Millennium Tongzhou vitality north streamConquest of Korean Entertainment
"The Mencius" Debate 1
"Mencius" is more controversial and has influenced the way of reasoning in China for thousands of years. This is also true of Han Yu and Liang Qichao. Refers to the argument of Chen Mencius, which aims to learn how to reason. In the Confucian homes, I particularly like Mencius who advocates "emphasis on the people and despise the monarch," but "I love my teacher, I love the truth", and I am fortunate not to be misunderstood as offense.
What exactly is "attractive" and "not attentive"
之卿相，得行道焉，虽由此霸王，不异矣。如此，则动心否乎？」 In "Mencius Gongsun Chou", Gongsun Chou asked Mencius: "The masters of a master 's son must have a good way, even though he is a tyrant, don't hesitate. So, do you care?"
The explanations of the first two sentences are not different from each other, saying: "Teacher, if you are allowed to be the prime minister of Qi Guo, you will promote your benevolence and politics." "There are divergent views. The school-based version of Qing Jiao Xun's "Mengzi Justice" published by Zhonghua Book Company in 1987, and the Han-Zhao Qi Note published by Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House in 1998, and Song Sun-shu's "Mengzi Annotation" published school-based versions. The "Mencius Annotation" breaks the sentence after "overlord", and "translation note" avoids the word "though", and translates this sentence as "from then on, you can become hegemony, and on the other hand, you can become the kingdom. That is not surprising." From the perspective of context, the word "though" can be translated into "even", and the meaning is consistent. I don't know why Yang Bojun didn't translate it.
The focus of disagreement is on a "different" word. Zhao Qi's note was: "Although this title is used to assist the monarch, it is not different from the king of the ancient tyrant." "Different" is the same as "different", and "not different" means no difference. Sun Yan followed Zhao said. However, Jiao Xun said that there was another solution in the Qing Dynasty: "The recent solution is not different. It is not strange that although it has become an overlord's business since then," Jiao Xun was made "weird" by Jiao Xun. Yang Bojun's translation followed the Qing Confucianism. In fact, Yue Lu's version of Zhu Xi's "Four Books Collection Annotation" also breaks the sentence after "Overlord", and Zhu Xi is directly interpreted as "not surprising." Jiao Xun's so-called "close solution" doesn't make sense, at least with Zhu Xi.
From Han to Qing, "overlord" changed from a noun to a verb; "though" changed from "though" to "even"; "different" changed from "different" to "weird".
Based on such teachings, to sum up, the first half of Gongsun's ugliness can be understood as follows: With the talents of your teacher and the power of the Prime Minister Qi Guoqing, it is not surprising that even if you establish a kingship. If this kind of understanding is correct, then the question of "Attention No" will come next. How to understand it should be tempted by the temptation of the bright prospects, but Zhao Qi described "Attention" as "Fear of self-awareness", and then It is believed that the intention of Gongsun's question is to explain that "the road is not easy, and one should be afraid of it and not dare to do it." Zhao Qi commented in the following sentence "Mengzi said: 'No, I'm not indifferent to forty'": "Mencius is polite, forty is strong and official, I have determined my ambition, and don't be afraid to be intimidated." This is not Like a note, more like sparse. Jiao Xun also wrote an article on "Confusion", citing "Lü Shi Chun Qiu Zhi Zhi Pian" as evidenced by "If there is something, things can be confusing", Gao Yu noted that "confusion" is "moving also" to support Zhao Qizhi solution. In fact, the language of "Lü's Spring and Autumn" could be interpreted as being tempted by "temptation", but Jiao Xunfei would interpret it as "doubt", and then explain it as "doubt causes fear." Whether it is because of temptation or fear caused by doubt becomes a question.
To be clear, in Mencius' view, it is not difficult to establish a hegemony. If it is difficult, then "attitude" can be said to be "dreadful because of doubt"; if it is not difficult, it can only be "tempered" by temptation.
Contact above. Just now I talked about Guan Zhong and Yan Zi, Mencius thought that Guan Zhongfu and Qi Qi were the hegemony, and Yan Zifu and Qi Jinggong were notable for mentioning it. It is not worth mentioning that it is easy to claim King Wang on the condition of Qi Kingdom. In this way, there is no reason for Mencius to establish the overlord business with the help of Qi Kingdom. This "temptation" should be "heart-moving" due to temptation.
Contact below. Mencius first denied that he would not be "tempered" on the grounds that "I was forty." Why is it forty years old to be a reason to be "indifferent"? Jiao Xun explained for two reasons: one is intellectual, and the other is physical. The former is due to experience, and the latter is due to strength. This statement is more reliable, because the following is the Gongsun Chou Nawei's warrior Mencius and Mencius, Mencius is far more than Mencius. What is the comparison with the Warriors? Of course it is courage. Then, Mencius took the accusation as an example, saying that the accusation "I don't mind first", the accusation was "not attentive" before the age of 40. Who needs this "complaint"? I do n’t see Shi Zai, I do n’t know. It is said that Gao Zi asked Mencius for questions, but it was not like Mencius's students. Because we will discuss the difference between Mencius' "unmoved mind" and the accused "unmoved mind" later, this is a foreshadowing. From the discussion that followed, Mencius talked about courage. Whether it was Han Confucianism, Zhao Qi, Song Ru, Zhu Xi, Sun Hua, or Qing Confucian Jiao Xun, it was all about courage. "Fear of fear."cf9.20 Golden Ceremony
To sum up, how to understand Mencius' "temptation" seems to find two opposite interpretations.
Fortunately, Gongsun Chou asked a question immediately: "Do you care?" Mencius first gave two examples of this, and then made two analogies.
Look at the examples first. The first example is "Beijing Palace's Yang Yong" and the second example is "Meng Shishe's Yang Yong".
Whether there is any difference between "Yangyong" and "Yongyong" needs to be analyzed. This is the logical starting point for subsequent demonstrations. Han Confucianism, Song Confucianism, and Qing Confucianism do not involve this issue, as if it is self-evident. Yang Bojun's Mencius Translation Annotation, without distinction, is described as "cultivating courage", which is obviously a hasty move.
In terms of specific content, "Beijing Palace's Yangyong" uses narrative. In the third-person tone, six examples are given to introduce how it is to cultivate courage. The first is "not scratching skin" and not because of skin Retreat from being stabbed; second, "don't run away from eyes", don't run away from being stabbed in the eyes; third, "frustrate oneself with one mind, if the tart is to the city", hurt by the hair of others, like in It was unbearable to be whipped on the street; the fourth was "not subject to the broad brown and the monarch of Wancheng", neither bullying from the poor nor bullying from the king; If the monarch rides, the assassination of a monarch is regarded as the assassination of a common people. The sixth is "the princes who are not strict, and the evil will come, and vice versa". If they do not fear the princes, they will reply with evil words. "Meng Shishe's Courage" uses the first-person narrative to introduce three reasons why he can be so courageous. One is "seeing is invincible and winning," and treating the situation where victory will not be considered victory. The situation is the second one: "Let ’s advance the enemy and consider the victory, and the fear of the three soldiers." After assessing the enemy ’s situation, move forward and consider whether you can fight after winning. This is to fear those who use the army to fight; How can we win for the sake of victory? We can fear for nothing ", where can I achieve certain victory and fearlessness. A little comparison reveals that there is a difference between Bei Gongyu focusing on practical actions and Meng Shishe focusing on psychological factors. From the perspective of word formation, "Yangyong" is a verb-object structure, and "Yongyong" is a word structure. Bei Gongyu talked about how to cultivate courage; Meng Shishe talked about the reason why he has courage. But these two examples demonstrate courage, and it can be said that "temptation" means "fear of self-fear". From this perspective, it is logical. But Bei Gongyu did not say how his courage came, it does not mean that there is no reason to speak; Meng Shishe did not say how his courage was cultivated, it does not mean that he did not have a way to cultivate courage. Two people can highlight one aspect of each of them separately, but this does not mean that the other side that is not discussed does not exist. This is logical.
The next two analogies I wrote were a bit confusing and illogical.
Look at the first one first. "Meng Shishe resembles Zengzi, and Bei Gongxi resembles Zixia." How did Zengzi and Zixia become courageous representatives? How are they comparable to She and Yi? If you want to say courage, why not compare? Let's look at Zhu Xi's note first. He first distinguishes between the sacrifice and the sacrifice: "sacrifice, serve the enemy; sacrifice, keep one's own." "Stay one's own" is no longer reliable. Isn't Meng Shishe's "measure the enemy and move forward, and think about victory before meeting", isn't it about "enemies"? In Mencius's foregoing, the two have only different points of emphasis and no difference in the type of courage. It is obviously illogical to force them to be classified into "enemy" and "defense", "human" and "self" respectively. Then it also explains the difference between Zixia and Zengzi: "Zixia believes in sages, and Zengzi seeks for himself. Therefore, although the two sons are not equal to Zengzi and Zixia, they are different in terms of their weather." Where? "On what it keeps, it's better to give it up than it is to make it worthwhile." This is a bit far-fetched. Does Zeng Zi "believe in saints"? Why doesn't Zi Xia "return to others"? Bei Gongyu didn't talk about "it's necessary", without seeing his courage, he didn't have "it's necessary". Zhao Qi's explanation was: "Mengzi thought that Zeng Zi was better at filial piety and filial piety; Zi Xia knows that although many people are better than Zeng Zi filial piety, so She Xie Zeng Zi and Xun Zia Xia should not be afraid to give alms. It ’s also a promise. ”This is even more nonsense. Yang Zengzi and Zi Xia have a habitual prejudice against Zi Xia. In this way, "no fear" is "filial piety" in courage. With this "no fear", it is like Pindelier has "filial piety", and the rest is not a problem. Sun Yan picked up Zhao Qi's teeth, which is not worth mentioning. Jiao Xun also used Zhao to say that he had nothing new. This is far-fetched. Zeng Zi is said to be the author of the Book of Filial Piety, and has no special filial piety. Even if Zeng Zi is a big filial son, it can't prove that Zi Xia is inferior to Zeng Zi in filial piety. In fact, it should be the original words of Mencius. Immediately after "Meng Shishe resembles Zengzi, and Bei Gongxi resembles Zixia", Mencius wrote: "The courage of the husband and the second son is unknown, but Meng Shishe keeps the covenant." Mencius said that the two men were courageous. There is no difference between good and bad, the difference is that Meng Shishe can adhere to principles. Mencius discussed whether courage itself is important or the principle behind courage is important. Then the question that Mencius should answer is the "impassionate way" asked by Gongsun Chou. The answer of Mencius is: , Can not be attentive. This should be logical, but was confused by Zhao, Zhu, Sun, and Jiao, but was completely confused. This messy responsibility should still be borne by Mencius himself. Comparing Zeng Zi and Zi Xialai to Xi and She, there must be comparability. The key word here is "to keep the promise." Then, how does Zengzi "keep the covenant" and how Zixia does not "keep the covenant". Mencius should say something. As a result, there is no word proof. If this is self-evident, that's it; judging by the divergent opinions of Zhao, Zhu, Sun, and Jiao Zhong, who can't say clearly, this is hard to prove. Without evidence, dare to throw out arguments, this is a common problem of Mencius reasoning.
Then Mencius led a second analogy, trying to prove that "Meng Shishe's defensive qi is not as good as Zengzi's covenant". This is a further argument on the basis of the first analogy. But please note that what was mentioned earlier is "Meng Shishe keeps his covenant", here it becomes "Meng Shishe keeps his qi", which is obviously a concept of stealing. In order to prove that Zeng Zi and Meng Shishe outperformed Zi Xia and Bei Gongyu, he made an article on "covenant keeping", saying "Meng Shishe keeps the covenant"; in order to further prove that Meng Shishe is not as good as Zeng Zi, he immediately turned Meng Shishe's "observance of covenants" was said to be "defying qi." If "covenant" and "maintaining qi" are different, it is impossible for Meng Shishe to both "observe" and "maintain qi"; if "observance" and "maintaining qi" are the same, Mencius cannot use this to prove that "Meng Shishe's defensive spirit is not as good as Zengzi's covenant." It is obviously illogical not to define the concept, change your face at will, and violate the same law.
Looking at this second analogy, there is another flaw. Mencius was talking about courage, but here is right. Take the conversation between Zengzi and Zixiang as an example: "The old man Zengzi said that Zixiang said: 'Zi is so brave? I taste Wen Dayong's master Zizi: Reflex without shrinking. Retreat, though ten million people, I will go. '"Truth is at hand, no matter how powerful the enemy is, and you are not afraid; truth is not at hand, no matter how weak your opponent is, and you won't be bullied. The reason Mencius wants to say is that because Zeng Zi knew how to resolve "shrink" and "not shrink" first, than Meng Shishe only solved "can win" and "not win". From the discussion of the formation of courage, it is logical to distinguish between "reverse without shrinking" and "reflexive but shrinking", and that the premise of fearlessness is that the truth is in hand. But the analogy itself has flaws. It must first prove that Zeng Zi is advocating "self-reflection", then prove that Zi Xia does not have this claim, and that Meng Shishe does not. It is easy to say that there is no difficulty. Why is it that Zi Xia and Meng Shishe do not have this claim, and Mencius did not make a word of proof, such an argument is a bit arrogant.
Let ’s look at the problem discussed at the beginning: giving you the power of Mencius Qi Guoqing to make it possible for you to promote your benevolence in Qi State. Even if you establish a hegemony in Qi State, people do n’t wonder if Mencius will So "tempting"? This "temptation" refers to "fear of self-fear" and it no longer seems to be a problem. There are two reliable examples and two unreliable analogies to testify. But a bigger flaw still exists: With the talent of Mencius and the status of Qi Guoqing, to establish the overlord career, it has been said that it is an easy task, and should not face the test of "fear of self-terror". If people like Mencius have to overcome the obstacles of "fear of self-terrorism" in order to establish dominance in Qi State, then don't despise Guan Zhong and Yan Zi. Contradictions.
After listening to Mencius's discourse, Gongsun ugly asked Mencius: "Dare to ask Master ’s indifference and complaint, do you hear about it?" Mencius first raised the question of "speak" and "heart", and extended it to The problems of "mind" and "qi" are then extended to the problems of "ambition" and "qi", which in turn leads to the famous "I am good at raising my spirit", and then discusses what is meant by "knowledge" and "knowledge" Importantly, whether Confucius "knowledge" and how to distinguish the difference between Boyi, Yiyin and Confucius, did not discuss "impassion", and did not answer the difference between "impassion" and "impassion" by Mencius, Digression thoroughly.
Mu Yifei's Article (muyifei19570208)