famous calligraphers and the first great brush-stroke artists in Chinese history
appeared in the 300s. A good deal of creativity took place in these realms, but
it was a creativity that cut in an aesthetic direction antithetical to the develop-
ment of formal and abstract philosophy. In this respect the situation resembled
Muromachi Japan and Renaissance Italy, where the means of cultural produc-
tion were under the decentralized control of lay-oriented aristocracies: great
eras in the arts but antithetical to abstract philosophy. When China reunified
under strong governments, this gentry culture remained a class basis for one
version of intellectual life, and correspondingly an underpinning for conserva-
tism in philosophy.
The metaphysical advances of the Dark Learning were a hybrid of Confu-
cian scholarship with this emerging gentry culture. When Confucian admini-
stration was reestablished in the strong dynasties, this philosophy was not
absorbed into orthodox Confucian scholarship. The scholars instead went back
to the Han rationalism, leaving abstract philosophy to be carried along, if at
all, as part of the opposition grouped under the rubric of “Taoism.” But Taoism
was now an organized church concerned primarily with scripture and practice,
with hardly any philosophy at all. No doubt all the ingredients were present
for indigenous Chinese intellectual traditions to regroup into a conflictual
balance that might drive philosophy onward again.
But now there was a new player in the game: Buddhism. With its network
of economically powerful monasteries and its internal hierarchy of trained
specialists, Buddhism was organizationally much more powerful than indige-
nous Chinese institutions as a basis for intellectual life. And in the realm of
ideas, it imported traditions of abstract philosophy built up over more than
20 generations of dense competitive networks in India. It is not surprising that
Buddhism should hurtle into the forefront of philosophical activity in medieval
China. In this new field of intellectual forces, Taoist priests, Confucian officials,
and gentry alike were thrown on the defensive, reinforced in their conservative
stance in the realm of abstract ideas. Opposition shapes intellectual life in two
different ways: inside the dominant faction, by splits which drive innovation
at higher levels of abstract reflexivity; and in the external relations between
dominant and defensive camps, by forcing the latter into the siege mentality
of name-calling and a focus on emblems of identity which keep ideas fixed and
concrete.
176 •^ Intellectual Communities: Asian Paths