requestId:6852da52565273.80213699.
The natural foundation of humanity: Zhu Zi’s connotation of Cheng’s destiny “nature is reason” and his philosophical meaning
Author: Jiang Qiuliu
Source: The author authorized the Confucian network to publish, original version of “Thinking and Civilization” 2023, 1
[Abstract] The destiny of “nature is reason” is the identification point of Cheng and Zhu’s destiny. Since the criticism of Confucianism cannot be as good as “reasoning as one’s nature”, theorists have naturally regarded the exploration of “nature and the way of heaven” as the focus of their academic tasks, and thus inspired the “study of life” of the academic thoughts. It was precisely in this scene that Cheng proposed the fate of “nature is reason”, and Zhu Zi took another step to describe it. “Nature is reason” includes two connotations: 1. Why is nature “that is” the reason? According to Zhu Xi’s understanding, humanity takes benevolence, righteousness, wisdom and trustworthiness as the specific content, and the real connotation of the “nature” of the five constants is the “reason” of the five elements. In the process of transforming living things, the principles of the atmosphere are naturally transformed into the nature of humans and all things; 2. Why is nature good? For Zhu Xi, benevolence, kindness, wisdom and trustworthiness are not the moral norms of the human world, but the business of the natural world. When it is embodied in a person, it is transformed into a person’s acquired ability to communicate with others, and can lead to moral behavior when encountering corresponding situations such as the child entering the well, and thus realize “love people and benefit things”. Therefore, it has the effect of guiding moral behavior, so it is good. In summary, whether it is the source of humanity or the goodness of humanity, it all comes from natural business on the level of the way of heaven. Therefore, the real connotation of “nature is reason” is the communication of “nature and the way of heaven”. In other words, it is precisely natural business that lays the foundation for humanity.
[Keyword] Cheng Xi; Zhu Zi; Nature is reason; Heaven’s way; Human way; Natural; Business
Author introduction: Jiang Qiuliu (1985-), male, from Jianqian County, Anhui Province, Ph.D. in Philosophy, associate professor at the School of Philosophy, and the purpose of the study was to Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties.
The fate of “nature is reason” was first proposed by Cheng Xi. ZhuBaoqiang.com.cn gave a very high evaluation of this fate, saying, “Teacher Yichuan said ‘Nature is reason’. This sentence has never been dared to do this since ancient times” [①]. In the field of science research and research, the fate question “Nature is reason” is also publicly recognized as the most basic place of Cheng and Zhu’s science. Xiang Shiling pointed out: “‘Nature is reason’… is the whole Baobao.comThe most prominent identity of Cheng and Zhu Dao’s learning”[②]. However, although the former scholars discussed it, they did not conduct a profound analysis of the historical landscape and theoretical connotation of this fate [③], and therefore explored it further in a step-by-step manner.
1. The rise of “the study of life” and the proposal of “nature is reason”
Zhu Zi once said, “The word “‘nature is reason’… is said by thousands of worldsBased on the Internet SingleBased on the basis of the nature! “[④] The word “speaking nature” here is worth paying attention to and savoring. As we all know, Confucius rarely talked about “nature and the way of heaven”. In the post-Confucian era, Mencius, Gaozi, Xunzi, and even Yang Xiong, Han Yu and others proposed the three ranks of good nature, bad nature, no good nature, and no evil nature, but in Yichuan’s view: “Even though Xun and Yang did not know nature. The reason why Mencius came to the Confucians alone was to be able to understand their nature”[⑤], and “The Han Dynasty, such as Mao Li and Dong Zhongshu, was the most sage, but the Tao was not very clear. Here comes the end, and the hero is coming… I have already said that my nature is wrong, so what can I get? “[⑥] Whether it is Xunzi, Dong Zhongshu or Fengxiong, they are all major scholars after Confucius and before the Song Dynasty. However, in Cheng’s opinion, they “unawareness” and “speaking nature is wrong”, so they cannot have any real questions based on the most basic principles. The reason why Mencius made a confucianism alone was because he could “clear nature”. It can also be seen from Yichuan’s above statement , he emphasized the subjects of “intellectuality”, “intellectuality”, that is, “nature and the way of heaven”.
In fact, the difference between the Cheng-Zhu school and other Confucian scholars of the Song Dynasty also began with the level of emphasis on the subjects of “nature and the way of heaven”. The second brother of Cheng Gao, Yang Shi, once criticized the European and Yang Xiu: “Euro-Yong UncleBaocai Sweetheart Network said, ‘The nature of a sage is not what one teaches people, which is wrong”[⑦]; and the Jiufeng of the Ruo “does not like people’s nature”, Zhu Zizhi criticized him fiercely: “I’m afraid that it will never be separated if I just deal with it by myself, and I’m afraid that people will have trouble… But if I don’t talk about nature, I don’t know what I’m learning? ” [⑧] It can be seen that in the Cheng-Zhu school, the discussion on the subject of “gender and the way of heaven” is very strongly urgent. And from the later articleThe analysis of the analysis shows that in the scientific pioneers such as Zhou Dunxi and Zhang Xiu, the problem of “nature and the way of heaven” is also a focus topic. What needs to be pursued is why in the mainstream tradition of Song representative learning, the topic of “nature and the way of heaven” became the focus? Zhu Zi once responded to this question by asking and answering it himself:
said: However, what Confucius rarely said was said, and what Mencius said was not exactly what Mencius said, Zhou, Cheng, and Zhang Zi said in detail. What if it was? He said: I don’t know the nature of my nature, and the opposite is true, and the situation changes differently. It is not necessary to deny it. [⑨]
Zhu Zi also understood that Confucians do not like to conduct abstract theoretical thinking. Therefore, Zhou, Zhang and the two Chengs, including themselves, have a detailed discussion of “nature and the way of heaven”. And the reason for this kind of necessity is that Confucianism suffered a more powerful rival at that time. In other words, “nature and the way of heaven” became the focus of the Song Dynasty’s representative academic studies, with a special historical landscape.
Simply put, this scene is what Zhu Xi said about “the combination of strange things”. In fact, the generation of theory is inseparable from the critical analysis of traditional Confucianism, and the most basic criticism here is to emphasize that Confucianism cannot be as good as “reasoning the nature”, that is, there is a lack of profound exploration of the most basic problem of “nature and the way of heaven”. Regarding this, Zongmi, a high monk in the Tang Dynasty, was the most representative. Although Zongmi, on the one hand, he admitted that “Confucian, Lao, and Kanka are all saints”, on the other hand, he proudly declared: “If you practice every policy, you will suffer from evil and goodness, and you will be governed at the same time, you can follow the three religions; if you recommend all the laws and reason with the nature, the teachings will decide”[⑩]. “Reasoning the nature of nature, as for the root of the root” actually refers to the problem of humanity and its origin, that is, “nature and the way of heaven”. In Zongmi’s view, Confucianism cannot achieve “as for the root cause” in this problem like teaching. The above criticisms of the teachers also agreed with the Confucian scholars of the pre-physics era. Li Ao, a pioneer in the theoretical thoughts, once felt: “Wow, even though the books of life exist, no one can understand them. Therefore, they all advance to Zhuang, Lie, Lao, and Gui. Those who do not know say that the Master lacks the way to sacrifice life, and those who believe in it are all right” [11].
This situation did not receive any real changes until the middle of the Northern Song Dynasty. Fan Yu also felt that:
Since Confucius and Mencius did not learn the Tao for more than a thousand years, the scholars agreed and wrote between different things. If the books of Futu and Laozi were shared by the whole country, they were in parallel with the Six Paths. But he only said that he thought that the principle of subtlety of the Tao was not enough to discuss it. He must ta TC:
