信仰与迷信 Faith and Superstition

最近城市丰收教会的牧师涉嫌失信教会款项的事件，教友对案件的反应不禁令人想到信仰与迷信的课题。

信仰与迷信的分别是不易辩证的。西方人对宗教的态度认真，中世纪经院学者一反在他们以前的教父只注重信仰（Faith）的哲学，把信仰与理性联系起来，并由此而把信仰与迷信区分开来。

西方宗教的观点是：宗教是有理性的信仰，而没有理性的信仰才是迷信。

宗教的信仰是有理性的，就是以严谨的思维、逻辑的推理来达成有系统的宗教知识。

迷信是没有理性的信仰，因为没有理性会导致虚无与相对主义。虚无主义是怀疑主义的极致形式，认为没有可以理解的真相，世界、生命的存在没有意义与目的；而相对主义者认为没有一个社会价值能普遍的适用于所有时空下，价值随社会文化、个人背景而不同；所以一个价值的正确与否仅仅是因为它是否与当时的公共认知相对。

这种对信仰与迷信的解读恰恰显示西方宗教目前所处的困境。以理性来解救信仰恰恰把信仰的地位贬低在理性之下；其所排斥为迷信的虚无与相对主义，恰恰是当代哲学的主流。

形式与内容 Form and Substance

 中西思维不同。西方讲的是不吃人间烟火的理性，哲学技术语就是“形式逻辑”。中国人关注的是活生生的人间实践，套孔子的话就是“和而不同”，哲学技术语就是“审美秩序”。简言之，西方关注永恒的形式，中国人关注的是变动的内容。这样的不同思维的假设前提，当然会影响审美态度。所以，这就应该对形式与内容的意思有进一步的了解。

要解释形式与内容，也还不容易。就用一些现实的例子吧。

简单来说，形式逻辑就是：2 + 3 = 5。

谁都知道这是永恒的、颠扑不破的真理。西方人讲了几千年的哲学，相信永恒、静态、上帝，就是因为他们只看到了形式逻辑。可是，单单把数字加起来，那是没有意思的。数字后面要有内容。在这真理后面对内容有一个假设：就是在数字后面的东西应该是同一类的。所以，2 个人 + 3 个人 = 5 个人。这里所说的‘人’，就是内容了。

问题来了，每个人都是一样的吗？东西思维的不同，就在于解读这个“内容”时所持有的不同看法。

如果说，1 个臭皮匠 + 1 个臭皮匠 + 1 个臭皮匠 = 1 个诸葛亮，那就很容易了解。在这种情况下，1+1+1 当然等于 1，因为内容不同。

另一个例子，5 头饿牛 + 5 束草 = 5 头吃饱了的牛。那也很容易了解。形式加了内容，结果是很明显的。

比较有争论性的例子是：2个人 + 3个人 = 5个人。人当然是同类，可是他们是相同的吗？就算是同一个人，他们在任何时刻、任何地点、任何情况之下，都是相同的吗？如果你的答案是“是”，那末你已经在不知不觉中受到了西方理性思维的影响。如果你的答案是否定的，那你显然倾向于相信每一个人都是独特的、不可更替的，因此，和谐社会、和谐秩序的基本信念应该是“和而不同”，百花齐放。

所以说，西方人重形式，中国人重内容。

新加坡公民信约：抱负，非意识形态 The Singapore National Pledge: An Aspiration, Not an Ideology

我们是新加坡公民， 誓愿不分种族、言语、宗教， 团结一致， 建设公正平等 的民主社会， 并为实现国家之幸福、繁荣与进步， 共同努力。

据报章报道，2009年8月19日，当时担任内阁资政的李光耀罕见地在国会发言，目的是要在新加坡种族平等的课题上把国会带回现实中。

8月18日，在辩论国家政策时，官委议员维斯瓦提出的政府施政应维护信约原则的动议。在他的发言中，他为新加坡的种族间和谐共处与所有种族皆有平等机会而感到骄傲。可是，他对政府强调种族类别，例如设立各族的自助团体，发出混合的讯号而提出了质疑。

李资政反驳了这位官委议员提出平等对待所有种族的说法，认为那是虚假和有缺陷的。指明政府对各种族的处理方式时，他指出新加坡宪法给予马来人特别地位，而不是每人都平等对待。

为了提醒大家原来的起步点，他指出公民信约是在上世纪60时代种族紧张时期的背景下起草的。新加坡那时刚刚被马来西亚踢出来，如果占据多数人口的新加坡华人，像马来西亚多数民族马来人对待那里的少数民族华人那样对待马来人，在新加坡的马来人会特别感到脆弱与毫无把握。

在这个背景下，当时文化部长拉勒南尽力强调‘不分种族、言语与宗教’。

李资政提醒国会，宪法第152条指定政府的责任是‘要一直照顾新加坡少数民族与宗教的利益’。它特别提到政府必须接受原住民马来人的特别地位，保障他们的政治、经济、教育利益。

他直率地说，新加坡要做到平等对待所有民族，可能不需要几百年，但也需要几十年。因为这个原因，他不把公民信约看成是维斯瓦所说的意识形态，而是一种报负。

.

We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

On 19 August 2009, it was reported that the then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, in a rare intervention in Parliament, rose yesterday to 'bring the House back to earth' on the issue of racial equality in Singapore.

On 18 August, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Viswa Sadasivan had tabled a motion for the House to reaffirm its commitment to principles in the National Pledge when debating national policies. In a speech, the NMP had expressed pride in Singapore's inter-racial harmony and principle of equal opportunity for all races. However, he questioned if the Government was sending out mixed signals by emphasising racial categories, for example, through ethnic self-help groups.

Mr Lee rebutted as 'false and flawed' the arguments by the NMP calling for equal treatment for all races. Spelling out the Government's approach to the treatment of different races, he pointed out that the Constitution of Singapore itself enjoins the Government to give Malays a 'special position', rather than to 'treat everybody as equal'.

To 'remind everybody what our starting point is', he pointed to the racially tense period of the 1960s, the circumstances in which the Pledge had been written. Singapore had just been thrown out of Malaysia. The Malays in Singapore were feeling particularly vulnerable, unsure if the Chinese majority here would treat them the way the Malay majority in Malaysia had treated the Chinese minority there.

Because of such a backdrop, the Pledge crafted by then Culture Minister S. Rajaratnam took pains to emphasise principles that would be 'regardless of race, language and religion'.

Mr Lee also drew the House's attention to Article 152 of the Constitution, which makes it the Government's responsibility to 'constantly care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore'. In particular, it states that the Government must recognise the special position of the Malays, 'the indigenous people of Singapore', and safeguard their political, economic and educational interests.

For Singapore to reach a point where all races could be treated equally 'is going to take decades, if not centuries', he said bluntly. For this reason, he sees the Pledge not as an 'ideology', as Mr Viswa put it, but as an 'aspiration'.

新加坡：政治多极化中显现出的优雅 Singapore: Graciousness Amid Political Plurality

Koh Poh Tiong

‘新加坡日行一善理事会’主席郭伯炯在新加坡总统大选过后写信给海峡时报，为新加坡在政治多极化中所显示的优雅行为而受到鼓舞。以下是九月二日刊登于海峡时报的信件的中文翻译：
.

和许多的新加坡人一样，我密切的关注这次总统大选的竞选活动，我们的兴趣浓厚。所有的候选人都体现文质彬彬的君子风度，相互尊敬。

虽然他们在传达他们的观点时，激烈而强劲，他们谨慎地对事不对人。

上个星期，我们熬夜等待选举的结果。当陈钦亮先生承认输了竞选时，他时那末的大方磊落。

接下来是陈如斯先生。他虽然并没有立刻承认输选，当时他还是很大方的表示他的胜算不大。

当陈清木医生与陈庆炎博士之间的票数很明显的十分接近的时候，陈清木医生只是平静地表示可能需要重新计票，而不是一种‘要求’的语气，虽然他是完全有这个权利的。

在星期一，我读到了三位候选人承认输选的声明，我对他们的君子风度感到鼓舞。

陈钦亮先生毫无保留地承认他犯了技术性的错误。

陈如斯先生以清晰的个人理念与责任来为他的竞选活动辩护，那就是为选民提供了‘真正的选择’。

陈清木医生还是保留了他的幽默感，虽然他所承受的应该是一个非常痛苦的失败。

当他誓言他要继续扮演团结新加坡人的角色时，他显示出了巨大的勇气。

陈庆炎博士在胜利中展示了他的宽宏大量。承认他的对手的智慧，感谢他们激烈而强劲的选举活动，陈庆炎博士为多极观点之下协同合作新纪元的政治过程发出了新讯号。

在总统大选选前与选后，我所观察到令我对我们共同迈向一个优雅的新加坡社会的路程有了极大的希望。

.

.

The chairman of Singapore Kindness Movement Council Mr Koh Poh Tiong was encouraged by what he saw as graciousness amid political plurality before and after the Singapore’s presidential election 2011. He wrote to The Straits Times and the letter was published on 2 September 2011. Here is his letter.

. 

Like many Singaporeans, I watched the campaigning for the presidency closely and with great interest. All four candidates maintained a high standard of courtesy and respect for each other.

While they were vigorous and robust in conveying their views, they were careful to focus on the issues and not on the personalities.

I stayed up to watch the results of the election last weekend. When Mr Tan Kin Lian conceded, he did so graciously.

Then came Mr Tan Jee Say. While he did not immediately concede the election, he was gracious in acknowledging that he was not a front runner at that point in time.

When it was obvious to Dr Tan Cheng Bock that the final count was going to be razor-thin between him and Dr Tony Tan, the former gently conveyed the need for a recount. It did not sound at all like a demand to which he was fully entitled.

Reading the concession statements of the candidates on Monday, I am encouraged by the gentlemanly way each of the three candidates accepted defeat.

Mr Tan Kin Lian freely admitted his tactical mistakes.

Mr Tan Jee Say defended his campaign with a clear sense of personal belief and responsibility in offering voters 'a real choice'.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock maintained his sense of humour in spite of what must have been a painful defeat.

He showed remarkable gumption by pledging to continue his personal mission to be a unifying figure for Singaporeans.

Dr Tony Tan was magnanimous in victory. In recognising the talents of his rivals and thanking them for their 'robust and spirited campaigns', he set the standard for collegiality in the high-stakes contest for the highest elected public office.

By publicly soliciting and welcoming Dr Tan Cheng Bock's input, President Tan is signalling a new era of collaboration in the wake of the plurality of views in the political process.

What I observed during and after the presidential election gives me great hope in our collective journey towards a more gracious Singapore.

李斯：谏逐客书 Lisi: Advising Against Driving Away Foreign Talents

最近，外来人才又成为新加坡民间的热门话题。可是，这并不是一个新话题，在2千多年前的中国，秦国首相李斯就写了《谏逐客书》来劝秦始皇不要驱逐外国的人才，而秦始皇也接受了他的劝告。以下是该问的摘要：

臣闻吏议逐客，窃以为过矣。

昔穆公求士，西取由余於戎，东得百里奚於宛，迎蹇叔於宋，求丕豹、公孙支於晋。此五子者，不产於秦，而穆公用之，并国二十，遂霸西戎。

孝公用商鞅之法，移风易俗，民以殷盛，国以富强，百姓乐用，诸侯亲服，获楚、魏之师，举地千里，至今治强。

惠王用张仪之计，拔三川之地，西并巴、蜀，北收上郡，南取汉中，包九夷，制鄢、郢，东据城皋之险，割膏腴之壤，遂散六国之纵（合纵），使之西面事秦，功施到今。

昭王得范雎，废穰侯，逐华阳，强公室，杜私门，蚕食诸侯，使秦成帝业。

此四君者，皆以客之功。由此观之，客何负於秦哉！向使四君却客而不纳，疏士而不用，是使国无富利之实，而秦无强大之名也。…..

臣闻地广者粟多，国大者人众，兵强者士勇。是以泰山不让土壤，故能成其大；河海不择细流，故能就其深；王者不却众庶，故能明其德。是以地无四方，民无异国，四时充美，鬼神降福，此五帝、三王之所以无敌也。今乃弃黔首以资敌国，却宾客以业诸侯，使天下之士退而不敢西向，裹足不入秦，此所谓‘藉寇兵而赍盗粮’者也。

夫物不产於秦，可宝者多；士不产於秦，而愿忠者众。今逐客以资敌国，损民以益仇，内自虚而外树怨於诸侯，求国无危，不可得也。

注：由余：晋国人，先是在西戎任职，后来秦穆公设法使他投奔秦国。百里奚：楚国人，原为虞国的大夫，晋灭虞后，把他作为陪嫁的奴隶送给秦国。后来楚地的宛地，被楚国边境的人俘获。秦穆公用五张黑羊皮将他赎回，并封为大夫。迎蹇叔：原为岐人，旅居宋国，由于百里奚的推荐，秦穆公派人花重金请去做了大夫。丕豹：晋大夫丕郑的儿子，丕郑被晋惠公杀，丕豹逃到秦。公孙支：原是晋人，后来归秦，为秦大夫。商鞅：卫国人，姓公孙，名鞅。入秦后，被秦孝公重用，实行变法，有大功。因为封地叫商，故称商鞅，又称商君。张仪：魏国人，秦惠王任为丞相，他用连横的策略帮助秦分化瓦解东方六国，使它们服从秦国。范雎：魏国人，秦昭王用为相。他提出远交近攻的策略，帮助秦国统一天下。穰侯：秦昭王的舅父，曾为相国。华阳：秦昭王的舅父。

.

.

In Singapore, the issue of attracting foreign talents has become a hot topic of discussion among the people again. However, this is not a new topic in history. More than two thousand years ago in China, Prime Minister Lisi once wrote to the First Emperor to advise him not to drive away the foreign born talents and the First Emperor accepted his advice. The following is his main argument:

I have heard that many officials have discussed the need to dismiss their foreign clients (talents), but I dare to think that this is a bad thing to do.

In the past, when Lord Mu was searching for distinguished men, he found You Yu from western Rong and Bai Lixi from Wan, he welcomed Jian Shu from Song, and he spotted Pi Pao and Gongsun Zhi in the kingdom of Jin. Although these five gentlemen were not born in Qin, Lord Mu used them and thus was able to annex twelve countries, and Qin emerged as a strong country in the western Rong.

Lord Xiao implemented the new legal system of Shang Yang and as a result, our old customs and habits were either changed or eliminated, and thus enabled our people to live better life. With this, our country is stronger and more prosperous. Our people are then happy to join the armed forces, and our neighbouring countries are willing to listen to us. After we defeated Chu and Wei, we occupied more that thousand square kilometres of land, and today our country are still strong and well managed.

King Hui adopted Zhang Yi’s strategy and thus occupied many territories around the Sanchuan River. We also annexed Ba and Shu in the west, Shang Jun in the north, and Han Zhong in the south. We conquered many minority races (tribes), controlled two major cities Yan and Ying, and occupied Cheng Gao in the east. A lot of fertile lands were seized, the alliance of six countries was dissolved and these countries were forced to pledge their allegiance to Qin. The impacts of the strategy have lasted even until today.

King Zhao employed Fan Sui and discharged his corrupt uncles Ranghou and Huayang, only to eliminate unauthorized behaviour and to invigorate the strength of the ruling family's position. He devoured the territories of the feudal lords and made the house of Qin able to become emperors.

These four rulers were successful because of their foreign advisors. From this aspect, how could the foreign advisors let the rulers of Qin down? If these four rulers would not have employed and incorporated foreign consultants in their courts, the state of Qin would not be as rich and prosperous as it is now, and Qin would not be a strong and powerful country…..

I have heard that a country with ample land and fields can grow abundant grain, a state with a vast territory can accommodate many inhabitants, and a strong army will have brave soldiers. Equally, the Mount Tai is large because it was not picky about the size of its rocks. All the rivers and seas run deep for they do not reject small streams. And a king can manifest his virtue only by not driving out the inhabitants of his country. Therefore, it is important not to stretch a country all over the world, and not to make people become estranged to their country; and only then, the four seasons will be completed and beautiful, the spirits and gods will grant good luck, and all will be like during the age of the Five mythical Emperors and the Three holy Kings (of Xia, Shang and Zhou), who are invincible in this world. If your majesty now would dismiss your foreign advising clients (talents), they would be a fortune for your enemies' countries. If you would allow people of ability under Heaven to draw back from your court and not to come here to the west, they would not put one step on the ground of your state of Qin. That would be tantamount to lending weapons to robbers and giving grain to the bandits who robbed Qin.

A lot of products may not be produced in Qin, but they can be treasured by us; many wise people may not be born in Qin, but they are willing to serve our country with loyalty. Now if we dismiss these people, they will become the treasure of other kingdom, this is to disadvantage us and benefit our enemies. This is amounting to weaken us internally and causing unhappiness among our dukes and princes. Under such circumstances, how can we avoid danger to our country?

亚里士多德的美学 Aristotle’s Aesthetics

拉斐尔的名画‘雅典学院’里，柏拉图与亚里士多德并立。柏拉图指向天，那是理想世界的理念。我们所见的亚里士多德的手指指向地上。这幅画精确地描述了柏拉图与亚里士多德的不同。这个不同也显示在他们的艺术道路。

亚里士多德比柏拉图更加同情地关心艺术。亚里士多德相信普世理念形式只存在于个别物体，认为艺术家在研究物体并把它们转换为艺术形式时，艺术家是直接的与宇宙接触。因为这个理由，亚里士多德肯定艺术的认知价值；他说艺术既然是模仿自然，所以它与自然的信息沟通。

在认知价值以外，艺术在亚里士多德观念中还有相当的心理学意义。首先，艺术反映人本质的深刻一面，人类由此与动物有别；模仿是他们的植入本能。事实上，儿时最早的学习是由模仿而来。

除了本能，人们在面对艺术时，还会感到欢愉。所以，人们之所以享受观看肖像是因为当他们凝视它时，他们发现他们在学习或在推理，同时叹道，‘啊，我想到了。’

以艺术而言，亚里士多德的观点比柏拉图有极大的进步。他明确地意识到艺术的目的只不过是给人一时的痛快，所以它不需要寻求工匠技艺的那种功能。作为一种活动，不像柏拉图那样艺术当作无价值的把戏，亚里士多德在模仿中找到知识与真相。

.

.

In The School of Athens, the fresco by Raphael, Plato and Aristotle stand side by side. Plato points to the heavens, to the ideal world of the Forms. Aristotle is shown with his hand open toward the earth. The painting accurately portrays the difference between Plato and Aristotle. It's a difference that shows up in their approaches to the arts.

Aristotle had a more sympathetic interest in art then did Plato. Aristotle, believing that the Universal Forms exist only in particular things, felt that the artists are dealing directly with the universal when they study things and translate them into art forms. For this reason, Aristotle affirmed the cognitive value of art, saying that since art does imitate nature, it therefore communicates information about nature.

In addition to cognitive value, art has in Aristotle’s view considerable psychological significance. For one thing, art reflects a deep facet of human nature by which people are differentiated from animals, this being their implanted instinct for imitation. Indeed, from earliest childhood learning takes place through imitation.

In addition to this instinct, there is also the pleasure that people feel upon confronting art. Thus, the reason people enjoy seeing a likeness is, that in contemplating it they find themselves learning or inferring, and saying perhaps, ‘Ah, that is he.’

With respect to art, Aristotle views are an immense advance on those of Plato. He distinctly recognized that its aim is simply to give immediate pleasure, and so it does not need to seek the useful like the mechanical arts. The essence of art, considered as an activity, Aristotle found in imitation, which, unlike Plato, he considers not as an unworthy trick, but as including knowledge and discovery.

书法：中国文化符号 Chinese Calligraphy: The Chinese Cultural Symbol

中国一份“文化符号调查”报告指出，最具代表性的前10项分别是：汉语（汉字）、孔子、书法、长城、五星红旗、中医、毛泽东、故宫、邓小平、兵马俑。

所谓“中国文化符号”，就是能代表中国文化的突出而具高度影响力的象征形式系统。文化软实力正是通过文化符号表现出来。

在艺术的领域中，只有书法被入选为十首之一，而与书法最有密切关系的汉字也入选并排在首位。这样的结果，是应该令人深思的。

一位旅法学者熊秉明（1922-2002）就曾经说过：“中国文化的核心是哲学，而处于这个哲学的中心正是书法。”这就是有名的“书法是中国文化核心之核心”。熊先生去世后，有位书法大师在刊登于《中国书法》的文章中对这句话提出了质疑，认为书法还无法担当如此重任。另一位书法理论教育家很快的跟着响应。

书法在中国文化中的地位肯定是特别的，就因为它特别，我们不能以西方的思维来看待它、解释它，而应该以完全是中国本土的思想思维来肯定与注释它。西方学者从来不把艺术放在哲学的核心。西方美学中的一些理论，如模仿论、造型艺术、抽象艺术、本质论，等等，依我看，可供参考，要以此来探索书法创作与创新之路，那 是舍本取末的作法。

无独有偶，河北景县一位学者韩玉涛在他的《书法十讲》中提倡书法为写意艺术，他说：“书法又是哲学的，又是写意的。它是写意的哲学艺术。”

好个哲学艺术。

.

A survey on Chinese cultural symbols has identified the followings as the top 10 symbols: Chinese characters, Confucius, Chinese calligraphy, the Great Wall, the Chinese national flag, the traditional Chinese medicine, Mao Zedong, the Forbidden City, Deng Xiaoping, and the Terracotta warriors.

The Chinese cultural symbol refers to the symbolic sign or system that is highly influential in and that can represent the Chinese culture. The cultural soft power is said to be expressed through the cultural symbols.

The Chinese calligraphy has the honour of being the only fine art to be included in the top ten symbols. It is interesting to note that the Chinese writing system (the Chinese characters) which is closely associated with the Chinese calligraphy is placed at top position. The fact that both are being selected provides food for though.

Xiong Binming (1922-2002), a Chinese who lived in France once said, “The core of Chinese culture is philosophy, and at the centre of the core is Chinese calligraphy.” After his death, a famous Chinese calligrapher questioned this observation in an article published in the “Chinese Calligraphy” magazine, and this was responded almost immediately by another famous calligraphy theorist and educationist.

The Chinese calligraphy is indeed uniquely Chinese, and it occupies a special position in Chinese culture. Because it is special, it cannot be viewed and explained by using the Western yardstick. Instead, one should view it with a Chinese mindset. In the West, fine art is never placed at the core of its philosophy. The western aesthetic theories of such as art as imitation (mimesis), formative art, ontology etc may be good references for study, but they cannot be used as basis in developing the creative works of Chinese fine arts. By doing so, one loses the substance by grasping the shadow.

Coincidentally, a scholar from Hebei Province of China promotes Chinese calligraphy as an art of freehand expression in his book “Ten Lectures on Chinese Calligraphy”. He said, “Chinese calligraphy is philosophical, it is also a freehand expression. It is a philosophical art of freehand expression.”

Well said, indeed.

禅诗：菩提本无树 Chan Poems: Originally, There is no Bodhi Tree

慧能（638-713）是中国佛教传统里最重要的任务之一。传统上，他被认为是禅宗六祖，也是禅宗的最后宗师。据说，他认为提倡佛教实践方式应该是即时与直接的；从这个角度来看，他可以说是南禅‘顿悟’派的创立者。

据说五祖弘忍大师（601-674）决定竞选六祖。弟子只要以一首诗来阐述他们对般若（智慧）的深刻了解就行了。大弟子神秀写了以下一首诗在墙上：


身是菩提树，心为明镜台；

时时勤拂拭，勿使惹尘埃。

五祖论述神秀的诗时认为它不能深入地进入世间有情众生的佛性‘空’及宇宙多样性的核心。这是因为在讲到现象的生灭、静垢，与戒定慧三学的增减时，还是含有二元观。

轮到慧能时，由于他不识字，所以一位师弟替他写在墙上：

菩提本无树，明镜亦非台；

本来无一物，何处惹尘埃。

虽然五祖认为慧能的是也没触到物性要点，但是从他把法衣长袍与化缘钵传给慧能就表示他的赞许。

.

Huineng (638–713) is one of the most important figures in the Chinese Buddhism tradition. He has been traditionally viewed as the Sixth and Last Patriarch of Chan Buddhism. He is said to have advocated an immediate and direct approach to Buddhist practice and enlightenment, and in this regard, is considered the founder of the ‘Sudden Enlightenment’ southern Chan school of Buddhism. 

It is said that the fifth Patriarch Hong Ren (601-674) decided that he would choose the next Patriarch by means of a competition. Monks could write a poem about developing Prajna (wisdom) to show their depth of understanding. The most senior monk Shen Xiu wrote the following poem on the wall.

The body is the Bodhi tree;

The mind like the bright mirror.

Diligently wiping out the dust;

Let no dust alight.

The Patriarch commented that Shen Xiu’s work was not profound enough to penetrate utmost into the Emptiness of the Buddha-nature of sentient beings and the multiplicity of the cosmos. This is because it still involves the dualistic view of phenomena in terms of arising and ceasing, impurity and purity or increasing and decreasing in terms of three-fold training of morality, concentration and wisdom.

Next Huineng got a junior monk to write poetic reply on the wall for him since he was illiterate:

Originally, there is no Bodhi tree;

Neither is there the stand of the bright mirror.

Originally, everything is empty;

Where could the dust alight?

Although the Patriarch commented that Hui Neng’s poem also hadn’t seen the essential nature, he apparently felt that Hui Neng could make the grade when he passed the robe and begging bowl to Hui Neng.

无为：道家的审美秩序之路 Non-action: The Way to Daoist Aesthetic Order

西方的理性秩序是指有一个支配性的原理（不管它是指理性或上帝）在强制实行世界秩序。相对而言，华人的审美秩序的观念对这种原理或其目的论并不感兴趣。恰恰相反，审美秩序关心的是个体自我更新的观念，这就是‘混沌’的本意。

审美秩序就是‘道’的秩序，而道的观念是基于这样的一种理解：宇宙的唯一永恒就是改变，我们应该去理解和尝试去与这种改变取得和谐。这个观念在《易经》中就有提到：‘一阴一阳谓之道。’

道家担心人类的欲望会使宇宙的自然运作变成反常。老子在《道德经》里就说：‘取天下常以无事，及其有事，不足以取天下。’这就形成了‘无为’的思想，描述个人意志与环境的自然和谐与正道。

相同的，它表示这种行为会取得无限的正面成绩，因为它允许所有万物发展它们的全部的不受限制的潜力：

‘道常无为而无不为。候王若能守之，万物将自化。化而欲作，吾将镇之以无名之朴，镇之以无名之朴，夫将不欲。不欲以静，天下将自定。’

.

.

The Western rational order refers to the idea that there is one overarching external principle, whether it be Reason or God, imposes the order on the world. In comparison, the Chinese sense of aesthetic order is not keen on this external principle or its twin of teleology. Rather, it is concerned with the idea of self-renewal of particulars, which is what ‘Hun Dun’ (Choas) means.

The aesthetic order is the order of the Dao, a concept that is based on the understanding that the only constant in the universe is change and that we must understand and attempt to harmonize ourselves with this change. This idea is suggested in Yijing which states that ‘the successive movement of the inactive Yin and active Yang operations constitutes what is called the Dao.’

The Daoists are concerned that the natural operations of the cosmos are perverted by the desires of human beings. Laozi says in Daode Jing that ‘the world is ruled by letting things takes their natural course. It cannot be ruled by going against nature or arrogance.’ This led to the formation of the doctrine of ‘non-action’ which describes the harmonization of one’s personal will with natural harmony and justice of Nature.

Likewise, it suggests that this mode of action yields ubiquitously positive results, as it allows everything to develop to its full, untrammelled potential:

Dao abides in non-action yet nothing is left undone. If kings and lords observed this, the ten thousand things would develop naturally. If they still desired to act they would return to the simplicity of formless substance. Without form there is no desire. Without desire there is tranquillity. And in this way all things would be at peace.

子曰：人能弘道 Confucius Said: Human Beings Extend Order in the World

华人思想家通过艺术性地处置事物来理解秩序的含义，所以就叫做‘审美秩序’。他们的秩序观念专注于具体个体，是显现的，并在成员内部成长与演变。就是说，审美式的秩序是指秩序主要是由内部之间的联系形成，每个成员相互依赖。

在审美秩序里，自然事物可以有无数秩序，因为自然肯定是动态的、自我造化的、自我组织的与有活力的。所有存在的事物都在和谐状态中、被相反的力所平衡。两种基本的与互相对抗的阴阳原理组成了所有行动后面的驱动力，负责事物的审美秩序的自然的演变。阳一直是负责改革的积极与创造元素，而阴则是消极与反应性原理。他们互相补助并杂乱地联系在一起；就是它们共同合作与互相排斥而产生了我们生命中逐渐得到的经验的所有事物，并在宇宙中显现。

和谐的概念在华人思维中十分重要；指导性的原理是不要其干涉生命的和谐。可以说，华人文化向来是要维持人与自然的平衡，在生活的每一方面都与自然配合，而不是违背自然。

宇宙的秩序也被称为‘道’；如果每个人能依着道的价值与德行来行动，一个和平与和谐的社会就会长久存在。

孔子把道德概念转化为道德实践原理，指导人与人之间的行为与应该如何建设一个和谐社会。在儒家传统里，真善美都不是‘给定’的，也没有所谓的原本与决定性的起源，或者终极的、目的论的终止。基于这个理由，孔子说：‘人能弘道，非道弘人。’

.

The Chinese thinkers understand the meaning of order through the artful disposition of things and thus it is known as Aesthetic Order. Their view of order focuses on the concrete individuals and is emergent, and growing and transforming within things themselves. That means that something aesthetic is ordered primarily in terms of internal relations, the basic elements being dependent on one another.

In the Aesthetic Order, the things of nature may be ordered in any number of ways as it is resolutely dynamic, auto-generative, self-organising and alive. All things that exist are in harmony, balanced by opposing forces. The two fundamental and antagonistic principles of Yin and Yang constitute the driving force behind all movements and accountable for the natural evolution of Aesthetic Order of things. Yang is always the proactive and creative element accountable for change, whereas Yin is the passive and reactive principle. They complement each other and are intricately interconnected; and it is their working together and against each other that produce everything that we experience progressively in life and manifests in the cosmos.

The concept of harmony is very important to the Chinese thoughts and the guiding principle is not to disturb the harmony of life. It may therefore be said that Chinese culture has always maintained a balance with and attempt to work with Nature in all aspects of the living, rather than against it.

The order in the universe is also referred to as Dao and a peaceful and harmonious society can exist for a long period of time if the values and virtues are exercised among its members in tune with the Dao. Dao is what the world is and how it is.

It was Confucius that translated the concepts of Dao into practical ethical guidelines as to how one should behave towards each other and to create a harmonious society. In the Confucian tradition, truth, beauty, and goodness as standards of order are not ‘given’ and there is no initial, determinative beginning or ultimate, teleological end. It is for this reason that Confucius declared: ‘It is human beings who extend order in the world (dao), not order that extends human beings.’