Jin Canrong talks about Confucianism thirty seconds and three mistakes

Just now on the vibrato brushed to Jin Canrong talking about Confucianism, three mistakes appeared in just a few tens of seconds.

One is that Jin Canrong said that the Twenty-Four Histories were written by Confucians. The first history of the Twenty-Four Histories is the "Records of History", and the author is Sima Qian. Obviously, Jin Canrong regarded Sima Qian as a Confucian. In fact, although Sima Qian was very sympathetic to Confucianism, he was not a Confucian and, like his father Sima Tan, was partial to Taoism. Advocating Huang Lao was the custom of the early Han Dynasty, including the royal family.

In fact, Sima Qian's utilitarian thinking of the Fa was also very serious, so that the description of characters and society in the "Records of History" was very utilitarian, which made the later Ban Gu, Zhu Xi and others dissatisfied and criticized it.

Ban Gu's evaluation of Sima Qian in the Book of Han and the Biography of Sima Qian is: "Right and wrong are quite absurd to saints, and on the Dao Dao, first Huang Lao and then the Six Classics." This means that Sima Qian's view of right and wrong and the Confucian sage's view of right and wrong are divergent, making it believe that Taoist learning is more powerful than the Five Classics. The Five Classics of the Four Books and Five Classics are sometimes called the Six Classics by the ancients.

Zhu Xi had a lower evaluation of Sima Qian. Su Rui thought that Sima Qian's "History" was very problematic, so he remade a "Ancient History" himself, and in the preface he evaluated Sima Qian as "shallow and unlearned, neglectful and credulous", zhu Xi deeply believed. Zhu Xi also said that "(Sima Sima) Qianzhixue also said benevolence and righteousness, also said deceitfulness, also used power and utilitarianism, but its original intention was only to seek utilitarian interests in power", "but it is only the insight below the Warring States".

These evaluations of Sima Qian and the "Shi Ji" by Ban Gu and Zhu Xi are not felt by modern people, and it is difficult to understand, because the basic premise of comparing the "Shi Ji" with the Four Books and Five Classics is that you must read and read through the Four Books and Five Classics, and then look at the "Shi Ji", and the difference is very clear. In modern times, there are several people who have really read the Four Books and Five Classics in their entirety, let alone read and read them thoroughly. Even the "History" may be limited to the "Hongmen Feast" in the middle school textbook.

Therefore, modern people cannot make a distinction between the Four Books and Five Classics and the "Records of History", and even cannot see the difference between the ancient books, but treat all ancient books as classics, similar to Chinese who have never seen foreigners, think that all foreigners are the same.

Obviously, Jin Canrong did not really know sima qian and the "Records of History". However, the histories after the "Chronicle of History" were indeed written by The Confucians.

The second mistake is that Jin Canrong regarded Confucianism as a school of thought, a school of thought, just one of the hundred families of the sons. Of course, this is also a common mistake after the Republic of China. Confucianism is not a school of thought, let alone a school, but the inheritor of Chinese tradition and the great interpreter of Chinese culture during the Spring and Autumn Period when Chinese culture and tradition were on the verge of collapse. Confucianism is the authentic tradition of Chinese culture, that is, Chinese culture itself.

Therefore, Confucius said that "to say but not to do", "to say" is to inherit, inherit, and interpret. Among the so-called Hundred Sons and Hundreds of Families, only Confucianism has a classic and inherits the Five Classics. The Five Classics, on the other hand, are records of Chinese history three generations ago, three generations ago. That is, the so-called "six classics are all history". That is to say, among the hundreds of sons, only Confucianism inherited the history of China at that time and was based on Chinese history, and the other families appeared suddenly, not only without a historical basis, but also against Chinese history.

What needs to be pointed out here is that the "Confucianism of Duzun" in the second half of the sentence of "Deposing Hundred Families and Respecting Confucianism alone" is not an ancient language, but a new cultural movement, from an article in Chen Duxiu's "New Youth" in 1916, "Confucius Pingyi", written by Yi Baisha. The original words in the Book of Hanshu Wudi are "depose the Hundred Families, table chapters and six classics". Yi Baisha was the first person to overthrow Kong Jiadian, and his construction of the "Confucianism of Monopoly" was to show that Emperor Wu of Han's move was ideological despotism.

The "Six Classics of Table Chapters" are actually the history of China and the traditional culture of Table Chapters, so This move of Emperor Wudi of the Han Dynasty was not an ideological dictatorship, but a great revival of Chinese tradition. The Spring and Autumn Warring States period of "ritual collapse and happiness" is the interruption of history, the collapse of tradition, and Emperor Wudi of the Han Dynasty inherits history and revives tradition.

To describe Confucianism as the authentic tradition of Chinese culture itself as one of the hundred families of the sons is a kind of historical nihilism that distorts and even negates Chinese history.

The third mistake, which is also very popular, is that Jin Canrong said that Confucianism has an ideology, likes farming, and shapes China into an agrarian civilization. This shows that Jin Canrong knows nothing about Confucianism, and everyone is in the clouds. Even during Confucius's time, some people criticized Confucius for not doing anything, saying that he was "not diligent in his four bodies and did not divide the grains." In the Analects of Fan Chi, Confucius was very dissatisfied with Fan Chi's desire to learn to cultivate land. This shows that Confucius did not attach importance to agriculture at all, of course, this point is also misunderstood by many people.

Confucianism attaches the greatest importance to righteousness, and what Confucius called "etiquette" and "benevolence" have their core righteousness. Chinese culture is not an agrarian culture, but a culture of liturgy and righteousness.

"Li Yun Li Yun, Jade Shu Yun Hu Ya? Leyun Leyun, Bell Drum Yun huzai?"" "Lile" is a system, and Confucianism is not about the system itself, but on the human heart of the people who implement it. The underlying logic of Confucianism is not the superficial system of ritual music, but the human heart of the people who perform ritual music. That is, the underlying logic of Confucianism is mental nature and righteousness. Confucianism is not based on any external system, nor on any external economic form, because it is wrong to define Confucian culture and define Chinese culture by any institutional form and economic form. It is wrong to say that Confucianism and ancient China were feudal ritual religions and patriarchal societies, and it is also wrong to say that Chinese civilization is an agricultural civilization.

The Confucian distinction between righteousness and profit is based on righteousness and profit is the end. Confucianism emphasizes righteousness rather than profit, and does not deliberately attach importance to any industry. Confucianism advocates "not fighting with the people" and respecting any industry. Heavy agriculture and suppression of commerce were the practice of the Qin Dynasty lawyers, and the salt and iron official camp of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty also followed the practice of the Fa, and when emperor Zhao of Han arrived, it was opposed by the Confucians and recorded in the "Treatise on Salt and Iron". Jin Canrong put the Heavy Farmer and Merchant Zhang Guan Li on the head of the Confucians, typically without learning and without technique.