卓新平

中国改革开放40年的纪念，对我们研究宗教的学者而言，是回顾、总结中国当代宗教学发展走过的40年历程。中国宗教学的形成是20世纪中国现代学术史上的一个重要突破，但宗教学真正系统化、专业化全面发展，则是1978年以来中国改革开放的产物与成果。40年前，中国宗教学研究领域处于“早春二月”的状况，成建制、有规模的宗教研究机构仅有中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所一家，乃是当时“一枝独秀”的奇特景观。40年来，中国宗教学蓬勃发展，姹紫嫣红，蔚为大观。在今天中国宗教研究硕果累累、百花争妍的美景中，世界宗教研究所正享受着一种“在丛中笑”的陶醉。

20世纪初，当宗教学刚传入中国时，学术界最为关注而且讨论激烈的问题是“中国有无宗教”。当我们步入21世纪时，我们的问题意识已升华到如何为“宗教”在当代中国社会定位、怎样在理解“宗教”的基础上来为依法管理而制定法规。宗教学的概念和体系构建，其关键也在于对“宗教”的界说与诠释。应该说，中国当代宗教学的发展，在一定程度上也反映出中国学者对“宗教”定义的反思和拓展。两个世纪的关联，加之漫长的中国思想文化传统和悠远的华夏精神诉求，使人们在客观、科学地看待“中国有无宗教”问题时，必须首先弄清在此言述、讨论的“宗教”究竟是什么。曾有人否定中国古代存在“宗教”这一术语或构词，由此亦不承认“宗教”所要描述、说明之事物的根本存在。其实，在丰富的中国思想文化精神及其语言文字表述上，“宗教”所蕴含的意义及其对象是客观存在的。古代中国曾用“宗”和“教”二字来分别以不同侧重来表达这一核心观念。其中“宗”以其“尊祖庙”之意而曲折地表现出“宗教”制度层面的意义，即以具有外在、客体性的相关场所、建构、仪礼来尊崇和敬拜神明、纪念祖先。这在古代“禋于六宗”的活动中得到具体而集中的体现。而“教”则以其“教化”之意来突出其精神信仰、灵性追求层面的意义，强调内在、主体的精神修养，以把握“修道之谓教”的真谛。在此，上施下效、从学入道的“教化”得以提高和升华，从而有了“神道设教”之“宗教”，呈明其“对神道的信仰”之真义。此即“合鬼与神，教之至也”的道理。在专门术语上表达制度层面与精神层面的关联及共构，则是“宗教”二字合用的水到渠成。不过，“宗教”二字最先合用乃见于佛教文献，而“宗教”作为佛教术语则出现了一些嬗变或异化。例如，早在5、6世纪梁朝的佛教学者就已将“宗教”二字合用，且多有阐发。一般而论，当时佛教所理解的“宗教”虽在抽象意义上已接触或体悟到“人生宗旨，社会教化”的蕴涵，但其具体所指乃是“崇拜佛陀及其子弟的教诲”，其中“教”为佛陀之言，“宗”即其弟子之传，从而达到信仰上的打通和共构。此后，在中日佛教交流过程中，“宗教”这一表述因佛教典籍的翻译而被日本佛教界所应用，但其理解上已有区别，即把语言难以表达的真理视为“宗”，而关于这一真理的教义则为“教”。于是，“宗教”成为日本学术界常用的术语。当日本与西方在近代历史上形成交流关系时，日本学界开始用“宗教”来翻译、表达西方文献中频频出现的“religion”一词。自1868年以来日本明治政府的文件，多将西文“religion”译为“宗教”，指西方流行的各种宗教及其占主导地位的基督教各派。这样，“宗教”一词开始在日本获得“宗教学”意义上的内涵。据传中国学者黄遵宪在其1887年定稿、1895年出版的《日本国志》中多用“宗教”来对照或对应西文religion，故有“宗教”的现代含义“假道日本而入中国”之说。不过，“宗教”的这一应用在当时并未引起关注或达成共识，对译religion的中文术语还包括“教”“巫”“谶纬之学”，甚至音译“尔厘利景”等。所以“宗教”术语上的歧义和认知上的混乱已延续至今，相关争论亦往往是一触即发。但应该承认，当代中国宗教学关于“宗教”术语的讨论已不再是泛泛而论，而更多体现出其学理性、科学性和逻辑性，反映了中国学者客观、认真和理性的追求。

20世纪中国学术界争论的另一大问题则为“儒教”是否为“宗教”，这亦涉及中国传统主体文化的“宗教性”问题。自明末来华耶稣会士利玛窦提出“儒教不是宗教”之说，这一争论已经历了三个回合，而在第三个回合即1978年以来的讨论中达到了前所未有的高潮。在“儒教是教”与“儒教非教”之争中，其分歧触及多个层面，但其关键点仍是对“宗教”的基本理解。例如“教化之教”与“宗教之教”的区别或关联，“人文性”与“宗教性”的异或同，“人际关系”与“天人关系”的分离或呼应，“神道设教”与“文以载道”的流变或相合，都不能回避对人的“精神性”“宗教性”的解答和诠释。同样，对于儒教在中国历史上究竟是独尊儒术、宗主正本的产物，还是“礼失求诸野”的结果，不仅关涉儒教在主流政治文化或民间通俗文化中的地位，而且也必须说明这两种文化究竟有无“宗教性”。在此，从宗教学的角度则产生了“宗教性”与“宗教”的关联，以及“宗教性”在界定“宗教”上的地位与作用问题。自汉朝司马迁撰写《史记》，从“究天人之际”的思想到论及“鲁人皆以儒教”（《史记》卷一百二十四，游侠列传第六十四）之说，关于“儒教”的“宗教”意义和地位问题开始浮现。“南北朝以来，儒教与佛、道二教并称为三教。”由此形成“三教譬如鼎足，缺一不可”的局面，而“三教”这一表述长期以来未被质疑。但元朝《道书援神契》提出“儒不可谓之教，天下常道也”，从而为儒教“非教”说埋下了重要伏笔。1911年的辛亥革命将制度性的“儒教”基本摧毁，而1919年的“五四”运动则对精神性的“儒教”加以清算，“儒教”以往的“正统”“指导”地位不复存在，传统中国文化同样陷入了深深的危机。在今天中国文化的重建与“和谐”文化的构建中，我们已感觉到对儒家文化的挖掘和应用。但在当前中国传统宗教文化的复兴中，缺失“儒教”的佛、道二教则显得有些力不从心，很难独当扶持、复兴、弘扬本土宗教文化的大任。这一历史与现状，都促使我们再次深思“宗教”的意义问题和审视中国文化发展中“宗教”的作用问题。

“宗教”内在意义的厘清及其构成因素的涵括，亦为中国宗教学的研究范围、指导思想和应用方法提供了参考。在当代中国的“宗教”之探中，很显然是经历了从宽泛性、功能性、应用性的“宗教研究”向学科性、体系性、方法性的“宗教学”之转移和升华。当然，宽泛或应急的宗教研究今天仍很普遍，而正是在这一形势中，一支潜心研究“宗教学”专业的学术队伍也已悄然诞生。中国宗教学在改革开放的初期侧重于宗教史学和宗教哲学这两个方面的研究，主要研究成果体现在对宗教史料的发掘和对宗教现象的理论说明、哲学分析。由此，中国宗教学乃以跨学科、多学科的态势而进入中国学术领域。这样，中国当今学术界的宗教研究范围较广，研究人员众多，学术成果亦体现出宗教研究科际整合的优势。从整体来看，中国宗教学的40年历程所覆盖的研究领域包括宗教学理论研究、当代宗教研究、佛教研究、道教研究、儒教研究、中国民间宗教研究、基督教研究、伊斯兰教研究和其他宗教研究（主要为犹太教、琐罗亚斯德教、摩尼教、印度教、锡克教等的研究和巴哈伊教等新兴宗教的研究）。这基本上为一种广义的宗教学研究，而狭义的、界定在传统“宗教学”范围之内的宗教研究则主要体现在宗教学理论研究本身，其涉及的内容既有在中国比较突出的马克思主义宗教观的研究，也有传统学科意义上的宗教史学、比较宗教学、宗教文化学、宗教哲学、宗教社会学、宗教心理学、宗教人类学等方面的探讨。显然，这些研究及其学科分支与西方宗教学的传统框架和研究视域并不完全相同，突出了中国特色和中国学术的问题意识。

中国改革开放以来的40年，正是中国宗教从零散的学者个人研究走向宗教学科体系化的时代。应该说，中国宗教学真正得以创立和发展成为一门影响广远的人文社会科学，乃是这40年的开拓和创新。40年来，中国宗教学体系从无到有、从小到大，其研究从随意性、自我个性到规范化、学科化，并为今后的发展打下了重要基础，积累了宝贵经验。为了总结中国宗教学40年的发展，梳理其学术成果和资料，我们在2008年编写的《中国宗教学30年》一书基础上补充完善，形成了当下这部著作，主要由中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所的中青年学者来承担。全书共分为九章，其中，上述原稿第一章“宗教学理论研究”由金泽撰写，第二章“当代宗教研究”由黄奎撰写，第三章“佛教研究”由华方田撰写，第四章“道教研究”由王卡撰写，王卡先生已不幸去世，我们深表哀悼，第五章“儒教研究”由梁溪撰写，第六章“中国民间宗教研究”由李志鸿撰写，第七章“基督教研究”由卓新平撰写，第八章“伊斯兰教研究”由周燮藩、李林撰写，第九章“其他宗教研究”由卓新平撰写；全书的编辑、统稿由卓新平负责。但因考虑到有关学者的学术个性和研究风格，在文字、体例上不做大的调整，所以各章的撰写、表述可能不完全一致，格式上没有统一规定，尚请谅解。这次出版补充了2008至2018年宗教学发展的内容，其中第一章由赵广明、梁恒豪、李华伟、李金花、冯梓琏补充，形成第九节“2008—2018年宗教理论发展概况”，包括“宗教通史”（冯梓琏）、“宗教哲学”（赵广明）、“宗教心理学”（梁恒豪）、“宗教社会学”（李华伟）、“宗教人类学”（李金花）等内容；第二章第四节由向宁补充；第三章由纪华传补充；第四章由李志鸿补充；第五章由梁溪补充；第六章由李志鸿补充；第七章由唐晓峰补充；第八章由李林补充。这部著作涉及的内容以中国大陆学者自1978年以来的研究为主，可能只少量论及在大陆出版的港澳台学者的著述，因此当代港澳台宗教研究这一领域应作为另一大的课题留待今后系统探讨。在本书所触及的研究领域，一般突出宏观描述和重点问题探寻，对相关议题的评价也主要反映出撰写者自己的观点和见解。鉴于相关学术论文浩如烟海、难以在本书有限的篇幅中一一引证，故而只能以列举相关研究专著和翻译著作为主，仅在某些具体讨论中提及或引用到一些论文。书中的展示和叙述乃是以一种学术素描的方式来简要回顾、总结中国大陆学术界宗教学研究走过的40年历程。因此，在研究内容上可能有疏漏之处，在学术评价上可能有不妥之见，还望学术界各位专家批评、指正。中国宗教学发展方兴米等，我们将继续努力。全书的策划、立意、编辑出版由中国社会科学出版社组织。这里，特向中国社会科学出版社和黄燕生、冯春凤编审表示衷心的感谢！

2018年11月28日补写

Zhuo Xinping's commemoration of the 40th anniversary of China's reform and opening up is a review and summary of the 40-year course of the development of contemporary Chinese religious studies for us scholars of religion. The formation of Chinese religious studies is an important breakthrough in the modern academic history of China in the 20th century, but the truly systematic, professional and comprehensive development of religious studies is the product and achievement of China's reform and opening up since 1978. Forty years ago, the field of religious studies in China was in the state of "early spring and February", and there was only one established and large-scale religious research institution, the Institute of World Religions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which was a strange landscape that was "unique in its own glory" at that time. In the past 40 years, Chinese religious studies have flourished. In today's fruitful and colorful scenery of Chinese religious studies, the Institute of World Religions is enjoying a kind of intoxication of "laughing in the bush". At the beginning of the 20th century, when religious studies were first introduced to China, the most concerned and hotly debated question in the academic community was "whether there is a religion in China?" As we enter the 21st century, our awareness of issues has sublimated to how to position "religion" in contemporary Chinese society and how to formulate laws and regulations for legal management on the basis of understanding "religion". The key to the concept and system construction of religious studies also lies in the interpretation and interpretation of "religion". It should be said that the development of contemporary Chinese religious studies also reflects the reflection and expansion of the definition of "religion" by Chinese scholars to a certain extent. The connection between the two centuries, coupled with the long Chinese ideological and cultural tradition and the long-term Chinese spiritual appeal, makes people first understand what the "religion" is when looking at the question of "whether there is a religion in China" objectively and scientifically. Some people have denied the existence of the term or construct of "religion" in ancient China, and thus do not recognize the fundamental existence of the things that "religion" is intended to describe and explain. In fact, in the rich spirit of Chinese ideology and culture and its language and written expression, the meaning and object of "religion" objectively exist. Ancient China used the words "sect" and "religion" to express this core concept with different emphasis. Among them, "Zong" zigzags the meaning of "reverence for ancestors" and expresses the significance of the "religious" institutional level, that is, to honor and worship gods and commemorate ancestors with relevant places, constructions, and rituals with external and object nature. This is embodied in the activities of the ancient "Zen in the Six Sects". "Teaching" uses its meaning of "education" to highlight the significance of its spiritual belief and spiritual pursuit, emphasizing the inner and subjective spiritual cultivation, so as to grasp the true meaning of "cultivation and teaching". Here, the "indoctrination" of the upper and lower levels and learning from the way is improved and sublimated, so that the "religion" of "Shinto religion" is created, and the true meaning of its "belief in Shinto" is manifested. This is the principle of "combining ghosts and gods, and teaching them to the fullest". Expressing the relationship and co-construction of the institutional level and the spiritual level in terms of technical terms is the natural use of the word "religion". However, the word "religion" was first used in Buddhist literature, and "religion" as a Buddhist term has undergone some transmutation or alienation. For example, as early as the 5th and 6th centuries, Buddhist scholars of the Liang Dynasty used the word "religion" together, and many of them were elaborated. Generally speaking, although the "religion" understood by Buddhism at that time had come into contact with or realized the connotation of "purpose of life and social education" in the abstract sense, it specifically referred to "worshiping the teachings of Buddha and his children", where "teaching" was the words of the Buddha and "sect" was the transmission of his disciples, so as to achieve the opening and co-construction of faith. Since then, in the course of Sino-Japanese Buddhist exchanges, the expression "religion" has been used by Japanese Buddhist circles due to the translation of Buddhist texts, but there has been a difference in its understanding, that is, the truth that is difficult to express in language is regarded as "sect", while the doctrine about this truth is "teaching". As a result, "religion" became a term commonly used in Japanese academia. When Japan and the West formed an exchange relationship in modern history, Japanese scholars began to use "religion" to translate and express the word "religion" that frequently appears in Western literature. Since 1868, the documents of the Meiji government in Japan have mostly translated the Spanish word "religion" as "religion", referring to the various religions popular in the West and their dominant Christian denominations. In this way, the word "religion" began to acquire connotations in the sense of "religious studies" in Japan. It is said that the Chinese scholar Huang Zunxian used "religion" to compare or correspond to Western religion in his "National History of Japan" finalized in 1887 and published in 1895, so there is a modern meaning of "religion" "false path to Japan and into China". However, this application of "religion" did not attract attention or consensus at that time, and the Chinese terms for translating religion also included "teaching", "witch", "the study of weiwei", and even transliteration of "Erli Lijing". As a result, the ambiguity and cognitive confusion over the term "religion" have persisted to this day, and the controversy over it is often triggered. However, it should be admitted that the discussion of the term "religion" in contemporary Chinese religious studies is no longer general, but more reflects its rational, scientific and logical nature, reflecting the objective, serious and rational pursuit of Chinese scholars. Another major issue debated in Chinese academia in the 20th century was whether "Confucianism" was a "religion", which also involved the "religiousness" of traditional Chinese subject culture. Since the Jesuit Matteo Ricci proposed that "Confucianism is not a religion" in China at the end of the Ming Dynasty, this debate has gone through three rounds, and reached an unprecedented climax in the third round, the discussion since 1978. In the dispute between "Confucianism is religion" and "Confucianism is not religion", its differences touch many levels, but the key point is still the basic understanding of "religion". For example, the difference or relationship between "the religion of education" and the "religion of religion", the difference or similarity between "humanism" and "religion", the separation or echo of "interpersonal relationship" and "relationship between heaven and man", and the flow or combination of "Shinto religion" and "literature and religion" cannot avoid the answer and interpretation of people's "spirituality" and "religion". Similarly, whether Confucianism is the product of exclusive Confucianism and the original suzerainty in Chinese history, or the result of "courtesy and loss of the wilderness", not only concerns the status of Confucianism in mainstream political culture or folk popular culture, but also whether these two cultures are "religious". Here, from the perspective of religious studies, the relationship between "religion" and "religion" arises, and the status and role of "religion" in defining "religion". Since Sima Qian wrote the Shiji in the Han Dynasty, from the idea of "studying the heavens and men" to the discussion that "the Lu people all use Confucianism" (Shiji, volume 124, ranger 64), questions about the meaning and status of "Confucianism" began to emerge. "Since the Southern and Northern Dynasties, Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism have been called the three religions." As a result, a situation has been formed in which "the three teachings are indispensable", and the expression "three teachings" has not been questioned for a long time. However, the Yuan Dynasty's "Taoist Book Aid to God" proposed that "Confucianism cannot be called a religion, and the world is also a common way", thus laying an important foreshadowing for the "non-religion" theory of Confucianism. The Xinhai Revolution of 1911 basically destroyed the institutional "Confucianism", while the "May Fourth" Movement in 1919 liquidated the spiritual "Confucianism", the "orthodox" and "guided" status of "Confucianism" in the past no longer existed, and traditional Chinese culture also fell into a deep crisis. In the reconstruction of Chinese culture and the construction of "harmonious" culture today, we have felt the excavation and application of Confucian culture. However, in the current revival of traditional Chinese religious culture, Buddhism and Taoism, which lack "Confucianism", are somewhat inadequate, and it is difficult to support, revive and promote local religious culture alone. This history and current situation have prompted us to think deeply about the meaning of "religion" and examine the role of "religion" in the development of Chinese culture. The clarification of the intrinsic meaning of "religion" and the inclusion of its constituent factors also provide a reference for the research scope, guiding ideology and application methods of Chinese religious studies. In the exploration of "religion" in contemporary China, it is obvious that it has undergone the transfer and sublimation from broad, functional and applied "religious studies" to distinctive, systematic and methodological "religious studies". Of course, broad or emergency religious studies are still common today, and it is in this context that a team of academics dedicated to the study of "religious studies" has been quietly born. In the early stage of reform and opening up, Chinese religious studies focused on the research of religious history and religious philosophy, and the main research results were reflected in the excavation of religious historical materials and the theoretical explanation and philosophical analysis of religious phenomena. As a result, Chinese religious studies has entered the field of Chinese scholarship in an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary manner. In this way, the scope of religious studies in China's academic community today is wide-ranging, there are many researchers, and the academic achievements also reflect the advantages of interdisciplinary integration of religious studies. On the whole, the 40-year history of Chinese religious studies covers research areas such as religious theory, contemporary religion, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Islam and other religions (mainly Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and new religions such as Baha'i). This is basically a kind of religious studies in a broad sense, while the study of religion in a narrow sense, defined within the scope of traditional "religious studies", is mainly reflected in the theoretical research of religion itself, which involves not only the study of Marxist religious outlook that is prominent in China, but also the discussion of religious history, comparative religion, religious culture, philosophy of religion, sociology of religion, psychology of religion, and anthropology of religion in the traditional disciplinary sense. Obviously, these studies and their disciplinary branches are not exactly the same as the traditional framework and research perspective of Western religious studies, highlighting Chinese characteristics and the problem awareness of Chinese scholarship. The 40 years since China's reform and opening up have been an era in which Chinese religion has moved from scattered individual research by scholars to systematic religious disciplines. It should be said that the creation and development of Chinese religious studies into a far-reaching humanities and social science is the pioneering and innovative work in the past 40 years. Over the past 40 years, the Chinese religious studies system has grown from scratch and from small to large, and its research has changed from arbitrariness and self-personality to standardization and discipline, and has laid an important foundation for future development and accumulated valuable experience. In order to summarize the development of Chinese religious studies in the past 40 years and sort out its academic achievements and materials, we have supplemented and improved the book "30 Years of Chinese Religious Studies" compiled in 2008 to form the current work, which is mainly undertaken by young and middle-aged scholars from the Institute of World Religions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The book is divided into nine chapters, of which the first chapter of the above manuscript "Studies in Religious Theory" was written by Kanazawa, the second chapter "Studies on Contemporary Religions" was written by Huang Kui, the third chapter "Studies on Buddhism" was written by Hua Fangtian, the fourth chapter "Studies on Taoism" was written by Wang Ka, Mr. Wang Ka has unfortunately passed away, we express our deep condolences, the fifth chapter "Studies on Confucianism" was written by Liang Xi, the sixth chapter "Studies on Chinese Folk Religions" was written by Li Zhihong, the seventh chapter "Studies on Christianity" was written by Zhuo Xinping, and the eighth chapter "Studies on Islam" was written by Zhou Xiefan and Zhou Xiefan Written by Li Lin, Chapter 9 "Studies on Other Religions" by Zhuo Xinping; The editing and overall manuscript of the book is the responsibility of Zhuo Xinping. However, due to the consideration of the academic personality and research style of the scholars concerned, no major adjustments will be made in terms of text and style, so the writing and expression of each chapter may not be completely consistent, and there is no uniform provision in format. The first chapter was supplemented by Zhao Guangming, Liang Henghao, Li Huawei, Li Jinhua, and Feng Zilian to form the ninth section "Overview of the Development of Religious Theory from 2008 to 2018", including "General History of Religion" (Feng Zilian), "Philosophy of Religion" (Zhao Guangming), "Psychology of Religion" (Liang Henghao), "Sociology of Religion" (Li Huawei Huawei), "Anthropology of Religion" (Li Jinhua), etc.; Chapter II, Section IV is supplemented by Xiang Ning; Chapter 3 is supplemented by Ji Huachuan; Chapter 4 is supplemented by Li Zhihong; Chapter 5 is supplemented by Liang Xi; Chapter 6 is supplemented by Li Zhihong; Chapter 7 is supplemented by Tang Xiaofeng; Chapter 8 is supplemented by Li Lin. The content of this work is mainly the research of Chinese mainland scholars since 1978, and may only a small number of the works of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan scholars published in the mainland, so the field of contemporary Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan religious studies should be left as another major topic for systematic discussion in the future. In the research areas covered in this book, macro descriptions and exploration of key issues are generally highlighted, and the evaluation of related topics mainly reflects the author's own views and opinions. In view of the vast number of relevant academic papers and the difficulty of citing them in the limited space of this book, we can only list relevant research monographs and translated works, and only mention or cite some papers in some specific discussions. The presentation and narration in the book is a brief review and summary of the 40-year history of Chinese mainland academic study of religion in the form of an academic sketch. Therefore, there may be omissions in the research content, and there may be inappropriate views in academic evaluation, and I hope that all experts in the academic community will criticize and correct them. We will continue to work hard to develop Chinese religious studies, such as Fang Xingmi. The planning, conception, editing and publication of the book are organized by China Social Sciences Press. Here, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to China Social Sciences Press and Huang Yansheng and Feng Chunfeng! Supplemented on November 28, 2018（AI翻译）