Professor Li Ling's "The Lost Dog: My Reading of "The Analects of Confucius"" caused quite a stir. I benefited a lot from reading this book, and I also asked Brother Li Ling for some opinions on "The Analects of Confucius". Generally speaking, I think the reason for the sensation of this book is half due to the content and half to the title. The title of the book "The Lost Dog" is very exciting. The word itself comes from many historical books including "Historical Records: Confucius' Family". It was because others said that Confucius was unsuccessful and always failed. Although it was slightly sarcastic, it was not hostile. Confucius himself also I agree with this statement, so this matter was recorded in the annals of history in the atmosphere of respecting Confucianism and Confucianism at that time, and it has been passed down to this day. Li Ling expressed this: Anyone who embraces ideals and is dissatisfied with the real world is a "lost dog." And modern thinkers (Li Ling cited Said in the United States, but in fact there are similar words made by Russia's Berdyaev, France's Bourdieu and many others) believe that the so-called "intellectuals", They are those people who regard themselves as social conscience, whose values ??are alienated from the mainstream, critical of reality, and cynical, and therefore have a strong sense of loneliness. In this sense, "intellectuals" are those who are willing to be "house dogs" but resolutely refuse to be "house dogs." Therefore, Li Ling said that Confucius was their representative, "In him, I saw the fate of intellectuals" (page 2). Obviously, Li Ling's evaluation of Confucius is similar to the Russians' evaluation of Dostoyevsky and the French's evaluation of Hugo. It should be said that it is not low. It can even be said that among those who do not worship Confucius as a god but as a "sage", this is the highest evaluation of Confucius - if not in terms of knowledge, at least in terms of personality. Since the May Fourth Movement, especially since 1949, it has been popular among those anti-Confucian people to call Confucius the "guard dog" of the rulers. Therefore, Li Ling's book can even be said to be a masterpiece that defended Confucius' false accusations and restored his reputation. Those who came out to settle accounts with Li Ling should have been anti-Confucius people. But now respecting Confucius seems to have become the mainstream, and anti-Confucius people no longer care about arguing with Li Ling. After all, the word "dog" has a stronger derogatory connotation in China today than in Sima Qian's era. Li Ling did not take this into account (this was his negligence), so people who only read the title of the book without reading the book will mistakenly think How badly he ruined Confucius. In addition, today's "Confucians" are as diverse as in the past. There are those who "obey the Tao but not the emperor" (they are actually "lost dogs" like Confucius), and there are also some people who respect Confucius. The latter take it seriously I look down on powerless idealists like Hugo, and always hope that the person I respect is the powerful "Dacheng Supreme Saint Wenxuan King", whose name can be sold for huge "royalties". It is understandable that they became angry when they saw the title of "The Lost Dog". In fact, another recently popular best-selling book about "The Analects", regardless of its academic level (it should not be too demanding as a popular book), the evaluation concept alone is very vulgar, and under the banner of respecting Confucius, it is almost To describe Confucius as a powerful "guard dog" is to say that it is unfair to undermine Confucius. Fortunately, Li Ling's book is here, and it can really restore a lot of the image of the Master. "The Analects of Confucius" was originally not a classic. Confucian scholars know their minds. Li Ling did not regard Confucius as a grand "sage", but he was definitely not like Confucius who was dismissed as a villain like he did during the May Fourth Movement. In his book, Confucius is a good man who "embraces ideals." But commenting on Confucius is different from commenting on The Analects. Leaving aside Confucius, what is the status of the Analects of Confucius even in the Confucian system that respects Confucius? To talk about the Analects, this is the first question that needs to be addressed. Speaking of Confucian classics, we know that the status of The Analects has gone through changes. If Confucius knew that people today put "The Analects" above "The Six Classics", I am afraid he would not be happy. In fact, for a long time after Confucius (more than a thousand years ago), although "The Analects" was regarded by Confucians as an important book, before the Song Dynasty, Confucians did not regard it as a classic. At that time, Confucianism worshiped the "Six Classics" of "Yi", "Poetry", "Shu", "Li", "Yue" and "Spring and Autumn". The so-called "Yue" was ceremonial music. There was no notation method at that time, so it was just It was passed down by word of mouth and there were no scriptures. Those with books are the "Five Classics". Confucianism at that time always talked about the "Five Classics" or the "Six Classics". The one who inherited the old learning was "I commented on the Six Classics", and the one who developed the new theory was "The Six Classics commented on me". The official establishment of "Doctors of the Five Classics", and Confucianism was also divided into subjects according to the Five Classics. Sima Qian summarized the achievements of Confucius and said: "The Zhou Dynasty declined and Guanyong was written. It was quiet and solemn, and the rituals and music were ruined. The princes acted arbitrarily, and the government was governed by a strong country. Therefore, the way of Confucius and King Min was abolished and the evil way flourished, so he discussed the "Poetry" "Shu", he started to practice ritual music. He didn't know the taste of meat in March, and then "Yue" was correct, "Ya" and "Song" were all in their own place, so Zhongni Qian was unable to use them. More than ten kings have found nothing, and they say, "If you can use me, it's only a month." When I hunt for Lin in the west, I say, "My way is poor." Therefore, the historical records are written in the "Spring and Autumn Annals", and the words are subtle. "Zhibo, many scholars of later generations recorded it." Many of the things mentioned here are from the records of "The Analects of Confucius". It is obvious that Tai Shigong was very familiar with this book, but he did not mention it. When he talked about Confucius's contribution and influence, he did not mention it a word. to the Analects of Confucius. Ban Gu commented on "Confucianism" and said: "Confucianists are those who come from the position of Situ, help others, obey Yin and Yang, and teach enlightenment." He wrote in the Six Classics, paying attention to benevolence and righteousness. Grand Master Zhongni, to emphasize his words. "Here we only mention the Six Classics."

Until the Tang Dynasty, Yan Shigu compiled the "New Five Classics" and Kong Yingda compiled the "Five Classics of Justice". During this period, people expanded the study of "rituals" into the "Three Rites" such as "Etiquette", "Book of Rites", and "Zhou Rites". ", "Spring and Autumn" study expanded into "Three Biography" of "Gongyang", "Gu Liang" and "Zuo Zhuan". The three rites were passed down to the Tang Dynasty and all became classics, together with "Yi", "Poetry", "Shu" " is known as the "Nine Classics", but "The Analects of Confucius" is still not among them. Of course, as a Confucian, it is not difficult to understand that the Analects of Confucius was taken out of the works of various scholars and given a special status. When "Hanshu·Yiwenzhi" followed Liu Xin's "Seven Strategies" classification method, it attached "The Analects of Confucius", "The Classic of Filial Piety" and Primary School to the Six Classics and then listed them in the "Six Art Strategies" (Yan Shigu's note: "Six Arts," "Six Classics") and not listed in "Zhuzilue", this is how it is done. However, the last three of the "Six Arts and Nine Schools" are still qualitatively different from the "Six Classics". At that time, these three schools were regarded as "biography", that is, the exegesis of the scriptures rather than the scriptures themselves. Just as the "Book of Songs" has the biography of Qi Houshi, the biography of Han Waiwai, and the "Spring and Autumn" scriptures have Gongyang, Guliang and Zuo's " "Three passes" is the same. In other words, the status of The Analects at that time was comparable to the works of Zuo Qiuming, Han Ying and others. Wang Chong of the Eastern Han Dynasty also said: "The disciples of the Analects of Confucius recorded the words and deeds of Confucius... and their legacy is not a classic." This clearly means that the Analects is not a classic. Wang Chong pointed out that at that time, it was stipulated that the Five Classics should be written in two-foot-four-inch long abbreviations, while books like The Analects could only be written in eight-inch short abbreviations. ("Lunheng·Zhengshuo") Li Ling listed the physical objects unearthed from archaeology to show that this statement is indeed followed (pages 35-36). It can be seen that among the original Confucians, the status of "The Analects" was definitely not comparable to that of the "Five Classics". It was not until the middle of the Northern Song Dynasty that Liu Chang first advocated the theory of "Seven Classics" and "The Analects of Confucius" was included among them for the first time. At the end of the Southern Song Dynasty, Zhu Xi listed the Analects, Mencius, Great Learning, and Doctrine of the Mean as the "Four Books" and elevated them to before the "Five Classics". At that time, the theory of "Thirteen Classics" appeared, and the "Thirteen Classics" also appeared. The Analects of Confucius" is included. Therefore, the Analects is respected as a classic not because of the ancient Confucian tradition, but because of the characteristics of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties. Even if Confucianism is regarded as the object of belief, the status of The Analects itself in the Confucian school is worthy of discussion. The merit of Confucius is not that the "Analects" introduces the "Holy Way" in the Six Classics. Mr. Chen Ming said that exegesis should not only focus on the words, but also view it in the context of historical development. I very much agree with this statement. From the perspective of historical development, it is completely understandable that the ancient Confucians worshiped the Five Classics rather than the Analects. What was the main undertaking of Confucius and his school at that time? The main purpose was not to produce a book called The Analects of Confucius to teach people to cultivate their moral character. The Analects was not written by Confucius himself. Confucius claimed to "state without writing". Today, many people interpret this to mean that he considered himself mainly an educator and trained many students. This understanding is actually incorrect. The so-called "shu" does not mean giving lectures, but "shuo shu", which means organizing and elaborating. What to sort out? It is to sort out the classics of the three generations (actually mainly the Western Zhou Dynasty), that is, "good antiquity". Therefore, "telling without writing, believing in and loving the ancients" is an inseparable sentence. It does not mean "just teaching, not writing", but "telling the ways of the ancestors without rashly creating, firmly believing in and carrying forward ancient times" principle". It can be seen that Confucius did not flaunt what he created. Even if the Analects is his oral work, it is not important compared with the Western Zhou classics he compiled and edited, the so-called "Six Classics". Confucius did not claim to have taught many students, but he was very proud that he had inherited the teachings of Duke Zhou. The aforementioned Sima Qian, Ban Gu and others also emphasized his contribution to "the ancestors of Yao and Shun, and the constitution of civil and military affairs". According to Han Confucianism, the "Yi Zhuan" of "Yi", including "Yu Zhuan", "Xiang Zhuan", "Xici", "Wenyan", "Shuo Gua", etc. were all written by Confucius; "Shi" III One thousand chapters were deleted by Confucius and reduced to 305 chapters, all of which were accompanied by string songs; "Shang Shu" had 3,000 chapters, but Confucius deleted it and reduced it to 100 chapters; "Shili" had 17 chapters compiled by Confucius; "Spring and Autumn" was compiled by Confucius. It was compiled by Confucius based on the historians of the Lu State and with reference to the "Historical Records" of the Zhou royal family and the historians of various vassal states (referring to the official history at that time, not the later "Tai Shi Gong Shu") ("Historical Records: Confucius' Family"). Although each of these statements is controversial in detail, Confucius's contribution to introducing the classics is generally recognized. In short, the core of Confucius' lifelong efforts and his lifelong career was that he systematically compiled the classics since the Western Zhou Dynasty, and the "Tao of Yao, Shun, Civil and Military, Duke of Zhou" was recorded in them, rather than something he created himself. Of course, in addition to compiling the Six Classics, he also did many things: he once lobbied everywhere, hoping that those in power would "follow the Zhou" according to his intentions. He did indeed establish the Xingtan Academy to cultivate the "Tao of the Duke of Zhou". Many disciples. But all of these are centered around "I follow the Zhou Dynasty", and what carries the "Zhou system" and promotes the values ????of the "Three Dynasties" is not mainly the Analects of Confucius, but the "Six Classics". Not only was the Confucian classic at that time the "Six Classics" rather than the "Analects of Confucius", but there was also a long-standing debate over whether the Confucian patriarch was Confucius or the Duke of Zhou. Li Ling pointed out that Confucius was not and did not admit that he was a saint during his lifetime. After his death, a group of disciples such as Zigong and Zaiyu promoted him as a saint. In fact, Zigong and the others were far from achieving their goal. Therefore, until the Han Dynasty, in the debate on Confucian classics within Confucianism, the ancient classical school still maintained that the leader of Confucianism was not Confucius but the Duke of Zhou. Confucius was the "first teacher" and Duke Zhou was the "first sage". The teachings of the ancestors passed down by the ancestors are certainly great contributions, but they cannot be equated with those of the ancestors.

Although this argument of "preaching scriptures but not Taoism, respecting Zhou but not Confucius" is actually a reflection of the social-political background of the time of "obeying the emperor but not Taoism, respecting officials but not scholars" under the Confucian-American state. From a theoretical point of view, this statement is closely consistent with Confucius himself repeatedly talking about "following Zhou" and emphasizing that he was only a narrator rather than a creator of Zhou Gong's teachings. Losing one's family is only due to changes in Zhou Dynasty, Qin Dynasty and Confucianism are all ancient and not modern. Therefore, when Westerners like Hegel see a book like "The Analects" that is full of plain "truth", they disdain Confucianism and even the entire "Chinese philosophy". Gu, of course, it is due to prejudice - not reading the Six Classics, and making a false judgment on Confucianism based only on the "Analects of Confucius". Isn't this the same as making a false judgment on Marxism based only on the "Quotations of Chairman Mao"? And today some people regard the "Analects of Confucius" as Elevating it to the level of a "Confucian Bible" is similar to describing a thin book of "Quotations of Chairman Mao" as the "pinnacle" of Marxism. Today's "The Analects craze" is not as important to Confucianism as it was back then. Is the "'Quotations' craze" promoting or damaging Marxism? It's really worth studying. Confucius spent almost his entire life collecting, sorting, and editing Zhou Dynasty classics, including metaphysics (Yi), political documents (Books), social ethics (Li), official and civilian literary and artistic heritage (Poetry), and history. Records ("Spring and Autumn"), etc. Of course, he did not do this just based on academic interests. Confucius and later Mencius were both born during the "Zhou and Qin Dynasties" when the most drastic changes occurred in China's thousands-year civilization history before modern times. They all felt that the changes in this era were due to the collapse of etiquette, the collapse of music, the collapse of valleys, the outdated people's hearts, and the world's customs. Sunset. As a result, they feel sad, depressed, cynical, and sad. In compiling the classics, Confucius expressed his criticism of reality and his longing for the golden age of the "three generations" he imagined, and expressed his desire to "continue the rise and fall", "restrain oneself and restore ritual", turn the tide after collapse, and revive The Way of Duke Zhou and the hope of revitalizing the "three generations" civilization. However, these hopes were constantly dashed, and Confucius, who was full of grief and indignation, lamented that he was "floating on the sea" and "living in the nine barbarians". He was filled with resentment that "my way is poor" and "philosophers have withered", and finally gave up his ambition. Obviously, Confucius was not a person who followed the trend and praised others. He did not praise much but criticized the society and rulers at that time. He especially had few good words for the living rulers - the dead "ancestors" could be perfect people, and Confucius also praised them. However, they have already After death, Confucius cannot be favored, but living rulers do not like to see such "crying the temple and scolding the palace". Therefore, some of the radicals after the May 4th Movement praised Confucius and said that he was a "revolutionary". This was naturally an exaggeration. Confucius would not do such things as rebellion. But there is no doubt that he was a "dissident" at the time. Whether you are praising or criticizing Confucius, you must start from this point. Those who opposed Confucius and criticized him in the past said that Confucius was dissatisfied with reality because he was "theory of historical retrogression" and "theory that the present is worse than the past", he was a "nine-pound old lady", and he was a "restoration maniac" who "moves against the historical trend". After decades of criticizing Confucianism, Confucius’ biggest crime was this. Those who praised Confucius said that Confucius' dissatisfaction was the "social critical spirit of intellectuals" and the embodiment of "independent personality" and "social conscience". In short, whether it is a retrogression or a critical spirit, the opposite evaluations are aimed at the same fact: Confucius was dissatisfied with reality. So what kind of reality was Confucius dissatisfied with? Of course he was dissatisfied with the "Changes of Zhou and Qin". During the drastic changes at that time, Confucius defended the Zhou system, advocated restoration, promoted the "kingly way", and opposed the "tyranny" that eventually led to the Qin system. Another trend that emerged during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, namely Legalism, promoted the Qin system. The ideological conflict behind the Zhou-Qin Revolution was mainly the so-called struggle between Confucianism and Legalism. In the past, the "social stage theory" formed by the influence of ideology in Chinese historians once believed that Zhou and Qin belonged to "slave society" and "feudal society" respectively, and called the political structure after Qin "feudal despotism". Therefore, Confucius, who upheld the Zhou system, was denounced as a reactionary figure who "restored slavery," and Dong Zhongshu's New Confucianism, which was revered after Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, was denounced as the ideological representative of "feudal despotism." Today, few people say this anymore - on the one hand, people know that there was no "slave society" in Chinese history, and on the other hand, they also know that the so-called "feudalism" in Chinese tradition refers to the patriarchal aristocracy of the Western Zhou Dynasty where there were many feudal states and princes. It is very different from the "authoritarianism" of the centralized bureaucratic empire after Qin. In this sense, the Confucian Confucians in the Confucius and Mencius era really rejected the Qin Zheng style "authoritarianism". Of course, this is not because of the "liberal democracy" elements in ancient Confucianism, as some people who uphold Confucianism with modern concepts say, but because Confucius and Mencius promoted clan identity, the principle of the same body of small people, and large feudal small families. Zongs and vassals were attached to the Zhou system based on feudal lords and feudal lords protecting their vassals. They used "feudalism" to oppose "autocracy" and used aristocratic politics to resist imperial power and bureaucratic politics. Although there are some people who do not specifically believe in the "five forms", they always believe in the theory of historical evolution and believe that the later is always better than the previous. No matter what "society" the later Qin is, it is always "progress" than the previous Zhou, and Confucius wants to "Retrograde" is always wrong. This view is also very problematic. Let's not talk about whether the vulgar "progressive historical view" of "the later is always better than the previous" can be established. Even if the "later" is indeed more "progressive", it is not impossible to criticize and reflect. Otherwise, society How can we continue to "progress"? This kind of criticism uses the resources of the past and takes the form of "retrospection", which is actually very common in world history.

Isn't the famous "Renaissance" movement in Western Europe in the late Middle Ages (it was inaccurately translated as "Renaissance" in the past, and it was easily misunderstood based on the literal meaning). Isn't it advertised as restoring the ancient Greece and Rome? It was a "restoration" of the so-called "Renaissance" in ancient Greece and Rome. Isn't it very clear that "slavery" still pushed Western Europe out of the Middle Ages and towards modernization? Therefore, we cannot close our eyes to Confucius's restoration and "from the Zhou Dynasty", but regard the Confucius as a god who transcends time and space and praise him. A "sage" who "doesn't know the Han Dynasty, regardless of the Wei and Jin Dynasties" and only talks about empty words that are applicable to all countries and applies to both ancient and modern times, cannot seize on the "retrospection" and call him a "reactionary". It seems that "Advanced elements" only talk about modernity and are fashionable. When Qin Shihuang burned books and harassed Confucian scholars, the crime he imposed on the Confucian scholars was "regarding the past rather than the present." When we talk about Confucius today, of course we have to discuss whether "ancient" should be "Yi", but we also need to discuss whether "now" should be "non". ---This is not an indication. The bereaved martyr Lu Zhuru looked after the family and his good dog uncle Sun Tong Li Ling pointed out that Confucius tried so hard to talk about morality precisely because patriarchal morality had collapsed at that time. This is undoubtedly true. In the Western Zhou Dynasty, when clan identity was common and lord-vassal relations were stable, that value system was regarded as natural as "people need to eat", and there was no need for systematic demonstration and vigorous promotion. Therefore, in the "Three Dynasties", in the real era of Zhou Gong, there was no such thing as Confucianism. It was precisely when the social structure and value system of the Western Zhou Dynasty had "broken etiquette and music" that Confucius and his school of thought came into being with the ambition of "I follow the Zhou Dynasty". The compilation of the "Six Classics" is not only a systematic description of the "Zhou System" (or "Three Dynasties System"), but also a set of value declarations to promote the "Zhou Gong's Way". It is better than the "Analects of Confucius" produced in this process. ---A collection of miscellaneous thoughts written down by teachers and students of Confucius is much more important, so it is natural. However, the efforts of Confucius and Mencius could not turn the tide. At that time, both Confucius and Meng were "lost dogs" who encountered obstacles everywhere and felt lonely. But some of their students were also very proud, because in the great tide at that time, the Confucian scholars inevitably differentiated themselves. When "the destruction of etiquette and the collapse of music" became the general trend, "Confucianism was divided into eight" after Confucius' death, among which the main influential ones were Simeng and Xunzi. Xunzi said that "those who understand the current affairs are heroes", he no longer "followed the Zhou" but changed his practice to "the queen of the law", and merged with the Legalist trend represented by Li Kui and Shang Yang. The Simeng branch went through ups and downs, and had fierce conflicts with Legalism and the Qin system, and even "burning books and entrapping Confucianism" occurred. Although the "disaster of burning pits" was actually a comprehensive suppression of all schools of thought other than Legalism, not just Confucius (the alchemists who bore the brunt were not Confucianists yet), later Confucians only talked about pitting "Confucianism" in order to highlight their own martyrs. image. However, it should be admitted that Confucianism, which most clearly "followed the Zhou" during the "Zhou-Qin Revolution", was the focus of this suppression. The so-called "burning poems and writings, clarifying laws and regulations" and the accusation of "taking the past to reflect the present" clearly reflect the importance of the conflict between Confucianism and Legalism in this incident under the background of the "Zhou and Qin Revolution". This also led to the intensification of divisions among Confucianism. Some people, such as Shusun Tong, who was later known as the "Confucian" of the Han Dynasty, still managed well by relying on Qu to learn from the world and flattering the "tyrannical Qin". Moreover, after the fall of Qin, there was still a mother who had a mother. Flattery is the way to win relatives and nobles" ("Historical Records·Liu Jing Shu Sun Tong Biography"). Others, such as the "Ru Confucians" represented by the seventh grandson of Confucius, Kong Kun, were on the contrary. They could not bear the tyranny and truly transformed from "dissidents" into revolutionary parties. In the end, Kong Kun led "the scholars of Lu to return to King Chen (ie Chen Sheng) with Kong's ritual vessels" and join the anti-Qin uprising. In the tragic scene of the defeat of Chen Xia, Kong Yu, the "gentry gentleman", died together with Chen Sheng, the leader of the peasant rebellion. Therefore, Kong Yu and Shusun Tong, followed by Mencius and Xunzi, represent the two main choices of Confucians in the Great Divide: to continue to be a "lost family dog" like Kong Yu, or even to lose not only the "family" but also the life, and become a rebel against tyranny Are you a "martyr", or are you changing your family to be a "watchdog" like Shusun Tong? It should be said that most Confucian scholars still stick to the two. They can neither kill themselves to be benevolent like Kong Yu, nor want to be as shameless as Shusun Tong. Governing the country by law and governing the mind by Confucianism, the Analects of Confucius became the scripture. However, after constantly running into obstacles, Shusun Tong's path became more and more advantageous. By the time of Emperor Jing of the Han Dynasty, some Confucians also propagated that it was reasonable to overthrow the tyrant, and promoted the so-called Tang-Wu revolution and obeying nature and responding to people. As a result, in the "Controversy between Yuan and Huang" that can now be called "the transformation from a revolutionary party to a ruling party", it failed. Emperor Jing of the Han Dynasty announced that revolutionary theory could no longer be discussed. "It was the later scholar Mo Ganming who was ordered to Let the killers go." It happened that Huang-Lao's theory evolved from Taoism in the early decades of the Western Han Dynasty and was the mainstream thought. In the early Han Dynasty, Huang-Lao inherited Zhuangzi's cynicism and advocated letting nature take its course, embracing weirdness, right and wrong, and doing nothing. Isn't it stupid to think like Master Confucius that "I follow the Zhou Dynasty"? So in the atmosphere of "the best is to apply for Han, the worst is to be Buddha", in the atmosphere where the superiors regard deer as horses and the inferiors are rarely confused, later Confucianism and Yue The more you learn, the more you learn to be "comprehensive and transparent". They first learned to "use law into etiquette" (Mr. Qu Tongzu once demonstrated that during the Cao and Wei Dynasties, "use etiquette into law" and "the Confucianization of law"), but in fact, there had been "incorporation of law into etiquette" and "conquering law into etiquette" hundreds of years ago. "Legalization of ethics", and then "Confucianization" in the Cao and Wei Dynasties. This "Confucianism" is no longer the Confucianism of Confucius and Mencius). When Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty arrived, Mr. Dong Zhongshu brought over the "Three Cardinal Guidelines" invented by Han Fei and completed the transformation of "Confucianism outside the law". As a result, Emperor Wu was very happy, and Confucianism was said to have gained the "supreme" status.

Although Mr. Dong's habit of "losing his family dog" has not yet been completely eliminated, while he gave up the "revolution", he also brought in the art of prophecy, hoping to retain some "God's warning" restraint on the emperor, but later in the Cao Wei to Sui and Tang Dynasties The emperors felt dissatisfied again, so they killed many people and banned prophecies, so the "warning from heaven" did not work. In this way, Confucian scholars have completed the evolution from "bereavement of the family" to "care of the family." "The political system of Qin has been followed for a hundred generations" and the "Five Classics" that embody the "Way of Zhou Gong" naturally appear to be too fictitious. Although the classics are still classics, they should not be taken too seriously. At this time, the importance of "The Analects" comes out: since we can't offend the "tyrant" and the "outer king" can't be achieved, let's play "inner sage"! And the "Analects" serves as a record of Confucius' "good words and deeds" This book can be used as a guide to self-cultivation. As a result, its status has become increasingly prominent. The "inner sage and outer king" that is often talked about by Neo-Confucianists today actually comes from "Zhuangzi Tianxia Chapter". It is a Taoist statement, not a Confucian ancestral tradition. As Li Ling said, Confucius only talked about "far sages" (ancient sage kings such as Yao and Shun) at that time and never talked about present sages. The so-called "far sage" only manifests himself through benevolent policies to bring peace to the world, rather than through self-cultivation. That is to say, Confucianism at that time only talked about "outer kings" and not about "inner saints". It was only after the foreign kings irrevocably became "foreign tyrants" that Confucianism gradually became a study of mind that "works inwards." Later, during the Jin and Yuan Dynasties, the eminent monk Wan Song Xingxiu once said famously: "Govern the country with Confucianism, and govern the mind with Buddhism." Wan Song knew that Buddhism could not govern the country, so he only fought for the authoritative position in the metaphysical field. But to be precise, rather than talking about the relationship between Confucianism and Buddhism, this statement is more suitable to be used in the relationship between Legalism and Confucianism, that is, "Rule the country with law, and rule the heart with Confucianism" (of course, the legalism here to rule the country must not be confused with today's Emphasizing the concept of "ruling the country by law" in modern human rights and the rule of law). Needless to say, Qin governed the country with "anti-Confucianism", and later generations who "adopted the Qin political system for a hundred generations" could not truly "govern the country with Confucianism". At best, they only governed the country with "Confucianism outside the law." Therefore, Confucianism, who cannot govern the country, can only "govern the mind." This is why the Analects of Confucius not only became a "classic" after the Song Dynasty, but also ranked before the Five Classics. Even today, when many people talk about Confucianism, they don't know that there are Five Classics, but they know that there is the Analects of Confucius.

(Author: Professor of Tsinghua University)