Buddha said: Mountains, rivers, earth and all things in the world are illusions. Newton created three examples to study the illusions of physics; we created two conjectures to study the illusions of human affairs. The various things mentioned in this chapter are to explain the reasons for creating these conjectures. From the second chapter onwards, we will explain the changes in the world based on these two conjectures, and no longer involve the essence. Buddha talks about essence, we talk about phenomena, and the gap is the boundary. The author is a layman in Buddhism and science. All the various statements are taken for granted. With such an idea in mind, I wrote it down. I know that it is purely conjecture. According to the laws of Buddhism and science, there are of course many inconsistencies. I am just speaking nonsense, and readers can just listen to it.
2. The Dispute over Nature between Mencius and Xunzi
Mencius' theory of good human nature and Xunzi's theory of evil human nature are unsolved mysteries in the history of Chinese academic thought. The two theories have been in opposition for more than 2,000 years. Mencius said that human nature is good and advocated benevolence and justice to transform the people. Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty inherited his theory and founded the school of Neo-Confucianism, creating many pedantic arguments. Xunzi was born after Mencius and opposed his theory, saying that human nature is evil and advocated punishing people with rites. His student Han Fei believed that the sanction of rites was weak and not as strong as the sanction of laws, so he changed to the study of criminal law, which was harsh and unkind. As a result, the Confucian and Legalist schools slandered each other, and many conflicts arose in theory and politics. Which of the two theories of Mencius and Xunzi is right and which is wrong? We must study it thoroughly.
Mencius said: "The voice of a child is that he loves his parents, and when he grows up, he respects his elder brother." This statement has a flaw. Let's call a mother and take out her own child and test it in public. When the mother holds him to eat, he stretches out his hand to grab the mother's bowl. If you are not careful, it will fall to the ground and break. Please ask if this phenomenon is loving his parents? Also, when the mother holds a cake in her hand, the child will stretch out his hand to grab it. If you don't give it to him and put it in his mouth, he will immediately stretch out his hand to take it out of the mother's mouth and put it in his mouth. Please ask if this phenomenon is loving his parents? When the child is in the mother's arms, eating milk and cakes, when the elder brother comes near, he will push and hit him with his hands. Please ask if this phenomenon is respecting the elder brother? Children in all countries of the world are like this. In fact, since there is such a phenomenon, isn't Mencius's theory of human nature goodness obviously flawed? All the arguments and laws and regulations based on the theory of human nature goodness have many disadvantages.
Then where does Mencius's saying "children love their parents, and the young and old respect their elder brothers" come from? If we want to explain this question, we have to use the method of studying physics. The nature of human beings is to take me as the basis. I am in contrast to my mother, and the child only knows that there is me, so he takes the cake from his mother's mouth and puts it in his own mouth. My mother is the one who feeds me, and my elder brother is the one who shares milk and cakes. When the mother and the elder brother are in contrast, the child loves the mother very much and pushes the elder brother away. When he grows up a little, he goes out and meets neighbors. When the elder brother and the neighbor are in contrast, the child loves the elder brother very much. When he goes to a foreign land, neighbors are in contrast to strangers, and the child loves the neighbors. When he goes to another province, people from the same province are in contrast to people from another province, and the child loves people from the same province. When he goes to a foreign country, people from his own country are in contrast to foreigners, and the child loves his own country. If we study it carefully, we will know that what Mencius said about loving parents and respecting elder brothers all come from the heart of self-centeredness.
Try to draw it as Figure D: For example, Figure A: The first circle is me, the second circle is relatives, the third circle is brothers, the fourth circle is neighbors, the fifth circle is people from the same province, the sixth circle is people from my country, and the seventh circle is foreigners. If you play this circle carefully, you can find a certain rule: "The closer you are to me, the deeper your love is, and love is inversely proportional to the distance." This rule is similar to gravity, and this phenomenon is very similar to the phenomenon of magnetic field. From this, we know that human nature is the same as magnetism and gravity, so the general rule created by Newton can be applied to psychology. We still need to test whether the above Figure A is correct: If in late spring in March, we invite two or three friends to go out for fun, and see beautiful mountains and rivers, we feel very happy. When we go to a place with rough mountains and rivers, we can't help feeling depressed. Why is this? Because mountains and rivers are things, I am also a thing, and things and I are originally one, so if the things are good, I feel happy, and if the things are not good, I feel unhappy. We walked to another place and saw many broken stones on the ground. On the broken stones, there were fallen flowers. I felt very sad for the fallen flowers, but I didn't pay much attention to the broken stones. Why is that? Because stones are inanimate objects, and flowers are living things like me. Therefore, people often write poems and fu about fallen flowers, but not songs and poems about broken stones. Among the ancient and modern poems, those that chant fallen flowers and are regarded as the best are all about describing life. If there is a dying dog lying on the fallen flowers, its mournful cry is so melodious that it is shocking to hear, and it immediately interrupts my feeling of sadness for the fallen flowers. Why is that? Because flowers are plants, and dogs are animals like me, so I unconsciously feel sympathy for dogs. If on the way home, I see a ferocious and vicious dog blocking a person and biting him wildly, and the person hits him with a stick, when the man and the dog are fighting, we can only help the man and never help the dog. Why is that? Because dogs are animals, and I am human like that person, I unconsciously sympathize with that person. I parted ways with my friend and returned home. As soon as I entered the door, someone came to report that my friend was walking on the street and was fighting with someone. I immediately ran to rescue him. It turned out that he was fighting with someone, but because of friendship, I could only rescue my friend and not the person. I took my friend to my study and asked him the reason for the fight. I listened carefully. Suddenly, the house collapsed. I jumped out of the door in a few steps, turned around and shouted to my friend: Why don’t you run away? I wonder why I didn’t shout to my friend to run when I saw the house collapse, but I had to wait until I ran out of the door before turning back to shout? This is the nature of human beings, which is the proof of self-centeredness.
We draw the above facts as shown in Figure (B). The first circle is me, the second circle is friends, the third circle is others, the fourth circle is dogs, the fifth circle is flowers, and the sixth circle is stones. The rule is "the farther away from me, the less love there is, and love is inversely proportional to the distance." It is the same as Figure A. The realm set in Figure B is completely different from that in Figure A, but the results are exactly the same, which proves that the law of nature is indeed like this. Let me summarize it again: Whenever there are two objects presented in front of me at the same time, my mind will naturally take me as the center without any arrangement, and determine the thickness of love based on the distance from me, which is no different from gravity or electromagnetic attraction.
There are two kinds of force: centrifugal and concentric. The A-diagram develops outwards layer by layer, which is a centrifugal force phenomenon; the B-diagram contracts inwards layer by layer, which is a centripetal force phenomenon. Mencius stood in the A-diagram and looked outward, and saw that the nature of ordinary people is to love their relatives when they are young, love their brothers when they grow up, and then love their neighbors, people from the same province, and people from the same country, and then expand it layer by layer; if it is further expanded, it can be expanded to love all human beings and animals, so it is determined that human nature is good. Therefore, it is said: "Respect the old as my own, and the old as well as the old of others; love the young as my own, and the young as well as the young of others." It is also said: "Raise this heart and apply it to others." It is always asking people to expand and enrich this inherent goodness of nature. Mencius likes to talk about poetry. Poetry is to promote people's will. As long as ordinary people are used to poetry, they will naturally bring out this kind of good nature. This is the original purpose of Mencius's theory. Therefore, the A-diagram can be seen as Mencius's diagram of the goodness of human nature.
Xunzi stood outside Diagram B and looked inside. He saw that the nature of ordinary people is to forget the stone when seeing a flower, forget the flower when seeing a dog, forget the dog when seeing a person, forget others when seeing a friend, shrinking layer by layer until the house collapsed, leaving only a naked self, forgetting even the best friend. Therefore, he concluded that human nature is evil. Therefore, he said: "When a wife and a child are together, they will lose their love for their relatives; when their desires are satisfied, their trust in their friends will lose their love for their friends; when their titles and salaries are plentiful, their loyalty to their ruler will lose their love for their ruler." He also said: "A wood that has been tied down will be straightened only after being steamed and straightened; a dull metal that has been sharpened only after being honed will be sharpened." He always told people to suppress this inherent evil. Xunzi liked to talk about etiquette. Etiquette is a limit to human behavior. As long as ordinary people are accustomed to etiquette, this evil will naturally not be discovered. This is the original purpose of Xunzi's theory. Therefore, Diagram B can be seen as Xunzi's diagram of human nature being evil.
The two diagrams A and B are the same, but from the perspective of Mencius and Xunzi, they become two extremely opposite views of human nature, good and evil. Isn't this very strange? And sometimes, the same thing is good in the eyes of Mencius and evil in the eyes of Xunzi, which is even more strange. For example, when I hear my friend fighting with someone, I always hope that my friend will win. Is this mentality good or evil?
If we ask Mencius, he would definitely say: This is clearly a manifestation of the goodness of human nature, so why do you say that? When a friend fights with another person, it has nothing to do with you, but you wish him to win. This is the love for your friend, which flows out of your nature unconsciously. The ancient sages said that the love for all things is based on a single thought of love. So you must expand this love for your friend.
If we ask Xunzi, he will definitely say: This is clearly a manifestation of human nature being evil, why do you say that? Your friend is a human being, and others are also human beings. You save your friend instead of others, which is selfishness, flowing out of your nature unconsciously. William II caused the First World War, and Germany, Italy and Japan caused the Second World War, all because of a selfish thought. So you must suppress this selfishness.
The above examples are about the same thing, but there are two extremely opposite statements. Both statements are irrefutable. What is the reason for this? If we want to explain this problem, we only need to draw a picture and we will naturally understand it. As shown in the picture: the first circle is me, the second circle is friends, and the third circle is others. Please ask, is the circle of the word "friend" big or small? Mencius drew a small circle of the word "I" inside, and compared with it, he said it was a big circle. Xunzi drew a large circle of the word "person" outside, and compared with it, he said it was a small circle. If you ask the two for their reasons, Mencius said: The circle of the word "friend" is drawn by stretching out the two feet of the small circle of the word "I", so how can it not be a big circle? Following this trend, it will inevitably expand larger and larger, so it should be expanded to make it bigger. Xunzi said: The circle of the word "friend" is drawn by closing the two feet of the large circle of the word "person", so how can it not be a small circle? Following this trend, it will inevitably shrink smaller and smaller, so it should be stopped and not made smaller. This is the argument between Mencius and Xunzi.
In the matter of rescuing a friend, Mencius mentioned the word "I" in contrast to the word "friend", saying that it is a manifestation of the goodness of human nature; Xunzi mentioned the word "person" in contrast to the word "friend", saying that it is a manifestation of the evil of human nature. If we look at the drawing, the circle of the word "friend" can only be said to be a circle, not a big circle or a small circle. Therefore, rescuing a friend can only be said to be a natural phenomenon in human nature, and it cannot be said to be good or evil. Mencius said that human nature is good, and Xunzi said that human nature is evil, which is a kind of sophistry. The two were born in the Warring States Period and were tainted with the sophistry of strategists. We should know this.
After Xunzi, few people advocated that human nature is evil. Mencius' theory of human nature is very influential in my country. We can further study his theory. He said: "Nowadays, when people see a child about to fall into a well, they all have a sense of fear and compassion." This statement is also an important basis for the theory of human nature being good. But we have to ask: In this chapter, the first part clearly states the four words "fear, fear and compassion", why does the following text only say "without compassion, one is not a human being", "compassion is the beginning of benevolence", and simply removes the two words "fear" and "compassion"? What is the reason? The flaw in the theory of human nature being good lies here.
means to be frightened. For example, when we are sitting together and talking, we suddenly see a man in front of us holding a shiny white knife and chasing someone. We are all shocked and our hearts will beat a few times. This is Because everyone has a natural fear of death, seeing the knife is like killing me, so my heart will beat and I will be frightened. I take a quick look and know that it is not killing me, but someone else. I immediately magnify the fear of death and transform myself into the person being chased. I feel sympathy for him and want to save him. This is ". From this we know that is the magnified form of . The child is the magnified form of my body. Without "", there will be no . It can be said that the two words still originate from the word .
When I saw a child about to fall into a well, there were three things: one was me, two was the child, and three was the well. If we draw a picture, the first circle was me, the second was the child, and the third was the well. The child and I are both human beings, and the well is an inanimate object. When I saw the child about to fall into the well, I suddenly saw the phenomenon of "death" before me, so I was frightened, and immediately sympathized with the child, and felt compassion, and wanted to save him. Therefore, Mencius said: "Compassion is the beginning of benevolence." We must know that fear is the fear of death, and compassion is the pity of others' death. Therefore, compassion can be called benevolence, but fear cannot be called benevolence, so Mencius took off the two words fear and fear and threw them away. But there is a question. If I and the child are about to fall into the well at the same time, what state will my heart be in? Needless to say: at this moment, there is only fear but no compassion, and I can only care about my own death, not the child. It is not that I do not love the child, but the situation happened suddenly and I could not take care of him. Only when I am out of danger and my mind is somewhat calm, can I feel compassion. Unfortunately, Mencius did not raise this point for research at that time, leaving a loophole, which gave rise to the Neo-Confucianism of the Song Dynasty and created many absurd arguments.
Mencius's love for one's parents and respect for one's brothers, and his fear and compassion, all contain the word "I" inside, but he always starts from the second circle and ignores the "I" in the first circle. Yangzi's "I" can be regarded as revealing the first circle clearly, but he only worked hard on the first circle and ignored the second and subsequent circles; Mozi was very determined and abandoned the "I" in the first circle. He advocated love without distinction, and did not distinguish between big and small circles, but drew a huge circle to settle the matter. Yangzi had a small circle and ignored the big circle; Mozi had a big circle and ignored the small circle. Both of them did not know that natural phenomena are large and small circles wrapped in layers. Mencius and Xunzi saw the phenomenon of layers wrapped in layers, but Mencius said that it was enlarged layer by layer, and Xunzi said that it was reduced layer by layer, which inevitably led to one side. We take Yangzi's "I" as the center point and add a love of differences on the outside, which is consistent with natural phenomena.
We summarize the theories of Mencius and Xunzi and conclude that: Mencius's words such as "When a child is young, there is no one who does not love his parents, and when he grows up, there is no one who does not respect his elder brother" are not wrong, but they cannot be said to be good in human nature, but can only be said to be a natural phenomenon in human nature; Xunzi's words such as "When a wife and children are born, filial piety to parents declines, and when desires are satisfied, trust in friends declines" are not wrong, but they cannot be said to be evil in human nature, but can only be said to be a natural phenomenon in human nature. Then what can scholars do? Answer: We know that it is human nature to love parents when children are young and respect elder brothers when they grow up. We can expand this mentality and apply Mencius's saying "Respect the old as my own, and respect the old as well as the old of others, and love the young as my own, and respect the young of others". We also know that it is human nature to decline filial piety to parents and decline trust in friends. We can correct this mentality and apply Xunzi's saying "A wood that is bound can only be straightened after being steamed and straightened, and a dull metal can only be sharpened after being whirled."
The dispute between Mencius and Xunzi was only a dispute over the terms of human nature being good or evil. In fact, the principles they both said were correct and could be applied in practice. I think we do not need to ask whether human nature is good or evil. We only need to create a general rule: "Psychology changes according to the laws of mechanics." Wouldn't it be simple and clear to apply Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity to psychology and psychological physics and study them together? Why bother arguing endlessly about terms such as human nature being good or evil?
Misunderstandings of Confucianism in the Three Song Dynasties
The Warring States period was the most developed period of learning in my country. At that time, lobbying was the most popular. People often won the honor of being a minister by speaking. Their lobbying of the monarchs of various countries was quite similar to the counselors of later generations, except that it was an oral test instead of a written test. Generally, counselors are accustomed to the art of guessing and imitating. They first spend some time to study the truth thoroughly. When they go out to lobby, they always cover up half of the truth and only speak half of it, which becomes a radical theory. The more radical it is, the more novel and sensational it is. Su Qin persuaded the six countries to make peace, and he spoke a reason that swept the world; Zhang Yi dissolved the six countries, and he spoke a reason in reverse, which also swept the world. Mencius and Xunzi were born at that time, and they were infected with this kind of atmosphere. Originally, human nature is neither good nor evil, that is, "can be good or evil." Mencius cut off half of the whole human nature to establish his theory, saying that human nature is good. His theory is novel and pleasing, so he became unique in the academic world. Xunzi came out and revealed the half left by Mencius, saying that human nature is evil, which became a new theory and established a new school in the academic world. From then on, the theory of human nature being good and the theory of human nature being evil became two opposing theories. The Song Confucianists believed in Mencius's theory, which was fundamentally wrong. However, Mencius was not very wrong, but the Song Confucianists were very wrong. The Song Confucianists' discussion of human nature was completely contrary to Mencius.
I would like to ask: The doctrine of Song Confucianism is based on Mencius's sayings: ⑴ "There is no child who does not love his parents"; ⑵ "When you see a child about to fall into a well, you will feel apprehensive and compassionate." How can it be completely contrary to Mencius's teachings? The following is an explanation:
There are three situations in which a child and his mother have a relationship: (1) A child, a mother, and a stranger are in the same place. The child is particularly fond of his mother. In this case, it can be said that the child loves his mother; (2) A child and a mother are in the same place. The child is reluctant to leave his mother. In this case, it can be said that the child loves his mother; (3) A child and a mother are in the same place. There is a conflict of interest. For example, if the mother eats a piece of cake, the child cannot eat it. The mother puts it in her mouth. The child reaches out to take it and puts it in his own mouth. In this case, it cannot be said that the child loves his mother. Mencius talked about the goodness of human nature, but he ignored the third type and only talked about the first two types. He explained it clearly. Xunzi talked about the evilness of human nature, but he ignored the first two types and only talked about the third type. He also explained it clearly. Therefore, their theories do not conflict with each other. Song Confucianists talked about the first two types and the third type together, but could not integrate them into one. Therefore, their theories conflict with each other.
The Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty believed in Mencius's theory that children love their parents. Suddenly, they discovered that children would snatch cakes from their mothers' mouths. All children in the world do this, which cannot be said to be human nature. They could not find the reason, so they created a term: "temperamental nature." If someone asks: Why do children love their parents? They say it is "the nature of righteousness and reason." Question: If they love their parents, why do they snatch cakes from their mothers' mouths? They say it is "the nature of temperament." A good human nature was split into two for no reason, so the whole Song Dynasty learning was full of thorns and absurdities. ... Zhu Xi came out and annotated the section on the creation of the people in Mencius' book, saying simply and clearly: "Chengzi's theory is different from Mencius's. If we examine it from facts and reason, Chengzi's theory is closer." They said this themselves, isn't it obviously contrary to Mencius?
Mencius knew that: mortals have a natural fear of death. When they see a child about to fall into a well, they will be terrified, and then they will expand their fear and become compassion. Therefore, he taught people to expand this heart and extend it to the whole world. This is the original purpose of Mencius's theory. Fear is fear of death, which cannot be called benevolence. Compassion is pity for the death of others, which can be called benevolence. Therefore, the following text removes the two words "fear" and "compassion" and only says "compassion is the beginning of benevolence." There is nothing wrong with Mencius's original text, but the text is concise, missing the sentence "compassion is expanded from fear." Unexpectedly, the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty did not study hard, and when they saw the sentence "compassion is the beginning of benevolence", they thought that human nature was compassion as soon as it was released, forgetting that there were two words "fear" above, and wiped out the natural fear of death in mortals. If we try to read all the works of Confucian scholars in Song Dynasty, whether they are quotations, collections of essays, or annotated works, we will find that they only emphasize the word "compassion" and ignore the word "fear". This is their biggest mistake.
However, the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty were studious and thoughtful. They thought: Why would a child snatch cakes from his mother's mouth? Once they read the Music Chapter in the Book of Rites, they saw the words "People are born quiet, which is the nature of heaven. They are moved by things, which is the desire of nature." They suddenly realized that cakes are things, and the child snatched cakes from his mother's mouth was moved by things. So they created the saying "get rid of material desires", which tells people not to be tempted by external things.
Song Ru continued to study, studying that when I and the child were about to fall into the well at the same time, the first thought that came out was just a naked fear of death, without any compassion. He was surprised and asked, "I clearly saw the child about to fall into the well, why didn't I feel compassion, but instead I had a thought of fear of death?" If this thought is material desire, then there is no external object to tempt me at this time, and it comes completely from my heart. What's the reason for this? He stopped and realized: the thought of fear of death comes from the two words "for me", and snatching the cake from my mother's mouth also comes from the two words "for me". I am a human being, so he replaced the two words "material desire" with the two words "human desire". He told his disciples: The nature of man is compassion as soon as it is expressed. Yao, Shun, Confucius and Mencius were full of compassion, all the time and in all places. Sometimes when we are about to fall into a well with a child, the first thought that comes to our mind is fear of death, not compassion. This is due to our temperament and is obscured by human desires. You must work hard to "get rid of human desires and preserve the principles of heaven" in order to be like Confucius and Mencius, or Yao and Shun. What is the principle of heaven? It is compassion, which is the so-called benevolence. This statement is the main point of the entire doctrine of Cheng and Zhu.
Login to comment
Be the first one to comment...