The word "dao" determines the topic of the court debate.
Zhao Xi once again surprised the political hall and even the entire Shilin.
How should I put it? This is indeed a question, but it is not a question.
Regardless of which school of thought, all arguments are centered around Tao, and all explanations are intended to express Tao. But no one is sure how to argue for this Tao.
Definition? Or elaboration? Or paraphrase? It’s all just demonstration. This Tao is too broad.
What's even more confusing is the rules of court debate stated by the officials.
A topic with the word "dao" confused the officials in the political hall. They didn't know how they agreed to the rules of court debate set by the officials.
Whether it is discussing the Tao, clarifying the Tao, proving the Tao, or elaborating on the origin of the Tao.
As soon as one person begins to explain, no one is allowed to interrupt or argue before the speaker has finished.
After all the explanations are completed, the court declares the end of the explanations.
At this time, other schools, including all the scholars and courtiers present, can argue and ask questions about the content of the exposition.
Similarly, those who agree with the expounder's theory, or are similar to the expounder's theory, shall not repeat it.
These must follow a certain order. Whether the participants in the Bible debate are called by name or raised by a show of hands is decided by the political hall.
At the same time, once someone refutes and explains his own interpretation of Tao, he will be the same as the first person to argue, and will accept everyone's refutation, except those who agree.
Anyone who grandstands or violates the regulations will be deemed as destroying the court debate room and will be expelled from the court debate site. In serious cases, his or her academic reputation and title will be affected.
This was drawn up through discussions between the officials and the ministers, and cannot be changed.
Fortunately, the court announced the title and rules of the trial half a month before the trial, so that those participating in the trial could be prepared.
The only regret is that the imperial court explicitly prohibited any form of debate on Tao before the court hearing.
………
The largest palace of the imperial dynasty...the Daqing Hall was very full at this time.
Because this is a court debate, it is different from a court banquet.
In view of his respect for Saint Kong, Zhao Xi also sent people from Qufu to invite Duke Yan to Bianliang.
And where Zhao Xi usually sits, there is also a memorial tablet of Saint Kong... It really looks like that.
All those present are disciples of saints and are equal to a certain extent. Of course, the king should be excluded.
But Zhao Xi did something very popular.
On weekdays, the court ministers did not have seats. At most, the emperor would give a seat to an old minister out of pity.
At this time, everyone in the Daqing Hall, whether they were the prime minister or the white-haired scholars, had a futon to kneel on.
To discuss the Tao, one must act like one. This measure was highly praised by scholars.
It's better to be an emperor... Zhao Xi touched the seat of his couch and felt very emotional.
Due to the original table and chair workshop in the guard camp, the court hall has now been replaced with various seats. Zhao Xi also modified his own imperial seat according to later generations.
Look at the crowd of people sitting on their knees below... it’s an exciting debate.
There is a saying called knowledge barrier, that is to say, the knowledge a person has mastered will cause obstacles in accepting new knowledge.
Zhao Xi's knowledge system is well-established and was formed through the logically rigorous systematic education of later generations.
Although he came to this era and received the education of this era, his knowledge system could never be replaced.
When it comes to dealing with others, he may adapt to the times, but Zhao Xi cannot clear out the knowledge that has formed in his mind.
When he was young, relying on his adult abilities, he memorized a lot of modern classics by rote. What he really understood was what Sun Fu explained back then, and he no longer had the ability to derive his own family traditions.
As for this court debate...well, for Zhao Xi, it was just a fun thing to watch. People didn't need to explain it in plain words, but he was still dizzy.
It's a pity that in this court argument, everyone is showing off their talents. Who can speak in vernacular?
If it is a classic interpretation, maybe Zhao Xi can still understand it, and he has received lectures at least.
But these words about the Tao family are all based on their own experiences. They are vague words and specious words, and it is really impossible to fully understand them.
Even though these scholars and courtiers were nodding and nodding, Zhao Xi felt that they also had a partial understanding, but they were embarrassed and pretended to understand.
I couldn't understand their side-by-side quotes, but Zhao Xi could clearly capture the core essence.
For example, Zhang Zai's Taixu is Qi, one thing and two bodies. Putting aside his vague vocabulary, he summarizes the essence of his academic work. Zhao Xi really thinks it makes sense.
If Zhang Zai's Qi is replaced by molecules... it would be consistent with the scientific theories of later generations.
The Tao he mentioned is the process of gasification. To say that he is discussing Tao is better to say that he is imagining physical and chemical reactions.
There was a saying in later generations that the Han nation had no science, only technology. From the characteristics of Zhang Zai's theory, Zhao Xi saw the hazy consciousness of science.
It is a pity that when the literary movement flourishes, most of them are poor scholars who focus their energy on piles of old papers. No elite can sink their minds to understand the nature of matter.
Of course, the scientific examination should be held responsible, and it carries a lot of weight... After all, learning civil and martial arts will bring goods to the emperor's family.
Thinking too much! Zhao Xi has thought about changing, but this really needs to be done slowly.
As for the debaters, Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi heard that they were related to Zhang Zai, so they put aside these issues in the dispute over orthodoxy.
Ercheng's theory is purely about moral principles.
It's just that the two brothers focused on people and only lightly mentioned the origin. They focused more on the discussion of humanity.
It is the embodiment and detail of Dong Zhongshu’s idea of the unity of heaven and man.
It focuses on how to follow this way called heaven, king and minister, father and son... is ethics.
This should be the root of Neo-Confucianism in later generations, but Zhao Xi did not hear some of the insults that were insulted by later generations. He was just establishing a rule between people.
In today's era, perhaps in later generations, or even in any era, Er Cheng's theory has some truth.
There is a distinction between status and hierarchy. This is the rule for people to get along with each other.
This is the Tao, and it is also the foundation of etiquette education.
If Er Cheng's Neo-Confucianism expounds the Tao between people, the Tao described by Sima Guang is directly limited to a single individual.
Although Sima Guang also mentioned the way of heaven, it was a bit mysterious.
Sima Guang's point of view is the word sincerity. He believes that sincerity is the main purpose of heaven, and humans should think about sincerity and understand sincerity, so as to achieve the same goal as heaven's sincerity by different roads and realize the unity of nature and man.
There is no way to prove whether Heaven is sincere and how it can be sincere. Besides, we only have a concept in our hearts of what Heaven is, and it seems that everyone knows it even if we don’t say it.
But Sima Guang couldn't talk about heaven, so most of his statements focused on why people should be sincere and how to be sincere.
Zhao Xi does not think that there is any conflict between the views of the three parties that have argued, or that they just have different emphases.
But in their view, the foundation of Tao is different.
Qi, reason, and sincerity, which of the three is the Tao... On this issue, you and I debate each other word by word.
What they are really arguing about is fundamentally wrong. This is the difference between macro and micro. Because they value academic influence too much, they fail to pay attention to the mutual complementarity of their respective theories.