requestId:6852da4d193bc8.49610409.
Daoism, Taoism and Kung Fu: Zhu Zi’s emphasis on the relationship between “Zhou Cheng’s teaching and receiving”
Author: Li Bin (Zhengzhou Major Philosophy Academy)
Source: Author Author Authorized Confucianism Network, Originally published by “International Confucianism Forum” (Editor 12)
Abstract: “Zhou Cheng’s teaching and receiving” is a major problem in the history of Song and Ming dynasties. For Zhu Xi and his critics, “Zhou Cheng’s teachings and acceptances” are not only a matter of fact, but also a philosophy or literacy. Zhu Zi’s construction of the “Zhou Cheng’s teachings and acceptance” relationship was not only based on his efforts to rebuild the Taoist system, but also on his explanation and understanding of Taoist body-kung fu. During this process, Zhu Zi, on the one hand, regarded Zhou Zi as Taoist learning and opened his mountain, and developed his rationality through his commentary on his “Taiyang Diagram”; on the other hand, he regarded the second journey as Taoist learning, and inherited his Kung Fu method of studying things to gain knowledge and respectfully embrace the master. Therefore, Zhu Xi not only demonstrated the relationship between teachers and associations between Zhou Cheng from the perspective of thinking history, but also constructed the relationship between thoughts and associations between Zhou Cheng through the perspective of Zhou Cheng’s thinking from the beginning.
Keywords: Zhou Cheng’s teachings; Zhu Zi; Taoism; Taoism; Kung Fu; Construction
Author profile: Li Bin, Ph.D. in Philosophy of the School of Science and Technology of Zhengzhou, lecturer and cadet student in the State University of Science and Technology of China, and an intermediate researcher of Luoxue. The purpose of the important discussion is to learn about the knowledge of the Song Dynasty.
Introduction
The problem of “Zhou Cheng’s teaching and acceptance” is the problem of academic thinking and inheritance between Zhou Cheng, which is a major problem in the history of Song and Ming dynasties. Whether the teaching and receiving relationship between Zhou Cheng can be established is different from the past and present. From the perspective of the influence of later cognitive history, it is not a historical reality to say that “Zhou Cheng’s teachings and acceptances” is not to say that it is more based on Zhu Xi’s structure. This is not to deny the existence of a material relationship between Zhou Cheng, but to point out that for Zhu Xi and his critics, “Zhou Cheng’s teachings and acceptances” are not only a practical problem, but also a philosophical or logical problem.
The reason why Zhu Zi was able to become a master of Taoism in Song and Ming dynasties was because he was able to introduce the “Five Sons of the Northern Song Dynasty” who had different ideas into a relatively unified Taoist system. This mission was accomplished with Zhu Zi’s comments on the five sons of the Northern Song Dynasty. However, in this Taoist philosophy focused on the two-Cheng, there are relatively large differences in the thinking and purpose between Zhou, Zhang, Shao and the two-Cheng. The two-Cheng focus on the human mind and nature skills, while Zhou, Zhang, Shao focus on the universe body of the sky. In this political relationship that Zhu Zi wanted to build, the delegation and receiving relationship between Zhou Cheng was questioned, especially the second Cheng Sheng did not recommend Zhou Zi very much, and it was rarely said thatUnpopular, too extreme. Therefore, the biggest difficulty of the Taoist comprehension or Taoist sected by Zhu Zi’s tree is the inheritance relationship in the thinking between the tree and the Zhoucheng. However, in Zhu Zi’s Taoist philosophy, Zhou Zi and the Two Chengs are two focus points, and one is not missing: on the one hand, Zhu Zi regarded Zhou Zi as Taoist philosophy, and developed his rationality through his commentary on his “Taiyang Diagram”; on the other hand, he regarded the Two Chengs as Taoist philosophy, inheriting his Kung Fu method of studying things to gain knowledge and raising respectfully.
How Zhu Zi responded to this question also determined whether the Taoist synthesis of Confucianism in the Northern Song Dynasty he established could be established. This asks Zhu Xi not only to demonstrate the relationship between the teacher and the teacher from the perspective of thinking history, but also to construct the relationship between the Zhou Cheng from the perspective of thinking from the beginning: the two thinking about historical evidence and philosophical commentary support each other to achieve the goal of constructing the relationship between the “Zhou Cheng’s teaching and the receiving” relationship.
The first chapter “From travel” or “learning”——About the relationship between Zhou Cheng and Mr. Zhou
Because the second chapter was still light when he studied Zhou Dunzai from time to time, he had always been in conflict with his thinking. Zhu Yizun of the Qing Dynasty believed that even though the two Chengs had learned from Zhou Dun, the two Chengs had no real relationship with Zhou Zi, as Confucius had to Laozi and Liu Hong. [1]
But after a slight assessment, you will find that Zhu Yizun’s above statement cannot be considered. First, after Mingdao died, Liu Li said that “had been from the teacher for the longest time and had the most teachings from the teacher for the teacher, and he got the most detailed behaviors of the teacher for the teacher for the teacher for the most”, so he was prepared for the “urgent to be precise and detailed, every word and action” of Mingdao’s work, while other things like Zhu Guangting, Xing Shu, Fan Zuyu, and You Zuo were all in one of their actions to prepare for recording. [2] It is understandable that Liu Li’s decision is doubled down. Secondly, Zhu Yizun didn’t notice it or did not mention it. In fact, in addition to Liu Li, Cheng Xi’s “Practice of Mingdao” has mentioned that Mingdao was “studying” from Zhou Zi: “Teacher and Teachers: Since the fifteenth and sixteenth, he heard Zhou Maoshu of Runan and studied the knowledge and expressed his determination to seek the Tao.” [3] Later, Liu Li said: “The teacher and the teacher learned from Zhou Maoshu of Runan. He learned the principles of life, and he was willful and obeyed the principles of Taoism, and he achieved virtue, and he inherited Confucius and Mencius. He never wanted to be tolerated.”[4] From what he said, he clearly stated that “studying” Zhou Zi, and what he obtained was the most basic moral principles of life, which were incomparable to Confucius’s Lao Dan and Liu Hong.
But according to the “Actions”, the second Chengs learned Zhou Dun from 15 or 16, and Zhou Dun was not yet thirty years old at that time. [5] The study and thinking may not be mature, especially the “Taisheng Picture” and “Tongshu” may not be written. Therefore, some scholars have passed a series of tests and concluded that “The second Cheng Zhen was not affected by ‘study’ (science) in Zhou Dun, especially for his “Taiyang Picture” and “Tongshu”. Both Cheng had never met his “Taiyang Picture” and “Tongshu”. “[6] But on the one hand, the failure of the second Cheng to form a book does not mean that he was not affected by Zhou Zi in his thinking. On the other hand, the “Tongshu” and “TaiyangLater, the “Zheng Picture” was written by Cheng Men’s later scholars, and it was clear that it said, “Since I met Mao Shu again, I chanted the words “I am with the point” and “Tong Shu” [7]. If I were to express his “Tai Yu Shu Shu again” and “Tong Shu” when I “receive Mao Shu again”.
Zheng Gao, a scholar in the late Qing Dynasty, summarized two views on “Zhou Cheng’s teachings and receiving” in the history of Confucianism:
There are those who directly use Zhou Zi to teach and Cheng Zi to obtain his integrity, which is the Taoist Confucianism since Zhu Zi. Some people doubted that even though they did not waste Zhou Zi and did not want to be regarded as the sect of Yiluo, the Wang family of Yushan and the Lord 1, Xieshan. [8]
The more comprehensive expression of the latter viewpoint is found in Quanzuguan’s “Preface to the Lianxi School Case”. Quan Zu saw that the two Chengs were only “shouyou” to Zhou Zi. Later, he learned about the “obtainment” of Taoism “is not due to Lianxi”, and he thought that “the two Chengs had not passed on their learning.” The important point of view is that “the two Chengzi was not very strong in Lianxi and were not ranked among Ma and Shao”, and their “certification” and “criterion” are the so-called “two lexis words”. Later generations learned that “none of them had not been examined and the words of the two lexis were used as evidence, so they were finally indifferent.” [9]
Bao KaiWhen Rong Yunhao of the Qing Dynasty was revising the “School Cases” and the words in the “Preface” by Quan Zu:
Wan Xiaoyang said: The two Chengs first traveled from Lianxi, but later they became blue.
TC:
發佈留言