序

我非常荣幸能为这本小书作序。

我想先说说我与梁漱溟先生两人对谈的因缘。

我在哈佛读书的时候，对梁先生的生平志业产生兴趣，以他作为博士论文的主题，在台湾与香港收集相关资料，寻访他的故友旧交。碍于当时中美政治局势，我始终无法前往中国大陆，亲见我研究的对象梁先生。

1973年初，我头一次有机会前往中国大陆。在当时，一个美国人能到中国大陆去，仍是极不寻常的异例。为什么我能成行呢？这是因为在尼克松总统访华后，几个中国代表团在1972年陆续来美，而我充当中文翻译，起了沟通两国的桥梁作用，所以在1973年时，我与内人才有这个难得的机会可以造访中国大陆。当时，我向中方提出的第一个请求，便是希望可以同梁先生见面，但由于正值“文革”，时机敏感，我并没有如愿以偿地拜见到梁先生，只能抱憾返美。

1979年，在我的梁漱溟研究《最后的儒家》出版成书的同时，中国的政治局势起了巨大的变化。这波改革开放的潮流也改变了梁先生的生活。原本与夫人蜗居在狭小房间的梁先生，被政协安置到有“部长楼”之称的22号楼，与文化名流如丁玲等对门而居。有了舒适的房舍，梁先生认为比较适宜见客，便即刻想办法与我联系。

某日我突然接到一通陌生的来电，电话那头是一位八旬高龄的石老先生。他是梁先生20世纪20年代在北大的学生，刚从北京来美，受梁先生所托，捎来口讯，说是梁老已经知道《最后的儒家》出版了，希望可以与我见面。又过了几个月，一天课后，有个中国学生突然来见我。她不久前才从北京来美与父亲团聚。她拿着梁先生的联络地址，告诉我她旧日的邻居“梁伯伯”十分希望可以见到我，看到我所出版的关于他的著作。

I immediately sent him a copy of the book.Before long I received an amicable reply from Mr.Liang，agreeing to my definitely going to Beijing to visit him the next year.

In 1980，the first day I arrived in Beijing，I immediately contacted Mr.Liang.He told me how he had moved to Building Number 22.The next morning，I went to Mr.Liang's residence to visit him formally.All of Mr.Liang's family members，who took my visit very seriously，were also there.Mr.Liang introduced me to his family.I then presented him with some Harvard University souvenirs.I also gave him works of his father's.After all of those years and experiencing diverse setbacks，I had finally got to meet Mr.Liang.Sitting face to face，with only a small table between us，we began our chats.In the two weeks that followed，I went to the Liang's home every morning to ask questions of Mr.Liang.I put in order the recordings of our dialogues，part of which later was included in Mr.Liang's published collected works.

In our talks，through Mr.Liang I came to understand more fully the trait of traditional Chinese intellectuals.This is most worthy of mentioning.

During the two weeks of intensive conversation，in the first few days Mr.Liang spoke to me a great deal about Buddhism，which perplexed me，and so I asked，"Didn't you abandon Buddhist thought a long time ago?"He answered that he didn't really abandon it.We talked about the title of my book The Last Confucian，which fixed him as a Confucian.He said that he could accept the title.Yet sometimes he would express to me that Marxist—Leninist science was very good.When we spoke about traditional Chinese culture，he also praised Daoism.Once，because he had organized the Democratic League，he met with George Marshall.He evaluated Marshall very highly，and thought that he was a good person because he was a pious Christian.

At the time，I didn't quite understand.How could a person be both a Buddhist and a Confucian，and also identify with Marxist—Leninist thought and approve of Christianity?Later I finally grasped it.This ability to blend mutually contradictory thought is a special characteristic of typical traditional Chinese intellectuals.

我即刻将拙著寄给他，不久便获得梁先生友善的回应，约定好次年一定到北京去拜访他。

1980年我到北京第一天，马上便去寻找梁先生，他告诉了我他是如何搬到22号楼来的。第二天早上，我到梁家正式拜见，梁先生所有的亲人都出现在那里，对于我的来访相当郑重其事。梁先生将我介绍给他的家人，我则送予他哈佛大学的纪念品以及一幅他父亲的遗作。经过种种波折，在这多年之后，我终于得以与梁先生仅仅隔着一方小几，相对而坐，开始对谈。之后的两周，我天天一早便到梁家拜访，请教梁先生。我将对话的内容录音整理，后来收进梁先生的全集。回顾两人对谈因缘，真是感慨万千。

在我们的对谈中，我透过梁先生理解到中国传统知识分子的一种特质。这是最值得一提的部分。

在我们密集谈话的两周里，头两三天梁先生多与我说关于佛家的想法，让我很感疑惑，便问：“您不是早在多年前便公开放弃佛家思想了吗？”他说他算放弃也算没放弃，谈到拙作的标题《最后的儒家》将他定位为一位儒者，他表示他可以接受。然而有时他也向我表示马列主义的科学很好；当谈到中国传统文化，他亦赞美道教。有次提到他因组织民盟而见到马歇尔，他对马歇尔的评价很高，认为他是个好人，因为他是一个虔诚的基督徒。

那时我相当不解，一个人如何可以既是佛家又是儒家？既认同马列思想又赞许基督教？后来终于想通了，这种可以融合多种相互矛盾的思想，正是典型的中国传统知识分子的特质。

Although，during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods，many schools of thought contended and debated with one another，the scholars of the time did not recognize themselves to be a specific school.For example，when we now discuss Mencius and Xunzi，we recognize them as Confucian，even though one said that human nature was good，and the other that human nature was evil.They were followers of Confucius，but at that time，even Confucius did not necessarily recognize himself to be "Confucian."The academic classifications we are used to today—Sima Qian （in "Preface to the Histories of Sima Qian"）and his father Sima Tan （in "A Summary of the Six Schools"）—actually first classified the various pre—Qin thinkers and invented the system that we use today.

I think that Chinese culture is actually an eclectic blend of many kinds of thought that seem to be incompatible，yet at the same time is a culture that likes to classify things.It's easily seen that actually most Chinese intellectuals amalgamated various kinds of thought into one eclectic body.For example，although the Cheng brothers （Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi），Zhu Xi，Lu Xiangshan and Wang Yangming are all Neo—Confucians who focus on the nature of the mind，there are differences among them.There are Buddhist elements in their thought.Although the late Qing Dynasty intellectuals such as Liang Qichao and Zhang Taiyan were at the two opposite extremes politically and on the New Text/Old Text controversy，they both amalgamated Buddhism，Western thought and Confucianism into their individual thought.

So this perhaps explains why I，having been trained in modern academic standards and categories，thought that it was impossible for someone to be simultaneously a believer in Marxism—Leninism and Confucianism.As far as Mr.Liang was concerned，though，this was not in the least a problem.Looked at in this way，Mr.Liang was still quite a traditional Chinese intellectual.

In my opinion，the various pre—Qin philosophers were each on different paths，but they all assumed the same cosmology，that the universe was an organic whole，with each element in that whole interconnected.So，in such a cosmology，there are no absolute dichotomies and contradictions，only relative ones.This worldview was the underlying bedrock of the thought of all Chinese intellectuals，and so various different elements of thought could coexist in an individual's thought without the currents conflicting.

春秋战国百家争鸣时，虽有许多辩论，但百家学者并不认为自己是特定的一家，比方说现在我们讨论孟子与荀子，认为他们虽然一言性善，一言性恶，但都是儒家，是孔子的信徒，然而在当时，即便是孔子也未必认为自己是儒家。我们今日习以为常的学术分类，其实是司马迁在《太史公自序》中论及其父司马谈的《论六家要旨》，为诸子百家分门别派而发明出来的体系。

我认为中国文化本就是个融合许多看似不相容的思想于一体、却同时又喜欢分门别类的文化。只需留心便会发现，其实大部分的中国知识分子都是融合各类思想于一身。比方程朱陆王，同为新儒家，虽然讲义理心性，歧异很大，但他们的思想中都含有许多佛家的成分。晚清的知识分子，如梁启超、章太炎，固然在政治立场与今古文经学上分踞两极，但同样都将佛家、西方思想及儒家融入他们个人的学思中。

这解释了为什么对于受现代学术规范训练的我而言，一个人不可能同时是儒家，又是马列信徒；但对梁先生来说，这完全不是问题。从这点看来，梁先生仍是一个相当传统的中国知识分子。

依我浅见，先秦诸子虽然路线不同，但他们都共享一个宇宙观，认为宇宙是一体而有机的，天地间的每个成分跟其他的成分相互关联，所以在这样的宇宙观里，没有绝对的矛盾，只有相对的矛盾。这种宇宙观，经历数千年，仍深植在中国知识分子思想的底层，是以各种不同的思想成分，可以共存在一个人的思想里，运行不悖。

The greater part of the content of our talks was Mr.Liang's responding to my questions about historical figures in the early twentieth century.Instead of asking him about his contacts and associations in the past，why didn't I just quietly listen to Mr.Liang expostulate his thinking?I study history，and naturally want to preserve much of the historical materials.As far as I know，Mr.Liang was the last person who had personally participated in those several decades of violent cultural change and who was still healthy and clear—headed，and who，moreover knew and had contact with so many important intellectuals.His memories were of great value，so I went well beyond my role of interviewer in guiding the conversation in hopes that these unique experiences of his could be recorded for posterity.

This special case of the biographer finally meeting the biographee only after publication of the biography is unprecedented in modern Chinese history.After having had these talks with Mr.Liang，I added a final chapter to The Last Confucian to supplement and revise the original，especially the section on his suffering during the Cultural Revolution.Because I had not been able to contact him before the book was finished，and because there was no other relevant documentation available，I did not know the details，and so couldn't include them in the book.Only after we talked did I know the real situation and added it in this last chapter.On the whole，I did not revise the structure or content of the book after meeting Mr.Liang.After our talks I discovered Mr.Liang's "unity of inner feelings and outer action."His writings had honestly reflected his impressions.He never disguised his true feelings and thoughts in order to be in tune with the times or the situation，so the Mr.Liang that I had seen through his writings and the real—life Mr.Liang with whom I talked were identical.So although I was fated not to meet him before the book was completed，I was still able，through his writings，to know Mr.Liang's real personality and ways of thinking.

Speaking as an historian，I think that a hundred years from now，Mr.Liang will still occupy an important position in history，not only because of the uniqueness of his thought，but because of his truthful character—his unvaring consistency between thought and deed.Compared to many other 20th century Confucians，he is closest to the traditional in that he put his ideas into actual practice in real life，rather than just talk about Confucianism within the academy.Mr.Liang's life embodied the ideals of Confucianism and of Chinese culture.In this respect，he will always have a singular position in history.

Guy S.Alitto

梁先生与我谈话的内容，有一大部分是我向他请教20世纪初的人事。为何我不静静听梁先生抒发他的想法，而要询问他许多过去的交往呢？我是历史研究者，自然会希望多多保存历史资料，而梁先生是我所知最后一个健在且头脑清明的人，曾经亲身经历、参与过这几十年中国文化剧变，并且和许多重要知识分子相知相交过。他的回忆是宝贵的，所以我才僭越地主导谈话，希望可以将这些独一无二的经验记录下来。

像我这样，等到传记完成出书之后，作者才终于见到传主，在中国近代史学界可能是前所未有的特例。与梁先生谈话之后，我在《最后的儒家》一书最后加上一章，增补修订了原书的一些未竟之处，特别是他在“文革”期间受苦一节，由于我未能在书成前与他见面，也没有相关记录流通，所以不知悉细节，也无法载入书中，后来与他谈话后才知道实情，补充在这最后一章里。大体来说，我并没有在亲见梁先生之后，修改拙作的结构与内容。与他谈话之后，我发现梁先生表里如一，他的文章诚实地反映出他的观感，未曾因为要顺应时局而掩饰真心，所以我透过文字所见到的梁先生，与我后来实际上对谈的梁先生是一致的。是以我虽无缘在书成前见到他，但透过他的文章，我仍然深刻地认识到梁先生的真实的性格与想法。

从一个历史研究者的角度看来，我认为就算再过100年，梁先生仍会在历史上占有重要的地位，不单单是因为他独特的思想，也因为他表里如一的人格。与许多20世纪的儒家信徒相比较起来，他更逼近传统的儒者——确实地在生活中实践他的思想，而非仅仅在学院中高谈。梁先生以自己的生命去体现对儒家和中国文化的理想，就这点而言，他永远都是独一无二的。

艾恺

I'm not a scholar；I'm a thinker.

I am completely unqualified to be a man of learning.

I do admit that I'm someone who has his own ideas，who acts according to his own ideas and puts them into practice.

I am someone of independent thought.

I have consistency between my thoughts and my actions.