The 12th lecture in the Youth Salon series hosted by the Institute of Area Studies, Peking University (PKUIAS), was held on June 19, 2025. The lecture, titled “Oceans, Lands, and the World’s Ultimate Extremity: The Kunlun Theory from the Ming Dynasty to the Modern Era”, was delivered by Associate Professor Gao Bo from the School of History at Renmin University of China, and moderated by Prof. Zhang Yongle, deputy director of PKUIAS and tenured associate professor at the School of Law. Attendees included Tenured Associate Professor Tian Geng, Associate Professor Wang Juan, and Assistant Professors Zhang Fan and Zhang Zhe from the Department of Sociology; Tenured Associate Professor Sun Ming from the School of Government; Tenured Associate Professor Shi Yue from the School of Foreign Languages; and Director Kong Tao of the Research Department of the Institute of Social Science Survey.

Prof. Gao Bo began by introducing the “Kunlun Question,” pointing out that the Kunlun Theory was one of the most enduring concepts in ancient Chinese geographical thought, providing a crucial framework for deepening our understanding of ancient Chinese civilization. As early as the Han Dynasty, when the “Centrality of the Heluo Region” theory was formalized, discussions on the Kunlun Theory had already emerged. Moreover, the latter has gained even greater vitality in the modern era. He emphasized that the ancient Chinese concept of situating the world within the context of heaven and earth corresponds to the Western notion of the “ecumene”. By directly examining tianxia (‘all-under-heaven’) and zhong (‘centrality’) rather than “China”, it is possible to partially transcend the constraints of the modern nation-state perspective and focus more directly on the study of ancient Chinese civilizational thinking.

Prof. Gao Bo then traced the historical evolution of the Kunlun Theory from the pre-Qin era through the Wei–Jin period, the Song and Ming dynasties, and into the modern era. During the pre-Qin to Wei–Jin periods, Kunlun was depicted in the Shanhaijing (‘Classic of Mountains and Seas’) as a divine mountain in the northwest: “The great Mount Kunlun within the Seas is situated in the northwest; it is the earthly capital of the Supreme Deity”, and “on this mountain, all things are found”. This era gave birth to the “Four Rivers Diverging” doctrine, which held that Kunlun was the highest point on earth and the source of all rivers. Following the introduction of Buddhism, its cosmology posed a significant challenge to the theory of the “Centrality of the Heluo Region”. Intriguingly, Buddhism’s sacred Mount Sumeru in the north and China’s sacred Mount Kunlun in the west overlapped geographically and resonated culturally. Texts such as the Shiyi Ji and Shui Jing Zhu (‘Commentary on the Water Classic’) began to equate Buddhism’s Anavatapta Mountain with China’s Kunlun. However, from the Song to the Ming dynasties, as the territorial expanse of the Song state contracted, people could no longer access the locations previously identified as “Kunlun”. The Kunlun Theory gradually underwent a process of rationalization (yili hua), becoming a symbol in the theory of gewu (‘investigation of things’). This led to the emergence of the theory of the earth’s Qi pulses (qi mai), which identified Kunlun in the northwest and asserted that all mountain ranges originated from it, thereby essentially undermined its significance in practical geography. In the late Ming period, with the spread of Western learning and global geographical knowledge to the East, the Kunlun theory experienced a revival. Chinese scholars reconceptualized Kunlun as a junction point connecting the three major civilizations of China, British India, and Russia, reinforcing the persuasive power of the idea that the great Kunlun was a common center for multiple civilizations. In the modern era, Kang Youwei even proposed the “Theory of the Global Dragon Vein” (quanqiu longmai shuo), positioning Kunlun as a symbol of the common origin of world civilizations. Liao Ping integrated the ocean with Kunlun to advance the “Maritime Kunlun Theory” (haiyang kunlun shuo), arguing that, topographically, the Kunlun was, in fact, the Mediterranean Sea, thereby providing a scholarly explanation for the then-prevalent Eurocentric theories. Even though, since modern times, the concept of the Celestial Pole (tianji), symbolized by the North Pole, ultimately declined with the introduction of the theories of an infinite universe and a moving earth and the global distribution of seven continents and four oceans became universally accepted, Kunlun as an idea has persisted. Through continuous reinterpretation and transformation, it has, to some extent, maintained its status as the “World’s Ultimate Extremity” (tianxia zhi ji).

Prof. Gao Bo concluded by emphasizing that the Kunlun theory represents China’s endeavor to redefine itself amidst shifting global dynamics, advocating for a common civilizational origin over multiple independent ones. Modern scholars have leveraged this theory to bridge Eastern and Western civilizations, attempting to construct an inclusive world order. Furthermore, the theory has influenced geopolitical thought and nation-building, serving as a critical intellectual resource for modern China in responding to Western impact.

During the Q&A session, faculty and students engaged in a thorough exchange on the multidimensional significance of the Kunlun Theory. The discussion encompassed several key themes: the conflict between the concept of the “ecumene” and the “all-under-heaven” (tianxia) concept in terms of rulership and power structures; the symbolic meaning of Kunlun as a “liminal space between the human and the divine”; how the two “extremes” of Kunlun and the capital city were reconciled; the contribution of the Kunlun Theory to dissolving boundaries between civilizations; and the relationship between nomadic and agrarian civilizations within the framework of the theory. Regarding the question of Kunlun and civilizational boundaries, Prof. Gao Bo responded that Kunlun possesses immense geographical inclusivity. He suggested that if the theory of the “Centrality of the Heluo Region” conceptualized relationships within a single civilization, then Kunlun, in contrast, ventures to the very boundaries of civilization to explore relationships with other civilizations and the dynamic between humans and gods. Kunlun, therefore, is not merely a geographical concept but a symbol of civilizational convergence, embodying the complexity of China’s relationship with the world.

In his concluding remarks, Prof. Zhang Yongle pointed out that the Kunlun theory offers a crucial perspective for understanding the construction of community. It functioned simultaneously as the “center of all-under-heaven” (tianxia zhi zhong) and the “boundaries of all-under-heaven” (tianxia zhi bianjie), playing a pivotal role in the transformation of the modern Chinese nation and its interaction with the world. He expressed his hope that this theory would inspire a rethinking of civilizational interaction, geopolitics, and global order.