Zhou Chicheng | Confucian simplicity: centered on Confucius, Xunzi, and Dong Zhongshu

Confucian Simplicity:

Centered on Confucius, Xunzi and Dong Zhongshu

Zhou Zhicheng

Originally published in Social Sciences, No. 10, 2014

December 23, 2014 in the Western calendar

Abstract: Typical representatives of the simple theory of sexual simplicity in Confucianism are Xunzi and Dong Zhongshu, and Confucius also tends to this theory. The "Treatise on Etiquette", "Persuasion", "Honor and Disgrace", "Confucianism", etc. in the book "Xunzi" all show that human nature is simple, and "Sexual Evil" should be written by Xunzi Houxue. Dong Zhongshu highlighted the potential of sexual goodness on the basis of inheriting Xunzi's simple theory of sexuality, but did not recognize Mencius's theory of sexual goodness. According to the theory of sexual simplicity, human nature cannot be said to be good or evil, but neutral, so it is different from the theory of sexual goodness and the theory of sexual evil. The theory of sexual simplicity is also different from the theory of good and evil of sex and the theory of no good and no evil of sex. Sima Qian, Dong Zhongshu, Han Bao, and other people in the middle of the Western Han Dynasty have not read "Sexual Evil", which is very helpful for us to infer the timing of its emergence.

Keywords: sexual simplicity; sexual goodness; sexual evil; Xunzi; Confucianism

When the Confucian theory of human nature is mentioned, people naturally think of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness and the so-called Xunzi's theory of sexual evil. This article examines a long-neglected Confucian theory of human nature: sexual simplicity. In fact, this theory of human nature was once held by many Representative Figures of Confucianism. In the process of studying this theory of human nature, we must also rehabilitate XunZi and take off the hat of sexual evil that is worn on his head. The theory of sexual evil is the theory of Xunzi Houxue, and the "Sexual Evil" in the book "Xunzi" is probably a work of the middle and late Western Han Dynasty.

One

Confucius's words "Sex is close, habit is far away"[1] has long shown the tendency of sexual simplicity. However, in order to make it easier for the reader to accept, we begin the discussion with the more obvious words of Xun Zi: "The sex person, the original material is simple; the pseudo-person, the literary longsheng also." If there is no sex, then there is nothing to add to the falsehood; without falsehood, then sex cannot be beautiful. Sexual hypocrisy, and then the name of the saint is one, and the merits of the world are also. Therefore, it is said that the heavens and the earth are united and all things are born, the yin and yang change one after another, and the sexual pseudo-unity and the world rule. [2] Here, Xunzi explicitly speaks of human nature in terms of "simplicity".

No one who studies Xunzi will not pay attention to this passage, but almost no one can find the deep meaning of "Park". Xunzi has been a sexual evil theorist for more than two thousand years, and when people get used to this tradition, they will turn a blind eye to the uniqueness of his sexual simplicity. For example, some commentators have said: "The so-called 'sexual simplicity' and 'sexual evil' have completely the same meaning in Xunzi. [3] In fact, the inconsistency between the two is obvious.

In its original sense, "plain" refers to unprocessed wood. This is very similar to "pu" refers to raw jade. Both imply an initial, natural, unintended state. In the book Xunzi, "Park" appears a total of 8 times,[4] except for the one cited in the previous paragraph, the other 7 times are:

Provincial agricultural work, careful storage, so that the time is obedient, so that the farmer is simple and incompetent, and the matter of governing the field is also. [5]

When there is no labor, there is no peasant, and if it is, the farmer is not simple and incompetent. ...... If the farmer is simple and incompetent, he will not lose the time of the day, the land will not be lost, the middle will be manned, and everything will not be wasted. [6]

Tune without flowing, soft but not bent, tolerant and not chaotic, clear and even the Tao and all without reconciliation, and can be transformed into easy, time and within, is the righteousness of the tyrant. If you drive a simple horse, if you raise a naked child, if you eat a fish. Therefore, because of his fear, he changed his faults, because he was worried, because he was worried, because he entered his way because of his joy, because he was angry and removed his grievances, and he was so-called. [7]

Entering, looking at its customs, its people are simple, its vocal music does not pollute its clothes, it is not afraid of being obedient, and the people of the ancients are also. [8]

The nature of this human being, born away from its simplicity, without its capital, will be lost and lost. From this point of view, however, human nature is evil. The so-called good sex is not far from its simplicity and beauty, and it is not separated from its capital and profit. If the husband can see the wisdom without leaving the eyes, and the hearing can not be separated from the ears, so that the eyes are clear and the ears are clear. [9]

Because we have a special opinion of the author of "Sexual Evil", we will not consider the use of "simple" three times in the last paragraph quoted above. "Park and lack of energy" appears 3 times, and "park" means "less", "natural", "natural". "Plain horse" refers to an unhurried, wild horse. "The people are simple" means that the people are simple and generous. The "Park" in "Pu Li" is neutral and has a positive tendency, the "Park" in "The People's Park" is obviously positive, and the "Park" in "Park Ma" is neutral and has a derogatory tendency.

From the use of these "simple", it is not difficult to infer the meaning of the "simple" of "sexual beings, the original material" in the "Treatise on Etiquette": natural and unaffected. In explaining it, Hao Yixing said: "Park Is also the essence of speech. [10] Such an interpretation is appropriate. However, unfortunately, Hao Yixing did not find that the "sexual essence" was inconsistent with sexual evil. Of course, almost all commentators have not discovered it. This can only be explained by preconceived notions.

The "simplicity" of "sexual beings, the original material is simple" is very neutral, without a tendency to praise and disparage. From the perspective of "asexuality, then falsehood does not add anything", the simplicity of nature seems to contain the potential of conformity to goodness, but from the perspective of "no hypocrisy, then sex cannot be beautiful", the simplicity of nature is obviously not perfect. Simplicity cannot simply be said to be good, nor can it simply be said to be evil. Simplicity is not perfect, but if it is summed up in "evil", it is exaggerated; simplicity may imply the potential to develop toward good, but if it is called "good", it is also not worthy of the name.

Therefore, the theory of sexual simplicity is different from the theory of sexual goodness and the theory of sexual evil. It is also different from the theory of good and evil in sex of Shi Shuo, Lacquer Carving Kai, Gongsun Nizi, and others, which holds that there are two well-made good and evil sides contained in the nascent human nature,[11] while the theory of sexual simplicity does not. Sexual simplicity tends to acknowledge that nascent human nature includes the potential to develop toward good or evil, but does not affirm that there is a readily available good or evil in it.

In addition, the theory of sexual simplicity is similar to the theory of the sexual innocence and the theory of the son of the accuser, because both view human nature with a more flexible attitude, and both recognize the immobility of human nature or good or evil. However, the theory of sexual simplicity acknowledges that human nature has imperfections and needs to be perfected by "hypocrisy", while the theory of sexual good and evil does not explicitly assert this. Sexual simplicity does not adopt a purely naturalistic attitude towards human nature, while the theory of sexual good and no evil seems to have such an attitude.

It is worth pointing out that although Xunzi's theory of sexual simplicity implies what we have said in the previous paragraph, he himself did not consciously take the issue of sexual goodness and evil as a focus of his attention. I don't think he responded to Mencius's theory of sexual goodness with his theory of sexual simplicity. I'm not sure if Xunzi had read Mencius's discussion of sexual goodness when he said, "Sex is the original material of Simplicity...". Even assuming he had read it, he should not have intended to engage in a polemic with Mencius, although he may have realized the difference between his and Mencius's views on human nature. By and large, Xunzi was not involved in the debate over sexual goodness and evil. The importance of this question has increased with the evolution of history. For many pre-Qin thinkers, it was not necessarily that important.

Two

Xunzi's attitude toward human nature is very similar to that of Confucius, who advocated "sexual proximity, habit is far away". Many people in the pre-Qin Dynasty who spoke of human nature did not take the question of sexual good and evil as the central issue, as did Confucius and Xunzi. In Confucius, sex and Habit are opposites; in Xunzi, sex and pseudos are opposites. Pseudoscience and Xi are too similar, they are both innate opposites of nature.

Xun Zi would admit that the nature of Simplicity is similar to that of different people, and Confucius will also admit that the similarity of good and evil is not fixed (although Confucius does not particularly care about the question of sexual good or sexual evil, but his sexual proximity really contains the meaning that sexual good and evil are not fixed).

When explaining Confucius's famous words in the Treatise on Semantic Neglect, Huang Kan pointed out: "Those who are sexual, people are born with their gifts; those who practice it are said to have the things that they often practice after birth." The qi of heaven and earth is born, although it is thick and thin, but it is the same as the qi, so it is similar. And the supreme knowledge, if it is worth a good friend, it is good, if it is a bad friend, it is evil, and the evil and good are different, so it is far away. [12] Such an explanation is acceptable to many.

Zhu Xi's explanation is also generally close to it: "This so-called sex, as well as temperament. The nature of temperament, inherently different from beauty and evil, but in the beginning, they are not very far away, but they are accustomed to good and good, and accustomed to evil is evil, so they are far away. [13] From what Confucius called the unconfined similarity of good and evil to what Xunzi called the simple nature, we can clearly see that they are consistent in their views on human nature.

In addition, Xun Zi's words in the Persuasion Study, "The son of Gan Yue Yi Raccoon, born with the same voice, long and different, teach him to be natural" is more consistent with Confucius's words. "Born with the same voice" means "sexually similar", "long and different" means "habit is far away". Undoubtedly, Xunzi's theory of sexual simplicity is more in line with Confucius's theory of human nature than Mencius's theory of sexual goodness. Mencius's theory of sexual goodness may have been very novel and radical at the time, and it is estimated that not many people will approve of it.

However, the modern scholar Xu Fuguan disagreed with the views quoted by Huang Kan, Zhu Xi and others. He believes that what Confucius called similarity is actually good: "The 'sex' of similarity can only be good, not evil... Connecting sex with destiny, sex is naturally good... The fusion of sex and the Tao of Heaven is the completion of an inner personality world, that is, the completion of man. ...... Confucius actually took benevolence as the human being and had it, and all human nature was innate... From the point of view of the places that are innately owned and infinitely transcendent, the human nature with benevolence as the basic content is actually the same as the traditional heavenly path and destiny. ”[14]

In my opinion, Mr. Xu over-interpreted what Confucius called similarity. When Confucius said this famous sentence, he could not have meant that there was benevolence, the Heavenly Dao, and the Mandate of Heaven in sex. Mr. Xu was so influenced by Mencius's theory of sexual goodness that he used it to explain Confucius's view of human nature. In this interpretation, we feel more about his personal attitude toward human nature than confucius.

Confucius, who advocated similarity of sex and distant habits, was relatively heavy on habit and light on sex, and Xunzi, who advocated simplicity, was also relatively heavy on pseudo(artificial) and light on nature. Similar to Confucius's emphasis on the role of Xi, Xunzi emphasized the role of hypocrisy. His repeated remarks about learning, accumulation, accumulation, etc. are all false. Both Confucius and Xunzi unanimously argued that acquired deeds were more important than innate sex. In this respect, Mencius differed slightly from them in that Mencius greatly enhanced the effects of innate sexuality.

Of course, Mencius did not ignore the role of the acquired deeds. It can be said that he attaches importance to innate sexuality and does not ignore the acquired deeds. Mencius's novel and radical theory of sexual goodness at the time was still very meaningful. It highlights human dignity. At the factual level, the theory of sexual simplicity has its basis; at the level of value, the theory of sexual goodness has its indelible contribution. After the Qin and Han dynasties, the influence of sexual goodness in Confucianism and chinese culture as a whole is obvious to all.

The famous saying at the beginning of the Three Character Classic is "In the beginning of man, nature is good." Sex is similar, habit is far away", the first half comes from Mencius, the second half comes from Confucius. The average person would agree that the two parts are consistent. However, if we carefully distinguish, we will find that the two parts are actually inconsistent, because in their original meaning, Confucius's "sexual similarity, habits are far away" does not embody the theory of sexual goodness, but has the tendency of sexual simplicity. The "sex" that Confucius spoke of as opposed to "Xi" cannot be considered neither good nor evil. If Confucius had lived to the Han Dynasty and faced with the controversy of sexual goodness and evil, it is estimated that he would have agreed to speak of sex in terms of "simplicity".

In pre-Qin literature, "sex" can often be equated with "birth". The Qing Dynasty scholar Ruan Yuan believed that "sex" should be a shape and sound character differentiated from "sheng". [15] Therefore, Confucius's statement that "sex is close and habit is far away", "life is sex" [16] said by Zhizi, and Xun Zi's "the reason why life is born is called sex" [17] are probably more in line with the habit of most people in the pre-Qin period to say sex, while Mencius's theory of sexual goodness is very novel and special. In other words, Xunzi's theory of sexual simplicity would be recognized by more people at that time.

Three

The basic basis for those who use Xunzi as a sexual evil theorist is undoubtedly the "Sexual Evil" section in the book "Xunzi". However, in the pre-Qin zi book, the books named after a certain son are not necessarily all written by a certain son. Feng Youlan said: "The titles of books such as Zhuangzi and Xunzi originally did not exist in the pre-Qin Dynasty, and all of them were just scattered chapters, such as "The Getaway" and "The Theory of Heaven". People in the Han Dynasty and beyond sorted out the pre-Qin scholarship and compiled these scattered chapters into a whole book according to their academic schools. Those who belong to the Zhuangzi faction are titled "Zhuangzi", and those who belong to the Xunzi faction are titled "Xunzi". [18] Mr. Feng's statement is very reasonable.

"Zhuangzi" is a representative work of the Zhuangzi School, and "Xunzi" is a representative work of the Xunzi School. The vast majority of commentators have long agreed that the inner part of the book "Zhuangzi" was written by Zhuangzi himself, while the "Outer Part" and "Miscellaneous Parts" were written by Zhuangzi Houxue. However, most modernists do not pay attention to which of the "Xunzi" books were written by Xunzi himself and which were written later.

When the Tang Dynasty scholar Yang Liang annotated Xunzi, he had long believed that not all of the book was written by Xunzi. He placed the "Great Outline", "Yu Zai", "Zi Dao", "Fa Xing", "Wai Gong", and "Yao Qing" at the end of the book, believing that they were written by Xun Zi's disciples.

When commenting on the "Outline", Yang Liang pointed out: "In this miscellaneous record of Xun Qing's words of the disciples, they are all briefly mentioned, and they cannot be famous, so they are generally called the "Outline". [19] In his commentary on the "Sitting", he also said: "The following are all biographical miscellaneous matters quoted by Xun Qing and his disciples, so they are always pushed to the end." [20] Yang Liang's views have been recognized by everyone, because as long as you read a few articles such as "Rough Outline" and "Yu Sitting", you will obviously feel that they are indeed different from other articles in the book in terms of writing style, expression, and ideological content.

Liu Xiang of the Han Dynasty also put these chapters in the back when compiling the Xunzi, and he should also be aware of their particularity. However, there is a very important one: "Sexual Evil", which is ranked after Liu Xiang's editor, but Yang Liang has advanced it. This important detail has gone unnoticed by modern scholars.

According to Liu Xiang's editing, the last nine articles in Xunzi are: "Sitting", "Zi Dao", "Sexual Evil", "Fa Xing", "Lai Gong", "Rough", "Yao Qing", "Gentleman", and "Fu". Sexual Evil is the 26th, after "Sitting" (Part 24) and "The Son's Path" (Chapter 25), but before "Dharma" (Chapter 27) and "Lamentations" (Part 28).

Obviously, these four are all records of the remarks of Confucius and his disciples (the "You" mainly records the words of Confucius, the "Zi Dao" mainly records the dialogue between Confucius and his disciples, the "Fa Xing" mainly records the remarks of Zengzi, Zigong, and Confucius, and the "Lai Gong" mainly records the dialogue between Confucius and lu Aigong), not Xunzi's own discourse, which is obviously different from the 23rd article ("Ritual Treatise") and the previous discourses. It is generally accepted that the author of these dialogues is not Xunzi, but Xunzi Houxue. Liu Xiang sandwiched "Sexual Evil", which seemed so important to later generations, in these dialogues, and strongly suggested to us: "Sexual Evil" is the work of Xun Zihou.

In the Tang Dynasty, Yang Liang made some adjustments to the order of the articles of Xunzi compiled by Liu Xiang. The most prominent difference between Yang's arrangement and Liu's arrangement is that Yang advanced the order of "Sexual Evil" from the 26th to the 23rd. Yang Liang made this explanation: "The old twenty-sixth, now it is Xun Qing's discussion, so it also rises to the top. [21] Yang Liang's words can make us retort: Liu Xiang should regard "Sexual Evil" as not "Xun Qing's argumentative language".

From the Han Dynasty where Liu Xiang was located to the Tang Dynasty where Yang Liang was located, it took eight or nine hundred years. During this long period of time, Xunzi, as a representative of sexual evil, gradually gained recognition, and the fact that Xunzi later learned to write "Sexual Evil" was obscured. At that time, people did not use punctuation, and Xunzi as a book and Xunzi as a person were written in the same way. In this case, it is not at all surprising that ordinary people regard all the views in "Xunzi" (including the views of "Sexual Evil") as Xunzi's views.

Yang Liang was an expert, and unlike ordinary people, he saw that some of the articles in "Xunzi" were not written by Xunzi, but he also accepted Xunzi as a representative of sexual evil as ordinary people. Mencius's main nature is good, Xunzi's main nature is evil, this statement is very essential and symmetrical, and if Mencius's main nature is good, Xunzi hou learns the main nature of evil, this is not essential, nor is it symmetrical. Obviously, the essential, symmetrical view is more likely to circulate than the imprecise and asymmetrical view. Here, however, we see that an imprecise, asymmetrical view is consistent with the facts of history.

Four

In the book "Xunzi", there is only one article that shows the evil of human nature, that is, "Sexual Evil", while there are many articles that show the simplicity of human nature. This asymmetry is significant.

The first "Persuasion" of "Xunzi" is to fully show the simple theory of sexuality. The famous saying of this passage, "In the midst of the fluff, it is not straight; the white sand is in nirvana, and it is black" is very close in spirit to the "sexual being, the original material is simple" of the "Treatise on Etiquette". Wang Niansun pointed out in his interpretation of the sentence in the Persuasion: "This saying is good and evil, and only people learn it. [22] This interpretation is to the point. Xun Zi uses this metaphor to compare people's nature of good and evil is not fixed, it changes with the changes in the surrounding environment. No wonder that later, when Wang Chong talked about the changeability of good and evil in human nature, he said something very close to it: "In the midst of the hemp, it does not help itself; the white veil is in the silk, and it is not practiced in blackness." ”[23]

Sexual simplicity pays attention to the variability of human nature and emphasizes the role of "pseudo". This is in fact a theme of Persuasion. Learning is the most important pseudoscience. Another famous quote in the "Persuasion" is "the son of Gan Yue Yi Raccoon, born with the same voice, long and different, and teaching him to be natural" also embodies the theory of sexual simplicity. "Born with the same voice" belongs to "sex", and "long and different" belongs to "pseudo". This kind of sex is neither good nor evil. Since sex is simple, the good or evil of man is determined by the acquired action. Liang Qichao explained the passage "Wooden straight rope, the wheel is thought to be a wheel, and its song is in the middle of the rules, although there is a violent, those who do not stand up, they are also made": "The quality of human talent is not determined by innate nature, but by the artificial determination of the later." [24] The idea of sexual simplicity runs through the entire Persuasion. It left no trace of sexual malice.

However, some commentators insist that the article has the idea of sexual evil. For example, Wang Bo pointed out in his article "On the Meaning of Confucianism": "The emphasis on learning logically contains an important premise, that is, human beings are not self-sufficient or defective, so they need to be shaped and compensated by the work of the day after tomorrow. As for what this defect is, and to what extent, there can be different understandings. In Xunzi's case, of course, it is his claim of sexual evil. Sexual evil represents a fundamental flaw in human life and therefore needs to be transformed. In the process of turning evil into good, learning constitutes an important hub. [25] In Wang Bo's view, Xunzi emphasized the importance of learning in The Persuasion because he saw the fundamental flaw in human nature, that is, human nature is evil. Man's continuous learning is aimed at transforming the evil in human nature.

Wang Bo interpreted "Persuasion" with "Sexual Evil", and greatly misread the work. If you carefully read through the entire "Persuasion", can you find an explicit statement or hint of the evil of human nature? Can you find that Xunzi affirms that human nature has fundamental flaws? If one sets aside the preconception that Xunzi is a sexual evil theorist, the answer is, of course, no. In my opinion, instead of stressing the consistency of Sexual Evil and Persuasion as Wang Bo did without any basis, it is better to think differently: the two articles are very inconsistent, and they are not written by the same person.

The "Honor and Disgrace" and "Confucianism" in the book "Xunzi" also embody the idea of sexual simplicity. "Honor and Disgrace" Yun: "Yue Ren An Yue, Chu Ren An Chu, Gentleman Anya, is not the ability to know the nature of ran also, is the wrong custom of the festival." ...... It can be Yao Yu, it can be Jie Jiao, it can be a craftsman, it can be a farmer, and it can be accumulated in the wrong customs. "Man's habits are not innately determined, but acquired; and the vast diversity of man is not by nature, but by the custom of error. "Confucian Effect" Yun: "Ju Chu and Chu, Ju Yue and Yue, Ju Xia and Xia, non-nature also, accumulation of jing also." "The variability of human nature and the importance of acquired behavior and environment reflect the simplicity of nature and the innocence of nature.

According to Sexual Evil, people are born evil. Sex is an innate, non-man-made thing, so the judgment of sexual evil obviously implies the innate nature of evil. However, in the "Persuasion", "Treatise on Etiquette", "Honor and Disgrace", "Confucianism", etc., we do not see that evil is innate, on the contrary, evil is considered to be brought about by the acquired behavior and environment. "The root of the orchid locust is for Zhi, and its gradual dictation, the gentleman is not close, and the common man is not convinced." Its quality is not unbeautiful, but it is also gradual. [26] The root of the locust is not smelly, but if it is immersed in smelly water, it will stink, indicating that the environment will change its nature. If the root of the locust is used as a metaphor for human nature, then human nature is not evil, and the production of evil is entirely the result of environmental action. In the book Xunzi, only Sexual Evil argues that evil comes from nature, while no other chapter argues this.

If we admit that the Treatise on Etiquette, persuasion, honor and disgrace, Confucianism, etc. are from Xunzi's hand, and if we admit that these articles advocate sexual simplicity rather than sexual evil, then it is inconceivable to say that the eye-catching "Sexual Evil" in Xunzi is also from his hand. A reasonable statement should be that "Sexual Evil" was not written by Xun Zi, but by his later learning. [27]

In fact, I think that "Sexual Evil" is not written by XunZi, not my own originality. As early as the 1920s, Liu Nianqin had such a proposition. On January 16, 17, and 18, 1923, the Morning Post Supplement serialized his article: "Xunzi's Insights on Human Nature." Liang Qichao recommended the article: "My friend Liu Junhongmin, with his brother Cunjun recently wrote this article, the suspicious evil article was not written by Xunzi. If this is true, then the academic circles will turn a big public case. Yu Fang was busy with his lessons, and did not have time to re-enact the whole book of Xunzi, and did not dare to criticize Liu Junzhi's words. However, he felt that this issue was of great importance, and it was urgent to introduce it to promote the discussion of scholars of governance. [28] Liu Nianqin's article begins with extensive references to human nature in other articles in the book, none of which speak of human evil.

He pointed out: "Xunzi's views on human nature are not in the sexual evil chapter, and I am very suspicious that the sexual evil article is not made by him. Ji Xunzi Catalog, a total of thirty-two articles. Outside of the sexual evil chapter, where sex is said, there are fourteen articles (the text is small and the meaning is the same as the one omitted); the two words of nature, the ancient books are mostly common, Xunzi said that life is the place to say sex, and three more, of these seventeen articles, but the word sexual evil is never seen to be used together. ”[29]

The 17 articles quoted by Liu Nianqin include: "Yue Ren An Yue, Chu Ren An Chu, Junzi Anya, is not the ability to know the nature of nature, is the wrong custom of the festival." ("Honor and Disgrace") "Sex, the original material Park Ye; the pseudo-person, the literary longsheng also." (The Treatise on Etiquette) "The one who is born is called sex." The sum of sex is born, the one who is refined, the one who is natural and natural, is called sex. "The good, the evil, the joy, the anger, the sorrow, the pleasure of sex." "("Correct Name")" Sexual injuries are called diseases. "There is desire, no desire, alienity, sexual possession, non-chaos." The number of desires, the number of different kinds, the number of emotions, and the non-chaos. "The sex and the heavens are also; the lover and the quality of sex; the desirer and the love should also be." ("Correct Name") "Not rich can not support the people's feelings, do not teach the unreasonable people's nature." ("Rough") "A gentleman is born of non-heterogeneousness, and is good at falsifying things." "(Persuasion)...

These words, all outside of "Sexual Evil", do not explicitly or imply that human nature is evil. In the book "Xunzi", there is only one article that says that human nature is evil. If this one is really written by Xun Zi, then why doesn't he say that human nature is evil at all in many of his other articles on human nature? Liu Nianqin showed us with novel ideas and sufficient materials that if the study of Xunzi's theory of human nature is limited to one article, it will certainly be problematic.

Liu Nianqin also presented other evidence to question Xun Zi as a sexual villain. For example, he said: "If Xunzi, who is not the twelve sons of Xunzi, attacks the doctrine of dissidents, if he has cut off a case of 'sexual evil', then Zi si's spontaneous theory, Mencius's theory of sexual goodness, is fundamentally incompatible with him." Under this non-sub-thought Mengke, is he still willing to put this layer lightly? [30] If the greatest difference between Xunzi and Mencius is that the former advocates the evil of human nature and the latter advocates the goodness of human nature, why does he not criticize Mencius's theory of sexual goodness in this crucial place? Liu Nianqin also saw that Sima Qian did not say that he advocated human evil when writing a biography for Xunzi: "Speculating on what Qian qian saw, there is no sexual evil chapter, so there is no such thing as "human nature is evil". ”[31]

On the basis of questioning Xunzi's sexual evil theory with sufficient evidence, Liu Nianqin believes that Xunzi's view of human nature is most typically expressed in the "Correct Name". He said: "The sexual evil chapter does not produce Xunzi's own work; his sexual opinions, I see, are still in his correct name... Because the articles of speech on the side are all branched and abstract; only in the correct name can there be a concrete explanation of the fundamentals of human nature. ...... To sum up: Xunzi's view of human nature, sex is the reason for birth. Good, evil, joy, anger, sorrow, happiness, and the six emotions are the qualities contained in sex. To feel things at work is to desire. To have sex is to have lust; man's lust is many and cannot go... Because he can't go, what he has to raise for him is the ceremony. Sex gains its nourishment, although it is more than desire, it does not hurt to cure; sex loses its nourishment, although desire is widowed, it is not only chaotic. Sex can be good or unwholesome. As for the judgment of the ontology of sex, it is only the four words of 'the original material is simple'. ”[32]

Liu Nianqin fully expounded the theory of human nature in "Correct Names". In his view, it is Xunzi's theory of human nature.

The four words "The Origin of simplicity" come from the "Treatise on Etiquette", not from "Correct Name". Based on this, we summarize Xunzi's theory of human nature as the theory of sexual simplicity. This is a new conclusion we have drawn by giving full play to Liu Nian's pro-family statement.

Five

Another representative of the Confucian theory of simplicity is Dong Zhongshu. Look at his exposition: "The sexual one, the nature of the simple also; the good, the king of the religion." Without its quality, the royal religion cannot be transformed; without its royal religion, it is simple and cannot be good. [33] Among those who study Dong Zhongshu's theory of human nature, this statement has not received the attention it deserves. Here we explicitly talk about sex in terms of "simplicity" and "simplicity".

It is almost identical to the statement in the Xunzi Ritual Treatise, which we quoted at the beginning of the first part of this article: "The sex one, the original material is simple; the pseudo-one, the literary longsheng also." If there is no sex, then there is nothing to add to the falsehood; without falsehood, then sex cannot be beautiful. Whether from the text or from the ideological point of view, Dong and Xun's words are highly consistent. Dong Zhongshu's "Wang Jiao" is the most important part of what Xun Zi called "pseudo.". The combination of "simplicity" and "wangjiao" that Dong Zhongshu said is very close to Xunzi's sexual pseudo-union.

Dong's "sex man, the nature of the park" is consistent with Xun's "sex person, the original material is also park"; Dong's "good person, the transformation of the king's religion" is consistent with Xun's "hypocrite, the literary and rational longsheng also"; Dong's "without its quality, then the wang religion cannot be transformed" is consistent with Xun's "asexual, then the false is nothing"; Dong's "without its royal religion, then simplicity cannot be good" is consistent with Xun's "no false, then sex cannot be beautiful". These agreements can certainly not be explained by coincidence, but can only be explained by Dong Zhongshu's absorption and inheritance of Xunzi.

"Sexual beings, the simplicity of nature" is a concise and clear exposition of the theory of sexual simplicity. This elaboration is in fact consistent not only with Xunzi, but also with Confucius, Zhizi, and so on. From the pre-Qin dynasty to the Western Han Dynasty, more people who talk about human nature talk about sex. When Xun Zi said that "the reason why life is born is called sex"[34], when Dong Zhongshu said "the nature of life is called nature"[35] and "the quality of life of sex" [36], they all talk about sex in terms of life. People who speak of sex in terms of life generally tend to favor the simplicity of human nature, although some of them will not explicitly assert this.

Dong Zhongshu also said: "What is born of heaven and earth is called temperament." [37] "What heaven does, it ends. Stopping is called heaven, and stopping outside is called king religion. Wang Jiao is outside of sex. [38] What is innate is sex or nature, as opposed to what is man-made. Wang Jiao belongs to man-made, not to sex. Dong Zhongshu definitively speaks of innate sex with "simplicity" and "simplicity". The "Hanshu Dong Zhongshu Biography" also records his original words: "Simplicity means sex, and sex cannot be civilized without enlightenment." Dong Zhongshu said more explicitly and more frequently than Xunzi about human nature. It is a pity that scholars who study Chinese sex theory cannot see the simple theory of sex represented by Xun and Dong.

"The good, the transformation of the king", also shows that goodness is the result of man-made. What Xunzi calls "pseudo" is also man-made. Dong Zhongshu, like Xunzi, emphasized that there is no ready-made, complete goodness in innate nature. Neither the "transformation of wang jiao" mentioned by Dong Zhongshu nor the "flourishing of literature and science" mentioned by Xun Zi do not belong to sex. They all separate what heaven does from what man does. Dong Zhongshu pointed out: "In order to use hemp as cloth, cocoons as silk, rice as rice, and sex as goodness, these are all saints who have followed the heavens to advance, and the non-emotional simplicity can also be said to be sex." [39] Ready-made and complete goodness is the work of man, not of heaven.

"Without its quality, then the royal religion cannot be transformed" recognizes the basic role of innate nature. Sex is the foundation of man. Xun Zi and Dong Zhongshu do not deny the importance of sex. "Asexuality, then falsehood adds nothing.". Obviously, all man-made efforts are based on nature. Dong Zhongshu affirmed that there is "good quality" in sex, that is, the potential and potential of goodness, but denied that there is ready-made and complete goodness in sex. Xun Zi also tends to have "good qualities" in affirmation, although he does not highlight this point as Muchen Dong Zhongshu did.

"Without its royal religion, simplicity cannot be good" emphasizes the role of man. When Dong Zhongshu uses the word "good", he refers to ready-made and complete goodness, which is not possessed in simplicity. He, like Xunzi, who said, "If there is no falsehood, then sex cannot be beautiful," he sees imperfections in sex. His original words, recorded in the "Biography of Dong Zhongshu of the Book of Han": "Sex is not civilized without enlightenment" also indicate this imperfection. Here "success" has the meaning of "completed", "accomplished", "done", etc. In Dong Zhongshu's view, without the role of enlightenment, sex cannot be perfect and complete.

On the whole, as a sexual simplicity, Dong Zhongshu, like Xunzi, admits that sex is neutral in terms of good and evil. Therefore, they are different from sexual good theorists and they are different from sexual evil theorists. However, it is understandable that they may swing slightly to the left or slightly to the right. When Xunzi said, "Without hypocrisy, then sex cannot be beautiful," and when Dong Zhongshu said, "Without its royal religion, it is simple and cannot be good," they swung a little to the left, and when Xunzi said, "Without sex, then hypocrisy does not add anything," and when Dong Zhongshu said, "Without its quality, then the royal religion cannot be transformed," they swung a little to the right. These small swings are all swings within the scope of sexual simplicity.

Six

Dong Zhongshu, who held a simple theory of sexuality, made a clear criticism of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness. These criticisms can be summarized in several ways:

First, Mencius understood goodness by too low standards: "Sex has good qualities, and it loves its parents in motion, and it is good at animals, which is called goodness, and this Mencius is good." Following the Three Principles and Five Disciplines, the Principle of the Eight Ends, faithfulness and fraternity, being generous and courteous, is good, and the goodness of this saint is also good. That is why Confucius said: 'Good people, I cannot see them, but I must see those who are constant, and Skor is good. 'From the point of view of being, the so-called goodness of the saints is not easy to be, and the non-good beasts are called good... The saints thought that the people of the kingless world, the people who did not teach, could not be good. It is difficult to be good, but it is said that the nature of all peoples can be deserved, and it is too much. If the nature of the beast is the nature of the beasts, the nature of the people is good; if it is qualityd by the goodness of humanity, the nature of the people is also ... My destiny is different from Mencius. Mencius is inferior to the deeds of the beasts, so sex is already good; my superiors are based on the actions of the saints, so it is said that sex is not good, good is wrong, and saints are too good. ”[40]

In Dong Zhongshu's view, Mencius's requirements for goodness were too low to meet the requirements of the saints. Mencius believed that man was good at animals and beasts, which showed that human nature was good, but Dong Zhongshu put forward higher requirements for goodness based on Confucius's words, "Good people, I can't see them", including "following the three principles and five disciplines, understanding the eight ends of the principle, being faithful and fraternal, being generous and courteous". Comparing human nature with this high demand, Dong Zhongshu came to the conclusion that sex is not good. Or, in today's language, sex is not good enough. Today's affirmation of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness makes an essential distinction between humans and animals, but Dong Zhongshu believes that human goodness does not mean much in this distinction. He admits that his high standard of goodness is "humane goodness" and is not easy to attain, while Mencius's low standard of goodness is all too easy to achieve.

Second, Mencius regarded the "good quality" (the potential of goodness) as the ready-made goodness: "Sex is better than grass, goodness is better than rice; rice is out of grass, and grass is not all rice; goodness is out of nature, and sex is not all goodness... Sex is like an eye, the eyes lie in the shadows, waiting to be aware and then seeing, when it is not aware, it can be said to have a seeing quality, but it cannot be said to be seen. The nature of the people today has its quality and cannot be realized, such as the blind man waiting to be aware, teaching it and then being good. When it is not aware, it can be said that there is good quality, but it cannot be said to be good... Sex is like a cocoon, like an egg, an egg to be covered into a chick, a cocoon to be reeled into silk, and sex to be taught to be good, which is called true heaven. The innate nature of the people has good qualities but cannot be good, so they establish a king for it to be good, and this Providence is also. The people are not good to heaven, and the people who have retreated from the teachings of the nature of the people are taught by the king, and the king has taken the nature of the people as his will; the true nature of this case and the people's nature is good, and he is losing his will and going to Wang Renye. If the nature of all the peoples is good, then what is the king's appointment? ...... The nature of all peoples today, to be taught by foreign teachers, can then be good, good and teach, improper and sexual. ”[41]

Dong Zhongshu clearly distinguished between goodness and goodness. He gave a few examples to illustrate this point. The first is the example of rice and grass. Rice is equivalent to goodness, and grass is equivalent to goodness. Rice comes from the grass, but it cannot be said that the grain is rice; goodness comes from good quality, but it cannot be said that good quality is goodness. The second is an example of sight and sight. Seeing is equivalent to goodness, and eye is equivalent to goodness. There is quality in sight, but it cannot be said that the eye is seen; sex has good quality, but it cannot be said that sex is good. The third is the example of cocoon and silk. Silk is equivalent to goodness, and cocoon is equivalent to goodness. Silk comes from the cocoon, but it cannot be said that the cocoon is silk; goodness comes from goodness, but it cannot be said that goodness is goodness. The fourth is the example of eggs and chicks, where chicks are equivalent to goodness and eggs are equivalent to good qualities. The chick comes from the egg, but the egg cannot be said to be the chick; the good comes from the good, but it cannot be said that the good is the good. These few examples are easy to understand.

Dong Zhongshu believes that Mencius said that human nature is good, which is equivalent to saying that grass is rice, sight is seeing, cocoon is silk, and egg is chicken. In Dong Zhongshu's view, Mencius's goodness in good qualities made Wang, Wang Ren, and Wang Jiao unnecessary, resulting in bad results. From the perspective of sexual simplicity, Dong Zhongshu does not regard good qualities as goodness, which is a very natural thing. No matter how obvious the good qualities in sex are, sex is still simple after all. Dong Zhongshu's theory of sexual simplicity is something we must not forget when we consider his criticism of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness. Unfortunately, in the research of previous generations, I have not seen any commentators pay attention to Dong Zhongshu's sexual simplicity, and of course, it is even more unlikely that any commentators have associated his sexual simplicity with his criticism of Mencius.

Third, Mencius confused what heaven does with what man does: "Rice and goodness, man's succession to heaven is also outside, not within what heaven does." Heaven forbid, there is no end. Stopping is called heaven, and stopping outside is called king religion. Wang taught that sex is outside of sex, and sex has to be fulfilled, so it is said: sex has good qualities, and failure to do good is also ... What heaven does, stops at cocoon hemp and grass, with hemp as cloth, with cocoon as silk, with rice as rice, with sex as good, these are all the saints who follow the heavens, and the non-sentient simplicity of energy can also be said, so it cannot be said to be sex... Sex is gradually taught, and then it can be good; goodness, what is taught, is not what is simple, so it is not sex. [42] In today's parlance, what heaven does is not "for", only what man does is "for".

However, we may as well borrow human beings to speak of heaven. In Dong Zhongshu's eyes, there is a limit to what heaven does, that is, the limit that can be achieved by the simplicity of nature. Beyond this limit is what man does. For human beings, what heaven does can only provide goodness, not goodness. Goodness is entirely the result of human doing. Dong Zhongshu accused Mencius of sexual goodness of seeing what man does as what heaven does. In the above quotation, Dong Zhongshu repeatedly uses simplicity to speak of sex or to replace it with simplicity. Simplicity is a state of human non-participation. Simple human nature is not perfect and requires artificial effort to perfect it, but the theory of sexual goodness makes this artificial effort unnecessary. Both Dong Zhongshu and Xun Zi's theory of sexual simplicity highlight the significance of man-made.

To sum up, Dong Zhongshu's criticism of Mencius is completely consistent with his theory of sexual simplicity. It can also be said that he criticized the theory of sexual goodness with the theory of sexual simplicity. In this critique, we can see the divergence between the theory of sexual simplicity and the theory of sexual goodness. Dong Zhongshu criticized Mencius's theory of sexual goodness with his theory of sexual simplicity, but Xunzi did not explicitly do so. This is a clear difference between Dongzi and Xunzi.

Xunzi, who advocated the simplicity of human nature, did not intend to start a polemic with Mencius, although he probably disagreed with Mencius's theory of sexual goodness in his heart, if he knew about it. The differences between Xunzi and Mencius are far less big and so many than later generations say. Although XunZi's theory of sexual simplicity implies the idea that sex is good and evil or that sexual good and evil are uncertain, he subjectively does not focus on the issue of sexual good and evil. For Chinese thinkers, the importance of this question was not as important as in the pre-Qin Dynasty as it was in the Two Han Dynasties.

Although Xunzi's theory of sexual simplicity implies the idea that sex has a good end, this kind of thinking is not as prominent and clear as in Dong Zhongshu's theory of sexual simplicity. Highlighting the good nature of sex is a remarkable development of Dong Zhongshu's theory of Xunzi's human nature. It is this prominence that makes his criticism of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness appear mild. Dong Zhongshu even affirmed mencius's recognition of human nature as good in the sense that man is good at animals and animals. Dong Zhongshu does not confront the theory of sexual goodness with complete human evils like sexual evil theorists. If the difference between goodness and goodness is downplayed, then the difference between Dongzi and Mencius will be greatly reduced. Later generations may play down this difference, but Dong Zhongshu himself will not play it down.

Seven

Compared with Dong Zhongshu's mild criticism of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness, the author of Sexual Evil is much more radical in its criticism. From the end of the Warring States period, there may have been many criticisms of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness, but there are only two that have been most influential to the present: Dong Zhongshu and the author of "Sexual Evil". Reading the two together allows us to see a lot of new things. For a long time, whenever commentators mentioned the article "Sexual Evil", they would think of Xunzi. In fact, if this association can be shelved first, it may be conducive to approaching the truth of history.

"Sexual Evil" is likely to be a work of the late Western Han Dynasty. Some people may see that Dong Zhongshu's criticism of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness is too mild and not enjoyable enough, so they criticize it with more violent words and more extreme positions. This person or these people are the authors of Sexual Evil.

In the process of criticizing Mencius, the author of "Sexual Evil" quotes three sentences of Mencius: "The scholar of man, his nature is good", "the nature of today's people is good, and they will all lose their nature", "The nature of man is good". The last sentence is quoted twice, and although it is not found in the exact same written form as Mencius, which has survived to this day, it contains a similar expression: "The goodness of human nature." The other two sentences are not found in the present Mencius, and the second sentence is particularly incomprehensible, and there may be a textual omission. Liang Qixiong believes that in "all will lose their sex", there should be a word after "so": "evil". [43] These two sentences should be from mencius.

Zhao Qi of the Eastern Han Dynasty's commentary on Mencius said: "There are four "Outer Books": "Sexual Goodness", "Debate", "Saying Filial Piety", and "For The Government", the text of which cannot be deep and broad, not similar to the inner part, as if it is not Mencius's authenticity, and those who are relegated by future generations are also those who rely on it. [44] Zhao Qi did not include these four articles in Mencius, let alone annotated them." The scholar of man, whose sexual goodness and the goodness of the nature of today's man, will all lose his nature, are likely to come from the "Sexual Goodness" in the Outer Book. The "Non-Mencius Authentic" Mencius Outer Book should be a product of the Han Dynasty. The Xunzi Sexual Evil quotes the Outer Book, indicating that it is a work after the Mencius Outer Book.

If "Sexual Evil" was indeed written by Xun Zi, then Dong Zhongshu, who was deeply concerned about the good and evil of human nature and had a deep source of Xun Xue, would certainly have read it; if Dong Zhongshu had read this work criticizing Mencius's theory of sexual goodness, and he who also criticized this theory did not mention the theory of sexual evil, it would be difficult to understand. If you are Dong Zhongshu, do you know that before you there have been people who criticize the theory of sexual goodness from the perspective of sexual evil theory, and you want to criticize it from another angle, you do not face the theory of sexual evil, is this possible? If the sexual evil theory is true, what is the point of your mild criticism? If the theory of sexual evil does not hold, why don't you mention it? Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that before Dong Zhongshu, "Sexual Evil" had not yet come out.

Dong Zhongshu has not read "Sexual Evil" and Sima Qian and Han Bao have not read it, which can support each other. Sima Qian's biography of Xun Qing in the Chronicle of Mencius does not mention at all that one person's master is good and the other person's master is evil; Han Bao quotes Xunzi a lot in the "Biography of Han Shiwai", but there is no content of "Sexual Evil" at all. The three lived in very close times, and they were all from the middle of the Western Han Dynasty. In short, there is a link of evidence linked together to form a chain of evidence, indicating that "Sexual Evil" is unlikely to appear before the middle of the Western Han Dynasty.

On the other hand, it is understandable that the mild criticism of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness comes first, while the radical criticism of it comes later. In many ways, the author of Sexual Evil advances and even changes Dong Zhongshu's criticism of Mencius's theory of sexual goodness: the latter simply thinks it is not good enough, while the former accuses it of being completely wrong; the latter affirms its significance of distinguishing man from animals, while the former rejects its value altogether. All of this is convenient for us to infer: the author of "Sexual Evil" was later Dong Zhongshu.

Of course, what is more worth noting is the difference in the two views on human nature. On the one hand, Dong Zhongshu inherited Xunzi's sexual simplicity, and on the other hand, he expanded the potential for goodness in Xunzi's unexplained sex. Moreover, Dong Zhongshu compares the relationship between human nature and goodness to the relationship between grass and rice, cocoon and silk. In his view, just as the growth of rice from grass and the growth of silk from cocoons are natural processes, the birth of goodness from sex is also a natural process. At the same time, this process is inseparable from man-made effort, and goodness is the result of the joint action of man-made effort and nature (man-made effort "goes from heaven to heaven" and does not violate nature).

However, in the view of the author of Sexual Evil, since sex is purely evil, the emergence of good is entirely the result of human beings, and it can also be said that it is the result of anti-naturalness. Going from sex to goodness requires a big turn of 180 degrees. The extremes of the author of "Sexual Evil" can be seen from this. From the point of view of academic evolution, it is only natural that there will be a mild criticism of a theory first, followed by a radical criticism of it. On the contrary, it would be unnatural if there was a radical criticism of a theory followed by a moderate criticism of it.

Dong Zhongshu and the author of Sexual Evil developed Xunzi's theory of sexual simplicity from different directions. As noted earlier, Xunzi has a neutral attitude toward human nature, neither taking it as good nor evil; at best, he contains only the potential for goodness in nature. Dong Zhongshu completely clarified and highlighted this connotation. However, the author of "Sexual Evil" worsens the simple human nature and exaggerates the imperfect human nature as the evil human nature.

If we regard both Dong Zhongshu and the author of "Sexual Evil" as Xunzi Houxue, then the former is a moderate in Houxue and the latter is a radical in Houxue. In terms of his view of human nature, Dong Zhongshu basically did not deviate from Xunzi, but only highlighted the good nature of human nature, but he was still a sexual simplicity. The author of Sexual Evil, on the other hand, deviated too far from Xunzi, and he or they pushed human nature completely to the side of evil.

Of course, both the radicals of Xunzi's later studies and their moderates emphasized the necessity and importance of the indoctrination of the Holy King, and in this respect they were in line with Xunzi himself. In the words of Sexual Evil, "All commentators have discernment and conformity." Therefore, sitting can be set up, and open can be implemented. Mencius said, "Man is good in nature. 'If there is no discernment and conformity, sit and say, rise and not set, open and not execute, is it not very bad!' Therefore, the good nature goes to the Holy King, and the ceremony is righteous. Sexual evil is related to the Holy King, Gui Li Yiyi", which is likely to be influenced by Dong Zhongshu's following words: "Those who are said to be good in nature are those who have lost their will and gone to Wang Renye." If the nature of all the peoples is good, then what is the king's appointment? His name is not correct, so he abandons his heavy responsibility and disobeys the great order, and speaks ill of law. The words of "Spring and Autumn", the internal affairs of the outside, from the outside. The nature of all peoples today, to be taught by foreign teachers, can then be good, good and teach, improper and sexual. Sex is more tired and not refined, since the success of the unvirtuous, the elderly in this life are also wrong, not "Spring and Autumn" as a word of art. What is wrong with lawless words, untested words, and what is outside the place of a gentleman? [45] The two passages are similar in words and ideas. Highlighting the role of the Holy King's indoctrination is a feature of Xun Xue. Both the moderates (Dong Zhongshu) and the radicals (authors of Sexual Evil) retain this feature.

Between Xun Zi and Dong Zhongshu, there are others who advocate sexual simplicity, and Jia Yi is one of them. He pointed out: "The people of Fuhu and Cantonese are born with the same voice, and their desires are not different, and their growth is customary, and they are translated and cannot be communicated, and those who are practitioners who are dead but do not act with each other are taught." [46] This obviously comes from the famous saying of the Persuasion that we discussed earlier: "The son of ganyue yi raccoon, born with the same voice, long and different, teaches him to be so." Both embody the idea of sexual simplicity, and both emphasize the importance of acquired education. From the inheritance system of "Xun Qing - Li Si - Wu Tingwei - Jia Yi", it can be seen that Jia Yi is the third generation of Xunzi. Zhong Tai said: "Jia was born in Confucianism, and is close to Xunzi. [47] It was only natural that Jia Yi and Xun Zi agreed on the theory of human nature.

bibliography:

[1] The Analects of Yang Goods.

[2] Xunzi Li Theory.

[3] Zhang Fengyi, "Also on Xunzi's Theory of Human Nature", Social Science Forum (Academic Review Volume), No. 9, 2007.

[4] Zhang Fengyi argues that "Park" appears nine times in Xunzi (Academic Criticism Network, August 6, 2007). I say 8 times and he say 9 times, probably because of the different versions on which they are based.

[5] "Xunzi Wangzhi".

[6] "Xunzi Wangba".

[7] Xunzi Chendao.

[8] Xunzi Qiangguo.

[9] Xunzi Sexual Evil.

[10] See Wang Xianqian: XunziJiji, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1988 edition, p. 366.

[11] Wang Chong said: "Zhou Ren Shishuo believes that human nature has good and evil, and that the good nature of human beings is good and long; if it is vicious, it is evil and long. ...... The disciples of Mi Zi, Lacquer Carving, and Gongsun Nizi, also on the basis of emotion, are different from the sons of the world, and all say that there is good and evil in nature. (On The Nature of Balance)

[12] See Cheng Shude: Commentaries on the Analects of the Analects, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1990, p. 1181.

[13] Zhu Xi, Notes on the Four Books, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1990, pp. 175-176.

[14] Xu Fuguan, "The History of Chinese Sex (Pre-Qin)", Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore, 2001, pp. 79-88.

[15] Ruan Yuan: "The Ancient Training of Life", "Collection of Study Rooms", vol. 10 (Daoguangjian Wenxuan Lou Inscribed).

[16] Mencius, Confessions.

[17] "Xunzi Zhizi Shang".

[18] Feng Youlan: "Self-Narration of Sansongtang", Sanlian Bookstore, 1984, p. 321.

[19] Wang Xianqian: Xun Zi Ji Xie, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1988 edition, p. 485.

[20] Wang Xianqian: Xun Zi Ji Xie, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1988 edition, p. 520.

[21] Wang Xianqian: Xun Zi Ji Xie, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1988 edition, p. 434.

[22] Wang Xianqian: Xun ZiJiJi, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1988 edition, p. 5.

[23] On Balance and Arbitrariness.

[24] See Liang Qixiong: A Brief Interpretation of Xunzi, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1983, p. 1.

[25] Wang Bo, "On the Significance of Confucianism", Philosophical Studies, No. 5, 2008.

[26] Xunzi Persuasion.

[27] Detailed Zhou Chicheng, "Xun Han's Theory of Human Nature and Philosophy of Social History", Sun Yat-sen University Press, 2009, pp. 17-34; "Xunzi Non-Sexual Evil Debate", Guangdong Social Sciences, No. 2, 2009.

[28] Liu Nianqin, "Xunzi's Insights on Human Nature," Morning Post Supplement, January 16, 1923. Press: The "national news" in the original text "Discussion of the Rulers of the State" is obviously a typographical error, and it is now changed to "Guoxue".

[29] Liu Nianqin, "Xunzi's Insights on Human Nature," Morning Post Supplement, January 16, 1923.

[30] Liu Nianqin, "Xunzi's Insights on Human Nature," Morning Post Supplement, January 17, 1923.

[31] Liu Nianqin, "Xunzi's Insights on Human Nature," Morning Post Supplement, January 17, 1923.

[32] Liu Nianqin, "Xunzi's Insights on Human Nature," Morning Post Supplement, January 18, 1923.

[33] Spring and Autumn Dew and Reality.

[34] "Xunzi Zhengming".

[35] "Spring and Autumn Flourishing Dew: Deep Examination of Names".

[36] The Book of Han and the Biography of Dong Zhongshu.

[37] "Spring and Autumn Prosperity, Deep Investigation of The Name".

[38] "Spring and Autumn Dew and Reality".

[39] Spring and Autumn Dew and Reality.

[40] "Spring and Autumn Prosperity: Deep Investigation of Names".

[41] "Spring and Autumn Prosperity, Deep Examination of the Name".

[42] Spring and Autumn Dew And Reality.

[43] Liang Qixiong: A Brief Explanation of Xunzi, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1983, 329 pp.

[44] See Jiao Xun: Mencius Justice, Zhonghua Bookstore, 1987 edition, 15 pp.

[45] "Spring and Autumn Prosperity, Deep Examination of the Name".

[46] Book of Han, vol. 48, Biography of Jia Yi.

[47] Zhong Tai: A History of Chinese Philosophy, Oriental Publishing House, 2008, p. 99.

About author:Zhou Chicheng, male, born in 1961 in the Western calendar, died in 2017, a native of Yunnan, Guangdong, was a professor at the School of Politics and Administration of South China Normal University. He received a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Sun Yat-sen University (1982), a master's degree from the Department of Philosophy at Sun Yat-sen University (1986), a master's degree in philosophy from the University of Alberta ( 1998) from the University of Alberta , and a doctorate in philosophy from Sun Yat-sen University (2004). Since 1986, he has worked in South China Normal University as a teaching assistant, lecturer, associate professor and professor. He is the author of "Law: Justice and Pragmatism", "The Social History Philosophy of Xunzi Han Feizi", "Fuxing Photography - A Study of Gao Panlong's Thought", "Returnees: Shock Waves of Chinese and Western Culture", "Xun Han's Theory of Human Nature and Social History Philosophy", "Confucius Homecoming" and so on.