So, the first disciple of Chengzi, Xie Shangcai, followed Chengzi's teachings and ran up and down the dangerous steps every day, practicing not to be moved. He thought that if he was not afraid of death and human desires were gone, the principles of heaven would naturally prevail, and he would be full of compassion. "Abandoning human desires and preserving the principles of heaven" like them is clearly "abandoning fear and preserving compassion." Think about it: compassion is the magnified form of fear, and the child is the magnified form of my body. If there is no fear, how can there be compassion? If there is no body, how can there be a child? Since I am not afraid of death, it is okay for me to fall into the well. How can I feel compassion when I see the child falling into the well?
Chengzi's disciples were dedicated to "getting rid of human desires", that is, to "getting rid of fear". Among his disciples was Lu Yuanming, who fell into the river while riding a sedan chair, and his followers drowned. He sat in the sedan chair, indifferent and motionless. He was a person who got rid of fear, so he did not feel any compassion when he saw his followers drowning. Chengzi's school of thought was spread to the south. Zhu Xi's good friend Zhang Nanxuan and his father Zhang Weigong lost hundreds of thousands of troops in the Battle of Fuli, and snored like thunder all night. Nanxuan also praised his father's profound study of the mind. Zhang Weigong was also a person who got rid of fear, so he did not feel any compassion when he saw so many dead people.
Mencius said: "If you are fighting with your own family, you can save them, even if your hair is torn and your hat is torn." Weren't Lü Yuanming's followers and Zhang Weigong's soldiers from your own family? Didn't their actions clearly violate Mencius's family rules? Generally speaking, people who have lost their fear will inevitably become cruel. The evil thieves who kill people without blinking an eye are often on the execution ground, talking and laughing about their suffering, which is a clear proof. Chengzi was a person who had lost his fear, so he made the argument that "a woman starving to death is a small matter, but losing her chastity is a big matter." Therefore, Dai Dongyuan said: Song Confucianists killed people with reason.
Someone asked: If I don't get rid of my fear, and I only have a fear of death when a great disaster comes, how can I do the great work of saving the country and the people? I said: That's not the case. Mencius has a way. His method is just the two words "gathering righteousness". He usually spends time gathering righteousness, sees it truly, and keeps it firmly. Once he faces a great event, he will naturally do it without hesitation. So it is said: "Life is what I want, and righteousness is what I want. I can't have both, so I will sacrifice my life for righteousness." Mencius usually gathers righteousness and cultivates this great and strong spirit completely. He is not like the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty who get rid of human desires, walk on dangerous steps, and get rid of the fear of death completely. Mencius is not moved, and the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty are not moved either. Mencius's unmovedness comes from the positive gathering of righteousness; the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty are not moved by the negative elimination of desires. The paths they take are completely opposite.
Mencius's theory: starting from the word "I", the love for relatives, respect for brothers, and fear and compassion all contain the word "I". He said: "Respect the old as my own, and respect the old of others as my own; respect the young as my own, and respect the young of others as my own." He also said: "Everyone respects his own relatives and respects his elders, and the world will be peaceful." "I" is "I", "they" is "I", and the word "I" is always there. Because Mencius attached great importance to the word "I", he said "the people are more important than the king", and "if the king treats his subjects like grass, then the subjects will treat the king like an enemy". Chengzi advocated the theory of "getting rid of human desires" and specialized in exploiting the word "I", so he said "a woman starving to death is a small matter, but losing her chastity is a big matter". Mencius said: "Those who harm benevolence are called thieves, those who harm righteousness are called cruel, and those who are cruel and thieves are called tyrants. I have heard of the execution of the tyrant Zhou, but I have never heard of the killing of the king." This is the verdict that Mencius has already made. Han Changli said: "My crime deserves death, the king of heaven is wise." Chengzi highly praised this statement. They openly overturned Mencius's verdict, so they are not traitors to Mencius's school. They also claim to be the successors of Mencius's tradition. I really can't understand it.
Confucius's teachings, "If you want to establish yourself, establish others; if you want to achieve yourself, achieve others", benefit yourself and others, and combine them into one thing. Yangzi is selfish and only talks about benefiting himself, while Mozi is universal love and only talks about benefiting others. They are all covering up half of the whole truth and only talking about half of it. It is a common rule in the academic world: "The more biased the doctrine, the more novel it is and the more popular it is." Mencius said: "The world's words, if not attributed to Yang, then to Mo." Within a hundred years after Confucius' death, all the places where he taught were taken away by Yang and Mo. Mencius stood up and refuted Yang and Mo, and developed Confucius's doctrine of extending oneself to others. In our view, Yangzi is selfish and only knows self-interest, while Mozi is universal love and only benefits others. Mozi's value seems to be higher than Yangzi. But Mencius said, "If you escape from Mo, you will return to Yang, and if you escape from Yang, you will return to Confucianism." He put Yangzi above Mozi and believed that it was closer to Confucianism. This shows that Mencius attached great importance to the word "self".
Yangzi would not pluck a hair if it would benefit the whole world. He respected the word "I" extremely, but he also respected the self of others. He said: "The most valuable wisdom is to preserve the self, and the least valuable strength is to invade things." He would not allow others to pluck a hair from me, and I would not pluck a hair from others. His theory was the most refined, so Mencius thought it was superior to Mozi. However, according to Yangzi's theory, it can only benefit oneself without harming others, which is inconsistent with Confucius's word "benevolence". Benevolence comes from two people, and it is the work between people and me. Yangzi's theory lost the connection between people and me, so it was rejected by Mencius.
Mozi sacrificed himself to benefit the world, and his doctrine was to sacrifice himself to benefit others, which was not in line with the Confucian concept of righteousness. The character righteousness is composed of the characters 羊 and 我, so there is a 我 in the character righteousness; 羊 means auspiciousness, and the characters 美善 and 善 are both composed of 羊. I choose the most beautiful and good things and do them, which is called righteousness. The matter is outside, and I am the one who chooses, so it is called righteousness inside. Mozi advocated universal love, knowing that there are others but not knowing that there is me, so Mencius strongly criticized him. However, Mozi's sacrifice of me is to sacrifice myself to save the people of the world. He knows that there is the self of others but not his own self, which is the heart of a bodhisattva. His theory can only be applied to a few saints and cannot be applied to everyone. It is different from the Confucian doctrine of the mean, which aims to benefit both oneself and others. From Mencius's point of view, his theory is inferior to Yangzi's. Why? Because it loses the central point of the two diagrams A and B. Mencius said: "Heaven created all things, and made them one root." What is the one root? The central point. Mozi's harm to me was my own will, and no one else could interfere. Mozi was good at defending, Gongshu Jiu attacked him, and Mozi Jiu defended him. I did not want to harm myself, and no one else could do anything about it. How is Mozi's rubbing his head and exposing his heels different from Dayu, who "had no limbs and no hair on his shins"? How is he different from Confucius, who "kept restless and had no time to warm his seat"? Mencius's strong criticism of him was nothing more than academic sectarianism. However, Mozi's rubbing his head and exposing his heels harmed his appearance, while the Song Confucianists' abandonment of human desires harmed their hearts. Isn't their theory even worse than Mozi's? Confucius's school of thought extends oneself to others, and the Song Confucianists also extend themselves to others. There is no one who can be as far as he extends. For example, if I am willing to starve to death to follow my husband, I want all women in the world to starve to death to follow my husband. If I am willing to be executed to follow my king, I want all ministers in the world to be executed to follow my king. I am not as kind as Mozi, and I am not as righteous as Yangzi. Mencius has already denounced Yang and Mo as beasts. If he were to meet the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty, I wonder what comments they would make?
In summary: Mencius said that human nature is good, and Song Confucianists also said that human nature is good. In fact, the doctrines of Song Confucianists are completely contrary to Mencius. The difference is: "Mencius's doctrine does not damage my words, while Song Confucianists' doctrine damages my words."
Furthermore, the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty also talked about getting rid of selfish desires. What exactly is selfishness? What is getting rid of selfishness? It is also necessary to study it clearly. The meaning of the word "selfish" is explained by Xu's Shuowen, citing Han Fei's words. Han Fei's original text: "Cang Jie created characters. The characters that circle themselves are called "selfish", and those that go against the selfishness are called "public". "Circle" means circle. The word "selfish" in ancient Chinese is "厶", and in seal script it is "厶", which means to draw a circle. The word "public" is composed of eight and "厶". Eight means to break one thing into two pieces, so eight means to go against the selfishness. "Going against the selfishness is called public", which means: only when the circle is broken can it be called public. If we only care about ourselves and ignore our wives, and draw a circle around ourselves, our wives will say that we are partial to one another. So we will remove the circle around ourselves and draw a circle around our wives. But our brothers are outside the circle and will say that we are partial to one another. So we will remove the circle around our wives and draw a circle around our brothers. But our neighbors are outside the circle and will say that we are partial to one another. So we will remove the circle around our brothers and draw a circle around our neighbors. But our compatriots are outside the circle and will say that we are partial to one another. So we will remove the circle around our neighbors and draw a circle around our compatriots. But our compatriots are outside the circle and will say that we are partial to one another. So we will remove the circle around our compatriots and draw a circle around all of humanity. This is fair. But it is still not fair. If all the plants, animals, and minerals in the world could speak, the beasts would surely say: Why do you humans want to kill us? That is too selfish. The plants and trees asked the beasts: Why do you want to eat us? That is too selfish. The soil and sand asked the plants: Why do you absorb nutrients from us? You plants are selfish. The soil and sand can also ask the center of the earth: Why do you pull us to your center? You are selfish. The sun can also ask the earth: I pull you, why don't you come closer, always want to escape, and secretly pull me? You are selfish. On the other hand, if the sun is afraid that the earth will say that it is partial, it will not pull the earth, and the earth will fly away. The center of the earth is afraid that the soil and sand will say that it is partial, so it will not pull it. The soil and sand will immediately fly away, and the earth will immediately disappear.
(Figure C)
By making such inferences, we know that there is no public word in the world. The so-called public usually has a scope. People within the scope are called public, and people outside the scope are still called private. We can also know that the selfishness of human heart is connected to gravity. The word private cannot be eliminated, just like gravity cannot be eliminated. If it is eliminated, there will be no human beings and no world. How can the Song Confucianism's theory of eliminating selfishness work?
Since the word "selfishness" cannot be removed, but if it is retained, it will inevitably harm people. How should it be dealt with? The answer is: There is a way. Since the selfishness of the human heart is connected to gravity, we can use the method of dealing with gravity to deal with the selfishness of the human heart. The picture (C) of this chapter and the two pictures (A) and (B) of the second chapter, the big circles and small circles, wrapped layer by layer, are completely the phenomenon of gravity, neat and orderly. We should follow their example and arrange all things in the world in an orderly manner, just like the planets in the sky that are connected and supported, and then the world will be peaceful.
Human beings fight and fight with each other because of selfishness; human beings love and care for each other because of selfishness. The world's evolution is hindered by selfishness, but the world's evolution is also entirely due to selfishness. From fishing and farming to nomadism, to farming, to industry and commerce, the creation of various civilizations is also entirely due to the selfishness of people, which is secretly instigated. We should treat the word "selfishness" like magnetism and electricity, and study its properties carefully, so as to make use of it, and not just use methods to eliminate it. If physicists only studied ways to eliminate electricity because electricity can kill people, how could we have telephones and lights to use? The word "selfishness" cannot be eliminated, just like the gravity cannot be eliminated. We have no choice but to acknowledge selfishness and let everyone pursue their own selfishness. You do not harm my selfishness, and I do not harm your selfishness. This can be said to be the extreme of selfishness, which is also the extreme of public. Someone asked: Is human nature good or evil? The answer is: Is gravity good or evil? Is electricity good or evil? Please answer this question first.
Mencius's entire doctrine is to determine the word "I" as the central point, expand and enrich it, magnify it layer by layer, love relatives and benevolent to the people, benevolent to the people and love things. He does not advocate the elimination of selfishness, but only advocates that I and others fulfill their selfishness: if I have a selfish desire for goods, then those who live at home will have warehouses to store food, and those who travel will have food to wrap; if I have a selfish desire for S3x, then there will be no resentful women at home and no lonely men outside. The teachings of Song Confucianism are exactly the opposite. They not only want to eliminate their own selfishness, but also want to eliminate the selfishness of everyone. There is nothing like the selfishness of the human heart, which is connected to the universal gravitation. It is impossible to get rid of it, and the world has been in chaos since then. Reading Mencius's books is as hazy as the spring breeze that makes things grow; reading Song Confucianism's books is as awe-inspiring as the autumn frost that kills things. Therefore, it is said that the teachings of Song Confucianism are completely contrary to Mencius.
The fourth Gaozi's statement is correct
Human nature is neither good nor evil, that is, it can do good or evil. Gaozi's statement is appropriate from any perspective. He said: "Nature is like turbulent water." The change of turbulent water is the change of force. We say: "Psychology changes according to the laws of mechanics." Gaozi used the five words "nature is like turbulent water" more than 2,000 years ago to include it all.
Gaozi said: "Human nature is like a turbulent river. If it is released from the east, it will flow east. If it is released from the west, it will flow west." This means: if you guide it to good, it will be good. If you lure it to evil, it will be evil. This statement is the same as the statement in "The Great Learning" that "Yao and Shun led the world with benevolence and the people followed them. Jie and Zhou led the world with violence and the people followed them." Mencius's rebuttal is a kind of sophistry. The Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty did not realize its error and strongly criticized Gaozi. May I ask what is the difference between the words in "The Great Learning" and Gaozi's statement? In Mencius's book, there is a statement that "the people are of a barbarian nature and like good virtues." The Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty praised it highly and used it as the basis of their doctrines. However, after the words about Yao, Shun, Jie and Zhou, "What they order is contrary to what they like, and the people do not follow." May I ask, if the nature of the people is to like good virtues, then Jie and Zhou led the people with violence, which was contrary to what they like, so it is reasonable that the people did not follow them. Now that they follow them, doesn't it become "the people are of a barbarian nature and like evil virtues"? The Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty strongly criticized Gaozi, but did not refute his "Great Learning". How can this be convincing?
All of Mencius's theories are very concise, but the theory of "unique goodness" is not perfect. The greatness of Song Confucianism lies in the integration of Chinese and Indian academics, using the Buddhist law to govern the mind and the Confucius law to govern the world, integrating the world and the world, and opening a new era in academics, which is an unparalleled achievement (for details, please see my book "Trends in Chinese Academics"). Song Confucianism was able to achieve such achievements, of course, it saw the truth. What Gaozi said is an irrefutable truth, so why did they slander it? The root of the problem is the mistaken belief in Mencius. Why did Song Confucianism mistakenly believe in Mencius? It was initiated by Han Changli.
Changli said: "Yao passed it on to Shun, Shun passed it on to Yu, Yu passed it on to Tang, Tang passed it on to Wenwu and Zhougong, Wenwu and Zhougong passed it on to Confucius, Confucius passed it on to Mencius, and after Mencius's death, it was not passed on." This is nonsense. This is because Buddhism was popular in the Tang Dynasty, and there was a saying that the robe and bowl were truly passed on. When we read the book "Wudeng Huiyuan", we know that the era in which Changli lived was the era when this saying was popular. He was a person who opposed Buddhism, so he created this "taken for granted" saying, as if to say: "We Confucians also have a kind of true inheritance of the robe and bowl." Unexpectedly, the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty believed it to be true and created the Five Theories of the Daotong, and they wanted to inherit Mencius; Gaozi and Xunzi's theories were different from Mencius, so they criticized them. Zengzi was the one who inherited Confucius's robe and bowl, and passed it on to Zisi, who passed it on to Mencius. Therefore, although the words in "The Great Learning" were the same as Gaozi's, he did not refute them.
Changli liked to write his own articles. Yichuan said: "Ke's death is not well-known. Words like this are not a copy of the predecessors, nor are they made up out of thin air. There must be some reason behind it." He said: "It is not a copy of the predecessors." This is nonsense. Since he said "there must be some reason behind it", it is "just assuming". Even Yichuan could not find the source of Changli's words. The theory of the orthodoxy of Song Confucianism was fundamentally shaken, so the theory he created has many flaws.
Cheng Mingdao was determined to find the thing that "Confucius passed on to Mencius". He read Confucian books at first, but found nothing. He looked for Buddhism and Taoism for decades, but still found nothing. He turned to the Six Classics and suddenly found it. What exactly did Mingdao find? We must know: "The structure of the human heart is similar to that of the earth: the earth's core has gravity, which can absorb soil, sand and stones, which are tangible and physical things, to become an earth; the human heart also has gravity, which can absorb what is heard and seen, which are tangible and intangible, to become a heart." Mingdao went in and out of the three religions of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, and unconsciously absorbed these three elements into his mind, integrated them, and formed a new theory. This is the crystallization of the three religions and the most precious thing. Mingdao did not know that it was the most precious treasure he had created, but instead attributed it to Confucius, found some words and sentences in the Six Classics, gave them new interpretations, and used them to express the new theory he had found. This is the truth of the whole Song Dynasty. The greatest achievement of Song Confucianism is here, and the thorns are also here.
Mencius said that human nature is good, and he also cited many evidences, such as children love their parents, and a child falling into a well cannot bear to burn a bell, etc. Song Confucianists did not look for other evidences, but only found some words and phrases in the Four Books and Five Classics to study, filling the pages with terms such as heavenly principles and human desires, human heart and the heart of the Tao, the nature of righteousness and reason, and the nature of temperament, which made people confused and confused. When we read the books of Song and Yuan Confucianism and Ming Confucianism, we should use the method of sifting through the sand to pick out the gold, sweep away these terms, and only look at the essence of their content, then we can see their greatness and fallacies.
Mencius' theory of good human nature and Xunzi's theory of evil human nature, when combined, are in line with the truth of the universe. The combination of the two theories is Gaozi's theory that human nature is neither good nor bad. Someone asked: How can Mencius's theory be combined with Xunzi's? I said: Mencius said: "When a person is young, he admires his parents; when he knows how to be lustful, he admires his young wife; when he has a wife, he admires his wife." Xunzi said: "When a man has a wife, his filial piety declines towards his parents." Aren't their theories the same? Mencius said: "The greatest filial piety is to admire his parents all his life; I have seen people who admire their parents at the age of fifty in Shun." According to Mencius, if a person who is over fifty still admires his parents, he only sees Shun. May I ask: What is the truth about human nature? Can't Mencius and Xunzi's theories be combined? From this we know that the point of contention between Mencius and Xunzi on human nature is only on the two adjectives of good and evil. As for the observation of human nature, the two are no different.
According to the explanation of Confucian scholars in the Song Dynasty, a child's love for his parents is the right nature, and a young man's love for S3x is the selfishness of his body and spirit. Such statements are somewhat far-fetched. A child's love for his parents is not love for his parents, but love for their breastfeeding. When a child is born, he is handed over to a wet nurse for upbringing. It is a clear proof that he only loves the wet nurse and not his biological mother. Loving a wet nurse and admiring young girls and wives are psychologically consistent, and are nothing more than doing it for oneself. Doing it for oneself is a natural phenomenon of human beings. It can neither be said to be good nor evil. Gaozi's theory that human nature is neither good nor bad is the most reasonable. Gaozi said: "Food and S3x are nature." A child's love for his parents is food; admiring young girls and wives is S3x. Food and S3x are necessary for human survival. Seeking survival is human nature. Therefore, Gaozi also said: "Life is nature."
Gaozi observed human nature in this way, so how should we deal with human nature? Gaozi used a metaphor to explain it: "Human nature is like a turbulent river. If it is released from the east, it will flow east. If it is released from the west, it will flow west." He also said: "Human nature is like a cypress and a willow. It is like righteousness. To regard human nature as benevolence and righteousness is like to regard cypress and a willow as benevolence." Gaozi's statement is very correct. Human nature is neither good nor evil, which means that it can be good or evil. For example, the water in a deep pool usually does not cause waves, and it is difficult to see what kind of function it has. If it is released from the east, it can irrigate the fields and facilitate boats. If it is released from the west, it can flood crops and float houses. Let's release it from the east. Another example is that a piece of wood can be made into a stick to beat people, or it can be made into a bowl to hold food. Let's make it into a bowl. This statement can really combine Mencius and Xunzi.
In Mencius' book, Gaozi's five statements about human nature are recorded: human nature is like cypress and willow, human nature is like turbulent water, human nature is called human nature, food and S3x are human nature, and human nature is neither good nor bad. These five statements are consistent. Zhu Xi commented on the chapter on food and S3x: "Gaozi's arguments were defeated many times, and he changed his theory many times to win." The original book is still there, Gaozi's theory has never changed, and Mencius was unable to defeat him. Zhu Xi commented on the chapter on cypress and willow, saying that Gaozi's words about benevolence and righteousness must be corrected and shaped before they can be completed. His theory is not right. However, in his commentary on the chapter on Gongduzi, he said: "Although the temperament is not good, it does not harm the inherent goodness of human nature. Although human nature is inherently good, it cannot be without the work of self-examination and correction." Suddenly he mentioned the two words "correction and correction". Isn't this changing his theory?
Zhu Xi commented on the chapter "Birth is called nature" and said: The metaphor of the willows and the turbulent water, the saying that food and S3x are neither good nor bad, are all wrong and absurd, and the error in this chapter is the root of it. Little do people know that Gaozi's five statements about nature are all consistent, and there is no so-called "wrong and absurd, absurd and absurd". The word "birth" in "birth is called nature" refers to the word "survival". Survival is the core of human beings, which is recognized by scholars around the world. Gaozi's discussion of nature takes the word "survival" as the starting point, from which there are the sayings "food and S3x are nature", "nature is neither good nor bad", and the metaphor of the willows and the turbulent water is the most accurate, but the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty thought it was fundamentally wrong, which was Zhu Xi's mistake. However, Zhu Xi was able to recognize that the sentence "birth is called nature" was the root of Gaozi's doctrine, which can also be said to be special.
I don't know who Gaozi is. Some say he is a disciple of Confucius. I think that's right. Confucius praised Zhouyi and said: "The great virtue of heaven and earth is life." Zhu Xi used the word "life" to talk about nature, which can be said to be the direct descendant of Confucius. Although Mencius's theory is slightly different from Gaozi's, he still uses the word "life" everywhere, such as saying: "Beans and millet are like water and fire, so how can there be people who are not kind?" He also said: "There are no resentful women at home and no lonely men outside, so what does it matter to the king?" He still uses the two words "food and S3x" to establish his theory. I think the differences and similarities between Mencius and Gaozi in discussing nature are the same as the differences and similarities between Zixia and Zizhang in discussing friendship. The main idea is not beyond the family rules of Confucius. Mencius said: "Gaozi was not moved before me." He also knew the subtle moments of the heart, which shows the depth of the friendship between the two. Their debate on nature is just a discussion between friends and mutual verification. The Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty had the words "Taotong" and "orthodoxy" in their minds. They strongly denounced Gaozi as a heretic, but when it came to their own doctrines, they cut out new words to establish their arguments. They asked women to starve to death to sacrifice their so-called chastity, and asked ministers to die without guilt to sacrifice their so-called loyalty. Mencius was aware of this, so he took Gaozi as his equal and excluded Cheng and Zhu from his school.
The Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty worshipped the words of Confucianism and tried to refute the words of Buddhism and Taoism. They found the four words "The human heart is dangerous, the heart of Tao is subtle, only the essence is one, and the middle is held" in the Book of History, and they were surprised to think that it was the sixteen-word heart-to-heart transmission of Yu Ting. They then claimed that they were born 1,400 years later and had learned the untransmitted knowledge from the lost scriptures. Later, Yan Baishi of the Qing Dynasty found out that these four sentences were a forgery, and the forger was quoted from Xunzi, who quoted the words of the Taoist scriptures. Yan's theory is considered an ironclad case in the Confucian classics circle. These sixteen words are the starting point of the doctrine of the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty. Fundamentally, they are mixed with the elements of Taoism and Xunzi. They want to use Confucius to exclude Laozi and Mencius to exclude Xunzi, so they are always fragmented and far-fetched. Zhu Zi said: "Although the temperament is not good, it does not harm the goodness of nature. Although nature is good, it cannot be without the work of self-examination and correction." May I ask: If the temperament is not good, can it still be called good? If it is good, why do we need to correct it? Such statements are truly "absurd and confusing". Gaozi's argument based on the two words "existence" is clear and simple, which is like a world of difference!
The Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty said that the human heart is human desire, which refers to eating, drinking, S3x, and the heart of Tao is the principle of heaven, which refers to loving relatives and respecting brothers. Zhu Xi said in the preface to the chapters and sentences of the Doctrine of the Mean: "Everyone has this form, so even the wisest cannot be without human heart." It is tantamount to saying: When he was a child, even Confucius would snatch cakes from his mother's mouth; when I was about to fall into a well with a child, even Confucius was only frightened and had no compassion. If it were not so, a child would not suck milk from his mother when he was born, and would jump into a well when he saw it when he grew up. Would there still be human beings in the world? The principle is correct, but it has invaded the scope of Xunzi. Moreover, according to the research of later Confucian scholars, the words "human beings are born quiet" were quoted by Wenzi from Laozi, and King Xian of Hejian included them in the "Book of Music". Some people say that the book "Wenzi" is a fake book, but it was also written by people from the Laozi school. It can be seen that the theory of the principle of heaven and human desire of the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty not only invaded the scope of Gaozi and Xunzi, but also developed the theory of Laozi. So are the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty wrong? It is said that not only was there no mistake, but it was the great achievement of the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty. If they had intended to merge the teachings of Confucius and Mencius with those of Laozi, Xunzi and others, they would not have been able to see the truth of the universe. Only because they strongly opposed Laozi, Xunzi and others, and in fact merged with them, can it be proved that the teachings of Laozi, Xunzi and others were not wrong, and that the truth of the universe is indeed like this.
Zhu Xi's preface to the Zhongyong says: "We must make the heart of Tao always the master of our body, and the human heart always obeys." In relation to the master, the heart of Tao is the master, and the human heart is the servant; the heart of Tao is the heart of a saint or a virtuous person, and the human heart is the heart of lust and desire; the servant is responsible for running around, and only obeys the master's orders. A careful analysis of Zhu Xi's words is equivalent to saying: If I want to be a saint or a virtuous person, the human heart will hide lust and desire; if I want to eat, or think about "the relationship between men and women, the most important relationship among people", the human heart will offer lust and desire. Only in this way can we say: "The heart of Tao is always the master of our body, and the human heart always obeys." However, this is a roundabout way. In short, the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty saw clearly the truth of the universe and the truth of human nature, but they had to support the theory of the goodness of human nature in order to inherit the tradition of Mencius. On the one hand, they had to take into account the truth, and on the other hand, they had to take into account Mencius, so they touched on thorns everywhere, and the more they explained, the more roundabout it became. We have great love for the Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty. If we sweep away the dross on the surface, the essence within will naturally emerge.
Gaozi said: "Food and S3x are human nature; benevolence is internal, not external; righteousness is external, not internal." In the following text, Mencius only refuted the words "righteousness is external" and did not mention the words "food and S3x" at all. It can be seen that Mencius admitted the saying that "food and S3x are human nature". He said to King Xuan of Qi: "If the king likes goods and shares them with the people, what does it matter to the king?" "If the king likes S3x and shares them with the people, what does it matter to the king?" He did not ask him to get rid of his selfish desire for goods and S3x, but only asked him to extend his own desire to others so that everyone can indulge in their selfish desire for goods and S3x. Later Confucian scholars were different. Wang Yangming said in his "Instructions for Practical Living": "When there is nothing to do, track down and find out the selfish desires for money, S3x, fame, etc. one by one. You must eradicate the root of the problem and prevent it from arising again. Only then will you be happy. It should be like a cat catching a mouse. You must watch and listen. As soon as a thought arises, you must get rid of it immediately and decisively. You must not tolerate it, give it easy treatment, or harbor it or let it go. Only then will you be able to clear the house." This statement is like: seeing a fire will burn down the house, so in the future, people should put out a spark immediately and cut off the source of fire. Only then will they be happy. According to Mencius's teachings, this is quite different.
The Record of Instructions also records: "A friend asked: I want to search out the roots of lust, desire for money, etc. one by one while sitting in meditation, and clean up the corridors. Is it afraid that cutting flesh and causing sores? The teacher said seriously: This is my prescription for curing people. It really removes the root of people's diseases. Even more capable people may still need it after more than ten years. If you don't need it, just put it aside and don't ruin my method. The friend was ashamed and thanked him. After a while, he said: This is not your business. It must be one of my disciples who knows a little bit about the meaning. I said this to mislead you. Those present were shocked." Let us think about it: Wang Yangming was a very cultured person. When he lectured, no matter how difficult the questions were, he always spoke diligently. Why did he get angry when his disciples asked this question and never explained the truth? Why did he admit that the person who said this was someone who knew a little bit about the meaning? This is worth studying.
Fear and compassion are the same thing, and so are the principles of heaven and human desires, just as fire burns a house and fire cooks rice. The Confucian scholars of the Song and Ming dynasties did not understand this principle and regarded the principles of heaven and human desires as two completely different things. Yangming could combine knowledge and action into one, could combine the two of cultivating virtue and loving the people into one, could regard the five things of investigating things, acquiring knowledge, being sincere, rectifying the mind and cultivating oneself as one thing, but he could not regard the principles of heaven and human desires as one thing. This was the shortcoming of his doctrine. The question from his disciples hit the nail on the head, so he got angry.
Login to comment
Be the first one to comment...