那济世 印度维斯巴拉蒂大学
Nayak, Arttatrana, Visva-Bharati University
原文Original
Discourse on Ideological Attributes of the Five Elements in China and India
The concept of Five Elements is to be found in many traditions and cultures of the ancient human society. The term ‘element’ in this context either refers to a ‘state of matter’ (reflecting different types of energy in a state of constant interaction and flux with one another) or ‘a phase of matter’ (like the ‘five phases’ of the Chinese) or type of human senses or ‘a state of consciousness’, the precise connotation of the element concerned thus depends on the subject matter of the discussion. The five elements (substances) so chosen by the people of different regions and localities are not the one and the same objects in different traditions and cultures nor are the interpretations given about the same. In Chinese, they are known by the term wu-xing representing the five elements of ‘water’ (shui-水), ‘fire’ (huo-火), ‘wood’ (mu-木); ‘metal’ (jin-金) and ‘earth’ (tu-土). The familiar concept by which it is known in Indian Hinduism is ‘pancha-mahabhuta’ (five gross elements)- a Sanskrit language term. The Hindu ‘Pancha mahabhuta’ stands for Earth ( kshiti or shristi or bhumi 地), water (apas or jala 水), Fire (Agni or tejas火) Air or Wind (vayu or marut or pavan风) and Aether (空byom or akasha 以太或太空). Buddhism, however, acknowledges the existence of ‘four elements’ called ‘catudhatu’ (in Pali literature) namely as earth, water, fire and air. So far as the Hindu choice of the Five Elements is concerned, it fully tallies with the Greek choice of the Five Elements. But, if we look at the elements included in the relevant Chinese and the Indian concept, water, fire and earth are found to be common in both of them, but, the difference to be noticed are that if the two substances of metal and wood form part of the Chinese Five Elements, ‘air’ and ‘aether’ are regarded as the essential part of the Indian Five Elements.
What makes this difference in the choice of the five elements by the people of different regions is a historical question and this takes us back to the pre-historic times of both the Chinese and the Indian society.
Finally, the criterion I have chosen to test the ‘key’ hypothesis of this paper is the commodity value that the substances chosen as the five elements possess. The first question here is how to technically define a commodity. Three points may be noted and examined: first, the availability of the material substance in the context of supply and demand; second, the utility satisfying capacity of the substance and the exchange value of the substance concerned in the commodity market economy.
It is undeniably a truth that commodity value of such substances like earth, water and fire (in the form of fuel), metal (the mining resources) and the wood (the forest resources) is universal for all the people of the historic era irrespective of the regions and localities where they inhabit and the religion and faith they profess. Though all the material substances mentioned were plentiful and the individual ownership of the means of production had not yet developed during the communal production phase of the pre-Xia period (pre-historic phase of the Chinese society), the ancient Chinese had still recognized the immense value of these substances in the midst of the adverse natural conditions of floods and famine. The Indian elements of ‘air’ and ‘eather’, on the contrary, were such substance that hardly deserved to be termed commodity both in ancient as well as medieval time of the human history. That air is now only termed commodity has limited relevance in the specific context of industrialization and the resulting pollution. Thus there is no denying of the fact that the commodity value of the substance like ‘air’ and ‘eather’ is lesser than the other five elements of earth, water, fire, wood and metal. It may be noted that the carbakas (charabakas 斫婆伽) philosophical system of India rejected ‘eather’ as one of the elements on the ground that its material existence cannot be perceived and the four elements of water, earth, air and fire can only be taken as the basis for the existence of the world. (Satishchandra Chatterjee, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, p. 61) However, at no point in time during the philosophical debates in Pre-Qin China, either ‘air’ or ‘eather’ has been referred to as one of the five elements by any other leading thinker or by any other school of thoughts. All this suggests the predominance of the materialistic features in Chinese thinking. Hence, when Dong Zhongshu (179 B.C.-104 B.C.) of the Han dynasty sought to establish the Confucian thought system (Confucian culture and civilization) as the only political doctrine of the state, he chose the five element philosophy (yin-yang five elements school) of Zou Yan to make it the support base to uphold and consolidate the said system of thought. Thus the Chinese world of thought came to be based on the materialistic orientation provided by the five elements of water, earth, fire, wood and metal, and the Hindu thought system (Aryan culture and civilization) came to be predominantly based on metaphysical orientation provided by such elements like ‘air’ and ‘eather’. However, whatever value judgment has been given here is purely based on relative terms and must not be taken as absolute as both the civilization share materialistic as well as spiritual features to a varying extent.
译文Translation
论中国和印度“五种元素”之意识形态属性
古代人类社会的诸多传统和文化中都能找到“五种元素”概念。在本文的语境中，“元素”这个术语指“一种事物状态”（反映不同类型的能量所处的持续互动与相互变化的状态）、“一种事物阶段”（比如中国历史的“五个阶段”）、“人类感觉类型”或者“一种意识状态”。因此，“元素”之确切内涵取决于所讨论的主题。不同区域和环境的人们选择的五种元素并不一样，而且同样的对象在不同传统和文化中的解释也不一样。在中文中这五种元素被称为“五行”，包含了“水”、“火”、“木”、“金”和“土”五种元素。相似的概念在印度（印度教）被称为“阿育吠陀”（梵语：pancha-mahabhuta），代表“地”、“水”、“火”、“空气或风”，以及“以太或太空”。但是佛教认为只存在四种元素（巴利语文献中称作catudhatu）——“土”、“水”、“火”和“空气”。印度教选择的五种元素与希腊人选择的五种元素完全一致，而中国和印度所选择的元素中“水”、“火”和“土”这三种元素相同。但某些差异也值得注意。如果说“金”和“木”构成了中国五种元素的一部分，那么“空气”和“太空”则被认为是印度五种元素的关键部分。
是什么让不同地区的人们选择了不同的“五种元素”？这是一个历史追问，须追溯到中国和印度社会的史前时代。
本文选择用来检验本文“关键”假设的标准是被选择为五种元素的物质所具有的商品价值。此处要提出的第一个问题是如何技术地定义一件商品。我们需要注意和检验以下三个要点：首先，在供求背景下该物质的可用性；其次，该物质令人满意的能力和功用；第三，在商品市场经济下该物质的交换价值。
这是一个毋庸置疑的事实：“土”、“水”、“火（以燃料形式）”、“金（矿产资源）”、“木（森林资源）”等物质的商品价值对任何时代的所有人来说都是一样的，这种价值与他们所生活的地区、环境无关，与他们所持有的宗教信仰无关。尽管本文提到的所有物质在那时供应充足，而且在从事集体生产的夏朝之前（中国社会的史前阶段）尚未发展出个人拥有生产工具的生产方式，中国古人依然在洪水、瘟疫的恶劣自然条件中认识到这些物质的巨大价值。相反，印度的“大气”和“太空”在古代或中世纪都几乎不能称为商品。“大气”仅仅是现在才被认为是一种商品，仅仅在工业化和导致污染的特殊背景下才有一些相关性。因此，毫无疑问，“大气”和“太空”这类物质的商品价值比“土”、“水”、“火”、“木”和“金”这些物质的商品价值要小。我们也许可以看到，印度斫婆伽派的哲学体系拒绝把“太空”当作元素之一。他们的理由是，人类无法察觉和感知这种物质的存在，而四种元素“水”、“土”、“空气”和“火”只能看作是世界存在的基础。（参Satishchandra Chatterjee，《印度哲学简介》，第61页）。然而，中国秦朝之前的哲学论辩中，没有一个大思想家或任何学派把“大气”或者“太空”当做“五种元素”之一。所有这些都表明了中国思想中唯物主义特征的优势。因此，当汉朝的董仲舒（前179-前104年）试图将儒家思想体系（儒家文化和文明）确立为国家唯一的政治教义时，他选择了邹衍的“五行理论”（阴阳五行学派），让其成为支撑、稳固儒家思想体系的根基。因此，中国思想因为“金”、“木”、“水”、“火”、“土”等五元素的影响而具有唯物主义倾向；而印度思想体系（雅利安文化和文明）因为“大气”和“太空”之类元素的影响而具有形而上学倾向。
但是，本文所做任何价值判断均是建基于相关术语之上，不能将之绝对化，因为两种文明在不同程度上均既有唯物主义色彩，也有倾向精神性的特征。