Just found this in Greg Reihman’s “Malebranche and Chinese Philosophy: A Reconsideration” (BJHP 2012, 1-19):

To put the point more colourfully, one could imagine feeding a manuscript of an anti-Spinozist dialogue into a Searlean ‘Chinese room’ translation device where the rules for the output have been instructed to mechanically substitute ‘li’ for any input of ‘substance’. Although Searle used the Chinese room image to argue against machine consciousness or machine intelligence, the image is apt here, not because his illustration relies on anything about the Chinese language per se, but because Malebranche’s presentation of a Chinese philosopher as a Spinozist indicates that Malebranche understood Chinese philosophy as little as the person in Searle’s famous example understood the Chinese language. Malebranche, on this view, is ultimately arguing against Spinoza and has merely constructed Confucius to play the role of the atheistic, monistic materialist facing the prospect of conversion.

It calls to mind another famous philosophical dialogue:

Dr. Egon Spengler: There’s something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don’t cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, “bad”?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That’s bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.