Background
Ren, Jlyu was born in 1916 in Pingyuan, Shandong Province, China.
任继愈
Ren, Jlyu was born in 1916 in Pingyuan, Shandong Province, China.
University of Beijing. Infla: His teacher Tang Yongtong and Marxist thinkers.
Lecturer, Southwest Associated University. Professor, University of Beijing. Director, Institute for Research on World Religions, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Professor. Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Director, Chinese Tibetan-Buddhist Research Institute. Deputy Director, Institute of History of Chinese Philosophy.
Head. National Library, Beijing. Visiting Professor, University of Toronto.
As a Professor at University of Beijing, Ren took part in the debates of the 1950s and 1960s about the history of Chinese philosophy and about the interpretation of major traditional figures. He is also a leading historian of Chinese religion, especially Buddhism. With the reorganization of philosophy and the reopening of at least some leading philosophy departments, scholars were obliged to adjust to an imposed Marxist methodology which gave priority to the historical circumstances and alleged class allegiances of philosophers over purely internal assessment of their thought. The main question was whether a philosopher or school was idealist and reactionary or materialist and progressive. Ren recognized the crudity and limitations of this question, alleging that it ignored a more central Chinese conflict between dialectics and metaphysics and failed to recognize benefits arising from the interaction between materialism and idealismRen’s own employment of the distinction at times showed greater subtlety, as in his defence of Laozi and Zhuangzi as both aristocratic in class origin and materialist in their representation of the interests of ordinary people. He also recognized that because of inadequate historical knowledge the class to which a figure was assigned could turn out to be an artefact of one’s scheme of historical periodization rather than a social reality. 1° particular the rival schemes of historical periods proposed by Guo Moruo and Fan Wenlan produced very different readings of class affiliation for ancient figures. Ren’s evaluations of preQin dynasty philosophers relied heavily on conjecture and tendentious interpretation, but nevertheless showed ingenious use of Marxist methodology. In common with many of his contemporaries he hoped to achieve insight into the past, but also used his version of the past to guide attitudes towards contemporary problems.
Ren saw Kongzi as a reactionary and idealist, but one who made important contributions to feudal culture in spite of oppressing the slaves and opposing the new social forces threatening the Zhou dynasty aristocracy. Ren saw the conflict between Confucians and legalists as inherent m their different relations to Zhou dynasty authority and not as an accidental late development, a position which later helped support Cultural Revolution attitudes towards ideological struggle. Ren had great enthusiasm for Laozi, whom he considered a progressive materialist and history’s first natural dialectician. The dao for Laozi moved according to natural laws and was a precursor of natural science. Here Ren's account conflicted with the views and method of Guang Feng and Lin Yushi. On the basis of detailed textual study, they argued that Laozi’s dao was timeless and absolute and hence idealist. They claimed that we must understand a system philosophically before moving on to historical analysis, whilst Ren argued that philosophical understanding must come indirectly on the basis of historical understanding. In Particular, a system must not be imposed anachronistically in interpreting ancient texts. Again °Pposing idealist interpretations, Ren saw Zhuangzi as progressive, individualistic and proto-scientific, with explanation and metaphysics based on the natural world and material substance. Fatalism and relativism were flaws in his outlook. Ren rejected the inner chapters of the Zhuangzi as a Han forgery, thus denying the most Plausible grounds for a contrary interpretation of Zhuangzi. Ren’s view of Mozi, although valuable, was less sophisticated than these other studies. In addition to his strictly philosophical analyses, Ren produced important assessments of Chinese religion, including his history of Chinese Buddhism.