Learning to Emulate the Wise: The Genesis of Chinese Philosophy as an Academic Discipline in Twentieth-Century China

6. Introducing Buddhism as Philosophy: The Cases of Liang Shuming, Xiong Shili, and Tang Yongtong

Chapter 6 Introducing Buddhism as Philosophy: The Cases of Liang Shuming, Xiong Shili, and Tang Yongtong Thierry Meynard The early-twentieth century saw the introduction of Buddhist studies into the Chinese academic world. For the most part, this occurred in the philosophy departments of the newly established universities. The subsequent academic discourse on Buddhism was a great challenge to the traditional teachings of the monasteries. Some Buddhist monks, such as Taixu 太虛 (1890–1947), and Buddhist laymen, such as Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無 (1871–1943), responded by developing a modern approach to their intellectual tradition.1 Under the pressure of Western-style academic institutions, including Christian universities and seminaries, a number of Buddhist training centres opened. These included the Wuchang Buddhist Institute 武昌佛學院 and the Minnan Buddhist Institute 閩南佛學院, established in 1922 and 1925 respectively by Taixu, and the Institute of Inner Learning 支那內學院 in Nanjing, which was established (and subsequently directed) by Ouyang in 1922.2 The teaching and research of Buddhist scholars working in academic institutions developed in quite a different direction, but they maintained close contact with the Buddhist institutes throughout the Republican period. This chapter examines three important scholars who contributed to Buddhist studies in the first half of the twentieth century. All three taught Buddhism in the Philosophy Department at Peking University. Broadly speaking, they were representative of three different academic approaches: the cultural, the metaphysical, and the historical. Liang Shuming 梁漱溟 (1893–1988) developed a cultural philosophy in which Buddhism represented the future religion for all humanity. Xiong Shili 熊十力 (1885–1968) used Buddhism as a conceptual tool in his own metaphysical system. Finally, Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893–1964) was an historian of Buddhism. 188 · Thierry Meynard Through an analysis of these three figures, I clarify how, and why, Buddhism came to be classified as “philosophy.” In particular, I investigate how their understanding of Buddhism was transformed by their use of this label. More specifically, I focus on three questions concerning the relation between philosophical discourse and Buddhism. First, could Buddhism be completely comprehended within the limits of philosophy? Second, what was the status and relevance of a Buddhist philosophy detached from practice? Third, was the academic discourse on Buddhism neutral, or did it ultimately serve other purposes? 1. Liang Shuming: Buddhist Philosophy in the Service of an Existential Commitment 1.1 The Discovery of a “Philosopher” It was by chance that Liang joined philosophical circles. Between 1914 and 1915, he was dealing with existential issues. These included the meaning of life after a friend’s death; and following the outbreak of the First World War, the future of civilization itself. During a kind of quasiretreat , Liang intensively read both Buddhist sutras and Western philosophy . In his first philosophical essay, “Treatise on Finding the Foundation and Resolving Doubt” (1916), Liang proposed overcoming the existential and intellectual crisis of the age by exploring the foundation of human existence and the universe; a foundation which he expressed using the Buddhist term “suchness” (zhenru 真如).3 In writing this article, Liang was most probably unaware that he was “doing philosophy” as such. He was motivated not by a love of knowledge or speculation, but rather by his need to solve an existential crisis. In his preface to Essentials of Chinese Culture (1949), Liang confessed that he did not engage in academic work for its own sake but because he was forced to do so in order to solve personal issues.4 The chancellor of Peking University, Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培 (1868–1940), discovered Liang’s article and recognized it as a work of philosophy. Cai also realized that Liang could teach philosophy and invited him to lecture on Indian philosophy. Liang was very much aware of his lack of credentials : “Concerning my qualifications, first, I did not go to university; second, I did not study abroad. Concerning my specialization, I had only diligently studied some disciplines by myself and acquired a smattering of Introducing Buddhism as Philosophy · 189 knowledge.”5 He was given the label of “philosopher” by an academic institution eager to attract bright minds. Without Cai’s invervention, Liang would most probably never have started his career as a “philosopher ” and would likely have become a Buddhist monk.6 Here, we face an important historical issue: after the abolition of the imperial examination system in 1905, what careers were available to young intellectuals? With the split between intellectual and political elites, could intellectuals be satisfied with a prestigious position in teaching and research, albeit one...