Du Jiwen: On the Marxist Study of Religious Studies in China
Since the beginning of reform and opening up, the study of religion could be described as a kaleidoscope of colors. In this vast cultural square, thought is active and discussion is prolific; regardless of one's industry or status, as long as one does not violate the laws of the land, one may speak, write, and express personal views. I hold a positive attitude toward this free and lively academic atmosphere. The title of this paper is purely a matter of personal perspective.
Regarding the nature of the Institute of World Religions (IWR), its academic research is, of course, guided by Marxism. At present, interpretations of Marxism are not entirely identical; what I discuss here is limited to my private views, which I offer to facilitate mutual exchange.
I
As is well known, the Institute of World Religions was established based on a proposal by Mao Zedong. The written instructions [1] he issued regarding the establishment of this institute generally touched upon three areas: first, the world's three major religions influence a vast population, yet we lack relevant knowledge of them; second, due to this lack of knowledge and especially a lack of Marxist research, one rarely sees articles written from the perspective of historical materialism in the field of religious scholarship; third, "without criticizing theology, one cannot write a good history of philosophy, nor a good history of literature or world history."
In my personal view, these three points raised by Mao Zedong provided the fundamental logic for religious studies in our country. Our country's systematic Marxist study of religion should also be dated from this point. However, shortly thereafter, the "Left" [2] deviation spread across the nation, impacting all sectors, and the cause of religious research did not escape unscathed. To a large extent, Mao Zedong's instructions on religious research were misread as a directive to criticize religion. The comprehensive implementation of Mao’s instructions only truly began after the period of "setting things right" [3] and the start of reform and opening up, moving in tandem with the overall historical development of our country.
II
The establishment of the Institute of World Religions ought to be considered a major event for the entire academic community; it was unprecedented in Chinese history and is extremely rare even abroad. This demonstrates that Mao Zedong did not simply view religious research as a temporary political necessity, but rather as an intention to broaden the horizons of the people—recognizing that religion must be treated as an independent discipline subject to regular concern and research. Thus, he opposed both treating religion merely as a sacred and untouchable realm of faith, and blindly viewing religion as an object that could be criticized at will and with crudeness. What he emphasized was, first, that there must be an understanding of religion, and second, that it must be subjected to Marxist research. Without corresponding knowledge, one has no right to speak; without the guidance of Marxism, the knowledge obtained can hardly be given a "seek truth from facts" explanation.
In his instructions, Mao Zedong held up Ren Jiyu's [4] articles on Buddhist studies as an exemplar of the Marxist perspective in religious research. The preparatory work for the Institute of World Religions and the overall layout of its academic research were undertaken by a group of scholars led by Ren Jiyu, who served as the first Director of the IWR.
Which of Ren Jiyu's articles on Buddhism elicited such affirmation from Mao Zedong? In 1963, Sanlian Bookstore published his Collected Essays on Chinese Buddhist Thought of the Han and Tang Dynasties. It contained seven papers written between 1955 and 1962, primarily critiquing the sectarian philosophies of the Sui and Tang—including the Tiantai, Faxiang, Huayan, and Chan schools—as well as a general overview titled "The Transmission and Development of Buddhist Philosophical Thought in China during the Han and Tang Dynasties" and "The Political Role of Buddhist 'Prajna' and 'Nirvana' Theories during the Jin and Song Dynasties of the Southern Dynasties," co-authored with Mr. Tang Yongtong. The articles by Ren Jiyu that Mao Zedong would have seen at that time were likely within this scope.
Looking at these articles as a whole, we can see that Ren Jiyu’s research methodology indeed possessed characteristics distinct from his predecessors and contemporaries. These can be summarized in two points:
First, he examined religious phenomena and religious philosophy from the perspective that social existence determines social consciousness and the economic base determines the superstructure. The papers argue that "18th-century French Enlightenment thinkers very simply asserted that 'religion was born when a fool met a liar,'" without pointing out the social roots of religion's emergence—this is the fundamental flaw of "old" (pre-Marxist) materialism.
The "Postscript" of these papers quotes Marx: "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." "To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness." The "reality" Marx repeatedly refers to here is the irrational social system—the relations of production and the economic base. If one wishes to thoroughly liberate the people from religious suffering and transform illusory happiness into actual happiness, one cannot stop at ideological criticism and theoretical explanation (education). Instead, one must transform the irrational reality of society and create objective conditions for existence and development that accord with human nature (rather than divinity). We know that such conditions can only be realized in a communist society. This is also where Marx transcends Feuerbach’s view of religion.
The development of society follows objective laws, and its stages cannot be bypassed. Any attempt to circumvent the actual transformation of social reality by using administrative orders to solve issues of thought and belief in isolation is anti-Marxist. Consequently, how to correctly handle the religious question has become a major subject for the scientific socialist movement.
Another important principle of scientific socialism is the belief that the masses must liberate themselves. Outsiders must not "take over the chef's knife" [5], and it is even more impermissible to use religious struggle to replace or divert the general direction of the socialist movement. Engels' opposition to the Blanquist program of prohibiting religion, and Mao Zedong’s insistence that the "Bodhisattvas" [idols] set up by the masses' own hands must be cast aside by the masses' own hands, both carry this meaning. Both can be deduced from the basic principle that the economic base determines the superstructure.
Second, Marxism never denies the subjective agency of the spiritual world upon the material world, nor the active influence of social consciousness upon social existence—especially at critical moments of revolution and development. This is because only correct thought allows for a correct understanding of the world and the formulation of a correct line and policy, ensuring correct guidance for practice. This is the fundamental reason why Marxist parties have always attached great importance to ideological building and ideological struggle. Liu Shaoqi wrote Why Men Make Mistakes, and Mao Zedong wrote Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?. Their opposition to idealism and metaphysics (mechanism) serves the same purpose as their opposition to "book worship" and dogmatism: namely, to ensure the consistency of our subjective understanding with objective reality, so as not to become detached from the ever-changing and exceptionally complex objective reality, and not to become detached from the broadest masses whose material and spiritual needs are not identical. Therefore, the refusal to accept "theology" and its influence has both a side of being responsible to the masses and a side of facing reality to ensure correct thinking and correct practice.
Mao Zedong admired Lu Xun. Lu Xun had a famous saying: "Intimidation and abuse are not combat." Even regarding theology, just as Mao Zedong did not approve of administrative intervention, he would not have approved of the language of intimidation and abuse. He expressed this clearly in works such as On New Democracy, his "Talks with Tibetan Personnel," and On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People. His so-called "criticism" was used in the Marxist sense, referring to seek-truth-from-facts theoretical analysis and historicist evaluation—it carries the meaning of Aufhebung (sublation) rather than the "mass criticism" of the "Cultural Revolution" period involving labeling, denouncing, and escalating minor issues to the level of political principle.
Another characteristic of Ren Jiyu’s Buddhist papers is this element of criticism: first, occupying sufficient and reliable data to ensure a solid foundation for his thesis; then, performing focused theoretical analysis of representative parts to provide an epistemological and methodological evaluation; and simultaneously exploring the social and cultural background that allowed this trend of thought to form, pointing out its social role and historical status. Therefore, his papers are grounded in evidence and substance; they provide not only knowledge but also inspiration regarding methods of thinking.
These papers, particularly from the perspectives of epistemology and methodology, reveal that Buddhist philosophy contains rich content as well as fundamental defects. Within a unified Chinese Buddhism, the philosophies of various sects each have their own features, demonstrating the complexity of human cognition and the diverse possibilities for leading to error. We researchers today should draw necessary intellectual experience and lessons from these legacies to help us think correctly and commit fewer errors. I believe the key points of the papers' analysis lie here: they point out the idealistic side of Buddhist philosophy that is detached from reality, while also discussing the speculative dialectics inherent in it. From these papers, the younger generation of scholars at that time came to recognize the hardships our ancestors endured on the road to understanding the world and exploring correct thinking; the legacy provided to us by Buddhist literature is indeed substantial and worthy of serious study and summation. Personally, I have followed this path, and it is likely the same for my contemporaries.
If this is true for Buddhism, could other religions be exceptions? Personally, I am ignorant of other religions and dare not speak rashly, but the principle should be consistent: we ought to possess this knowledge and perform Marxist analysis for the benefit of our social progress, the construction of advanced culture, and the comprehensive development of the individual.
III
At present, many veteran comrades who directly participated in the preparatory work for the Institute of World Religions are still with us; they understand the situation more concretely and comprehensively than I do. What left a deep impression on me were two propositions made by Ren Jiyu at the time of the Institute's founding: first, to accumulate materials, and second, to cultivate talent. The logic was simple: our treatment of religion as an independent discipline guided by Marxism was a blank slate—without materials and without talent, there would be no jumping-off point for research.
The work of collecting and accumulating materials did not cease even during the "Cultural Revolution." Consequently, the IWR preserved many documents of major national religions that might otherwise have been destroyed, allowing them to be returned to their original owners after the "Cultural Revolution"; this should be considered a major contribution. The library at the time could be said to be the most unique place in the country for maintaining and preserving books and periodicals related to religious studies; there was once a vision to build a domestic information center for religious research. We also published the journal World Religious Materials to track new trends in foreign religion and religious research as best we could; I gained much knowledge from it. Later, the IWR undertook the national project of compiling the Chinese Tripitaka [6], and the editing of the Supplement to the Tripitaka is currently underway. The organization and publication of Dunhuang religious documents and historical materials on Chinese Islam have also made significant contributions.
As for the cultivation of talent, it can be said to be the most successful endeavor of the IWR. Currently, the vast majority of the academic backbone in the field of domestic religious research comes from the Institute of World Religions system; most are able to lead their respective fields and have made their own achievements. When Peking University began offering religious courses and established a religious studies major, the curriculum was organized and the teachers were dispatched by the IWR.
In those years, there were not as many channels for cultivating talent as there are now. It was primarily done in tandem with disciplinary construction, through internal study and discussion to improve together. The institutional structure of the IWR has not changed much to this day: one research office represents one sub-discipline. Each research office undertakes a key project, which constitutes the implementation of disciplinary construction. Among these, three areas serve as the foundation for the entire Institute’s discipline: first, history; second, theory; and third, lexicography. "History" refers to the historical understanding and research of the corresponding discipline; "Theory" refers to the understanding and research of theories related to religion; and "Lexicography" refers to the index-style recording of knowledge and research on religion and tools for further exploration.
The first research achievement of the Institute of World Religions (IWR) should be considered the 1981 publication of a reference work, the Dictionary of Religion (宗教词典); this was later expanded into the Great Dictionary of Religion (宗教大辞典), published in 1997. In terms of scale and comprehensiveness, the latter far surpassed the former. However, in terms of significance and influence, the Dictionary of Religion is peerless among similar reference works. First, it was the product of collaboration between Marxist scholars and scholars from the religious community. Through this partnership, Marxist scholars gained much subtle and refined knowledge from their religious counterparts, while the religious scholars affirmed the Marxists' research attitude of "seeking truth from facts" [7] and their analytical methodology. Second, it publicly announced to the world that Marxism treats religion as a discipline to be earnestly studied and researched—simple rejection and crude negation are not our style of study. Third, it gained universal recognition and affirmation from society, including the religious community, the academic world, and other sectors requiring knowledge of religion. I do not know how many times this dictionary has been reprinted or how many total copies have been produced, but one can gauge its success by the recurring enthusiasm with which the Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House has organized various religious dictionaries with us since then.
We later learned that a pirated edition of this concise Dictionary of Religion was published in Taiwan; only after the improvement of cross-strait relations did the other side provide some financial compensation. Furthermore, a Buddhist Great Dictionary compiled by a Taiwanese Buddhist organization incorporated almost all the doctrinal entries—of which there were not many—from our Dictionary of Religion, sometimes without changing a single word of the headings or content. This demonstrates that even the Taiwanese religious community and academic institutions, which were then in a state of isolation from us, could not help but recognize the unique achievements of Marxism in religious studies.
Developing dictionaries is currently regarded as the easiest task and the one with the least academic value; consequently, it is generally excluded from professional title evaluations and research output statistics. In fact, everything requires a concrete analysis. Eighteenth-century French materialism was precisely known for the "Encyclopedists"; who would dare deny the intellectual value of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary? The issue lies not in the form of the achievement, but in whether it offers innovation, possesses academic caliber, and plays a positive role in society.
The first project to enter the national planning program was the "History of Chinese Buddhism." This work was originally planned for eight volumes, but due to various reasons, only three were published. To this day, many people still inquire about it and express regret that it did not continue. Even these three volumes triggered a considerable response. Japan is a major power in the tradition of Buddhist studies, and they quickly translated it under the title of the "Definitive Edition" of the History of Chinese Buddhism. The translators noted that this history possessed many characteristics, two of which were most prominent: first, it used historical facts to demonstrate that the introduction of Buddhism to China occurred against a background of traditional religious thought and contemporary cultural trends, rather than as an isolated phenomenon; second, it pointed out that Buddhist scriptures were accommodated based on the Chinese people's ideology. Consequently, it provided a detailed analysis of the content of major Chinese translations of Buddhist sutras and evaluated them from the perspective of intellectual history. The translators concluded that these characteristics were the result of adopting the standpoint of the materialist conception of history—though they specifically noted that this historical materialism was not the usual mechanical application of the theory.
Japanese Buddhist scholars have a very high estimation of Ren Jiyu’s academic level in Buddhist research. In the early period, there was Tsukamoto Zenryū, who was perhaps the most serious researcher of Ren’s Collected Essays on Buddhist Thought of the Han and Tang Dynasties; he specifically came to China to discuss it with the author. Later, there were Nakamura Hajime, Kamata Shigeo, and others, who, along with Honma Akinosuke, the president of the Chugai Nippo, established a platform for long-term Sino-Japanese academic exchange in Buddhist studies. It must be said that this model of Sino-Japanese academic exchange has been the most successful among all external academic exchanges, and its influence has been very positive.
From the scope of my contacts, Japanese scholars value Ren Jiyu's academic achievements not only out of respect for his rigorous style of study but also because of two main points: his grasp of the overall development of Buddhism from the macro-perspective of Chinese history and intellectual history, and his objective analysis of Buddhist doctrine through the lens of cognitive methods.
In the disciplinary construction of religious history, the degree of academic recognition is perhaps the greatest. The three volumes of the "History of World Religions" planned and edited-in-chief by Ren Jiyu—the History of Buddhism, History of Islam, and History of Christianity—released a new edition in early 2006; within less than six months, they went into a second printing. They have withstood the test of scholarship as well as the test of the market. The methods they adopt are, strictly speaking, Marxist. It is precisely because of the scientific methodology of Marxism that they were able to reach a sufficient academic level and gain social recognition. I will take the History of Buddhism as an example here.
Shortly after the History of Buddhism was published and showcased overseas at the Hong Kong Book Fair, a Taiwanese publisher bought the Taiwanese publishing rights for a traditional Chinese, vertical-layout edition in number four font. Their "Publisher's Note" contained the following passage: The History of Buddhism "takes the 'historical materialism' of communism as its theoretical foundation. Terms in the text such as 'ruling class,' 'uprising,' and 'bourgeoisie' conflict with our country’s (referring to the Taiwan authorities) current political and ideological framework; however, this book is an important reference for the study of Buddhist historiography and is an academic work, not a piece of ideological propaganda. Adhering to the principle of 'respecting academic freedom,' this house has retained all the aforementioned terms to maintain the original academic value of the book." Particularly interesting was the publisher’s final sentence: "The 'historical materialism' of communists has its own unique perspective for observing history, which the reader should understand before reading this book."
In other words, works we wrote using "historical materialism as a theoretical foundation" not only received affirmation of their academic value from our Taiwanese compatriots but, because of that value, also piqued their interest in understanding the "historical materialism" of communists. This was somewhat unexpected for us.
In the research on Marxist religious theory and the pioneering of the discipline, there have also been foundational achievements, of which the General Theory of Religious Studies (宗教学通论) is a prominent representative. It has attracted wide attention both at home and abroad and also has a Taiwanese edition.
IV
I remember the former President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Hu Sheng, saying something to this effect: Maintaining Marxist leadership in scholarship must first be manifested in the academic quality of the relevant research and writings. On my own life path, many books have influenced my worldview, but in terms of academic works, Fan Wenlan’s Modern History of China was the most important. Its historiographical value and influence in the field of history are, I believe, unshakable. The historical facts it revealed gave me a rational understanding of the social situation at the time, and the historical logic it highlighted strengthened my choice regarding China's future and path.
As is well known, Marxism is not a closed system, nor is it a set of slogans, labels, or citations of classics—and even less is it a political cudgel. It welcomes all scientific creation, absorbs all the excellent achievements of human civilization, and develops continuously according to changes in time, location, and conditions. Today is an era of cultural pluralism; academic researchers of Marxism should naturally learn from and absorb the academic achievements of other schools, pay close attention to academic trends, and welcome the new academic contributions of others. These things are no longer an issue. While we oppose blind exclusionism and narrow sectarianism, we must insist on independence and creativity in Marxist research. Marxist academic research should not be a matter of parroting others or following in their footsteps; still less should it be about profit-seeking, following trends, or flattering the times. It should regard independence and creativity as its academic lifeblood, and thus possess the highest academic conscience and self-respect. Scholarship has no room for arrogance ("I am number one"), and even less for servility or obsequiousness.
Ren Jiyu was the primary initiator and the first president of the Chinese Association of Religious Studies; he was also the primary initiator and remains the president of the China Association for Atheism. The study of atheism and atheistic publicity and education are extremely important components of his Marxist research on religion. He has a very influential saying: Socialism must not only eliminate poverty; it must also eliminate ignorance. Religious belief is a right of citizens and must be protected; the concept of ghosts and gods is ignorance, and people should be liberated from it through scientific education. Religion is both historical and contemporary; its objective existence must be treated seriously and analyzed scientifically. However, this can never be treated as an isolated problem detached from the laws of social development, the historical trajectory of human civilization, and the comprehensive development of humanity. Regarding our country's history and current situation, what we lack is not ghosts and gods, but science. From a Marxist standpoint, if one discards its atheism, it can hardly be called Marxist religious research.
For a considerable period after the beginning of Reform and Opening Up, atheism was treated as a synonym for the "Ultra-Left," as if the "Cultural Revolution" was a movement launched solely against religion or to eliminate religion, with atheism as the main culprit. Regarding this period of history, the people involved are still around, so there is no need to say much. But to let atheism carry the infamy of the "Ultra-Left" for this reason is perhaps too long a time, while the theory of ghosts and gods has flourished to the point of reaching every corner of the cultural market and ascending to the scientific lecture halls of government organs and schools, becoming a "prominent field of study" [8] whose harmful effects persist today. In this abnormal cultural atmosphere, the struggle of some scholars to defend the scientific spirit and oppose ignorance and superstition has never ceased, and Ren Jiyu shouldered the responsibility of upholding and propagating Marxist atheism.
This work likewise received support from the Central Committee; the journal Science and Atheism was founded with the direct support of the Central Committee. In Chinese cultural history, this is likely the only periodical named after atheism; it is also a first in the history of the Communist Party of China. Even if some people distort the Communist Party's religious policy to a terrifying degree, they cannot find a periodical dedicated specifically to the study and propagation of atheism. In this regard, we might seem "more Ultra-Left than the Ultra-Left," but anyone who understands or is willing to understand the actual cultural situation in our country recently, and who has leafed through our journal, would not reach such a conclusion—they might even become our comrades. The purpose of this journal is summarized in four sentences printed on the cover of every issue, which I will not elaborate on here.
Admittedly, the journal has encountered some trouble. Some people reported us for being anti-religious and wanting to eliminate religion, resulting in investigations. Some wrote letters cursing us, saying that based on our views alone, we were destined for hell. There were even more "clever" ones who said we insulted the dignity of shamans and sorcerers by calling them "lower animals," because only lower animals do not believe in gods. We tolerated all of this; we understand the anger some feel toward us, and we appreciate why "religious tolerance" might not extend to atheists. However, in the six years since this journal was launched, we have not encountered a single serious ideological critique, nor have we seen or heard a single policy-based challenge, let alone experienced legal disputes. Objectively speaking, the influence of this journal is continuously expanding, the reputation of atheism is steadily rising, and the group of institutions and scholars cooperating with us is growing; our external academic links are very promising, and our research work is proceeding according to plan. The papers we publish and the books we compile are increasingly gaining social recognition. Reciting this in detail sounds like a work report, but I only wish to express one point: scientific atheism will also become an independent and highly promising discipline in the academic field.
I know that some of our colleagues do not approve of adopting an atheistic perspective in religious research, the reason being that our research itself already contains atheism, and that talking about atheism now is unfavorable for relations with religious circles at home and abroad. We disagree with this view. Unless religious research completely avoids the core part of religion—namely, the theological theory—or echoes basic theological concepts, or evades these issues (which is to say, removing the theological part from the scope of Marxist academic scrutiny), it is entirely impossible not to discuss theism or atheism. There are many current examples of this, and many debates abroad as well, as everyone is actually aware. For instance, the debates frequently seen in the media regarding creationism or intelligent design and their opposition to evolution are recent examples; similarly, the scientific and philosophical issues involved in "special functions" (paranormal abilities) are all inextricably linked to atheism, and there has yet to be a theoretical clarification of them.
What is Marxist atheism? I believe it is using science as a basis to explore the worldview, epistemology, and methodology of religious theology from a philosophical depth; it is exploring the fallacies of all theories of ghosts and gods and the reasons for those fallacies. Simultaneously, it involves a deep-level discussion on how to correctly understand the world, think correctly, and practice correctly. Atheism is not simply denying God or not believing in God; it should also learn and teach people correct methods of thinking, a correct outlook on life, and correct values, connecting them with the overall progress of science and society.
V
I believe that Marxist academic research must possess independence and creativity. As an institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), ourselves being—as the name implies—a scientific research institution, we are neither a religious group nor an administrative department. Therefore, our research cannot follow religious concepts, using the satisfaction of religious circles as the yardstick to measure our research standards; nor can it halt at merely executing the will of certain administrative departments. Our academic research is conducted under the leadership of the Party, guided by Marxism, and is responsible to the state and the people. It must be capable of producing results that are consistent in political orientation with patriotic religious groups and administrative departments, while remaining academically original and able to stand the test of time. If we were merely an appendage of a particular group or department, Mao Zedong would not have needed to suggest the founding of such an institute; if there were no creative results, such an institute would have no necessity for existence. Independent thinking and creative research are the lifeblood of any scholarship.
Independence in research is the prerequisite for academic creativity; academic creativity is the fruit of independence in research. However, at present, speaking of independence in research is truly difficult. Independence in research requires economic independence, political independence, and academic independence.
I will speak here only of economic independence. This is a very practical issue. Being so "lofty" as to not discuss food, clothing, housing, transportation, or supporting a family is not materialism. Only when one has a settled home and life [9] can one pursue scholarship; this is the norm. Only national defense, revolution, and special circumstances are exceptions. Today, it is unreasonable if some of our researchers are still forced to run themselves ragged just for decent living and research conditions; or if a national-level academic research unit lacks corresponding financial support for many academic conferences, foreign exchanges, publication of results, or even library materials, and must find various ways to raise funds itself. The policy called "generating income" [10] and the public opinion called "pushing toward the market" are, in a specific sense, a form of strangulation for academic research.
Confucius said: "The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what is profitable" [11]. My words may approach those of the "inferior man." However, I have not forgotten the positive side of this. While "poverty stifles ambition" [12] is not an iron law, "remaining ambitious despite poverty" is more respected. I remember Ren Jiyu once wrote a short article arguing that the so-called integration of Marxism with Chinese practice is, in reality, its integration with patriotism. The history of the Chinese revolution was written this way, and he experienced it this way himself: the reason Marxism was accepted by China was precisely because it could save China. To this day, patriotism remains the bottom line of Marxism. It is precisely this bottom line that allows Marxist researchers to unite with all other patriotic personages to jointly promote "the contention of a hundred schools of thought" [13] and academic prosperity. Our Marxist research in religious studies has also consistently followed this principle.
Recently, I saw a gentleman claiming to be Chinese offering advice to the President of the United States, in which he said: "President Reagan became one of the greatest presidents in American history because he buried the communist systems of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Helping China undergo such a change is perhaps the historical mission given to you, Mr. President, by God." Why should the U.S. President help China complete such a "historical mission"? This gentleman said: because it "accords both with God's justice and with the national security of the United States." If one did not know the speaker's nationality beforehand, it would be quite easy to mistake him for a CIA official. If he still holds Chinese nationality, then according to traditional Chinese moral standards, he can only be classified among the likes of Wang Jingwei [14]—though I do not know if "God's justice" is truly thus, much less whether God has already entrusted the "historical mission" of subverting other countries to the U.S. President. However, I might note in passing that such a "historical mission" does not seem to have been completed as jubilantly as that Chinese gentleman suggested. Recently, the Russian President spoke out: "Our country does not wish to participate in any crusading holy wars"; "We certainly do not want a democracy like the one in Iraq." This can be considered a piece of information for judging the global political situation and the status of cultural diversity.
In short, regarding the Marxist study of religion, the older generation of scholars has made a good start for us. There are a great many topics to be developed, some of which are very urgent. As far as the whole country is concerned, though "many things happen in flourishing ages" [15], the future is as bright as silk. We hope that with the development of the national economy and culture, everyone's scientific research conditions can be further improved, providing the material foundation for free exploration and free innovation, while never abandoning the principles of independent thinking, autonomy of speech, and our dignity as Chinese people. However, this involves issues of academic style and character, and has wandered far from the theme.
Author's Note: This article was originally written to commemorate the 90th birthday of Mr. Ren Jiyu. The so-called "Marxist research" in the title refers to Mr. Ren's research. This text was once used as a speech at an academic symposium organized by the International Confucian Association in August 2006, and was subsequently published in Volume 15 of "International Confucian Studies." By 2007, it was included in "Studies on the Marxist View of Religion," edited by the leadership of the Institute of World Religions, but with what I consider to be significant deletions. It is now published again in this journal, with the deleted parts marked in bold for the reader's reference.