Chapter 20 Discussion on "Laozi" Problem Book with Mr. Qian Mu

Discussion on "Laozi" Problem Book with Mr. Qian Mu Mr. Bin Si: Last year, I read Mr. Xiang Xin's Chronicle of Father and Son and admired it very much.In the seventh issue of the "Journal of Yenching" this year, I read Mr. Wang's old work "A Survey of the Years of "Lao Tzu"" and I think it is far less rigorous than "Chronology of Xiang Jing's Father and Son".It is very difficult to establish a fundamental position.I would like to contribute a little opinion, please advise sir. The fundamental position of this article is "ideological clues".But the line of thought is not easy to say.Greek thought had developed to a very "profound" level, while the European Middle Ages suddenly fell into a very superficial theology for nearly a thousand years.Can later generations of scholars say that the profound thoughts of Greece should not be before the Middle Ages?Another example is that the philosophy of Buddhism has reached a very "profound" state, and the last stream of Mahayana has been reduced to the most obscene tantra. This is the most obvious example.Try the various examples given by Mr. Ji, and briefly talk about one or two things.Ruyun: "Shuo Gua" said that "the emperor came from the earthquake",...the scale, order and organization of its thoughts are grand and precise, and they are all inferior to "Lao Tzu". Therefore, it is said that after the book "Lao Tzu" was published, it followed "Lao Tzu" and also.The following inference rates are similar.

Mr. Ran has clearly admitted that "The Great Master" already has the idea that Tao was born from heaven and earth. "Following this inference", why not say "after his book was published in "Lao Tzu", he followed the language of "Lao Tzu""? Another example is that Mr. said: In terms of the process of ideological development, Confucius and Mo are at the front, and Lao and Zhuang are at the back.Otherwise, the old man has already made the theory that the emperor came first, and Confucius and Mo should not focus on the theory of destiny and will.who?Ideological clues are not the same.

Based on this inference, after the birth of Lao and Zhuang, shouldn't anyone pay attention to the theory of destiny and will?Could it be that the theory of destiny and will in the past two thousand years, from Dong Zhongshu and Ban Biao, should be ranked before Lao and Zhuang? This kind of inference is different from saying, "For thousands of years, people have said that the old man is in front of the village. Mr. Qian Mu should not say that the old man is in the back of the village. What? The ideological clues are not like this?" Mr. has never understood several important concepts of ancient thought, so this article is quite far-fetched.

Such as destiny and will should be discussed separately.Tianzhi is the creed of Mohism, so Mohism is not fate; fate is a naturalistic view, which cannot coexist with the religion of respecting heavenly ghosts (later generations began to say "fate", and "fate" was also controlled by heavenly ghosts. thing). The division of thought at that time: Laozi advocated the theory that the Tao was the first of heaven and earth, established a natural view of the universe, and shaken all traditional religious beliefs, so it should be classified as a leftist.Confucius is a left-leaning sect. On the one hand, he believes in the cosmology of natural inaction, which is "what does the sky say? The four seasons move, and all things come into being." Serving people, how can we serve ghosts" are all expressions of left leaning; on the other hand, they want to "sacrifice as if they are present, and worship gods as if they are present", then they are still centrists.The "heaven" and "destiny" of Confucius and Mencius are close to naturalism: "Do not do what you do, do not do what you do", all are close to Lao and Zhuang.This is the same as Confucius, Mencius, Lao, and Zhuang, but it is not tolerated by religions that respect heaven and ghosts.The Mohists stood up to support the shaken folk religion, refreshed it a little bit, introduced a little new meaning, took the will of heaven as universal love, tomorrow's ghosts as real existence, and vigorously attacked the predestination that the leftists believed in. Right faction.

The clues of thought must not be separated from the division of thought, and the intertwined and intricate thinking clues of later generations are all due to the mutual influence of the left, middle and right lines.Xunqing is called Confucianism, and his "Tian Lun" is the most sound naturalism.Zhuangzi is hidden from the sky but doesn't know people, and his "The Great Master" is already a lament for a pure religionist, and he has gone to the extreme right. On "Tao" in "Laozi", there is still a saying "I don't know its name, the word is called Dao, and the strong name is called Da". There is no equivalent name for this view, so we have to forcefully call him a kind of journey—Tao—or describe him as “big”.

This idea was not easily understood by most people, so it did not become the central idea of ​​some people in the ideological circle until the late Warring States period.But by this time,—as in the book—this view has become an arbitrary principle, not a "brought-for-the-name" assumption. I do not deny the possibility of the theory that "Lao Tzu came out late".But I always feel that none of the arguments of Liang Rengong, Feng Zhisheng and Mr. Wang can convince me.If there is sufficient evidence to convince me, I will never insist on the theory that "Laozi" came out early.

This is a hasty sketch, looking forward to advice. March 17, 1931 Volume 1 of "Recent Works on Hu Shi's Studies"