requestId:68499ac31cab83.51299378.
The modern thinking of “Unified Mencius and Xun” and rebuilding Taoism – starting from “Zhu Xi is Xun’s academic knowledge”
Author: Zhu Yan (Xi’an Electronic Technology Major Philosophy Department)
Source: Author Author Authorized by Confucian Network Published
Original from “News on Tianfu” 2019 Issue 3
Time: Confucius was in the 2570th year of Jihai Pu month 3
� In this regard, Mou Zongsan and Li Zehou proposed the argument that “Xunzi is similar to Zhu Zi” and “Zhu Xi is Xun’s academic performance.” This practice of learning Zhu Xi and Xunzi as one type breaks people’s past knowledge and prompts people to think about the relationship between Xunzi and Mencius and Song and Ming dynasties from the beginning. This article has tried to sort out and analyze the related arguments between Mou Zongsan and Li Zehou about the relationship between Xunzi and Zhu Xi, explaining the main meaning of the discussion of “Zhu Xi is Xunzi”, and discussing the rational ways and abilities of thinking and combining Mencius and Xunzi and emphasizing Taoism in the relationship between Xunzi and Song and Ming dynasties.
Keywords: Difficult, authentic, chanting Mengqi, running Xunxue, and Zhu Xi are Xunxue
The suppression of Xunshi’s attitude in Song and Ming dynasties made Xunzi fail to receive fair evaluations for a long time. This state has always been extended to modern neo-Confucianism. Mou Zongsan (hereinafter referred to as “Mu”) proposed the “three-part discussion”, believing that Xunzi is similar to Zhu Xi and is a “small son”. Li Zehou (hereinafter referred to as “Li”) proposed that Zhu Xi was Xunxue [3] and the main line, while Mencius and Yangming were “a son who was the clan”. The two people stood at the same stage, and their evaluations were opposite, but both regarded Zhu Xi and Xunzi as the same category. Although both statements have biases, the proposition of “Zhu Xi is Xun’s” has a main meaning for thinking about “unifying Mencius and Xunxun” and even the complete Confucianism’s problem.
Xunzi finally appeared as the other in the Meng tradition. Zhu Xi continued to establish the study of the mind and nature and was a representative figure of the tradition of Bengali. “Knowledge” is the main basis for the evaluation of Xunzi in Song and Ming dynasties. Xunzi’s “dividing nature” practice is mixed with the verbal system of “mind, nature and kung fu”. “So Xunzi’s mind… is ‘give sons as the sect’.” [4] Zhu Xi also became a “give sons” because he understood that “Taoism” was only inactive, and that he could not realize self-discipline and morality in kung fu. Therefore, Zhu Xi and Xunzi are similar. Mou’s recommendation of Xunzi’s decisive comments to Zhu Xi’s approach caused great debate. Regardless of criticism, inheritance or outstripping, Mou’s statement is indistinguishable. There are many differences between Zhu Xi and whether he can make a difference. Among them, Lin Anwu then extended the Mou family’s theory and believed that Zhu Xi was not a discrepancy, but a “superior” system [5]. Among the various views of the “disagreement” of the GAO family, Li’s response is the most representative. The term “Zhu Zi and Xunzi” by Mou is still vague, but Li is clearIt expresses that “Zhu Xi is Xun’s scholar”. The practice of the Mou family and the Li family being biased is not fair in theory, and they all think that “Zhu Xi is Xun’s scholar.” This topic is the main link of the two people’s thinking and construction, and it is also the point where we think about the development link of Confucianism and theory.
Sons and disagreements
Authentic Confucianism is closely related to Taoism. The Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties prospered and Taoist sected. Meng Xue was his sect leader, and Xunzi received sage. Modern neo-Confucianism such as the Mou family continued the foundation of the Confucianism in Song and Ming dynasties, and emphasized Meng and restrained Xun. Mou believed that “being benevolence is known to heaven” and self-virtue is used to express nature[6] is a new tradition created by Confucius, and the one who inherits it is authentic; Xunzi inherited the old tradition of “self-generating and speaking nature” and can “concentrate on the temperament of the Song Confucians.” “The ‘adult’ of the virtue-oriented teaching initiated by Confucius’ benevolence represents the purpose of Confucius’s life and wisdom.” [7] The Confucian life and wisdom must be based on Confucius. Mencius inherited the new tradition created by Confucius and became authentic. Although Xunxue is included in Confucius’s teachings, it is not the focus of Confucius as Confucius, so it is a dispenser. Benevolence was Confucius’ invention, but the relationship between benevolence and gift is the central problem. Only by placing benevolence in the tradition of tribute can we better understand Confucius’ inventions. Therefore, whether Confucius invented to judge authentic practices is contrary to Confucius’s question-based concepts.
Xunzi proposed the “dividing of nature” by expressing nature and speaking of nature, but did not talk about nature from a broad moral character. After the broadcast of the drama “Constructing Society”, Wan Yurou became unexpectedly hot, and as the order of the foot is the central system of mind and kung fu. Although the use of moral character and mind is not the middle of his discussion, the “adult” problem of the Chengde Buddhism is still his main focus. Rather than saying that Xunzi did not understand the nature of the inner virtues that exceeded [8], it is better to say that it is caused by the differences in theoretical frameworks. Rather than saying that Xunzi’s tree cannot establish a kind of moral character[9], it is better to say that using the learning of the mind and nature to conquer Xun himself is a bias against Confucius’ tradition. Xunzi and the Confucian language system of Song and Ming Confucianism are different. Xunzi said that nature was rude, and Confucians of Song and Ming dynasties said that the nature of temperament and the nature of destiny were consistent, and there were differences between the two. The nature of the atmosphere is developed based on the theoretical framework of the study of the mind and nature. It is inappropriate to regard Xunzi’s nature as a kind of temperament than the attached nature. Taking the learning of the mind and nature as authentic, Xunzi was destined to be a different son. The learning of mind and nature will encounter the problem of deducing foreign kings. Xunshu needs to face the problem of practical kung fu in the teaching of Confucianism and virtue. [10] These two problems coexist rather than a unified problem. Therefore, how to combine the problem deepened by Mencius and Xunxun is the key to the development of Confucianism.
“YizengZi, Zisi, Mencius, and “Doctor of the Mean”, “Yi Qi” and “Big Xue” are sufficient to represent the authenticity of Confucian traditions and are the essence of the development of Confucianism, but Xunzi is not with him.” [11] Xunzi was good at the “Yi Qi”, and there are multiple manifestations in the “Xunzi” book [12]. Liu Xiang also said in the preface written in the “Xunzi” that Xunzi was good at the “Yi Qi” and “Legend”. Whether it is “the “Big Xue” said Xun Xue” [13] or the “I am afraid it is just Xunzi’s work” [14], it shows that Xunzi’s relationship with “The Book of Changes” and “The Book of Songs” is very close. The citations by Liu Xiang, Zhu Xi, and Rong Youlan are confirmed, and the writing is the main method of Mou’s theory structure. Why do there be differences in the arguments? For Mou, Xunzi did not continue to develop Confucianism and classics. Even if he was familiar with the Book of Changes and the relationship between “The Book of Changes and the Book of Religion”, he lacked the list as the development of Confucianism. Zhu Xi continued to create the language of Taoism and classics, and became the most representative of the Neo-Confucianism in Song and Ming dynasties. However, Zhu Xi’s understanding of Taoism and nature was not suitable. The correct interpretation of the clan was also eliminated from the regularity and became a distinction. Xunzi and Zhu Xi were both judged as “someone” because of their understanding of the mind and nature being different from “authenticity”. For this reason, the two are similar.
According to Mou’s understanding, Zhu Xi and Xunzi both belong to a system of erectile dysfunction and cannot solve the problem of moral self-discipline in the mind and nature and Kung Fu, and will guideBaoqing.com to be moral and external. “Xunzi is also a rude system, and he is just ashamed that Xunzi did not translate his word “苏” into