requestId:687924bfd9d931.51372306.
Original title: “Two Faces of the Saints: King Su or the True King”
Source: “Study and Research” WeChat Public No.
Time: Confucius was in the 2576th year of Yi Si, June 13th Ding Chou
src=”https://static.rujiazg.com/storage/article/75654fa4baf44dbfe7b857103435a6ca_640_wx_fmt=png&from=appmsg&tp=webp&wxfrom=5&wx_lazy=1.webp!article_800_auto”>
The person in charge speaks
Supervisor: Gao Yiyi Hunan University of Yuelu Bookstore
[Gao’s intention] I was very fortunate to be the entrusted by Teacher Zeng and Teacher Chen to be the head of this meeting. I cooperated with the master to discuss the high article “From King Su to True King”. This book is a topic discussion about Liu Fengxun. The conflict between the present and the present began in the Han Dynasty, and by the Qing Dynasty, the second flying trench was ushered in. Liu Fengxun, as a representative figure in the modern literature of the Qing Dynasty, was exactly the key figure in the second flying trench. Modern scholars’ discussion on Liu Fengyu began as early as in the world. Although the relationship between learning and reality gradually became distant, Liu Fengyu’s learning was discussed under such an outlook, and his academic connotation was also deeply explored. Teacher Zeng has been studying “The Ram” for a long time. This special work has expanded from Liu Fengxun’s discussion to the dispute between the late Qing Dynasty and the modern and ancient Chinese. So, what innovation can we get from Teacher Zeng’s discussion? What did you learn? What can be pushed into? This is a question that should be thought about tomorrow.
Regarding this new book, I think we can discuss it in several aspects above: First, the book name is “From King Su to True King”. In history, only the term “Su King” has been expressed, and Teacher Zeng has now proposed the concept of “True King”. The master can understand the meaning of this, so please explain it first. Second, Liu Fengxun has been a member of the profession and has also been engaged in the academic research of “Year”, while the modern Chinese taxiMajor doctors have their own political ambitions and fantasies, and it is difficult to separate from politics. So, when Liu Fengyu was discussing “Age”, how did his political ties appear through the description of “Age”? Third, what is the relationship between the changes in the era since the late Qing Dynasty and Liu Fengyu’s “Age” discussion? This is a big problem. Fourth, can the master talk about what the length of this book is during the commentary session? Where is the point that can be negotiated?
The above first asks Teacher Zeng to give a guided speech on his own work.
Introduction to the main lecturer
The main lecturer: Zeng Yiqiu Tongjin University of Humanities
[Zeng Yi] thanks Gao Junyi and Chen Yao for this new study Zhang Luo. At first I wrote a book about Kang Youwei called “Republic and the Monarch”. This is my first book on “The Ram”. It is mainly due to the research subject, and this book has a strong real concern. Liu Feng was in a different way. Although his grandfather Liu took office as a military minister and his grandfather Zhuang Cun and became a major scholar, his career was very difficult when he arrived at his father. Feng Feng himself had a rough scientific research and was only a pride at the age of 39. In his late years, he only became a head of the Ministry of Education. He was a sixth-rank official. Therefore, Liu Fenglai, although he has always been in charge of the political hall, he should not have been politically stubborn. At most, he used his own morality to deal with some problems in the department and was still a pure scholar in nature. Then, in my book, I tried to explore what he had broken through the traditional theory of “The Ram”, especially the content that had political concerns. Otherwise, if I didn’t do this, I would not be able to understand the close relationship between the political changes in the late Qing Dynasty and the learning of “The Ram”, and why did Yukang say that his shocking insights can be traced back to Liu Feng’s.
As far as we are concerned, our understanding of politics has changed. At first, when I discussed Kang Youyi, I valued the resilience of the Yang family and had more agreements about the monarchy. Starting from 2017, both the actual reasons and the reading of Islamic books during this period have seriously changed my understanding of “The Ram”. I have been reading “Ram” for more than 20 years now. In recent years, I have always thought about writing a last work on “Ram” to learn about itCombining the thoughts and changes in recent years. Why choose Liu Feng to do it? The first thing is that Liu Feng is mainly satisfied and has strong academic performance. Secondly, because behind his obscure academic statements, there is no difficulty in seeing this, whether it is from his door to his son, Zizhen, Wei Yuan, or from his far away Kang Youwei. Of course, more importantly, I still found some places that fit me in Liu Fengxun’s argument. From an academic perspective, I don’t expect that I am purely speaking, or that I have a basis for classical remarks.
The topic of this discussion was determined by me, called “Two faces of the saint: King Su? Or the True King?” Isn’t it very eye-catching? The masters are not unfamiliar with the words “Su Wang”. As early as the Han Dynasty, both schools of the present and ancient times accepted the saying that “Confucius was the King of Su”. The real transformation started with Du Yu. He believed that the concept of “Su Wang” was suspected of being usurped. Therefore, Confucius himself was just a pure minister, and he could not call himself “Su Wang” because of the praise of later generations. Based on this reason, for more than a thousand years since then, few people who wrote “Age” have made any attempts to lose their lives in this regard. It seems that Confucius was the “Su King” and that he desecrated Confucius’ image as a saint.
What exactly is “Su Wang”? This is not a problem in the Han Dynasty. Wang Chong had a very good way of speaking. On the one hand, he said that Confucius was “King Su”, and on the other hand, he said that he wrote “New Discussion”, which can be called “Su Xiang”. According to this statement, Confucius wrote “Year”, so he could be called “King Su”, while Huan Yu’s “New Review” has the merit of supporting “Year”, which is worthy of being called “Su Xiang”. It can be seen that no matter “King Su” and “Su Xiang”, they all refer to the things that scholars write books. From this perspective, it is impossible to talk about the usurpation of many years. The problem is that Confucius wrote “Year” because he committed a reward and did something to pay good and punish bad things. This is what Mencius said about “the one who sins against me.” To put it more bluntly, you can criticize “the great people of the age” in terms of morality, but you cannot “go to the whole country, retire and interrogate the marquis, and interrogate the juren” because Confucius did not have this right. For example, the title of a king of a certain country is “marquis”, and Confucius called him “zi” in “Year”; a major servant should “take the name of his family” according to the law of the book, and Confucius called him “man”, which is the call of a scholar or a disciple. This kind of dismissal in the title is not something that the scholar should do, but a robbery of the noble.
However, Confucius only did the emperor’s affairs through “Year”, so he was just “King Su”. However, from some of the statements of Sima Fu, Wang Chong, Liu Fengyu and Kang Youwei, Confucius wanted to “get the king of the country”, that is, he obtained a piece of land and gave the right to promote and demote the people in his own country. At this time, Confucius was the “true king”.
However, according to the understanding of ordinary Confucianism, Confucius just wanted to “get the king and do the way”. Even his travels around the country, he just hoped to win the use of Lu Jun or Ji’s family, just like in Lu. This isIf you understand it, you will think of Confucius as small. From the “Odemos”, Confucius’ invitation to Gongshan’s unswerving and Buddha, as well as the obstacles of Qi Guo Yan’s son and Chu Guozi Xi’s son to Confucius’s victory, it can be s TC:
發佈留言