources on which he drew, and the historical significance of his
philosophy. In addition, they focused upon the connotations and values of
the characteristics, nature, emphases of his philosophy, and his
dialectical thinking of “combining substance and function into one (ti
yong bu er 體用不二).”
The conference resulted in two proceedings:
Memory of XIONG Shili 《回憶熊十力》 (LHSPCCHC) and Collected Papersof Learning in Treasured Garden: XIONG
Shili’s Lifetime and His Learning《玄圃論學集——熊十力生平與學術》(Xiao and Guo 1990).
an interval of sixteen years, the second conference on Xiong,
“International Symposium on XIONG Shili and Traditional Chinese
Culture” was held in Luojia 珞珈Villa
Guest House of Wuhan University in September 2001, sponsored by its Center
for the Study of Traditional Chinese Culture, School of Philosophy, and
Hubei Educational Publishing House. The first day of the symposium
witnessed the grand ceremony of the first release of The Complete Works
of XIONG Shili. Over sixty scholars and experts from Mainland China,
Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and overseas attended the three day conference,
with over forty papers presented. Compared with the previous one, this
conference reflected a marked progress in methodologies used, areas
explored, and theoretical depth reached in the study of Xiong. As noted by
FANG Keli 方克立of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in his talk, the simultaneous
holding of the symposium and publication of The Complete Works of XIONG
Shili also signify that Wuhan has become the center for Xiong study,
and that Xiong
itself has entered a new stage in the 21st century. The symposium resulted
in the conference proceeding entitled A Sequel to Learning in Treasured
Garden : Proceedings of International Symposium on XIONG Shili and
Traditional Chinese Culture《玄圃論學續集:
the meantime, a large number of monographs on XIONG Shili’s philosophy
have appeared. Among them the following are of important scholarly value:
Qiyong’s XIONG Shili and His Philosophy 《熊十力及其哲學》(Guo 1985) and its revised and expanded version, XIONG
Shili and Traditional Chinese Culture 《熊十力與中國傳統文化》(Guo 1988); GUO’s A Study of XIONG Shili’s Thought 《熊十力思想研究》(Guo
1993); GUO’s A Scholar Between Heaven and Earth: Biography of XIONG
1994); JING Haifeng’s 景海峰XIONG
ZHENG Jiadong’s 鄭家棟Ontology
and Method: From XIONG Shili to MOU Zongshan《本體與方法: 從熊十力到牟宗三》(Zheng
1992); LIN Anwu’s 林安梧Being,
Consciousness and Practice《存有、意識與實踐》(Lin); ZHANG Qingxiong’s 張慶熊XIONG Shili’s New Doctrine of Consciousness Only and Husserl’s
Zhang); DING Weixiang’s 丁爲祥 An Intellectual Biography of XIONG Shili《熊十力學術思想評傳》(Ding). In the following, I shall introduce some of the
key issues discussed in these as well as some other studies of Xiong’s
Xiong’s Intellectual Resources and Background
profound intellectual system was unique, creative, and independent.
it is like water that has its fountain and like a tree branch that springs
from its root. As GUO Qiyong points out, first, “Xiong’s ontological
cosmology mainly derives from his efforts to develop what is useful and
discard what is not useful in the Book of Changes 《易經》 and in WANG Chuanshan’s 王船山philosophy”
(Guo 1985: 54); second, “his intuitionalism originates from Zen
Buddhism, the School of Mind of LU Xiangshan 陸象山 and WANG Yangming 王陽明, with the latest source being Bergson and LIANG Shuming 梁漱溟”
(Guo 1985: 102); and third, “the School of Consciousness only (wei
shi xue 唯識學)
has influenced the formation of his epistemology: The structure of
cognition by the subject, the consciousness of the object, and
relationship between mind and environment” (Guo 1985: 62). YANG Guorong 楊國榮 argues that Xiong extends and illuminates WANG
Yangming’s idea of “mind and object forming one body (xin wu yiti 心物一體)”
and his theory of consciousness only is in many ways influenced by WANG
Yangming’s thinking, the manifestation of which lies in particular in
Xiong’s theory of “oneness of substance and function (ti yong bu er
體用不二)” and “transformation through closing and opening (he bi cheng bian
At the same time, Yang also points out that there are some differences
between Xiong’s “oneness of substance and function” and WANG’s
“mind and object forming one body.” By relating “oneness of
substance and function” and “transformation through closing and
opening” to evolution theory, Xiong brings together Wang’s school of
mind and Bergson’s philosophy of life.
conclusion is that “Xiong’s philosophy demonstrates that there would
be no way out in theory if we proceeded from WANG Yangming’s ‘mind and
object forming one body’ and talked about great transformation and
self-movement” (Yang: 210, 211, 216). The Australia Scholar JIANG
Yongming 薑允明 goes further to trace the intellectual source of
Xiong’s philosophy to CHEN Baisha 陳白沙.
explores Chen’s philosophy of mind and its influence on Xiong’s
philosophical formation (Jiang 1986a & 1986b).
most distinctive characteristic of Xiong’s philosophical system is
derived not only from Confucianism, but also from Buddhism. About its
relationship to the latter, there have been several important debates in
the past decades. Many of the articles involved in these debates are now
collected in the first appendix volume of The Complete Works of XIONG
Shili. Of them, the following three are particularly important: JIANG
Chanteng’s 江燦騰 “Comments
on the Correspondence between LÜ Cheng and XIONG Shili on Learning 呂澂與熊十力論學函稿評議”
(425-493); GUO Qiyong’s “On XIONG Shili’s Buddhist Thinking:
Differentiating between Confucian Mind and Buddhist Mind 論熊十力的佛學思想: 儒佛心性論辨析” (494-561); and WANG Shouchang’s 王守常 “The
Conflicts between Confucianism and Buddhism in the 20th Century: The
Debate between XIONG Shili and LIU Dingquan 二十世紀儒佛之爭: 熊十力與劉定權的爭論” (562-592).
for the time and background that produced Xiong’s philosophy, GUO Qiyong
and LI Minghua 李明華argue
that:Xiong’s philosophy was the sublimation of the ideology of the
ascending bourgeois class-consciousness. Although Xiong was living after
the May Fourth Movement, his mind was still very much on the 1911
Revolution (xinhei geming 辛亥革命).
He shut himself in the study and buried his head in the East-West
philosophies for the purpose of racking his brains out to work out a
theory (a makeup lesson) for the 1911 Revolution. (Guo and Li: 18-23)1
Kenji regards Xiong’s philosophy as part of the May Fourth Movement.
from the macro panorama between the New Culture Movement of the May Fourth
and the emergence of contemporary new Confucianism, SHIMADA Kenji points
out that the May Fourth Movement itself logically contains the orientation
of reevaluation of the tradition. The unfolding of this orientation
signaled the emergence of contemporary new Confucianism. Therefore, as an
important representative of New Confucianism, Xiong and his philosophy
should be regarded as part of the legacy of the May Fourth Movement
(Shimada: 6-8). CHEN Wanxiong 陳萬雄 also
claims that there is an internal link between the May Fourth Movement and
the 1911 Revolution. The representatives of the Enlightenment School (qimeng
and the Culture Conservative School (wenhua baoshou pai 文化保守派) were originally also members of the 1911 Revolution.
ideas of both schools belonged to the constituents of the 1911 Revolution
(see Chen). However, TU Weiming 杜維明 considers Xiong as a member after the May Fourth Movement, arguing that
Xiong’s thought is self-reflexive of the crisis of the post-May Fourth
Movement thinking (see Tu 1985).
Ontological Cosmology and the Relationship between Substance and Function
most important achievement is his integration of cosmology and ontology,
reestablishing an ontological cosmology, one of the important
characteristics of Chinese philosophy. Scholars at home and abroad have
attached great importance to this aspect. LI Zehou 李澤厚 argues that the most crucial part of Xiong’s philosophy lies in his
reinvigorating traditional Confucian philosophy, especially the School of
Principle (li 理)
and the school of mind (by LU Xiangshan and WANG Yangming) in Song 宋 and
Ming 明 Dynasties
and supplying “inner sageliness (neisheng 內聖)” and “the joy of Confucius and YAN Hui’s (kong yan le chu 孔顔樂處)”
with new ontological evidences. In other words, Xiong transforms
neo-Confucian ethics and view of life into cosmology and ontology. (Li:
266-267) 1 This view was also discussed by Japanese scholar SHIMADA Kenji 島田虔次 (Shimade) and Chinese scholar LI Zehou 李澤厚 (Li:
Qiyong argues that Xiong was one of the few representative modern scholars
who inherited the legacy of traditional Confucian cosmology. In his view,
“as a member of first generation of contemporary new Confucian scholars,
Xiong was interested in constructing metaphysics and his ontological
cosmology (jing lun 境論)
lays a foundation for contemporary New Confucian Movement. Xiong’s
ontological cosmology is his ontology and cosmology” (2002: 341). What
is distinctive of Xiong is that he does not talk about substance without
talking about cosmology and vice versa. According to Xiong, the so-called
“substance (ti 體)”
is the body of the cosmos in constant production and destruction; the
so-called “cosmos (yuzhou 宇宙)”
is the emergence of function (yong 用)
based on substance. Substance is the highest category of Xiong’s
philosophy, whose central part is ontology. In Guo’s view, “Xiong’s
whole task, to put it simply, is to reconstruct ontology, human moral
self, and the subjectivity of Chinese culture at a time of the collapse of
traditional value facing the impact of Western learning” (Guo 1993: 30).
Guo further argues that, generally speaking, Xiong’s substance is
neither pure natural body; nor pure spiritual body.
is the body of human life, the moral subject. It is the common foundation
of all human beings and other creatures, as well as the sky and earth. It
is the fountain source of all values. Xiong’s ontology cannot be torn
away from cosmology and life view. It cannot be separated from the person
and benevolence (substance) and its deployment: the myriad of things and
human cultural activities (function). (Guo 1993: 52) Xiong regards the
“internal mind (ben xin 本心)”
as the source of the cosmos and as the true nature of human beings, which
is also a dynamic and creative body. Xiong’s ontology is the ontology of
humanness (ren 仁)
that contains the dynamic, value-focused, and both immanent and
transcendental life-spirit (Guo 2002: 341). Guo further points out that
Xiong himself claims that if we can understand thoroughly about the
question of substance and function, all the important issues concerning
cosmology and life will suddenly become clear. The particularity of
Chinese philosophy lies in taking the existence as substance and function
as its function/use. Ti (substance) is both the noumenon and the
subject, while yong (function) is both the phenomenon and use.
Haifeng pays attention to the personal experiences embodied in Xiong’s
ontological thought. In his view, “life supported by faith is essential
for Xiong in constructing his philosophical ontology. It is from this
perspective that we can clearly understand the emergence of Xiong’s
philosophical ideas” (Jing: 25). It is right under the stimulation of
realizing truth through personal experiences and internal feelings that
Xiong defines his ontology as “metaphysical ontology (xuanxue
and uses it in the synergy of the cosmology, philosophy of life,
epistemology, and all other philosophical branches (see Jing: 27, 30-31).
Jin further points out that the characteristics of Xiong’s ontology is
the integration between heaven and human in ontology and the combination
of mind and object in cosmology. This allows the spirit of Chinese
philosophy to shine uniquely and makes it possible for the foundation of
cosmological life to depart from earthly cares, thus revealing eternal
truth. Western philosophy is by far short of this aspect. (1991: 23)
Lai 陳來 argues
that Xiong shows a great concern for the relationship between cosmological
ontology and the manifestations of the cosmos. According to Xiong, the
relationship between substance and function (phenomenon) in the cosmos is
one of the fundamental problems that defy any solution.However, we can see
that Xiong’s theory of substance and function centers on the
relationship between the substance of the cosmos (yuzhou zhenti 宇宙實體)and its myriad manifestations (yuzhou wanxian 宇宙萬象)
(Chen: 130).ZHENG Jiadong holds that XIONG Shili 熊十力 uses an old category in Chinese philosophy to
construct the “Meridian Line (jing xian 經線)” of his philosophical system, emphasizing the “neither similar nor
different (bu yi bu yi 不一不異)” relationship between noumenon and phenomenon, substance and function.
According to Xiong, to emphasize strongly the principle of “oneness of
substance and function” will highlight the basic characteristics of
Confucianism, with its strength and advantages. Also, by strongly
advocating this principle of “oneness of substance and function,”
Xiong wants to show that it is significantly different from both Western
philosophy and Buddhism. In relation to Western philosophy, Xiong
emphasizes that, as soon as substance is talked about, the function is
already there (ji ti er yan yong zai ti 即體而言用在體);
in relation to Buddhism, Xiong emphasizes that, as soon as function is
talked about, the substance is already there (ji yong er yan ti zai
(Zheng 1992: 36-37)
this same issue of substance and function, YAN Binggang 顔炳罡 points out that, in Xiong’s view, substance and
function are relative. There is no function without substance and vice
versa. Substance is the great function of manifestations embodying it. It
is the substance of function and cannot exist independently of function.
As substance is related to function, it is the substance of function. We
cannot separate function to seek substance.
does not exist without substance. The essence of Xiong’s philosophy is
that function reveals substance and substance shows the function.
Substance and function are both separable and inseparable. (Yan: 217-8)
“substance and function as from one source (ti yong yu yuan 體用一源)”
and “no gap between the manifest and the obscure (xian wei wu jian 顯微無間)”
in traditional Chinese philosophy to Xiong’s “oneness of substance and
function,” we can see that Chinese philosophy is vividly portrayed. In
this sense we can also avoid cutting substance and function into two. DING
Weixiang’s 丁爲祥 view on this issue is that, “in Xiong’s
philosophy, substance and function are not a pair of concepts externally
listed. They are the essence and tenor of Xiong’s whole philosophical
exploration, which starts from revealing the substance and ends up
explaining the substance and function of all things in cosmos” (Ding:
76). Ding also points out that although the idea of substance and function
belongs to Confucian tradition, Xiong’s view of the relationship between
them cannot be simplistically attributed to his inheritance from the
Confucian intellectual tradition. It also contains the critique and
inheritance of Buddhist thought. It is because of its absorption and
criticism of Buddhist ideas that Xiong’s view of the relationship
between substance and function bears an obvious modern concern. (Ding:
Kejian 黃克劍 tries
to illuminate the cosmological implication of the oneness of substance and
function, of Heaven and human, and of Dao and object (qi 器)
in Xiong’s philosophical system. He considers that the major interest of
Xiong’s philosophy is in the principle of things. By distinguishing the
original mind (ben xin 本心)
from the cultivated mind (xi xin 習心), and the natural wisdom (xing zhi 性智) from gained knowledge (liang zhi 量智), Xiong is trying to point out a way of life that “recognizes the body
of humaneness (ren ti 仁體)” so as to guide common people toward the road to sagehood. (Huang 2000:
58-59) LIN Anwu 林安梧 is of the opinion that we should proceed from the horizon of the
relationships between being, consciousness, and practice to interpret and
construct Xiong’s philosophy of substance and function. He argues that
Xiong’s philosophy of substance and function is a kind of
phenomenology-like ontology. Therefore, “as a school of cultivating the
mind and rectifying oneself (si xiu jiao jin zhi xue 思修交盡之學),” Xiong’s philosophy is the one focusing on personal experience of
existence or the encountering of being that ends up in Dao. More
specifically, Lin examines Xiong’s philosophy from the perspective of
WANG Chuanshan’s “simultaneous building of heaven and earth (qiankun
and “two extremes unified into one (liang duan er yizhi 兩端而一致)” and MOU Zongsan’s 牟宗三 logical discourse of “two layers of being
(existence) (liang ceng cunyou lun 兩層存有論).” He proposes that we may trace Mou’s philosophy to that of Xiong and
Xiong’s to that of WANG Chuanshan. He argues that Wang’s philosophy
can be regarded as the source of inspiration for contemporary new
Confucianism (Lin 2003 in CSTCC: 270-280).
The Relationship between Jinglun 境論 (Cosmology) and Lianglun 量論 (Epistemology)
distinction between jinglun (cosmology) and lianglun (epistemology)
shows his painstaking efforts to distinguish between ontological cosmology
and epistemological-methodology and between philosophy and science. Until
his late years, Xiong kept reminding himself that he should not start
writing on epistemology or the theory of knowledge. Later he regretted
that. On this issue, scholars hold diverse views. LOU Yulie 樓宇烈 thinks that although Xiong did not write a book on the theory of knowledge,
he had all the details in his mind.
we examine Xiong’s New Discourse 《新論》, Key Sayings of XIONG Shili 《語要》, and the outlines he provided for writing his theory of knowledge in the
preface of Yuan Ru《原儒》(An Inquiry on Confucianism), we shall see that all the major
contents of Xiong’s theory of knowledge have been discussed. The only
problem is that they are not arranged in a logical order. However, even
though Xiong could write a book on the theory of knowledge in a more
logical, explicit, and detailed manner, there would be nothing new about
his basic theoretical framework. In other words, Xiong’s theory of
cosmology already contained the gist of his theory of knowledge. Thus, the
true reason that Xiong failed to complete an independent book on the
theory of knowledge is not that, as he said, he was “tired and
exhausted,” but that his philosophical approach is closely related to
his basic theory of ontology (Lou: 151).
this issue, GUO Qiyong holds a similar view. In his view, “Xiong’s
epistemology has already been included in his ontology and has been merged
as one in ontology. Therefore, ten years after the publication of his Cosmology
he did not write a separate book on the theory of knowledge (Lianglun 量論)”
(Guo 1985: 151). In his Ph.D. dissertation, Guo devoted a special chapter
to the discussion of Xiong’s theory of knowledge, indicating that the
foundation of Xiong’s ontological method concerns the relationships
between nature (xingzhi 性智)
and cosmos (liang zhi 量智)
and between scientific truth and metaphysical truth. Inheriting the Song
Neo-Confucian tradition and absorbing elements from Western philosophy and
Buddhism, Xiong made an intensive study of the relationships between
personal experience and meditation and between substance and manifestation
as the extension of his ontology. In Guo’s view, Xiong does not look
down upon epistemology, reason, and meditation, but his main emphasis is
on the importance of moral experience and ontological intuition, touching
only the boundary of epistemology. So, Guo meticulously analyzes the
outline of Xiong’s theory of cosmology, focusing on his ideas of “yi
xin er men 一心二門 (one mind opens two doors),” “xing xiu bu er
and cultivation are one),” and “si xiu jiao jin 思修交盡 (meditation
and cultivation alternate between each other)” (Guo 1993: 103-150).
Jun 胡軍 holds
a different view on this issue. He argues that Xiong’s philosophy aims
to delineate a distinctive boundary between science (for pursuit of
knowledge) and philosophy. That amounts to saying that ontology lies
within the boundary of philosophy, while epistemology lies outside it.
Xiong has thus actually misunderstood the epistemological tradition of
of this, Xiong fails to develop an epistemology, despite some sparse
speculations, and thinks too highly of the role of “nature” in his
emphasized the role of intuitive experience, testimony of experience, and
self-knowledge in the process of self-seeking, which resulted in his
inability to complete a theory of knowledge. Thus, Hu concludes that
“the fundamental reason for Xiong’s failure to establish a theory of
knowledge is his personal philosophical view that ‘philosophy is about
ontology. Epistemology does not belong to philosophy.’ Therefore, Xiong
would not be regretful for all his life about being unable to write on a
theory of knowledge” (J. Hu: 76-83).
Weixi 胡偉希 contrasts
Xiong and Kant on the relation between knowledge and wisdom. He points out
that Kant’s limitation of epistemology to phenomenon makes it impossible
to seek solutions to moral issues through knowledge.
“Xiong once again brought up the issue of knowledge and wisdom for
discussion and treated it as a central topic for his philosophical
this sense, it is Xiong rather than Kant that becomes the authentic
inheritor of the ancient Greek conception of ‘virtue as knowledge” (W.
Xiong admits that knowledge is not identical to wisdom as knowledge has
yet to be transformed into wisdom, he does not deny the role of knowledge
as a means to wisdom and he emphasizes the relationship between the two.
Under the premise of the oneness of substance and function, Xiong affirms
the significance of “turning knowledge into wisdom (zhuan shi cheng
and “turning wisdom into knowledge (zhuan shi cheng zhi 轉智成識)” as his philosophy of life. This is where Xiong subverts the Western
ontological ideas based on duality. With an ontological understanding of
the oneness of substance and function, Xiong blazed a new trail by
disentangling himself from the problem of “turning knowledge into
wisdom.” However, as for further pursuit in philosophical metaphysics,
Xiong’s idea of “turning knowledge into wisdom” has yet to be
supplemented and developed, for he failed to systematically unfold
philosophical metaphysics. Thus, Xiong’s philosophy, to a great extent,
leaves people with an impression of being autocratic. Ultimately, he was
unable to meet the challenge of Western skepticism based on the premise of
duality (W. Hu: 68-75).
Zhongying 成中英 notices the possibility of accommodation between Xiong’s ontological
cosmology and modern Western philosophical epistemology.
On Substance and Function 《體用論》, Treatise on Brightening the Mind 《明心篇》, and The Evolution of Heaven and Earth 《乾坤衍》,
Xiong provides a substantial cosmological ontology and moral metaphysics
of human existence on the one hand, and offers a thinking model of
developing, multi-tier creations on the other. Both have played their
roles in facilitating the development of modern Western philosophical
epistemology. At the same time, the ideas of “oneness of substance and
function,” “transformation through closing and opening,”
“simultaneous building of heaven and earth,” and “mind and object as
from one source (xinwu tongyuan 心物同源)”
in Xiong’s ontological cosmology need to be integrated with the content
and form of epistemology, first transforming cognition into knowledge and
then turning knowledge into wisdom. In other words, the epistemological
approach of Western philosophy may promote Xiong’s ontological cosmology
to be combined with epistemology so as to upgrade epistemology to the
level of ontology or that of ontological epistemology.
logical extension of Xiong’s ontological proposition insists that nature
and cosmos supplement and promote each other; cosmology and the theory of
knowledge reciprocate each other. The great challenge facing Xiong’s
philosophy is to expound these complicated relationships (Cheng 2003:
The Later Xiong’s Thought
thought can be conveniently divided into two periods, with the year 1949
as the dividing line. How to understand and evaluate Xiong’s later
philosophy has been a hot topic for debate in the philosophical community.
ZHAI Zhicheng 翟志成 argues
that, after 1949, there is a fundamental change for Xiong’s thinking in
terms of both the learning of “inner sageliness (nei sheng 內聖)”
and that of “outer kingliness (wai wang 外王).” In his late years, Xiong published nine books.
Zhai’s view, every new publication by Xiong at this stage can be
described as a kind of “negative accumulation,” marked by a kind of
“retrogression” and “corruption” in his academic and spiritual
life (Zhai: 76-78). LIU Shuxian 劉述先 shares
the view that a change took place in Xiong’s later stage of thinking.
From this angle, the true meaning of Xiong’s thought can not be found
only in the works produced in his later years. In Liu’s view, however,
the metamorphosis comes about more in respect to “outer kingliness.”
As for “inner sageliness,” there is a spiritual consistency and
coherence between his early and later years.
even though there is a change in his view on the “outer kingliness,”
it is not that Xiong went along with the political authority and ideology,
as implied in Zhai’s phrase “to answer the call of the emperor (ying
di wang 應帝王).”
On the contrary, it is right through the adjustment of “outer kingliness
that Xiong corrected some improper thinking in ideology at that time.
Therefore, Liu criticizes some of Zhai’s biased views (Liu 1993).
Qiyong does not agree with Zhai’s view. Guo argues that Xiong’s basic
views before and after 1949 are consistent, with some of the earlier views
developed further later. He denies what Zhai describes as “negative
accumulation,” “retrogression of his academic standard,” or
“corruption in his spiritual life.” For instance, although the
metaphysical idea of “sheng sheng quan yuan xing hai 生生乾元性海”
(production and reproduction as the dynamic origin of yang 陽in
the sea of nature) was mentioned in Xiong’s works before 1949, Xiong
provided a more thorough illumination on this proposition after 1949 in
his later works such as An Inquiry on Confucianism 《原儒》 and The Evolution of Heaven and Earth 《乾坤衍》.
Another instance is that, in his later work, A Treatise on Brightening
the Mind 《明心篇》,
Xiong further expounded the chapter on brightening the mind from his
earlier work, New Doctrine of Consciousness Only 《新唯識論》. Although based on his original principle and theory, the latter is a
great leap forward. Guo does not entirely agree with LIU Shuxian’s
evaluation of Xiong’s view on “outer kingliness 外王” after the year 1949. According to Liu, Xiong’s view on outer
kingliness in Essential Guide for Reading Confucian Classics 《讀經示要》 and
other works has a direct relationship with An Inquiry on Confucianism《原儒》(1956).
Guo, however, argues that, after 1949, some changes really took place in
Xiong’s thought, which were embodied in his efforts to “emphasize the
function (zhong yong 重用),”
“manifest the existence (ming you 明有),” absorbing some of the scientific knowledge. On the whole, Xiong’s
thought in the later stage does not depart from the general framework of
substance and function as one and mind and nature as the kernel of his
philosophy (see Guo 1994 and 1994b).
Overall Evaluation of Xiong’s Thought
hold different views on the overall evaluations of Xiong’s philosophy.
Weiming argues that, as a cultural conservative, Xiong was interested in
carrying on and developing the identity of Chinese cultural spirit for the
purpose of keeping the identity of the national culture. Xiong’s
cultural conservatism itself contains ethical and religious implications,
transcending narrow-minded nationalism, and thus is of great value for
people exploring the value system in today’s world (Tu 1990: 191-196).
LI Zehou thinks that, whether observed from the background from which his
ideas arose or from the logical line of contemporary New Confucianism,
Xiong and his philosophy should be deemed as one of the forerunners of New
Confucianism (Li: 263). After providing an ideal definition for
contemporary New Confucianism, CHENG Zhongying points out that Xiong can
be regarded as the most creative and accomplished philosopher among
contemporary New Confucians, for he created a profound and powerful
ontological and methodological model for modern Chinese philosophy, which
has thus exerted a great impact on those scholars who are advocating
Confucian philosophy today (Cheng 1990: 172-190).
Qiyong identifies Xiong as one of the most original philosophical thinkers
in 20th century China and the philosophical founder of the contemporary
New Confucian Movement in the wake of the May Fourth Movement. Guo claims
that, 2 The Japanese scholar SHIMADA Kenji is also of the opinion that
Xiong’s thought before and after 1949 should be regarded as one unified
whole and that the completion of An Inquiry on Confucianism should
be looked as a landmark of his later works, because it has comprehensively
described the foundation of his philosophy (see Shimada: 83).
put it simply, all that Xiong has done is to respond to the challenges
posed by Western learning in order to reestablish Confucian ontology,
moral self, and the subjectivity of Chinese culture during a time of
decline in Confucian value system” (Guo 1993: 30). Guo further argues
that Xiong’s metaphysical constructions, especially his speculation on
the ultimate being and creativity of moral metaphysics, have been realized
in MOU Zongshan’s theory; his notion of the oneness of substance and
function and his idea of moral self leading to cultural construction have
been fully developed in TANG Junyi’s 唐君毅works;
and his historical and cultural consciousness have been expounded in XU
Fuguan’s 徐復觀 writings.
Shuxian argues that Xiong’s observation of sheng sheng quan yuan xing
hai (production and reproduction as the dynamic origin of yang in
the sea of nature) is unique, and has become the fountain source of
contemporary New Confucianism. It is this idea that provides inspiration
and revelation for his followers such as TANG Junyi, MOU Zongshan, and XU
Fuguan. Liu further brings to light some of the insights that can not be
surpassed by ensuing generations of contemporary New Confucians: Xiong’s
view of conscience as manifestation and not a supposition, his idea and
personal experience with sheng sheng quan yuan xing hai as his
creative interpretation of the Book of Changes《大易》 which
constitutes the fundamental idea of his philosophy, and his view of
knowledge as the manifestation of function by nature, and of substance and
function as based on the paradigm of “closing” and “opening”.
2001. In Pursuit of Modern Chinese Philosophy 《現代中國哲學的追尋》. Beijing 北京: Renmin Chubanshe 人民出版社.
“Some Comments after Reading a Letter 從一封函劄談起.” Dushu《讀書》No.10. Also in Xiao and Guo (eds.) 2001: 10.1393-1399.
1990. “A Comprehensive Discussion on the Issues of Definition and
Evaluation of Contemporary New Confucians in China”《綜論現代中國新儒家哲學的界定與評價問題》. In Xiao and Guo (eds.) 1990.
2003. “Evaluating XIONG Shili’s Ontological Philosophy from the Point
View of Contemporary Western Epistemology 從當代西方知識論評價熊十力的本體哲學.”
(Center for the Study of Traditional Chinese Culture of Wuhan University).
A Sequel to Learning in Treasured Garden: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on XIONG Shili and Traditional Chinese Culture 《玄圃論學續集:
Hubei Jiaoyu Chubanshe 湖北教育出版社.
1999. An Intellectual Biography of XIONG Shili 《熊十力學術思想評傳》. Beijing 北京: Beijing Tushuguan Chubanshe 北京圖書館出版社.
Keli 方克立 and
LI Jinquan 李錦全,
eds. 1995. Scholarly Records of Contemporary New Confucians《現代新儒家學案》. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe 中國社會科學出版社.
1985. XIONG Shili and His Philosophy《熊十力及其哲學》.
Zhongguo Zhanwang Chubanshe 中國展望出版社.
1988. XIONG Shili and Traditional Chinese Culture《熊十力與中國傳統文化》.
and Qin: Contemporary Chinese Studies of XIONG Shili
Tiandi Tushu Youxian Gongsi 天地圖書有限公司.
1993. A Study of XIONG Shili’s Thought 《熊十力思想研究》. Tianjin 天津: Tianjin Renmin Chubanshe 天津人民出版社.
1994a. A Scholar between Heaven and Earth: Biography of XIONG Shili 《天地間一個讀書人:
Shanghai Wenyi Chubanshe 上海文藝出版社.
Yeqiang Chubanshe 業強出版社.
1994b. “In Defense of XIONG Shili: Comment on XIONG Shili in Guangzhou 爲熊十力先生辯誣:
Ehu Yuekan 《鵝湖月刊》.
1996. The Foundation of Contemporary New Confucianism: A Synopsis of
XIONG Shili’s New Confucian Works《現代新儒學的根基：熊十力新儒學論著輯要》.
Zhongguo Guangbo Dianshi Chubanshe 中國廣播電視出版社.
1999. XIONG Shili’s Academic and Cultural Essays 《熊十力學術文化隨筆》. Beijing 北京: Zhongguo Qingnian Chubanshe 中國青年出版社出版.
2002. New Essays on Confucianism and Its History《儒學與儒學史新論》. Taibei 臺北: Xuesheng Shuju 學生書局.
and LI Minghua 李明華.
1983. “A Tentative Study of the Nature of XIONG Shili’s Philosophy 試論熊十力哲學的性質.” Jianghan Luntan 《江漢論壇》. No. 12: 18-23.
Qiyong 郭齊勇 and
HUANG Kejian 黃克劍,
et. al., eds. 1993. “Eight Prominent Contemporary New Confucian
Scholars’ Collected Works (2) 當代新儒家八大家集之二.”
In XIONG Shili’s Collected Works 《熊十力集》. Beijing 北京:
Qunyan Chubanshe 群言出版社.
2003. “Epistemology and Philosophy: An Analysis of XIONG Shili’s
Philosophical View 知識論和哲學:
2003. “XIONG Shili and Kant: Differentiation Between Knowledge and
2000. A Hundred Years of New Confucianism: Brief Comments on the Eight
Prominent Scholars of Contemporary New Confucianism《百年新儒林: 當代新儒學八大家論略》.
Zhongguo Qingnian Chubanshe 中國青年出版社.
ed. 1993. Collected Works of the Eight Prominent Contemporary New
Beijing: Qunyan Chubanshe 群言出版社.
1994. Aspects of Contemporary Studies of Mind and Human Nature《當代心性之學面面觀》.
Mingwen Shuju 明文書局.
1986a. “Ming Dynasty Scholar CHEN Baisha’s Influence on XIONG Shili 明儒陳白沙對熊十力的影響.”
Zhexue yu Wenhua Yuekan 《哲學與文化月刊》.
1986b. “XIONG Shili and CHEN Xianzhang 熊十力與陳獻章.” In Chinese Philosophy and Culture (1) 《中國哲學與中國文化 (1) 》.
Dongfang Chubanshe 東方出版社.
1992. XIONG Shili 《熊十力》.
Taibei: Dongda Tushu Gongsi 東大圖書公司.
(The Literary and Historical Sub-committee of the Political Consultative
Committee of Huanggang County 湖北黃岡縣政協文史委).
1989. In Memory of XIONG Shili. Wuhan 武漢: Hubei Jiaoyu Chubanshe 湖北教育出版社.
2003. Essays on Contemporary Chinese Intellectual History《中國現代思想史論》. Tianjin 天津: Tianjin Shehui Kexue Chubanshe 天津社會科學出版社.
1993. Being, Consciousness, and Practice《存有、意識與實踐》. Taibei
A Journal of Comparative Philosophy V. 1 臺北: Dongda Tushu Gongsi 東大圖書公司.
1993. “How to Correctly Understand XIONG Shili: Some Thoughts after
Reading ‘XIONG Shili in Guangzhou’ 如何正確理解熊十力:
Contemporary Time 《當代》 (Taibei):
No. 81. Also in Liu, Contemporary Chinese Philosophy: Figures《當代中國哲學論﹕人物篇》.
Bafang Wenhua Qiye Gongsi 美國八方文化企業公司.
1992. “Reflection on XIONG Shili’s Thought in His Later Years 對於熊十力先生晚年思想的再反思.”
No. 3. Also in Liu, Contemporary Chinese Philosophy: Figures 《當代中國哲學論﹕人物篇》. Bafang Wenhua Qiye Gongsi 美國八方文化企業公司.
1990. “Three Miscellaneous Thoughts on XIONG Shili’s Theory of
Knowledge 熊十力 “量論”
In Xiao and Guo (eds.) 1990.
XIONG Shili and New Confucian Philosophy《熊十力與新儒家哲學》. Kyoto 京都: Dobo Publishing House 同朋社.
Yijie 湯一介 and
XIAO Jiefu 蕭萐父,
eds. 1985. Collected Works of XIONG Shili (1): New Doctrine of
Consciousness Only 《熊十力論著集之一:
Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局.
1994. Collected Works of XIONG Shili (2): On Substance and Function 《熊十力論著集之二:
Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局.
1996. Collected Works of XIONG Shili (3): Key Sayings of XIONG Shili 《熊十力論著集之三:
Zhonghua Shuju 中華書局.
1985. “Exploring the Authentic Existence: A Brief Comment on XIONG Shili
In Contemporary Chinese Thinkers: Conservatism 《近代中國思想人物論: 保守主義》. Taibei 臺北: Shibao Wenhua Chuban Youxian Gongsi 時報文化出版事業有限公司.
1990. “Seeking the Truth of the Cosmos 孤往探尋宇宙的真實.” In Xiao and Guo (eds.) 1990.
and GUO Qiyong 郭齊勇,
eds. 1990. Collected Papers of Learning in Treasured Garden: XIONG
Shili’s Lifetime and His Learning 《玄圃論學集:
Sanlian Shudian 三聯書店.
2001. The Complete Works of XIONG Shili 《熊十力全集》. Wuhan 武漢: Hubei Jiaoyu Chubanshe 湖北教育出版社.
1998. An Introduction to Contemporary New Confucianism 《當代新儒學引論》.
Beijing Tushuguan Chubanshe 北京圖書館出版社.
1990. A General Introduction to the Learning of Wang Yangming: From WANG
Yangming to XIONG Shili 《王學通論:
Sanlian Tushu Gongsi 三聯書店.
1993. “XIONG Shili in Guangzhou (1948-1950) 長懸天壤論孤心: 熊十力在廣州.” Contemporary Time 《當代》No. 76-78: 55-81.
1995. XIONG Shili’s New Doctrine of Consciousness and Husserl’s
Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe 上海人民出版社.
1992. Ontology and Method: From XIONG Shili to MOU Zongshan《本體與方法: 從熊十力到牟宗三》.
Liaoning Daxue Chubanshe 遼寧大學出版社.
1997. Essays on the History of Contemporary New Confucianism 《當代新儒學史論》.
Guangxi Jiaoyu Chubanshe 廣西教育出版社.
Professor of English, Fulbright Scholar, Yale University; email: email@example.com
. QIN Ping秦平,
Ph.D. candidate in philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China;
原文载 Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy December 2005, Vol. V, No. 1, pp. 159-172. © 2005 by Global Scholarly Publications. All rights reserved. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy V. 1