The sentence "Although Zhou was an old state, its destiny was restored" is not a highly pragmatic "original", but is quoted here. This statement comes from "The Book of Songs·Daya·King Wen", which is a set of poems praising King Wen of Zhou Dynasty. The opening line reads: "King Wen is above, and he shines in the sky. Although Zhou is an old state, its destiny is restored."
The main idea of this saying is: King Wen of Zhou's spirit is in the sky, and the light shines brightly. Although Zhou was an old state, its mission lay in the "new". The word "new" here can be used as a verb, meaning "innovation"; it can also be used as an adjective, meaning maintaining a state of being constantly "new".
As we all know, the Zhou Kingdom has a long history, so it is called the "old state" here. In the late Shang Dynasty, Zhou became a powerful country under the Shang Dynasty and surrendered to Shang. However, Shang was not at ease with it and once imprisoned King Wen in Youli. It is said that "King Wen was restrained and performed the Book of Changes", which happened at this time.
After King Wen returned to the Zhou Kingdom, he developed production on the one hand and expanded his territory on the other. Over time, the national power increased greatly. By the time of his son King Wu, he had become so powerful that "two out of three people in the world" finally destroyed the Shang Dynasty and established the Zhou Dynasty.
It can be said that King Wen of Zhou was the key figure in the demise of Shang and the rise of Zhou. "Although Zhou was an old state, its destiny was restored" refers to the historical achievements of King Wen of Zhou in leading the "old state" of Zhou to rise and establish a new dynasty. Later, "Although Zhou was an old country, its destiny was to be restored" was given new meaning by people, describing that although China is an ancient country, its mission is to restore, and it should and has been constantly rejuvenating through reform.
The Book of Songs is an ancient book highly respected by Confucius, so its "official status" is also very high. Gao Pragmatic cited this sentence as one of the basis for his reforms, which is difficult to refute at least from a "theoretical" perspective.
In fact, it is not impossible to find support from other aspects. For example, the highly pragmatic classic is "Yi", and "Yi Jing·Xici" says: "If you are poor, you will change, if you change, you will be general, and if you are general, you will be long-term." ", the core here is "change".
Why change? Because you have to adapt. Everything in the world is developing, and all aspects of the situation are always changing. If you don't change, you may not be able to adapt, and you will have trouble.
Can you still wear the clothes you wore when you were three years old when you are thirty?
What if the Book of Songs, despite its high status, is not “orthodox” enough?
It doesn't matter. It is also recorded in "Book of Rites·University" that King Tang of Shang engraved the inscription "Gou Rixin, Dayi Xin, Dayi Xin" on the bathtub to remind himself to reflect in time and constantly innovate.
Since Zhu Xi compiled "The Great Learning" with "The Doctrine of the Mean", "The Analects of Confucius" and "Mencius" and called it the "Four Books", "The Great Learning" has long been one of the main classics of Confucianism and is also a "required subject" in the imperial examinations of the Ming Dynasty. Although some scholars in the Ming Dynasty opposed Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, at least no one jumped out to oppose the Four Books itself, so Gao Pragmatic was not worried about not being able to find a basis for his reforms.
As for the other sentence he just mentioned, "If there is no way to govern the world, the country will not follow the ancient laws", it comes from "Shang Jun Shu·Geng Fa". This sentence is more straightforward and straightforward. It means that the way to govern a country is never static. As long as it is beneficial to the country, it does not have to be rigidly bound to ancient laws and old systems.
"Gengfa" is the first chapter in "Shang Jun Shu", which mainly reflects Shang Yang's reform thoughts of opposing the ancient Yi etiquette, promoting new laws and implementing new policies. Gao Pingshi's quote had profound meaning, and he was sure that the two colleagues in front of him would definitely understand it - they were both high-ranking Jinshi scholars, so it was impossible that they had not even read "The Book of Shang Jun".
Specific to the chapter "Gengfa", it is in the form of a dialogue, recording a debate in the court between Shang Yang, Qianlong and Du Zhi on the eve of the Qin State's reform, on the issue of "whether to reform the law."
At that time, Qin Xiaogong first raised the issue: "I want to change the law to govern and teach the people more etiquette."
Qianlong was the first to express his position, saying that "a sage does not change the people and teaches, and a wise man governs without changing the law." Du Zhi also said that "the law has no faults in ancient times, and there is no evil in following etiquette."
Shang Yang was of course opposed to Qianlong and Du Zhi's arguments, so he asked them: "In the past life, there were different religions, so how can we follow ancient laws? If emperors do not follow each other, how can we follow the etiquette? Fuxi and Shennong taught but did not punish; Huangdi, Yao, Shun punished without being angry; as for civil and military affairs, they each made laws according to the time and made rituals according to the situation. Rituals and laws were determined according to the times, orders were made according to their suitability, and weapons, armor and equipment were all used according to their needs.
The minister said: If there is no one way to govern the world, there is no need to follow the ancient rules to facilitate the country. The kings of Tang and Wu prospered without cultivating the ancients; the Yin and Xia were destroyed because they did not practice rituals and perished. However, those who oppose the ancients are not necessarily wrong, and those who follow the rituals are not necessarily right. You have no doubt. "
This is Shang Yang's conclusion that "there is no one way to govern the world, and the country is not in line with the past." It expresses the innovative spirit of insisting on change, opposing the old ways, and having the courage to make progress.
By summarizing historical experience and lessons, Shang Yang pointed out that the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties had different ritual systems, but they all dominated the world; the reason why Qi Huan, Jin Wen, etc. dominated the princes was also because their laws were different - if the laws of all countries are the same, why Are they the ones who dominate? Therefore, Shang Yang concluded: There is no immutable way to govern a country. As long as it is beneficial to the country, it may be bold to reform, and there is no need to imitate any ancient system.
Why did Gao pragmatic suddenly throw out these two sentences? Because these two sentences are the "political program" he found for the Practical School - what is the Practical School? Xin Xue also claims to be the "Moral Practical School". How can we distinguish ourselves from them?
This is the distinction.
Our Practical School is a practical school of managing the world, which emphasizes doing practical things and seeking practical results. Whether something is done well or not does not depend on whether the slogan is loud or whether it sounds noble or noble. We must see the true meaning.
What is a true seal?
Gao Pangshi paused for a moment and said: "As the Practical School has come to this day, some goals must be clearer. We are not trying to compete with anyone for power or profit. Our goal is to at least make the court more peaceful on the basis of peace in the world. Strong financial resources should be used to maintain the strength of the military and protect the interests of the people of the Ming Dynasty from infringement; to allow the court to have spare capacity to build water conservancy projects and provide relief to victims; to allow the private economy to become increasingly dynamic, and for the people to live and work in peace and contentment, without starving or freezing; Businessmen can operate legally on the basis of paying certain taxes, and are not subject to malicious exploitation or malicious bullying; we even need to allow more people to learn the teachings of saints, understand etiquette, justice, integrity, and know how to be self-reliant and self-reliant."
Cheng Wen could also understand Gao Pragmatic's intention of making these claims, and although Hu Zhili was happy with his statement and agreed with him, he could not help but doubt his intention of mentioning these in front of him.
Forcing himself to put aside the highly inflammatory ideals in Gao Jingshi's words, Hu Zhili noticed that Gao Jingshi also mentioned "businessman" here.
Gao pragmatically said before that he wanted to crack down on profiteers, but here he said that he wanted to protect businessmen "from malicious exploitation and malicious bullying." This... which sentence is true and which sentence is false?
However, Gao Pragmatism seemed to have learned the Buddhist "other minds", Feng Qingyun continued calmly: "Mr. Yazhai is a little hesitant, why am I talking about cracking down on profiteers and protecting businessmen at the same time?"
Hu Zhili was indeed suspicious, but since Gao Pingshi asked, he couldn't speak directly, so he had to answer: "Situ must think that there are good people in businessmen?"
If these words were said in later generations, they would definitely arouse a lot of scolding: What does it mean that there must be good people among businessmen? Are all businessmen bad guys?
That's right, future generations will not think that all businessmen are bad guys. The vast majority of businessmen who do business legally must be the majority. This is the fact and the mainstream view.
However, this view is not "mainstream" in the Ming Dynasty. The mainstream view is that "there is no businessman without treachery, and there is no treachery without businessman" - traitor is also treacherous, which is obviously not a complimentary term.
If only the people held such a view, it would be easy to handle. The key is that Zhu Yuanzhang, the founding emperor of the Ming Dynasty, was also an extremely hater of businessmen. This resulted in the official level having to follow this "tradition" and criticize businessmen for a long time. Even in the In this period, many officials have the shadow of big businessmen behind them, but at least officially they still have to express their disdain for businessmen from time to time.
It is not a strange phenomenon to say no with your mouth but be honest with your body.
However, Gao Pragmatic wanted to change the status of businessmen, but Zhu Yuanzhang's extreme hatred of businessmen was an unavoidable obstacle.
Although "focusing on agriculture and suppressing business" was the basic national policy of most dynasties in Chinese history, the Ming Dynasty founded by Zhu Yuanzhang was the one that hit businessmen the most.
So, why did Zhu Yuanzhang hate businessmen from the bottom of his heart compared to other founding emperors? Gao Pragmatic believes that there are two main reasons.
The first reason: Zhu Yuanzhang was born poor, and even after he became emperor, his memory of his early years was still very profound.
Lao Zhu was one of the poorest of the poor, not to mention that he could not afford to go to school. In his early years, he herded cattle and worked as a monk. However, when the famine broke out, he could not even become a monk and had to beg on the streets.
The hatred of the rich in that era was deeply ingrained in the hearts of almost every poor people. For Zhu Yuanzhang, who had no food to eat and could only beg along the road, he was very puzzled. He couldn't understand why the rich and businessmen had to raise the price of food more and more when there was a famine, and even preferred to dump it and give it to their chickens. They eat ducks, pigs and dogs, and are unwilling to give alms to the poor.
Hey, this plot seems very familiar: capitalists dump milk, drown livestock, set cotton on fire... The Great Depression and Roosevelt's New Deal, this is a required course in high school history.
It’s so graphic. Isn’t this the same play?
However, is the conclusion of this argument really that "capitalists are the source of all evil"? I'm afraid not necessarily. This is caused by the laws of market economy. It is the same no matter ancient, modern, Chinese or foreign.
However, Zhu Yuanzhang had neither heard of the market economic theory, nor probably agreed with it. He had always regarded himself as a representative of the poor. In the eyes of the poor, the root cause of this problem was very simple: the root cause was these hateful businessmen. No sympathy at all, only money in eyes!
What to do? The poor could only choose to rebel, so after Zhu Yuanzhang became emperor, he was also a "peasant emperor" who defended farmers at every turn, tried every means to suppress and even exploited businessmen.
It's completely understandable to think of singing as a freed serf.
As for the second reason, it is that his main opponents Zhang Shicheng and Fang Guozhen are both businessmen.
Zhang Shicheng and Fang Guozhen were both salt traders. Zhang Shicheng called himself the King of Wu in Jiangsu and Zhejiang. Because of his generosity and righteousness, he had high prestige among the local people. Even though Zhu Yuanzhang later defeated Chen Youliang and greatly increased his strength, people in the coastal areas south of the Yangtze River still preferred Zhang Shicheng, and instead looked down upon Zhu Yuanzhang, a "local old hat".
And to make matters worse, Zhang Shicheng came and refused to surrender. At that time, Zhu Yuanzhang tried to persuade him, but Zhang Shicheng refused to agree. In desperation, he actually chose to hang himself to show that the scholar could not be killed but should not be humiliated. One can imagine how angry Zhu Yuanzhang, who was hoping to win the support of the people in Jiangsu and Zhejiang, was.
As for Fang Guozhen, just take a look at Zhu Yuanzhang's evaluation of him: "Fang Guozhen is a fish and salt seller. He lives in secret, waits and watches, obeys the rules, and has ambitions to lead the rat." - This person is sometimes downgraded to the Yuan Dynasty, sometimes against the Yuan Dynasty, sometimes down to the Zhu Dynasty. He turned against Zhu for a while and was very dishonest.
By extension, Zhu Yuanzhang's conclusion is obvious: all businessmen are not good people, they are all bastards, and they are hopeless.
It is well known that Zhu Yuanzhang is a person who likes to express his anger. Therefore, Zhu Yuanzhang was even very angry with Jiangsu and Zhejiang as a whole, which were "rich in businessmen". So after the founding of the People's Republic of China, when other areas were enjoying light corvee and low taxes, rent-free and low taxes, he only People in Jiangsu and Zhejiang were taxed heavily.
It's just that he confused a concept on this matter, which led to some very funny mistakes: he did not recognize the identity of a merchant at the time, which led to him not recognizing "merchant status". Since business status was not recognized by the imperial court, Then the business tax will naturally be uncollectable.
As a result, this heavy tax not only did not "harm" the original businessmen in Jiangsu and Zhejiang, but forced many farmers in the area who were not businessmen to "change careers" and simply went into business without stopping.
This is why the original saying "If it is cooked in Suhu and Huguang, the world is sufficient" has become "If it is cooked in Huguang, the world is sufficient" - growing food is not cost-effective. How good would it be if I planted mulberry and raised silkworms? Otherwise, just follow others and become a "Japanese pirate" and do that business without capital!
"Poverty leads to change, and change leads to prosperity." Even if the people in Jiangnan have never read a book, everyone obviously understands this truth.
The root cause of the problem has been found, but how to change it? Being pragmatic and incapable of summoning spirits, it was impossible for him to invite Zhu Yuanzhang out of the Xiaoling Mausoleum and explain these truths to him.
Then there is only a two-pronged approach, one is to use Confucian classics to find theoretical basis for one's own actions, and the other is to follow Zhu Yuanzhang's ideas and distort the classics.
He has just briefly explained the former, and both Cheng Wen and Hu Zhili must understand it. He actually has quite a bit of experience in the latter - he had done it before in the "private military industry" and when he was on "Yi Yi Lu Shu".
In a nutshell: I want to follow the original intention of my ancestors, but I may not follow the old ways of my ancestors.
----------
Thanks to book friend "Cao Mianzi" for your reward and support, thank you!
Thanks to book friend "Love Sports" for your monthly ticket support, thank you!
