What do you think?
Rate this book
成神：早期中国的宇宙论、祭祀与自我神化
中西文化存在怎样的根本性差异，是马克思·韦伯、葛兰言、李约瑟、张光直、葛瑞汉等西方的中国研究者孜孜不倦讨论的焦点——二元与一元、断裂和连续、超越与原始、悲剧与和谐等各种两极化概念充斥着20世纪的中国思想研究，将中西置于绝对的对立关系上。在这样的思路下，中国文化拥有了一种固定不变、仿佛与生俱来的预设——“天人合一”。
《成神》则致力于反思并消除这些固有的习见。通过分析商周卜辞铭文、战国诸子文献及秦汉史论中呈现的凡人与天神的复杂关系，普鸣重构了“天人合一”背后蕴含的“关联性宇宙论”在中国兴起的历史过程与政治背景：在他看来，“人”与“神”的界限、人能否“成神”等问题在早期中国经历了一场长期的论辩，“关联性宇宙论”并非是一开就存在于中国的基础性预设，而是在与祭祀占卜活动的对抗中逐渐成为了主流。普鸣在《成神》中讨论了一种全新的文化比较模式，即将历史分析与比较性视角相结合，既关注相似的宏观历史处境，又注重细微差异的辨析，以期在中国与其他文明的对比中获得更丰富的意义。
《成神》则致力于反思并消除这些固有的习见。通过分析商周卜辞铭文、战国诸子文献及秦汉史论中呈现的凡人与天神的复杂关系，普鸣重构了“天人合一”背后蕴含的“关联性宇宙论”在中国兴起的历史过程与政治背景：在他看来，“人”与“神”的界限、人能否“成神”等问题在早期中国经历了一场长期的论辩，“关联性宇宙论”并非是一开就存在于中国的基础性预设，而是在与祭祀占卜活动的对抗中逐渐成为了主流。普鸣在《成神》中讨论了一种全新的文化比较模式，即将历史分析与比较性视角相结合，既关注相似的宏观历史处境，又注重细微差异的辨析，以期在中国与其他文明的对比中获得更丰富的意义。
512 pages, Hardcover
First published September 30, 2002
5 people are currently reading
134 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 28, 2012
How did people in early China conceptualize and express the relationship between humanity and divinity? Is China really the land of unity of human and spirits where all are living in a harmonious cosmos, as argued by many scholars since Max Weber? By tracing keywords like spirits, sacrifices and divinization, self-divination, and cosmology in foundational texts of early Chinese thought from the late Shang (mainly oracle bones and bamboo strips) to the end of the Western Han and by tuning into the nuances, tensions, and concerns manifested in the texts themselves, Michael Puett reconstructs a plausible story of the rise of correlative cosmology in the 4th century B.C.E as a critique against the dominant theomorphic claims at the time (p.200).
According to this line of story, early Shang and Zhou practices of sacrifices and divination were not grounded in a harmonious model of cosmology. Contrary to the common scholarly understanding of continuity of humanity and divinity in early Chinese thought, Puett characterizes the human relations with Di and spirits as agonistic. The living had to transform the deceased into proper ancestors through appropriate and timely sacrifices, placed in a pantheon of spirits with the oldest ancestors situated closest to Di, whom then can be manipulated through human actions like sacrifices to petition on behalf of the living. By carefully contextualizing key claims on the continuity of humans and spirits in texts like “shao gao” in Shangshu, Puett puts forth a powerful critique of scholars like David Pankenier’s interpretation of Zhou’s conquest of Shang as a turning to the normative cosmological linking of king with Heaven and a turning away from Shang’s aberration of discontinuity (Puett, pp. 55-57).
During the fourth and third centuries B.C.E., the dominant court practices based on sacrificial-theistic model animated various visions, understandings, and practices of what makes up the cosmos and the human’s place in it. Through close scrutiny of a plethora of texts at the time, Puett reveals to us the emergence of many new claims of self-divinization with diverse and often polemic views over the nature of the human and the divine and on how to become a god. However, these claims of self-divination were nothing but minority critiques of the dominant view. Even though the Qin and Eastern Han emperors as well as theorists and religious specialists (fangshi) found some of the claims on sacrifices, self-divination, and cosmology useful to the empire-building project, a more unified view of correlative and harmonious cosmology did not emerge until the end of the 1st century B.C.E. And yet, even this “monistic” cosmology, which was put forward by Kuang Heng and built upon Dong Zhongshu’s correlative thinking, cannot be simply labeled as a “harmonious oneness” because of its insistence on the disunity of human and gods, its denial of imperial divinity, and its emphasis on proper sacrifices as the medium between the humanity and the divinity (Puett, p. 314).
Freed from earlier normative comparisons with early Greek and the limiting framework of social evolutionary theory as well as cultural-essentialist tendency, Puett tells us a plausible and exciting story about early Chinese thought. Nevertheless, Puett’s use of evidence leaves many things to be desired. First of all, many ancient Chinese texts cited in this volume are notorious for its difficulty of interpretation. Despite Puett’s careful examination of secondary literature in English, the omission of Chinese commentaries about these texts leaves one wonder whether some of the tensions and debates could be further corroborated by a careful reading of the commentaries around these texts. Second, the validity of close reading depends crucially on the integrity of the texts themselves, especially when used as evidence for a certain historical period. Given the long commentary tradition around many of these texts like shijing and shangshu, it is disappointing the Puett has not paid enough attention to the dating and integrity of these texts before embarking on the journey of close reading. For example, in his close reading of “shengmin” in Maoshi, a Western Han recension of Shijing as evidence for Zhou thought on sacrifices and divinations, Puett owes his reader at least a passing explanation of why Maoshi is chosen among many existent recensions and commentaries and why the readers should not worry about meanings accrued to the text between Zhou and Western Han (p. 63 and pp. 68-74).
A third point is both relevant to the use of evidence and to the comparative methodology employed in this book: the out-of-network comparison with early Greek thought. In comparative studies, a comparison between two thought systems that were developed more or less without any contact is dangerous both because of the difficulty (or infinite possibilities) of translation of key concepts and because of the human tendency to use the more familiar system as a ruler to measure up the Other (the unfamiliar system). With great care, Puett successfully demonstrates how various Chinese thought defies earlier categorizations like monism/dualism, continuity/discontinuity. In the mean process, Puett sets up another dichotomy of agon and harmony, failing to notice the mereological thinking and a sense of dynamic harmony dominant in Chinese perception of the cosmos. For example, based on my readings of the texts examined in Puett’s book, my impression is: despite the difference between Shang Zhou perception of Di as capricious and the correlative cosmology in Western Han, the overarching goal is that harmony is achievable or bridgeable through human activities, quite unlike the Greek mythology aiming at gaining human autonomy. Again, my comparison of China and Greek thought falls into another dichotomy: oneness vs. autonomy. But this failure only further highlights the fundamental difficulty of comparing two out-of-network systems. A more productive comparative method should bring in at least a third party, say Indian or Islamic thought, where at least some cultural contacts can be established in the time period under consideration.
Another interesting point is the strong influence of Hegelian dialectics in the overall structure of Puett’s arguments: the development of ideas and societies is driven by the tension between competing forces. Though it is dangerous to rely too heavily on a philosophy of history, Puett’s skillful employment of it is beneficial for at least two reasons. On one hand, zooming into the tensions manifested in texts themselves allows him to successfully break away from earlier cultural-essentialist thinking and social evolutionary theories. On the other hand, Puett’s scrutiny of diverse meanings of self-divination and sacrificial activities foregrounds the fact that competing claims simultaneously produce dynamic forms of Chinese cosmological thought and animate competing understandings and practices of what makes up the cosmos and human and divinity’s places in them. Hence, in the end, Puett’s most important contribution is not his new interpretations but a new (not necessarily better) way of doing intellectual history.
According to this line of story, early Shang and Zhou practices of sacrifices and divination were not grounded in a harmonious model of cosmology. Contrary to the common scholarly understanding of continuity of humanity and divinity in early Chinese thought, Puett characterizes the human relations with Di and spirits as agonistic. The living had to transform the deceased into proper ancestors through appropriate and timely sacrifices, placed in a pantheon of spirits with the oldest ancestors situated closest to Di, whom then can be manipulated through human actions like sacrifices to petition on behalf of the living. By carefully contextualizing key claims on the continuity of humans and spirits in texts like “shao gao” in Shangshu, Puett puts forth a powerful critique of scholars like David Pankenier’s interpretation of Zhou’s conquest of Shang as a turning to the normative cosmological linking of king with Heaven and a turning away from Shang’s aberration of discontinuity (Puett, pp. 55-57).
During the fourth and third centuries B.C.E., the dominant court practices based on sacrificial-theistic model animated various visions, understandings, and practices of what makes up the cosmos and the human’s place in it. Through close scrutiny of a plethora of texts at the time, Puett reveals to us the emergence of many new claims of self-divinization with diverse and often polemic views over the nature of the human and the divine and on how to become a god. However, these claims of self-divination were nothing but minority critiques of the dominant view. Even though the Qin and Eastern Han emperors as well as theorists and religious specialists (fangshi) found some of the claims on sacrifices, self-divination, and cosmology useful to the empire-building project, a more unified view of correlative and harmonious cosmology did not emerge until the end of the 1st century B.C.E. And yet, even this “monistic” cosmology, which was put forward by Kuang Heng and built upon Dong Zhongshu’s correlative thinking, cannot be simply labeled as a “harmonious oneness” because of its insistence on the disunity of human and gods, its denial of imperial divinity, and its emphasis on proper sacrifices as the medium between the humanity and the divinity (Puett, p. 314).
Freed from earlier normative comparisons with early Greek and the limiting framework of social evolutionary theory as well as cultural-essentialist tendency, Puett tells us a plausible and exciting story about early Chinese thought. Nevertheless, Puett’s use of evidence leaves many things to be desired. First of all, many ancient Chinese texts cited in this volume are notorious for its difficulty of interpretation. Despite Puett’s careful examination of secondary literature in English, the omission of Chinese commentaries about these texts leaves one wonder whether some of the tensions and debates could be further corroborated by a careful reading of the commentaries around these texts. Second, the validity of close reading depends crucially on the integrity of the texts themselves, especially when used as evidence for a certain historical period. Given the long commentary tradition around many of these texts like shijing and shangshu, it is disappointing the Puett has not paid enough attention to the dating and integrity of these texts before embarking on the journey of close reading. For example, in his close reading of “shengmin” in Maoshi, a Western Han recension of Shijing as evidence for Zhou thought on sacrifices and divinations, Puett owes his reader at least a passing explanation of why Maoshi is chosen among many existent recensions and commentaries and why the readers should not worry about meanings accrued to the text between Zhou and Western Han (p. 63 and pp. 68-74).
A third point is both relevant to the use of evidence and to the comparative methodology employed in this book: the out-of-network comparison with early Greek thought. In comparative studies, a comparison between two thought systems that were developed more or less without any contact is dangerous both because of the difficulty (or infinite possibilities) of translation of key concepts and because of the human tendency to use the more familiar system as a ruler to measure up the Other (the unfamiliar system). With great care, Puett successfully demonstrates how various Chinese thought defies earlier categorizations like monism/dualism, continuity/discontinuity. In the mean process, Puett sets up another dichotomy of agon and harmony, failing to notice the mereological thinking and a sense of dynamic harmony dominant in Chinese perception of the cosmos. For example, based on my readings of the texts examined in Puett’s book, my impression is: despite the difference between Shang Zhou perception of Di as capricious and the correlative cosmology in Western Han, the overarching goal is that harmony is achievable or bridgeable through human activities, quite unlike the Greek mythology aiming at gaining human autonomy. Again, my comparison of China and Greek thought falls into another dichotomy: oneness vs. autonomy. But this failure only further highlights the fundamental difficulty of comparing two out-of-network systems. A more productive comparative method should bring in at least a third party, say Indian or Islamic thought, where at least some cultural contacts can be established in the time period under consideration.
Another interesting point is the strong influence of Hegelian dialectics in the overall structure of Puett’s arguments: the development of ideas and societies is driven by the tension between competing forces. Though it is dangerous to rely too heavily on a philosophy of history, Puett’s skillful employment of it is beneficial for at least two reasons. On one hand, zooming into the tensions manifested in texts themselves allows him to successfully break away from earlier cultural-essentialist thinking and social evolutionary theories. On the other hand, Puett’s scrutiny of diverse meanings of self-divination and sacrificial activities foregrounds the fact that competing claims simultaneously produce dynamic forms of Chinese cosmological thought and animate competing understandings and practices of what makes up the cosmos and human and divinity’s places in them. Hence, in the end, Puett’s most important contribution is not his new interpretations but a new (not necessarily better) way of doing intellectual history.
September 19, 2021
I like how Puett tried to get away from the trap of comparative studies. Like his argument and his way of writing, but not his citations.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews