New Shun 1730

This original idea of ​​returning Confucianism to its origins and the reflection on Song Confucianism were not unique to Dashun.

Rather, they were carried out simultaneously by the entire Confucian cultural circle.

Including the island across the sea, many great Confucian scholars also basically had this attitude.

For example, Matsumura Kyusan said: The teachings of Confucius and Mencius have long been harmed by commentators. In the Han and Jin dynasties, the interpretations of the scriptures were often mixed with the ideas of Laozi and Zhuangzi; after the Song and Yuan dynasties, Zen was mixed in.

The apprentices have been practicing for a long time, and they are used to the lectures. After being influenced by the sun and the moon, they finally fall into the views of Zen, and are confused about the main points of Confucius and Mencius.

If Confucianism is to flourish, the annotations of Song Confucianists must be completely abolished.

This reflection is similar to Yan Yuan's feeling that it is necessary to break Cheng Zhu before being close to Confucius and Mencius. They all think that the religion over there in India is too disgusting, and it directly taints the true meaning of the origin of Confucianism.

The entire Confucian cultural circle is reflecting on the problem of the blind annotations of Song Confucianists, and they all want to return to the origin of Confucianism.

However, once this opening is opened, especially the mainstream Confucianism of Dashun, the cultural motherland of the entire cultural circle, is a reflection on Song Confucianism.

This will inevitably lead to the common problem of the retro-style: adding layers of pressure.

You want to abolish Song Confucianism? Do you think that even if you are retro, you are a true Confucian? I don't even recognize Mencius, and I directly poke before Mencius.

This is certainly not a problem of the Confucian cultural circle alone.

It is a common religious problem worldwide.

Why did the Puritans run to America? Isn't it because they think that even if Britain changed its state religion and was no longer Catholic, it was still not pure enough, was infected by Catholicism, and didn't know what the main purpose of the Bible was, so they wanted to continue to retreat?

Why are many fundamentalist sects in Islam so extreme? Isn't it because they think that the current factions are not pure enough and don't know what the main purpose of the true scriptures is, so they want to continue to retreat?

As long as you start to retreat, there will inevitably be disputes about how far to retreat.

Whether to retreat or not is a problem.

Once you start to retreat, where to retreat is another problem.

In fact, when the mainstream of Dashun began to reflect on Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism, this situation was doomed.

Once the opening was made, where to retreat was not controlled by human beings.

And the special situation of Dashun made it really impossible for Dashun to deny Mencius.

But holding the banner of Yongjia Yongkang School, it faced the problem of fighting for the country and ruling the country.

When fighting for the country, Chen Liang's passionate learning was of course passionate.

But once he started to rule the country, how to evaluate hegemony, how to evaluate Tang Zong and Han Wu, this would inevitably be counterattacked by mainstream Confucianism.

The reaction against Li Zhi and others led to the rise of Donglin moralism in the late Ming Dynasty; the reaction against the moralism of Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism led to the rise of hegemonic learning of Chen Liang and others; the reaction against these kingly and hegemonic practices led to the reflux of the concept of benevolence and righteousness.

Of course, in the Dashun Dynasty, which had many historical problems, and in view of the fact that Dashun always compared itself to the Tang Dynasty, and the emperor advocated Liu Yu's "Nanyang is the Western Regions Theory", it was difficult for Confucian scholars to directly evaluate the problems of the Han, Tang and Three Dynasties.

And Liu Yu's reforms touched the interests of many people.

Some Confucian scholars who disliked Liu Yu would at most throw dirty water on Liu Yu, which was nothing.

The Confucian scholars who really wanted Liu Yu to die chose a very clever "political metaphor" point.

Who?

Guan Zhong, Guan Yiwu.

Throwing dirty water and smearing, now it seems that there is no threat to Liu Yu.

The real masters, those who really wanted Liu Yu to die, metaphorically compared the many reforms that Liu Yu participated in over the years to Guan Zhong.

On the one hand, this is a standard routine of flattery, which does not need to be said.

On the other hand, this is also closely related to the question of "where to retreat" of the mainstream Confucianism of Dashun.

The mainstream is against the Neo-Confucianism of Song Confucianism.

But before the Song Dynasty, there were Tang, Han, pre-Qin, Meng, and the most primitive six classics, Confucius, and the rule of the Three Dynasties.

This includes the Dashun demoting Yanshenggong to Fengsihou; the status of Confucius in the Confucian temple was lowered from the teacher and saint, which can be regarded as the result of the Dashun establishment of the Yongjia and Yongkang schools of thought.

Because, according to the thought of that school, Confucius was "narrating the Tao" rather than creating the Tao.

The Tao existed in the Three Dynasties, in Yao, Shun, and Yu, in Shang Tang, Wenwu, and Zhou Gong.

Confucius just recorded and narrated the "Tao" that had already existed.

And this gave those evil political hidden factions who wanted to kill Liu Yu a huge operating space.

Even if we don't mention the means of flattery they wanted to kill Liu Yu, just talking about the simple academic issue, Guan Zhong is a symbolic figure of the question of "where to retreat" of Dashun Confucianism.

Moreover, the humiliating plaque "Hair untied and left lapel" hung in front of the Fengsihou Mansion was also a sigh caused by Guan Zhong.

How to evaluate Guan Zhong can actually directly allude to Liu Yu's reforms in recent years.

Confucius' evaluation of Guan Zhong is still quite high.

He even gave an evaluation of "As benevolent as he is! As benevolent as he is!"

Confucius generally does not easily give people the evaluation of "benevolence". Looking back at that time, there were really not many people who received this evaluation.

And Mencius' attitude towards Guan Zhong should be said to be quite low.

Gongsun Chou once asked Mencius, saying that if you were in power in Qi, could you achieve the same achievements as Yan Zi and Guan Zhong?

Mencius was quite disdainful and thought that comparing Guan Zhong with him was an insult to him. Qi had such a large population and such a large land. If he really came to power, he would rule the world with the kingly way, "with a backhand". With such a good foundation, Guan Zhong had been working for so long, but he did not show any ability. Anyone could do it.

Regarding Guan Zhong's evaluation, for those Confucian scholars who opposed Liu Yu, part of them...refers to those Confucian scholars who opposed Liu Yu and were not deliberately trying to praise and kill Liu Yu. The meaning here can also be applied to Liu Yu or Dashun.

Such a large population.

Such a strong national strength.

It is just a small achievement of defeating Luocha, taking over the Western Regions, conquering Japan, and going to Southeast Asia.

If the kingly way is used, unifying the world will be easy. Where is the merit?

This clearly reflects the incompetence of Liu Yu and other reformists.

This metaphor is relatively low-level.

The harm to Liu Yu is almost zero.

The emperor didn't care at all. Instead, he just thought that these people were just complaining about their talents. Dashun should indeed reflect on how to solve the problem of too many students, too few candidates, and even fewer official vacancies with too low admission rates.

It is also normal to feel that Feng Tang is easy to grow old and Li Guang is difficult to be appointed. There is no need to care about their evaluation.

Of course, this evaluation itself is also a manifestation of the official Confucianism of Dashun "destroying but not establishing".

Because in itself, how Confucius and Mencius evaluated Guan Zhong is the debate between the Yongjia School and Zhu Xi on the orthodoxy in the Southern Song Dynasty.

Chen Liang evaluated Emperor Wu of Han and Emperor Taizong of Tang, and believed that they inherited the orthodoxy.

Zhu Xi believed that they did not inherit the orthodoxy because their starting point was profit rather than righteousness, evil rather than righteousness.

Analogy to the past.

That is, Confucius believed that although Guan Zhong did this and that, he protected the Xia from becoming barbarians and united the nine princes to save the people from war. Such is his benevolence! Such is his benevolence!

And Mencius believed that Guan Zhong's starting point was hegemony, not the kingly way, so Guan Zhong was very ordinary.

In fact, it is the same thing.

It is no wonder why Ye Shi and others, including foreigners in the Confucian cultural circle, such as Dazai Chuntai, think that Mencius is a heretic.

Let's go deeper.

This is the debate between the utilitarian school of Yongjia and Yongkang schools established by Dashun and the rational school about "benevolence".

What does Guan Zhong think of benevolence?

Of course, "Guanzi" was definitely not written by Guan Zhong, but by the Jixia Academy, and it is obviously mixed with some interpretations of various schools of thought.

[He wants profit, I benefit him, people call me benevolent]

Take the issue of Huainan salt abolition in this salt administration reform.

The benevolence mentioned by Yangzhou Confucian scholars originated from "self-restraint and restoration of rituals is benevolence", which is to let the sons of salt households inherit their fathers' business and become salt households forever, so they think their practice is benevolent.

And Liu Yu is "because the salt households want what kind of profit, I have achieved the salt households' yearning for life, so I am benevolent".

Looking at the debate between the Yongjia School and Zhu Xi in the Song Dynasty.

That is, Chen Liang believed that the common people longed for a stable life, did not want to be slaughtered by foreign races, and did not want others to have maces and I had a top of the head, which was the benefit the common people wanted. And Tang Zong and Han Wu did it, benevolence was reflected in merit, so Tang Zong and Han Wu inherited the Taoist tradition.

Zhu Xi believed that there were standards for benevolence, righteousness, and the kingly way. If the following items are listed one by one, then the kingly way is in line with them. Only the kingly way can be called benevolent, otherwise it is the hegemony. Therefore, during the Han and Tang dynasties, the orthodoxy had actually been lost.

Of course, this goes back to the evaluation of Guan Zhong. Can Confucius' evaluation of Guan Zhong be understood as Guan Zhong's achievements reflecting benevolence?

But obviously, Chen Liang's statement could not become mainstream.

That is why Ye Shi would frantically patch it up afterwards: Although utilitarianism is emphasized, it is still necessary to restrain oneself and return to propriety as benevolence, and to conform to the achievements of the kingly way is the utilitarianism of Confucianism and beneficial utilitarianism. If it goes astray, it is the utilitarianism of the hegemony, such as militarism, which is not acceptable.

So at this time, when Guan Zhong was used to talk about things, it was actually a continuation of this set of things.

It's nothing more than Confucius and Mencius evaluating Guan Zhong, Chen Zhu discussing Han and Tang dynasties, and now Dashun can't directly use Han and Tang dynasties as metaphors to compare itself, so it goes back to Guan Zhong.

The faction that really wants Liu Yu to die is actually very easy to understand.

Behind Guan Zhong is Duke Huan of Qi. But Duke Huan of Qi's ability is very ordinary, because the mainstream believes that Adou is actually the template of Duke Huan of Qi.

Under the metaphor, is the military achievement and prosperity of Dashun in recent years the credit of Guan Zhong? Or the credit of Duke Huan of Qi?

How will future generations evaluate Duke Huan of Qi? How will they evaluate Guan Yiwu?

If there was no Guan Zhong, Duke Huan of Qi would be a tyrant, and in the end his body would be full of maggots, and no one would bury him.

Guan Zhong made profits from industry and commerce, fish and salt, hehe, future generations will only remember Guan Zhong, but will not think that this is the credit of Duke Huan of Qi.

This is the sinister part of the faction of praising and killing.

Because, if we use political metaphors, comparing Liu Yu to a eunuch is actually just tickling Liu Yu.

Would the emperor care? On the contrary, the emperor felt that eunuchs were his own people, and Dashun could not have eunuchs, so it would not be bad to have a eunuch.

If we use political metaphors, comparing Liu Yu to a powerful minister is actually tickling Liu Yu.

Would the emperor care? The emperor would think, powerful minister? Does Liu Shouchang deserve it? Only Zhuge Wuhou, who made all the decisions, could be considered a powerful minister; or those who held military power in their hands could barely be considered a powerful minister. Just like this, he offended a group of people, and he didn't even hold military power in his hands, so he deserved to be called a powerful minister? He was clearly a favorite minister, and the emperor should not be so confused as to distinguish between a powerful minister and a favorite minister. As long as the emperor wanted Liu Yu to die, he could die on the same day, so he was not worthy of being called a powerful minister.

And only using Guan Zhong as a metaphor is a truly threatening killing move.