Yue Shixuan (Yu Sheng)

In 1984, Zhang Guangzhi first proposed the crucial role of witchcraft in the origins of Chinese civilization, distinguishing it from the technologically advanced civilizations of the Middle East and the West (1, 2, 3). This sparked heated discussions among scholars, who also pointed out that this blurring of the lines between religion and politics, with a focus on shamanism and deities, was a common characteristic of the early development of most nations, not unique to China. In the evolutionary path of civilization, there was a gradual shift towards humanism, or anthropocentrism, centered on humanity. Some scholars believe this transformation in China occurred during the Shang and Zhou dynasties, and was completed by the Duke of Zhou. Only Confucius and Jesus dominated Eastern and Western cultures for thousands of years along the path of humanism, but while they shared many similarities, they also had many essential differences. This article traces the different ideas and experiences of these two men and their followers to demonstrate the drastically different paths taken by Eastern and Western cultural evolution.

According to He Guanghu et al., Confucianism has always emphasized the unity of heaven and humanity, and has never deviated from the relationship between heaven and humanity (4, 5). However, this article only focuses on the social and human aspects and does not involve the relationship between humans and nature.

(I) Humanism and Eastern and Western History

Humanism is a social tendency that emphasizes humanity and its status, interests, dignity, abilities, and achievements. Of course, the most thorough form of humanism should include concern for all people, that is, acknowledging the value of human beings.

Ancient Greek scholars initially studied nature, only shifting their focus to human society after Socrates, followed by Plato and Aristotle, marking the beginning of Western humanism. Their concept of society did not include slavery, let alone opposition to slavery. Plato himself reportedly owned fifty slaves. Aristotle devoted considerable space to discussing the natural and necessary division of people into masters and slaves, refuting the notion that the violent acquisition of slaves was unreasonable. The Stoic philosopher Seneca (2 BC-65 AD) first put forward the famous maxim, “Man is sacred to mankind,” a powerful slogan still used by humanists today. Only Jesus extended his love for humanity to the lowest levels of society; when he said God loves everyone, his voice was so warm and moving. Therefore, when the Roman Empire was forced to recognize the legitimacy of Christianity in 313 AD, the end of this empire built on cruel slavery was not far off. The decline of the Roman Empire had many causes, and Christianity at least contributed, though not in terms of violence and social conflict. Christianity vehemently opposed theaters, arenas, public baths, and other entertainment venues for the ruling class. Wealthy Christians began donating their money to build hospitals, orphanages, and nursing homes—something unprecedented in the Roman Empire (7). The arenas and theaters, among other large public buildings in Roman cities, were the heart of the Roman Empire’s glory, the pride and spiritual anchor of the ruling class, and symbols of Roman civilization. The widespread decline of cities in the later Roman Empire undoubtedly damaged the morale of the ruling class and accelerated the empire’s demise. During the Middle Ages, which lasted for about a thousand years, Christianity was the only human force that maintained European cultural unity and supported social stability.

Modern Western humanism, beginning with the Renaissance five hundred years ago, saw people revisiting the works of ancient Greek scholars and proposing an anthropocentric ideology. The modern Western humanist movement was also an anti-Christian theocracy; Christianity’s dominant position in Western cultural life made it a constraint on the further development of humanism. This, like the anti-Confucianism movement of the May Fourth Movement in China, did not change the dominant role of Confucianism in humanism throughout history.

From the early Zhou Dynasty, China reversed the Shang Dynasty’s custom of seeking gods and worshipping ghosts, establishing a system of rituals and rites for humankind and defining the hierarchical status of human society. This added human elements to the rituals of worshipping gods and ghosts. The early Zhou Dynasty’s adoption of the Eight Trigrams for divination and the shift in veneration of Heaven, which was considered to have fewer human characteristics, both contained humanistic connotations. However, the true development of a lasting social movement affecting all levels of society began in the Spring and Autumn Period, with Confucius and his doctrines becoming the representatives of this humanistic movement.

(II) Confucius and Jesus are both epoch-making pinnacles of Eastern and Western humanism.

Confucianism, tracing its origins back to the legendary emperors Yao and Shun, and modeling itself on the virtues of King Wen and King Wu, has a long and rich history. Christianity, rooted in Jewish tradition, can be traced back at least a thousand years. Confucianism gained dominance during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, while Christianity gradually became the dominant religion in the late Roman Empire. Their dominance in the realm of intellectual thought lasted for one or two thousand years, only finally wavering in modern times. It is worth noting that their ethical systems permeated upper-class society, reaching the core of the ruling class. If we were to compare a culture and its people to a person, these two giants stood firm and unwavering in the medieval world, their minds embodied in the teachings of Confucianism and Christianity. Their comprehensive and enduring victory was not accidental; it stemmed from their humanistic core, and both symbolized the pinnacle of humanism at the time.

Recently, Zhang Xiaowei discussed the similarities between Confucianism and Christianity from five aspects: God and the Way, precepts, cause and effect, the concept of destiny, and religious cultivation. He also pointed out that both advocate cultivating benevolent gentlemen who love others as themselves and are concerned about the Way rather than poverty (8, 9). Undoubtedly, both take the concept of universal love for others as their core concept.

Compared to the otherworldly systems of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, Confucianism and Christianity are both worldly religions. Of course, otherworldliness and worldliness are relative. For example, Hinduism believes that humans and the universe share a unified soul, and that life is about constantly purifying the soul to ultimately join the cosmic soul—this seems otherworldly. However, Hinduism also has social systems like the caste system and doctrines about the four stages and four goals of life, showing a strong worldly aspect. Only Christianity and Confucianism possess such a worldly spirit, leading them to become the official philosophies of governments and maintain a dominant position for one or two thousand years. On the other hand, both Christianity and Confucianism tend to pursue spirituality while despising material wealth, leading the former to develop monastic systems and the latter to develop Neo-Confucianism (Cheng-Zhu school). Compared to Confucianism and Christianity, Hinduism is truly a cultural tradition passed down from ancient India and cannot be attributed to any individual; it should not be considered a separate issue.

(III) The fundamental difference between Confucius and Jesus: Jesus is more like Mozi

Confucianism and Christianity have many fundamental differences. Here are four: 1) Confucianism is affiliated with the official government, while Christianity began with anti-official stances; 2) Confucius distanced himself from spirits and deities, while Jesus preached and taught using supernatural methods; 3) Confucius advocated non-partisanship and non-contention, while Jesus appeared from the outset with a firm commitment to exclusivity, striving for social dominance; 4) Christianity has a well-organized structure and spreads its mission widely, while Confucianism remains at the level of academic thought or personal cultivation. Therefore, among the Hundred Schools of Thought in China, Jesus is more like Mozi.

Confucius came from the gentry class, the intellectual class that later became the ruling class. Jesus’ father was a carpenter, and Jesus himself worked as a carpenter alongside his father. Confucius once said that a small person is not afraid of the words of a great person; Jesus was precisely such a small person who was not afraid of the words of a great person. Jesus preached to everyone he met, but he was not a recognized clergyman at the time. The clergy believed that he was just an ordinary carpenter with limited knowledge and had no right to speak freely, which ultimately led to Jesus’ execution. Therefore, Jesus was a loyal rebel who used the name of God. After Jesus’ death, Christianity was oppressed by orthodox Judaism and was forced to seek a way out abroad, where it found new life. Although Christians were law-abiding and went unnoticed by the Roman authorities for a long time, they were still not tolerated by the Roman regime, leading to the killing of many Christians.

While Confucius advocated for human compassion through his doctrine of benevolence and righteousness, he did not delve into the lower strata of society to befriend the common people. These less educated individuals, believing in the supernatural and lacking complex rational thinking, coupled with a lack of care and support, swayed them towards the teachings of Jesus. Although my country had moved away from supernatural beliefs and established complex rational thinking by the Shang and Zhou dynasties, this was largely confined to the ruling class; the minds of the peasantry remained inclined towards supernatural thought. Supernatural thinking is related to education level, but more importantly, it is based on human instinct. Jesus lived after the Axial Age, when rational thinking was widely established. Undoubtedly, the Roman authorities in Israel at that time possessed clear rational thinking, as evidenced by the opposition to Jesus by the clergy who held religious power. However, according to the New Testament, Jesus’ missionary work was filled with supernatural stories and phenomena, such as resurrection and miraculous cures. These stories would only spread rapidly among the lower classes, arousing suspicion from the authorities. Unlike Jesus, Confucius distanced himself from the lower classes and from teachings on supernatural beings and spirits, adhering to the principles of “respecting spirits but keeping them at a distance” and “the Master did not speak of strange phenomena, physical prowess, disorder, or spirits.” Even today, more than two thousand years later, the attitude of Chinese intellectuals towards religion and spirits remains largely the same, making them faithful followers of Confucius.

Confucius said, “A gentleman is dignified but not contentious, sociable but not partisan.” He also said, “A gentleman does not contend; if he must contend, let it be in archery. He bows and yields as he ascends, and drinks as he descends. Even in contention, he is a gentleman.” This means that even if contention is unavoidable, it should be done with the same decorum and gentlemanly conduct as in archery. I believe Confucius here is speaking from the perspective of a scholar, outlining and sanctifying the spirit and character of the literati. Today, the Western two-party system, with its two sides engaging in heated debates based on reason, is a mechanism for getting things done well and avoiding oversights and deviations. However, they do not encourage government officials to participate in partisan struggles, thus maintaining stability and consistency among government staff even after government changes every few years. This also aligns with Confucius’s saying that scholars should not form factions or contend.

From the outset, Jesus vied for the support of the people with those in power. It’s understandable that the clergy, for reasons of control and management, might interpret the Bible in certain ways. Jesus condemned this practice, and as God’s representative, he extended God’s love to everyone. I believe this was Jesus standing on the side of the oppressed, declaring war on the wealthy. It wasn’t a violent war, but a war of sincerity and perseverance. Once, Jesus persuaded a rich man to give his money to the poor, saying that doing so was like temporarily depositing his wealth in heaven. The rich man hesitated, and Jesus later said that it was as difficult for a rich man to enter heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Jesus appointed twelve apostles to represent him fully, saying, “When you see them, you see me.” This shows that Jesus had a well-organized system. After Jesus’ death, his apostles said that his death represented God’s love for everyone, and that his death was to save humanity from the threat of sin, etc., which makes their rapid success understandable.

Following Jewish tradition, Christianity claims that its God is the only true God, and other gods are merely idols. While Judaism uses this to discourage Israelites from believing in gods from other cultures, Christianity, preaching in the Roman Empire, would essentially exclude other religious cultures. The Roman Empire was a typical polytheistic society, which was the only viable method of rule for conquerors—ensuring conquered peoples continued to worship their traditional gods. No other religious tradition shared the same idea, claiming their God was the only true God and all others were false. In other words, there was no opposing religious tradition that allowed Christianity to spread so rapidly throughout Europe.

Among the Hundred Schools of Thought in ancient China, only Mozi’s ideas and actions were closer to those of Jesus. Like Jesus, Mozi came from a background of manual labor, and was very likely a carpenter. His doctrines expressed the sentiments of the lower classes. The Mohist school, along with Confucianism, was a prominent school of thought during the Warring States period. The *Lüshi Chunqiu* states that Mozi had “a large following and numerous disciples, filling the entire world.” Similar to early Christianity, the Mohist school had a strict organization and discipline, and its disciples were austere, simple, and dedicated. The *Huainanzi* says they were “all capable of facing fire and swords without hesitation.” The Mohist master Meng Sheng committed suicide for his faith, and 183 disciples followed suit. This surpasses even the early Christian persecution under the Roman Empire, where many sacrificed themselves for their beliefs. Undoubtedly, with proper leadership, the Mohist disciples would have become an invincible social force.

During the Warring States period, frequent wars and widespread suffering led to the emergence of various schools of thought offering their strategies for governing the world. The Mohist school’s remedy was universal love, which, in modern terms, means equality and fraternal affection.

“If everyone in the world loved each other universally, loving others as they would their own bodies, would there still be unfilial people? If one regarded one’s father, elder brother, and ruler as one’s own body, how could one be unfilial? Would there still be unkind people? If one regarded one’s disciples and subjects as one’s own body, how could one be unkind? Therefore, unfilial and unkind people would cease to exist. Would there still be thieves? If one regarded others’ houses as one’s own house, who would steal? If one regarded others’ bodies as one’s own body, who would steal? Therefore, thieves would cease to exist. Would there still be high officials who disrupt their families, or feudal lords who attack each other’s states? If one regarded others’ families as one’s own family, who would disrupt them? If one regarded others’ states as one’s own state, who would attack them? Therefore, high officials who disrupt their families, or feudal lords who attack each other’s states, would cease to exist. If everyone in the world loved each other universally, states would not attack each other, families would not disrupt each other, thieves would be nonexistent, and rulers, subjects, fathers, and sons would all be filial and kind. If this were the case, the world would be at peace.” (Mozi, Universal Love)

This is no different from Jesus’ advocacy of loving one’s enemies. In the Warring States period, a time of moral decay and rampant patricide and regicide, this was undoubtedly a good remedy, though it was difficult to persuade those in power to try it. Later generations, discussing history, have been too lazy to explore those past possibilities, their discussions becoming as empty as novels discarded in the trash. But regardless, if Mohist doctrines had been seriously implemented, Chinese history would have been entirely different. If Qin Shi Huang hadn’t established a unified empire through harsh laws and then destroyed history by burning books and burying scholars alive, the Mohist disciples could have formed an internal check on centralized power, like Christianity in the West, as solid as a rock, unshakable by any force. Even if ancient China retained some traces of feudal competition, China would have developed before the Tang and Song dynasties. Since the Qin and Han dynasties, China had been a unified empire, with only the emperor having the space for free thought, and the people could only yearn for peace and prosperity, making it difficult to accommodate the social changes of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods.

(IV) Examining the Different Approaches of Eastern and Western Humanism from the Perspectives of Confucianism and Christianity

Compared to Christianity, Confucianism was initially confined to the established framework of hierarchical relationships, such as ruler-subject and father-son, outlining the ideals of a scholarly spirit of contentment with poverty, loyalty to the ruler, and love for the people. Therefore, Confucian humanism was only effective within the framework of hierarchical relationships, but there was no operational mechanism for implementing Confucian humanism within this framework. In the *Book of Rites*, Confucius said, “To establish righteousness (referring to rites, i.e., the Confucian system of rites), to examine trustworthiness, to record transgressions, to punish wrongdoing, to emphasize benevolence and humility, and to show the people constant principles; if there are those who do not follow these principles, those in power should be removed, and the people will consider it a calamity. This is called a state of moderate prosperity.” However, there was no guarantee of removing those in power who violated the principles of Confucian humanism. In this passage, Confucius is referring to the system of rites, but his meaning is that the system of rites guarantees the implementation of humanism. Therefore, when Confucius spoke of righteousness, trustworthiness, benevolence, and humility, he was not aiming at the system of rites itself. However, how to ensure that those in power do not undermine the ritual system or deviate from the humanist path? Confucius clearly entrusted this important social function to Heaven and to the masses of people who had no representation in the government. If Confucius did not genuinely desire large-scale popular revolutionary wars to guarantee the implementation of Confucian humanism, then those principles would essentially be empty rhetoric. Christianity, on the other hand, combines Confucius’s concept of Heaven with the masses of people into a social force that checks and balances the government, thereby ensuring the implementation of humanism.

Mencius developed Confucius’s ideas further, proposing practical measures. Mencius said that rulers who refused to listen to advice could be deposed and replaced. Deposing and replacing rulers did indeed become a mediation mechanism within Chinese regimes for thousands of years; its effectiveness, however, was fraught with conflict and bloodshed, which this article does not intend to delve into. Mencius further affirmed the Tang-Wu revolution, a second mechanism to ensure the implementation of Confucian humanism after the failure of the deposed and replaced system. Perhaps due to the reminder of Mencius’s doctrine, Chinese emperors abolished the vassal states as early as the Qin and Han dynasties. Emperor Jing of Han executed Chao Cuo out of guilt when he reduced the power of the vassal states. Chao Cuo’s suggestion to reduce the power of the vassal states betrayed both Confucius and Mencius, destroying the second mechanism that ensured the implementation of humanism through vassal revolutions. Even without the vassal states, there were still regional military governors (fanzhen). Emperor Taizu of Song’s “releasing military power over a cup of wine” eliminated the possibility of a regional revolution. After the Song Dynasty, the masters sitting in the imperial palaces of the great empires were either peasants or people of foreign ethnicity. This was no accident; the vassal states and regional military governors, who were originally candidates for emperor, were all eliminated by the emperor.

Mencius did not mention a third mechanism to ensure the implementation of Confucian humanism after the failure of the feudal revolutions. Therefore, we cannot directly blame Confucius and Mencius for the negative effects of this third mechanism. However, they can bear some responsibility. Confucianism and Mencianism did not design an operational mechanism to limit monarchical power, leading to the expansion of monarchical power and fundamentally destroying Mencius’s second set of measures to ensure the implementation of Confucian humanism. Countless loyal ministers in Chinese history have died for their principles, often leaving Western scholars in awe. This is no less than the loyalty of Christians to God. I believe that the aforementioned quote from Confucius implies that large-scale peasant uprisings were a third set of measures to ensure the implementation of Confucian humanism. We do not know how many popular uprisings occurred before Confucius, but the uprising of the people during the reign of King Li of Zhou is a positive example of popular uprisings ensuring the implementation of humanism, something Confucius and Mencius could not have been unaware of. However, they considered such opportunities rare and did not give them detailed consideration or evaluation.

Imagine, for an ordinary peasant, managing even a small county is difficult enough; how could they possibly manage a whole country? This implies an arduous journey, a choice as difficult as ascending to heaven, which would certainly deter any potential rebels. However, Confucian humanism, while superficial, lacks the genuine concern for the lower classes found in Christianity and Mohism. Throughout Chinese history, countless peasants faced the same predicament: whether they rebelled or not, they faced certain death. In most cases, they silently accepted their fate and died without a trace. Others, however, took the risk, leading to peasant uprisings on a scale rarely seen in world history. If we include those who seized power and engaged in banditry, Chinese peasant uprisings were continuous and widespread, like a shower of petals. Therefore, the frequency and scale of Chinese peasant uprisings truly resembled the ever-flowing waves of the Yangtze River, a magnificent spectacle. What is recorded in history is merely the tip of the iceberg. This is the negative effect of the inadequacy of Confucian humanistic design. Another way to describe this negative effect is the impression of Western scholars studying Chinese history: the brilliant imperial culture contrasts sharply with the primitive poverty of millions of peasants. In *The Scholars*, Du Shaoqing suggests restricting polygamy to solve the problem of rampant bachelorhood among peasants. Meanwhile, Chinese emperors had thousands of concubines in their harems, yet many remained lonely throughout their lives. If Confucian ministers possessed the rebellious spirit of Christians, leading these women, who had never seen a man, to the countryside to marry bachelors, wouldn’t that be a perfect example of humanism and a win-win situation? King Henry VIII of England, married for twenty years with only one daughter and no son, fell in love with the queen’s lady-in-waiting. This lady-in-waiting was very cunning and insisted on waiting until Henry VIII formally divorced her before sleeping with him. When King Henry VIII of England requested a divorce, Queen Elizabeth II displayed remarkable courage and received the unwavering support of her nephew, the King of Spain. The Roman Catholic Church, deeming it irrefutable, resolutely rejected Henry VIII’s request. This divorce proceedings dragged on for nine years. This clearly demonstrates that Western monarchs in modern Europe did not possess absolute authority, similar to the feudal lords of the Western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods in my country. This difference between East and West at least partially reflects the differences between Confucianism and Christianity.

A magnificent peasant uprising actually took to the skies on foot. Two dynasties in Chinese history were founded by ordinary people, and both bear the deep imprint of peasant ideology. These are the Han and Ming dynasties. Compared to the Tang and Song dynasties, founded by officials, they are inferior in many ways, and even further behind the Shang and Zhou dynasties, established by feudal revolutions. Even more tragically, while Chinese culture was far ahead, the rule of foreign tribes, though part of a third mechanism to ensure the implementation of Confucian humanism, resulted in the Yuan and Qing dynasties being inferior to the Tang and Song dynasties, and further, due to the bloodshed and violence of foreign rule, they were not as good as the Han and Ming dynasties.

The above discussed the feudal lords’ revolutions and peasant revolutions. Peasant revolutions were far more difficult than feudal lord revolutions, and therefore, their potential to check imperial power was far less than that of feudal lords. This means that the existence of feudal states, whose social power was slightly lower than that of the dynasty, was itself an inherent check on imperial power, even without a revolution. If your dynasty lost the support of the people, we feudal lords could take advantage of the situation. During the reign of King Li of Zhou, a mere riot in the capital led to a feudal republic taking over the government, which later returned power to the Zhou dynasty. The so-called riot was nothing more than angry citizens storming the palace with sticks. King Li of Zhou fled to another region and never returned, seemingly resigning himself to his fate. Despite historians recording his numerous misdeeds during his reign, he also demonstrated magnanimity. This is truly a unique and positive example in Chinese history, something the Chinese people can be very proud of. Compared to the peasant uprising in the Zhou dynasty, the peaceful uprising of the people of Taiwan in February 28th, unarmed, allowed the authorities to use delaying tactics to mobilize troops from the mainland, leading to a bloody suppression. Emperor Jing of Han executed Chao Cuo at the request of the vassal states. Zhou Yafu, who quelled the Wu-Chu rebellion, ignored Emperor Jing’s edict ordering him to rescue the King of Liang, who was a relative of Emperor Jing who had not participated in the rebellion, and remained inactive. These events clearly demonstrate that the existence of the vassal states served as a check on imperial power, making those in power cautious in their actions. Therefore, the reigns of Emperors Wen and Jing were not unrelated to the existence of the vassal states.

While discussing the deposition of rulers and the revolutions of the feudal lords, Mencius also offered a way out for those ministers who disagreed with their rulers: “If the ruler has faults, then remonstrate with him; if he repeatedly refuses to listen, then leave.” (Mencius, Wan Zhang II) This meant leaving one’s own ruler to seek a new path in another feudal state. Once all the feudal states were eliminated, this way out for dissenting ministers was gone. Zhou Yafu, who rendered great service in suppressing the Wu-Chu rebellion, offended Emperor Jing of Han and could only die resentfully in prison.

Western humanism, represented by the Church of Jesus Christ, began as a humanistic concern under the banner of God. It started as an unofficial, secret organization, essentially a small social force, as evidenced by the complicated process of the authorities’ execution of Jesus. Just as the authorities feared, Jesus’ apostles used his death to rapidly expand Christianity, eventually making it the dominant religion in Europe. Although Christian theological thought underwent significant development and advancement, Western humanism, represented by Christianity, retained the characteristics of Jesus’ personal thought, interpreting God as a unique, venerable, and all-powerful personal God. Christians maintained the tradition of visiting the sick and suffering at the grassroots level, separating themselves from secular power. This allowed Christianity to become a humanistic social force in Western society that checked secular power. Because of Christianity’s monotheistic tradition and the common-sense understanding that secular power is inferior to God, Christianity’s aloofness and detachment from the world ultimately tempted secular power to seek the coronation of the Christian court to enhance their credibility.

While there were certainly humanistic ideas in the West before Jesus that discussed equality among all people in the name of God, none were as clear, as persuasive, or as unifying as Jesus’s discourse.

If the Mohist disciples, like those of Christianity, had developed their tradition of honoring Heaven and spirits into a religious system representing the common people of ancient China, and united them, they would have possessed, like Christianity, the power to overcome all secular authority without replacing it. This would have truly been as Confucius and Mencius described: the will of Heaven and the hearts of the people are the source of secular power, thus restraining it and ensuring it did not deviate from humanistic governance principles. This was precisely the problem that ancient China lacked and could not solve. Unfortunately, like the Confucianists, the Mohists pursued the path of seeking official positions and persuading rulers. Later, the Mohists turned to the study of epistemology and logic, further distancing themselves from the Christian concept of God and the common people.

(V) The concept of a two-tiered society and the differences between Eastern and Western humanistic approaches

Primitive society is determined by human nature, and everything follows intuition and instinct, or it can be considered as the deep subconscious that psychologists talk about, including the collective unconscious as described by the famous psychologist Carl Young. The collective unconscious is the psychological basis of ancient polytheism. Primitive society includes the family and the social circle around the family. Human relationships are based on face-to-face interaction and based on the principle of equality and reciprocity. Based on the ratio of the size of ape society to its brain capacity, it is estimated that the original human society should have been about 150 people. The size and characteristics of primitive society are supported by many other sources. The primitive social structure has disappeared in modern society, but its traces are still clearly discernible. For example, the average number of relatives and friends of an adult is still about 150 people, and the interaction between these relatives and friends is still like that of ape society, face-to-face and based on equality and reciprocity. It is inconvenient to list them all here. Readers can refer to relevant works (6) along with secondary society. I plan to write a series of articles to discuss the distinction between the two levels of society and their functions from different perspectives. I will post them on this website and listen to the guidance of experts and the comments of peers. Those interested in this topic may wish to read it.

Second-order societies are societies built upon the primordial society, far exceeding large societies of one or two hundred people, or societies constructed upon the primordial society. Second-order societies are unrelated to human genetics, thus creating their inherent instability. The state, the military, and prisons are methods for stabilizing second-order societies, but not the only methods.

The second inherent flaw of a two-tiered society is that its form can take countless forms. Because it is unrelated to human nature and instincts, we cannot know it in advance; we can only proceed cautiously, feeling our way forward as we go. Modern societies tend towards uniformity, but in ancient times, the diverse cultures of various ethnic groups were a reflection of this inherent flaw.

Our current secondary society is a strictly rational system, allowing no ambiguity, let alone supernatural phenomena. Anyone who is delirious or sees ghosts during the day is solely responsible for their own actions; if this causes social harm, they will be held legally accountable. Christianity, once it entered the center of secular power, also emphasized rational thinking. Therefore, today, pastors must be seminary graduates; a carpenter’s son would never be allowed to preach. Historically, many witches and shamans, like Hong Xiuquan dreaming of God and Jesus, fell into the illusion of supernatural thinking, and Christians unhesitatingly burned them at the stake. For an individual, reality and imagination are not absolutely different. Western psychologists often say that primitive people mistook dreams for reality, which may be what this means. In primitive societies, mistaking dreams for reality was not a major problem; it could even serve as a form of spiritual communication between people. However, bringing this into a secondary society can cause problems. We must be mindful of our words, suppressing inappropriate and irrational thoughts into our subconscious.

Humanity initially lived in tribal organizations of several hundred people, which is the primordial society. There’s no need to discuss concepts like benevolence and righteousness here; this is the simple, unadorned society repeatedly praised by early Daoist scholars like Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi. In this primordial society, as Lao Tzu said, “Heaven and earth unite to bring down sweet dew; the people are not commanded, yet it is naturally distributed.” People lived in a classless, egalitarian society, which best aligns with the ideals of humanism. Lao Tzu said, “The world is a divine instrument; it cannot be manipulated, nor can it be grasped. Those who manipulate it will ruin it; those who grasp it will lose it.” The author believes that Lao Tzu was speaking of the insurmountable difference between the primordial society and the secondary society—that is, the secondary society, compared to the primordial society, is a completely different kind of society, unrelated to human nature. Western scholars translate this as the inability to be artificially manipulated in existing secondary societies.

Huxley argued that existing (secondary) societies should be governed by God, whose wisdom is comparable to that of humans as human wisdom is to that of animals and plants (10). Furthermore, secondary societies can take many forms. A nation can only choose one in the dark, which gives an idea of ​​the chaos and fear that ensued when humanity first entered secondary societies due to population growth. Apart from a few exceptions such as the ancient Indus Valley Civilization and the Yao, Shun, and Yu eras in China, most societies immediately gave rise to classes and states through conflict. In Mesopotamia, surrounded by deserts and barren mountains, the ancients had nowhere to escape. The emergence of states was accompanied by a shortening of lifespans, making the situation incredibly terrifying. For social stability, religious teachings were essential, with God as the primary focus.

Because of this unusual beginning, the progress of human civilization, that is, the history of human cultural evolution, is a process of continuously improving secondary societies, reducing theocracy, and constantly adapting to human nature. This is itself a step-by-step history of humanistic evolution, and also a process of continuous self-awareness and self-liberation for people in secondary societies. But no matter how secondary societies change, human nature remains unchanged. Therefore, the progress of humanism is also a process in which humanity loses its way in the chaos of secondary societies, then finds itself again, and returns to its primitive state.

Returning to the difference between feudal lords and peasant revolutions discussed in the previous section, the relationship between the dynasty and feudal lords in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties of China was somewhat similar to the relationships between people in primitive societies. In primitive societies, everyone faced each other, and no one held the power of life and death. The relationship between the dynasty and feudal lords was similar; they faced each other directly, but the dynasty was nominally superior to the feudal lords and did not have the power to kill them arbitrarily because the feudal lords held military power and territory. At least the smaller feudal lords and peasants faced each other directly, while the dynasty and peasants were separated by a layer, not face-to-face. The emperor and his ministers faced each other directly, but the emperor held the power of life and death. The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and King Henry of England in history was similar to that between Chinese dynasties and feudal lords. Although there was a hierarchy of respect and courtesy, there was no absolute authority to exercise. King Henry of England, eager to have a son, disregarded the Roman Catholic Church and acted independently.

Even the most ruthless killers know to avoid face-to-face confrontation with their victims, preferring to strike from behind. In the Trojan War of ancient Greek mythology, Achilles violated this principle when he killed Queen Ammason, facing her as she lay dying. In that instant, their eyes met, and Achilles was completely unaware of the captivating allure of her dying gaze, a gaze so enchanting and mesmerizing that he instantly fell in love with her. He should have been grateful, like Pygmalion mentioned later, that he had finally found his ideal beauty, but alas, he was too powerful to undo the devastation. Heaven and earth may end, but this regret will last forever; he could only live with lifelong remorse. In this light, it’s no wonder that republican administration in Chinese history stands as a unique positive example. Sometimes I wonder, aside from the feudal lords, who among the spirits of the Qin and Han dynasties, like Achilles, harbored such endless regret? Perhaps only the suffering common people.

Zhang Guangzhi et al.’s article points out that Western civilization is a breakout, while Chinese civilization is a non-breakout. This precisely illustrates the different paths of Eastern and Western civilizations. This article intends to explain the different paths of Eastern and Western civilizations from the distinction between two-tiered societies. The West evolved directly from city-states into a two-tiered society, breaking down the original social structure and reorganizing the two-tiered society by individuals. In contrast, China, starting with the Xia Dynasty from Yu the Great, adopted a two-tiered structure, meaning that China’s two-tiered society was built upon the original society. Because the Xia Dynasty was a superpower in the world at that time, with no equally powerful country vying for supremacy, it was able to introspect and seek direction, taking human nature as its national policy. Therefore, its two-tiered society was modeled after the original society, which we will call the quasi-original social form. It is quite ancient natural humanism.

Western civilization originated in the Middle East, and Middle Eastern civilization, particularly Mesopotamia, is considered the earliest. Due to these shared origins, they are often collectively referred to as Mediterranean civilization. Like later ancient Greek civilization, Mesopotamia began with city-states, numerous of which vied for power, united by their patron deities and corresponding religious cultures. This competitive system led to technological breakthroughs, social changes, and wealth accumulation. Clergy, centered around large temples, became the centers of social power, before the emergence of kings and their governments. Therefore, Western culture differed from the theocratic system in China from the outset. In China, theocracy was subordinate to secular power, while in the West, theocracy always maintained its independent territory. In early Middle Eastern civilizations, temples possessed vast wealth and land, employing large numbers of people, resembling modern corporations, albeit with religion as their dominant ideology.

Later, the Israelites, in addition to large temples, developed a religion with a book: the Old Testament of the Bible. If you open the Bible, you’ll see that it’s not religious doctrine, but rather the legendary history of an early people, attributing social morality and customs to God’s will. Modern psychologists speculate that this is merely the subconscious introspection of humanity. The early Jewish theocratic authorities were called prophets, who prophesied laws and customs for secular society and had the power to interpret the law; their social function was somewhat similar to that of a Western parliament today. That is to say, religion controlled the ideology of society, including basic moral customs and legal orientations, while the government was merely an executive body. This is completely different from the three religions of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism in China, which were responsible for customs and education. In China, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism were at most ministers of culture in the imperial government, with no power to intervene in the law. Of course, a minister of culture could be dismissed at any time, which is why there were frequent instances of religious suppression and temple closures in Chinese history.

Unlike Buddhism and Taoism, Confucianism participated in politics, but this participation was achieved through scholars holding official positions, not because Confucianism itself was part of the government. Even so, the Chinese government still had the power to arbitrarily modify Confucianism. Therefore, Fairbank directly stated that Emperor Wu of Han created a hybrid of Legalism and Confucianism as imperial Confucianism out of the need for a unified regime, without mentioning Dong Zhongshu’s name, which better reflects the historical facts (11). We also do not need to demand responsibility from ancient Chinese scholars. Fairbank believed that the imperial Confucianism of Emperor Wu of Han and Dong Zhongshu was fundamentally different from the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius.

Like Christianity, Confucianism emphasizes the spiritual character of its disciples. Although Confucianism does not rely on divine power to deify its followers’ spirit, Confucius repeatedly discussed the ideal of a gentleman in the *Analects*, effectively sanctifying the spiritual character of the literati. Like works of art in the hands of an artist, the self-cultivation and spiritual planning of ancient Chinese literati became their own art. Like Christians who found contentment in poverty, Confucian scholars dedicated themselves to their beliefs, sacrificing themselves without regret. For example, Fang Xiaoru of the Ming Dynasty refused to cooperate with the Yongle Emperor, even at the cost of the execution of his entire family and over eight hundred friends; his spirit is timeless and deeply moving. However, the Yongle and Jianwen Emperors were uncle and nephew. What difference did it make who became emperor? Why take it so seriously? This isn’t a matter of Confucian humanism. Of course, there are rights and wrongs in imperial family affairs, but surely the decision of who becomes emperor doesn’t justify the execution of so many families and the separation of wives and children? For an emperor, isn’t it all the same who writes the enthronement edict? Why force someone into a difficult situation? These are extreme examples of rational thinking developed in a secondary society, not found in primitive societies. If Fang Xiaoru were a regional warlord, why would the Yongle Emperor dare to invite him to draft the enthronement edict?

Therefore, the deaths of Fang Xiaoru and others were not about trivial matters like who would become emperor in the Zhu family, but about upholding the sanctity of the literati’s moral character as envisioned by Confucius and Mencius. Like Pygmalion, the artist in Greek mythology, who was so enamored with the ivory beauties he sculpted that he despised all women and abandoned sex and family, believing that the beauty he created according to his ideals was the most beautiful, he was willing to sacrifice himself for it. This sacrifice reveals the beauty of the spiritual world. Whenever I read stories of Confucian scholars sacrificing themselves for their beliefs and feel a pang of sorrow, I think of this and find some solace.

(1) Chang, Kwang-chi (2000): Ancient China and Its Anthropological Significance. In The Breakout: the Origin of Civilization, edited by Martha Lamberg-Karlovsky. Cambridge, MA, USA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

(2) Liu Jun: A Comparative Study of Zhang Guangzhi and Marx’s Theory of the Origin of the State, originally published in Academic Exploration (Kunming), 2005.2.112-115.

(3) Martha Lamberg-Karlovsky (2000): The Breakout: the Origin of Civilization. Cambridge, MA, USA: Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

(4) He Guanghu: Speech at the Symposium on Confucianism and Religion. Recording of the Symposium on Confucianism and Religion (Part Four) www.confucius2000.com

(5) Meng Peiyuan: How to understand the religious nature of Confucianism? www.confucius2000.com

(6) YS Li (2005): A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoist Philosophy. London, Canada: Taoist Recovery Centre. pp36-45.

(7)RW Winks & SP Mattern(2004): The Ancient Mediterranean World, from the stone age to AD 600. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.pp202-204.　

(8) Zhang Xiaowei: Confucianism is a religion—A perspective on Confucianism from a Christian standpoint. www.confucius2000.com

(9) Zhang Xiaowei: Confucianism is certainly a religion—a Christian perspective on the Confucian gentleman. www.confucius2000.com

(10) Huxley, Evolution and Ethics, formerly known as Evolutionary Theory, translated by the Evolution and Ethics Translation Group, Science Press, 1971.

(11) John King Fairbank: John King Fairbank on China. Translated by Xue Xuan. Taipei: Zhengzhong Book Company, 1994. Page 62.

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share