Liu Yu: Chen Liang's Atheistic Thought and His Critique of Confucianism
As a quintessential figure of Song dynasty Confucian utilitarianism, Chen Liang received extensive attention in 20th-century Confucian studies, with the academic community generally regarding him as a representative of ancient Chinese materialism. Compared to Confucian scholars of his own period, Chen Liang’s thought exhibits distinct atheistic characteristics. His atheistic ideas played a vital role in correcting the developmental trajectory of ancient Chinese Confucianism, preventing it from veering toward religious theology.
Current academic discussions on Chen Liang’s atheistic thought mostly examine it through the lenses of the "relationship between Heaven and humanity" and the "view of ghosts and spirits." Most scholars believe that Chen Liang’s atheism is primarily manifested in his views on the relationship between Heaven and humanity. For instance, Wang Yousan pointed out that in Chen Liang’s eyes, "mandates of heaven and ghosts or spirits were of no consequence, showing a combative atheistic spirit" [1]; Wang Ditang also argued that "regarding the relationship between Heaven and humanity, he opposed the mandate of heaven, broke through the superstition of fatalism, and emphasized human agency... on the issue of ghosts and spirits, although he did not deny their existence, he did not regard them as particularly superior... he emphasized that human resolve can overcome Heaven (ren ding sheng tian)" [2]. Such judgments already acknowledge the atheistic tendencies in Chen Liang’s thought, yet they fail to explicitly point out Chen Liang’s exposure and critique of ancient Chinese Confucianism as a religion (Rujiao [1]). Hou Wailu and others, however, directly noted: "In Zhu Xi, the human heart must submit to the Mind of the Dao, and human desire must submit to Heavenly Principle; this is actually a relatively concealed form of theism. In Chen Liang’s view, humanity and nature are in opposition, but humanity can master and harness nature. The 'Heaven and Earth' he spoke of is nature without any appended concepts. It can be said that Chen Liang’s theory was a combative atheism under the historical conditions of that time" [3]. Forerunner scholars like Hou Wailu directly summarized the essence of the debate between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi, arguing that Chen Liang’s emphasis on human desires was actually a rebellion against feudal tradition, reflecting the challenge of ancient Chinese atheists against theistic thought. In short, from within Confucianism, the essence of this atheistic thought lies in its attack on the religious-theological content within Confucianism (i.e., Confucianism as a religion).
Using the thesis "Confucianism is a religion" proposed by Ren Jiyu as a theoretical foundation, scholars have conducted broad and profound discussions on the relationship between Confucianism as a philosophy (Ruxue) and Confucianism as a religion (Rujiao). How should we understand and distinguish between the two? The answer is of great significance for standing in the present and promoting Excellent Traditional Chinese Culture. From the developmental history of ancient Chinese Confucianism itself, the internal self-reflection of Confucianism and the critical attacks by atheists against religious theology are sufficient to show the demarcation between Ruxue and Rujiao. This article intends to use Chen Liang’s atheistic thought as an entry point to examine the theoretical tendency within his thought to negate the mystical elements of religious Confucianism and affirm human value, thereby highlighting the scientific components and positive factors of Confucianism within ancient Chinese traditional culture.
I. "The Juncture of Heaven and Humanity is Manifestly Discernible": Chen Liang’s Negation of Mystical Elements in Religious Confucianism
In the development of the history of Chinese atheism, the relationship between Heaven and humanity has always been the focus of research, with its core proposition being the resolution of the struggle between "Heavenly Mandate" and "anti-Heavenly Mandate" [4]. Viewed broadly, the Confucian "Heaven" (Tian) carries the meaning of the natural world (nature as Heaven) while also being endowed with the meaning of "God" (Heaven as sovereign or Heaven as will). Since Dong Zhongshu of the Han dynasty established the religious Confucian theory of "resonance between Heaven and humanity" (tian ren gan ying [2]) and "man as the counterpart of Heaven's numerical order" (ren fu tian shu [3]), the meaning of "Heaven as sovereign" within the Confucian discourse on Heaven was heavily emphasized. During the Song and Ming periods, Neo-Confucianists (daoxue jia [4]) made it their business to transform the Confucian classics, attempting to construct a new religious Confucian order. For example, Zhou Dunyi, drawing on the Daoist Taijitu shuo (Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate), endowed the ontological "Ultimateless" (wuji) with the status of "God" (Shangdi) to re-establish standards for society. Cheng Yi, Zhu Xi, and others brought forward "Heavenly Principle" (tianli) as the "metaphysical" (xing'er shang [5]) ontology; its essence remained the integration of "Heavenly Principle" with "God," thereby highlighting the mystery and transcendence of "Heaven as sovereign." This ensured that all worldly standards of order and rules of conduct would be arranged by this volitional "Heaven"—theories that all possess strong theistic colors.
Correctly understanding the relationship between Heaven and humanity is both the basic starting point of ancient Chinese philosophy and one of the primary markers of the divide between ancient Chinese theists and atheists. Chen Liang’s atheistic thought was built upon his materialistic epistemology. He negated the mystical and unknowable discourse regarding the relationship between Heaven and humanity, emphasizing that "the juncture of Heaven and humanity is manifestly discernible and knowable" [5]. For Chen Liang, investigating this "manifestly discernible" juncture actually meant understanding the physical laws of the natural world. Chen Liang pointed out that "the principles of Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things have never failed to be manifest" [6], emphasizing that exploring the juncture of Heaven and humanity must involve investigating the changes of all things in nature through scientific cognition; this was the base point of Chen Liang’s materialistic epistemology. Therefore, in Chen Liang’s view, "the movement of the yin and yang of Heaven and Earth, the mechanism of the opening and closing, coming and going—it is only to be feared that humans lack the 'poisonous eye' (sharp insight) and 'hard shoulders' (firm resolve). The Great Yangtze flowing a thousand miles in one burst is not something to be found strange" [7]. The rotation of the heavens and earth and the changes of the natural world are not strange; these are natural phenomena. "Whether it rains or not is not something human power can effect" [8]; these natural phenomena are not controlled by human will. Based on such a materialistic epistemology, recognizing concepts like "Heaven," "Dao," and "Heavenly Principle" from an atheistic standpoint was Chen Liang’s primary task in dismantling the religious-theological components of Confucianism.
First, Chen Liang understood "Heaven" (the natural world) through a materialistic epistemology and used this to negate the divinity and mystery of Confucian sages and classics. In his essay "Yang Xiong Transcends the Various Masters," Chen Liang highly praised Yang Xiong, pointing out: "By following the numerical order to illuminate principle—this is how Yang Xiong attained the level of the sages himself. How could he not transcend the various masters!" [9]. He believed the reason Yang Xiong could "transcend the various masters" was his ability to "follow numerical order to illuminate principle" (yin shu ming li). What does this mean? Chen Liang noted: "Fuxi began drawing the eight trigrams, using images to illuminate principle, teaching the later sages to set up the hexagram lines and images, inferring meanings and laying out words to develop the images of the I Ching, making them brilliant, grand, and impossible to obscure... Confucius and Mencius were the greatest developers of this. Yang Xiong particularly feared that the people of the world were insufficient to know these changes thoroughly, so he followed the natural numbers of Heaven and Earth, contemplating the profound and subtle, and wrote the Taixuan to elucidate the infinite wonders of physical principles and the ultimate of the Way of Heaven and human affairs. The people of the world only know them as numbers, but how could they know the refinement and unity of his exhaustion of principle to this extent!" [10]. "Following numerical order to illuminate principle" means reaching the realm of "elucidating the infinite wonders of physical principles" by "following the natural numbers of Heaven and Earth." This is to say, one must investigate the natural changes of the myriad things and discover the natural laws therein. It was from this simple materialistic epistemology that Chen Liang examined Confucian sages such as Confucius and Mencius, believing the reason they were respected and extolled by later generations was their ability to display this materialistic insight to formulate rules for human society. Not only that, Chen Liang attributed Yang Xiong’s "transcendence of the various masters" to his ability to interpret the I Ching and other classics through a naturalistic understanding.
On one hand, Chen Liang negated the divinity of the sages to eliminate the idol worship of religious Confucianism. The deification of Confucius began as early as the Han dynasty; the building of temples and the worship of the Confucian religion all treated Confucius as the spokesperson for "God" on earth, establishing his identity as the "high priest" of the Confucian religion. The Neo-Confucianists of Chen Liang’s time—Zhu Xi and others—further deified Confucius, lamenting that "if Heaven had not produced Zhongni (Confucius), all eternity would be like a long night" [11]. It is evident that for these Neo-Confucianists, Confucius was no longer a sage who merely surpassed ordinary people, but an unattainable "god," and his words became dogmas that the followers of religious Confucianism had to execute. Chen Liang, however, pointed out: "In the past, the sages used the Dao to measure the changes of ancient and modern times, selecting a hundred chapters that approximated the Dao to bequeath teachings for ten thousand generations; their logic was precise and their details were complete, yet they awaited the gentlemen of later ages" [12]. Chen Liang believed Confucius possessed no divinity; the reason he became a sage was that he could set social rules based on natural and social laws, making a pioneering contribution to human social order.
On the other hand, Chen Liang negated the mystical color of the Confucian classics to break the authority and sacralization imposed upon them by religious Confucianism. Chen Liang wrote "Introductory Remarks on the Classics" (Jingshu fati) to discuss the themes of the Book of Documents, the Classic of Poetry, the Rites of Zhou, and the Analects, emphasizing their practical and utilitarian (shigong [6]) function and significance. Chen Liang pointed out: "The utility of precise logic did not reside solely in the minds of the sages until the time of Yao. Thus, I judge from the 'Canon of Yao' without doubt. From this perspective, the editing of the Book of Documents was not the subjective intent of the sage, but the public concern of the world" [13]. In his view, the classics did not originate from the subjective will of sages but were compiled and edited by them based on the actual conditions of society at the time; they were works consistent with social reality. As mentioned earlier, Chen Liang praised Yang Xiong for "following numerical order to illuminate principle" with the aim of negating the mystical elements of the I Ching. He argued: "Having the Supreme Ultimate, there was subsequently yin and yang; thus the I Ching uses yin and yang to illuminate principle. Having yin and yang, there were subsequently the Five Elements; thus the 'Great Plan' (Hongfan) uses the Five Elements to illuminate the Way of Governance. The changes of yin, yang, and the Five Elements can be investigated but never exhausted, yet scholars still have lingering doubts. Thus, Yang Xiong’s following of numerical order to illuminate principle was required by his time and was an inevitable necessity" [14]. In his view, concepts like "yin and yang" and the "Five Elements" were not mystical or unknowable; they were symbols used by ancient sages to describe the world's changes. Yang Xiong was able to discover the hidden principles of governance behind these classics—this was the true realization of the purpose behind the sages' writing and editing. Taking the Classic of Poetry as an example, Chen Liang emphasized that "the Sage's intention for the Poetry was to enable the world to return to the correctness of nature and emotion, attaining a balance applied in daily use" [15]. He pointed out that the purpose of the Classic of Poetry was to regulate how people manage themselves in specific practical affairs, suppressing and modulating human biological instincts and natural emotions. Following objective laws and arising to serve social reality—this is the original meaning and value of the Confucian classics.
Furthermore, Chen Liang provided an atheistic interpretation of the "Dao" (the Way) to restore the essence of the "Way of the Sages." During the Song and Ming periods, Zhu Xi and others were titled Daoxue jia (scholars of the Way) precisely because they were influenced by Daoist religious theory, elevating the status of the "Dao" and treating it as a sovereign ruler identical to "Heaven," asserting that the human order was arranged by this "Dao." Chen Liang thought otherwise, believing the Confucian "Dao" held no supreme, divine status. Chen Liang pointed out: "If the principle of the great and orthodox source is not reached through actual things and affairs, then the learning of Confucius and Mencius is truly pedantic and impractical, and it is no fault of contemporary rulers that they do not use it" [16]. He emphasized that if the "Dao" were profound and divine, it would be completely severed from human society, which clearly violates the purpose of Confucianism. In Chen Liang’s view, the "Dao" is not a mystical thing: "The Dao does not exist outside of physical form and qi, but constantly operates within things and affairs" [17], indicating that the "Dao" cannot exist apart from concrete things. Specially, "How could the Dao be anything else! It is simply the attainment of correctness in pleasure, anger, sorrow, joy, love, and hate. How could practicing the Dao be anything else! It is simply the examination of the origins of pleasure, anger, sorrow, joy, love, and hate" [18]. Applied to the concrete level of life practice, the "Dao" is the constant regulation of one's natural emotions, making one's "already expressed" (yifa) emotions conform to one's social attributes. Chen Liang further pointed out: "The Dao in the world is evenly applied in daily use; those who attain the correctness of their nature and emotions already know it" [19]. By elucidating the theme of the Classic of Poetry, Chen Liang concluded: the significance of the classics is to transmit such a "Dao," using the Confucian method to guide human cultivation so that a person might "become a human" (cheng ren). Chen Liang said: "If the theories of the worldly Confucians are not broken, the Way of the Sages will never be illuminated, and the chaos of the world will never cease. How tragic!" [20]. This was a clear critique of the "learning of mind and nature" (xinxing zhi xue) held by contemporary Confucian scholars. He believed the mystical interpretations of the classics by Neo-Confucianists obscured the true Way of the Sages, whose ultimate goal is to teach people to "become humans"—that is, to achieve a social personality.
Finally, building upon his atheist interpretation of the "Way" (道 dao), Chen Liang launched a fierce assault on the Daoxue [7] thinkers’ concept of "Heavenly Principle" (天理 tianli), declaring the fundamental position of ancient Chinese atheists. Li Shen pointed out: "Regarding Heaven as Principle did not abolish the divinity of God; rather, it channeled the awe felt toward Heaven or God into every aspect and moment of daily life. Simultaneously, Zhu Xi piously maintained the concept of 'interaction between Heaven and mankind' (天人感应 tianren ganying) [8] held since the Han dynasty." [27] Although the debate between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi focused on the distinction between "Heavenly Principle" and "human desire" (人欲 renyu), it reflected Chen Liang's opposition to Confucian asceticism from a different angle. In a letter to Zhu Xi, Chen Liang noted: "Recent scholars claim that the Three Dynasties [9] acted solely according to Heavenly Principle, while the Han and Tang dynasties acted solely according to human desire, and that the latter survived only when they happened to coincide with Heavenly Principle. If we believe these words, then for fifteen hundred years, Heaven and Earth have merely been a leaky roof patched up to pass the time, and the human heart has been nothing but a struggle to make ends meet. How then could the ten thousand things have flourished and the Way remained eternal!" [28] He opposed the use of the "Heavenly Principle" as an absolute authority to suppress or even eliminate basic human desires, emphasizing the rationality and necessity of the existence of "human desire." Consequently, Chen Liang advocated that "righteousness and profit should be pursued together, and the Kingly Way and the Hegemon’s Way should be employed simultaneously" (义利双行，王霸并用) [10]. This constituted the core of his utilitarian thought and reflected his emphasis on practical utility. By opposing the absolute authority of "Heavenly Principle" and emphasizing the rationality of "human desire," Chen Liang effectively highlighted the subjective status of the human being at the level of practical philosophy. This reflects the fundamental position of ancient Chinese atheists on the relationship between Heaven and mankind: an emphasis on human value and agency.
In short, based on a materialist epistemology, Chen Liang analyzed "metaphysical" Confucian concepts such as "Heaven," the "Way," and "Heavenly Principle" from an atheist perspective. In his view, these metaphysical concepts must exist within concrete objects—the so-called "Way is not separate from the vessel" (道不离器 dao bu li qi) [11]. Chen Liang opposed the excessive emphasis on mystical factors in Confucianism for the purpose of challenging the absolute authority of "Heavenly Mandate" (天命 tianming). Chen Liang did not believe in "fate" (命 ming); he criticized the scholars of his time, saying they "ultimately lack sufficient faith in fate and thus have no leisure to dwell in righteousness," [29] an understanding that also fueled his opposition to superstitious thinking. In his "Preface Presented to the Diviner Xuan Dian," Chen expressed profound skepticism toward the predictions of "practitioners of arts" (fortune-tellers), concluding: "Whether they hit the mark or not is unknowable; can the movements of Heaven truly harmonize with human intention!" [30] Chen Liang’s negation of the theological authority of "Heaven" in the "interstice between Heaven and mankind" demonstrated precisely his focus on practical philosophy. Chen noted: "That which fills the universe is nothing but matter; that which occurs in daily use is nothing but affairs." [31] He believed the formation of the universe resulted from objective matter rather than the will of "God" (上帝 shangdi); therefore, the "physical" (形而下 xing er xia), concrete objects are what Confucian scholars ought to focus on.
II. "The Survival of the Way Rests with Man": Chen Liang's Affirmation of Human Value and Agency
Chen Liang’s negation of Confucian mysticism was intended to liberate the human being and restore the essence of Confucianism as a "study of humanity" (人学 renxue). Marx pointed out: "Atheism is a negation of God, and through this negation it asserts the existence of man." [32] Engels also emphasized: "Truth is not to be sought in some illusory beyond, outside of time and space, in some 'God' supposedly placed in the depths of the world or opposite to it, but in the human breast close at hand." [33] Chen Liang’s critique of Confucianism highlighted precisely human value and capacity; this is both an expression of the "humanist" essence of Confucianism and a brilliant example of ancient Chinese atheist thought.
In ancient Chinese Confucian thought, earthly disasters and upheavals were seen as punishments inflicted by "Heaven," a doctrine of "interaction between Heaven and mankind" that shackled human development. Particularly under the constraints of the "Heavenly Principle" espoused by the Neo-Confucians of the Song and Ming dynasties, followers of Confucianism were like ascetic monks, forced to act according to rigid moral standards and behavioral norms. Contrary to Zhu Xi’s view of the "relationship between Heaven and mankind"—that "man has long failed to overcome Heaven; the upheavals of past and present are all the work of Heaven" [34]—Chen Liang emphasized human agency and value, stressing the subjective initiative manifested by humans in practice.
In other words, Chen Liang’s "investigation of the interstice between Heaven and mankind" meant "incorporating the changes of Heaven and Earth, for these are matters that can be investigated... even within a single moment or a tiny calculation, there is the most profound principle and infinite utility. To open up one's thoughts, to carry out undertakings, to connect this heart with Heaven, Earth, and the ten thousand things—then the intricacies of opening and closing [the universe] are all within my own control." [35] That is to say, one must give full play to human subjective initiative and use the human capacity for practice to investigate the laws of the natural world, thereby utilizing those laws in the practical activity of transforming the world. Chen Liang argued: "To say that the survival of the Way is not something man can intervene in is an error." [36] "Intervene" (预 yu) reflects Chen Liang’s absorption of Liu Zongyuan’s [12] atheist idea that "Heaven and man do not interfere with each other"; it emphasizes that the Confucian "Way" depends on human activity for its existence—that is, "the survival of the Way rests with man." This phrase was Chen Liang’s response to Zhu Xi’s assertion that "The Way’s presence in the world has never perished... all is the work of Heavenly Mandate, beyond the reach of human intelligence and strength." [37]
Starting from the premise that "the survival of the Way rests with man," Chen Liang further argued that the development of history and society is not the work of "Heaven," but that man is the core driving force. According to Wang Yinglin’s Records of the Search for Knowledge, it was noted: "'The trend of the world's great momentum cannot be changed by Heaven, Earth, ghosts, or gods; the one who changes it is man.' These words from Long川's [13] civil service examination essays are worthy of being ranked among the great authors of antiquity." [38] That Chen Liang expressed such views within the imperial examination hall demonstrates his full affirmation of man's ability to transform the world. In his debate with Zhu Xi, Chen noted: "The reason man stands as one of the 'Three Powers' alongside Heaven and Earth is not that Heaven and Earth operate alone while man remains idle. If man does not take his stand, Heaven and Earth cannot operate alone; without Heaven and Earth, there would be no means for the Way to exist." [39] Among the "Three Powers" (三才 sancai) of Heaven, Earth, and Man, he emphasized the central role of the human being. Furthermore, interpreting the line from Xunzi—"The Way does not exist because of a Yao, nor perish because of a Jie" [14]—Chen Liang pointed out: "If one says the survival of the Way is not something man can participate in, then it would mean one could set aside man to find the Way, and the words of the Buddhists (释氏 shishi) would not be false. If every person could become a Yao, and for ten thousand generations all were Yaos, then would the Way not be glorious and great in the world! If every person were no different from a Jie, then human order could not be cultivated, Heaven and Earth could not be established, and the Way would have been abandoned long ago." [40] Using the examples of the Sage-Kings Yao and Shun, he argued that the quality of the "Way" stems from human actions; man is the decisive factor in social development. If the "Way" could function apart from man, one would fall into the Buddhist view that "everyone can become a Buddha." Based on this, Chen Liang lamented: "I dare not place hope in the Confucian elders of this age. What I deeply resent is that words are discarded because of the person, and the Way is bent because of the person, leaving the gentlemen of later generations to weep in despair for fifteen hundred years—even if I die, I shall not close my eyes in peace!" [41] He particularly loathed the Daoxue view of "discarding man for the sake of the Way," sighing: "The Way perishes without harming the eternal operation of Heaven and Earth, yet I alone possess an outstanding insight—is this not perhaps too lofty and isolated! It is only natural that I cannot submit in my heart." [42] The "I" here refers to the Daoxue scholars who engaged in empty metaphysical speculation. Chen Liang opposed using the "Way" (or the Confucian "Heaven" or "Heavenly Principle") to shackle human thought; in his view, it is not the Way that determines man, but man who determines the Way. This discourse directly exposed the flaw of the Daoxue scholars using concepts like "Way" and "Heavenly Principle" to constrain human thought. Thus, Zhu Xi remarked: "There is no passage where my humble views agree more than this; yet there is also no passage where our differences are more extreme." [43] Clearly, Zhu Xi was highly dissatisfied with the content of Chen Liang’s letter.
Chen Liang believed that the Confucian practice of "discarding man for the sake of the Way" was a fetter on humanity; thus, he expressed strong dissatisfaction with Zhu Xi’s admonition toward "disciplining oneself as a pure Confucian" (醇儒自律 chunru zilu). He said: "I believe that the purpose of the scholar is to learn to become a complete human being (成人 chengren), and the 'Confucian' is merely one major school among many. If the Secretariat [15] does not teach the Way of becoming a complete human being, but instead teaches one to discipline oneself as a pure Confucian, can it be that his potential is limited to this?" [44] Chen Liang opposed Zhu Xi's use of Confucian cultivation methods to forcibly shackle individual thought, believing this contradicted the essential "Way of becoming a complete human being" in Confucianism.
Specifically, Chen Liang opposed the school of "nature and destiny" (性命 xingming) that focused on the mind-nature, emphasizing instead a practical philosophy of utility. He criticized the contemporary discourse on mind-nature, saying: "I have begun to realize that the Confucian scholars of today, who consider themselves students of 'rectifying the heart and making the intentions sincere' (正心诚意 zhengxin chengyi), are like people with paralysis who do not know pain or itch." [45] His dissatisfaction with scholars mired in the study of "rectifying the heart and making the intentions sincere" was framed from the perspective of practical philosophy. Chen Liang noted: "Since the theories of morality, nature, and destiny arose, those ordinary and mediocre people who are incapable of understanding anything have sheltered themselves within them. They take 'rectitude, sincerity, and quietude' as their essence and 'walking slowly and speaking softly' as their application, striving to appear unfathomable to cover their lack of substance... deceiving one another until the reality of the world is entirely discarded, ultimately resulting in a state where nothing is managed at all." [46] He believed that the Daoxue theories of morality, nature, and destiny alienated people from the "pursuit of reality" in Confucian social practice, leading scholars to know only "quiet sitting" (静坐 jingzuo) for self-cultivation while remaining ignorant of actual affairs. This "quiet sitting" was intended as a method of "self-restraint" (克己 keji) to reflect on one's moral deficiencies; however, once detached from concrete practical activities, it degenerated into a religious ritual for Confucian devotees. This led to the deleterious result of self-imprisonment out of awe for "Heavenly Principle," which was detrimental to long-term individual development.
As mentioned previously, Chen Liang affirmed the rationality of human desire in his attack on the Daoxue concept of "Heavenly Principle." Facing Zhu Xi’s assertion that "before the Three Dynasties, there was no profit or desire," Chen Liang retorted: "Today, the Classic of Poetry and the Book of Documents record things with such purity because they are the 'standard editions.' I believe that as soon as there is a human heart, there are many impurities. 'Reforming the Way' stops at 'reforming the surface'; it does not fully capture the hearts of the Sages. The Sages and Worthies established themselves in the past, their descendants took shelter behind them, and then after being 'washed' by Confucius, things appeared so pure." [47] In his view, everyone has desires, which belong to the natural attributes of biological instinct. The absence of human desire in the Confucian classics is because these texts were edited and processed by Confucius; one cannot use this to conclude that people before the Three Dynasties lacked the heart for profit or desire. Chen Liang’s words were not intended to praise human desire or advocate for its unrestrained satisfaction. The fundamental divergence between Chen Liang and the Confucian religious Orthodoxy lay in how to treat human desire. For Chen Liang, human desire was the foundation of cultivation; one must reasonably guide desire to enable a person to possess morality. The Orthodoxy, however, emphasized using the absolute authority of "Heavenly Principle" to suppress or eliminate desire in order to reach the "other shore" of the ideal personality. Chen Liang emphasized: "Man is just this man, qi [energy/matter] is just this qi, talent is just this talent... therefore, the 'vast, overflowing qi' (浩然之气 haoran zhi qi) is nothing but blood and qi that has been tempered a hundred times." [48] In other words, he denied the mystical nature of the "overflowing qi," believing it to be a temperament formed through man’s constant regulation of his own passions and continuous self-improvement. In the Ming dynasty, Guo Shiwang wrote in his preface to the Collected Works of Chen Longchuan: "Tongfu [16] said: 'The overflowing qi is blood and qi tempered a hundred times.' This phrase strikes at the very marrow of Mencius’s bones—how can it be called unrefined?" [49] Guo Shiwang praised Chen Liang’s interpretation of "overflowing qi" as "tempered blood and qi" for hitting the "ailment" of Mencius directly. This instance reflects Chen Liang's affirmation of man’s natural attributes and his critique of the religious coloring of Confucianism that uses "Principle" to shackle the human being.
Furthermore, Chen Liang's emphasis on human value and role was manifested in his vigorous promotion of human subjective initiative. Chen Liang did not believe in Heavenly Mandate but stressed the importance of "human planning" (人谋 renmou). History records that he "once investigated the traces of success and failure in the military campaigns of the ancients and wrote the Treatise on Weighing Antiquity (Zhuogu lun)." [50] Through his examination of historical figures in the Zhuogu lun, Chen Liang praised the role of heroes in history. He believed that "heroic men can do what the wise cannot," [51] pointing out that heroic figures are the core factors in transforming the world and pushing history forward: "When there is a great upheaval in the world, it is the opportunity for achievement and fame. If one faces such an opportunity without someone to control it, will the great upheaval never be settled?" [52] Chen Liang also praised Emperor Guangwu of the Han dynasty, stating: "His achievement in the restoration far surpassed the ancients; though it was Heavenly Mandate, it was also human planning." [53] He believed that the Guangwu Restoration was the result of the full utilization of human planning. Thus, it is evident that Chen Liang especially admired ancient military strategists, because in the process of ancient warfare, victory or defeat was closely related to human strategy rather than being dictated by Heavenly Mandate. This reflects the atheist character of Chen Liang’s thought in opposing fate and emphasizing human agency.
In summary, Chen Liang’s critique of the Confucian religion and his advocacy for "becoming a complete human being" required the realization of human agency and value at the level of practice. This was both an expression of Chen Liang’s utilitarian thought and his atheist desire to liberate man from the Confucian religion—negating God to assert the existence of man.
III. Evaluation: Chen Liang’s Atheist Thought and the Self-Correction of Confucianism
Unlike the Western Middle Ages, where ecclesiastical authority stood above royal power, Confucian religious thought consistently appeared within the vision of the ruling class as a subordinate adjunct to Confucianism; rulers utilized Confucian religious thought as a tool to consolidate feudal governance. Confucianism itself is not a religion, nor did ancient Chinese Confucianism ever develop into a complete religion. As a form of "humanistic studies" [17], the positive significance and core aim of Confucianism remained the exploration of how a person "becomes human." On one hand, the individual must improve their own quality and morality through self-cultivation; on the other hand, they should actively participate in practical activities to manifest their own value—this is what Confucianism emphasizes as "forming a triad with Heaven and Earth" [18]. Generally speaking, Confucianism possesses both an "inner sageliness" and an "outer kingliness" [19] aspect; these are the core contents of Confucian thought and the essence of fine traditional Chinese culture.
The establishment of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism pushed the "inner sageliness" aspect of Confucianism to the extreme. Neo-Confucian scholars constructed a system of "moral metaphysics," regulating human speech and behavior through the perspectives of ontology and the "theory of practice" [20], requiring individuals to constrain themselves using morality as a yardstick. At its core, this remained an expression of the humanistic essence of Confucianism. However, it is undeniable that Confucianism, and even the thought of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, was exploited by feudal rulers in ancient Chinese society. These rulers deified royal power through the modality of a state religion and utilized "Confucian religion" (儒教 Rújiào) [21] to maintain their rule, causing Confucian thought to conversely become a "man-eating ritual system" [22] that imprisoned the people. Ren Jiyu pointed out: "The establishment of the Song-Ming Neo-Confucian system marked the completion of the movement to deify Confucianism in China." [64] By deifying Confucius, establishing idol worship, and propagating an ideal spiritual realm (an "otherworld") of "preserving heavenly principle and extinguishing human desires," Confucianism inevitably drifted toward becoming a religion. Wang Yousan noted: "They did not speak openly of the will of God or the Mandate of Heaven, but replaced the subjective status of God or Heaven with 'Principle' (Lǐ) and 'Mind' (Xīn). In reality, whether it is crude theology or idealistic speculative philosophy, both affirm that there is a supreme governor outside of matter; this governor is described by some as a personal god, and by others as a supra-material spirit." [65] It can be said that the development of ancient Confucianism was limited by the level of scientific understanding of the ancients and influenced by the convergence of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucian thought. It was under such social ideological trends that Confucian religion emerged and gradually grew in strength.
Since its founding by Confucius, Confucianism has manifested the awakening of the ancient Chinese humanistic spirit. Early on, it dealt a fatal blow to the sorcerous beliefs of human society. The exploration of natural knowledge and the cognition of "man" himself advocated by Confucianism objectively promoted the dissemination of scientific knowledge and culture among the masses. Since Confucius emphasized "respecting ghosts and gods but keeping them at a distance" [23], the content of Confucianism has undergone continuous self-correction and innovation. Whenever Confucianism was sanctified into an unquestionable faith, a group of people of insight would emerge to conduct academic reflection. This fundamentally prevented Confucianism from developing into a complete religion. "The reason why Confucianism ultimately failed to develop into a religion... also lies in the attacks on religious theology by atheist Confucian scholars such as Wang Anshi" [66]. Chen Liang’s attacks on the religious-theological elements in the Confucianism of his time—especially in the thought of "Learning of the Way" (Dàoxué) [24] scholars like Zhu Xi—played exactly such a role. Chen Liang recognized that "the ways of the Confucian and the Buddhist are two distinct paths; what is right here is wrong there, and what is wrong here is right there." [67] He saw "Daoists and Buddhists in Confucian robes and caps sneaking through the gates of Confucianism" [68], and realized that religious-theological factors had been mixed into Confucian thought. Therefore, he spared no effort in his critique of Confucian religion. Particularly in the debates between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi, the challenge posed by ancient Chinese atheists to theists was clearly reflected. This challenge struck directly at the theological coloring of Confucian religion, aiming to oppose a volitional "Heaven," requesting the eradication of mysticism under the "Heavenly Principle" system, and the dissolution of ascetic clericalism, thereby liberating man from the shackles of supra-realistic gods.
It is worth noting that Chen Liang’s atheistic thought possesses a degree of incompleteness; he did not completely deny the authority of the "Mandate of Heaven" within Confucianism. Zhou Guidian argued that the mainstream of Chen Liang’s thought was an idealistic theory of the Mandate of Heaven [69], and Li Shen also observed that within Chen Liang’s Confucian thought, there remained factors of Confucian religion such as faith in "Heaven" and praying to spirits [70]. For instance, in Chen Liang’s interpretation of the Western Inscription (Xī Míng), he stated: "Being cautious and fearful is to fear Heaven and respect one's parents; being broad of mind and robust of body is to delight in Heaven and serve one's parents." [71] Furthermore, his actions, such as composing "Prayers for Rain" multiple times to petition and pray to spirits, show that he was not entirely without "awe for the Mandate of Heaven." Although there were residual elements of superstition in Chen Liang’s thought and his atheism was incomplete, these flaws do not obscure the brilliance of his contributions. They do not hinder Chen Liang’s status in the history of ancient Chinese atheistic thought. He recognized that Confucian religion was inconsistent with actual social life and devoted himself to criticizing the irrational components of Confucian religious thought and correcting traditional Confucianism. His attacks on the religious theology within Confucian thought demonstrated the mettle of an ancient Chinese atheist.
Conclusion
In short, Chen Liang conducted reflections from the perspective of his materialist epistemology and re-explored the "juncture between Heaven and Man" [25]. His actual purpose was to show that the "relationship between Heaven and Man" is not mysterious and inscrutable. Chen Liang stood on an atheistic position to analyze concepts such as "Heaven," "the Way," and "Heavenly Principle" to attack Confucian religion and its religious-theological elements. His aim was to liberate man from theological bondage and to affirm the value and role of man in social practice. Ancient Chinese atheists, represented by Chen Liang, committed themselves to making corrections from within Confucianism, which to a certain extent prevented its total clericalization and produced a positive influence on the history of Chinese Confucianism. As Ren Jiyu said: "What Confucian religion brought us were disasters, shackles, and tumors, rather than any fine tradition." [72] Today, as we vigorously promote fine traditional Chinese culture, we must not "stop eating for fear of choking" [26]. Instead, we must strive to weed out the religious-theological elements in Confucian thought and excavate its excellent components, in hopes of providing intellectual nourishment for the prosperity and development of culture in the New Era.