2500 years ago, Lu Guo's doctor Shao Zhengdi became an official while running a school to earn extra money, Shao Zhengwei was able to speak eloquently, the language was witty and funny, and repeatedly attracted Confucius students to listen to lectures, only Yan Hui did not go. In 496 BC, Confucius served as the Grand Sikou of the State of Lu, acting chancellor, and killed Shao Zhengdi seven days after taking office, and brutally exposed the body for three days.
Zigong and other disciples were puzzled, and Confucius explained that Shao Zhengdi was a "villain", who possessed five bad qualities: "a dangerous heart, a strong and firm deed, a false and argumentative, an ugly and knowledgeable record, and a smooth and unruly", and had the ability to confuse the masses and rebel, and was "one heart in the other world" with the huashi and other people who were killed in history, and could not be killed. That is to say, he killed Shao Zhengdi not because he did bad things, but because he had the character to do bad things and the ability to confuse the masses to rebel, in short, Shao Zhengdi was a "thought offender" and a "character offender.".
However, no matter how it is explained, Confucius's accusations against Shao Zhengyi have tarnished his idea of "serving the government with virtue", and some of them have violated the idea of "serving the government with courtesy", which is not good for Confucius and Confucianism. Therefore, starting from Zhu Xi in the Song Dynasty, the literati refuted the history of Confucius's criticism of Shao Zhengdi through historical evidence, institutional evolution, common sense analysis of human feelings and sophistication, and comparison of Confucius's conduct.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="28" > the original source: not "Xunzi", but "Yin Wenzi"</h1>
Yin Wen (360 BC – 280 BC), revered as "Yin Wenzi", was a philosopher of the State of Qi, and the book "Yin Wenzi" records: "Kong Qiu Regent Lu Xiang, seven days and a few zhengdi, the doorman entered and asked... Confucius said: "There are five evils in man, and theft and adultery are not with him, and this villain must not be blamed for it." ”
Xun Zi (313 BC – 238 BC), teacher of Li Si and Han Feizi, great thinker of the Warring States, recorded in the book "Xunzi Yu Zai": "Kong Qiu was lu xiang, and on the seventh day of the dynasty, he asked the Shao Zheng Men to enter the question. Confucius said: "There are five evils in man, and theft is not the same, and this villain must not be cursed." ”
Since Xunzi was 34 years old at the time of Yin Wenzi's death, the Confucius Jie Shao Zheng di recorded in the Xunzi should have originated from the book Yin Wenzi. Judging from this passage of records, there is no difference between the two records, and several words are added or subtracted from Xunzi's book, among which Xunzi records that Confucius said that "people have five evils, and theft is not the same", and the word "adultery" is deleted, to the effect that people have five major sins, and theft is not included.
After the Han Dynasty, Sima Qian recorded in the "Confucius Family": "In the fourteenth year of the Dinggong, the fifty-sixth year of Confucius, the affair was taken by the Grand Si Kou Xing... Dr. Shulu is a chaotic politician. Sima Qian did not record the five evils of man, and the source of Confucius's sentence about "Shao Zhengdi, the chaotic ruler of Dr. Shulu", should be the book "Xunzi".
In short, regarding Confucius' Jie Shao Zhengdi, "Yin Wenzi" is the earliest source, and there is no record of Yin Wenzi's previous related books, including books that record Confucius's words and deeds. Confucius died in 479 BC, 120 years after Yin Wenzi was born, so how did Yin Wenzi know that Confucius was a young man? It is not that Yin Wenzi's previous books, a passage about Confucius Andshin Zhengyi, have all just been lost.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="58" > the positioning of theft and smuggling: it should contradict Confucius's thought</h1>
When Confucius was angry, he said that there are five major sins in the human world, and theft and adultery are not counted. However, both the records of Sima Qian and the records of Xun Zi clearly show that Confucius regarded "theft and adultery" as the great evil of man.
The "Family of Confucius" records that after Confucius's curse, "in March with the wenguozheng, the porridge lamb is decorated with Jia; the male and female walkers are different from Tu; Tu does not pick up the leftovers; the guests of the four sides do not seek a division, and they all return." "Sima Qian praised Confucius's political achievements, ruled the country for three months, did not arbitrarily raise the price of selling lambs, pigs and dolphins, men and women walked separately, the road did not pick up, and they were at home.
The "Xunzi Confucian Effect" records: "Zhongni will be Si Kou, Shen Yu clan does not dare to drink his sheep, Gong Shen clan out of his wife, Shen clan tramples the situation and migrates, Lu's porridge cattle and horses do not hesitate to Jia, and correction is also to be done." After the Han Dynasty, Liu Xiang changed "Zhongni for Si Kou" to "Confucius for Lu Si Kou", and there were some changes later, but the basic meaning did not change much, and in front of Confucius, shen yu clan, Gong Shen clan, Shen Yu clan and other "thieves and adulterers" immediately corrected.
"Han Feizi" also gives a more famous example: the Law of the Shang Dynasty, which was a criminal law for those who abandoned ashes in the streets, Zigong thought it was too heavy, Confucius said: "The way of knowing the way of governance is also." If a husband abandons ashes in the street, he will cover up people, and he will cover people, and people will be angry, and if they are angry, they will fight, and if they fight, they will fight each other. This way of the three ethnic groups is also, although the punishment can also be. And those who punish those who are severely punished, are also evil, and there is no abandonment of ashes, and what is easy for man is also. Make it easy for people to walk, and there is no evil from what is wrong, and this way of governance is also. "Abandoning ash to the Tao is a kind of theft and adultery, and Confucius's strict handling of it is unimaginable.
It can be seen from this that Confucius in many articles regards "theft and adultery" as the great evil of man, and when "Yin Wenzi" records the reason for Confucius's killing of Shao Zhengdi, he said that "people have five evils, and stealing and adultery is not related to it", which has to be questioned.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="71" > the truth of the matter: a lie made up by Yin Wenzi? </h1>
During the Warring States period, Confucianism and the Mo family were "Xianxue", Confucius's reputation was very high, and when the Hundred Schools of Thought competed, many people borrowed Confucius's mouth to talk about their own remarks, which was equivalent to borrowing celebrity gimmicks to fool others, such as "Yan Hui Sat and Forget" in "Zhuangzi", Confucius became a Taoist master, which was obviously made up by Zhuangzi. So, is it possible for Yin Wenzi to make up a story of "Confucius Jie Shao Zheng Jie"? The author believes that the possibility is extremely high, and I do not believe it and look at the record of "Yin Wenzi".
"Yin Wenzi" is divided into two parts, the first part discusses the theory of shape and name, the second part discusses the way of governing the country, and Confucius Jie Shao Zheng 卯 in the next part.
First of all, before talking about Confucius's rebuke of Shao Zhengdi, Yin Wenzi said: "The prosperity of the ruler must be punished first." The one who condemns the first is not a thief, not a traitor. These two evils are the great harm of the moment, the basis of non-chaotic government, the power of the usurped under the basis of chaotic government, the use of the art of kings by subjects, the prohibition of the heart, and the law of the wrong time, and the way of this great chaos. Kong Qiu regent, seven days and the young man. Before Confucius regent Lu Xiang, Yin Wenzi clearly stated the ruling view that "if the lord is prosperous, there must be some first condemnation", and "the first to curse, not to steal, not to commit adultery" and "people have evil five, and theft and adultery are not with Yan" Are not echoed back and forth?
Since the Xunzi only records Confucius Jie Shao Zheng Jie, which belongs to the fragmented record, and the "Yin Wenzi" discusses the system, through the Jieji National Principle of Jie Shao Zheng Jie, it is further confirmed that the Xunzi Yu Zai excerpts from Yin Wenzi.
Secondly, in order to prove the correctness of Xue Shaozheng, Confucius in the Yin Wenzi also gave six examples: "It is Tang Jie Yin Huan, Wen Wang Jie Pan Zheng, Taigong Jie Huashi, Guan Zhong Jie Fu Li Yi, Zi Zhi Jie Deng Xuan, Shi Fu." These six sons, who are in the other world and have one heart, must not fail to condemn them. There is also a similar record in the "Xunzi", but there is only one more Zhou Gongjie Guan Uncle, but it also confirms that this passage of the "Xunzi" is excerpted from the "Yin Wenzi", because Yin Wenzi lists all the ideological prisoners, and Guan Shu is a rebel, which is obviously not the same type as the other six people, and it is estimated that it was added privately when Xunzi's apprentice excerpted.
Of these six people, most of the people who were cursed were no longer examined, but the sub-birth of Deng Analysis was crucial. ZiYuan was ruled by Zheng Guo in the Spring and Autumn Period, and once "cast a book of punishment in Ding" and made the legal provisions public, causing many people, including Confucius, to criticize, Deng Yan wanted to change the old system, privately create "bamboo punishment", and was more radical than ziyuan in disclosing the legal provisions, so how could the sub-property be condemned to kill Deng Yan? In fact, The son died in 522 BC and Deng Died in 501 BC. More importantly, Confucius's birth was in 496 BC, only 5 years after the death of Deng Zhen, and the time is very close, with Confucius's concern for zixian and Deng analysis, how can it be possible to confirm the correctness of Xue Shaozheng with the obvious wrong history of Sub-production and Deng Analysis? Undoubtedly, only Yin Wenzi, more than 100 years later, would make a mistake in saying that the son was born and deng.
In summary, it can be seen that the incident of "Confucius cursing Shao Zhengdi" is purely a lie made up by Yin Wenzi in order to tell his own way of governing the country. Throughout the ages, there are many similar things, so there will be many pseudo-books, taking Confucius's "Shang Shu" as an example, there is a difference between the modern "Shang Shu" and the ancient "Shang Shu", in the final analysis, it is to use the celebrity effect to expound their own ideas.
References: Shi Ji, Xun Zi, Yin Wenzi, etc