 厦门大学创办校长林文庆先生 For many years now, I have taken a keen interest in the relationship between Lu Xun and Lim Boon Keng. The two gentlemen represented conflicting intellectual trends, and it is no surprise that they inevitably clashed when they finally crossed paths in Xiamen. The ideological conflict between Lu Xun and Lim Boon Keng compels us to face squarely the question of how to understand Chinese and Western cultures and what to expect when the two cultures meet? The cultural tradition of China in the modern era, to be sure, has been dominated by Western learning, while the role played by traditional Chinese learning, even as it is slowly making progress, still pales in comparison. Under such an intellectual climate, it is evident that our traditional learning is marginalized. I am referring not just to Confucianism, but to all fields of Guoxue (national studies) as well. On an individual level, every one of us has been more profoundly influenced by Western learning than by traditional learning. With Western learning as the dominant influence in the background, how then can we understand a man like Lim Boon Keng, and for that matter, Gu Hongmin. Gu’s experience was in many ways similar to that of Lim. He was educated at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and even studied under Thomas Carlyle, one of the most important historians in the West. Gu’s command of the English language was truly exceptional by Chinese standards. But after he returned to China, he stubbornly kept his queue and was regarded as the quintessential traditionalist, standing in stark contrast to advocates of Westernization like Hu Shi, Chen Duxiu, and Lu Xun. Lim Boon Keng too studied at the University of Edinburgh, and upon returning to Singapore, passionately promoted Confucianism among his peers and even elevated it to a religion. Lest we forget, Lim was a Straits-born “Baba,” someone who belonged to a cultural heritage totally different from Chinese culture. But he promoted Confucianism not because of ethnic nationalism or because he was discriminated against by the British; he did so because of a self-conscious journey – through difficult Chinese classics such as Zuozhuan (Commentary on History by Zuo) that he elegantly translated – in search of his Chinese cultural roots. In this aspect, he and Gu Hongming were alike. Since the May Fourth Movement, a new cultural trend has swept across China that persists even today. Undergirding this cultural trend is a strong tendency towards antitraditionalism, which is evident in the influential works of Lu Xun, Chen Duxiu, and Hu Shi. In the course of China’s intellectual history, this new trend is both invaluable and significant; but from the point of view of a nation’s own cultural consciousness, it certainly would be regretful if the core values of Chinese traditional culture espoused by Lim Boon Keng and Gu Hongming are not cherished, amaintained, and sustained. As a medical doctor educated at the University of Edinburgh, Lim spearheaded the Confucian Revival Movement after he returned to Singapore. In my view, Lim’s activism is particularly meaningful when we contrast his English education with the Chinese origins of Confucianism. In 1982, when the then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew met with me and renowned historian Yu Yingshi, he asked us if Confucian ethics could be meaningfully taught in English. Yu and I gave completely different replies. Yu believed that it cannot, but I was of the opinion that it can. My logic was thus: If we can understand the Bible without using Hebrew, Buddhism without Sanskrit, and Koran without Arabic, it is because these three world religions have transcended geographical boundaries and belonged to the whole of humanity. Whether or not Confucianism can likewise transcend its Chinese origin and be expounded in English is a challenge for the hoary tradition itself, and its ability to successfully do so would have profound significance to its ability to provide references and resources to the English speaking world. This is why Lim Boon Keng’s experiment in promoting Confucianism in English in Singapore is particularly meaningful. In Chinese literary and educational histories, the conflict between Lim Boon Keng and Lu Xun is still a contentious subject, with many scholars providing divergent interpretations and opinions. From a certain point of view, Lim may be considered a marginal figure as Lu Xun minced no word in ridiculing him as a British subject, a Straits-born Baba, and an overseas Chinese Confucius worshipper. But if we were to read beyond Lu Xun’s harsh criticisms, we can actually discern some exceptional qualities about Lim. First, because Lim Boon Keng was an overseas Chinese, he often exhibited signs of an “ethnic minority” complex. I often feel that scholars who grew up in China were critical of Lim because they could not truly appreciate the predicaments an overseas Chinese like him faced. Second, as a cultural “other,” Lim was someone who could help us maintain an open mind. The climate of opinion that prevailed during Lu Xun’s era label a “Confucius worshipper” like Lim as outmoded, conservative, and even reactionary. But as we reevaluate the Lim Boon Keng phenomenon today, we have to place him within the wider Cultural China in order to understand his role as a cultural other. Renowned cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz has suggested that as long as our minds are not completely shut, an encounter with an absolute cultural other would actually help us liberate them namely “the liberating experience of confronting radical otherness. Lim Boon Keng could serve as an exemplar for all of us who wish to broaden our intellectual and spiritual horizons in Chinese studies. To me, Lim Boon Keng was someone with a strong feeling of attachment to his native place. But because he was a Baba, his sense of attachment was not exclusive. I say this because while Lim fully identified with Singapore, the country of his birth, he was equally at home in Xiamen and Gulangyu, the places to which he devoted many years of his professional career to. I firmly believe that if we were to meet Lim, we would definitely find him a balanced, amiable, and peaceful person. Unlike modern day Chinese intellectuals who are often angry, impatient, alienating, and even irrational, Lim had a very clear sense of what he wanted to achieve. Lim Boon Keng’s promotion of Confucianism and classics a century ago is in many ways in accord with the present revived interest in Chinese culture. To me, as an English-speaking Confucian, Lim evinced a strong sense of ethnic and cultural consciousness, which did not conflict with his political identity as a British subject. Scholars in China often had the impressions that the overseas Chinese, exactly because they were removed from China, had an idealized impression of Chinese culture and thus failed to see how objectionable it has been on the homeland. I do however want to remind everyone that it takes a strong cultural consciousness in order for someone abroad to truly understand and appreciate one’s native culture. Overseas Chinese like Lim were rare; the majority of them were in fact wandering souls who lacked a sense of cultural consciousness. A cultural figure like Lim Boon Keng is a strong reminder to all of us in Chinese studies to maintain an open mind. From the standpoint of cultural exchanges and civilizational interactions, Lim may be considered a bridge between the Confucian Civilization and the Christian Civilization. In this age of globalization when cultural interactions become more frequent and intense, and dissents and conflicts are consequently more prominent, I believe it is time we reexamine Lim Boon Keng’s illumination of Confucianism a century ago. 来源： 精神人文主义SpiritualHumanism 微信号 (责任编辑：admin) |