这个世界会好吗？梁漱溟晚年口述(txt+pdf+epub+mobi电子书下载)

作者：梁漱溟, (美)艾恺

出版社：外语教学与研究出版社

格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT

这个世界会好吗？梁漱溟晚年口述试读：

Preface

I am honored to be able to write a preface to this volume.

First I want to explain how this dialogue between Mr. Liang Shuming and me came about.

I became interested in Mr. Liang’s life and career as a graduate student at Harvard University, and took it as the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation. I gathered materials in Taiwan and Hong Kong,as well as sought out and interviewed [many of] his old friends and acquaintances. Because of the Sino-American political situation at the time, I never had an opportunity to go to China and meet personally the subject of my research, Mr. Liang. In the first part of 1973 I had my first opportunity to go to China. For an American to be able to go to China at that time was still extremely unusual. Why was I able to make the trip? After President Nixon visited China, several Chinese delegations visited the United States in succession, and I served as their interpreter, and so became a channel of communication between the two countries. So in 1973, my wife and I had this rare opportunity to visit China. At the time, the first request I made of the Chinese was that I hoped I could meet with Mr. Liang. But because it was the time of the Cultural Revolution, and a very sensitive time, my wishes to pay my respects to Mr. Liang were not answered, so I could only return regretfully to America.

In 1979, at the same time as my study of Liang Shuming The Last Confucian was published, the Chinese political situation underwent a tremendous change. This current of reform and openness also changed Mr. Liang’s life. He had originally been living with his wife in a small room, but then he was moved by his unit, the People’s Political Consultative Conference, into Building Number 22, called the“Ministers’ Mansion,” where many celebrities such as the writer Ding Ling also lived. Having more comfortable quarters, Mr. Liang felt that it was more appropriate for receiving visitors, and immediately thought of ways of contacting me. One day I suddenly received a phone call from a stranger; it was from an octogenarian named Shi who had been Mr. Liang’s student in the 1920s at Peking University. He had just come from Beijing and was delivering a verbal message to me at Mr.Liang’s request. It was that Mr. Liang already knew of the publicationof The Last Confucian, and hoped that he could meet me. A few months passed, and after class one day, a Chinese student suddenly came to see me. She had just come recently from Beijing to join her father in the United States. She gave me Mr. Liang’s address, and told me that she had been a neighbor of “Uncle Liang,” and that he very much hoped to be able to see me, and to see the work on him that I had published. I immediately sent him a copy of the book. Before long I received an amicable reply from Mr. Liang, agreeing to my definitely going to Beijing to visit him the next year.

In 1980, the first day I arrived in Beijing, I immediately contacted Mr. Liang. He told me how he had moved to Building Number 22. The next morning, I went to Mr. Liang’s residence to visit him formally. All of Mr. Liang’s family members, who took my visit very seriously, were also there. Mr. Liang introduced me to his family. I then presented him with some Harvard University souvenirs (I was teaching at Harvard at the time). I also gave him works of his father’s. After all of those years and experiencing diverse setbacks, I had finally got to meet Mr. Liang.

Sitting face to face, with only a small table between us, we began our chats. In the two weeks that followed, I went to the Liang’s home every morning to ask questions of Mr. Liang. I put in order the recordings of our dialogues, and later (a part) was included in Mr.Liang’s published collected works. Now it is published in a separate volume.

In our talks, through Mr. Liang I came to understand [more fully]the trait of traditional Chinese intellectuals. This is most worthy of mentioning. During the two weeks of intensive conversation, in the first few days Mr. Liang spoke to me a great deal about Buddhism,which perplexed me, and so I asked, “Didn’t you abandon Buddhist thought a long time ago?” He answered that he didn’t really abandon it. We talked about the title of my book The Last Confucian, which fixed him as a Confucian. He said that he could accept the title. Yet sometimes he would express to me that Marxist-Leninist science was very good. When we spoke about traditional Chinese culture, he also praised Daoism. Once, because he had organized the Democratic League, he met with George Marshall. He evaluated Marshall very highly, and thought that he was a good person because he was a pious Christian. At the time, I didn’t quite understand. How could a person be both a Buddhist and a Confucian, and also identify with Marxist-Leninist thought and approve of Christianity? Later I finally grasped it. This ability to blend mutually contradictory thought is a special characteristic of typical traditional Chinese intellectuals.

Although, during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods, many schools of thought contended and debated with one another, the scholars of the time did not recognize themselves to be a specific school. For example, when we now discuss Mencius and Xunzi, we recognize them as Confucian, even though one said that human nature was good, and the other that human nature was evil.They were followers of Confucius, but at that time, even Confucius did not necessarily recognize himself to be “Confucian.” The academic classifications we are used to today—Sima Qian (in “Preface to the Histories of Sima Qian”) and his father Sima Tan (in “A Summary of the Six Schools”)—actually first classified the various pre-Qin thinkers and invented the system that we use today. I think that Chinese culture is actually an eclectic blend of many kinds of thought that seem to be incompatible, yet at the same time is a culture that likes to classify things. It’s easily seen that actually most Chinese intellectuals amalgamated various kinds of thought into one eclectic body. For example, although the Cheng brothers, Zhu Xi, Lu Xiangshan and Wang Yangming are all Neo-Confucians who focus on the nature of the mind, there are differences among them. There are Buddhist elements in their thought. Although the late Qing Dynasty intellectuals such as Liang Qichao and Zhang Taiyan were at the two opposite extremes politically and on the New Text/Old Text controversy, they both amalgamated Buddhism, Western thought and Confucianism into their individual thought.

So this perhaps explains why I, having been trained in modern academic standards and categories, thought that it was impossible for someone to be simultaneously a believer in Marxism-Leninism and Confucianism. As far as Mr. Liang was concerned, though, this was not in the least a problem. Looked at in this way, Mr. Liang was still quite a traditional Chinese intellectual.

In my opinion, the various pre-Qin philosophers were each on different paths, but they all assumed the same cosmology, that the universe was an organic whole, with each element in that whole interconnected. So, in such a cosmology, there are no absolute dichotomies and contradictions, only relative ones. This worldview was the underlying bedrock of the thought of all Chinese intellectuals, and so various different elements of thought could coexist in an individual’s thought without the currents conflicting.

The greater part of the content of our talks was Mr. Liang’s responding to my questions about historical figures in the early twentieth century. Instead of asking him about his contacts and associations in the past, why didn’t I just quietly listen to Mr. Liang expostulate his thinking? I study history, and naturally want to preserve much of the historical materials. As far as I know, Mr. Liang was the last person who had personally participated in those several decades of violent cultural change and who was still healthy and clear-headed,and who, moreover knew and had contact with so many important intellectuals. His memories were of great value, so I went well beyond my role of interviewer in guiding the conversation in hopes that these unique experiences of his could be recorded for posterity.

This special case of the biographer finally meeting the biographee only after publication of the biography is unprecedented in modern Chinese history. After having had these talks with Mr. Liang, I added a final chapter to The Last Confucian to supplement and revise the original, especially the section on his suffering during the Cultural Revolution. Because I had not been able to contact him before the book was finished, and because there was no other relevant documentation available, I did not know the details, and so couldn’t include them in the book. Only after we talked did I know the real situation and added it in this last chapter. On the whole, I did not revise the structure or content of the book after meeting Mr. Liang. After our talks I discovered Mr. Liang’s “unity of inner feelings and outer action.”His writings had honestly reflected his impressions. He never disguised his true feelings and thoughts in order to be in tune with the times or the situation, so the Mr. Liang that I had seen through his writings and the real-life Mr. Liang with whom I talked were identical. So although I was fated not to meet him before the book was completed, I was still able, through his writings, to know Mr. Liang’s real personality and ways of thinking.

Introduction

Professor Guy Alitto of the University of Chicago is the author of The Last Confucian: Liang Shu-ming and the Chinese Dilemma of Modernity. In order to confirm the facts and make corrections to the parts of the book that are not fully accurate or complete, he visited specifically to have special interviews with Mr. Liang Shuming in [1]August of 1980. They had over ten long talks.

In these conversations they discussed the cultural characteristics of Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, and representative figures,involving many famous people in the cultural and political realms (Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Chiang Kai-shek,Kang Youwei, Zhang Taiyan, Hu Shi, Feng Youlan…), reviewed the important activities of Mr. Liang’s life (teaching at Peking University,working in the Rural Reconstruction Movement, founding the Democratic League…). Because these conversations were so rich in content, they are important reference materials for understanding and studying Mr. Liang Shuming’s thought and activities, as well as the social and historical events of Modern China.[1]I researched and wrote the book long before American researchers could even visit China,let alone conduct individual interviews and primary research. In 1980 I received a hitherto unprecedented invitation to meet with and converse directly with Mr. Liang Shuming. This proved to be not only a chance to meet with this important personage of twentieth century China, but also a fortuitous opportunity to clarify and correct portions of the record that heretofore were incomplete or not quite accurate.

Chapter 1:August 12,1980

Alitto: How did you learn about the publication of my book [referring to The Last Confucian]? Was it through a friend?

Liang: [We both know] someone surnamed Zhu, right?

Alitto: Yes, that’s right. She was a student of mine [at a university in the U.S. state of Ohio]. She told me that you knew about the book.So, how did you find out about my book? Was the book in China [1]or abroad…?

Liang: A friend of mine in the U.S. sent me a copy.

Alitto: Sent from the U.S.[2]

Liang: Yes. One surnamed Hu. His name is Hu Shiru.

Alitto:　Oh! Hu Shiru! He also contacted me. Was he a student of yours in the 1920s at Peking University, or…?

Liang:　I don’t remember him very well, although he is well acquainted with me.

Alitto: About three months ago I saw your picture in the newspaper alongside an article about your move to this house. I believe the newspaper was Dagongbao, published in Hong Kong. Did reporters visit you in person for that article or...?

Liang: Yes, three reporters came from the China News Service.

Alitto: Well, I’m not a reporter. If I write an article in the future, I will first send you a copy.

Liang: That’s good. Doing it that way is good.

Alitto: I am still not sure which kind of newspaper or magazine will carry my article. It also depends on the editor’s interest in the story.

Liang: Right.

Alitto: When I was doing research for your biography, I met many students of yours from the old days along with people who worked with you in Zouping. Have any of your students been in contact with you lately? For instance, I met a man in Hong Kong surnamed Hu [who I interviewed several times].

Liang: Do you mean Hu Shisan? His original name is Hu Yinghan, [3]and his sobriquet is Shisan.

Alitto: Yes, that’s him. I visited him ten years ago when I was in Hong Kong and started my research. He provided me with a lot of very valuable materials. I also met a man named Wang Shaoshang. It seemed that he was a student of yours at the First Middle School, in Guangzhou. (Liang: Right.) I also met Tang Junyi and Mou Zongsan in Hong Kong. They are also your acquaitances. (Liang: Right.) In the U.S. I met another person surnamed Zhang who worked in rural reconstruction in Ding County, Hebei Province, during the old days. In [4]any case, he was at a university in the U.S.... In the past several years, I haven’t been in touch with him. In Taiwan, I became [5]acquainted with a man named Zhou Shaoxian. He admires you greatly and has published a number of essays about you. Recently a Taiwan newspaper translated and published an essay of mine. They only selected some parts of it for translation, so it was not very systematic, and Mr. Zhou wrote an essay criticizing it.

Liang: What publication was this in?

Alitto: In the China Times. In recent months, Hong Kong newspapers have also published some articles about you, for two or three times.

Liang: Yes, they came to interview me.

Alitto: In the past several decades I know that you have been a part of the People’s Political Consultative Conference.

Liang: Yes, I have been a member of this body from its founding to the present without interruption.

Alitto: Do you still write or...?

Liang: I have been writing in the past few years, but most recently I have written very little. A few years ago my most important project was writing a very long book, titled The Human Heart/Mind and Human Life.

Alitto: You began to write it a very long time ago.

Liang: Yes. This is a very long piece. It is bound into three volumes.There is also a shorter book I finished which discusses Laozi,Confucius and Indian Buddhism. It discusses these three schools of thought. It is not as long as The Human Heart/Mind and Human Life. It is a comparatively condensed treatment.

Alitto: None of these have been published yet, right?

Liang: None of them have been published. In the past, ... it is better now, but in the past, the government controlled thought, and one [6]could not publish freely.

Alitto: Was this because of the Gang of Four’s…?

Liang: It was not entirely because of the Gang of Four. It was this way for many years. It is better now, comparatively. Restrictions on publishing are now a bit more relaxed. To obtain approval to get my books published, I presented a short essay to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. The essay, about twelve thousand words, was entitled something like “How Should We Evaluate Confucius Now?” I gave it to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. My purpose was to represent my thoughts. I gave them this short essay, rather than my three-volume work, to make it convenient for them. Reading the longer book would take too much time. So I gave them this short essay. My intention was to ask them to examine it. The Chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference at that time was Deng Xiaoping. But of course he was too busy. He gave it to his Deputy Secretary General to read for him. The Deputy Secretary General told me himself that the essay had been given to him to read. He said that he had read it,attached comments, and sent it to Deng Xiaoping. But it had not yet been handed down.

Alitto: So you are still waiting...

Liang: The efficiency of this bureaucracy is not very high.

Alitto: Yes. So is the case in the U.S.

Liang: So I pressed the issue and asked for my essay back. The Deputy

Secretary General [of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference] told me that I shouldn’t be anxious about it because the essay was quite long, and so on. Then he couldn’t find it! He had great piles of documents, through which he searched and searched, but couldn’t find it.

Alitto: Did you have a copy of that?

Liang: I had a copy, of course.

Alitto: Does China have photo reproduction equipment now?

Liang: Yes.

Alitto: I’m afraid it’s not so common.

Liang: That’s true.

Alitto: Too bad. If there were [more] photo reproduction equipment...

Liang: It would be much better.

Alitto: I represent the American academic world in eagerly looking forward to having an opportunity to read your latest work. I hope in the near future to have the opportunity. My former colleague, a native Chinese [currently teaching at] at the University of California, Berkeley, Tu Wei-ming, studies Confucianism in the U.S.

Liang: He came to see me.

Alitto: Did he? Before he went back to China, he told me that he planned to see you. Did he mention me? Just before he left he had a problem with his sponsoring unit. I also didn’t know what to do [about securing a visa to visit China and you]. He [Tu]said that probably Beijing Normal University would sponsor me, but since they didn’t contact me I thought that there was no way to come. Only then did I trouble you to contact the People’s Political Consultative Conference on my behalf.

Liang: It was still better to go through the Chinese People’s [7]Political Consultative Conference. [When the] man from Berkeley, Tu Wei-ming, came to see me, he left me some of his writings, all in Chinese, on the philosophy of Wang Yangming. He has now gone to the Dunhuang caves?

Alitto: Oh, he went to Dunhuang. I didn’t know.

Liang: He went to Dunhuang to see the ancient...

Alitto: He has been researching Zhu Xi for the past several years. I have known him for more than a decade, because we are both Harvard University Ph.D.s. He was there earlier than I. Have you had the opportunity to see Western publications about Chinese philosophy?

Liang: It’s very difficult for me to read Western languages, so I have a friend read them for me.

Alitto: There are several books that are not easily translated.

Liang: When he has finished reading, he tells me about [the content].

Alitto: My Chinese friend said that possibly it [The Last Confucian]would be translated into Chinese. I don’t think it will be easy.Westerners find it easy, clear and lively, but translating it into Chinese would be very difficult. It isn’t easy to convey the subtle connotations. I am already acquainted with this problem. In an article Zhou Shaoxian published, he disagreed with some of my most fundamental concepts about you. I think that it is because there is a difference in methods employed by Westerners studying China, and those used by Chinese themselves. Mr.Zhou was your student, and so his standpoint is different. If I had a hint of criticism [of you], Mr. Zhou would definitely [disagree].Chinese find Westerners’ analytical methods relatively strange and unfamiliar. Mr. Liang, you have done a comparative study of Chinese and Western cultures; probably you recognize that the methods and analytical styles used by Eastern and Western scholarly circles are different. … I don’t know, you mean your friend has orally translated several parts of several books for you?

Liang: He tells me about them orally.

Alitto: I couldn’t guarantee that they translated very well; perhaps they misunderstood some things. But, by and large, do you have a response [to the books]?

Liang: No, not at all. (Alitto: No?) I mean, in talking with you, I hope that you will understand the sources of my thought. The basis of my thought is Confucianism and Buddhism. This is the most important thing. That is more important than understanding my past. I hope you can know more about Confucianism and Buddhism. I want to tell you all about my Confucianism and Buddhism. I mean, I will put the emphasis in our conversations on this, rather than on my personal affairs or my opinions.Because Confucianism and Buddhism are my basis, if you can understand the basis, that would be best of all, the most important thing. Not only do I hope this for you but also I hope that Europeans and Americans can better understand these two schools of thought: Confucianism and Buddhism.

Alitto: Mr. Liang, has your interest in Buddhism and Buddhist studies been rekindled, or increased, as you have grown older? At the time of the May Fourth Movement, you publicly abandoned Buddhism and converted to Confucianism.

Liang: That is not relevant. You may say I abandoned Buddhism, but I really didn’t abandon it. Originally I did want to leave the secular world and become a monk. What I abandoned was my plan for leaving the secular world and becoming a monk. But in my thought, on the philosophical level, I did not abandon Buddhism.

Alitto: Oh, I now understand a bit better. Actually, I also wrote about the same thing in the book, that is, you hadn’t completely abandoned Buddhism, but you felt that the problems of the time didn’t need Buddhism as much as Confucianism. So because of this, you began to study Confucianism.

Liang: Let me explain myself. When I was young, around sixteen or seventeen, I wanted to become a monk.

Alitto: I got that wrong. You actually wanted to become a monk, [8]and not just a Buddhist layman.

Liang: Right. I did want to leave the secular world and become a monk.I didn’t give up this ambition until I reached the age of twentynine. But if I wanted to become a monk, I could not get married. But a person is not only composed of a brain. He is more than just thought. He cannot leave his corporal body. If I had really followed my ambition early on and had gone to a monastery, there probably would have been no problem, and [my life]would probably have been most congenial, and I would have lived out my life quietly.

But before I could leave the secular world and enter a monastery, I was drawn into Peking University to teach philosophy by Mr. Cai Yuanpei. Because of this, my life underwent a change. What change was this? I didn’t go off to a monastery,but instead I scurried off into the world of learning and the company of intellectuals. It is difficult to avoid having a spirit of competition. This desire to excel over others arises from the corporeal. If it had been as I first wanted, very early leaving secular life for a monastery, that could have been peaceful and stable,walking a calm path. But when I got to the university and into the company of a lot of intellectuals, debates developed easily,and created a desire to excel over others. This desire to excel over others arises from the corporeal. The problem of sex easily arises from the corporeal. A monk does not need to get married;he is able to live in a monastery and can completely forget [sex],and can completely want no part of taking a wife. But when I got to the university, and was together with intellectuals, often I had this desire to excel over others. This was a corporeal problem. Once it arose, I also wanted to marry.

Originally, I didn’t want to marry. When my mother was still alive, when I was in my teens she wanted to arrange an engagement according to Chinese custom. I refused. After I got to Peking University, in the company of intellectuals, I had a desire to excel. The forces of the corporeal arose, and I wanted to get married. So only after I reached age 29 did I abandon my plan to leave the secular world.

…

Liang: I lectured in Jinan during the summer of 1921. There was something called the summer session lecture series, and they invited me to be the lecturer for this session. I lectured in Jinan for forty days. I lectured every morning for half a day. After forty days of lecturing I returned to Beijing. There were two friends of mine who took notes—they transcribed the lectures. But they were not able to keep up with my lecturing. In the end, they had some other engagement and failed to take notes for the last chapter of Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies, so I wrote it myself.

Alitto: Is that so? It really is a shame that I did not have the opportunity to meet you and ask your advice face to face [before writing your biography]. Obviously this is important.

Liang: All of this is about me as an individual, my personal affairs. As I said, my greatest hope is that you understand Confucianism and [9]Buddhism. I’m talking to you in hopes that you have a real understanding of things Eastern, at least those Eastern things most valuable. Of course I’m not quite familiar with the academia in Europe and America, but I’m afraid that very few people can truly understand Confucianism and Buddhism. So I keenly hope that you can understand Confucianism and Buddhism. I’ll tell you what I understand, and very much hope that this will be the major task in our conversations. We can talk slowly and gradually and meet several times. (Alitto: That would be great.) If you can stay more in Beijing, we can talk more.While I am talking about Buddhism and Confucianism, I hope that you will ask questions. You must first settle the questions in your own mind, and only then can you understand. If you have not settled the problems and questions in your own thought, it amounts to not having heard anything.

Alitto: Yes, the book is primarily about your thought. Naturally it should be this way, but sometimes your thought is connected to your life. Probably in the future, before it quickly comes out in paperback, I [10]can change some of these factual errors. (Liang:Revise it.) I’ll revise it. Naturally I agree that thought is the most important topic, but a person’s thought cannot be divorced from his individual life.

Liang: Right, it absolutely cannot be separated from life. When it comes to this kind of situation I can say something. We were just talking about my desire, when I was young, to become a monk, so I can be considered a Buddhist in certain respects. But a Buddhist must be viewed from two aspects and, you could say, must be discussed in two parts. Primitive Buddhism, which we can call Hinayana, emphasized leaving the secular world.What does “leaving the secular world” mean? To “leave the secular world” means to leave [11]“Production and Annihilation”(or Birth and Death; utpàdanirodha).　What do we mean by the “world” (the finite, impermanent world)? That is, the endless cycle of birth and death. In Buddhist terminology this is called the “Wheel of Transmigration” (samsara), meaning that this life is all similar and continuous (xiangsixiangxu). “Similar” means that all life is almost the same. Life is like this. There is no such thing as the me of today that is still the me of yesterday. It is merely that they resemble each other. The me of today and the me of yesterday are similar. It is impermanent and unceasing.It never ceases; it cannot cease. Because it appears continuous,nothing ever stops. Life has no end. Some people think that death means the end of life, but there is no such thing as an end in Buddhism. It is not discontinuous, but not constant either,not the same eternally. As we just mentioned, the me of today is not the me of yesterday. There’s no such thing. It has already changed. The “me” changes from morning to evening, from instant to instant. That’s why life is continuous and impermanent(feiduanfeichang). This is the Buddhist attitude toward life.

Now, I just mentioned Primitive Buddhism, which is commonly called Hinayana. The Hinayana school laid down three conditions. The first condition is all phenomena (sarva dharma)are impermanent (anitya). That is, there are no permanent,constant things. Everything is in constant flux. The second point is that all dharmas are non-self; they have no ego. All phenomena and all dharmas are different. The first point is—“Whatever is phenomenal is impermanent.” All are flowing, in flux. That is, the cycle of life is like flowing water, in continuous flux.So, they say, “Whatever is phenomenal is impermanent.” The second is that no dharma has an ego. There are two kinds of dharma. One is effective or phenomenal dharma (Samskrta Dharma). The other is dharma not subject to causation,condition or dependence (Asamskrta Dharma). The first is the dharma of birth and death (utpàdanirodha). The second is the eternal, supramundane dharma, “immortal—neither dying nor being reborn” (anirodhānupāda). Some people ask, “Can the finite impermanent world have something permanent and eternal in it?” The Buddhist answer is that if there are both the birth/death cycle there would be something that neither is born nor dies. Birth-Death and No-Birth No-Death are a single thing,not two separate entities. That is to say, the dharma of birth and death and the dharma of the eternal are reducible to each other.No matter which of the two is concerned, there is no ego.

Man is one of “all living beings” (sattva). From the lowest organism, the most primitive amoeba, to man—all develop from having “egos.” All must eat. All must take from the environment. All organisms, from the most primitive right up to man (as the highest), all share something. What is it? They all seek satisfaction from the external, from the environment. In the Buddhist view, this is a mistake, a loss of their basic nature. What is the basic nature? That is “satisfied and content with their own nature, with no dissatisfactions.” This is Buddha. Don’t regard Buddha as a god or a ruler. It’s not like that. So what is Buddha?Buddha is the thing-in-itself of the universe. The nomenon of the universe can be said to have all inside. All things are inside.The phenomena are all inclusive. Since everything is inside,it has nothing. Nothingness. According to Buddhist doctrines,there are two aspects. One is embracing all phenomena in the cosmos; but all the same it is ultimate nothingness. These are two aspects of the same thing. The Buddha is to leave the world.The mundane world is an endless cycle of birth and death, and this, together with the eternal, perpetual aspect of the world,although seemingly two entities, in reality is the same thing.Didn’t I just mention the Hinayana Primitive Buddhist doctrine,the doctrine that “all phenomena are impermanent” and that“nothing has an ego”? The third doctrine is Nirvana—calm and quiet, free from temptation and distress. This is Hinayana. The three Hinayana principles are the only complete Buddhadharma(the law preached by the Buddha).

The Hinayana is the Way of the Arhat (the perfect man of Hinayana). The Mahayana school, building on the foundation of the Hinayana, had a great reversal, a major revision. The Mahayana does not escape from the mundane world. The Mahayana doctrine are these two principles: “non-abandonment of sentient beings” and “non-residence in Nirvana.”　What does this call for? The doctrine is that the Buddha will return to the mundane world. The Hinayana wants to avoid the trouble of endless cycle of birth and death. The Mahayana has already transcended the endless cycle of birth and death, and so could enter the eternal realm. But that seems, to quote a Confucian saying, “to attend to one’s own virtue in solitude—to protect oneself, but alone.”The Bodhisattva and the Arhat are different. The Arhat solves the problem for himself, and strives for purity and salvation for himself. The Bodhisattva does not abandon the rest of living things. The Bodhisattva wants to return to the mundane world and already has the possibility of not being born nor dying. But the Bodhisattva still wants to return to the world. Why? Because of non-abandonment of living things. Let’s end our talk here for today.

Alitto: OK. Thank you. May I ask a question? I came to the conclusion from studying the materials [that is, your works] that you yourself considered the Buddhist concept of Bodhisattva and the Confucian concept of Sage-to-be to be the same (one can’t say fundamentally, but perhaps in some aspects); it seems that it was a [12]similar role. Perhaps I’m not speaking clearly. My Chinese level is inadequate, but perhaps you understand my meaning,that a Sage and a Bodhisattva are similar in some respects. So when studying your writings, I felt that you were being like this,being both Bodhisattva and Sage. What do you think of this?

Liang: Yes, definitely almost the same. It is this way, but I would add an aspect. Confucians take the human standpoint; anyway,Confucian discourse never loses its focus on humanity. Confucians never depart from the human. They don’t even talk much about supernatural beings. Wasn’t it Zilu who asked Confucius about death? He replied, “While you do not know life, how can you know death?” “While you aren’t able to serve men, how can you serve spirits?” Matters after death, matters of supernatural beings...[1] One of my students approached me after class and said that “Liang Bobo” [Uncle Liang]knew about the book and hoped that I would visit him. She had just arrived from China, and had lived in the same neighborhood as Liang. It was an extraordinary coincidence that such a person would end up in my classroom at a public university in a small American city.[2] This man, an engineer who had lived in the U.S. for many decades, was one of Liang’s students at Peking University in the early 1920s. He had gone to China right after Mr. Liang had moved into a suitable, gracious residence and so was able to receive foreigners. During the Cultural Revolution, Liang and his wife were thrown into one small room with almost all of the room taken up by the bed. Obviously it was not suitable for receiving visitors from abroad. Hu phoned me right after he returned to the U.S. Once again, this was quite an extraordinary coincidence that one of the first foreign visitors who had seen Liang was able to contact me. Hu phoned me shortly after Ms. Zhu had spoken with me after class.[3]This Mr. Hu was one of Liang’s most loyal students. In Hong Kong in the 1950s he had publicly defended Liang during the criticisms of him. Mr. Hu was originally one of the Research Department’s students in Zouping in the 1930s. He still had contact with Mr. Liang in the late1940s. I spent over a week talking to Mr. Hu in 1970. After I met Mr. Liang, I realized that Mr. Hu had modeled his dress, demeaned behavior, and manner of speech after Liang. Of course, Mr. Hu’s own view of the world, his personal philosophy and his ideas in general were closely modeled on Liang’s as well.[4]I conflated two men surnamed Zhang into one. One was an old rural reconstruction worker who I discovered at Berea College, in Kentucky, U.S.A. He told me about his experiences, and shared with me his impressions of Mr. Liang. It was this Mr. Zhang who had worked in Ding County,Hebei, with Mr. Yan Yangchu. Another Mr. Zhang was Zhang Hongjun (张鸿钧) whom I found at Donghai University in Taiwan. Both he and his wife were Sociologists who had both been involved with rural work. I interviewed them at some length twice. Mr. Zhang had had considerable contact with Mr. Liang. I remember very clearly the only “disagreement” between husband and wife when they were telling me of their experiences and contact with Mr. Liang. Mr. Zhang described Mr.Liang to me as “very handsome,” and his wife disagreed, saying that she didn’t find Liang so attractive.[5]Mr. Zhou was an extraordinary elder gentleman. He had been a student at the Shandong Rural Reconstruction Institute. After the war started, he was part of a guerilla unit in his home county of Laiyang, Shandong. Although he was an academic, he was clearly a man of action as well. Mr. Zhou, like all of Liang’s students that I met, was extremely loyal to Liang, and often publicly defended him. In Taiwan at that time, Liang’s books could not be republished. Mr. Zhou often railed against the Guomindang (KMT) for being hostile to Liang.[6]Although Deng Xiaoping’s reforms were only just starting in mid-1980s, they had an immediate effect on the intellectual atmosphere, which I found completely different from my earlier 1973visit to China.[7]Mr. Liang had asked his unit, the People’s Political Consultative Conference, to be my official sponsor. This was just a formality, as it never had any contact with me, but having a sponsoring unit was necessary for any foreigner to visit China in those days. Professor Tu’s sponsoring unit was Beijing Normal University, which is why he suggested that I contact that institution.[8]One valuable aspect of these interviews is that Mr. Liang explains his subjective state at any given time. In this case, for example, none of the published documents or interviews I had with those who knew Liang suggested that he was still a completely committed Buddhist, so without his own statements in these interviews, there was no way of knowing. Many similar situations occurred during these interviews: that the “outer” published or remembered record and Liang’s “inner”record were different. Of course, Mr. Liang could not be explaining his subjective state at that point 70 years ago; he was telling what he remembered seventy years later as his subjective state at that time.[9]This was a tension between us during these interviews. Mr. Liang wanted to explain his understanding of Confucianism and Buddhism, while I, as a historian, wanted him to talk about his own life, observations, experiences and views on historical events and personages. This is called“oral history.” As Mr. Liang was a historical figure himself, I wanted to make a record of what he remembered of “history” while his mind was clear and he was in good health. Mr. Liang’s greatest interest was explaining Confucianism and Buddhism to a foreigner. I had a second series of interviews with Mr. Liang some years later. In those interviews, he no longer stressed explaining Chinese thought to me, but rather, he resigned himself (for my benefit?) to recounting his experiences and telling his views. Mr. Liang is perhaps one of the best subjects in all of China for an oral history. First, he was utterly honest and forthright, and did not shape his narratives to make himself look good. Second, his life wove in, through and around every important historical event and person in twentieth century China. I hope to publish the second set of interviews later.[10]Although I did later publish a second edition of the book, the University of California Press advised me that completely revising the text would be prohibitively expensive, so I was limited to adding a chapter at the end, which incorporated some of the information from the interviews. I now plan to publish a completely revised edition that would incorporate all of the information from both sets of interviews.[11]I have added the Sanskrit equivalents of Chinese terms to the text. Of course, Mr. Liang used only Chinese when speaking.[12]As is obvious from this transcript, my command of Chinese had weakened considerably from its high point in 1972-1973, when I undertook a “sideline” occupation as Chinese-English interpreter. From 1973 to 1980, I had few opportunities to use spoken Chinese. Consequently, I unfortunately often ended up speaking “broken” Chinese during these interviews.

Chapter 2:August 13,1980

Alitto: Please don’t feel obliged to answer any questions that you think are awkward or difficult, Okay? For example, what do you think of contemporary Confucian thought, tradition and academic theory? Or, can we ask if present Chinese society can be considered Confucian?

Liang: In the last few decades, especially after Mao Zedong founded a new regime in Beijing, naturally everything changed. Although he could not escape the old influences of China, but it seems that Mao despised Confucius, so wasn’t there a “Criticize Confucius” Campaign?[1]

Alitto: The Criticize Confucius Campaign seemed to have little to do with Confucius himself. The way we have understood it in the U.S. is that the Gang of Four used “Criticize Lin Biao Criticize Confucius” to criticize their political rivals. At least that is how we understood the situation in the West.

Liang: But the words “Criticize Confucius” were used. Mao was a person of genius, so he had contempt for everything. He lacked respect for the old culture and the old learning. Actually he himself was unable to break out of this old culture.

Alitto: That is to say that present Chinese society is considered to be a kind of Confucian society. So, what Confucian thought still remains in the hearts and minds of Chinese?

Liang: I think that nothing has been retained. Current society does not use that kind of old language, and does not follow those old moral lessons. In fact, Chinese family ethics have been changed considerably, quite different from those of the old society.This difference can be illustrated by two facts. The first is that women have risen. Before, women were mostly in the home,and very seldom worked outside the home, and even more seldom did they involve themselves in politics. Now, women have political positions. This is the first change. The second is that the extended family no longer exists. In the old days, while the father was still living, the sons and daughters-in-law would stay together with him. Even while the grandfather was still alive,the family would not split up, and the family property was not divided. Three generations would live together and the family property was still together. If the family did divide the property,people would laugh at and criticize them. There is no such [extended family] practice in foreign countries. Now there is none in China either. The nuclear family is the rule now. There are no extended families living together with communal property.There are no longer such things. So, this too is a great change.The greatest of these changes are the transfer of women from the home into society, and their participation in government and politics.

Alitto: Let us put these issues aside for now. Does the essence of Chinese culture, its core substance, still exist?

Liang: There are still some remnants of Confucian culture. It is, of course, not possible to sweep away all traditional cultural lock,stock and barrel. Something still remains.

Alitto: So, there remains some…

Liang: What does still remain is in the area of family ethics.

Alitto: In your book The Essence of Chinese Culture, you mention a definition of the essence of Chinese culture; you defined it as that which makes humans human. The early Chinese sages discovered what made humans human prematurely, before the minimal primal material demands of humans were met. Do you still think that what makes humans human is the most important in Chinese culture?

Liang: What, in my view, to my knowledge, is the difference between Chinese culture and Western culture, and Indian culture? It is [2]that Chinese culture knows of human “rationality.” Chinese culture believes in the human; it does not believe in God, as with Western culture or in Allah as in Islamic culture. Chinese culture is built upon and trusts the human. The distinguishing characteristic of Confucianism is that it relies on, and is built upon, humans, not some other being. This is what Mencius later pointed out—that “human nature is good.” Confucius himself said no such thing, but Mencius mentioned it specifically. So the distinguishing characteristic of Confucianism is that it believes in, and is confident in, humans. Humans can make mistakes, or sink into degeneracy. But how can you correct the human who makes mistakes? How can you keep him from moral degeneracy, from doing evil? What do you rely on to do this? Aside from the human himself, there is nothing else that is dependable. So I feel that the distinguishing feature of Confucianism is that it has faith in man. In foreign countries, in Christianity, it is said that Adam ate some fruit. There is such wording? (Alitto: Yes, there is.) There is such a theory.

Alitto: Yes, in a chapter in the Bible there is this story.

Liang: This is in the West. In India there is something different still. India is very strange indeed. From ancient times [the tradition of]India was to deny human life, to negate it. It held that human life itself was a mistake. This was the common attitude and convention in ancient India. Were there any exceptions to this attitude?Yes. In Buddhist writing there is the saying “to act in accord with the world, its ways and customs, and with non-Buddhist doctrines.” Act in “Accord,” with the “World.” This was a nonBuddhist sect, and was held as a heretical, outside path. A lot of other religions, aside from Buddhism, also excluded it and considered it cult. This was the one and only affirmation of life in ancient Indian thought. Aside from this, all others held that human life was bafflement. The ancient traditions of India were quite different from everywhere else. This is very strange.

Alitto: What is the greatest threat to Chinese culture, in the present situation?

Liang: I think that there is no threat.

Alitto: You think that there is no threat?

Liang: Even if some of the old customs, practices and usages are now destroyed, I think that the future is bright (for Chinese culture).Sixty years ago in the last chapter of my book Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies, I said that the future culture of the world would be a revived Chinese culture. I am explicitly not pessimistic about the future of Chinese culture.

Alitto: Mr. Liang, you still hold that the future world culture will be…

Liang: A revival of Chinese culture.

Alitto: Chinese culture…

Liang: Will revive.

Alitto: Revive. Oh! Why did I ask? Because in Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies, you made this kind of prediction, but in your books written after that, you seldom mention this. You have just said that those old social customs and habits no longer exist.

Liang: They were undermined.

Alitto: In that case, what in Chinese traditional culture must be preserved? What things?

Liang: Of course I want to answer this question. I want to explain why I’m so optimistic about the future of Chinese culture.

Alitto: Good.

Liang: Very early I made an analysis of human life, and concluded [3]that it has three great problems. The first is the problem of “humans versus the natural world.” This is the first and foremost problem.Before humankind had created cultures and civilizations, humans suffered from floods, wild animals, earthquakes, and so on. So later Western culture developed. The development of Western culture can be encapsulated in two phrases: the conquest of nature and the utilization of nature. It adopts an attitude of conquest toward nature, an attitude of utilization. In this Western culture has always been very successful, right down to the present. Its successes continue to be higher and higher through time. It can now go into space and circle the earth; it can go to the moon. In its conquest and utilization of nature, Western culture has achieved great success and great victories. This is a characteristic of Western culture. It is a problem of man versus matter [nature]. As soon as man opened his eyes and looked around, what he saw was matter. He extended his hand and what he touched was matter,what he was standing on was matter. So, man versus matter was the first problem encountered by man, and Western culture solved this problem. Aren’t the solutions to this problem highly developed? Following on this path, I think that it is quite natural that human society should advance into socialism; capitalism will evolve into socialism. So-called “capitalism” is a society in which the individual is the basic unit. Capitalism can be encapsulated into eight characters: gerenbenwei, ziwozhongxin (Individualbased Egocentrism, and Self Centeredness). These characterize European and American modern societies. It is obvious that these societies (all human societies) will undergo a transformation to socialism in the future. Socialism is unavoidable. Capitalism will become a relic of the past. That is to say, the means of production and the materials of production definitely will be publicly owned.At present property is nominally individually owned. In fact,the economic production of a society is the whole society’s production, not just the big capitalists’. Later society will become socialistic. This is inevitable. It is unavoidable that capitalism will develop into socialism. Society based on the individual as the unit will become based on society as the unit. When this has taken place, man comes to confront what I call the second problem,the problem of man versus man. That is, how to make it so that men can get along together, live in peace together. To do this, the relationship between man and man must be straightened out. That is, create a situation whereby I show consideration for you, and you show consideration for me. An old Chinese term describing this is “to give precedence to the other out of courtesy (lirang),” and “to govern a state with courtesy (lirangweiguo).” At that time, the problem of man versus man will become the primary one, while the problem of man versus nature will not have totally disappeared, but it will have receded to second place in importance.

... That is to say, science and industry will continue to advance, but the major problem will be the problem of man versus man. This is the way in the future. In the future, when this problem must be solved, that will be the time of Chinese culture, because Chinese culture is based on the family. The old term for this is“filial piety and fraternal duty”: the father is benevolent and the child is filial. I only use four words: xiao (filial piety), ti (fraternal duty), ci (kindness), and he (peace-harmony). So, in my view, when human society reaches the stage of socialism, then probably all people will have to strive for filial piety, fraternal duty, kindness and peace-harmony, to strive for respect for age,for treating children and the young with kindness, for harmony and good relations between brothers, and so go create good relations generally throughout society. This is the problem that takes place within a socialist society. Again, I say, at this stage the problem of man versus nature still exists, but is in second place, not the most pressing problem. And so this stage I call the revival of Chinese culture.

I do want to say more about this now. After the revival of Chinese culture will come the revival of Indian culture. I estimate, just off the cuff, that this revival of Chinese culture will probably last a very long time. Probably humanity will be in this kind of atmosphere and circumstances—these kinds of customs, conventions, and social practices—for a long time.But society will still change; it won’t be forever this way. It will change and transform, in my view, into a revival of Indian culture. What was ancient Indian culture like? What would it look like? I just inadvertently mentioned “acting in accord with the world, its ways and customs, and with non-buddhist doctrines.” That is, that particular sect affirmed human life. Its influence was quite small. Broader ancient Indian society,however, denied life, saying that human life had no value,even to the extent that life was deluding and confusing. Human life takes place in delusion and confusion. This attitude was common in ancient India, aside from the exception of the one small sect that I mentioned before. There were many religions in India aside from Buddhism, which arose later. Buddhism was not the earliest school of thought in India. Yet Buddhism pushed these attitudes of negation to their natural conclusion most completely. So, in my view, in the far distant future of mankind,this attitude and atmosphere of ancient India will arise. People will feel that their own life has no value. In Buddhist terms, the person will want to seek “release” or “deliverance” or “liberation from worldly cares” (mukti). This is the ultimate liberation. So,the above is my own deduction, my own logic.

Alitto: Actually, this reckoning is similar to that expressed in Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies. I myself am persuaded by your theory. According to logical inference of developments in the future, it should be like this. But I still have a theory. I think that this process of modernization, or you could say the process of rationalization, is in conflict with, in contradiction with, in contradiction with “what makes humans human”—be it the “human” in Indian culture or in Chinese culture.Does the present Four Modernizations Movement hold any harm for Chinese culture?

Liang: China exists in this present world, and cannot go against the current. It can only advance forward and develop material culture, which was necessary. But the important thing is that in the past, the development of Western material culture was based upon capitalism. Ever since the overwhelming power of the West reached China, China has had no opportunity to develop capitalism. So China had to take the socialist road. It could only seek individual welfare within the context of the welfare of the whole society. It could not allow the welfare of the individual to prevail over the welfare of society. So the appearance and success of the Communist Party in China is very reasonable, and not peculiar or strange at all.

Alitto: What do you think the West should learn from the East, China in particular?

Liang: This is what I just said.

Alitto: In the future, Western culture and Western society will evolve into [the way of] China. In the present phase of history, what should Western society learn from the East, from China?

Liang: What should it learn? I’ll answer that question. A human being,immediately upon being born, is related to other humans. At the least, he is related to his parents, and siblings. As he grows up,he has friends, teachers and so on. These relationships are called“renlun” (human ethical relationships) in Chinese. Human beings always live in the interpersonal relationships. One cannot be detached from other people, so how to foster the relationships becomes a major question. And those relationships, as the Chinese old term goes, are called “renlun.”

The distinguishing feature of Chinese culture lies in this.Chinese culture puts importance on human relationships. It expands the familial relationships into broader society beyond the family. For example, a teacher is called “teacher-father,” a schoolmate is called a “school brother.” In ways like this, a person always has the close, family-like, intimate feelings. Applying such relationships to society, it seems to bring distant people closer together, to bring outsiders inside. This is the distinguishing feature of China and Chinese culture. To put this feature into a few words, it is the opposite of the individual-centered,egocentric way. What is that, then? The essence of the matter is mutually to value and respect the other party.

For example, since Confucius (in The Analects) liked to talk about filial piety and fraternal duty, we should ask what they are. They are respect for and obedience to the older generation on the part of the young. There is also the virtue of kindness, which means affection and kindness for the younger generation on the part of the older generation. So, to sum up in a word, these virtues are mutual respect. For example, a guest arrives. The host shows respect for the guest. In all things, the host thinks of and is considerate to the guest. The best seat is given to the guest. Tea is made for the guest. Now, a good guest will also turn this around, and respect his host. He will take the host into consideration in everything. And so, in Chinese society there exists the custom of “lirang.” What is this lirang? “Rang”is regarding the other person as important. “Li” is to respect the other. China, under Confucian influence, has always told people to respect others. Afterwards, when capitalism has passed away,and socialism has arrived, probably this lirang as a social convention will also arrive [on a world-wide scale]. With everyone living together, mutual respect is very important. So, that’s why I say that the future of the world will be a revival of Chinese culture.I will say, in conclusion, that I have always felt that Marxism is quite good. It is superior to Utopian (“Fantasy”) Socialism.

Alitto: “Fantasy.” France’s…

Liang: Owen of England, and Fourier. There were three men.

Alitto: Yes, yes. In the past there were many. In the 19th century there were quite a few. In any case, I know your…

Liang: Utopian Socialists. Their hearts were in the right place, but they didn’t understand that the natural development of society and history would produce socialism. So Marxism is called Scientific Socialism, which means that objective development of history will be in that direction.

Alitto: Chinese culture is extremely old, in a sustained unbroken continuity. In comparison with the short-lived cultures of the West and the Middle East, what is the special nature of Chinese culture that allowed this? Why did it occur? That is to say, what is the major reason for the length and continuity of Chinese culture? (Liang: A long history.) Longer by far than any other culture anywhere in the world. What’s the major reason?

Liang: I remember there was a man who wrote a discourse on this question and answered it. There was one, or you could say there were two. There were two people who did it. One of the two is already dead. He had studied biology in Europe. His name was Zhou Taixuan. Possibly the other hasn’t yet died. If he is still alive, he’s older than I. He’s now ninety-some. He had studied in France. His name is Xu [4]Bingchang.

...

Liang: Some sixty years ago, when I was only in my twenties, I published Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies. In that book, I explained Confucius according to my understanding of him at the time. Now, doesn’t Confucius often speak about Perfect Virtue (ren)? What did I say in that book? I said that Confucian ren is a kind of extremely sensitive, acute intuition.Didn’t Mencius like to use the terms “intuitive understanding of the good (conscience),” which was what we call “instinct.”“Zhijue” in Chinese is called “intuition” in English. “Benneng”is called “instinct” in English. So in this way, I used these modern terms to explain Confucius’s and Mencius’s thought.Now, I know I was wrong. These modern terms are close to the meanings I meant to convey; they are close, but they are not very direct equivalents. It was not really correct, nor completely incorrect, because Confucius’s “Perfect Virtue” can be very deep and profound, so much so that it becomes abstruse. Isn’t there this sentence in The Analects? The master said, “Is ‘Perfect Virtue’ a thing remote? I wish for it, and then virtue is at hand.”If you explain ren in too abstruse a fashion, it is too one-sided,too narrow. Ren does not necessarily have to be explained in profound, abstruse ways. Ren is both shallow and profound, both simple and complex. If you only understand its superficial, shallow, easy aspects, that is not real understanding. So my mistake in that book was to stress its simple, shallow aspects too much.Mencius is also that way. When you go to understand Mencius’s“intuitive understanding of the good,” it can be understood both on a shallow level and on a profound level. For example, “intuitive understanding of the good,” that is, conscience. Who doesn’t have a conscience? Everyone does. Is this saying right or wrong? Can you put it this way? You can certainly put it this[simple] way. But, on the other hand, you can’t understand it too simplistically, too shallowly either.

Why can’t it be too simplistic, too shallow? Because we humans live within society, and cannot depart from society. It is likely that humans will follow the mores and usages of their society. If the mores of a society take [this] to be right, the individual considers it right. If the morals and mores of a society take it to be wrong, so does the individual human. It is easy for people to do this. But societies and their mores and morals are different. There are differences in both time and space. East and West are different. The modern and the ancient are different.People tend to follow their social norms. So, what is considered wrong in one society is considered right in another. This is very common, unless it is an inherently extremely gifted person, or an extraordinarily wise person, who possibly won’t follow conventions—he often would lead a revolution. Exceptionally gifted people are this way, and so it is hard to say if these words apply to them.

Alitto: Each society has its own customs and mores. Each society has its own value…

Liang: Value judgments.

Alitto: Value judgments. If we say that each society is different, then does humanity have a universal truth, a universal standard for value judgments?

Liang: The answer is yes and no.

Alitto: “Yes” is to say...

Liang: Let’s first address its non-existence. This life of ours must be lived in a society, so we must go along with the values of our respective societies. If you oppose society, you will not be accepted by society. So the values can be taken as “customs” or“etiquette.” Probably on the one side of the issue, we can admit that each age, each place—that is to say, each society—has different customs, mores and morals. Probably it is natural to be in accord with different societies’values. The “rules of propriety” are for that time and place reasonable and true. On the other hand,however, there is also a kind of truth, which is not the “right” or“reason” of a particular time and place, bound by customs and mores. Rather, it is an absolute truth. This truth does exist, but only very few enlightened brilliant people are conscious of it, or realize it. They can rise above and see further than the average people. On the one hand, there are few of these pelple. On the other hand, there is an old Chinese saying that “Something something...great height and brilliancy, so as to pursue the course of the Mean.” This kind of person is himself very brilliant and wise, but he does not want to divorce himself from the society of his time. So the path he takes is still the middle path. I don’t know if you are aware that I never studied the Four Books and Five Classics?

Alitto: Yes, I am.

Liang: So the quotation I just used is not complete. “Something something...great height and brilliancy, so as to pursue the course of the Mean.” This is because I never memorized the Classics, and so I’m not all that familiar with them. (The original phrase is: to raise it to its greatest height and brilliancy, so as to pursue the course of the Mean.—compiler)

Alitto: It’s OK. I know. I haven’t memorized ancient books but I know this sentence. These enlightened ones understand and are conscious of the truth. It’s all one truth, right? It’s one standard for all value judgments. That is to say, no matter where the enlightened ones are from, their conscious truth is the same.

Liang: We should say that there is only one absolute truth, but I usually say that there is a material physical truth and a human truth. The reason used in natural sciences and social sciences, especially the former, is this “material physical truth.” This truth exists objectively, and does not follow man’s will. It doesn’t make any difference whether you like this truth or not, it still is ever there.The other kind of truth, “human truth,” exists subjectively. When encountering this kind of truth, everyone nods his head, and says“Right” or “Yes.” This truth (or reason) has some element of subjectivity. When encountering this kind of truth, people have a favorable impression of it, and are well disposed toward it.Let’s say it is a matter of justice, for example. A person will say that he has a “sense of what is right.” Justice resides in a sense of what is right. So in my final analysis, there are two truths—a physical truth and a human truth.

Master Zhu (Zhu Xi) of the Song Dynasty never made a distinction between these two truths. He had a paragragh, which I cannot recite. Anyway, he never separated these two kinds of truth or reason. I can give you another example, concerning biological evolution. That is, in natural selection, the weak are eaten by the strong. This is a phenomenon that has an objective existence, a truth or a reason of the natural world. But we humans all dislike and oppose it. We feel that…

Alitto: Do you mean that people, no matter when they live or what place they are from, all dislike it? This “we” is in reference to humankind, no matter where one is from?

Liang: In what stands to reason with humans, the phenomenon of the weak being oppressed, being bullied gives a feeling of unfairness to the onlooker, and the onlooker does not like it. This feeling of dislike is reason, a kind of human truth. “The strong eating the weak” has an objective existence and that objective existence is material physical [5][6]truth.I would like to continue today with what I said yesterday.

I’m afraid that I didn’t make myself clear enough yesterday. So I have written it down. Mahayana Buddhism is based upon Hinayana Buddhism, and is a great reversal of it. Why a great reversal? Hinayana wants to renounce this world. The Mahayana Bodhisattva is “non-abandonment of sentient beings” and “nonresidence in Nirvana.” Hinayana wants to end up in this place,wants to go to the tranquility of Nirvana; the Mahayana Bodhisattva does not abandon sentient beings and so does not reside in Nirvana, does not want to end up in Nirvana. That is to say, the Hinayana rule is to go beyond this world; the Mahayana, given a choice, still returns to this world. This is the Mahayana way.

So, in my own case, I admit to being a follower of Buddhism; I would not deny being a follower of Confucius either.Why? Why don’t I deny it? Because this way of the Mahayana Bodhisattva—I want to follow the way of the Bodhisattva—is“not to abandon sentient beings” and “not to reside in Nirvana.”So I want to go into the world. Because of this, all through my life, for example, everyone knows that I worked in rural reconstruction, rural movement, and that I worked in politics as a mediator between the two Parties (that is, national affairs),especially when Japan invaded China, so would this be considered “leaving the mundane world” or not? This [activity] does not in the slightest go against “leaving the mundane world.”Because this is what? It is the [7]way of the Bodhisattva. This is not Hinayana. Hinayana wants to go into the mountains, to some monastery and not emerge. Mahayana is “non-abandonment of sentient beings” and “non-residence in Nirvana.” You can say that I am a Confucian, a follower of Confucius, and you can say that I am a follower of Siddhartha, because there is no conflict or contradiction [between the two].

Alitto: No conflict between the two. This is a relatively new way of putting it. For example, during the Tang Dynasty, or before then when Buddhism had just reached China, there was conflict between the two. So you are saying…

Liang: Insufficient understanding. The enlightened person has no problem. So, it seems that the Song Confucians had rejected Buddhism and Daoism, I think that it was a question of insufficient understanding. For the wise, enlightened person, there is no obstruction to understand; he sees everything clearly. If there is obstruction, it is that you yourself create an obstruction for yourself. But as a matter of fact it is not necessary. The enlightened person transcends this. Quite a few of the Song Dynasty Confucians like Master Zhu (Zhu Xi) rejected Buddhism and Daoism.

Alitto: Yesterday you said that you were a Buddhist all along.[8]Liang:　Because very early when I was quite young, a teenager, I wanted to become a monk.

Alitto: Thereupon to the present you had preserved your original…

Liang: It’s still that way, but now I don’t have to become a monk. In fact, I still want to.

Alitto: Still want to become a monk?

Liang: Yes, still. If I would be allowed to go live in a mountain monastery,I would be quite happy.

Alitto: Yes. Do you still meditate or do Buddhist cultivation…?

Liang: The basic way involves three words (Liang writes out the words for Alitto to see): discipline (sila), meditation (dhyāna) and wisdom (prajnā). These are disciplines that must be maintained.There are many rules of discipline. For example, one cannot marry. If you have already married, you must leave home and become a monk. Killing is forbidden, eating meat is forbidden and so on. There are many prohibitions. Only after observing these prohibitions can you achieve meditation referring to the trance state that we just mentioned. So only after you have observed the prohibitions can you achieve Samadhi. Only through this can you achieve wisdom. Buddhism does not hold what we commonly regard as intelligence and wisdom to be “wisdom.”Buddhism regards that kind of intelligence as merely a kind of cleverness and perceptiveness, not genuine wisdom, not the Great Wisdom. Great Wisdom comes only through Samadhi,and through it one has a breakthrough in consciousness. Of course, everyone knows that in the past there were thirteen different school’s of Buddhism in [9]China; an important and welldeveloped one was Chan. In Chan Buddhism there is a saying that expresses its special feature or characteristic. What was the Chan school’s special feature? It’s “not relying upon language for explanation.” So, language and writing are not needed; it is not based upon language and writing. The Chan school was quite well-developed. There was a book called Jingde Records of the Transmission of the Lamp. Later there were many moreRecords of the Transmission of the Lamp. Altogether there were five books combined to constitute the Five Lamps Combined.All tell Chan school stories. Laymen can’t understand these stories. For example, a famous successful Chan master is called a“Most Virtuous” (Bhadanta). So one Chan Buddhist went to see the “Most Virtuous.” As soon as he saw him, the Most Virtuous struck him with a stick, and he understood. The man understood.Other people don’t understand this matter. This is a Chan story.This is called the “Stick.” There is another called the “Shout.”A pilgrim went to the Chan Most Virtuous for instruction. He didn’t say a word, but gave a great shout. The pilgrim also understood. These kinds of stories are in the Records of the Transmission of the Lamp.

Alitto: I remember that I read some of those stories. So the Chan school is…

Liang: I mean, the Chan school does not rely upon language or writing,and two sides can influence each other. An old, successful monk who has achieved enlightenment can have influence on a newly arrived person, and make him able to achieve enlighten-ment,but he does not use language. An enlightenment of language is still on the conscious level. Only [an enlightenment] that is life-changing in a fundamental way can be considered true enlightenment.

Alitto: When you were young, in your teens, was it after the Republican Revolution when you had a spiritual crisis?

Liang: It was before the Republican Revolution. (Alitto: Before?) At the time of the Revolution I was nineteen. I wanted to become a monk at sixteen or seventeen.

Alitto: Oh, sixteen or seventeen. I was wrong about that. I thought that only after the Revolution did you really turn to Buddhism. That is to say, before then you were adopting Western thinking, in any case, Western schools of thought. Only after the Revolution did you have a spiritual crisis, and turn to Buddhism. I was wrong.

Liang: I wanted to become a monk very early.

Alitto: But you also participated in the Republican Revolution. When you were participating in the Revolution, did you still want to be a monk?

Liang: I just spoke of this. Becoming a monk is going to the quietude of a monastery. This can be said to be an ideal for both Hinayana and Mahayana, but Mahayana is different in that it wants to save the world; it does not want to abandon living things.

Alitto: I understand this, but reading about that time of your life in books and essays you wrote, I got the impression that it was only after the Republican Revolution that you wanted to leave home and become a monk.

Liang: I have often said that there are two questions that have occupied my mind. One question is the practical problem of China.China was in a kind of national crisis, and the social problems were very serious. This practical problem stimulated my mind and occupied my brain. There is another problem. I just mentioned a practical problem. There is another problem that transcends practicality, which is the problem of human life.What should be done with its afflictions and uncertainties, the misunderstandings of life, and doubts about it? Isn’t this what I just mentioned about wanting to leave home and become a monk? These two problems are not the same. One makes me involve myself in social and national affairs for society and the country; and the other makes me want to leave society.

Alitto: In fact these two problems are related. For instance, there is a close relationship between the problems of China and the rural reconstruction that you led; rural reconstruction is closely related to Chinese culture; and Chinese culture is intimately related to human life, human existence, and the life of the people. I have always felt that [10]these two problems are closely related. Oh, do you dislike smoke? (Liang: It doesn’t matter.) On this, I base myself on a Western psychologist. He wrote a biography of the medieval age German [11]Martin Luther, and also wrote a biography of Gandhi. He used a method of analysis which held that there are some sagacious people—Gandhi for one, Luther for another—who combine together their own personal problems and problems of humanity. No matter where they are from, you could say the exceptionally sagacious are like sages, so I used this theory to analyze your situation, which is also like those examples of his. I got some things wrong, though—for example I thought that only after the Republican Revolution did you genuinely believe in Buddhism. Before that you just had an interest in it, but only after the Revolution did your own problems force you to delve deeply into Buddhist studies. Before that you had an interest, all right, but it was not…

Liang: It was that way. I spoke of it yesterday a bit. I did speak of it yesterday. All along I wanted to leave home and become a monk. Not until the age of 29 did I abandon it; I only married at age 29.

Alitto: Why do I mention this again? Because I made a mistake.It’s embarrassing, writing your biography and making a mistake about such an important thing. Before the revolution, how did you find Consciousness-Only Buddhism…

Liang: At that time I really didn’t understand Consciousness-Only very well. It is very difficult to understand. The Faxiang (dharmalaksana)Consciousness-Only (Yogācāra) school in Buddhist studies is very hard to understand.

Alitto: It is difficult to understand, all right. You only started studying Consciousness-Only in the first and second years of the Republic.

Liang: Not yet. (Alitto: No?) At that time I couldn’t understand it. I studied the Consciousness-Only school after I got to Peking University. Cai Yuanpei engaged me to teach Indian Philosophy at Peking University.

Alitto: But in 1916 you already published “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts,” so you had already studied ConsciousnessOnly.

Liang: That wasn’t really considered study of Consciousness-Only.(Alitto: That can’t be considered study?) In the article I quoted a lot from the Consciousness-Only school. There were an Old school and a New school within the Consciousness-Only school.The New school was derived from the monk Xuan Zang. You know Xuan Zang? (Alitto: Yes, I know.) Xuan Zang of the Tang Dynasty, Tang Tripitaka. At the time I wrote the article, I really didn’t understand the New school of Consciousness-Only. I hadn’t read its texts. What I had read was all Old school texts,and it was from these texts that I quoted in the article.

Alitto: I got this wrong too.

Liang: An ordinary layman would have a hard time distinguishing between the two schools of Consciousness-Only.

Alitto: Mr. Liang, you are so healthy.

Liang: My health has not been that good; it’s just that I have had no illness.

Alitto: How sharp you are, virtually completely the same as a young person. Ordinary people feel that you have some secret. Is this secret related to Buddhism?

Liang: There is no relationship between my good health and Buddhism.Didn’t I just mention discipline, meditation, and wisdom? Discipline I have some. What is it? From a very young age I have abstained from eating meat. Not eating meat is the Buddhist injunction against killing, so no animals are eaten. Originally I didn’t intend to marry. Only after age 29 did I abandon this idea of remaining celibate. Before age 29, I always wanted to become a monk.

Alitto: Are you still a vegetarian?

Liang: To this day I am still a vegetarian. I have been a vegetarian for seventy years.

Alitto: It’s already been 70 years. So since you were 8, no, 18…

Liang: 70 years ago, I was living in Beijing, living together with my father. I already wanted to be a vegetarian then, but my father didn’t like the idea, so I didn’t do it. I did have an opportunity right then to leave Beijing and go to Xi’an, and so at that time I started practicing vegetarianism. From that time on, I have never stopped.

Alitto: I don’t remember this. When did you go to Xi’an? For what reason?

Liang: Right at that time, my brother, my elder brother was in Xi’an,and I went to see him. My father was in Beijing; he [brother]was in Xi’an. I went to Xi’an.

Alitto: Wasn’t this after the Revolution?

Liang: After the Revolution.

Alitto: So, it should be in 1912.

Liang: Right. A bit later than 1912, in 1913.

Alitto: Oh, 1913. How long did you stay in Xi’an that time?

Liang: Not too long, just a few months.

Alitto: In 1912 you went to Nanjing? In 1912?

Liang: I went there once. I participated in the Republican Revolution. After the revolution, I wanted to go to Guangxi, because Guangxi Province wanted to send students abroad to study. I went together with a few Guangxi men.

Alitto: Oh, so you didn’t go…

…

Liang: He [Wang Jingwei] was here a few years before, before the Revolution, that is, he was here the first year of the Xuantong reign [1908]. He, together with a Sichuanese friend surnamed Huang, secretly came to Beijing. He wanted to use a bomb to kill the Prince Regent. The Prince Regent was the Emperor Xuantong’s father. Because the Emperor Xuantong was a child,only four years old, the Prince Regent virtually controlled the government. Wang Jingwei had come to assassinate the Prince Regent. To do this he went at night to a place where the Prince Regent’s horse carriage would pass. There were no automobiles yet. He went to this place and buried a bomb during the night,but someone saw him, and so he was arrested, and thrown into prison. Originally someone arrested for attempted assassination of the Prince Regent would possibly be executed. He wasn’t executed; he was locked up, right up to when the Southern Revolutionary Army arose and confronted the North. In Beijing at that time, Yuan Shikai had emerged; he released Wang Jingwei from prison, and asked him to be an intermediary and think of a way to negotiate peace [between the North and South]. It happened this way.

Alitto: The time you yourself went from Beijing to Nanjing was…

Liang: At this time I hadn’t gone to Nanjing yet. (Alitto: Not yet?)Strictly speaking, I had not. It was like this. I’ll continue what I was just speaking about. Wang was released by Yuan to be a mediator between the North and the Southern Revolutionaries.Wang organized a Beijing-Tianjin branch of the Revolutionary Alliance (the Tongmenghui). The Revolutionary Alliance was founded by Sun Yat-sen. Its official name was the Chinese Revolutionary Alliance. This new branch was considered its northern branch.

When I was still in middle school, I had already secretly joined a revolutionary organization, which was part of the Beijing-Tianjin branch of the Revolutionary Alliance that I just mentioned led by Wang Jingwei. At that time I was also a news reporter. The newspaper office was in Tianjin. Later it was moved to Beijing. For a time I led the life of a news reporter.Moreover, I was a field reporter who went out to cover the news on the spot. There was such a period. After the Republican Revolution, I went to Nanjing once. Later I doubled back. After Nanjing, I went to Wuxi, and from Wuxi doubled back. At that time my plan had been to go to Guangxi to sign up for the examination and go abroad to study, but I didn’t succeed in going.

Alitto: I was wrong about this too. In my book this is wrong.

Liang: What is in the book?

Alitto: In the book I said that after the Revolution had been successful,and Sun Yat-sen had gone to Nanjing to be the Provisional President, you went to Nanjing because the Revolutionary Alliance people all went to Nanjing to begin the work of constructing a nation. I knew that at that time you were a reporter.I thought that around March, April or May of 1912 you went to Nanjing. In the end I was wrong. Your original intention was to go to Guangxi.

Liang: I did want to go to Guangxi and then came back quickly.

Alitto: The Beijing-Tianjin Revolutionary Alliance branch was organized after the Wuhan Uprising, I know now. But was it Wang Jingwei who founded it, or was it before…

Liang: Wang Jingwei organized it quite suddenly.

Alitto: In Taiwan, I read some documents from the Beijing-Tianjin branch of the Revolutionary Alliance. Wang Jingwei wasn’t mentioned in them. I found the name of a classmate of yours. I couldn’t find your name. In the book I speculated that you might have used another [12]name.

Liang: At that time, we were all together in the Revolutionary Alliance.Because, the revolutionary army had arisen, the Qing court abdicated governmental power. Some of us originally were fooling around with bombs and pistols, but then we began to run a newspaper. (Alitto: The Republic.) We ran The Republic. The head of The Republic was Zhen Yuanxi. This man also ran a Chinese language newspaper in the U.S.A. At the time I was a field reporter, not someone who sat in the newspaper office writing essays, but was outside all the time. At that time, The Republic’s office was in Tianjin, and my home was in Beijing, so I commuted back and forth between the two cities, covering stories.

Alitto: Did you get to know Huang Yuansheng at this time?

Liang: I got to know him after this.[13]

Alitto: Later? He was assassinated in the U.S. in 1915. (Liang: He was killed by assassination.) So was the first time you met Cai Yuanpei when you were a reporter…

Liang: I met Cai Yuanpei once during this period, but he didn’t remember me. Afterwards, in 1917, when he became president of Peking University, I really got to know him. I had him sent my essay “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts” for comments. He said, that when he was passing through Shanghai, he had read it and found it very good. He said that he was now going to Peking University, and [14]asked me to come on board. I said that I really wasn’t qualified to teach Indian thought. At the time,scholars of Europe and Japan did not include Buddhism as one of the six schools of Indian philosophy. Strictly speaking, I really didn’t know much about Japanese or European scholarship on Indian philosophy. I only liked Buddhism, that’s all. When Cai invited me, something else had come up, and being occupied with it, I couldn’t accept Mr. Cai’s invitation to teach at Peking University.

What was I busy with at the time? By that time Yuan Shikai had already died and the North and South were reunited.The major force that overthrew Yuan was in the Southwest. In Guangxi, the important figures were Cai E and Lu Rongting. In Guizhou, it was Liu Xianshi. Among the forces overthrowing Yuan inside the government was Liang Qichao (Rengong). In the North, when Yuan was dying he had asked Duan Qirui to come into politics. Duan was, among the Beiyang militarists,a very honest, decent, fine person. Duan resolutely and firmly opposed Yuan Shikai’s becoming emperor from the first. So a group of Yuan’s supporters wanted to assassinate him. He was at the time Minister of the Army. He resigned and went to live in the Western Hills of Beijing. They still wanted to assassinate him. The upshot was that he was never killed. Yuan’s plan for becoming emperor failed. In order to maintain the power of the Beiyang clique, he had to ask Duan to return to Beijing.Because Yuan was intent upon becoming emperor, he had already abolished the State Council and had set up a Political Bureau within the Presidential Palace. At the time he knew that he was dying, that he was done for, and he asked Duan to abolish this organ, restore the State Council and assume the post of Premier. Because Duan was honest and upright, and because he had opposed Yuan’s plans to be emperor, the Southwestern forces still recognized Duan. In any case the Southwestern forces didn’t have sufficient military forces to attack Beijing, so they came to terms. A cabinet that united the North and South was organized.

An older relative of mine entered the government as a representative of the Southwest. (Alitto: Zhang Yaozeng?) This was Zhang Yaozeng, who drafted me to be his confidential secretary.There were secret telegrams and letters between the anti-Yuan forces of the Southwest—Guangxi, Yunnan and Sichuan—and him; I managed these affairs for him. So when Mr. Cai asked me to come to Peking University to teach, I could not go. I asked a friend of mine to substitute for me. The next year the political situation changed, and Duan left. Zhang also fell from power.Only at this time was I able to go to Peking University.

Alitto: Your article “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts” was originally published in Eastern Miscellany. Did you have a friend at Eastern Miscellany? That is, did you send it to him,send the manuscript to him, and he wasn’t…

Liang: That friend of mine was very famous…

Alitto: Zhang Shizhao?

Liang: Yes, exactly.

Alitto: When did you get acquainted with Zhang Shizhao? I didn’t mention in the book when you got to know him.

Liang: Zhang Shizhao (Xingyan) was famous primarily because of his magazine The Tiger. I hadn’t met him, but I had sent manuscripts to this magazine. It was this kind of relationship. What were we just talking about?

Alitto: I said that I made mistakes about the events of these years. I thought that you went to Nanjing after the Republican Revolution was successful. I found this very interesting. I knew more or less about these events, but I wasn’t clear on the details. How would you evaluate the historical figures of that time, such as Chen Duxiu? It’s best to start with Mr. Huang Yuansheng. How did you get to know him? What sort of person was he?

Liang: He was a very famous journalist of the time, because he was extremely smart and had literary talent, and had made a lot of friends. He was connected with secretaries in the Presidential Palace when Yuan Shikai was President and people in the State Council too. He wrote dispatches for the Shenbao in Shanghai.These dispatches included some news reports and some essays.In this way, he became a famous news reporter. When I had returned from Xi’an, I began to get to know him. At the time I had a book, the title was… (Alitto: Oh, yes, the “Preface.”) I had selected some essays from the late Zhou, Han and Wei Dynasties, especially those that were able to express thought and theory. In the late Zhou there were a lot of scholars, especially those like Han Feizi and so on; in the Han and Wei Dynasties there were also some. I assembled their essays together, and titled it Selected Literature from the Late Zhou, Han and Wei Dynasties. I had asked Mr. Huang Yuansheng to write a preface for this book. That is how I met him.

Alitto: What was your major purpose in putting these essays together?

Liang: My purpose in putting out this book was to introduce some of the writings of those periods. The language used in these essays was relatively easy to understand, but at the same time comparatively elegant and refined, not really colloquial. This was especially so of some of Han Feizi’s and some of Mozi’s writings,as well as some of Zhuangzi’s. I didn’t include any of Laozi’s.So they were writings of this sort, also including some from the Han and Wei periods. At that time, the colloquial written language had not arisen. Only when Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi started the New Literature Movement at Peking University was there a colloquial written language.

Alitto: Your motive was to establish a standard, a written language better suited to modern society, correct?

Liang: Somewhat like a kind of liberation, more liberating than the Tongcheng school, which promoted the classical Chinese.

Alitto: Was Mr. Huang Yuansheng also concerned about the problem of the written language?

Liang: Not necessarily, but I was acquainted with him, and asked him to write a preface. I asked him to read the manuscript and write a preface. We were friends, and he was relatively open-minded.

Alitto: At that time were you much concerned about the problem of the written language?

Liang: He, as I just said, was a news reporter. His writings were not in the colloquial language, but it was a classical language quite easy to understand and popular. I took the volume of things that I had selected, and asked him to write a preface. He wrote one.After he wrote the preface, he left for America, and on shipboard on the way, he wrote “Confessions.” When he arrived, he died.

Alitto: Yes. Was there any direct connection between the essay he wrote and your article “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts”?

Liang: Because I read his article “Confessions,” I wrote “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts.”

Alitto: So, after having read this article, you wanted to express your ideas on this question….

Liang: He left Beijing to go to the U.S. Actually he was fleeing. Why was he fleeing? Because he was a talented, smart and famous news reporter. Yuan Shikai, in his bid to be emperor, had wanted to win him over. He sent someone to speak with him directly,hoping that he could write an article praising the imperial system. At that time there [15]was an American named “Bidenuo”[Frank Goodnow]. So, wanting to institute an imperial system,he hoped that Huang would write an article supporting it. Huang was not willing to write it, and so Yuan threatened him. He did not willingly write it, or willingly become someone supporting the imperial system, so he wrote a bad article that was ambiguous. Friends told him that he couldn’t hand in such an ambiguous article. It wouldn’t pass muster; they wouldn’t be satisfied with it. You should either surrender or leave immediately. He chose the latter, and stole out of Beijing.

Alitto: He wrote the article on the boat. It seems that it had no relationship to the matter you just mentioned.

Liang: He fled because of this matter. In the “Confessions” article he wrote that he had continuously been hanging together with the ruling class, the high officials and aristocrats of the time. Although it seemed that he did not join them and although he didn’t, he was well acquainted with them. They wanted to force him to support the imperial system. He wasn’t willing and had to run. So this confession was a matter of repenting for the actions of his past life. He was a person of talent and talented people all have desires; in sexual matters and spending money he had been wanton. His repentance was in these areas.

Alitto: What relationship was there between his article and yours?

Liang: Which one?

Alitto: “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts.”

Liang: I wrote my article only after I saw his “Confessions.”

Alitto: I think that in that article he had brought up some problems of modern society.

Liang: My article “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts” implied that it would have been much better if I had supplied my Buddhist ideas to Mr. Huang earlier. I feel sorry that I hadn’t. At the beginning of “On Tracing the Origin and Solving Doubts,”I wrote this; it seemed that I had not given my friend something very valuable.

Alitto: I didn’t get this wrong. What do you think of Chen Duxiu?

Liang: Chen Duxiu was really a formidable person.

Alitto: You met him only after you went to Peking University, or…

Liang: I ran into him right before I went to Peking University. There was someone who was known by everyone, Li Dazhao. He had some guests over to his house for dinner. He invited Chen and he invited me. That was the first time I met Chen. At that time,Chen had just come from Shanghai to Beijing. He had intended to persuade people to buy shares from him in an “East Asia Library” publishing house he was creating. Each share was 50silver dollars, and two shares were 100 dollars. He hoped that his old friends would persuade everyone to buy shares in order to finance this publishing house of his. He came to Beijing for this purpose. Right at that time Cai Yuanpei had returned from abroad and assumed the presidency of Peking University.He needed a corps of teachers, obviously. He couldn’t teach everything himself. He was an old friend of Chen Duxiu’s, so he told Chen, “Alright, since you have come to Beijing, forget about this publishing house project. Don’t mess with publishing houses. You come help me out?” So, in this way, the three of us—Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao and myself—entered Peking University at the same time.

Alitto: My impression is that your relationship with Chen Duxiu wasn’t as good as yours with Li Dazhao.

Liang: Right. My relationship with Li started slightly earlier than with Chen. When I ran into Chen, it was at a banquet at Li’s. But we three entered Peking University at the same time.

Alitto: With Chen Duxiu, you…

Liang: Chen left a very strong impression on me. Chen was someone who could really make breakthroughs, a man of great power.

Alitto: What do you think of the role he played in history?

Liang: He started the Communist Party.

Alitto: Right! Very important?

Liang: Very important.

Alitto: He and Li Dazhao, naturally they together founded the Communist Party.

Liang: The friendship between the two was very good, but their personalities were different.

Alitto: So, Li was relatively…

Liang: On the surface Li was a very gentle person. Everyone who had personal contact with him liked him. In fact, though, he was a very radical person in his heart.

Alitto: His personal relations with others were comparatively good.

Liang: Better than Chen Duxiu did in his relationships. Most people’s attitude toward Chen Duxiu was to “respect him but give him a wide berth.” Everyone was afraid because he was often very rude in his speech with others. At meetings of the University, he was the dean of the College of Arts. There was a College of Sciences, which was headed by Mr. Xia Yuanli. These two were of the same rank, one in the Arts and one in the Sciences.During meetings Chen would be very rude toward Mr. Xia and embarrass him.

Alitto: Li Dazhao wasn’t that kind of person. Which of these two people do you feel yourself…

Liang: Of course my relationship with Li Dazhao’s was better.

Alitto: Was the most important reason that Li was gentle, or…

Liang: Yes, Li was gentle.

Alitto: In thought, was Li’s close to your own? So [your good relationship with him] had to do with thought, or with the way he conducted himself ?

Liang: It was very strange. What was strange? Both Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao were members of the Chinese Communist Party, but Li never said anything to me about joining it. I don’t know why.We were good friends but he never tried to get me into the party.

Alitto: What about Chen Duxiu? I remember he had talked about this with you. In The Chinese People’s Final Awakening (It should be The Final Awakening of the Chinese People’s Self-salvation Movement.—compiler) you mentioned Chen Duxiu’s criticism of your conception of the rural reconstruction, calling it some petite bourgeois fantasy. At that time Chen Duxiu wanted you to join the Party. You didn’t…he also didn’t…

Liang: No, he also didn’t ask me to join the Party.

Alitto: What was your relationship with Hu Shi like? What do you think of Hu Shi?

Liang: Hu Shi was a very smart man.

Alitto: Did you usually get along well with him?

Liang: We got along fine. At the time at Peking University there was a New clique and an Old clique. The New clique included Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, Hu Shi and Lu Xun. But Lu Xun wasn’t a Peking University professor. He worked in the Ministry of Education. He did teach some courses at Peking University, though.He taught a course on the “History of Chinese Fiction.” He didn’t have much strong connection with Peking University. He was also a part of the New Youth Group, which included Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, Li Dazhao, and also Tao Menghe.

Alitto: Do you say that your relations with the New Youth Group were not that close? Who were you extremely close to at that time?

Liang: During that time at Peking University, there were two cliques,the New and the Old. There were two student periodicals, one called the New Tide, and the other called the National Heritage, which was devoted to China’s old literature. They were matched by two student cliques, which were in turn both backed by professors. I wasn’t in the New clique, and ever less in the Old clique, because the Old clique was interested in China’s old style learning, of which I had no mastery. After all, I was younger than them. Hu Shi was older than me, but not by much,probably only by one or two years. Li Dazhao was probably three or four years older.

Alitto: Hu Shi was three years older than you?

Liang: Not by that much.

Alitto: You were born in 1893. (Liang: Yes.) At the time of your birth Hu Shi was already three years old, when his father was the county magistrate of Taidong County in Taiwan. I wrote that in the book. You were younger by a bit than these people—Hu Shi,Li Dazhao, of course Lu Xun and Cai Yuanpei were both older than you by a lot. This is the reason why you didn’t go with the New Youth group and why you left Peking University, because you were relatively young, and it wasn’t so easy to deal with the people of the various cliques.

Liang: I went to Peking University in 1917, and left in 1924. Altogether from start to finish, I was at Peking University for seven years.To my recollection, Mr. Cai was thirty years older, and it seems that Hu Shi was about one year older.

Alitto: From what I researched, he was born in 1890, and you were born in 1893, three years’ difference. In the second chapter talking about your family, when you were born, Hu Shi was already a few years old and Chairman Mao was two months old. (Liang:Chairman Mao and I were born in the same year, but he was born some months later.) Because of this, I remember very clearly that Hu Shi was three years older.

Liang: Chen Duxiu was much older than I.

Alitto: There was also a Philosophy Department member Mr. Yang,who was Chairman Mao’s father-in-law. (Liang: Right.) You met Chairman Mao for the first time at Mr. Yang’s house?

Liang: Yes, it was that way.

Alitto: Was Mr. Yang someone who you could talk to?

Liang: Mr. Yang’s name was Yang Changji; he used the sobriquet Huaizhong. He was much older than we were. At Peking University,he was in the Philosophy Department. He taught “Western Ethics” and the “History of Western Ethics.” We were both in the Philosophy Department, colleagues. But he was much older than we were. He did come to my house frequently. Why did he come to my house often? It was not to see me, but to see my elder brother.

Alitto: Oh, it was that way. He already knew your elder brother?

Liang: Right.

Alitto: I’m now clear. I had thought that it was because you were a member of the Department of Philosophy that you were often together with him.

Liang: This elder brother was not my sibling.

Alitto: Oh, he wasn’t your sibling.

Liang: He was an elder relative of the same lineage.

Alitto: Your elder maternal cousin?

Liang: No, the same lineage, so he was surnamed Liang. I am also surnamed Liang. If he was an elder maternal cousin, he would not be surnamed Liang. The Chinese wording is different from that of foreign countries. He was surnamed Liang, and was Hunanese. On my desk is an article I am writing right now for the new Hunan Province Gazetteer, a provincial history. The provincial gazetteer has a section called “Biographies of Local Personages.” In that section there is my elder brother. He was someone of importance in Hunan and he came to Beijing to stay with me, so the present Hunan Provincial Gazetteer wanted me to write a biography; it’s on my desk.

Alitto: Was it because Mr. Yang was a Hunanese that there was this relationship?

Liang: I’ll explain the relationship Mr. Yang had with this elder brother of mine. What relationship did he have with my elder brother?At the time, under the influence of Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, the Guangxu Emperor wanted to carry out reforms. In the entire nation, the first province to respond actively to Beijing’s Reform Movement was Hunan.

The governing authorities in Hunan, those who held the political power—previously each province had a governor, and some provinces had a governor-general. Hunan and Hubei were under one governor-general. Hunan itself had a governor. Hunan had had several famous governors. At the time of the Reforms the province in the lead of reform movement [was Hunan]. My elder brother took an active part in the Hunan Reform Movement. Now they want me to write [his biography]. For example,at that time Chinese first called those who had been influenced by Europe “paying attention to foreign affairs,” and later [because] it was felt that this phrase “foreign affairs” wasn’t good,[and because] “outstanding talents knew current affairs,” [the term was changed to] “current affairs” [actually referring to Western learning]. So first in Hunan, an “Academy of Current Affairs” was established with Liang Qichao as the Dean. This elder brother of mine helped Liang Qichao with the “Academy of Current Affairs.” At that time they wanted new education,and also wanted to set up industry, so in order to set up industry,there was a Vocational Academy. My elder brother sponsored this Vocational Academy. What was taught in the Academy? Industry and Mining, so the province established a Bureau of Industry and Mining and an Office of Academic Affairs. My elder brother was both in the Office of Academic Affairs and in the Bureau of Industry and Mining.

This Mr. Yang—that is Yang Changji (Yang Huaizhong),was considered a student of my elder brother. He addressed my elder brother as teacher. Because at the time an aspect of the reforms was to learn from Europe and America, so people would be sent to Europe and America to study. Of course, Japan was closer and it seemed relatively convenient. So, at one time those studying in Japan were quite numerous. This elder brother of mine suggested to the provincial authorities—the governor—rather than sending young people out to study, it was better to send those who had already had some knowledge resources and some grounding in education domestically. The provincial authorities—the governor—approved his suggestion. He suggested—originally didn’t each province have civil service examinations for the Juren Degree? The first examination was for the Xiucai Degree….

…

Alitto: …researched question…the region of Henan, western [16]Henan, I want to write a local history, from the late Ming Dynasty to the present. Probably I’ll come again the year after next and stay in China for a long period, and I hope to have the opportunity to go to western Henan to have a look. I’ve already collected the materials abroad—the university libraries in the U.S., the Library of Congress. In Hong Kong and Taiwan there are some people…There’s an old gentleman, older than you by two years, Chen Zhonghua; Shunde is his sobriquet. I learned some things from him too. Mr. Meng also worked there?

Liang: He was Peng Yuting’s student, a Henanese. Back then we had a Henan Village Government Academy. He was a student at the Village Government Academy. (Alitto: Oh, he was a student at the Village Government Academy!) He stayed in the region of western Henan and participated in militia work and local selfdefense.

Alitto: You went to Zhenping and Neixiang Counties?

Liang: I’ve been to Zhenping.

Alitto: What time was that?

Liang: During the War of Resistance.

Alitto: Before that you were at the Henan Village Government Academy in Hui County, together with Peng Yuting?

Liang: He was the Academy’s president.

Alitto: Yes. You didn’t go to Zhenping then?

Liang: I didn’t go then. I went later, during the War of Resistance. We withdrew from Shandong, going from east to west, withdrawing to Zhenping.

Alitto: The “we” refers to whom?

Liang: “We” were a group of friends and students, a lot of cadre of the Rural Reconstruction Institute, a large number of people. When we withdrew, we brought with us a portion of the militia conscripts, along with 800 rifles, military uniforms, and over a hundred thousand silver dollars. At the time, we stayed in Zhenping.There was a large temple in Zhenping. We stayed in the large temple. Outside the county seat, outside was a large temple.

Alitto: Do you remember the situation in Zhenping at that time? What impressions do you have?

Liang: We didn’t stay there that long. After Zhenping, we went on to Wuhan. At the time, the central government was still in Wuhan,and so we went to take up matters with the government. At that time, the Minister of the Political Department was Chen Cheng.He also wanted two or three hundred of the students transferred into Wuhan for inspection. He gave an admonitory talk to them.Afterwards he appointed a person, recommended by us, to return to Zhenping to lead the students. This person led our men and the rifles back to Shandong. When they returned to Shandong, they were divided into Wuhan for inspection four routes, east, west, north and south, and then went to carry on guerilla operations behind enemy lines.

Alitto: What impressions do you have of Peng Yuting?

Liang: Peng Yuting and I were very good friends. He was the president of the Henan Village Government Academy. The vice president was Liang Zhonghua. I was the Academic Dean. Actually I drew up all the academy’s regulations and measures. The students there…now there are not many students there.

Alitto: In your mind, what sort of man was Peng Yuting like?

Liang: He was a man of wholehearted dedication. A Chinese old saying holds that a person with a dark face is a good person, and a pale face indicates wickedness. Now, Peng was with very dark complexion, and an extremely good person.

Alitto: He was also a quite capable man.

Liang: Very capable. Unfortunately he was assassinated, murdered.

Alitto: It seems that in Nanzhao County, or in Zhenping County, there was a Yang family. In Zhenping County there was a powerful local bully who had supported Peng Yuting’s education. Peng returned, and that person who had supported his education thought that this was an opportunity. Peng returned, but in the end did not accommodate him and give him preferential treatment. He became angry, got in touch with this Nanzhao County rich and powerful person, and carried out the assassination. Did you meet Bie Tingfang?

Liang: I also met him.

Alitto: Did he come to Zouping to see you?

Liang: No, he was in Neixiang County. I ran into him in Zhenping County. When I went to Zhenping, he did too, and we met.

Alitto: What impression did he leave with you?

Liang: My personal impression was that he was a very crude person.Probably his heart was good, but he had a local bully style and demeanor. He decided everything himself alone and imposed these decisions on everyone by force.

Alitto: Naturally Peng Yuting’s education…

Liang: Peng was much better.

Alitto: Do you consider the Zhenping self-government to have been successful?

Liang: At that time it was quite successful. The county magistrate and county government existed in name only. The local self-government divided the entire county into ten districts, and organized a tendistrict office. Everyone elected Peng Yuting to be the director.The ten district heads together with Peng Yuting formed the ten-district office. The office handled all matters. The county government was an empty shell put to the side and performing no function.

…

Alitto: Aside from you, who in the modern period is a representative Confucian personage?

Liang: I can’t say, but I will address a few words to the issue. There’s someone named Feng Youlan. When I was teaching at Peking University, he was a student in my class. He studied in America.While in America, he often sent letters to me, corresponding with me. After he returned from America he became a university professor, a very famous one. He authored three books, especially [well-known] is the one titled History of Chinese Philosophy. This man—each person has his own disposition and individual personalities are different—he appears to be a Confucian and to have developed and elaborated upon traditional Chinese thought. It appears that way, but in reality, he behaves more like a follower of Laozi and Zhuangzi. The Laozi school is not like the Confucian in that a follower does not have a commitment to one’s own integrity and to honesty. He isn’t that way. He is more like what, like…the expression “…shibugong” …the four characters “wanshibugong” (cynical and frivolous). He is not like [a Confucian] who loyally follows and acts according to the principles he believes in, who does not bend with the prevailing wind. No, he is more cynical and frivolous.

Alitto: Actually we Westerners who study China generally acknowledged this.

Liang: Later, didn’t that Jiang Qing think highly of him and go to Peking University to see him? He even gave some poems to Jiang Qing. Later Jiang Qing was defeated, so his reputation withered. He is still alive, still at Peking University, but he doesn’t have any work responsibilities. All he has now is a good salary, that is, a professor’s salary. His health has not been good either. He has cataracts, and someone supports him when walking.

Alitto: No one is representative [of Confucianism]?

Liang: No. There is another philosopher. He cannot really be considered as representing Confucianism. Someone named He Lin.He is better [than Feng], not so willful and wanton. He teaches mostly German philosophy, Hegel. There is another philosopher named Shen Youding. (Alitto: Afraid I don’t know about him.)They all play an important role in the Institute of Philosophy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. There is another philosopher in Beijing; he studied in the U.S., his name...it’s on the tip of my tongue.

Alitto: Do you think that the Hong Kong Confucian thinkers like Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi have made a contribution to the elucidation and development of modern Confucianism?

Liang: They have made a contribution.

Alitto: Have you read their publications?

Liang: I have here six volumes by Tang Junyi. I haven’t read Mou’s.

Alitto: What about Tang Junyi?

Liang: He’s good. I think that what he has to say about Confucianism is all accurate.

Alitto: You appreciate his...

Liang: Mou is a Shandongese, Tang a Sichuanese. I have been sent Tang’s works. I have six big volumes of his.

Alitto: In general, do you approve of his interpretations about Confucianism?

Liang: I think that he really understands Confucianism. Right now I have only two volumes left of the six. Someone took four away.It’s a pity that Tang has already passed away. Mou is still alive.

Alitto: Yes, Mou is still alive. Are they considered Xiong Shili’s students?

Liang: Mou is. It seems that Tang has no connection with Xiong. Mou has been on intimate terms with Xiong. He addressed him as teacher. It seems Tang did not.

Alitto: Did Mr. Xiong also teach at Peking University?

Liang: He taught there.

Alitto: You met him at that time or after he had arrived at Peking University? Or before then?

Liang: I knew him before that. In fact, it was I who brought him to Peking University.

Alitto: In the materials that I read I didn’t see anything about him personally…

Liang: Mr. Xiong and I were together for forty years.

Alitto: So when you were in Shandong, he went too?

Liang: He was with me in Shandong for a period. He didn’t follow me from beginning to the end. In 1924, I went to Shandong to start a school. We went together. When I returned to Beijing from Shandong, we again were living together. In that period when I went to Guangdong, he went to West Lake in Hangzhou. Those two years we were separated. Later, when the War of Resistance started, I withdrew to Sichuan, and we were again together.

Alitto: As far as his publications go, can he be considered close to your own thought philosophically…

Liang: Xiong Shili was worthy of being called Confucian. From start to finish, his thought was Confucian. Other people mistakenly call him Buddhist, mistakenly term his theories Buddhist. Actually, this is not so. In China there was a Buddhist group. It was in Nanjing, and was called the Institute of Buddhist Studies.(Alitto: It was Ouyang Jingwu?) Yes, there was an Institute of Buddhist Studies run by Ouyang Jingwu. I knew Xiong very well, I advised him to go to this Institute to study. How we became friends was kind of funny. At that time Mr. Xiong was teaching Chinese language at the Nankai Middle School. He had written articles for Liang Qichao’s journal called The Justice.These articles were written from a Confucian position vilifying Buddhism, saying that Buddhism was no good, that it made people lose their moorings spiritually and philosophically... In my article I criticized him. I said that in “this place” (referring to China) “a common fellow,” (an ordinary Chinese) was “striving for survival” such and such. I said that his words were nonsense,that he was wrong. The article was published and he read it.In 1920, he wrote me a postcard from Nankai Middle School to Peking University. His postcard said, “You reprimanded me quite deservedly. I’m now on summer vacation and am coming to Beijing. I want to meet you.” And so it was in this way we began our relationship. So he arrived in Beijing that summer.His personality had its cheerful side. When he was talking in high spirits, he would laugh heartily, and would gesticulate wildly, waving his hands and stomping his feet very exuberantly.He criticized Buddhism from a Confucian perspective, but I was myself a Buddhist, so I told him that he didn’t understand Buddhism, that the Buddhist doctrine was extremely profound.He said he was going to explore Buddihism. I said, “All right,I’ll introduce you to Ouyang Jingwu and his Institute of Buddhist Studies.”

Alitto: Oh, it was this way.

Liang: So there he went through my introduction, and for three years,from 1920 through 1922, he studied there. Now, I was at Peking University teaching; at first I was teaching Indian Philosophy and later added Consciousness-Only Buddhism. ConsciousnessOnly is an extremely specialized type of learning, technically very difficult. It originated with Xuan Zang of the Tang Dynasty.A follower of his, Kui Ji, also contributed to it. This type of doctrine is actually very scientific, with a lot of “names and phenomenal appearances”. That is why it is sometimes called the “appearances school (dharma-character school).” It has a lot of technical terms that make extremely fine distinctions. These terms cannot be used arbitrarily, or casually. In using these terms one must be precise. The entire body of doctrine is highly structured and systematic, very scientific-like.

At the beginning, I taught Indian Philosophy at Peking University, then I also taught Confucianism, Buddhism and Consciousness-Only Buddhism. When I was teaching Consciousness-Only Buddhism, I quoted a lot of Western scientists in order to explain it. The Consciousness-Only doctrine speaks of eight parij?ana (kinds of cognition, or consciousness).The first five are the senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,tactile feeling). The sixth is mano-vijnāna, the intellect. The six ones enable us to cope with our external environment. The seventh is called klistamanas [the discriminating sense] and the eighth, the ālāyavij?āna [the “storehouse consciousness” from which come all “seeds” of consciousness]. These last two come from egoism and the ego. Compared with the eighth, the seventh is far more... Not only do we humans have the ego, but all[other] animals do. All of us satisfy our desires from the external environment. So, with all animals we distinguish between the self and the “other,” the internal and the external.

Thus I was at Peking University, writing and lecturing on the Consciousness-Only school, and published two books on it.When I tried to continue writing, however, I felt that I was not really competent to deal with Consciousness-Only, and was not at all sure if I was correct. So I thought, well, the people at the Nanjing Institute of Buddhist Studies are true experts in this field. They can really penetrate and grasp the doctrines of Xuan Zang, Kui Ji and their school, so why don’t I ask one of them to come teach this subject at Peking University? I had a discussion with President Cai Yuanpei about it, explaining that I was not really qualified to teach this subject, had no confidence and so on, and that I wanted to get one of the scholars from the Buddhist Institute at Nanjing to do it. President Cai agreed to provide the position, so I went to Nanjing. Of course, Ouyang Jingwu himself could not be moved from the Nanjing Institute,so I thought that I would invite one of his disciples, a man named Lü [Lü Zheng]. Lü was an excellent scholar who knew Tibetan and Sanskrit, a man of great erudition. But Lü was Ouyang’s right-hand man and so he would not let Lü leave.

At that time, Mr. Xiong was already starting his third year at the institute. This was the winter of 1922, and it was I who,after all, was responsible for his being there in the first place,and he was an old friend. So, when I couldn’t get the man I wanted, I invited Mr. Xiong to come instead. I invited him to teach Consciousness-Only Buddhism at Peking University.Ah! How could I have known that he would do the opposite of what I had hoped! I didn’t have any confidence in my own understanding, and was afraid that I was teaching a confused jumble, distorting what Xuan Zang introduced from India. My original aim was to get an expert on Consciousness-Only to come teach instead of me, as I thought that this would be a more suitable arrangement. Who would have thought that after Mr.Xiong arrived, in fact he would do precisely the opposite of what I had hoped. He wanted to create an entirely new pattern of things, to start a whole new entity. He entitled his lectures on Consciousness-Only the “New Consciousness-Only.” For fear that I might distort or lose the original message of the ancients, I asked Mr. Xiong to come teach Consciousness-Only for me, and he very subjectively simply took his own interpretations to be the substance of Consciousness-Only! But since he had already arrived at Peking University as a professor there was no way I could then ask him to leave. So I was stuck.[1]The common understanding of this movement in the West was that it was aimed at Zhou Enlai, for whom Confucius was a stand-in. The name “Duke of Zhou” (周公) was also part of the campaign, and, of course, the name can also mean “the honorable Zhou (Enlai).”[2]In English, of course, “reason” or “rationality” does not connote anything like what Liang is suggesting. As I note later, some culturally conservative Western intellectuals referred to this “moral sense” that Liang speaks of by other terms. For example, Cardinal Henry Newman, a prominent nineteenth century thinker, used the term “illative sense.” It means what Liang’s “rationality” (理性)means. One such Western intellectual did indeed use the English term “rationality” exactly the way Liang did. That was Samuel Taylor Coleridge.[3]What follows is a summary of Liang’s argument in Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies. He does not alter the original argument at all, but insists still that human societies by their very nature will evolve a kind of Chinese culture. He said the same thing about the inevitability of socialism for all human societies, so in his mind, there is a parallel between the two entities—Chinese culture and socialism.[4]I still do not understand why Mr. Liang mentioned these two men. Neither of them, as far as I have been able to discover, attempted to answer my question about the longevity and continuity of Chinese culture. Mr. Xu was a historian of sorts, but his specialties were the very early period and archaeology. He actually died in 1976. Mr. Zhou was a famous biologist who, aside from his scientific work, did publish on less specialized topics about humanity. As far as I know, however, he did not address the question of Chinese culture directly. He died in 1968.[5]This is one of the many times I tried to have Mr. Liang speak to the question of universal values and the source of morality. In each case, he proceeds from Mencius’s argument that values are inherent in human biology.[6]Mr. Liang continues to want to become the bearer of the Buddhist and Confucian messages to the West through me. What he explains here, however, is relatively basic Mahayana Buddhism; I don’t find anything particular or different in this description from his already recorded interpretation of Buddhism.[7]Here Liang says outright what I suggested in my first article on him, that he saw himself as acting in a messianic role of Bodhisattva. Like many of the first generation of radical reformers—Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, Tan Sitong and, to some degree, Zhang Taiyan, all of whom had a deep and abiding interest in Buddhism—he saw his activist role in society and politics as Bodhisattva-like.[8]Throughout these interviews, Mr. Liang maintained that he is simultaneously a Buddhist,Confucian, Daoist, Marxist, and Vitalist (à la Bergson), who also has a great respect for Christianity. In my view, this is part of a long tradition of eclecticism in Chinese thought, one of the first more important examples being the Han Dynasty “National Doctrine” (国教), which was Dong Zhongshu’s eclectic mixture of Confucian teachings, Legalist teachings, Daoism, and cosmologies derived from the Book of Changes and folk religion. At the end of the Han, the earliest folk religious text we have, the Taipingjing (《太平经》) is similarly eclectic in composition, even including Moist(墨子) elements. In my view, this is a traditional attitude of Chinese intellectuals, even into the twentieth century. Liang’s friend, Li Dazhao, for instance, was simultaneously a French-style Vitalist and a nationalist while he was embracing Communist internationalism. Often Westerners do not understand this attitude, and take it to be self-contradictory.[9]In the West, “Chan” (禅) is almost universally known in the Japanese reading of the word“Zen,” because the Japanese version made the biggest impact in Western popular culture, especially in the 1950s.[10]I lit my pipe. I often smoked my pipe as we talked. I now regret smoking in front of him,because I am sure that Mr. Liang was just being polite when he said he didn’t mind it.[11]This is in reference to Erik Erickson, a Psychoanalyst and Professor of Psychology at Harvard. His focus was on personality and identity, and this work led to his theory of Stages of Psychosocial Development. In illustrating this theory, he wrote two famous biographies of historical figures, Young Man Luther (1958) and Gandhi’s Truth (1969). These two figures, Erikson wrote, were“spiritually talented.” I was impressed by the two biographies and saw Liang Shuming as another example of a “spiritually talented” person who transferred his own spiritual crisis on to humanity as a whole. Liang’s own life before his book Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies, for example, had traversed the “three paths” he described for humanity’s cultural evolution. He was first a utilitarian who was in favor of a Western-style government for China. Then he became disillusioned and became a Buddhist. After his father’s suicide, he then went onto the Confucian path.As Erickson describes them, Luther and Gandhi did something similar with their lives.[12]These documents were in the Nationalist Party Archives, which at the time were still in a small town outside of Taizhong called Caotun. Perhaps the documents I saw were prior to Liang’s joining, although I did see a classmate of his from Shuntian Middle School (顺天中学) on the membership list. Liang told me at another time he had smuggled arms in a mule cart.[13]I think that previously it had been widely speculated that Yuan Shikai’s agents had assassinated him. In fact, the affair turns out to be a farcical tragedy. As Huang had indeed written an ambiguous article backing Yuan Shikai’s imperial plans, he was somehow considered by Sun Yat-sen’s Revolutionary Party to be on Yuan’s side. So, Huang fled to San Francisco to escape from Yuan’s wrath, and was shot to death by the Revolutionary Party assassin because he was considered Yuan’s backer. The order, carried out on Christmas night, came down from Sun himself.[14]Astonishing as it seems today, it was solely on the basis of this essay that Cai appointed Liang as professor at Peking University. Liang, of course, had never even attended the university, much less had specialized academic training in Indian thought.[15]Frank Goodnow was a famous Columbia University Professor of Administrative Law. He had worked with both President Taft and then-governor of New York, Theodore Roosevelt. In 1912, he became a legal advisor to the Yuan Shikai government, and in this capacity, he helped draft a new constitution. The reason that Liang remembered him was because of his assertion that the Chinese people were not mature enough for a republican form of government; Yuan Shikai immediately used Goodnow to promote his Imperial plans.[16]The area referred to here, a highly successful local self-government “experiment” in the1920s and 1930s is the area west of Nanyang, sometimes called Wanxi (宛西), consisting of Zhenping (镇平), Neixiang (内乡), Xixia (西峡), Xichuan (淅川) and Deng (邓) Counties.

Chapter 3:August 14,1980

Liang: Now, I’m just speaking off the cuff, but I think that the nationality with which the Chinese can most easily get close is the [1]American, but relations between them are not necessarily very deep. On meeting, Chinese and Americans establish good feelings between each other very quickly. Take Nixon’s visit to China as an example. Didn’t Nixon, upon departing, issue a Shanghai Communiqué? He quickly got on friendly terms with Premier Zhou Enlai, very harmonious. He respected and understood China, and was well disposed toward it. Of course, our Premier Zhou was extraordinary, a very very good person all around, and extremely intelligent. He was an extremely perceptive and sensitive person, with a quick mind. So, of course, he had the ability to make friends very quickly and easily. Although during that visit, Nixon was not quite in accord with Zhou on many issues, especially the Taiwan question, it didn’t matter. Because they achieved a level of friendship, they were able to put the question aside temporarily. This was also because Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou took the long view and were not anxious that the question be settled immediately. This attitude of Mao’s and Zhou’s was very good. Up to the present, especially with Kissinger’s role in all of this, in the whole world, Chinese affection and friendship with the United States is stronger than with any other country. China really has had better relations with the U.S.A. than with any other country. But the country with which at the outset we called our “Elder Brother” and which we took as our ideal model, is now the country towards which our feelings are most negative.

Alitto: What opinions do you have about the question of Taiwan?

Liang: As far as the Taiwan situation goes, right now Chiang Chingkuo is forced to speak in very cautious terms and keep tight-lipped and has not been willing to open up. But in actuality, I think that what he really thinks is another matter. He must keep closemouthed and refuse to have anything to do with the Mainland,because as soon as he would open up, he would be finished. So,he has refused to link up the two postal systems, to trade and so on. This is on the surface, superficial. He is afraid that if he ever gave any indication of a desire to become closer to the Mainland,he would fall from power. That Taiwan will revert to the Motherland sometime in the future is a certainty. It is just a matter of time.

Alitto: Everyone now recognizes Taiwan’s rapid economic development.Taiwan’s economy has been quite successful. Do you have any opinion about this question? Or, if the Mainland and Taiwan were now united, there would be other problems. Taiwan has developed so rapidly, and the Mainland has not. Even if they were united, there would be a lot of conflict. The Mainland and Taiwan have different ways in many areas. Not only do they have the pre-Liberation [2]Nationalist Party there, but before that there were also Japanese there. From the first Sino-Japanese War [1894]to the present, the developmental orientation of the two has not been the same. Do you have any opinion on these questions?

Liang: I think that the Chinese government, the Chinese authorities,have to respect Taiwan’s position. It cannot resort to force against Chiang Ching-kuo, and has to respect the feelings of the masses of ordinary people in Taiwan. As soon as there comes an opportunity—a sudden change in world affairs—then Taiwan would return to China. But China absolutely will not (even in that case) reach out to change or reform Taiwan. The Chinese government must do all it can to respect the popular feelings of the people of Taiwan, not to respect Chiang Ching-kuo, but to respect Taiwan.

Alitto: Another question. It’s already been thirty-one years since Liberation. The Nationalist Party in Taiwan is not what it was in bygone years. The new has replaced the old. The average person in Taiwan thinks of himself as Taiwanese. Even today’s thirtyyear-olds were born in Taiwan; thirty-six-, thirty-seven-yearolds, although born inside the Mainland, still grew up in Taiwan.Because of this, Taiwanese have not had any contact [with the Mainland of China] for a long time. Their concept is: I am Chinese; Chinese culture is our Taiwanese culture; I am Taiwanese;my ancestors came from the Chinese Mainland, but I [3]myself have never gone there, and I haven’t any contact with it. In my opinion this is a problem, a problem of thought. Do you have any views on this?

Liang: Not worth mentioning. But I have heard that when Taiwanese and people from the Mainland have the opportunity to meet,they are fine together.

Alitto: They are fine together, right. When I was in the U.S., there was a delegation and we also ran into students from Taiwan… Do you have any predictions about China’s future?

Liang: That depends upon the future of the world in general. It is not just a question of China itself. For example, if there was another world war, China would be affected. And another world war is just a [4]matter of time.

Alitto: If this comes to pass, then we humans are finished. Nuclear weapons—if the USSR and the US really did go to war—even the very soil of the earth would be affected. Even the survival of the next generations would become problematic. Your words are very pessimistic.

Liang: I have only a very shallow, half-formed opinion on the question,but my view is that an eventual war between the USSR and the U.S.A. is practically inevitable. But I have another conjecture,and that is that a world war would not last long, but as soon as it broke out, both the USSR and the U.S.A. would then have internal problems.

Alitto: If nuclear weapons are used, even social organizations will go.I understand what you mean. I’m saying that if the cities are all blasted flat, all the people killed, radiation would also affect people in the countryside. Of course, one could say that problems would arise in society, and probably at that point, basically there would be no “society,” while scattered numbers of people would still survive. Probably on this point Chinese and American views differ. Chairman Mao said that the Atomic Bomb was nothing much, a paper tiger or something, but most Americans feel that once you have this kind of thing, everything is finished.

Liang: Well, my opinion is that the internal problems of both the U.S.A.and the USSR would explode as soon as war broke out. I could use a quote from Chairman Mao, who also had a view on the possibility of world war. He said, “Probably war would lead to revolution, or probably a revolution would avert a war.” He said this. If the USSR had an internal revolution, America too had a revolution, and then there would be no great war. Perhaps the rise of revolution can avert a war, without the two major powers fighting. Or, perhaps a war would bring about revolution. The war would not have to last long to lead to an internal revolution.He had such kind of statement and I think possibly so. Precisely at the time that the world is on the point of a great change, China quite possibly will not have to suffer from another war. When the two superpowers are having their internal revolutions,China will be able to be stable and steady. I don’t know very much about foreign affairs or foreign countries. (Alitto:You are too modest.) It’s not modesty. I truly know very little.These guesses of mine or these views of mine I’m afraid don’t have much value. I mean it, for I’ve never been to either Europe or America.[5]

Alitto: Have you ever had the desire to travel abroad?

Liang: It would be good to go abroad to look around. I’m willing to go.Some friends of mine have been urging me to go. A friend of mine made a joke. He said that if I wanted to go to the U.S., I wouldn’t have to worry about travel expenses. I could give lectures and this would [6]provide enough for my living expenses.And he could be my interpreter.

Alitto: Have you ever had…

Liang: I do not have much interest in that. I myself is not much into that, but some friends suggest me going.

Alitto: Don’t you…?

Liang: I don’t really have any strong feelings about going. Of course, it would be interesting, because I’ve seen very little, and so a trip would increase my understanding of things.

Alitto: If shortly an American university or some such institution invites you to go to the U.S., would you be willing to go?

Liang: If a university invites me, I would naturally be willing to go.

Alitto: We were just speaking of the U.S. Do you have interest in other parts of the world?

Liang: Going to Europe.

Alitto: Well, I thought you might want to visit India or some other Asian countries, because you have studied Indian philosophy.

Liang: I haven’t much desire to visit India. There is a Chinese who has lived in India for a long time, named Tan Yunshan. He came to China and visited me, and we corresponded, but later the contact stopped. Tan was at that school founded by Tagore [CheenaBhavana (Institute of Chinese Language and Culture), VisvaBharati University].

Alitto: Oh, you also met Tagore when he was visiting China.Hasn’t today’s China been improved greatly from the China of fifty years before? What areas have been improved, and what aspects are still awaiting improvement?

Liang: China had undergone many decades of civil war. During the warlord wars, China could not build, could not progress. There was a lot of destruction and very little progress. Originally, we had never expected that Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Party would be driven out of the Mainland, because quite obviously the Nationalist Party government was the government of China, and the Communist Party only occupied a few areas. The Nationalist Party represented China to the world. America supported the Nationalist Party both militarily and politically. We never expected that, with its number of soldiers and weapons,its American weapons, U.S. support diplomatically, with many kinds of favorable conditions, it was sent packing. This was very surprising. It was because Chiang Kai-shek was really bad;Chiang Kai-shek had not won the people’s hearts and minds.He had never acted in good faith; his word counted for nothing.He had no good faith, it’s that…

I had quite a lot of contact with Chairman Mao. He was full of shifts and devices, a great talent, a man with a clever mind and great strategies. He didn’t have any connections, no patron with influence who helped him. He was a man alone. I visited his hometown Shaoshan twice. I visited the place where he had studied and met the people from his village. He was still working on the land at fifteen or sixteen. So, that such a man with this kind of background, a man all alone without assistance, actually created the New China, is truly amazing. This man was truly extraordinary. If not for him, there would be no Chinese Communist Party. If there were no Chinese Communist Party, there would have been no New China. The Party depended upon him and everybody relied on the Party. Although originally a single solitary individual, he became the highest authority. He took hold of the reins of all power. (He exercised control over everything.) In his old age, however, he was no longer capable. Yes,when he got old, he got muddle-headed. No one could do anything to save the situation because his prestige was too great, too powerful. Now it’s all right. Now everyone can evaluate him. He was actually responsible for the rise of the Gang of Four. I now hear that a public trial is planned for the Gang of Four. Now the greatest effort must be made to rectify [Mao’s mistakes]. Now we need collective leadership, instead of a single supreme leader.We must now make the utmost efforts to rectify the mistakes of the past. So, you could say that the last few years have been much more stable and steady, with no more social and political turmoil, especially like the disorder of 1966. So now China is advancing steadily, smoothly, and more united than before. So,given the present situation and the impending government reorganization—meetings are to be held this August to discuss this issue, I think that China will be in better shape than in the past several decades. Hua Guofeng, although in one sense colorless with no outstanding characteristics, is a steady, cautious person.In one sense, however, he is not ordinary. He has worked for several years on the grass roots level, from the villages. He is a person quite reliable and modest. There are a lot of matters of which Deng Xiaoping actually has charge, with the assistance of other people. So, in my humble opinion, I am extremely optimistic about the present situation, which is much better than before.

Alitto: Compared with 50 years ago, how would you evaluate the present? What are the areas of greatest improvement?

Liang: Well, in the areas of Party and government and society. The relationship between the Party and society is changing. In the past, the leadership of the party was too strong, and society at large was too passive. This is now slowly changing. The lower levels of society are now rising up. At present there are two slogans. One is democracy, the other, rule by law. In the past, there was no rule by law. Mao’s word was law, and everyone else was passive. It was almost like Mao made decisions, and everyone else just went along with him. Everyone exalted and extolled him. Now, the situation is changing into one of rule by law. For example, in a factory workshop, the workers elect the workshop director. The production brigade chiefs in rural communes are also nominated and elected by the members. (Alitto: Even at the grass-root level…) This situation is much sounder. So, those two slogans are still apt—rule by law and democracy. The strength of democracy is slowly rising. The slogans are not just empty talk. So, as I said, I am very optimistic about China’s future.

Alitto: In your opinion, what about the modernization, democracy,legality? These are only the most recent of several attempts of China’s government to modernize the country. Which of the attempts in the past 100 years most resembles the present one?There were many people and governments, and yourself…

Liang: Of course, originally, there were various ideals, slogans, etc., but in the past they were just that, ideals and slogans. Now, the present plan, as opposed to the previous ones, is not stopping at the level of ideals and slogans. This one in fact is having some effect in reality, especially most recently. Now there is an opportunity to advance while there was no such thing in the past. Aside from the recent periods of social and political turmoil, even in those relatively stable periods, China was not democratic, nor was it really ruled by law. Naturally it had even less democracy and even less rule by law during periods of turmoil, which were almost like civil war. The trains weren’t running and so on.Now, things are starting to become stable and routinized.

Alitto: I was referring to the content of the present plan. The content seems similar to several movements in the past promoted by various Chinese governments before liberation—you yourself had promoted some plans too. Which one is closest to the present plan? In the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s…

Liang: I know, but what I mean is that the movements in the past were all empty talk.

Alitto: All empty talk? How would you compare your Rural Reconstruction Movement with the present movement?

Liang: There are some similarities. (Alitto: In greater detail.) As far as I am concerned, what I wanted to do with rural reconstruction was to bring some organization and mobilization to the scattered,disorganized countryside and its traditional “familialism,” by where each person cared only for his own family, and completely ignored any wider community. So, as far as the Rural Reconstruction Movement’s aim of organizing the peasantry into groups, I think that this has indeed been accomplished. Previously, China lacked two things: first, organizations in suprafamilial organizational forms and second, modern science and technology. As far as the latter was concerned, the question was how to introduce science and technology into Chinese agriculture effectively and how to industrialize agriculture. So, now this task can be accomplished too. So, the two original goals I had for the Rural Reconstruction Movement—group organization and [7]science/technology have been or will be accomplished.

Alitto: I asked this question because in my book I compared what we call the Maoist type of rural reconstruction and your own, I mean,the rural cooperative and modernization plans of you two. My conclusion was that there were many similarities between the two. What you wanted to do has indeed been accomplished after the 1950s.

Liang: I would like to supplement that with a statement. Chairman Mao gave an address called the “Ten Great Relationships,” a very important address. He gave it in 1956, when he was at his peak,when he was very clear-headed and sober, when he was eliciting the opinions of everyone, inviting people to express dissenting views on things. At that time he openly acknowledged that he had made some mistakes in the past, and that he took responsibility himself for them, rather than blaming others. It was at that time he was most reasonable and most sensible. Later, he became confused and muddle-headed.

Alitto: I know that at present you are not a member of the Democratic League. (Liang: Yes.) But it was you who… (Liang: Yes, I started it.) Could you give your views on the relationship between the Democratic League, the smaller political parties, and the process of national construction?

Liang: I think that I am, and was, somewhat different from the others[non-Communist Party and non-Nationalist Party intellectuals who engaged in political activities]. Almost all the others vainly hoped for the establishment of British-style rule by political parties. That is, in the national assembly, there would be two large parties; when one was in power, the other would supervise the governance, would oversee the government of its rivals. If the party in power made any mistakes, or did something that was objectionable to the party out of power, the latter would then take power. So the two parties would rotate, taking turns being in power. This is the situation in England, and to an extent, in the U.S.A. So the others all dreamed of establishing this kind of government.

I said that this kind of government did not meet the needs of China, because economically, industrially in particular, China was so different from the Western countries. China was not an industrialized, developed country, so this kind of government would not work. China’s most urgent task was to develop economically as quickly as possible. In order to accomplish this,China needed a truly national, central political authority to adopt a fixed, definite guiding principle, a fixed course of action. This fixing of a definite course of action would be through a national governmental power or regime, and should maintain stability for several decades. Only in this way would China be able to develop economically and catch up with the foreign countries. So,I felt and feel that this alternating of political parties in power simply would not work because the national course of action,would change whenever the other political party out of power came into power. So, today one policy, tomorrow another. That just won’t work. I maintained this view consistently. The others all disagreed with me, as they all had in mind an AngloAmerican style of a two-party political system. Later, the situation in China, astonishingly enough, ended up precisely the [8]way that I thought it would. The Nationalist Party was driven out,and the Chinese Mainland was united. The CCP took power and did accomplish some things in these years. It’s too bad that during those decades of control, there were several periods of political and social turmoil. But now, it looks as though these periods of turmoil are over and will not recur, so that from now on China can stride forward rapidly. So, as I said, I am very optimistic about the future. This is my view, and this is my hope.

Alitto: Do you still have frequent contact with your colleagues in the Rural Reconstruction Movement?

Liang: Unfortunately, nine-tenths of the friends and students who worked together with me in rural reconstruction have passed away. Only I lived to a ripe old age. There are almost none else still alive. [9]Well, for instance, Mr. Meng Xianguang, who is visiting me now, is around but, on the whole, these students and colleagues are almost all gone. My rural reconstruction movement was first in Henan and Shandong. He is Henanese.

Alitto: Henanese? Mr. Meng?

Liang: Right. He is my student.

Alitto: He is Henanese, and with Peng Yuting….

Liang: Yes. He’s Peng Yuting’s student.

Alitto: Oh! So originally he was Peng Yuting’s student. Aside from him,are there others?

Liang: Of course there are others. I can’t say that they are completely gone, but there are very few.

Alitto: Do you have contact [with them]?

Liang: There is a man surnamed Li, here in Beijing, a man from Suiyuan Province [parts covered by today’s Inner Mongolia]. He is70. Mr. Meng too is over 70. They are all already retired.

Alitto: You don’t know much about those colleagues who are still alive today, do you?

Liang: Only a few are still alive. Aside from Mr. Meng and Mr. Li, who are in Beijing, there are others in various provinces. Most, however, are dead. During the war with Japan, quite a few capable students of mine were killed in action.

Alitto: In the Hong Kong newspaper, the Guangmingbao, you published some long descriptions of your travels behind enemy lines during the war, and mentioned that a lot of your students in Shandong were in a guerilla organization. That group was almost completely [killed by the Japanese]…[1]I happened to share this view, which is also shared by many others in the field including my teacher at Harvard, Benjamin Schwartz. Americans and Chinese on the whole both have the tendency to be very good at “cocktail party” interactions.[2]This is to distinguish the present-day Nationalist Party (Guomindang, KMT) in Taiwan from the Revolutionary Nationalist Party that exists on the Mainland.[3]This was the situation in 1980. Since then, of course, the situation in Taiwan has changed enormously. Taiwan has transitioned to a multi-party political system, and thus has effectively ended the Nationalist Party’s monopoly on political power. The rise (and partial fall) of Taiwanese nationalism is another great change.[4]I was struck at how much Liang’s views on such matters had been affected by general popular views, and, as such, shockingly naive. He admitted as much. Naturally he knew nothing of international affairs that had not presented by the Chinese media.[5]Liang had traveled to Japan at the invitation of Japanese rural reconstruction colleagues and toured rural reconstruction sites during the trip.[6]Immediately upon returning to the U.S., I contacted the “Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People’s Republic of China (美中学术交流委员会).” This was an organization founded in 1966 as part of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to facilitate academic traffic between the U.S. and China. The Committee was dissolved in the 1990s as scholarly communication between our two countries became commonplace, eliminating the need for such a committee.I relied Liang’s interest to the Executive Director of the Committee and requested that such a trip be organized for him. The director agreed, and, according to her, contacted Mr. Liang’s unit, the People’s Political Consultative Conference. Later, I was told that the authorities in China would not allow such a visit. Mr. Liang, however, was informed that it was the American side that balked.Frankly, I think this is unlikely, because it would have been on the initiative of the Committee that the question would have been brought up in the first place. I suspect that the Chinese authorities felt that Mr. Liang was too old and frail to make such a journey, and, moreover, because he was famous for speaking his mind, they might have been anxious about the possibility that Mr. Liang might make statements in the U.S. that could be embarrassing.[7]Mr. Liang’s major goals in rural reconstruction were indeed to “organize” the countryside and diffuse modern technology there. Practically every political figure during the Republic did indeed complain that China was, as Sun Yat-sen put it, “a sheet of loose sand.” Sun, and many others, complained that Chinese society was suffering not from a lack of “liberty,” but from a surfeit of it. Everyone, then, hoped to transform the sand into cement, but the question was how. In the late Qing, moreover, a completely new concept appeared—mobilization. It appeared simultaneously with the idea of a modern nation to which its citizens owe loyalty. Therefore, underneath the organization question was the perceived need for mobilization. All figures were also interested in diffusing modern technologies throughout rural society. Liang’s rural reconstruction movement,however, had one other goal that these other leaders and movements did not include and, by their nature, could not include. It was a cultural revival that was to preserve Chinese cultural values—epitomized in his term “reason” (理性). Liang emphasized the idea that rural reconstruction must not be a political movement, but rather a grass-roots cultural movement. He had concluded by the late 1920s that governmental power was inherently like “an iron hook,” and society was like a bean curd. No matter what good intentions the iron hook might possess, as soon as it goes to “help” the bean curd, it destroys it. “As soon as you take power, you are separated from society… No matter if even a sage took power, it would not work.” Theory of Rural Reconstruction (《乡村建设理论》),1937, p. 319. He never mentioned this special goal of rural reconstruction during these interviews.[8]This is indeed true. Liang had always argued that until the customs, habits and attitudes of the masses changed, constitutional government would be a mere superficial copy of a foreign institution that would definitely fail. “China has not reached a stage where it can have a successful constitution.”(《中国此刻尚不到有宪法成功的时候》) Jan. 4, 1934, Dagongbao (《大公报》) . He continued this argument after the war as well. It is not a little ironic that Liang, who created and, for a　time,lead the only truly liberal democratic political force in that period in China, the last incarnation　being the Democratic League (民主同盟), had little faith that liberal democracy could work in China.[9]During one of the times I visited Mr. Liang, There was an old man in another room, reading a book manuscript. This was Mr. Meng Xianguang, who was visiting from Nanchong, Sichuan.Mr. Liang introduced me to him later, and I interviewed him several times separately. Mr. Meng,a student of Mr. Liang dating from 1928, worked with Mr. Liang’s colleague Peng Yuting, who headed an extremely successful local self-government experiment in Zhenping County, west of Nanyang in Henan Province. Mr. Meng was 70 years old when I met him, but was still full of enthusiasm for local projects to help the public. Later in the 1980s, Mr. Liang’s son, Peikuan, told me that Mr. Meng was going to use some property that had been returned to him to do rural reconstruction work in his home locale in Henan; afterward he envisioned a project in the “great northwest,” the traditionally poverty-stricken area that the Chinese government was endeavoring to help economically. I interviewed Mr. Meng mostly about his work in Henan reconstruction, but in the process got to know him quite well. He was, like every one of Mr. Liang’s students that I had met, fiercely loyal to Mr. Liang, and burned with a flame of enthusiasm for good works in the public sector. Mr. Meng and I were also tied together by an extraordinary coincidence. In the fall of 1972, the first official Chinese delegations visited the United States, as arranged by the ZhouKissinger protocols for cultural and educational exchange which Premier Zhou Enlai and Secretary of State Kissinger had negotiated earlier in the year. I was the American interpreter for these delegations. The first was a delegation of medical doctors (医学代表团), the deputy delegation head of which was Dr. Fu Yicheng (傅一成), vice president of the China Medical Association. As I traveled with the delegation and was the chief source of information on U.S. society and politics,I got to know Dr. Fu very well. One night after a very late interview, I took Mr. Meng back to the place where he was staying with a relative. As I walked him into the courtyard of the house, who should I see, washing his shirt at the water tap but Dr. Fu! He was Mr. Meng’s relative! And this was the second coincidence involving Dr. Fu. As I boarded the train from Shenzhen to Guangzhou on my first actual visit to China in May 1973, who should I just happen to run into but Dr. Fu! He had just come south to welcome a Canadian medical delegation. Given that, in the entire country of a billion at that time I knew thirty people at most, the chances against such coincidences are truly astronomical, yet similar events occur every time I visit China.

Chapter 4:August 15,1980

Liang: The learning of the ancient India was not really something you could talk about, or something the brain could comprehend, or something that resides in consciousness. The basic nature of their learning was to fundamentally transform one’s life. It is not a kind of idle talk for the mouth and brain. They have something called “yoga,” in Chinese called “yujia.” Each school’s Yoga,although on the surface similar, is different. What is the similarity? It is to achieve liberation or release from the life of this mundane world. It causes one to undergo a basic transformation so that one is no longer an ordinary person. This is called“zhengguo”—the fruits or rewards of each stage of attainment.Each school has its own zhengguo. Each is similar, in form, but different, in actual content.

So, as for my own view, as a Buddhist, I would say that Buddhism in terms of the fruits or attainments, has never gone astray, and has always reached the supreme liberation. What is the supreme liberation? Becoming Buddha, reaching the supreme, perfect bodhi. So, Buddhist books and sutras are different from the writings in which we ordinarily record our thoughts, our consciousness. They have hard content, practical things, i.e., transformation of one’s life. A human is no longer human. There are various stages, the highest being transformation into Buddha, Buddhahood. From the bottom to the top [1]there are ten stages. Each of the ten stages is called a “di.” So, of Buddhist scriptures and sutras, there is one very famous, and very important: the Yogācārabhūmi (yujiashi dilun), a work of more than 100 volumes. The message is, to reach Buddhahood,you must practice yoga. Someone who practices yoga is called a yujiashi. Each stage, one after another, advances upward.The eighth stage is a Bodhisattva. The tenth stage is Buddhahood. Yesterday we talked about the three things: discipline (sila),meditation (dhyāna), wisdom (prajnā).

You must first observe the disciplines, for only then is it possible to enter into meditation by tranquilizing the body, mouth and mind. Only by doing this can you achieve wisdom. These are only three things. Usually they say there are six “pāramitās”[almsgiving, discipline, patience, zealous progress, meditation, wisdom]. That is, aside from discipline, meditation and wisdom, there are three others. One is dāna (almsgiving),which means you can give everything away, not retaining anything. One is called vīrya (zealous progress). The sixth is praj?ā(wisdom, banruo). [Mr. Liang was speaking of the six pāramitās,and left out “patience” (ksānti) in the listing: almsgiving,patience, zealous progress, discipline, meditation and wisdom;he repeated wisdom (hui), that is, “banruo.”—compiler] One must practice the six pāramitās. Afterwards, your life is transformed. So, the important essential significance of all of this is transformation, or elevation of one’s life. Complete transformation is, level by level, [2]attained at the eighth stage, which is the eighth stage of the Yogācārabhūmi, and at the eighth stage one can become a [3]Bodhisattva. Attaining the tenth stage, one can become Buddha. What I’ve been talking about above can be summarized into this: the important thing in Buddhism is to transform one’s own life, or elevate [4]one’s own life. These are not empty theories.

To return to discuss Mr. Xiong. Where was he wrong? He was an ordinary “everyman.” In Chinese we call this “fanfu.” A“fanfu” is an ordinary man. He never did these real practices of cultivation himself. He discussed these disciplines and practices of others. That won’t do. Later I’ll explain further. In Buddhist learning, one of the main features of Yogācāra philosophy is Consciousness-Only. Now, Mr. Xiong, who was an ordinary person, not an adept of yoga, wanted to create a new ConsciousnessOnly Buddhism. On the one hand, his New ConsciousnessOnly appropriated something of the ancient Indians, while at the same time he adulterated it with his own opinions to modify it. I think that this enterprise was irresponsible tomfoolery. But,since I had already brought him from Nanjing to Peking University, I could do nothing about it. If he wanted to lecture on the New Consciousness-Only, let him do it. I should add that my relationship with him was quite friendly and cordial. Because he was outspoken and of sanguine disposition, liked to speak in a loud voice interlarded with great loud laughs. Sometimes he would have great outburst of temper. But because of his happy disposition, we still had a friendly relationship. So, this concludes this question. We can now talk about other questions.

Alitto: There is a question that I asked yesterday, but you hadn’t finished talking about it. I asked you about the effect of Mou Zongsan and Tang Junyi in Hong Kong. You felt that they had a contribution to the development of Confucian thought, and that, in the main,Tang Junyi’s publications were alright. (Liang: Yes.) Are you in favor of anyone else who had written books on Confucian ideology in the last few decades?

Liang: It seems that yesterday I mentioned Feng Youlan. (Alitto: Yes,you mentioned and talked about him.) Feng’s books also are about Confucianism, and China’s ancient learning. I don’t have a good impression of him [however] because of his conduct.

Alitto: This question is about you yourself. Your publications have been praised extremely highly by the academic world both inside and outside of China. Among your works, which one do you cherish and treasure the most? Is there any…

Liang: It hasn’t been published yet.

Alitto: Oh, it hasn’t been published yet, that is…

Liang: The Human Mind/Heart and Human Life. (The Human Mind/Heart and Human Life was published four years after this conversation, in 1984.—compiler) The Human Mind/Heart and Human Life is the most complete…

Alitto: Are there any of your works that you think are now out of date?

Liang: There is one part in Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies that is out of date.

Alitto: Some part of it is out of date, but the book as a whole is not. The part you mentioned about the understanding of some thoughts of Confucius and Mencius…

Liang: My understanding of Confucius and Mencius was shallow and a bit crude. Shallowness and crudeness are also mistakes.

Alitto: Of the books already published, the one you most cherish is…

Liang: Of those that are already published, I think that The Essence of Chinese Culture was the best done.

Alitto: I have asked this question. But I want to repeat the question: to what do you ascribe your vigorous old age?

Liang: The body is the basis of one’s mind and spirit. So, up to now, I’ve had no illness, and though I’m old now, my spirit is about the same as it was before. But I know very well indeed that my memory is very far from what it was before. Often I just can’t remember something. I know that it is somewhere in my mind,but can’t bring it to the surface. For example, there is a contemporary Chinese philosopher—he also studied in the U.S.A.—I admire him very much, but, you [5]see, I can’t think of his name.

Alitto: This kind of thing often happens [even] at my age!

Liang: I’ll tell you a little story about him. The American philanthropist [Rockefeller] donated a large amount of money to build a hospital [Peking Union Hospital] in China, and did quite a lot of other good work. So he created a committee. On the committee was an [American] Dr. Meng You [his Chinese name]. I can’t think of his English name. He was the chairperson of the committee and invited some famous Chinese scholars to attend the committee. One was Hu Shi, the other—the man whose name I can’t think of. Yet I still remember his face. He’s very interesting. (Mr. Liang is referring to Mr. Jin Yuelin.—compiler)He was not at Peking University, but at the Philosophy Institute in the Academy of Sciences. Once Dr. Meng You was hosting a meeting in the hospital and the other members were there. Hu Shi asked this man [Mr. Jin], “Did you read that article I wrote?”“Yes,” the man replied, “it was very good.” So, since he had praised the article, Hu Shi was pleased and asked for further comments, “So you think it was very good, was it?” and so on.The man replied, “Yes, it was very good. Too bad it lacked one sentence.” Hu Shi quickly asked, “What sentence?” He replied, “You need to add, ‘I’m [6]not an expert in philosophy.’”

This was because in that essay, Hu Shi had said that philosophy was only bad science. The man therefore made fun of his ignorance about philosophy. But I can’t think of his name! Possibly this man is still living. If he is, he is older than I. Anyway, I haven’t heard any news of his death. He had studied in the U.S.A.Originally, he had been sent to study political science, but he didn’t like politics, he liked logic. He remained a bachelor, very rare in China. Isn’t there the saying that “there are three unfilial things, the worst of which is to not produce an offspring”? This man never married…

...

Liang: Well, my health and age could have something to do with my vegetarian diet; I eat no flesh or animals.

Alitto: And you don’t drink or smoke?

Liang: Right. I can drink a little grape wine, but that hardly counts; [7]it’s very mild with low alcoholic content. I’ve been a vegetarian for 69 years. I also eat small quantities. I also have some exercise [regimens] which I learned from others. I’m talking about myself now, not those methods of others. In days of this weather,I wake up at five a.m., and get up. While still in bed I exercise.

Alitto: What are the like?

Liang: There are many that I do. The most important are like this: the most important is a rubbing of the kidneys with the hands (Liang demonstrates where), and then rub the eyes, rub them again, and massage the eyes again. Three times like that, not too much.

Alitto: This kind of exercise is...you said you learned it. What kind of exercises are they considered?

Liang: This kind of exercise is passed on. There are a great variety of exercises. I’m not finished describing them. What I just mentioned is just some of many. Rubbing the kidneys is one kind of exercise. Then another important one is rubbing the arch of the foot. (Liang demonstrates.)

I should explain that there are two major, famous traditions in Chinese learning, two traditions that have been passed down from ancient times. One is the Daoist, the school of Zhuangzi and Laozi. One is the Confucian, the school of Confucius.These two traditions are dissimilar, and are both passed down from antiquity. The Chinese medical tradition is derived from Daoism. It is different from the Western, not only in the medicines it uses. The essential difference is theoretical principle,because the Chinese tradition never developed skills in dissection and anatomy. Well, in far antiquity it did. The Shiji talks about Bian Que and Cang Gong. He sometimes opened up the abdomen, took out the intestines to wash them, and later sewed it up. The ancient books have accounts of this thing. Later, the Chinese didn’t dare cut open the body. They relied only on you taking some medicine. The classical Chinese medical books include the Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine and the Difficult Classic. The author of the latter—whoever it was—likes to discuss the Energy [8]Channels of the body. That is, the blood circulation through the veins and arteries. But this discussion is not like that in dissection and anatomical study of the West.It is from the Daoist tradition. Daoism wants the cerebrum to rest. The function of the cerebrum is primarily to cope with the external, the environment. It wants the cerebrum to rest. When the cerebrum is at rest, humans also have an autonomic nervous system. This system is also under the cerebrum, but when the cerebrum rests, it can operate, and function even better. This is because when the cerebrum rests, it can avoid the interference of the cerebrum. For example, our digestive systems and circulatory systems all belong to the autonomic nervous system. If, when we eat, we are worried about something, or anxious, that eating will not be good; it will influence the digestive process. If you force yourself to eat when worried or nervous, it will influence the digestive process. If you force yourself to eat when angry,you get into trouble. If there is no such external stimuli, if you let nature take its course, and the autonomous nervous system very naturally carries out its activities, then digestion is good.

In my view, usually “qigong” (the technique of using one’s inner strength, such as control of muscle and breathing—translator) requires that the cerebrum rest to allow the autonomic nervous system to function freely, and to utilize the body’s own inherent function. Utilizing this inherent function can repair any breakdowns or illness that the body might have. So, in my view, qigong operates like this. But I, I too have studied qigong.Because I like to think, to ponder, I often have insomnia. Insomnia causes great suffering. So, over twenty years ago, it’s now1980, so it was about 1956, there was a place on the seashore called Beidaihe. It was an excellent spot for relaxation and excursions. Now a qigong sanatorium had been established there. I had insomnia, and so went to that qigong sanatorium, and stayed there for some time in summer. There were three kinds of skills used at this sanitarium, each different from the others. Naturally,as soon as you entered you began with meditation. The environment they provided for this was quite good. Each person had a small room. The room was not so big, and was provided for you to rest in and sleep in. The room was designed so as to never have any strong light rays enter. But you were completely free to go out for a walk whenever you felt like it, and to return whenever you wanted. From when you started, for all 24 hours of the day, you were not permitted to see anyone else, to have any contact with others, or to read books or newspapers. You may sit any time you wanted, but only in the proscribed correct posture.You could also lie down—either on your right or left side; that was up to you. The important thing was to allow your cerebrum to rest, to settle down. As soon as you settled down, acting according to instructions, it naturally took effect, and you naturally proceeded down the qigong path.

Didn’t I just mention that there were three kinds of skills at this sanitarium? For many people who went there, recuperating was quite effective. It was most efficacious and successful for stomach ailments. For example, for ulcers or for gastroptosis. If you practiced qigong under their guidance, stomach ulcers would be cured. X-rays showed the ulcer scarred over.Gastroptosis would also be healed. So, this was making use of the vigor of the body itself. No medicines were taken. So those many sick people who went there to recuperate were healed.

Now, I went because of my insomnia, and for this, it was also effective. This cure of course was also based upon resting the cerebrum, not using the brain. But I didn’t get the way as instructed by the qigong sanitarium. It seemed that [my] way was not like that; possibly [my way] was Buddhist. Incidentally,I want to say…I don’t dare say…I “suspect” that these qigong practices came from a school of ancient Daoism, and although I did do this practice according to their conditions—having the cerebrum rest, settling down, being tranquil, but the state I achieved was “the state without thought.” That is, the “zone” in which there was no conscious thought. I think the phenomenon and practice are like the Buddhist meditation skill that I spoke of before. Isn’t it what we used to call “an old monk enters a trance” (very calm and without worldly passions)? One can be completely without any ratiocination. It’s very good. When one has had this experience, it feels so great, so [when] going to do it again, one has expectations, waiting for it to come, hoping for it. Then it won’t work. If you expect and hope for it to come, it won’t come. You have to let go. You mustn’t think “that was so wonderful yesterday; I still want it to happen again today”; it won’t work. You have to set it aside, set it aside, set it aside. Only if you don’t look forward to it will it happen. If you want it to come, it won’t.I achieved this, I think it’s very good; it seems it’s a trance, it’s Buddhist, different from their qigong. Later I returned to Beijing,and went to live in a temple in the Western Hills for two months.

…[I] didn’t continue the exercise. This is one aspect. Another aspect is that my life has always been quite flat, mildflavored, with no excitement, which seems to have benefited my life. It’s as though I don’t have any great demands on life. I don’t have any great joys or pleasures derived from the satisfaction of some desire. At the same time, I have no unhappiness,no anger or frustration from unsatisfied desires or demands. I simply don’t really have any great desire. For example, in my small study group of about ten-odd or twenty-some people, as in all these small groups, you can talk freely, you can express criticisms randomly. Whatever is on your mind, you can express it to everyone. They have a slogan “an Exchange of Views.” That is, you express your views, and we’ll express our views. You can criticize me and I will criticize you. So then, you have debates, you “cross swords.” Now the other members of the group criticized me, for example, during the “Criticize Lin Biao and Criticize Confucius” Campaign in 1973. Everyone in the group was criticizing Confucius. I said, “Probably for the Communist Party leadership it is necessary politically to criticize Confucius. I’m not too clear on this. But Chairman Mao has said that different opinions can be retained. Okay, I have reservations about criticizing Confucius.” At first, I expressed that I would retain my opinions on Confucius. However, I also wouldn’t say anything negative in the anti-Confucius campaign. I would simply remain silent. But the members of my study group often intentionally taunted or tempted me into expressing some opinion,so as to criticize me. So I expressed my opinion and ended up being attacked on all sides. Once, in the midst of being attacked by everyone in the group, I said, “Okay, I’ll quietly listen to everyone’s criticisms and won’t say [9]anything more.” I think that happened in 1974 or 1975.

Alitto: It seems it was 1976 that the newspapers published an article saying that high level cadre visited you with this demand—that you write an essay criticizing Confucius—and you refused. Was this [10]true?

Liang: No, it was not.

Alitto: So this never happened. Oh, in the event you were just talking about—the average person in this situation would be quite anxious, but you still maintained your neutral flatness, so it didn’t influence your health. Is this what you mean? (Liang: Yes.) That’s reasonable.

Liang: After Liberation, Chairman Mao wanted everyone to study and reform themselves in small study groups. Probably in these years there were five groups. The number of people in each group varied; each group probably had twenty-some members. The larger had forty-some. Weren’t there some democratic political parties, like the Democratic League, the Revolutionary Committee of the KMT? There were also the China Association for Promoting Democracy, the Jiusan Society, the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, the China Democratic National Construction Association, and also some members without party affiliations, who were combined together and called the “group directly under the People’s Political Consultative Conference.”It was in this study group that I said those words. Although I started the Democratic League, later I left it and was without any party affiliations. So, the story I just told was with the small study group without party affiliation. Now the five groups I just mentioned got together in some joint sessions to criticize me.

Alitto: So were these joint sessions in 1973, 1974 or…

Liang: These sessions were held through 1974 and 1975. Of course the group of all democratic personages was much larger, five small groups involoing over one hundred members. So, there was a speaker’s platform, and I remember over ten people spoke,one after another, criticizing me. I remained silent, refusing to express an opinion, even when they tried forcing me to. To remain silence was not good either,…anyway I did not asy a word till the meetings were over. After the enlarged session meetings at which I was criticized, my own small group of nonparty affiliated personages asked me, “What did you think of the criticisms leveled at you at the enlarged sessions?” I answered with a quotation from The Analects of Confucius, “The commander of the forces of a large state may be carried off, but the [11]will of even a common man cannot be taken from him.”After I said this, I didn’t say another word.

Alitto: So this kind of attitude is good for your health.

Liang: Yes. I am always steady and stable, with inner equilibrium. So,at the time when I said this, I used eight Chinese characters: “dulisikao, biaoliruyi”—independent thought; unity of inner feelings and outer action. I am not someone who goes along with the crowd. Whatever I think, I say. My interior self and exterior self are identical. I don’t hide anything. Generally, everyone is good to me. The last time I sat down and had a leisurely chat with Chairman Mao, as we two are doing now, was in September 1973. It was then that we had our conflict.

Alitto: That was 1953, not 1973.

Liang: Right, 1953. I made a mistake. It was September of 1953.

Alitto: In a 1977 newspaper, when a reporter interviewed you, you said that after that September 1953 open conflict with Mao, you didn’t have this kind of private discussion [with him] again.

Liang: Yes. No more leisurely chat after that. Before this, he used to send his car to pick me up and bring me to his house in the Zhongnanhai. If he didn’t send his car for me, I couldn’t go in.

Alitto: You mean your home was too far away from the Zhongnanhai?

Liang: You couldn’t get through his front gate unless his car brought you in. The car that he had sent out was allowed to pass [12]through,otherwise, you could not get in.

Alitto: When you had these leisurely chats with Chairman Mao, what sorts of topics did you talk about, like philosophy?

Liang: No particular topics. He very informally used to send his car out to just come over to his house. These talks were not always about politics.

Alitto: Oh, no particular topics, not formal coversation…

Liang: No. He just invited me over to talk when he pleased. Sometimes we had dinner there too. There was no one else present, just he and I, and perhaps Jiang Qing, and his secretary general Lin Zuhan (Lin Boqu). So there were often four of us.

Alitto: So, I had thought that since you were studying philosophy he would talk philosophical things with you. You say that it wasn’t like that?

Liang: So, we just chatted about this and that, our subjects were taken at random. You know, I went to Yan’an in 1938, six months after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and the outbreak of the war. Our dialogue began then. We both had a great desire to talk together, and both of us were very interested in each other’s ideas. Why did I go to Yan’an almost immedi-ately after the war broke out? That was because after the Japanese came,the entire country collapsed. For example, right after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, in the South in Shanghai, on August 13,a battle started. But we didn’t have any capacities of resistance.Shanghai fell, and we pulled back to Nanjing. Nanjing fell and we pulled back to Wuhan. In the North, Beijing and Tianjin fell.All of Shandong fell. People were running in all directions to get away from the Japanese. It was a complete collapse, as though no one was in charge. It was obvious that Chiang’s government had no way, no capacity to do anything about the situation. I was extremely disappointed in the performance of the Nanjing government.

Alitto: Oh, because in those several months, the Japanese occupied a lot of places, and the Nanjing government had no way of stopping it, you went to Yan’an then….

Liang: When we reached Wuhan, where the national government had retreated to, I got Chiang’s approval to go take a look at Yan’an.Before I visited Yan’an, I was extremely downcast and pessimistic. What to do perplexed me. Everyone was fleeing. The Nanjing government was totally incompetent. What to do? So, I thought I’d go see if the Communist Party had any way of dealing with the situation. So, with this mind, I went to see Mao, and found that Mao was not the least bit pessimistic. He told me,“China must unavoidably have to undergo this great disaster. But the Japanese should not be joyful too soon. I expect they will be defeated.” At the time I went to see him, he was in the midst of writing “On Protracted War,” so he told me in effect the contents of his essay. He said that the Japanese had overrated their own strength. They were dreaming vainly of swallowing up China.A vain dream, a joke. China was a big country, too big, and Japan was just too small. Moreover, it wasn’t just a Sino-Japanese question. The world powers would not stand idly by and watch Japan annex China. “An unjust cause draws meager support. A just cause draws myriad support.” Later the world powers all stood againt Japan.

… We of course had to discuss Old China, our view of it and our theories about it, and it was in this area that our opinions differed. The most important disagreement was on the question of class. He maintained that China had always had class struggle, and I said that in Old China, from the Qin-Han period on, especially in the last 600 years since the Ming-Qing　period,although there naturally were differences between rich and poor, there was circulation and communication between high and low. (There was economic, social and political mobility.)These distinctions were not like classes in the West, which were fixed and fully formed. In China, society and social groups were loose, unorganized and fluid. Because of this mobility, society was fluid and unorganized, and so the struggles were not all that intense or sharp. It was not a situation of two opposing classes—aristocrats versus serfs, as in the Western Middle Ages,or capitalists versus workers in capitalist society. China didn’t have any such thing. Chinese like harmony and compromise. Yes,there was struggle, but it was not habitual, nor did it have any great dynamic force. Mao could not completely deny this. We debated for a long time. Finally he said, “Mr. Liang, you are overly emphasizing the peculiar, distinctive nature of Chinese society, but Chinese society is still a human society, and so still has its qualities which it shares with all human societies.”I answered, “I completely agree with you. But it is precisely because I completely agree with you that Chinese society has qualities in common with other human societies, that its peculiar or distinctive features are more important. For example, let’s say we are speaking of a person. You say, I ‘know’ that person. Only if you can say what the special characteristic of that person is, what is distinctive about him can you then say you ‘know’him. If you speak about the person only from the aspect of his characteristics that he has in common with others—that he is a male, middle-aged, and so on, it won’t do. You must speak of his special features as an individual, and only then can you really know him.” So, I told Chairman Mao, “Your approach is not as good as mine. I grasp into the special, distinctive features of Chinese society and so really know her better than you.” Well,because of this kind of disagreement, we reached an [13]impasse,and our discussions were concluded.

Many years later, he was in Beijing creating the new nation, I [14]arrived in Beijing in early 1950. The first time we saw each other again—in March—we started up right where we left off, arguing the same question. Why did we meet in March? Because in February, he and Premier Zhou were in Moscow, and he returned in March. When we did meet in March, the first thing he said to me was, “Now you will take a position in the government, right?” I wasn’t able to make up my mind, and only after I thought deeply for a while did I answer, “Is it so bad to keep me on the outside of the goverment?” Now, I had my hidden purpose in this reply, but he became angry at it. In offering me a government post, he wanted to get a bit friendlier with me, but I didn’t want to get any closer to him. At that time, I really didn’t want to attach myself too closely because I misunderstood the whole situation. How did I misunderstand it? It was that I didn’t know that the overall situation in China was going to stabilize. I wouldn’t permit myself to be that optimistic. In the past, China had been fighting civil wars continuously. How many decades we have had endless civil wars!

Of course, the past had its reasons for happening as it did,but I had seen a portent that seemed to indicate that further civil war was unavoidable. Sichuan was the last area to be liberated by the communist armies. I had been living in Beibei, outside of Chongqing. At that time there were three armies coming into Sichuan. One came in from Shaanxi, Peng Dehuai’s 1st Field Army. There were two other armies entering Sichuan from the Yangtze Valley, converging on Chongqing. One was led by Liu Bocheng and Deng Xiaoping, the 2nd Field Army. There was a third under Lin Biao, the 4th Field Army, also coming from the Yangtze Valley. Of course, I could not see the other column taking Chengdu. In Chongqing, I encountered an incident,which told me that there were going to be some problems.What problems? At that time I was in Beibei running a school.I had my children and friends and others living with me there at the school. There was a low-ranking general in the 2nd Field Army, perhaps a battalion commander—who arrived in Beibei and came to pay his respects to me. When he was about to leave, he said to me, “You should really go into Chongqing and look around the streets. Our army has all arrived.” I answered,“Yes, I want to go.” He said, “I’ll leave a car here to take you.”He then said to the driver of that car, “Tomorrow bring Mr.Liang to Chongqing.” I said, “Wonderful, I did want to go into Chongqing to see the situation.” So the next morning I got into the car and rode into Chongqing. I had a friend in Chongqing,in a place called Shangqingsi, and so I had the driver take me to his house. The driver then said, “I’m going to have lunch. I’ll be right back.” Unexpectedly, he returned and told me, “I can’t bring you back to Beibei in the car. It was confiscated by the troops of another field army.” Now the car originally belonged to the mayor of Chongqing, some sort of public vehicle. And yet when the armies arrived, they started confiscating it back and forth from each other. So, I thought to myself, this is not a good sign. There was something else I saw which bothered me. The equipment of the 4th Field Army was very good. Its uniforms,weapons and shoes, and so on. It was a relatively wealthy army.Others were not. I felt that this disparity did not bode well.

When I left Sichuan and saw Mao again in Beijing, the entire country was divided into six military administrative regions. The Sichuan area was the southwestern military administrative region. Lin Biao was in charge of the southeastern one before he went to Wuhan.… Although the Nationalists were defeated, couldn’t they return and fight again? Now, I had always been in the middle between the two major Parties, and was like a very fair-minded representative of society as a whole. So,I was able to talk to both sides. That is, I could talk to the Chiang Kai-shek side and could also talk to the Communists, so it seemed that it would be better to preserve my middleman status. It was because of these kinds of situations I answered the way I did when he wanted me to take a government position. It made him quite unhappy. He wanted to get closer to me and I didn’t want to get close to him! On the one hand, he was a little bit unhappy; On the other hand, he just wanted me not to keep such a distance from him. So,after that he often sent his car to bring me over for a talk. When he had time from his duties, he sent for me. We never had a real topic,but just chatted at random, and sometimes we dined together.

Alitto: You chitchatted or…?

Liang: With no objective.

Alitto: Oh, no objective. Just some leisurely talk.

Liang: Just whatever we felt like talking about, we talked about. But there were two things that often came up. The first, I wanted to understand more about the methods of the Chinese Communist Party. Just what did they do in their work, what sort of way did they do it? After they got control of the political authority or power of the entire nation, how would they act, what methods would they employ? The other thing is, in the light of this desire, I wanted to go around the country and view their operations from the grass-roots level, so I could ascertain exactly how we (that is, my rural reconstruction ideas) differed, and see if I could offer advice, or could talk to him on these matters. It was right then that Mao himself suggested such an inspection trip. He said that since I had worked before in rural reconstruction, both in Henan and Shandong, and had known about the situation in the rural areas, I could go to some rural areas to see what kind of changes there had been since Liberation. So, I said,“Okay.” So it so happened that his own wishes coincided with my own. Now, the chronology of this was—I arrived in Beijing from Sichuan in January. He returned from Moscow on the 10th of March. On the 11th, there was a big banquet welcoming him back from Moscow. At the banquet, Chairman Mao made an appointment with me for the next day. So when we were talking the next day, he instructed his secretary general, Mr. Lin Zuhan,“Mr. Liang is going out to the countryside to observe. Make the arrangements. Send telegrams ahead. Whatever province he is to go to, have that province make the travel arrangements and accommodations ready.” So I went on my inspection trip. During the trip I returned to Beijing once, but for most of the next six months I was on the road observing. Since I had worked in Henan (I had helped found the Henan Village Government Institute), my first stop was Henan. At the time, Henan was divided into two separate provinces, one called Henan, and one called Pingyuan. (Later they were united into one province called Henan.) I first visited the part that was called Henan and then the part called Pingyuan. After that, I traveled in Shandong and went back to Beijing for a bit, and then right away went off again, this time to the Northeastern provinces. At that time the Northeast was divided into six provinces, all of which I traveled to and observed. Then I returned to Beijing.

Alitto: When you were in Henan, did you tour any places? Did you go to Zhenping County?

Liang: I didn’t go there. That time I didn’t go, but there was someone surnamed Lu who had worked there. He was a very optimistic man. I went to the Northeast. He went with me. I didn’t bring just one person with me. There were three or four who traveled with me. One was surnamed Huang, one Li, and one Meng.

Alitto: So did you go to all those areas in Shandong—Zouping, Heze,and other areas where you previously worked?

Liang: I went to Heze and Zouping, also Lüshun, Dalian. When returning from there, I went through Liaoning Province, the Northeast. At the time there were already a lot of air-raid drills in the Northeast. All lights had to be extinguished at night, or all windows had to be covered for fear of being bombed. Upon getting back to Beijing, I went to see Chairman Mao. I told him “Too bad, unfortunate.” He said, “What’s unfortunate?”Well, then when I was inspecting the Northeast, the post-war atmosphere was quite good, and it looked as though the region was recovering. The heavy industries that were destroyed during the war, the important mines like the Anshan Steel Works and Fushun mining facilities were being put back in operation.But, of course, if we have another war, they wouldn’t be able to continue to be put back in operation. So it was too bad.He shook his head and said, “We won’t have a war. We don’t want to fight at all. America doesn’t want to fight either. It’s best if we don’t fight each other.” Now, wasn’t it in October that China did enter the Korean War? So, there was a war after all.

At that time I feared that the war would result in China being broken up again. It didn’t turn out that way. Unexpectedly Mao was able to do away with this situation of China being broken up into military regions. He was able to bring Gao Gang to Beijing and so remove him from his base in the Northeast. When I visited the Northeast, Gao Gang controlled it completely, just as though he was a king. He issued his own currency, different from the national currency. So, Mao was able to bring Gao to Beijing and criticize him and later Gao committed suicide. ...[15]

Alitto: Between 1950 and 19 you often went to Mao’s?

Liang: Yes, he sent his car for me. If he didn’t have me picked up by his car, I wouldn’t be able to get in the gates—the big gate of the Zhongnanhai.

Alitto: I said like this in the book, that you went to Yan’an and talked with him a week, straight through every day morning to evening.

Liang: The first time I went to Yan’an, I stayed there for sixteen days.During eight of those days I was meeting with Mao.

Alitto: My analysis is like this: you emphasized the characteristics,the distinctive, special aspects of China while Chairman Mao emphasized the common aspects. However, I felt that after your visit—that is, in 1939, Chairman Mao also started to emphasize the particularities of China, the special qualities and characteristics of China, rather than the universal, common aspects. So I speculated that you might have influenced his thinking. Would you agree?

Liang: I don’t dare say that.

Alitto: That is to say, you are not someone in authority. Look at what he wrote after you went to see him. Look at how this policy of his went, how it looked more and more like the measures of a village government commune.53 In the book I also quoted the opinions of others, and people felt that it was reasonable. Some felt that there were many and great differences between you and him. For example, the question of class struggle. But during the War of Resistance, the Chinese Communists did not do class struggle. During the war, the Communist Party was doing rural reconstruction, which was quite close to your rural reconstruction. In the book I did not dare decide firmly that this was the case [that you influenced Mao], but it did seem to be that way. Another possibility is that at the time Chairman Mao was creating this line of thought in accordance with China’s objective realities of the time. Now, you yourself also created rural reconstruction,which was quite close to your rural reconstruction. theory in accordance with China’s objective realities.Probably because these realities were similar, the two theories were also quite close to one another.

Liang: Well, possibly in general approach there were similarities. Our starting points were similar. His revolutionary approach was to have the countryside surround the cities. His starting point was the countryside, and I also wanted to construct a new China starting from [16]the countryside. So, our starting points, our general approaches, were similar.

Alitto: Not only could you say that the circumstances in Yan’an during the war, the circumstances in the base areas, in North China,Central China, in Shaanxi were generally similar; even the concrete details were often similar. After Liberation, many plans of Chairman Mao’s focus corresponded with the rural reconstruction. For example, rural emphasis, and having small-scale industry dispersed in the countryside, so as not to have them concentrated in the big cities. This was one similarity. There were many. In the book one could say that this was proved. I don’t know if in regard to this question you...

Liang: Yes there are those similarities. As I said, our starting points were the same. The essential thing is that we both wanted to point the Chinese revolution in that direction. My own rural reconstruction movement had two goals: the first was to organize the dispersed, unorganized Chinese countryside into groups,and the second was to introduce and diffuse modern science and technology. So, Chairman Mao did accomplish this through,originally through low-level cooperatives, high-level cooperatives and then the communes. This of course, in my opinion, was an inevitable process. In order for China to progress, the unorganized, loose countryside had to be organized in some way, for only with organization could advanced science and technology be used. In fact, everyone had to walk this path.

Alitto: From 1950 to 1953, when you were going to Chairman Mao’s house to talk, you just mentioned that at the time you and he chatted about anything you wanted.

Liang: We had informal discussions.

Alitto: Oh, informal discussion. Of course there had been many topics discussed, but can you think of some now that were discussed….

Liang: I recorded them all.

Alitto: You recorded them all?

Liang: I recorded them in a notebook.

Alitto: Oh, that’s great. Are you going to…?

Liang: I hid it away. I didn’t publish it.

Alitto: You never published it?

Liang: But, if you want to see it, you can.

Alitto: Of course I want to see it. If you have a record, that’s great for me.

Liang: Tomorrow I’ll find it for you.

Alitto: Don’t go to any trouble. If you have them hidden in some spot difficult to find, there’s no hurry. Of course I want to see them,but I don’t want to compel you. After the open conflict with Chairman Mao, in September 1953, did you still have private random chats with him, or fewer, or none?

Liang: No, I no longer had an opportunity for leisurely chats after that.

Alitto: No more leisurely chats. Maybe at meetings…

Liang: We would meet at meetings or conferences, perhaps shake hands and exchange a few words.

Alitto: His attitude changed? Or let’s say he was not so friendly as before…

Liang: Well, his attitude had not changed much. We would meet, shake hands, and exchange a few words. That is, he would come over to shake hands and say hello. But never again did he have me come over to his house to talk.

Alitto: Since Liberation, with what people have you had the most contact? People in literature, the academic world, the political world? Friends? Relatives?

Liang: Well, about the same in each category. For example, didn’t I found the Democratic League? Well, I occasionally saw friends from that group. Or, students from my days of running schools of Henan and Shandong. Some come to see me from the provinces.Some still correspond with me. Let me think. People who call me teacher, or who took classes with me number about four thousand.

Alitto: Four thousand people are quite a lot. As the proverb goes, “the peaches and plums fill the world.” (You have students everywhere.) So with those who live in Beijing, you often have an opportunity…

Liang: There are some… But many have already passed away. After all,most people die in their sixties or seventies, or eighties. People who live to 80 are really very few. Only I myself have lived so long.

Alitto: But you probably have a lot of friends in the 1950s and 1960s.

Liang: There are some, in the provinces, and we correspond.

Alitto: Now many people from those days have passed away. Of course Chairman Mao and Zhou Enlai have passed away. (Liang: Committee Chairman Zhu [De] has also passed away.) Those friends of yours—Chen Mingshu, Li Zongren, Li Jishen have all gone.That is to say, in the 1950s and 1960s you had contact with old friends. I remember in researching your life, in 1966 Li Zongren returned home from America, and you went to meet him. So,you still had these kinds of opportunities for meeting old friends.This might be a strange question, but if you could return to your childhood and start all over again, if you had had chance to live your life over again, what would your undertakings be?

Liang: I never really thought about it. I would probably talk more, have more to say. The most important thing would still be my book,The Human Mind/Heart and Human Life. After I finished that book, I was satisfied with my life. I have another book, much shorter. This smaller book manuscript is titled A General Introduction to Eastern Philosophies and discusses the three important Chinese intellectual traditions: Confucianism, Daoism of China and Buddhism from India. I discuss these three traditions in relatively simple language and in abbreviated form. I also compare them to each other. So, with the completion of these books,you could say, “All of my aspirations have [17]been fulfilled.”

Alitto: So would you, if you were in your teens, take a different occupation, or still do scholarship?

Liang: I have often expressed to people that I am not a scholar.

Alitto: Yes, I know, you have made such statement in your books several times.

Liang: I do admit that I’m someone who has his own ideas, who acts according to his own ideas, and puts them into practice. Because a “scholar” or “academic” in Chinese parlance is someone who has mastered China’s traditional scholarship and literature, the classics and so on. I have never mastered the classics and classical literature. When I was small, I never read the Four Books and Five Classics. To this day, there are many characters in the classics that I just don’t know, so that’s one point. Another is that I never mastered modern science of any sort, and my Western languages aren’t very good. In science you have to study foreign languages. My Western languages won’t do. So, speaking of scholarship, I am only able to take a pass. I say that [as a scholar] I won’t do.

Alitto: You really feel this way?

Liang: I myself recognize that I am someone of independent thought. I have consistency between my thoughts and my actions.

Alitto: So, if you had your life to live over, would you be the same—a man of independent thought, and a man who acts upon his own independent thought? And so, you would not be a scientist, a doctor, or a statesman?

Liang: Well, since I was young, I have always had an interest in medicine. So, for instance, the PPCC had several small sections to which its members were attached. One could choose what sections to join. There was one for literature and education, one for medicine and health and one for international relations (this group had the most members). Now, I joined the Medicine and Health Group. It included both Chinese and Western medicines.

Alitto: In the book Eastern and Western Cultures and Their Philosophies, there is something about medical culture, concerning Chinese and Western medicines. It seems that your father had also studied some medicine? In his “Chronological Biography,”cooking medical mixtures is mentioned.

Liang: My father only had some small interest, which did not count.If my mother or any of us children were sick, he would often make medicine for us. In Chinese we have the phrase “Confucian medicine.” It seems that all Chinese scholars were able to understand medical books and medical writings. So was my father. He would often treat his own family, but not outsiders.

Alitto: What is your favorite food?

Liang: Food? I’m a vegetarian.

Alitto: Then what is your favorite fruit and vegetable?

Liang: I like most fruits and vegetables.

Alitto: Do you have any particular preference?

Liang: No particular preference.

Alitto: What’s your favorite pastime? Or you just have no pastime at all?

Liang: I do have pastime. My favorite physical activity is walking,strolls in parks and such.[18]

Alitto: It seems in 19 or 1957, some Hong Kong friends said that you studied Tai Chi.56

Liang: I studied it.

Alitto: How long did you practice it?

Liang: From the time I started to study it to now, I have practiced it for many years, but I didn’t do it steadily, rather it was intermittent.Especially after the Sino-Japanese war broke out and in the immediate post-war period, I was busy running around everywhere involved in national affairs, so I usually didn’t have much time for exercise.

Alitto: You mean, you had studied it long before?

Liang: Yes, long before.

Alitto: I didn’t know this. I had thought that you began studying it only in the 1950s.

Liang: I had studied it long before, when I was about thirty years old.But after studying it I put it aside; I didn’t continue to practice seriously. When I lived by Deshengmen, in Beijing, I was quite near to Jingye Lake (Jishuitan). There was a small hill and everyone used to go there to practice Tai Chi in the early morning.

Alitto: I don’t remember you living at Deshengmen. Was that at Jishuitan?

Liang: Yes, at Jishuitan. My house. The property is still there.

Alitto: Oh, when did you start to live there?

Liang: Since the early Republic, sixty years ago.

Alitto: I got this wrong. I thought that the house was your father’s friend Peng Yisun’s. I didn’t know that the Liang family was there too.

Liang: Peng Yisun’s house was on the southwestern end of Jishuitan.It was a multi-story house. Ours was on the northwest corner of the lake. The house is still there, but is occupied by others.

Alitto: In your father’s Chronological Biography, it seems that he often lived at Peng’s house.

Liang: Right. Sometimes my father lived at Peng’s house. It was from Peng’s house that he left to commit suicide in the lake.

Alitto: It seems that he was about to pass his 60th birthday. As I understood, which was what I wrote, children going to school would stay at Mr. Peng’s house. If the Liang family house was very near, it would seem…

Liang: It was on the northern end.

Alitto: Jishuitan was not that big, so the distance wasn’t that great…

Liang: It was on the southwestern end of Jishuitan. Our house was in the northwestern corner. The house is still there, and is occupied by others.

Alitto: There was a small island in the Jishuitan pond on which there was a small temple. In the Chronological Biography there was a“High Temple” mentioned.

Liang: But that temple’s name was not the “High Temple [to the God of War]” which was on the southern end of Jishuitan, and was very large. We were just speaking of that small temple.

Alitto: Oh, the small temple. When I came in 1973, I wasn’t able to meet you. But this place I know I [originally] didn’t dare go see;I was afraid. At that time I couldn’t find the stone monument to your father. There was a base for it, but the stone stele was already off, and I couldn’t find it. I asked a lot of people in the neighborhood when the monument was knocked down. Someone told me that during the War of Resistance it was still there.

Liang: It was during the Cultural Revolution, in 1966.

Alitto: Oh, someone in the neighborhood had already sawed the [19]stele up into several pieces to be used as building material. Mr.Liang, during the Cultural Revolution period, were you persecuted? Or…

Liang: I had a “Shockwave.”

Alitto: “Shockwave.” I hadn’t heard this term. What does “Shockwave”mean?

Liang: A Shockwave was an attack.

Alitto: Was it the Red Guards?

Liang: The Red Guards, the little Red Guards. They were all junior high school students.

Alitto: They all were junior high school students, and you were still living at the Deshengmen residence?

Liang: Yes, there. The place is called Little Copper Well.

Alitto: They drove away your family and occupied your house?

Liang: They occupied the north side buildings, and kept us captive in the south side buildings. The south side had five rooms, and they kept us in the middle room, a little narrow place.

Alitto: How long did they occupy it?

Liang: They occupied it for twenty-one or twenty-two days, in the northern rooms. They thought it was very good because at that time my house had a telephone, with which they could amuse themselves. I got away light, as they didn’t actually beat me up,but they did beat my wife.

Alitto: Was she injured?

Liang: This happened on August 24th. It was hot in summer, and so she was wearing one thin layer of clothing. They beat her so that the blood soaked through to the outside of her clothing.

Alitto: They must have beaten her very heavily to have that happen.

Liang: They didn’t beat her lightly. But they didn’t beat me.

Alitto: Did they beat her as soon as they broke in, or was it…

Liang: When they first broke into the house, they didn’t beat her. First,they threw outside all the furniture in the house, such as the glass cabinet, from the north side rooms. They ripped our bed apart. They took all of the books on the bookshelves and threw them on the ground outside. They even ripped up reference books—dictionaries like my Cihai, Ciyuan and so on—books that didn’t have any ideological content.

Alitto: What was the reason for that?

Liang: They were children, and so didn’t so much as concern themselves with the rationality of their actions.

Alitto: So your wife was beaten, and your furniture was also…

Liang: Destroyed. A lot of cases had paintings and calligraphy in them.They threw them all together and burnt them.

Alitto: Burnt? The losses were great.

Liang: The ashes made such a great pile that when I hired a cart to take it away, they had to make several trips. They were moving ashes for three days before they finally carried it all away. Things were really chaotic in those days.

Alitto: I had this wrong in the book, too. Your friends in Hong Kong hadn’t heard about your losses, so I wrote that during the Cultural Revolution, it didn’t appear to have…

Liang: Nothing happened to me. They didn’t beat me.

Alitto: Yes. At least they did destroy things and beat your…

Liang: Our losses were great.

Alitto: I had thought that you were still considered as Chairman Mao’s friend from the old days, and so they wouldn’t dare do anything.So, I wrote it wrong. Your wife who was beaten until blood flowed, did she go to a hospital, or…

Liang: She didn’t.

Alitto: Her age at that time was quite great?

Liang: My wife was 71. I was 74.[20]

Alitto: Oh, is that so? I got that wrong.

Liang: Aside from this attack in my own house, there were also “struggles” against her. They led her outside and held her there with others. Others were attacked and struggled against too.

Alitto: “Struggle” means that they cursed them….

Liang: Ah, struggle is criticism and cursing, but they didn’t struggle against me.

Alitto: Yes. This is rather strange. Did those children know who you were?

Liang: They knew. They shoved me into the little room among the five rooms (in the southern wing), and didn’t let me come out.

Alitto: Oh, that is strange. Were these kids from Beijing, or…

Liang: The kids were all from the Number 123 Middle School. The area where I lived was called the “Little Copper Well.” There was a gap in the city wall at that point. The No. 123 Middle School was right outside this gap; it was a junior high school.

Alitto: Were they children of the neighborhood?

Liang: Not too far. The school was only about 1500 feet away from the house.

Alitto: After these 21 or 22 days…

Liang: Only then did they withdraw.

Alitto: After they withdrew did anything else happen?

Liang: Comparatively speaking, nothing.

Alitto: Comparatively speaking, nothing? That’s pretty good. This was something that took place in 1966. (Liang: On August 24, 1966.)After that one time, nothing else occurred.

Liang: Nothing else occurred.

Alitto: At that time, your student Huang Genyong lived with you? Or lived in Beijing, at that time?

Liang: In Beijing.

Alitto: I had heard in Hong Kong that during the Cultural Revolution he was driven back to Guangdong. Was that true?

Liang: True. He was sent under escort back to his hometown in Guangdong. Everybody on that train was from Beijing, all driven to the train, and sent under Red Guard escort back to the South.

Alitto: Why did they want to do that? To escort them to the South?

Liang: They wanted you to return home, back to your place of origin.

Alitto: Why did they want them to return home? Was he [Huang] being sent down to the countryside? He was still in Beijing; a lot of people in Beijing were not natives. Why did they want to drive him out?

Liang: There were a lot of cases like this. Generally speaking, all of the southerners were sent back to the South.

Alitto: Were there any other friends who also suffered from this….

Liang: Very many.

Alitto: Can you give some examples?

Liang: There were very many. In Beijing there were as many as ten thousand households that were harassed and sent back to their original home areas during this period.

Alitto: So Li Zongren, Li Jishen, Chen Mingshu…

Liang: They weren’t here. At this time they were not in Beijing.

Alitto: Did Chairman Mao contact you during the Cultural Revolution?

Liang: No.

Alitto: Did Zhou Enlai contact you?

Liang: No one did.

Alitto: Do you have relatives in Beijing at present? You have two sons in Beijing. How many grandchildren?

Liang: I have three grandsons and one granddaughter.

Alitto: Aside from them, are those from your elder brother’s family still in Beijing or in other places? Your elder brother had two daughters.

Liang: One daughter lives here with me. She is the wife of Huang Genyong. After Huang died, she came from Guangdong to see me, and lives here.

Alitto: Do you have other relatives?

Liang: I still have relatives in Beijing. For example, my first wife’s family is still in Beijing. Their surname is Huang.

Alitto: Your mother is surnamed Zhang. Are there Zhangs in Beijing?

Liang: Yes. My elder son’s wife is from that Zhang family.

Alitto: You still have a son at the Academy of Sciences.

Liang: My elder son is at the Institute of Biophysics, Academy of Sciences in Beijing. His name is Peikuan. The younger son, named Peishu, is at the Soviet Union Research Institute of the Central Committee. It does research on the Soviet Union.

Alitto: Research on the Soviet Union. I didn’t know that. Has he been at the research institute straight through, or…

Liang: In the past he worked at People’s Daily.

Alitto: Did he join the Party? When did he join it? Very early, or…

Liang: His elder brother was somewhat earlier in joining the Party. He joined later.

Alitto: After the War of Resistance or….

Liang: It was early, but still it was after Liberation. My elder daughterin-law was possibly earlier than that. She [joined the party]before the liberation of Beijing. My elder son was a bit later, in the early period of Beijing’s liberation, already more than thirty years ago.

Alitto: What is the greatest disappointment or regret in your life?

Liang: I don’t have any.

Alitto: How could it be possible that you have no disappointments?

Liang: I have accomplished what I wanted to in this life. So I have no regrets and disappointments. For example, during the War of Resistance against Japan, I went rushing around between the two major parties to avoid civil war. Well, I did it. My plan was successful. I founded the Democratic League. Other people thought that I wanted to found a party, but that was not my intention. My own feeling was that China didn’t need any new political party, like America or England. So, although I founded the Democratic League, my purpose was for this organization to represent society in general, in between the two major parties,and to make the two parties compromise with each other and to further the war against Japan, and the building of the nation.Finally, when I felt that the organization was no longer needed,I withdrew. So, the Democratic League, and the China Democratic National Construction Association still exist, and I don’t belong to them.

Alitto: Well, civil war was not avoided. Can this be counted as a regret,or a disappointment? You threw yourself into the task…

Liang: As I just said, I never expected that the Communists would be victorious and unite China. I didn’t expect it because the Nationalists were so large, so powerful. They had all the advantages, and yet they actually were defeated! They were astonishingly unable to hold up, and the Mainland was united by the hands of the Communists. So, this development was all to the good. What was bad was the fighting itself.

Alitto: Yes! War always causes the people distress. OK, let’s take it that you weren’t disappointed.

Liang: I’d like to ask, if we go to a vegetarian restaurant for a meal,what day would you find suitable?

Alitto: I think that of course it’s OK, but may I be the host?

Liang: It should be me.

Alitto: Well, if you insist. I think that if you…

Liang: On which day do you have more free time?

Alitto: Today is Friday, and Friday afternoon I have to go to Peking University. Tomorrow is Saturday; possibly I might have something to do after noontime. After Sunday, I have no business. Ah,I do have something on Monday. Sunday…

Liang. If it were Sunday, it would be best.

Alitto: You think that Sunday is best?

Liang: On Sunday, I can have my two sons go together.

Alitto: OK. Fine, of course. I had been thinking of asking you out for a meal. I don’t know what you’re accustomed to. Possibly you didn’t like going out to eat, so I didn’t dare invite you. You go to vegetarian restaurants…

Liang: There is a vegetarian restaurant.

Alitto: Are you tired now?

Liang: We can stop for today.[1]Daabhmi—the“ten stages” in the fifty-two sections of the development of a bodhisattva into a Buddha. The first of these is worldly wisdom, which has not been “fertilized” by Truth, and so is called the “dry” wisdom stage (干慧地). Each of the ten stages is connected with each of the ten “pramits,” which Mr. Liang proceeds to discuss next.[2]Pratyeka-buddhahood (辟支佛), by which only the “dead ashes” of the past is left. At this stage, one understands the twelve nidnas, or chain of causation, and so attains complete wisdom.[3]佛地。The point at which the bodhisattva has arrived at highest enlightenment and is just about to become a Buddha.[4]Throughout his life and in all that he said and wrote, Mr. Liang stressed practice (praxis) and practicality (effectiveness). This central strand of his thought is obvious even in his discussion of Buddhism, which most people has nothing to do with either. Mr. Liang’s personality, as exemplifed by his actions throughout his life to the very end, was itself a manifestation of these points of emphasis. He himself used the Chinese phrase“表里如一”(unity of inner feelings and outer action), which he used to describe himself later in this day’s interview. That is, he would translate any idea he had into action in the real world. His personal actions were always like this (as shown by the episode of his conduct during the “Criticize Lin Biao, Criticize Confucius” Campaign discussed below), and his public actions, such as the way in which the entire Rural Reconstruction Movement was designed specifically to express his cultural philosophy.[5]Mr. Liang’s mind and memory were extremely impressive for a man of any age. At this time he was still writing every day, which I assume kept his mind sharp. It certainly did not seem to be impaired in the least by his 89 years.[6]Mr. Liang told me this story twice during our interviews. He obviously enjoyed telling it each time, and laughed and smiled broadly. I had the impression that Mr. Liang felt that Hu Shi was indeed no philosopher, and that his various theories were philosophically groundless. To put it a bit more bluntly, I suspect that Mr. Liang thought Hu Shi to be an intellectual lightweight. Upon arriving at Peking University in 1917, Hu and Liang met. Apparently Mr. Liang wanted to pursue a certain question onto a more serious intellectual level, and Mr. Hu refused, saying, apparently to Liang’s resentment, that it was hot and it was a social occasion, not an academic one.[7]When he invited me out to a vegetarian restaurant the week after this, Mr. Liang did respond to my toasts in beer with taking a few sips himself. As he said, one eats to satisfy oneself, but one drinks to satisfy others. This is perfectly consistent with his interpretation of the spirit of Chinese culture, which stresses

试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]

下载完整电子书