requestId:6852d9d0627ee1.01359936.
Why is the separation of religion?: The origin of the conflict between Confucianism and Law in the pre-Qin period
Author: Wang Chenxi (Associate Professor of the Humanities College of Xi’an Electronic Science and Technology)
Source: Author Authorized Confucianism Network, originally published on the first edition of “Humanities and Culture Forum” 2021BaoqiangappAbstract: The social norms during the period of tribe-city autonomy became the foundation of Confucianism. The patriarchal law cooperates with internal severance to maintain the stability of the blood-repair organization, and the monarch of the same family and the country seeks the review of the morality of the doctrine, the interpretation of the doctrine of the mean, and the interpretation of the difference. The concept of the rule of law is based on the broader land grant system to the central government. After the county-level political area was established in the tree, the unified central administrative needs were implemented within the scope of the statutory and legal standards. The corresponding culture and education have also been transformed into a suitable perceptual law that is measurable, controllable, logical and extensive. In particular, basic administration should eliminate the main reasons and control individuals through scientific and statutory laws. Since the Qin Dynasty, due to the limitation of the country’s own management ability, it has to be compatible with two types of culture and education. At the same time, the intellectual group rejected the right view of the existing administrative system, which led to a long-term extension of the separation of education.
Keywords: Confucianism; Taoism; Giving Law; Separation of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and Discipline of the Governance and It reversed the argument that “the king and the teacher are divided, but the governance of the teaching cannot be combined with one”; “The governance of the teaching is neither two, and the officials are united, and if there is nothing to say to keep their private words”[1]. In fact, since the Qin Dynasty, the separation of religion seems to have always been a constant conspiracy for Confucian scholars. Whether it is “get the king to do the way” or “feel the common people to do the way” or even modern new Confucians hope to play the “old sage” from the beginning under the political system of civil affairs, the cultural and educational system formed by Confucianism from the Western Zhou Dynasty seems to have been incompatible with the “rule system of the king of time”. Yang Nianqun once pointed out that previous research and discussions were always keen on explaining the separation of religion to the extreme, such as “Once a strong tutor possesses the Tao, he will have the civilized capital to resist the king’s right” [2], which highlights the Taoist tutor’s checks and balances the king’s right and the energy beyond the inner ideology. However, carefully reviewing the metaphysical question of the separation of teachings can also be expressed as “the separation of Taoist instruments”, which means that the problem can be not a historical matter in which classical spirit and the kings are not suppressed and harmed, but a gap between the Tao itself and management that Confucian scholars conceived.
In fact, the argument for the separation of religion or the separation of Taoist instruments was already obvious in the Han Dynasty, and the large number of Confucian officials’ divisions reflected this question. Although the explanatory theory is that civil servants are good at handling specific political affairs, and Confucian scholars have high qualities and high qualities, the actual quality is as stated in “Yuheng Chengcai”: “What Confucian scholars learn is Tao; what civil servants learn is the matter.” “Confucian scholars govern the rules, and the civil servants learn are the last. Tao.The first and the last thing are compared, and the height of the high and low can be determined, and you can achieve the journey. ”[3] What is not revealed behind it is only a matter of clarification. What is the “Tao Body”? Why does the Confucian scholars have the right to explain the “Tao Body”? What is more important is that in terms of the old problem of conflict between Confucian officials, ancient and modern scholars have neglected the judgment of a large number of Confucian officials. Their words are just constructed by the Confucian scholars, and their goals are often compared with the right to compare. The two types of personality differences in the system are in order to compete for the verbal rights of progressive students and Confucian scholars, and the large number of comparisons between the main and the heights are ambiguous concepts and cannot be verified. After that, the European and Yang practices have “three generations to go down, and the governance comes from two” [4], but to pursue what they have suffered, they are actually just hoping to “the master who wants to govern, think about what they have changed”, and “transcend and regress to the three.” “The distinction between “Tao Sect” and “Governance” seems to be in touch with this question, but in fact it is just a single call for the common people to defend against the barbarians and the Chinese. This discussion does not touch the deep-seated origin of the separation of religion. This has led to China’s final rupture that approximates the modern European empirical and sensible ideology. On the one hand, the civil servants’ requests are based on reality Transformation, and govern according to the law; on the other hand, Confucian scholars have always sought to upgrade the pre-Qin classics to generalization and absolute standards, and then to enter the official cultural and educational system to conduct pre-government.
To the common people, Wang Guowei once again went back to this topic: “From the three generations to the later generations, the truth comes from a clue. After the European and American trade, the Western learning of Western politics went to China, so the way to cultivate oneself and govern the country was to peace. ”[5] The separation of religion under his words is obviously different from the traditional question, but it also confessed that the impact of the modern Eastern political system has concealed the inherent internal governance and education that has lasted for two thousand years. Since then, Jun Simeng has traced the origin from a historical perspective, and combined the separation of religion as the inconsistency of “law and virtue”. The conclusion is nothing more than “people hide from their hearts and cannot measure it”, “Therefore, the inability of friends to achieve the best, but there must be punishment to urge them, and the law is used as the basis. ”[6] The general division of gifts and law is still the reality of the humanitarian theory of the Confucians of the Song Dynasty. In the past eighty years, the British explained the separation of the ruling and religion in political and civilized order [7]. Huang Zhengxing believed that this topic was more about whether the rulers could actively participate in the growth of the monarchy of civilization. During the long period, the scholars and servants were only sent to the sequel to the sequel to the sequel to the common sense [8]. This type of story is difficult to stay in the different periods of time. Until Marx and Vebert were in the internal mechanism of the separation of religion, Vebert denied the relationship between the Chinese official system and the modern system of powerinclusive funding system believes that the problem lies in the broad personality self-perfection required by the scientific selection, and the same thinking of seeking professionalism and professionalism in the professionalism of professionalism in the field of study. Again [9]. It can also be said that the “Tao system” that emphasizes blood ethics and personality cultivation has always been separated fro TC:
發佈留言