New Shun 1730

The extinction of the Yanli School is imminent. If we use the concepts of later martial arts novels to understand it, it is actually similar to:

Orthodox schools all need to practice internal strength.

Whether it is like Zhu Xi, who believes that internal strength has one, two, three, four, and five levels, and that there are steps to reach the top step by step; or under the influence of Zen, who emphasizes sudden enlightenment.

In short, you have to practice internal strength.

As long as the internal strength is reached, you will have the power to break stones and crack rocks when you raise your hands and feet. Every punch and kick is in accordance with the way of heaven, and no one can stop you.

If you are in accordance with the way of heaven, you can do whatever you want and not go beyond the rules. Both inside and outside, you will achieve great success.

The Yanli School, on the other hand, says that practicing internal strength is a waste of time.

Didn't the Master pass down more than a dozen sets of moves? In addition to the twenty or thirty sets of moves developed and created in later generations.

As long as you practice these moves, you can go from the outside to the inside and finally reach the realm of perfection. Did Hong Qigong practice internal strength? Isn't it a set of palm techniques, which eventually become a master from the outside to the inside?

These twenty or thirty sets of moves are etiquette, music, agronomy, military tactics, arithmetic, astronomy, geography, etc.

If you practice all these twenty or thirty sets of moves, from the outside to the inside, the internal force will be generated, and you can also reach the state of perfection, and finally be invincible and reach the state of a grand master.

So how to practice these moves well and pure? Practice, do it, do it more, and you will be proficient.

In the end, for the country and the people, do the policies that the world dare not do, solve the problems that the world cannot solve, and use the feedback of the people to prove that you are upright and have not gone astray.

What if ordinary people are not talented enough? You can't learn this set of "boxing", but can't you learn one move?

It was originally a dispute between the "Qi Sect" and the "Sword Sect" within the sect.

But suddenly a group of people who value "practicing moves" and "practice" emerged. This group of people said, we only practice moves, we don't have the inner classics, we only learn agriculture, astronomy, mathematics, geometry, mechanics and other "external skills".

But some sharp-eyed people found that these people said they only practiced moves and didn't practice internal strength, but they actually had their own internal strength, but it was completely different from theirs, a pure evil sect.

The Qi Sect asked the Sword Sect, hey, how do you explain this group of evil people? Didn't you say that as long as you practice the moves well, you can reach perfection from the outside to the inside? How come this group of people practiced evil sects?

Why are the reputations of Wang Anshi and Zhuge Wuhou so different? Both of them obviously used the Shen Shang technique, and both used it in name only.

Why is one in heaven and the other in the underground?

It's because Zhuge Wuhou practiced internal strength first, and then even if he used the Shen Shang technique, he could do whatever he wanted without going beyond the rules, and his actions were all great.

Wang Anshi didn't practice internal strength but only moves, which eventually brought chaos to the world.

Or he tried to use moves to generate internal strength.

He was originally a "sword sect", but after ruling the world, he tried to combine sword and qi, and came up with three internal skills "New Interpretation of Zhouli", "New Interpretation of Shangshu", and "New Interpretation of Maoshi" as orthodox, but in fact, many "holy books" are fake, forged books. What are these new interpretations if not heresy? Do you dare to say that "Zhouli" is a "holy book"? It has been expelled from the classics by textual research, and it is a book of pure conspiracy of the Six Kingdoms and Han Shen's restoration!

This is also a major weakness of the Yanli School.

This crisis of imminent extinction is not only due to the logical problems of the school itself, the philosophical dilemma, the rise of the practical school, and the lack of stamina of Zhu Xi's school, which is no longer mainstream. The rise of textual research has made many things of the Yanli School lack biblical support.

To a certain extent, which line does the Yanli School belong to in Confucianism?

In fact, they belong to the Wang Mang-Wang Anshi-Yanli school.

Although it seems that Wang Mang and Wang Anshi have nothing to do with each other. But in fact, this school of thought all follows the Zhouli.

It is not that the three of them have the same ideas.

Rather, the Zhouli is the blueprint for the establishment of an ideal country. Adding the Shangshu, the rest does not focus on social practice, social reform, system, law, land system, industrial and commercial system, loan interest and other issues.

It does not mean that they all have to return to the Zhouli, but they believe that Confucianism can build an ideal country, and this ideal country is to solve a series of problems such as land system, official and private, tax system, currency system, relief system, etc.

The Zhouli may not be fully restored, but the connotation of the Zhouli is that the focus of Confucianism is not on moral learning, but a political concept, which is to guide the reform of officials to solve land and industry.

A complete set of reforms that adapt to the current situation and involve the land system, bureaucracy, and education system should be carried out.

Zhang Boxing said that the Yanli school must promote Chen Tongfu and the next must be Wang Anshi.

Indeed, the Yanli School was the group of people who were most enthusiastic about "rebuilding the official system", "rebuilding the school education system", and "detailed land law system" in the environment of the late Ming Dynasty and the early Shun period.

No one else.

They came up with a complete set of system plans from the emperor to the ninth-rank officials to the lower-rank officials, including the salary, jurisdiction, responsibilities, and restrictions of each official.

They came up with a complete set of detailed talent selection and school education systems, including the salary of teachers, student assessment, number of selections, number of repeat years, and the destination of graduates.

They designed a complete set of equal-field plans that, although utopian, pointed to the landlord land ownership system, and even took into account inheritance, property rights, and career changes after the equal-field plan.

This is the obvious characteristic of the Zhouli school, which tries to let Confucianism guide the operation of the real world, guide the operation of society, and guide national construction.

However, with the development of textual research, Zhouli was expelled from the "Bible".

This is why Li Xian was broken by Mao Qiling's sentence that Zhouli was a fake book.

And the "Three Character Classic of Practical Learning" created by Yan Yuan and Li Xian has one-third of its content turned into a fake book by textual research.

At least one-third of the content is derived from "Water, Fire, Gold, Wood, Earth, and Valley, Only Cultivation, Zhengde, Use, and Harmony", including Yan Yuan's "subject" fit of gold, wood, water, fire, earth, and valley under the magic modification of practical learning.

Because... Water, Fire, Gold, Wood, Earth, and Valley, Only Cultivation, Zhengde, Use, and Harmony, the source of this sentence, like Zhouli, has been proved to be a "fake book" and has been expelled from the category of "Bible" in the academic world.

The problem of Zhouli, or the problem of Wang Mang and Wang Anshi, is essentially a "political" and "religious" problem.

That is: what is the original position of our Confucian scholars?

Is it teaching?

Or politics?

Confucian scholars are not high priests.

Because the high priest is the emperor, Confucian scholars, including Confucius, theoretically have no qualifications to "offer sacrifices to heaven" and no qualifications to communicate directly with heaven.

When offering sacrifices to heaven at the Temple of Heaven, no Confucian scholar can say, hey, I am familiar with this, I understand etiquette, and my professional expertise is relevant, so I will go to offer sacrifices.

This is absolutely not possible.

In this transition period, Confucianism must find its own position.

Is it the "archbishop" after the separation of orthodoxy?

Or is it an ideal political party whose goal is to be the "prime minister" and carry out comprehensive social reforms?

And should the reforms be in line with the righteousness of Confucianism?

Several chapters of "Zhou Li" and "Shang Shu" have been basically identified as forgeries by later generations, so the reformists who rely on "Zhou Li" and "Shang Shu" are actually problematic in terms of righteousness.

In fact, at this point, there is only one way for Confucianism to continue, rather than the possibility of a complete collapse of the entire cultural circle.

That is to separate benevolence and etiquette.

Take out benevolence and abstract it into an abstract symbol as the core spirit. Just like the common people listen to the Taizhou School, benevolence is abstracted and simplified into the vulgar "good man" and "moral".

Take out etiquette, just like the steamed bun problem written by the new generation, it is an external method that fits the society at that time, but does it fit the current era?

This is also the key factor that the official Yongjia and Yongkang Schools of Dashun could not be established, because in the end, Ye Shi chose utilitarianism, and in order to confirm that this is Confucianism, he could only move towards the external appearance of etiquette.

Obviously, the Yanli School is now at this stage.

If he still wants to say that he is a Confucianist, then he can only rely on etiquette, otherwise how can he say that his "merit" is in line with Confucianism?

Once benevolence is abandoned and etiquette is sought, then the good reform of the ancient system will become a retrogression.

Because this is the dilemma faced by the Yanli School now, and in fact, this dilemma has already been encountered by the pragmatic school in the Southern Song Dynasty.

Of course, the Yongjia and Yongkang schools of practical learning were suppressed for various reasons.

But in terms of philosophical construction, it is not a little different from Zhu Xi, and the internal closed loop cannot be completed.

After Chen Liang was criticized by Zhu Xi, Ye Shi patched up the idea of ​​"from the outside to the inside" of the Yanli School.

But the patch he made could only choose "external ritual" and "restoration of ritual" to complete the combination of gong and Confucianism.

That is, from the external form of expression to the internal experience. Instead of the reverse, first internal experience, then external expression.

So, what kind of external expression can be considered Confucianism, rather than a messy heresy?

Restoration of ritual.

And where will this set go in the end?

Towards, [Ritual restoration and then respect].

Isn't this taking off pants to fart? In the end, it still came to "respect", didn't it become Taoism again?

Then I will go directly to the path of heart respect, isn't this a shortcut?

Is it okay not to go this way?

No, because your external performance and the many things you have done are not in accordance with etiquette. How can you achieve the Confucianism of inner experience from external performance?

The Yan-Li School actually went around in a big circle. Nowadays, especially after the rise of the pure practical technology school represented by Liu Yu, they can only go back to Ye Shi's path. Otherwise, they will definitely not be able to take off the hats of "hegemony" and "heresy".

As early as the Southern Song Dynasty, Huang Zhen had revealed the problem of practical learning in one sentence.

One step forward, it is not Confucianism.

One step back, it is said that "Shui Xin's learning is completely between Zhu, Lu, Chen and Liang. What is the general rule of all results? Etiquette is restored and respect is established. In the end, it returns to respect."

"However, Cheng's learning focuses on respect. Why do you think Cheng's words are wrong? His theory cannot be self-justified."

You clearly stated that doing thing A is for B. Then why do you deny B? Such a big logical loophole is here, can it be established?

The key and focus of "doing thing A" is thing A? Or doing things?

Is it A? Or do it?

This is exactly the same problem that the Yanli School is facing now.