New Shun 1730

So, according to this line of thought, hundreds of years after Ye Shi's death, a new thing came.

That is Catholicism.

The idea of ​​using Christianity to supplement Confucianism was very popular for a while in the late Ming Dynasty.

But with the official recognition of the Yongjia and Yongkang schools of thought by Dashun, many great Confucian scholars immediately became alert.

That is, they made the same mistake as when they opposed Buddhism.

They eliminated the concepts of God and God and made them their own.

They jumped into the trap set by others, used other people's thinking methods to transform their own knowledge, and then opposed other people's knowledge.

So after the change, is it still Confucianism?

Originally, after reflection in the late Ming Dynasty, many people were quite dissatisfied with Song Confucianism, thinking that it was a complete misunderstanding of the original meaning of Confucianism, so they wanted to break Cheng Zhu and approach Confucius and Mencius.

The Catholic issue was hit again.

In this case, Dashun directly chose administrative orders and banned religion by force. What a debate, what a supplement?

Then, in the form of an imperial edict, it directly decomposed "real learning" and "Western learning".

Anything that does not involve God, creation, Tao, Qi, etc. is considered practical learning.

And anything that involves God, Tao, Qi, Tai Chi, etc., which involves spiritual aspects, is considered Western learning.

This closed and violent ban on teaching is regarded by great Confucian scholars as the inheritance of the Yongjia and Yongkang school of learning by the Dashun.

In short, according to the learning of the Yongjia and Yongkang school, or Ye Shi's view on the orthodoxy, if one day in the future, we want to take other people's things and find similar views from Confucianism to confront, then this is itself a fake Confucianism.

A true Confucian should be based on the Three Dynasties and the Six Classics, and you say yours and I say mine.

Ye Shi believes that this kind of standing in the position of others to see oneself, or changing oneself according to the position of others, is the greatest betrayal of Confucianism.

This is "changing oneself from the barbarians".

The foundation of Confucianism is human relations, courtesy, righteousness, benevolence, loyalty and trustworthiness, as well as the system derived from them, which is pure reality.

The focus of Indian Buddhism is the joy, anger, sorrow and happiness of the human body, and the empty and mysterious pursuit of truth and delusion.

The two have different standpoints. Why do we have to bring out things like mind and nature in our own knowledge to fight against others?

It's like, why do we have to add sour, sweet, bitter and spicy to a system that evaluates green, red and black? You talk about your sour, sweet, bitter and spicy, and I talk about my black, white, green and red.

This is where Ye Shi counterattacked the Neo-Confucianism of Song Confucianism.

The theoretical construction of the Yongjia School before him was a big problem.

They recognized the Taoism of Cheng Zhu and others, but on the basis of recognition, they focused on historiography, practical learning, utilitarianism, and talked about achievements and performance.

How can they not lose?

Recognize the system of destiny and mind, and then play utilitarianism and performance under this system. If you don't lose, then hell.

And Ye Shi directly cut off the firewood from the bottom of the pot.

To put it clearly, the Neo-Confucianism is not the Confucian Taoism at all, it is pure heresy.

If you don't recognize the Neo-Confucianism system at all, you won't be suppressed by the theory of mind and destiny.

If you want to understand the true Confucianism, you must return to the origin.

Abandoning the interpretation of Confucianism started by Mencius, picking up the Six Classics again, and directly understanding the true Confucianism is to take the path of retrogression and innovation.

But the problem lies in this "establishment".

The Yongjia and Yongkang schools are about utilitarianism.

Ye Shi has his own interpretation of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism depends on the purpose.

"Work hard to eliminate troubles for the people and bring benefits", this is the kingly way of Yao, Shun, Yu, Wen and Wu.

That is, to work hard to solve the worries of the people and let the people benefit, the utilitarianism with this as the purpose is the utilitarianism of the kingly way.

But the problem is that in order to practice the kingly way, he also opposed Chen Liang's "using both kingship and hegemony".

Saying that it is the utilitarianism after Qin is a misunderstanding of the original meaning of utilitarianism.

For example, the merits of Han Fei, Li Si and others are to annex the six countries. Is this the merit of the kingly way?

Zhang Liang, Chen Ping and others are models of ministers and meritorious service in later generations. Are their merits the same as what they say they are?

Including Zhuge Liang, people of the time explained that although he used hegemony, his actions were close to the kingly way. But Zhuge Liang was only trying to restore the Han Dynasty, and he also used hegemony. How could he be considered close to the kingly way?

This point conflicted with Chen Liang, who was considered a classmate.

What era did Chen Tongfu live in? It was the era of the Jingkang Shame.

What kind of person was he?

It is said that Xin Qiji's poem "Pozhen" originated from Chen Liang riding a horse across the river. The horse was afraid and approached the river three times and retreated three times. Chen Liang thought that the horse was as cowardly as the group of people who lived in seclusion in one place, so he drew his sword and killed the horse. Xin Qiji leaned against the window and saw it, and then took him as a confidant.

That was the era.

That was the temper.

Chen Liang naturally used both kingly and hegemonic methods, and even directly said, who holds the Confucian orthodoxy?

In the hands of Emperors Tang and Han, they were the ones who truly inherited the orthodoxy.

On the one hand, it was because of the times.

On the other hand, it was also to fight against Neo-Confucianism.

Neo-Confucianism believed that after Mencius, the orthodoxy declined and was not passed on, which led to the invasion of Buddhism. There was no orthodoxy in the Han and Tang dynasties.

Chen Liang believed that just as the Tao is eternal, the Han and Tang dynasties existed in reality. Did the people at that time live in a daze without Tao?

The Tao is not empty, it must rely on affairs to exist, or it must be reflected in utilitarianism.

During the Han and Tang dynasties, people were prosperous, and foreign wars often reached the northern grasslands and expeditions to the Western Regions. Obviously, the Han and Tang dynasties were not without the orthodoxy, but had a strong orthodoxy. Otherwise, how can we explain why the Han and Tang dynasties were not forced to settle in the West Lake?

Therefore, "the original intention of the Tang Dynasty may not be different from that of Shang Tang and King Wu. Although they may have made some small mistakes, such as being eager to ascend the throne, it is not a big problem. It is said that they never lost their original intention to save the people, and their great merits and virtues have already been known to the world."

He and Zhu Xi had a long argument over this matter.

Chen Liang said that not only did the Han and Tang dynasties inherit the orthodoxy, but in fact, the governance of the Three Dynasties also used both the kingly and the hegemonic. It is not all the kingly way.

The so-called Three Dynasties are the kingly way, and the Han and Tang Dynasties are not the kingly way. It is nothing more than that the Three Dynasties did some things to the extreme, while the Han and Tang Dynasties did not do them to the extreme. There is not much difference.

Zhu Xi replied, "Brother, look at what Emperor Tang and Emperor Wu of Han did, and examine their hearts. Was it out of righteousness? Or out of profit? Was it out of righteousness? Or out of evil? Obviously, the hearts of Emperor Tang and Emperor Wu of Han were all out of profit and out of evil."

"If you say that building a country and making it strong and long-lasting, then it is the righteousness of heaven. Your idea is very dangerous. It is clearly judging right and wrong by success or failure."

And it was during the verbal battle with Chen Liang that Zhu Xi first proposed the importance of the sixteen-character mind method.

Of course, the quarrel ended in nothing.

Zhu Xi fell into Chen Liang's trap and really started to talk about the Han and Tang Daotong.

Saying that the Han and Tang were not righteous was just "secretly in line" with the Daotong, but in fact it was not the Daotong at all.

Chen Liang retorted that secretly in line is also in line, just like if all the people in the world were blind at once, would you say that the sun does not exist? The Tao always exists, and secretly in line is in line.

Then, for some reason, Zhu Xi stopped criticizing Chen Liang, probably because he thought Chen Liang was just making specious arguments and didn't want to argue with him.

Of course, the reason why Dashun chose the Yongjia and Yongkang schools of thought and tried to establish them as orthodoxy couldn't be more obvious.

The situation at that time was more dangerous than the Jingkang humiliation.

What the hell is going on? Is it for righteousness? Is it for profit?

Just do it.

Moreover, after the founding of the Dashun Dynasty, it compared itself to the Li Tang Dynasty.

It also took the means of humiliating Confucian scholars, so it really hoped to be considered as the successor of the orthodoxy.

But the problem is, do Confucians recognize Chen Liang's set of things?

How could they recognize it?

The rule of the Three Dynasties was actually a combination of kingship and hegemony?

The so-called kingly way and hegemony actually come from the same source?

The difference between the rule of the Han and Tang Dynasties and the rule of the Three Dynasties is just the difference between "doing everything" and "not doing everything"?

Han and Tang dynasties and the Three Dynasties are essentially the same, but the Three Dynasties did a good job, while Han and Tang did not do well in some areas. Is there only a simple "quantity" difference between the two, and no "quality" difference?

Chen Liang's set of knowledge may only be believed by himself to be Confucianism.

It is not tenable at all.

So even though Ye Shi also criticized Chen Liang's theory of combining kingship and hegemony, Chen Liang still asked Ye Shi to write his epitaph before his death, because there was really no one else.

Moreover, his theoretical construction was indeed insufficient.

And it was Ye Shi who finally supplemented these theories.

However, after supplementing them, Ye Shi went to the path of "self-restraint and restoration of rituals for benevolence" and wanted to build the "kingly cause", but it still didn't work.

In short, if the magic modification of Chen Liang's theory is feasible.

But that is not Confucianism, it is too heretical, so strong that no matter which Confucian school it is, it is impossible to admit that Han Wu and Tang Zong hold the orthodoxy in their hands, and it is even more impossible to admit that the Three Dynasties are actually no different from Han and Tang.

Ye Shi's stuff complemented Chen Liang's theory, but it was not feasible.

It looked like Confucianism, but if you don't put your heart into it, don't talk about your mind and nature, and want to build a kingly cause, and the utilitarianism must conform to the kingly way, then you have to go through the ceremony.

There must be something to prove that what you do is the kingly way, right?

And the key is that if Ye Shi's stuff is not done well, then it will go towards fundamentalism.

This is a school that even Mencius denied.

In this case, it is conceivable that the situation of Dashun is "destroying but not establishing".

But it is not really destroyed to the extent of the Yongjia and Yongkang schools, and it is destroyed to the point that Zengzi and Mencius inherited the orthodoxy.

Including those extreme retro schools, they are also close to Confucius and Mencius, but they are not close to Confucius of the Three Dynasties and Six Classics.

They destroyed Neo-Confucianism, but not completely.

If the new orthodoxy cannot be established, who dares to deny Mencius's orthodoxy?

Moreover, the Dashun uprising was not to drive out the Tartars, but to resist the original Ming Dynasty, which needed Mencius's theory to support it.

Although it was truly established by driving out the Tartars, the new Shun and the old Shun cannot negate each other.

You can't say that Li Zicheng's old Shun was a thief, and the new Shun after Jiugong Mountain was the orthodox one, right?

This requires Mencius to stand up, and you really can't deny Mencius.

Zhejiang School was established, but not fully established.

A complete system could not be built, so only fragments could be used. Dashun used it to compare itself to Li Tang, but it didn't really say that Han and Tang were the same as the Three Dynasties.

To put it more simply, Liu Yu was enclosing land in Huainan. Which Confucianism taught this? Is this the kingly way? Liu Yu himself was embarrassed to flatter this matter, and several subsequent events made the characterization of this matter even more confusing.