Thoughts on A Man of Luminous Spirit

Three weeks ago, I first picked up this thick book. After reading one section, I was filled with indignation and had nowhere to vent it.

I exchanged views with many friends who were reading the book together, and found that our thoughts were similar: we did not accept the values of this book.

To call it a "bad book" would indeed be somewhat arrogant. For the subject of Chinese language, it is actually a rare good book. Mr. Wang Kailing's rendering of language is meticulous, as in "The Person Who Watches the Sunrise on Time": "Skyscrapers have stolen the horizon; gray dusty haze, an oily greasiness always lingering in the air, the smell of gasoline that will not disperse; even if you cover your ears, you cannot block the horns of traffic. Without a proper night, there is no true dawn..." Such delicate prose is very helpful for improving our writing.

But when I chewed carefully on its content, disgust rose in me.

The book is made up of several essays. One is titled "'Dinosaur Stomach' and 'Physical Life.'" At the beginning, the essay takes a friend's question as its lead: "Why are grassroots officials so fond of eating and drinking? Why is their appetite so intense?" From there, it expands in all directions on the theme of "Chinese people eating and drinking to excess." I quote only a few passages here; since there is a risk of taking them out of context, interested friends can read the original.

"In fact, Western rich people, who are far wealthier than we are, often live simple and restrained lives. Their achievements in life are mainly invested in creating wealth and paying taxes, and they also transfer a large part of their assets to others, such as high income taxes and inheritance taxes, or by freely donating to churches, supporting public welfare, setting up foundations, and so on."

"Chinese people, why do you think only of eating? Why do you care so much for your stomach and so little for your mind? Think of gunpowder among the 'Four Great Inventions': in the end it merely filled firework tubes. Think of the south-pointing magnetic spoon: it merely relieved the loneliness of the imperial harem. Think of Li Hongzhang, a Qing grand secretary a hundred years ago who had supposedly seen the world, yet without another word sent the famous dog given by the British envoy into the kitchen..."

As for gunpowder, anyone who has studied junior-high history should know that it was already used in the military field in the late Tang dynasty, not merely "filled firework tubes" as the author writes. The author also ignores the contribution of the compass to our country's navigation, and even treats the handle of the sinan as a tool for female masturbation. This truly sets off his "luminous spirit." But these are not the main point. The main point is what he wants to express.

The author attributes foreigners' lack of waste in eating to the Christian spirit of universal love, to faith in life, and to attention to environmental protection and thrift. In contrast, he says Chinese waste food and overeat because they lack "religious sentiment" (a phrase that appears repeatedly throughout the book) and because life has no faith. He compares the swelling of appetite to the swelling and display of the desire for power. Then, with apparently logical speculation, he analyzes the cause:

"The attention of life, the center of spirit, the face of life - all are materialized in every direction. Why? I fear it has to do with a scarcity of modern rationality and religious spirit. Our religious resources have always been thin, and we lack a healthy and orderly system of modern rationality. Once a people lacks religious sentiment and rational norms, lacks universal respect for living beings and an aesthetic habit toward nature, material cravings lose their restraint and desire loses its bottom line."

It is not hard to see from the text that the author has a particular affection for religion. Our country happens to be atheist, so he seizes on this point again and again to attack. Second, the author pursues foreign culture with something close to fanaticism, as if "even the foreign air is fragrant," while taking a contemptuous attitude toward Chinese culture.

"In the twentieth century, as political ideology violently swept away religious remnants and traditional culture, the people had no obstacles left on the road of secular spirit. The political ethics that rose in their place were visibly fragile. 'Materialism' and the 'theory of struggle' not only failed to resist utilitarianism; in essence they encouraged material spirit even more and urged war against all things. Therefore, once the commercial tide arrived and the horn of productivity sounded, China's 'secular' foundation was immediately laid bare, with no spiritual vegetation covering it. A group that believes in almost nothing and desperately seeks pragmatic material things: what taboos or awe could it still have? No ceiling above, no bottom line below; unrestrained, boundless 'eating everything' becomes inevitable. Is not the 'lawlessness' in food precisely backed by 'lawlessness' in spirit?"

We should admit that Chinese society does have these problems. But the key is whether these problems are as serious as the author's "lawlessness" suggests.

Some may say that this book was probably written about twenty years ago, and from today's perspective we naturally cannot perceive the darkness of that time. I agree with this point, but please note that in the author's writing, China is beyond saving. The number of problems is not something twenty years could solve; in many passages one can even clearly feel what the author wants to say: that the Chinese nation and Chinese culture have inherent defects.

As a writer, one's work must have a bottom line. Writing is not posting on Moments; a work that should become a classic should not be allowed to fall into being a trash can for emotional venting.

What is a person of luminous spirit? Perhaps in the author's eyes, a person of luminous spirit is someone "good at discovering and criticizing the darkness of the world," someone who is "sober while everyone else is drunk" (a phrase from a friend).

I do not think so. If a person sees only what is not beautiful in the world and does not know how to accept and change it, then at most he counts as a "decadent smart person." What use is that kind of cleverness? How can it be called "luminous spirit"?

A person of luminous spirit should be someone who clearly knows the world is full of disappointments, yet still accepts everything, loves everything, and does all they can to make changes.

Friend in front of the screen, I hope we can all become such people and strive to pursue the life we want.