This paper presents a comparative study between the metaphysics of Xiong Shili (1885-1968) and that of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). Both philosophers went through a metaphysical shift from idealism to realism, and they both ended up embracing a neutral ontological monism that is neither idealism nor materialism. Russell went to China to deliver a series of lectures in 1920-1921, in which he criticized idealism and advocated neutral monism . In 1922, Xiong Shili abruptly gave up his adherence to traditional consciousness-only doctrine and developed his own new consciousness-only doctrine. He eventually gave up the consciousness-only doctrine completely and developed his cosmology, which I shall label “holistic monism,” 1 derived from Yijing . This paper does not argue that Xiong Shili's transformation was the result of Russell's impact, even though it suggests the possibility that Russell's critique of idealism may have planted the seed for Xiong 's rejection of the traditional consciousness-only doctrine. The goal of this paper is to critically compare Xiong 's holistic monism and Russell's neutral monism , which he introduced to China in 1920. It will point out that although both theories employ a neutral perspective on the nature of substance, they are fundamentally different in that Xiong Shili takes a holistic approach to substance while Russell's view is atomistic and he rejects the very notion of substance . In the end, I will argue that Xiong 's view is closer to everyday realism.

1. Some contemporary scholars have used “idealism” to identify Xiong Shili's ontological leaning. I think this is a grave misnomer. Xiong himself took great pains to refute idealism along with materialism, and in his view, both theories suffer from the problem of isolating one aspect and dismissing the other. Xiong 's view should be properly called monism. I shall explain what “holistic” means later in this paper.