In the country of Lu, there was a scholar named Shao Zhengdi, who was eloquent and knowledgeable, and opened the door at almost the same time as Confucius. Because Shao Zhengdi's course is really interesting, it leads to the three profits and three illusions of Confucius's Gate. In other words, Shao Zhengdi snatched up Confucius's students three times.
Later, on the seventh day after confucius served as the grand secretary of the State of Lu, he immediately sent someone to kill Shao Zheng to be killed under the two views. Not only that, Confucius also killed Shao Zhengdi's body and left his body outside for three days.
Confucius has always emphasized that "the benevolent person loves others". For example, in the Analects of Yan Yuan, Ji Kangzi asked Confucius: "If there is no way to kill, then there is a way, how can it be?" Confucius replied with great disgust: "The son is the government, and he uses to kill?" Confucius also once said: "Killing without teaching is abuse."
As for Shao Zhengdi, Confucius does not seem to carry out, but directly killed him. Therefore, his beloved disciple Gonggong asked Confucius:
"Fu Shao Zheng Jie, Lu Zhi Wen Ren." The Master cursed it, and did he lose it? ”
In Zigong's view, it was really a bit excessive to kill Shao Zhengdi, a famous person in the Lu country.
Yet Confucius said:
"There are five evils in man, and theft is not the same: one is: the heart is at risk; the second is: the deeds are strong and firm; the third is: false and argumentative; the fourth is: remembering the ugly and the knowledge; the fifth is: conforming to the wrong and the ze -—— and these five are not exempt from the curse of the gentleman, and the less is righteous and the same." This villain's can't be blamed! ”
The simple translation is that people have five sins, and theft is nothing compared to them. The first is that the mind is well-informed and sinister; the second is that the behavior is perverse but stubborn; the third is that the words are hypocritical but very eloquent and can move people's hearts; the fourth is that the things that are remembered are mostly strange, but they can be quoted; the fifth is to follow the mistakes of others and cover up their wrongs. Even if a person has one of these sins, he will inevitably be killed by a gentleman. And Shao Zhengyi, who has both these five evil deeds at the same time, is the adulterous male among the villains, and he has to be killed.
The matter of "Confucius's condemnation of shao zhengyi" has been controversial in later generations. In the view of the Confucians, the first is that from an ideological point of view, this matter is incompatible with Confucius's whole thought. The second is that from a historical point of view, confucius could not have done this in the Spring and Autumn Period. After all, Shao Zhengdi belonged to the class of scholars, and in that era of "no criminal scholar", confucius could say anything about Shao Zhengdi?
By the 1960s, Chinese historians had set off a wave of "criticism of Confucianism". During this period, Confucius was completely overthrown, and Shao Zhengdi became a representative of the "progressive school of jurists", and was highly regarded along with the pirates who engaged in armed uprisings.
In the author's opinion, what kind of ideas Shao Zhengdi holds is no longer possible. But it is certain that his doctrine must be very different from that of Confucius. If Confucius had advocated the royal way, I am afraid that Shao Zhengwei would have advocated "hegemonic thought", that is, propaganda of war, harsh law, and power techniques.
The era in which Confucius lived was an era of collapse of liturgy. Wars and chaos are frequent, regime changes are frequent, and the lives of the people are ruined. With the development of agriculture, the old royal land system collapsed, and the private ownership of land was replaced. Therefore, the princes disobeyed Zhou Tianzi, and the scholar usurped the power of the princes. The thought of Shao Zhengdi is basically to encourage and help this kind of "lower restraint" behavior.
In the case of Confucius, who advocated the Zhou Li, I am afraid that he would only add fuel to this chaos, bring more wars and deaths to the world, and only bring greater burdens and suffering to the people.
At the same time, Shao Zhengdi was not only "ideologically dangerous", but also had a fairly high level of learning and eloquence, and may even surpass Confucius. It was precisely because of this that Confucius's door was three profits and three illusions, only Yan Yuan did not move, and even Zigong and Zilu had listened to his lessons.
As the saying goes, "the wrong line, the more knowledge the more reactionary." For Shao Zhengdi's talents, Confucius was not jealous, but afraid. In the Lu state of Confucius's era, the Qing Dafu Sanhuan had exclusive power, and the monarchy was greatly powered. Confucius was deeply disgusted by this kind of upside-down matter, so he said: "Father Qing (Father Qing is one of the three Huans) does not die, and it is difficult to die." ”
If Sanhuan had the help of Shao Zhengyi, Lu's internal strife would probably intensify. I am afraid that this kind of internal turmoil will be taken advantage of by the strong neighbor Qi State. And the loss of authority of the monarch is not what Confucius wanted to see. Therefore, in the author's opinion, Confucius's killing of Shao Zhengdi was indeed not out of selfishness. After all, Confucius's enemy is by no means more than Shao Zhengdi, but why is he the only one who was killed?
At the same time, Confucius's behavior is likely to have the acquiescence of the rulers of the Lu state. Otherwise, with Confucius's authority, it would never have been possible to kill a scholar or a doctor. In the end, Confucius beheaded Shao Zhengdi in the name of "Gentleman's Curse". And what was the final result of Confucius's killing of Shao Zhengdi? According to the historical records: "The State of Lu ruled greatly, and the State of Qi was terrified." Confucius used the murder of Shao Zhengdi to stop the popularity of his "heresy" and corrected the ideology of the Lu state. It not only shocked the three huans and foreign enemies, but also strengthened the centralization of power.
In the eyes of modern people, Confucius's approach is very unauthentic, and there is a suspicion of engaging in "word prison" and infringing on freedom of speech. But it was not without reason at the time.