requestId:684c3e16c6fd60.09970785.
Buddhism is returning, is it still a lesson?
——Review of the upward progress of the Doctrine of the Mean
Author: Yang Shaohan
Source: “Literature, History and Philosophy” (Jinan) 2019 Issue 3
Time: Confucius was in the 2570s and the 21st month of the Gengzi Bingxu
Content summary: “The Doctrine of the Mean” was originally one of the “Travel Notes” and became one of the “Four Books” after the Southern Song Dynasty. In the process of upgrading the Doctrine of the Mean from “Part” to “Book”, Buddhists and Taoists had paid extensive attention to and strongly advocated the Doctrine of the Mean as early as the Confucianism of the Song Dynasty. In this way, the academic community has extended a “return to the Doctrine of the Mean”, that is, “Dog of the Mean” has returned to Confucianism from Buddhism and Taoism. But “returning” does not or cannot answer such a question: there are many Confucian classics, why does Buddhism and Taoism singlely draw the “Doctor of the Mean” in “Talent” and pay attention to and advocate? The most basic reason why this question has not been answered is that the aforementioned “returning” neglects the historical landscape of the upward rise of “Zhongqing.com”. The historical landscape of “The Doctrine of the Mean” as the upgraded academic position refers to the continuous rise of the academic position of “The Book of the Mean”, and the social position of “The Doctrine of the Mean” is also rising. It is precisely in this context that Buddhists such as Dai Yong and Emperor Wu of the Southern Dynasties in the Southern Dynasties would upgrade the “Doctrine of the Mean”, which has both a noble academic position and a broad sense of theory, as the object of attention and advocacy, and thus the “Doctrine of the Mean” after the Song Dynasty was upgraded to the “Doctrine of the Mean” after the Song Dynasty.
Keywords: “The Doctrine of the Mean”/ “Traditional Notes”/Upgrading/BuddhistIntegration of the tutoring softwareTitle Note: This article is a phased result of the “The Doctrine of the Mean” upgrade problem in the field of history” (18YJA720015), the Humanities and Social Sciences Research and Development Fund of the Teaching Department.
1. The “returning statement” of the Doctrine of the Mean and its inherent problems
Whether from the history of China or from the history of Chinese philosophy, upgrading the Doctrine of the Mean to a strange process. In this process, the internal intrinsic nature of the “Doctor of the Mean” being able to “summon” ① has always been a long-lasting question in the academic world. In particular, the influence of the two Buddhist schools on the discovery and spread of the “Doctor of the Mean” is a topic that students retaliate. Yao Iheng, in the early Qing Dynasty, once said: “I’ll give you some points.”This volume is published as the author of “Doing the Mean” and the author considers it to be the study of the two clans. “② The “Er Family” mentioned by Yao is the Yan and Lao Er Family. He also said in a vein: “Those who like to learn must respect the Doctrine of the Mean; those who prefer the Doctrine of the Mean must be good at learning. ”③ The assessment of the relationship between the Doctrine of the Mean and the Buddhism and Taoism by modern scholars is more detailed. In the “Report on the Review of the Left of the History of Chinese Philosophy” by Chen Yinke, the monk Zhiyuan of the early Song Dynasty, first advocated the “Doctrine of the Mean” among Confucian scholars in Song and Ming ④. Jiu Mu also wrote two articles, “The Encyclopedia of Reading the Wisdom of the Mean” (1947) and “Baohuang.comRead Qi Songyuan’s Collection of Jin Jin (1977), discussing the Gu Mingxian’s development of Zhi Yuan and Qi Song’s “Doing the Mean”.
Related discussions in recent years are based on the research of two teachers, Yu Ying-chung and Yang Ru-wen. href=”https://twsweetsugar99.org/”>Caring conditions discussion is the most representative. In 2003, Mr. Yu, Chief Teacher Gao Wen, asked about Zhu Xi’s Historical World – A Study on Political Civilization of the Scholars and Masters of the Song Dynasty. In the long-term discussion of this book, Mr. Yu, based on the later discussion of Mr. Chen Yinke and Mr. Yu Mu, examined related documents and finally proposed such a “supposition”:
First of all, I would like to put forward a hypothesis, that is, the discovery of the “Dogs of the Mean” is most closely related to Taoism or believers who have been passed down from the Southern and Northern Dynasties. Dai Yong, who had negotiated with Taoism and religion, once annotated the “Legend Notes on the Doctrine of the Mean”, and the believer Emperor Wu of Liang wrote the “Dogs of the Mean”. In addition, Volume 32 of “Sui Books” “Records of the Mean” lists the five volumes of “Private Records and Orders of the Mean”, which is a minister who wrote about Emperor Wu of Liang on “Dogs of the Mean”. This situation seems to indicate that the earliest remarks of “Dogs of the Mean” were out of the need for “characterism” or “clear discussion” of the new Taoist. The “Dogs of the Mean” read by Li Ao also comes from the system passed down by the believers. This hypothesis can explain why Zhiyuan “caused monks to be the doctrine of the Mean”. The work of Confucianism in the Song Dynasty published in “Song History? Art Wen Zhiyi” was the first to refer to “Hu Teacher-Chairman and Teacher Doctrine of the Mean”, but Hu Yuan was already far behind Zhiyuan. Yes I assume that the Doctrine of the Mean was reborn from the Northern Song Dynasty and entered the Confucian school. ⑥
According to the assessment of Teacher Yu, Confucianism in the Song Dynasty began with Hu Yuan, one of the “Three Masters and Teachers of the Song Dynasty”, but long before Hu Yuan, Dai Yong of the Southern Dynasty, Emperor Wu of Liang, Li Ao of the Middle Tang Dynasty, Zhi Yuan and Qi Song of the Middle Song Dynasty, all had a considerable emphasis on the Doctrine of the Mean. And these people either directly Baohao.com is a Buddhist who either has close negotiations with Buddhists. They value the Doctrine of the Mean for the needs of the “specialty” of the believers or the “clear discussion” of the new Taoist. Judging from this historical order, it is indeed the advocacy of the two Buddhists and Taoists.”The Doctrine of the Mean” comes first, while Confucianism emphasizes “The Doctrine of the Mean” comes later. For the “Doctus of the Mean”, which is originally a Confucian classic, from the advocacy of the two schools of Buddhism and Taoism to the emphasis of Taoists, this process shows a phenomenon of “returning” from Buddhism and Taoism to Confucianism. Therefore, Teacher Yu’s “supposition statement” can be further integrated into “return statement”.
Compared with the “return statement” by Teacher Yu Yingshi, the “return statement” by Teacher Yang Ru and Mr. Feng on the relationship between the Doctrine of the Mean and Buddhism and Taoism can be called “responsive statement”. This statement is concentrated in his article “How did the Doctrine of the Mean become a Holy Land”. In this article, Teacher Yang believes that the Doctrine of the Mean originally had a theory of the way of heaven and life, but later generations had some disagreements on this theory of heaven and life, and gradually divided it into two systems: one is a system of mind and nature, and the other is a system of gasification. Before the Tang Dynasty, the former system was represented by the remarks of old people such as Dai Yong, Emperor Wu of Liang, Liang Xi, Quan Dehui, Liu Yuxi or lay Buddhists, while the latter system was represented by the remarks of Han Tang by Zheng Xuan, Kong Guangda and others. In the eyes of Mr. Yang, Confucianism in the Song Dynasty was born in response to the Buddhist teachings. “Behind the main words of theory, almost every word has corresponding Buddhist and old concepts and struggles”⑧. So in the Song Dynasty, the two essay systems of “The Doctrine of the Mean” encountered a different fate because of this historical responsibility of Confucianism. Teacher Yang said:
This set of learning questions was definitely not right before Li Ao and Zhou Dunxuan rose. Although the Confucian scholars of the Tang Dynasty also had their “study of life”, a state of harmony and harmony between humans and heavens that was always regarded as the highest state of personality by them, they could not explain how such a life science could prove itself, or perhaps how could it respond to a theoretical system with deep thinking power like Buddha and Tao. It is hard to blame that since the rise of the rise, the study of the life of the gasific
發佈留言