Traditional Chinese society originated long before the Christian era，and continued to exist，without fundamental change，until the latter part of the last century. It began to break down with what is usually called the invasion of the East by the West but which was really an invasion of medieval by modern society. The basic factor in modern society is its industrialized economy. The use of machines revolutionized the preindustrial economy which might be agrarian like that of China or commercial like that of Greece and England. The old economy had to give way to the new，as did the old social structure. It is astonishing to see how profound is man's ignorance of history and even of contemporary affairs. The social structure of European life has changed and is undergoing changes that may be called industrial，political and social revolutions. But when the same thing happens in Asia，Occidentals are prone to call it the invasion of the East by the West.
Modern industrialism is destroying the traditional Chinese family system and thereby the traditional Chinese society. People leave their land to work in the factories，together with other people who are neither their brothers nor their cousins. Formerly they were attached to the land but now they are more mobile. Formerly they cultivated their lands collectively with their fathers and brothers，so that there were no products they could claim as their own. Now they have their own income in the form of wages received in the factory. Formerly they usually lived with their parents and perhaps grandparents，but now they live by themselves or with their wives and children. Ideologically，this is known in China as the“emancipation of the individual from the family.”
With this change of social structure，it is natural that filial piety，which was the ideological basis of the traditional society，should receive the most severe attacks. That is exactly what has happened in China. The attacks reached a climax during the earlier period of the Republic which was established in 1912 when the abolition of chung or loyalty to the sovereign as a moral principle took place. As we shall see，in traditional Chinese society，chung and hsiao，or filial piety，were parallel moral principles. Hsiao，once considered the foundation of all moral good，is now regarded by some critics as the source of all social evil. In one popular book of the Taoist religion it is said：“Among all the evils，adultery is the first：among all the virtues，filial piety is the first.”In the earlier period of the Republic one writer paraphrased this statement by saying that among all the evils filial piety is the first，although he did not go so far as to say that among virtues adultery is the first.
During recent years there have been fewer attacks on filial piety and the traditional family system. This fact does not mean that they have recovered much of their lost influence but rather indicates that they have almost completely lost their traditional position in Chinese society. They are dead tigers，to use a Chinese expression，and attacking dead tigers is no evidence of courage. I remember quite clearly that during my youth I often heard people arguing over the advantage or disadvantage of the traditional family system. But now it ceases to be a question of argument. People realize that they simply cannot keep it，even if they want to.
The attacks on the traditional family system have been mostly polemic in character；as a consequence some of the criticisms have failed to do justice to it. For instance，among the many criticisms a major one is that，in the traditional family system，an individual completely loses his individuality. His duties and responsibilities for the family are so many that it seems he can be only the son and grandson of his parents and ancestors，but never himself.
In answer to this criticism it may be said that an individual，in so far as he is a member of a society，must assume some responsibility for the society. The assumption of responsibility is not the same as the abolition of one's personality. Moreover，it is questionable whether an individual's burden of responsibility towards his family and society in the traditional Chinese scheme is really greater than that of an individual in the modern industrial order.
A society under the industrial system is organized on a basis broader than blood relationship. In this system the individual has less responsibility for the family but more for society as a whole. In modern industrialism the individual has less obligation to obey his parents but more of a duty to obey his government. He is less bound to support his brothers and cousins but is under greater pressure to give，in the form of income tax and community chest，to support the needy in society at large.
In modern industrialized society the family is just one of many institutions. But in traditional China the family，in the wider sense，was actually a society. In traditional China the duties and responsibilities of an individual towards his greater family were really those of an individual towards his family in the modern sense，plus those towards his state or society. It is due to this combination that the duties and responsibilities of an individual towards his family looked heavy.
So far as the traditional Chinese social philosophy is concerned，the emphasis is upon the individual. It is the individual who is a father or a son，a husband or a wife. It is by becoming a father or a son，a husband or wife，that an individual enlists himself as a member of society，and it is by this enlistment that man differentiates himself from the beasts. In serving his father and sovereign a man is not giving up his personality. On the contrary，it is only in these services that his personality has its fullest development.
Another point to be noted is that，according to traditional social theory，although a family in the wider sense may become indefinitely large，the responsibility of the individual towards it is not without a definite limit. Within the limit there are also degrees of greater and lesser responsibility. These are expressed by what is known as the“mourning system.”According to it，a man，at the death of his parents，must wear mourning dress for three years（actually twenty-five months）；this is called mourning of the first degree. At the death of his grandparents he is to wear mourning dress for one year；this is called mourning of the second degree. Theoretically a man would not wear mourning dress at the death of his great-great-great-grandparents even though they lived long enough to see their great-great-great-grandchildren. This indicates that a man's duty as a son of a family has a limit，which includes only his parents，his grandparents，his great-grandparents，and his great-great-grandparents.
A man，at the death of his son，is to wear mourning dress for one year，and for shorter periods at the death of his grandson，great-grandson，and great-great-grandson. He would not wear any mourning dress at the death of his great-great-great-grandson even if he lived long enough to see his death. This indicates that his responsibility as a father of a family has a limit，which includes only his son，grandson，great-grandson，and great-great-grandson，At the death of his brother a man is to wear mourning dress for one year，and for shorter periods at the death of the son of his father's brother，the grandson of his grandfather's brother，the great-grandson of his great-grandfather's brother，and the great-great-grandson of his great-great-grandfather's brother. This indicates that his responsibility as a brother of a family has a limit，which includes not more than the descendants of his great-great-grandfather.
Thus，according to traditional social theory each individual is a centre from which relationships radiate in four directions：upwardbeing his relationship with his father and ancestors，downwardbeing that with his sons and descendants，to the right and leftbeing that with his brothers and cousins. In James Legge's translation of the Li Chi，(1)or Book of Rites，there are several tables illustrating this point. Within the radius there are different degrees of greater and lesser affections and responsibilities. Persons outside the limit of the radius are considered by the person at the centre as “affection ended”and are to be treated by him on the basis of the relationship of friends.
Thus，according to traditional social theory every individual is the centre of a social circle which is constituted of various social relationships. He is a person and is to be treated as a person. Whatever may be the merit or demerit of traditional Chinese society and its family system，it is quite wrong to say that there was no place for the personality of the individual.
I mention these arguments only to show that，although traditional Chinese society is radically different from a modern one，it is not so irrational as some of its critics may suppose. In saying this I have no intention of supporting it as a working social system in present-day China. In order to live in the modern world in a position worthy of her past China must be industrialized. When there is industrialization，there is no place for the traditional family system and the traditional social structure. But this does not mean that we should not try to have a sympathetic understanding of them and their underlying ideas.
I shall try to give a brief account of these ideas as expounded in the classics and accepted by most of the educated people intraditional China.
The idea of hsiao or filial piety
The central philosophical idea at the basis of traditional Chinese society was that of filial piety. “Filial piety”is the common transla-tion of the Chinese word hsiao，which in Chinese traditional literature has a very comprehensive meaning. In the book Hsiao Ching，or the Classics of Filial Piety，translated by Ivan Chen under the title，The Book of Filial Piety，(2) it is said that there is a“perfect virtue and essential principle，with which the ancient kings made the world peaceful，and the people in harmony with one another.”This perfect virtue is hsiao，and this essential principle is also hsiao，which was considered as“the foundation of all virtues，and the fountain of human culture.”
In the Li Chi one passage reads：
The body is that which has been transmitted to us by our parents. Dare anyone allow himself to be irreverent in the employment of their legacy？If a man in his own house and privacy，be not grave，he is not filial. If in serving his sovereign，he be not loyal，he is not filial. If in discharging the duties of office，he be not serious，he is not filial. If with friends he be not sincere，he is not filial. If on the field of battle he be not brave，he is not filial. If he fails in these five things，the evil （of disgrace） will reflect on his parents. Dare he but be serious？
The fundamental lesson for all is filial piety. ... True love is the love of this；true propriety is the doing of this；true righteousness is the rightness of this；true sincerity is being sincere in this；true strength is being strong in this. Music springs from conformity to this；punishments come from violation of this. ... Set up filial piety，and it will fill the space from heaven to earth. Spread it out，and it will extend overall the ground to the four seas. Hand it down to future ages，and it will be forever observed. Push it on to the eastern sea，the western sea，the southern sea，and the northern sea，and it will be everywhere the law of men，and their obedience to it will be uniform. (3)
This passage was attributed to Tseng Tzu，one of the great disciples of Confucius. The Hsiao Ching also consists of a dialogue between Tseng Tzu and Confucius，so it too was attributed to Tseng Tzu or some of his disciples. It is not our purpose to inquire into the authenticity of these works. It suffices here to say that during the third century B. C. the theory that filial piety is the foundation of all the virtues of man had already prevailed. In Book XIV of the Lü-shih Ch'un-ch'iu，which is a work of that century and a product of the eclectic school，it is said：“If there is one principle by holding which one can possess all the virtues and avoid all the evils，and have a following of the whole world，it is filial piety.”All the social and moral philosophers of later times agreed with this statement. Even the emperors of the following dynasties in Chinese history used to say proudly with the Hsiao Ching：“Our dynasty rules the world with the principle of filial piety.”(4)
Such is the very comprehensive implication of the word hsiao，which the simple English phrase “filial piety” can hardly suggest. To those who are not familiar with its Chinese equivalent，filial piety may mean simply taking care of one's parents. But as the Li Chi says：“To prepare fragrant flesh and grain which one has cooked，tasting and then presenting before one's parents，is not filial piety；it is only nourishing them.”(5) This is no doubt an overstatement，but from the above quotations we can see that taking care of one's parents is certainly only a very small part of the comprehensive implication of the word hsiao.
One would not be surprised to find that the virtue of hsiao was so much emphasized in the traditional Chinese social philosophy if one realized that traditional Chinese society is founded on a family system and that hsiao is the virtue that holds the family together.
The background of the traditional chinese social system
It must be remembered that China is a continental country. To the ancient Chinese their land was the world. Since it happened that the Chinese people found themselves in a continental country，they had to make their living by agriculture before the industrialization of their economy by science and technology. Even today that portion of the Chinese population which is engaged in farming is estimated to be 75 to 80 percent. In an agrarian country land is the primary source of wealth. In the minds of the people in traditional Chinese society land was the symbol of permanence and safety. One could not be considered well established in society unless one had possession of some land.
Farmers have to live on their land，which is immovable. Unless one has special talent or is especially fortunate，one has to live where one's father or grandfather lived and where one's children will continue to live. That is to say，the family in the wider sense must live together for economic reasons. So people in traditional Chinese society，when they possessed some land，meant to live there permanently. For them their land was not only their one home during their lifetime but also that of their children and grandchildren，in whom they saw the continuation of their lives and works.
In the Li Chi it is said that when Chao Wu，a minister of the state of Chin in the sixth century B. C. ，completed the construction of his residence，the officers of the state went to the house warming. One of the officers said：“How elegant it is，how lofty！How elegant and splendid. Here will you have your songs！Here will you have your wailings！Here will you gather together your great family！”Then Chao Wu replied：“If I can have my songs here，and my wailings，and gather together my family （it will be quite enough）. I will then only seek to live peacefully to follow my ancestors in their graves.”Commenting on this story the Li Chi says：“A superior man will say（of the two gentlemen），that the one was skilful in the expression of his praise and the other in his prayer.”(6)
Such praise and prayer expressed the aspiration of agrarian people who built their houses on their land and wished to live there permanently. The praise and prayer are both well said because they are very human. They did not pretend that there would be only happiness and no sorrow. They did not express belief in life after death. They only expressed the desire of the owner of the house and land that he might remain there whether happy or sad，whether alive or dead. The sentiment is that of attachment to the land，and the praise and prayer well expressed this sentiment.
Agrarian people are attached to the land both physically and sentimentally. Their family trees are really like the trees that have their roots deep in the earth and spread their branches in different directions. The family in the wider sense must live together because they cannot separate. Since they must live together，there must be some moral principle to serve as a sort of unwritten constitutional law of the group，and the principle is that of filial piety.
The traditional chinese family system
Filial piety is the organizing principle of a society based on a family system. Such a society is the product of an agrarian economy，which is in turn conditioned by geography. There have been other continental countries and agrarian societies besides China. But it happened that traditional Chinese society，because of its long history，had become such a society in the most developed form. The traditional Chinese family system was no doubt one of the most complex and well organized in the world. The complexity of the system can be seen in the different terms for various family relationships. Thus，in the Erh Ya，the oldest dictionary of the Chinese language，dating from before the Christian era，there are more than one hundred terms for various family relations，most of which have no equivalent in the English language. When Mr. A says in English that Mr. B is his uncle，to the Chinese it is a very ambiguous statement. Is Mr. B the brother of Mr. A's mother，or the husband of his mother's sister？Or is Mr. B the brother of Mr. A's father？And，if that is the case，the elder or the younger brother？In the Chinese language there is a term for each of these relationships. When Mr. A says in Chinese that Mr. B is his so-and-so，one knows exactly what the relation is between them. There is no Chinese word for“uncle”as such.
The family system was the social system of preindustrial China. The family was the foundation of the social structure. The state was an organization which might be called“united families.”In the United States of America there are different states，each with its own constitution and tradition，and over and above these states there is the Federal Government taking care of matters concerning all the states. Traditional Chinese society might be called politically the“United Families of Asia.”In that union there were different families，each with its own traditions，and among these families there was one taking care of matters that concerned all the families. This was the royal family of the reigning dynasty，the head of which was called the Son of Heaven. Was this family also over and above the other families？In one sense，yes；in another，no. This is a very interesting point which I will discuss later.
Traditional Chinese society was organized with what were known as the five social relationships. They were those between sovereign and subject，father and son，husband and wife，elder and younger brothers，and friend and friend. Each relationship was governed by a moral principle. As Mencius said：
Father and son should love each other. Sovereign and subject should be just to each other. Husband and wife should distinguish their respective spheres. Elder and younger brothers should have a sense of precedence. Between friends there should be good faith. (7)
These relationships and the moral principles governing them were considered as the“common way of the world，”(8) which should be followed by all men.
Later，Tung Chung-shu （c. 179-c. 104 B. C. ），a great Confucianist philosopher of the Han dynasty，selected out of the five relationships those between sovereign and subject，father and son，and husband and wife as the more important and called them the three kang cardinal principles. The literal meaning of kang is a major cord in a net，to which all the other strings are attached. Thus the sovereign is the kang of his subjects，that is，he is their master. Likewise，the father is the master of the son and the husband is that of the wife.
Besides the three kang there were the five chang，which were upheld by all the Confucianists. Chang means a norm or constant，and the five chang were the five virtues of Confucianism，namely，jen （human-heartedness），yi（righteousness），li （propriety，rituals，rules of proper conduct），chih （wisdom），and hsin （good faith）. The five chang were the virtues of an individual，and the three kang were the organizing principles of society. The compound word kang-chang meant，in olden times，morality or moral law in general.
All the acts of an individual were regulated，in olden times，by these social relationships. Each term of the relationships，according to Confucianism，is a ming or name which represents a moral principle. Every individual must have some name in terms of the relationships，and it is his duty to behave according to the moral principle represented by that name. For instance，if an individual is a son in relation to his father，he must behave according to the moral principle represented by the name son；in other words，he must behave according to what a son ought to do. If he later becomes a father in relation to his son，he must behave according to the moral principle represented by the name father，which is what a father ought to do. This whole theory was known in olden times as the ming-chiao，or instruction based on names.
Of these five social relationships，three are family relationships. The remaining two，the relationships between sovereign and subjects and between friends，though not family relationships，can be conceived in terms of family. The relationship between sovereign and subject can be conceived in terms either of that between father and son or of that between husband and wife. The relationship between friends can be conceived in terms of that between brothers. Such，indeed，was the way in which they were usually conceived.
That is why hsiao or filial piety was considered the foundation of all virtues. The whole structure of social relationships can be conceived as a family matter，and hsiao is essentially loyalty to family.
The idea of chung or loyalty to the sovereign
The relationship between sovereign and subject can be conceived in terms either of that between father and son or of that between husband and wife. That is why I say that in ancient times the royal family of the ruling dynasty was considered in one respect as a family over and above the other ones but in another respect as theoretically only one of the many families.
It was quite common to consider the Son of Heaven as the Father of the people. It was a common saying that“the serving of the sovereign by the subject was analogous to the serving of the parents by the son.”In the Book of Filial Piety it is said：
From the way in which one serves one's father，one learns how to serve one's mother. The love towards them is the same. From the way in which one serves one's father，one learns how to serve one's sovereign. The respect shown to them is the same. To one's mother，one shows love，to one's father both love and respect. (9)
In these sayings the relationship between sovereign and subject is conceived in terms of that between father and son. If this relationship is considered in this way，then the royal family of the ruling dynasty must be considered as a super family over and above all other families.
But it was also very common for the relationship between sovereign and subject to be conceived in terms of that between husband and wife. One of the similarities between the two relationships is that the tie between sovereign and subject，like that between husband and wife，is，as the Chinese philosophers said，a “social or moral” one，not a “natural” one. That is to say，the tie is not one of blood. That is why，as it is said in the above quotation，one shows one's father both respect and love but to one's sovereign only respect，which is also，according to the Chinese philosophers，what husband and wife should show to each other.
One does not have a chance to choose one's father. That is something determined by fate. But one can choose one's sovereign，just as a girl，before her marriage，can have a choice as to who should be her husband. It was a common saying that“the wise bird chooses the right tree to build its nest；the wise minister chooses the right sovereign to offer his service.” It is true that traditionally all the people of the Chinese Empire were theoretically the subjects of the emperor. But it is also true that traditionally the common people had not the same obligation of allegiance towards the emperor as those who entered the official ranks of the government. It was to the officials that the relationship between sovereign and subject was specially relevant. So even in the time of unification when there was only one sovereign，one still could choose whether to join the official ranks or not，just as a girl might choose to remain single，even though there was only one man whom she could marry. In Chinese history，if a scholar chose to remain outside the official ranks，he was a man，as a traditional saying put sit，“whom the Son of Heaven could not take as his minister，nor the princes take as their friend.”He was a great free man，without any obligation to the emperor except the paying of taxes.
Traditionally the analogy between the relationship of sovereign and subject and that of husband and wife was carried further in the common saying that，“a good minister will not serve two sovereigns，nor a good wife，two husbands.”Before a man decided whether to join the official rank or not，he was quite free to make the choice，but once it was made the choice was final and irrevocable. In the same way，traditionally，a girl before getting married was free to choose her husband，but after marriage her choice was made once and for all.
Traditionally，a marriage was a transference of a girl from the family of her parents to that of her husband. Before marriage she was the daughter of her parents；after it she became the wife of her husband. With this transformation she had new duties and obligations，and above all she had to be absolutely faithful to her husband. This faithfulness is called chen or chieh and was considered the most important virtue for a wife.
Traditionally，when a man joined the official ranks，he was in a sense“married”to the sovereign. He transferred himself from his own family to the royal family，which in this sense was but one of the many families. Before this transference he was the son of his parents，but after it he became the minister of the sovereign. With this transformation he had new duties and new obligations，and above all he had to be absolutely loyal to the sovereign. This loyalty was called chung and was considered the most important virtue of a minister.
When a man“married”himself to the royal family，he should devote himself completely to his new duties and obligations，just as，after marriage，a woman should devote herself completely to the management of the household of her husband. Such a change in a man's status was called in olden times the“transformation offilial piety into loyalty to the sovereign.”
In traditional Chinese society chung and hsiao were considered the two major moral values in social relations. A loyal minister and a filial son both commanded universal respect. But this does not mean that hsiao is not the basic moral principle underlying traditional Chinese society. In the transformation mentioned above a filial son does not cease to be a filial son. On the contrary，in his new circumstances，this is the only way in which he can continue to be a filial son. As shown in the above quotations，a son becomes truly filial by being loyal to the sovereign，if that is his duty. So in traditional Chinese society chung or loyalty to the sovereign was considered an extension of hsiao or filial piety，but hsiao could not be considered an extension of chung.
The conflict between chung and hsiao
This fact can be illustrated with certain historical moral situations. In history there were moral situations in which the conflict between chung and hsiao，that is，between one's duty as a son and that as a minister，became so great that it was a grave moral question which of them should receive the first consideration. The classic case in Chinese history is that of Chao Pao of the second century A. D. He was the governor of a frontier province in present Manchuria and was attacked by an invading force of a certain tribe. The invading army happened to get hold of his mother who was on her way to join him. They then told Chao Pao to surrender or they would slaughter his mother. For Chao Pao there was a real moral dilemma. He made the decision and said：“Before，I was my mother's son，but today I am a minister of my sovereign. I cannot do otherwise.”He fought the enemy and defeated them with the sacrifice of the life of his mother. After the war was over Chao Pao said：“My mother died because of me，I cannot live after her death.”He died of grief at his mother's grave.
There are many historic discussions of the moral implications ofChao Pao's conduct. The History of the Later Han Dynasty regarded him as an extremist who took only one aspect of the situation into account. But what Chao Pao should have done if he had considered all the aspects，the History of the Later Han Dynasty did not say.
Several hundred years later a great philosopher of the Neo-Confucianist school，Cheng Yi （1033-1108），made the suggestion that Chao Pao might have resigned his post as the governor of the province and transferred his military power to a deputy. In that case the enemy might not have killed his mother because there would not have been any point in it. Even if the enemy still had done it，Chao Pao would have been less responsible for her death. Anyway he should have made some attempt，even if unsuccessful，to save his mother.
Cheng Yi's reasoning had the support of the authority of Mencius. According to the book of Mencius，he was once asked：“When Shun （a traditional sage emperor） was the emperor，and Kao Yao（a traditional very just judge） was the chief justice，suppose Ku Sou（Shun's father） committed the crime of homicide，what would Shun have done？”To this question Mencius answered：“Shun would have stolen his father from the jail，and run away with him. He then would have hidden himself with his father in a corner at the seashore，and gladly lived with him through his whole life，and have entirely forgotten the empire.”(10) This imaginary situation is similar to that in which Chao Pao actually found himself. In both cases there is a conflict of a very serious nature between one's duty as a functionary of the state and one's duty as a son. There is a moral dilemma for which Mencius and Cheng Yi suggested similar solutions.
I have mentioned this extreme case in order to show the moral temper of traditional Chinese society. The point is that，normally，if one chose to join the official rank，one had“to transform filial piety into loyalty to the sovereign”；but that when these two virtues seriously conflicted it was the duty of the son as a son that should receive first consideration. This is further evidence that the family system was the foundation of traditional Chinese society and filial piety the basis of all its moral principles.
The continuation of the family
According to traditional Chinese social theory，of the five social relationships that between father and son is the first in importance but that between husband and wife is the first in origin. In the Book of Changes it is said：
Following the existence of Heaven and Earth there is the existence of all things. Following the existence of all things，there is the distinction of male and female. Following this distinction，there is the relationship between father and son. Following this，there is the relationship between sovereign and subjects. (11)
Before the establishment of the relationship between husband and wife，“people only knew that there were mothers，but not that there were fathers.”In this situation men were the same as the beasts. The establishment of the relationship between husband and wife was the first step in the development of the distinction whereby men distinguish themselves from the beasts. Hsün Tzu，one of the great Confucianists in the third century B. C. ，said：
Man is not truly man in the fact that he，uniquely，has two feet and no hair （over his body），but rather in the fact that he makes social distinctions. Birds and beasts have parents and offspring，but not the affection between father and son. They are either male or female，but do not have the proper distinction between male and female. Hence in the way of humanity，there must be distinctions. No distinctions are greater than those of society. (12)
In other words，that there are males and females and their offspring in the animal world is a fact of nature，but that there are the relationship between husband and wife and between father and son is a fact of social organization. It is this that distinguishes men from other animals.
In traditional Chinese society the establishment of the relationship between husband and wife was considered the first step towards social organization. In the Book of Poetry，one of the ancient classics，it happens that the first ode is a love song. According to the traditional moral interpretation，this is so because the relationship between husband and wife is the“first of the social relationships.”
The marriage of man and woman becoming husband and wife is the beginning of the family. Once there is the family，the marriage of its younger members is needed to continue its existence. In the continuance of one's family one enjoys an immortality that is both biological and ideal. In this continuance one has both the remembrance of the past and the hope of the future.
An individual must die，but death is not necessarily the absolute end of his life. If he has descendants，they are actually portions of his body that are perpetuated. So he who has descendants does not actually die. He enjoys a biological immortality which is possible for all living creatures. This is a fact of nature，but it is only with the social organization of the family system that this fact is brought into bold relief.
With the social organization of the family system，one who has descendants enjoys not only a biological immortality through their bodies but also an ideal immortality through their works and their memories. In their works one's own work is continued，and in their memories one continues to be known in the world. Thus in the family system one is kept both from physical extinction and spiritual oblivion.
Traditionally，marriage was considered in this light. It is said in the Li Chi that the purpose of marriage is“to secure the service of the ancestral temple for the past，and to secure the continuance of the family for the future.”(13) Marriage provides a means for the transference of the life of the ancestors in the past to the children in the future. Traditionally，it was a great duty of a son to become a father. If he failed to do this，not only would his own life face extinction，but what is more important，the life of his ancestors，carried on by him，would also be terminated. So Mencius said：“There are three things （meaning many things） that are unfilial，and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.”(14)
In traditional Chinese society，to have a son or sons was the greatest blessing of human life and to have none the greatest curse. The proverb says：“If only one has a son，he should be satisfied with everything.”“To play with the grandchildren”was considered the greatest happiness that an old man could have. In traditional Chinese society，when a man had sons and grandsons，he could look on them as extensions of his own life. Hence in his old age he could regard his existence and that of his ancestors as already having been entrusted to others and so could await death calmly，without further care as to whether his soul after death would continue to exist or not. Why should he be anxious about an immortality that was extremely doubtful when he already had one that was assured？
Ancestor worship
Here we see the essential meaning of the practice of ancestor worship. In traditional Chinese society，the function of this practice was both social and spiritual. Socially it served as a means for achieving the solidarity of the family. Since the traditional Chinese family was a very complex organization，its solidarity depended upon some symbol of unity，and the ancestors of the family were the natural symbol.
In traditional China，in places where the family system was carried out in strict accordance with the ideal pattern，the people of the same surname living in one place used to have a clan temple. The temple had its own land and income，which were considered the common property of the clan. The income of the temple was to be used for preparing sacrifices to the ancestors，for helping the widows，orphans，and needy of the clan to live，and also for offering scholarships to the promising youth of the clan to study or take state examinations in the capital. Thus the temple functioned actually as a social work centre for the clan.
In the practice of ancestor worship，according to the theory of the Chinese philosophers，the dead are called back by the living descendants，not as ghosts coming from a supernatural world，but as forms cherished in the minds of the descendants. This is the spiritual or emotional，personal side of the practice，as it comforts the individual and strengthens his morale，in addition to fostering the solidarity of society. In the chapter entitled“The Meaning of Sacrifice，”the Li Chi says：
During the days of vigil （in preparation of the sacrifice），the one who is going to offer the sacrifice thinks of his departed，how and where they sat，how they smiled and spoke，what were their aims and views，what they delighted in，and what things they desired and enjoyed... . On the day of sacrifice，when he enters the apartment （of the temple），he will seem to see （the deceased） in the place （where their spirit tablets are）. After he has moved about （and performed his ceremonies），and is leaving at the door，he will seem to be arrested by hearing the sound of their movements，and will sigh as he seems to hear the sound of their sighing.
Thus the filial piety taught by the ancient kings required that the eyes of the son should not forget the looks （of his parents），nor his ears their voices；and that he should retain the memory of their aims，likings，and wishes. As he gave full play to his love，they seemed to live again；and to his reverence，they seemed to stand out before him. So seeming to live and standing out，so unforgotten by him，how could sacrifices be without the accompaniment of reverence？(15)
Thus in the practice of ancestor worship the departed，no matter whether they are good or bad，great or insignificant，become familiar once more in the living world. They are not in the world of oblivion but in the living memory of those who are actually the perpetuation of their own flesh and blood. He who practises the worship has the feeling that he will be known to his descendants in the same way also. In such circumstances，he feels that his life is one of the links in a series of an indefinite number of lives，and this fact is at once the insignificance and the significance of his living.
So，in theory there is nothing superstitious in the practice of ancestor worship as conceived by the Chinese philosophers. The fundamental idea of this practice，as they conceived it，is quite scientific. Westerners used to call the practice“religion.”I do not wish to argue about terms，especially about such an ambiguous term as religion. But I wish to point out that，if this practice can be called religion，it is one without dogma or supernaturalism. It takes life and death as biological facts. Yet the psychological effect is that a man is“saved”from the momentariness of his life and gains a genuine feeling of a life beyond. Through ancestor worship a man can have salvation without a God or divine saviour.
Reprinted from Ideological Differences and World Order，Ed. F. S. C. Northrop. New Haven：Yale University Press，1948.
————————————————————
(1) Sacred Books of the East，F. Max Müller，ed. （Oxford，The Clarendon Press），XXVII，209.
(2) Hisao Ching，translated by Ivan Chen （London，J. Murray，1908）.
(3) Sacred Books of the East，XXVIII，226-227.
(4) Hsiao Ching，Chap. VII，Chap. VIII. 3，Sacred Books of the East，XXVIII，226-227.
(5) Sacred Books of the East，XXVIII，226-227.
(6) Sacred Books of the East，p. 196.
(7) Mencius，IIIa，4.
(8) Chung Yung，XX，8
(9) Hsiao Ching，Chap. V.
(10) Mencius，VIIa，35.
(11) Book of Changes，Appendix VI.
(12) Hsün-tzu，Chap. V.
(13) Sacred Books of the East，p. 428.
(14) Mencius，IV，p. 428.
(15) Sacred Books of the East，p. 211.