Interrelatedness in Chinese Religious Traditions

Many scholars today think it is scandalous to do comparative religious studies. This is because it is hard to find a compelling common framework or simple category for various religious traditions that do not rely on Western presuppositions. Perhaps this is why so many comparative works are defensive and almost apologetic. However, Diana Arghirescu’s Interrelatedness in Chinese Religious Traditions: An Intercultural Philosophy resists this tendency and is worth reading because it offers a fresh viewpoint on comparative, cross-cultural, and intercultural philosophy.

The book argues that we should approach the study of Chinese religions not from Western theoretical cognitive frames, but instead by beginning with ethics. Therefore, a main task of the book is to overcome “the Western presumptions at work within the framework of religious studies” (2). As a French scholar, Arghirescu utilizes French postmodern hermeneutics, relying on thinkers like Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Levinas, to point out that the study of religion is always in danger of succumbing to prejudice. To remedy the prejudicial impulses of religious studies (which can be traced back to the Enlightenment, Arghirescu argues), the author suggests focusing on written texts themselves because it “best embodies the Chinese cultural depth and the functioning of its context-related meaning” (9). To apply her method, she uses the works of two important Chinese thinkers: Qisong (1007-1072) and Zhu Xi (1130-1200), both in the Song era. In doing so, Arghirescu contends that comparative studies of religion should enable mutual learning and focus on ethics rather than theories or cognitive frames.

The book consists of four parts. The first part explains the limits of Western theories and cultural presuppositions. To begin with, Arghirescu deals with two classical Western theorists of religion: Emil Durkheim and Max Weber. The main problem with their works is that they view religion in terms of dichotomies—between “sacred” and “profane,” for example, or between “nature” and “culture.” However, Arghirescu points out that Chinese religions, as understood by figures like Qisong and Zhu Xi, do not view these concepts oppositionally, or even as separate. In addition, Arghirescu also criticizes contemporary philosophers of religion such as John Hick, Nian Smart, and Jonathan Smith. While these contemporary theorists use a common frame to highlight family resemblances between religions, Arghirescu emphasizes that Chinese religions do not talk about epistemological truth, but instead focus on ethical self-transformation. As a result, she shows that Western theories cannot be applied to Chinese religions because they are more about ethical relationships.

In the second part of the book, Arghirescu shows how Qisong and Zhu Xi’s works are built on the theme of interrelatedness, and thus use a relational rather than a cognitive frame. In Chan Buddhism, the religious tradition to which Qisong belongs, the central teaching is on human being’s innate good nature. As a result, much of his writing has an emphasis on the sameness and ethical interrelatedness of our minds that bring us peace and harmony. Although Zhu Xi belongs to a different religious tradition, Neo-Confucianism, his works are similar in that they stress the concept of “authentic nature” and how it works toward common goodness. In these two thinkers’ works, goodness is based on the innate good of nature that is interconnected with others. Consequently, both thinkers prescribe, relying on various ancient Chinese texts, that their followers should cultivate inner goodness with a sense of interrelatedness.

The third part of the book explains how the Song dynasty's ethical motif embodies the notion of “corporeality and its concrete functioning” (160). In this section, Arghirescu maintains that the symbol-based nature of Chinese writing offers a unique frame to its readers—unlike Western phonetic language, it tends not to offer universal frames based on classification and categorization. Moreover, because Chinese writing is symbolic-based, religious thought in written Chinese is more similar to directly embodying the concepts described, as opposed to the mere description possible in phonetic writing systems. This argument makes a certain degree of sense, but it seems largely disconnected from the goal of comparing Chinese religious texts. And this part might have also benefitted from more contemporary scholars’ research.

In the fourth and last part of the book, Arghirescu examines how the ethical interrelatedness of Chinese religions has been accepted and developed in the study of religion. Here, she investigates many comparative scholars, including Kirill Thompson, Julia Ching, Charles Muller, Robert Sharf, Tu Weiming, and Alfred Whitehead. Arghirescu observes that many scholars commonly highlight interrelatedness in Chinese religions. She further notes that Chinese religions are built on ethical interrelatedness that brings a metaphysico-spritual corporeality “not as an abstract but as a subtle living body that needs to be constantly nourished through constant” (227). Eventually, she claims that Chinese religions cannot be categorized in Western theoretical frames because their main concern is ethical interrelatedness—transforming oneself and the bodily world with the notion of interrelated transcendence.

Although it is understandable that Arghirescu compares two thinkers of the same era with similar thoughts and methods, I think comparing Qisong and Zhu Xi might be a mismatch. Zhu Xi is a founder of and influential figure in Neo-Confucianism, while Qisong is a relatively less influential figure in Chinese religions. Also, the basic premise of Chan Buddhism is to promote sudden enlightenment apart from words and letters, and yet Qisong borrows a lot of ancient writings. In this respect, I wish the book explained how Qisong’s work overcomes the preference for actual practice over text in utilizing ancient Chinese texts.

Despite some of these lingering questions, I think the book successfully highlights the interconnectedness of Chinese religions using the original texts of Qisong and Zhu Xi. It especially shows how the two Song-era thinkers utilized various Chinese texts without religious boundaries and initiated new religious trends in their traditions. As a fellow scholar of Asian religion, I found the argument that comparative religion should be approached from the basis of ethics particularly strong. It is a useful approach because ethics can offer a way beyond binary distinctions between emic and etic to a religious practice, and even blur the boundary. I highly recommend this book for readers who are interested in comparative studies, Chan Buddhism, and Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism.

Heejun Yang is a United Methodist pastor in the North Carolina Conference and an adjunct professor at Greensboro College.

Heejun Yang

Date Of Review:

January 30, 2024