We are publishing the English translation, with the Chinese original version below, of a speech Professor Ge gave at Kyoto University in Japan last week. Professor Ge is considered the most critical historian of Chinese thought. The speech concentrates on Ge’s recurring theme, China’s world vision. In this case, it’s about the occasions to change one’s vision. The importance of world visions, Weltanschauung, is a central philosophical theme, and in this historical moment, it may carry a specific political implication. The future of China and the world will also depend on their respective visions and clash of visions (Appia Institute).
I would like to discuss the following topics: 1. How did ancient Chinese people perceive the world? 2. Were there opportunities in history for these perceptions and methodologies to change? 3. How do these perceptions and methodologies impact modern Chinese people today?
***
Let me start by briefly explaining that during the pre-Qin era (before the Third Century BC), ancient China formed some basic perceptions of the world:
First, in the imagination of ancient China, “Tianxia” (All Under Heaven) consisted of the Nine “Provinces” and their surroundings. The so-called Nine Provinces were Jizhou, Yanzhou, Qingzhou, Xuzhou, Yangzhou, Jingzhou, Yuzhou, Liangzhou, and Yongzhou, which roughly correspond to the core areas of modern China, primarily inhabited by Han Chinese.
Second, what constituted the surroundings? To ancient China, these were lands inhabited by what they considered barbarians, such as the Dongyi, Xirong, Nanman, and Beidi. The ancient Chinese believed that the nature of these “barbarians” was unchangeable – civilized people were always civilized, while barbarians were barbarians.
Third, these barbarians were expected to submit to the civilized people, meaning that the surrounding barbarian tribes were expected to pay tribute to and acknowledge the suzerainty of the civilized Huaxia (Chinese). This notion formed during the pre-Qin to the Qin-Han unification, slowly solidifying into a fixed model, much like what we now refer to as cultural genes, deeply ingrained in the consciousness of traditional Han Chinese.
This ancient Chinese “Tianxia view” became our standard worldview. It didn’t change regardless of the dynasty – be it Han, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, or Qing – nor did it matter which family name the emperor hailed from, whether Liu, Li, Zhao, Zhu, or even non-Han leaders like Kublai Khan or Aisin Gioro emperors.
But were there opportunities for change? Indeed, there were. Over two thousand years, as China engaged with the outside world, experienced shifts in the international context, and saw the imperial frontiers move, there were actually four opportunities to change this “Tianxia view” or worldview, which might have allowed China to look beyond its borders. Unfortunately, due to various reasons, these opportunities never resulted in a shift in China’s worldview.
***
Let’s talk about the first opportunity.
The first opportunity occurred during the medieval period, approximately from the 1st to the 7th century when China’s perspective on the world broadened and the Buddhist worldview was introduced. In medieval China, the most important sources of world knowledge came from two areas: an expansion of the Han Chinese’s range of activities, such as Zhang Qian’s missions to the Western Regions and Ban Chao’s subsequent missions, along with incursions by various non-Han groups such as the Xiongnu, Xianbei, Turks, Tibetans, Uighurs, and Khitan into Chinese heartlands, considerably expanding China’s worldview. The second source was the introduction of Buddhism into China, which had a tremendous impact on Chinese knowledge of the world because Buddhism came from outside China and brought an abundance of new knowledge. Indigenous Buddhists traveled to India to seek the truth of Buddhism, expanding their perspective on the world. At this point, due to Buddhism’s entry into China, China was forced to confront its surroundings, as Buddhism represented a civilization on par with China and even higher, according to some Buddhists, who viewed India and Buddhist civilization as superior. This notion challenged the idea of China as the world center and suggested that India, not China, was the world center, as the greatest figure, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), was born in India, not China.
This severely affected Han Chinese beliefs, compelling them to open their eyes to the world. Notably, during the 4th to 6th centuries, foreign Buddhist monks coming to China and Chinese Buddhists traveling to India wrote many works on the world’s geography and translated texts such as “Records of the World” and “Biography of Foreign Lands.” Here’s an illustrative story: A debate occurred between Buddhist monks and Confucian scholars in the Southern Dynasties. According to traditional Chinese belief, China was the center of the world, with Luoyang being the center of China and the world, directly beneath the heavens. This gave rise to the saying “Luoxia has No Shadow,” meaning that at noon in Luoyang, no shadow would be cast by an upright pole, as it was aligned with the center of the heavens. This was considered an incontestable truth. However, Buddhist monks disagreed, noting that in Luoyang, this shadowless effect only occurred during the summer solstice, whereas in India, south of the Tropic of Cancer, no shadow was cast at noon on many more occasions than in Luoyang north of this line, sparking a debate about who should be considered the center of the world.
This debate lasted over a century, and eventually, it became clear that Luoyang was not the world’s center, causing the Chinese to quietly let go of the dispute with Buddhists. Yet, they continued to hold on to their traditional notion of China as the central empire, surrounded by smaller “barbarian” kingdoms.
Nonetheless, Buddhist knowledge had a lasting impact, even until the Song dynasty, when Buddhist monks compiled works like “The Comprehensive Records of the Buddha,” which featured maps displaying at least three world centers from their perspective: the East (China), the West (modern Xinjiang and Central Asia), and India. This presented a significant challenge to traditional Chinese worldviews. Alas, Buddhism never conquered China since politics always trumped religion in China, which marginalized Buddhist knowledge and cost China an opportunity to alter its worldview.
***
What was the second chance for change? The second opportunity came during the Song dynasty (from 960 to 1279 AD). Unlike the expansive and formidable empires of the Han and Tang dynasties, the world situation in the Song period was dramatically different. Compared to the Tang dynasty, the Song’s territory was halved. To the north, they faced the Khitan, later the Jurchens, and eventually the Mongols. To the east were the Koreans who did not always acknowledge Song suzerainty, with Korea paying tribute to the Khitan at times, and across the sea lay Japan. To the west was the Western Xia founded by the Tangut people, the southwest housed the Tibetans and Dali, while the Annam lay to the south. The shrunken Song dynasty became just one nation among many in Asia, with the mighty empires of the Han and Tang only a historical memory, and China’s presence significantly diminished.
Qian Zhongshu (1910-1998, renowned literary critic) once used a metaphor comparing China’s shift from an eight-foot large bed in the Tang dynasty to a three-foot campaign bed during the Song dynasty, illustrating the international pressure from strong neighboring countries and the Song’s consequential shift in focus from the land to the sea, making maritime aspects more crucial than the terrestrial ones. This era propelled Song intellectuals to clearly delineate the concepts of “internal” and “external,” progressively forming new worldviews. Firstly, they recognized the legitimacy of foreign existence and accepted that these entities were equally sovereign nations and not merely barbarians. As everyone is aware, the Liao and Jin dynasties established by the Khitan and Jurchens respectively, sometimes enjoyed higher diplomatic status than the Han-led Song. This led to the emergence of a worldview acknowledging both yin and yang in the universe, with both inner and outer realms, marking a first point.
Second, they reshaped their views of the universe: previously, the Chinese saw the Nine Provinces as the world’s center, fitting astronomical bodies like the lunar mansions neatly, linking the cosmos exclusively with China. However, Song scholars began to acknowledge China’s relatively small size and the vastness of the outside world, embracing the idea that many foreign countries and different ethnicities lay beyond the earth and under the starry sky. Even the division of territories corresponding to the lunar mansions included both China and foreign lands, a critical development as the understanding of heaven and earth was foundational to comprehending the world in traditional China.
Third, under the pressure of powerful enemies in the west and north, people gradually conceded that China was not the biggest and slowly adjusted their attitude towards the “Four Barbarians” or “barbarians.” With the northwest route closed, the Song dynasty shifted its focus from northwest to southeast, from land to sea, amassing an abundance of information about foreign lands. Envoys sent abroad by the Song court documented personal experiences, contributing significantly to foreign literature, while Song officials managing maritime trade (Shibo Si) also noted places like the East China Sea, South China Sea, and even distant locales like Mecca, the Islamic holy city.
At this juncture, a shift in worldviews seemed plausible. However, bizarrely, these innovative Song ideas failed to take root or become common knowledge, eventually fading in history. While the reasons are complex, suffice it to say, the subsequent Ming dynasty, inheriting the Song’s territory and population, reverted China’s recognition of the “world” back to a more insular, Han-centric perspective, situating Huaxia (“Chinese”) at the center.
***
The third chance to change the traditional Chinese worldview arose during the Mongol Yuan dynasty, which established a vast trans-Eurasian empire. The Mongols, along with Arabs, Persians, and Central Asians, brought considerable global knowledge, offering new perspectives to the Chinese. During the Mongol Yuan era in the 13th to 14th centuries, China saw an influx of foreigners, introducing fresh worldviews. In the course of the Mongol conquests of Han China and afterward, Yuan officials at the bureaucratic Secretariat level, aiming to compile an imperial unifying history and map, considered both Han China and Mongol-conquered Eurasia. A Persian named Jamal ad-Din proposed to Kublai Khan that historical materials and maps from distant places be gathered at the capital, Dadu (now Beijing). He further suggested kubla khan（元世祖）solicit Arabs, Persians, “Barbarians” (southerners in China), and “Han Chinese” (northerners in China) to co-author a unified history and map. At the time, China absorbed a plethora of geographical knowledge from Arabs, Persians, Central Asians, and Mongols. An early example mentioned in documents is a globe, known as “Kuraiyarzi,” brought by foreigners that hinted at a spherical earth with three parts land and seven parts water. This globe detailed longitudes and latitudes, referred to as “small square wells” in texts, illustrating rivers and lakes on land. Thus, new global perspectives and knowledge had already reached China.
A particularly intriguing artifact is a map held in Japan’s Ryukoku University, drawn by a Korean in 1402, named “Map of Integrated Borders and Capitals of Historical Dynasties.” This map derived from two maps created by the Chinese during the Mongol Yuan period. What makes it astonishing is its depiction of a triangular Africa, precisely detailed Arabia, and even Europe, with Japanese scholars proving it marks locations like Rome, Paris, and Baghdad. Unfortunately, this enhanced global understanding vanished quickly after the Mongol era ended, with traditional Chinese worldview still fixated on a Han-centric framework with peripheral barbarians.
***
The fourth chance for China to change its perception of the world came with late Ming missionaries who introduced new world maps and geographical knowledge. By the late Ming period, corresponding to the late 16th and early 17th centuries, following the Renaissance and Reformation, European Catholic missionaries arrived in China. The most notable among them was Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), who drew a map in Zhaoqing, Guangdong, called “The Map of Mountains and Seas,” based on a contemporary European world map. This world map was already quite similar to today’s maps. In the late Ming period, it significantly influenced China, to the extent that Emperor Wanli even had eunuchs create a six-panel screen version called “The Complete Map of the World.”
This map, and the new global knowledge it brought, profoundly impacted China. It presented shocking truths: first, the world was vast, with China as only one-tenth of Asia, while Asia was merely a fifth of the world. Second, contrary to traditional Chinese belief in a square earth beneath a round heaven with China at the center, reality described a spherical Earth where someone existed directly opposite you, foot to foot, on the globe. In this round world, no place held the central position. Third, it highlighted that numerous nations coexisted in the world, each with a sophisticated civilization, and not just China as the sole civilization with surrounding “barbarians.”
As known, the major seafarers after the 15th-century, advancing toward the East, included missionaries who brought new knowledge and faith, merchants who facilitated trade shifting East Asian goods’ internal circulation to a global external cycle, and colonists introducing new political systems and international relations through force. The new knowledge the missionaries brought provided China with a crucial opportunity to alter its worldview. Regrettably, this opportunity didn’t suffice to nudge China from tradition, as the Chinese leaned towards internal adjustment within their knowledge framework rather than stepping outside into transformational change, an effect of China’s robust traditional culture and well-rounded knowledge system with deeply rooted ideological concepts.
***
Thus, a fundamental shift in worldview didn’t materialize until the late Qing dynasty when forced by powerful Western advancements, compelling China into change, described by scholars as a “great transformation not seen in two thousand years.” This signified a tremendous change from a perceived identity as the celestial kingdom, with a central emperor and surrounded by small, uncivilized nations, to accepting the existence of a world with numerous equal sovereign nations, all interdependent and interconnected.
***
What lessons do we draw from this winding and thwarted history of China’s global perception? I think there are several points:
First, it’s incontrovertible that traditional Chinese perceptions of the world are deeply ingrained, significantly affecting the worldview of traditional Chinese people and, subsequently, modern China’s view of the world. Even with the significant influx of new knowledge challenging old views, knowledge augmentation doesn’t inherently drive conceptual change, which sometimes depends on external forces. This mirrors the theory of “impact-response” mentioned by John Fairbank, suggesting that external challenges provoke responses leading to change.
Secondly, the alteration of traditional Chinese worldviews ties closely with modern China’s international environment, which historically rendered them reactive. The traditional notions of a central of world imperial remain fundamentally unaltered even to this day. Ancient Chinese thought and knowledge matured early and systematized comprehensively, making any reform a challenge requiring holistic adjustments, unlike countries like Japan, which readily adopted new knowledge as described by Lu Xun’s idea of “taking in” foreign ideas to use them for national benefit. This explains why understanding traditional Chinese tendencies to discuss “essence-use（ti-yong）” and “logos and utensils（dao-qi） “indicating a necessity for comprehensive and systemic comprehension to fuel changes in ideas, thoughts, and knowledge.
Thirdly, reshaping China’s understanding of the world continues to necessitate educational reform. The knowledge of worldwide understanding correlates with China’s self-identification, whether it sees itself as a global power or just another nation. Without educational materials and curriculum reforms, transforming public understanding is challenging, as is nurturing a global citizenship awareness in each individual.
传统中国认识世界的曲折和挫折
葛兆光
各位朋友大家好，今天想跟大家讨论的话题是，1，古代的中国人是怎么样认识世界的？2，这种认识世界的观念和方法在历史上有没有改变的机会？3，这种观念和方法对我们今天的中国人有什么影响？
1
我先简单说一下，在先秦时代，古代中国就形成了认识世界的一些基本观念：
第一，在古代中国的想象中，天下就是九州和它的周边。所谓九州就是冀州、兖州、青州、徐州、扬州、荆州、豫州、梁州、雍州，大概就是现在中国的核心区域，或者说，主要是汉族中国人居住的区域。
第二，什么是周边？周边在古代中国看来，就是一些野蛮人，包括东夷、西戎、南蛮、北狄，按照古代中国人的想法，这蛮夷戎狄的本性是不会改变的，文明人就是文明人，野蛮人就是野蛮人。
第三，这些野蛮人要服从文明人，也就是说周边的这些蛮夷要向文明的华夏进贡、臣服。这种观念经过先秦到秦汉大一统，逐渐的形成了一个固定的模式。有点像我们现在所说的文化基因，它一直留存在我们传统的汉族中国人的心里。
这种古代中国的“天下观”，成了我们的标配。后来，无论是汉唐宋元明清，无论是刘姓人当皇帝，李姓的人当皇帝，赵家的人当皇帝，或者朱家的人当皇帝，甚至是一些非汉族的，比如说忽必烈当皇帝，或者爱新觉罗氏当皇帝，都没有改变这样想象世界的方法。
可是，改变的机会有没有？其实是有的。应该说两千多年里，随着传统中国的对外交流，国际处境变化，帝国疆域的移动，其实，有四次改变这种天下观、或者世界观的方法和机会，可以让中国走出中国，重新来打开眼界，认识世界。可是，由于种种原因，很遗憾，最终都没有改变中国的这种认识世界的这种观念。所以，我们今天的主题，就是讲传统中国认识世界的曲折和挫折。
2
我们先说第一个机会。
第一个机会是中古时期，大概相当于公元一世纪到七世纪，中国关于世界视野的拓宽和佛教世界观的传入。在中国中古时期，有关世界知识最重要的来源有两个，一个是汉族中国人的活动范围拓宽，比如说较早的张骞通西域，后来的班超通西域，再加上西部、北部的各种非汉族，像匈奴、鲜卑、突厥、吐蕃、回鹘、契丹，进入汉族中国的核心区域，这就大大开阔了中国对于世界的认知。另一个是佛教传入中国，对中国的世界知识形成了非常大的冲击。因为佛教来自中国之外，佛教徒给中国带来了丰富的知识。本土的佛教徒到印度去寻求佛教的真理，他们也打开了中国对于世界认知的视野。在这个时候，由于佛教进入中国，中国不得不正视自己的周边，因为在当时佛教跟中国是同样高度的文明，甚至在佛教徒看来，印度和佛教的文明，比中国还要高明。中国不是世界的中心，印度才是世界的中心。最伟大的人物不是诞生在中国，而是诞生在印度，就是释迦牟尼。
这就给汉族中国带来了非常大的冲击，不得不像后来说的“睁开眼睛看世界”。特别是在4世纪到6世纪来到中国的异族佛教徒和远赴印度的中国佛教徒，他们撰写了很多有关世界的著作，也翻译了一些像《世界纪》、《外国传》之类的书籍。这里我给大家讲个故事，在南朝曾经有佛教徒跟儒家士大夫进行辩论。在传统中国人的认知里面，中国是天下的中心，洛阳是中国的中心，也是大地的中心，它正对的是天穹的中心，所以有一个说法叫“洛下无影”。就是在洛阳这个地方立一个杆子，在太阳正当午的时候照下来，由于是中心对中心，所以日光照下的竹竿是没有影子的。在古代中国，人们都认为这是天经地义的真理：洛阳就是天下中央，中国当然也是世界中心。可是，在佛教徒看来这话是错的，因为他们认为，在洛阳只有夏至那一天，太阳当午的时候才洛下无影。可是在印度，大家都知道印度在北回归线以南，太阳正当午时分照下来，竹竿没有影子的时间，要远远的多于在北回归线以北的洛阳。因此，这个争论带来了一个问题就是说，谁是天下的中心？天下是不是只有你是中心？
这个争论延续了一百多年，后来大家都知道，原来洛阳不是天下中心，就不再跟佛教徒纠缠争论，但也轻轻的悄悄地把这个事情放在一边，仍然坚持自己的观念，还是认为中国就是天下中心，中国是天下最大的帝国，周边都是非常小的蛮夷之国。因为谁是中心，在古代中国是跟天朝的自尊相关的。
可是，佛教的这些知识还是有影响的，一直到宋代，如果大家看宋代佛教徒编的《佛祖统纪》，里面有三幅地图，它显示了在佛教徒心目中世界至少有三个中心，一个叫东震旦也就是中国，一个叫西域也就是现在的新疆、中亚一带，第三个是印度。这三幅地图并列，在很大程度上挑战了传统中国的世界观念。可是很遗憾，佛教没有征服中国，因为在中国，政治永远高于宗教，因此，佛教的知识逐渐的边缘化，中国失去了这样一个改变世界观的机会。
3
那么，第二个机会是什么？第二个机会是在宋代。大家知道汉唐都是天下帝国，雄视天下，可是宋代可不一样。宋代的世界形势变了，宋朝和唐朝比起来疆域缩小了一半，在北边有契丹，后来还有女真，再后来还有蒙古，东边有并不臣服于宋朝的高丽，高丽在很长时间里，其实臣服于契丹，再远隔海还有日本，西边有党项羌人建立的西夏，西南有吐蕃和大理，南边有安南。收缩了的大宋王朝，逐渐成了亚洲各国里的一国，中古时代汉唐两代那种天下帝国只是历史记忆，当时的中国已经缩小了。
钱钟书先生曾经有一个比喻，他说，宋朝的中国已经从八尺大床变成了三尺行军床了，外面有强大诸国并立的国际，因此，宋朝才形成背海立国，重心转向南方，海洋变得比陆地重要。不过，正是在这个时代，宋朝人才清楚地意识到“内”和“外”的关系，他们开始把内和外分开，逐渐形成了一些新的世界认识。第一，承认外国存在的合法性，并且被迫承认他们不是蛮夷，是和自己对等的国家。大家都知道，契丹和女真建立的辽和金，甚至有时候外交上地位比汉族宋朝还要高。宋朝人逐渐形成了一种世界观，就是宇宙有阴也有阳，天下也有中也有外，这是第一点。第二，人们改变了过去的宇宙观念，过去中国人觉得，地理上，九州就是天下中心。从天文上，二十八宿都是和中国地理的“分野”一一对应的，因此天地两方面都只有中国。可是这个时候宋朝人开始承认，中国并不大，外面的世界很大，在大地之上，星空之下，还有很多外国和异族，就连二十八星宿所对应的分野，也是既有中国也有外国，这很重要，因为在传统中国，对天地宇宙的认识，是理解世界的观念基础。第三，在西方、北方强大敌国的压迫之下。人们渐渐承认中国不是最大的，渐渐改变了对“四裔”也就是所谓“蛮夷”的态度。而且由于西北道路不通了，宋代的交流重心从西北转向东南，从陆地转向海洋，有关域外的知识越来越多。宋朝出使外国的使臣，根据自己的亲身经历，留下了不少关于外国的文献，宋朝负责贸易管理的市舶司官员，面向海洋，也留下了很多有关东海、南海，甚至更遥远的地方的记录，甚至包括伊斯兰圣地麦加的记载。
这个时候，有关世界的看法似乎有机会改变了。可是历史非常诡异，宋代的这些新观念，并没有生根成为常识，反而后来在历史中逐渐消失了。它的原因很复杂，这里没有时间仔细讲，但是请大家注意，再后来继承宋朝疆域和族群的明朝，仍然把对“世界”的认知缩小到本国，也就是汉族地区，以华夏为中心的世界。
4
改变传统中国世界观的第三个机会，出现在横跨欧亚建立世界帝国的蒙元时代。当时的蒙古人、阿拉伯人、波斯人和中亚人，带来了很多有关世界的知识，这给中国人带来了世界新视野。从13世纪到14世纪也就是蒙元时代，因为横跨欧亚的蒙古人当统治者，中国来了很多异域的人，因此带来了改变世界的知识。蒙元征服汉族中国前后，元朝的秘书监也就是帝国最高文化机构，曾经准备修撰大帝国的一统历史和一统地图。蒙元的一统既包括了汉族中国，也包括了蒙古征服的欧亚世界。当时有一个波斯人叫扎马鲁丁，他曾经给忽必烈上书，要求把边远地方的史料和地图，都集中在大都，就是现在的北京。而且建议皇帝下令集中阿拉伯人、波斯人，蛮子也就是中国南方人，汉儿也就是中国北方人，一起来修撰一统历史和一统地图。那个时候的中国，已经接受了很多来自阿拉伯、波斯、中亚、蒙古的世界认识。举一个例子。文献里面记载的一个早期地球仪，叫做“苦来亦阿儿子”，就是回回人带来的，这个地球仪，实际上已经告诉中国，地球是圆的，而且三分是陆地，七分是海洋，这个地球仪上，还画有经纬线，文献中叫做“小方井”，而且这个地球仪在陆地上，还画了江河湖泊。这也就是说，新的世界观念，新的世界知识，其实已经来到中国了。
特别有意思的，是一幅保存在日本京都龙谷大学，1402年朝鲜人画的地图，叫做《混一疆理历代国都之图》。这幅地图它根据的底本是蒙元时期中国人画的两幅地图。可是这个地图非常令人吃惊的是，上面有倒三角形的非洲，有非常准确的阿拉伯半岛，甚至还有欧洲，日本学者证明，这幅图还标志着罗马、巴黎、巴格达。可是遗憾的是，这些新的世界知识在蒙古时代结束以后，很快也就消失了，在传统中国人心目中，仍然坚持着以汉族中国为中心，以周边为蛮夷的这样一个世界观念。
5
那么，第四次改变中国世界认识的机会是什么呢？是晚明传教士带来新的世界地图和世界知识。大家都知道，明朝中后期，也就是16世纪末17世纪初，文艺复兴和宗教改革之后，一些欧洲天主教传教士来到了中国，其中最有名的是利玛窦（1552-1610），他曾经在广东肇庆画了一幅《山海舆地图》，是根据一幅当时欧洲绘制的世界地图画出来的。这个世界地图跟今天的世界地图，已经非常接近了。这幅世界地图，后来在明朝中后期影响非常大，甚至连万历皇帝都叫太监仿制了一幅六扇屏风的《坤舆万国全图》。
这个地图带来的新世界知识对中国冲击非常大。为什么呢？它告诉中国人几点很震撼的消息：第一，世界非常大，中国只是亚细亚的十分之一，亚细亚只是世界的五分之一。第二，大地并不是传统中国人认为的天圆地方，也并不是中国在中央，而是一个圆的球，甚至有人在地球的另一面，跟自己是脚对脚的。在圆的世界上，没有哪个地方是中心。第三。也告诉中国人世界上万国并立，有多种文明，各个文明都非常发达，并不是只有中国一个文明，而周边都是蛮夷。
大家知道，十五世纪大航海之后，欧洲人来到东方，最重要的就是三类人。第一类就是传教士，他们带来了新知识和新信仰；第二类是商人，他们进行商品贸易，使得东方也就是东亚商品的内循环，转向全球的外循环，把全球连成了一片；第三类是殖民者，他们用枪炮带来了另外一种政治制度和国际关系。其中，传教士带来的新知识，其实给中国带来了一个改变自己世界观的契机。很可惜，这种契机并没有使中国走出传统，中国人仍然习惯于“在传统内变”，在原本的知识框架内调整，而不是把两只脚迈出去“在传统外变”，这是因为中国传统文化太强大，中国知识体系太完整，中国的思想观念太源远流长。
6
因此，世界观的根本改变要到晚清，也就是在坚船利炮的冲击下，使得中国人不得不改变的时候，也就是“二千年未有之大变局”。这就是过去学者说的，中国从传统走向近代一个最大的变化，就是“从天下到万国”。也就是说，从认为自己是天朝、是天下，是大皇帝，周边都是蛮夷，都是小国，到承认天下是万国并立，各国平等，都有主权，而且是一个互相依赖和彼此联系的国际，这才是根本的大变化。
那么，我们从中国认知世界这个曲折和挫折的历史里，我们看到了什么？我想有几点：
第一，应该知道，传统中国有关世界的观念是相当顽固的，它影响了传统中国人的世界观，同时这种世界观也影响了现代中国看待世界的方法。尽管有这么多改变世界认识的新知传来，但要知道，知识增长未必就能促使观念改变，内在的观念改变，有时候需要一些外来冲击，所以，知识史跟思想史不一定是同步的。这一点可能让有些朋友想起当年费正清讲的“冲击-反应”。也许这是一个陈旧的理论，但是陈旧的理论不一定没有道理，这是我要讲的第一点。
第二，传统中国世界观的改变，跟中国近代国际环境有很大的关系，所以它总是显得那么被动，那种传统的天下中心天下帝国的观念，恐怕至今也没有彻底改变。因为中国古代思想文化和知识，它太早就成熟了，太早就很系统，任何改变都要整体改变。不像有些国家，比如日本，新知识拿来就可以用，就像鲁迅说的“拿来主义”。所以，你要理解中国人为什么总是要讨论“体用，道器，本末”？其实就是说，中国人总是需要一个整体而且系统的理解，才能促成观念、思想和知识的根本改变。
第三，我还有一点感想，要让中国人走出中国重新理解世界，仍然需要从教育开始。认识世界的知识，实际上关系到中国如何自我定位，到底中国是“天下”还是“万国”，是“天朝”还是一个“国家”。这种走出传统的观念改变，如果没有教材、教科书的介入，我们很难改变民众对世界的认知，也很难培养每一个人应该具有的世界公民意识。
