As the title suggests, notes on all chapters, including some supplementary materials and reflections
Chapter 1 of 《A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy》
The first chapter discusses the philosophy of the Shang and Zhou dynasties. Originally, the slave owners of the Shang dynasty were the inventors of “rites,” “virtue,” and “filial piety.” When proposing these moral concepts for the slave-owning class, they linked them to “Mandate of Heaven,” claiming that these moral standards were decreed by “Heaven,” and that the Shang king, possessing these qualities, was the son of “God” to govern the world on behalf of Heaven. However, the slaves did not believe these claims. Through class struggle and technological development in production, the slaves developed the earliest naive materialist ideas, such as the theory of the Five Elements, and later the Eight Trigrams, which also carried naive dialectical ideas and the materialist concept that all things are composed of Yin and Yang. However, later, the “Yijing” (Book of Changes) was used by charlatans to promote idealism and metaphysics, which is a different matter.
After the Shang dynasty, during the Zhou period, they had to patch the theory of Mandate of Heaven because they needed to explain why the Mandate shifted from Shang to Zhou. They used the concept of “virtue” to explain the change, claiming that Zhou King Wu had virtue and thus received the Mandate, while King Zhou of Shang lacked virtue and lost it. Although this was intended to fill the gaps in the Mandate theory, it made their rule appear less “absolute.” Later, the idea of the “Five Virtues” was introduced to explain the Mandate, suggesting that the Mandate was conditional on virtue. Although this was a patch to the theory of the Mandate, which was often used to justify the rulers’ frequent changes, this kind of idealist reasoning ultimately made the Mandate theory less credible. In essence, it was the working people, through their practical activities, who accumulated materialist understanding and increasingly doubted the Mandate of Heaven. From a modern perspective, this resembles a situation where a desperate attempt to “debunk rumors” only makes the debunkers appear more suspicious, illustrating how things tend to move in the opposite direction during intense struggles.
Another issue is the problematic evaluation of King Zhou of Shang, conflating him with the aristocratic slave owners of the Shang dynasty. In the “Shangshu Mu Shi” (Book of Documents, “The Oath of the Shepherd”), Zhou Wu Wang’s four accusations against King Zhou of Shang actually reflect that the Shang king carried out reforms similar to those of Akhenaten. Although the Shang king did not abolish the Mandate of Heaven, he simplified sacrificial rites and excluded the aristocrats, aiming to strengthen royal authority against divine authority, which was somewhat progressive at the time. However, because these reforms did not improve the exploitation and oppression of slaves, they lacked support from the slaves. Consequently, the aristocratic slave owners of Shang rebelled and supported King Wu, leading to the failure of the reforms and the fall of the Shang dynasty.
《A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy》 Chapter 2, Section 1
The first section of Chapter 2 mainly provides an overview of the background of the Confucian-Legalist struggle during the Spring and Autumn period. Since the Warring States period was a revolutionary era where the emerging landlord class began to seize power and feudal society started to replace slave society, it represented a conflict between the advanced productive relations of the landlord class and the reactionary relations of the slave-owning class. Therefore, in the realm of philosophy, the former developed into Legalism and the latter into Confucianism. All other schools, because ultimately they had to take a class stance regarding the revolutionary changes of the landlord class at the time, would eventually align with either Confucianism or Legalism, becoming allies of one side. This section is already quite rich, but after researching the Yang Zhu school and the Mohist school, I found that their connections to the Confucian-Legalist struggle can be further elaborated.
Actually, one of the strengths of ‘A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy’ is that it discusses the Yang Zhu school and the Mohist school. The Confucian-Legalist struggle is the main theme, but these two schools are not without significance. On the contrary, as Mencius said, the world at that time was “the eye of the world; if not Yang, then Mo.” This is because, on one hand, slavery was in decline, and Confucian teachings increasingly showed their reactionary nature, making it harder to maintain the rule of the slave-owning class, leading many slave owners to feel pessimistic about the disintegration of slavery. On the other hand, reforms had not yet fully spread across states, and the Shang Yang reforms, which epitomized Legalism, had not yet begun. During this burgeoning stage, the Confucian and Legalist schools had not yet developed into new phases, so the direct confrontation was mainly between the Yang Zhu school and the Mohist school, representing the interests of the declining slave-owning aristocracy and small producers, respectively. This stage is a transitional phase between Confucius and Mencius, or between Confucianism and the Shang school.
In the early Warring States period, the declining slave owners saw Tian Chengzi’s seizure of power and the division of Jin by the three schools, leading to the fall of two major slave societies, which made them feel that the entire slave society was nearing its end. However, Confucian teachings of Kongzi were becoming less effective, and Zisi had not yet fully developed Kongzi’s Confucian doctrine to a certain extent, limiting its role as a tool to uphold reactionary rule. As a result, the defeated slave-owning aristocrats turned to Daoism, and the Yang Zhu school was a prominent branch of Daoism at that time.
The worldview of the Yang Zhu school was generally similar to Daoism, but what distinguished it was its more direct stance, such as advocating “pluck a hair and benefit the world, and yet do not do it,” meaning even if one knew that abandoning slavery and exploitation would benefit social progress, one would still not do it—an extreme form of individualism. Because this doctrine aligned with the desires of the declining slave-owning aristocrats to preserve themselves, many of them became followers of Yang Zhu. However, when the stage of Mencius’s Confucianism arrived, Yang Zhu was also targeted by Confucians. But the Confucians opposed not Yang Zhu’s “detrimental to the world” route, i.e., retrograde regression, but his “not pulling out a single hair,” i.e., only seeking to preserve oneself without maintaining the entire slave society. This shows that Yang Zhu could no longer meet the needs of the increasingly fierce class struggles of the slave-owning states and was replaced by Mencius’s Confucianism.
Alongside the disintegration of the slave society, some slaves were liberated and became small producers, while the original small producers escaped exploitation by the slave owners, thus gaining more favorable conditions for small-scale production. They opposed returning to the oppressive slave era but did not want to re-establish feudal production relations. Politically, they proposed a relatively independent ideology aligned with Legalist principles—Moism. The characteristics of Mohism include a focus on natural sciences, which reflected the long-term production struggles of small producers and their accumulation of scientific knowledge, serving as an important basis for their materialist worldview. Another feature was the naive utopianism of Mohism, which aimed to establish a society of small producers without contradictions that would last forever, such as the “Heaven’s Will” and “Ming Gui” representing a desire to restrain the tyranny of the ruling class, the “Universal Love” doctrine opposing the brutal exploitation of small producers for the private benefit of a few, and the “Non-attack” doctrine opposing continuous wars that ravaged small producers (though it is worth noting that Mohism was not absolutely anti-war; Mozi also proposed the concept of righteous warfare, advocating fighting unjust wars with just wars. For example, Mozi organized his disciples to defend the State of Song against Chu, which is evidence of this). Therefore, Mohism cannot be simply regarded as pacifism opposing all wars; it understood the importance of using war to stop war. From this perspective, Mohist views on war had some similarities with the strategies of the Art of War and Legalism. However, due to the weakness of the small producer class that Mohism represented, it could not become an independent political force like the Legalist landlords and launch a revolutionary war to completely eliminate slavery. Their only wish was to prevent wars among states through defensive warfare, which was impossible to realize at that time. Ultimately, due to the dual nature of small producers and the gradual consolidation of feudal production relations and the counterattack of the slave-owning class, Mohism split into three parts: two-thirds aligned with the slave-owning class, and one-third aligned with the landlords. The former merged into Confucianism, and the latter into Legalism. Mohism gradually disappeared as it lost its class foundation.
Note: The term “Juzi” (巨子), referring to the leaders of Mohism, originates from the measuring tool “Juzi” (a square ruler), reflecting the small producer ideology. It signifies that the leaders’ role within Mohism was to establish and uphold discipline within the organization, ensuring everyone acted according to Mohist principles (though not through democratic centralism), and without privileges (even if the Juzi’s son committed murder, he would be subject to Mohist discipline). Compared to reactionary leaders like the “Son of Heaven” who claimed lofty status, this was a significant progress. Mohism advocated that even the Son of Heaven (the highest ruler managing the state) should be chosen based on “virtue and talent” rather than lineage or military power, which was also a progressive idea.
《A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy》 Chapter 2, Section 2, the Confucian-Moist opposition between Confucius and Mozi.
Confucius is revered as a sage by reactionaries throughout history, and respecting Confucius must be part of a retrogressive and backward route. Today’s TS also claims to respect Confucius. TS openly describes its “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” as a theory “rooted in Chinese cultural soil,” which shows that TS’s revisionism is based on the extensive respect for Confucius. When searching for news before, I saw a liberal interview with a person detained in a women’s detention center. This person said that even in the detention center, they do not read the “Piglet Governance” (乳猪治国理政), but rather the Three Character Classic (三字经) and the Analects (论语), which shows TS’s emphasis on Confucianism.
Confucius was born in an era when the slave-owning class was declining. To save the crumbling rule of the slave-owning aristocracy, Confucius adopted the old reactionary doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven, portraying the aristocratic rulers as “Heaven-ordained” and “natural” and “eternal” gentlemen, while describing the working people as “small men” who are forever under the rule of these “gentlemen.” He also claimed that this hierarchical order was determined by “Heaven” and was unchangeable, the so-called “Mandate of Heaven.” He shamelessly boasted that he “knew the Mandate of Heaven at fifty” and that “Heaven endowed me with virtue,” portraying himself as a “genius” valued by “Heaven,” despising the laboring people, and saying “only women and small men are hard to nurture.” Compared to previous reactionary slave owners, Confucius further linked the Mandate of Heaven with morality, advocating the so-called “benevolence” (仁), which he claimed was bestowed by “Heaven” as a moral virtue, thus making the slave-owning rulers with the “Mandate of Heaven” the natural “benevolent” rulers, while the ruled laboring people lacked “benevolence” because they lacked the “Mandate of Heaven.” This reveals the class nature of “benevolence.” Since ancient times, various reactionaries have openly opposed the revolutionary movements of the working people and advocated “benevolent governance” (仁政), including today’s TS. However, their “benevolence” is only within the ruling class; when facing the working people, they raise the butcher’s knife, with no “benevolence” at all. Similarly, in socialist countries, the proletarian dictatorship will never be merciful to reactionaries. Chairman Mao said, “We will never implement benevolent governance towards reactionaries,” which means the proletariat in power will resolutely suppress the bourgeoisie. Therefore, between today’s proletariat and bourgeoisie, there is no super-class “benevolence” or “benevolent governance.” All kinds of reactionaries from ancient to modern times have slandered Chairman Mao as “Qin Shi Huang” (the First Emperor of China), advocating the so-called “benevolent governance.” The reactionary Kuomintang (KMT) falsely claimed Mao was “Qin Shi Huang,” Lin Biao cursed Mao in the “571 Project Memo” as the “Qin Shi Huang” of the contemporary era, and during the counterrevolutionary chaos of 1989, reactionary generals under Deng Xiaoping’s command also spread reactionary poetry in dark corners, comparing Mao to “Qin Shi Huang” and slandering him, clamoring to oppose “Qin Shi Huang” and to bring Deng Xiaoping to power. Like the reactionary Confucian scholars thousands of years ago cursing Qin Shi Huang, these people’s “benevolent governance” can only be the reactionary fascist dictatorship like today’s TS.
Mozi was the founder of the Mohist school, representing the early Mohist school. He represented the interests of small producers (small artisans, small farmers), cared about the poverty of the working people, opposed the annual wars between slave-owning states that harmed the people and wasted resources, opposed the luxury and waste of the exploiting classes, and advocated selecting officials from the emperor to minor officials based on talent (although the evaluation of “talent” here still carried a class-superior view), opposed Confucian Mandate of Heaven doctrines, and had some progressive significance at the time. However, Mozi’s narrow vision as a small producer and the immaturity of the class he represented (both being proto-peasantry and urban commoners) led him to oppose violent revolution to overthrow the exploiting class, advocating a kind of class harmony called “universal love” (兼爱) that was not class-specific, and he fell into empiricism, mistakenly proposing the idea of “ming gui” (明鬼), which relied on ghosts and gods to constrain rulers. On one hand, this reflected the lack of actual power among small producers to oppose the entire exploiting class at that time, and on the other hand, it was due to their narrow perspective, which had to resort to ghost and god theories to explain social development laws. Overall, the early Mohist school was still opposed to Confucianism and was allied with Legalism.
Chapter 3 of Section 2 of “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”
This section makes one inevitably feel the hardships of the Legalists’ reforms during the Warring States period. The landlords of the Legalists initially faced great resistance when seizing power in various states. Li Kui’s reforms were finally halted when Duke Wen of Wei took over, and Wu Qi was opposed to reforms and wandered through various states, ultimately being cruelly murdered by slave-owning aristocrats in Chu. Although Shang Yang’s reforms were eventually implemented, he himself was also brutally killed by slave-owning aristocrats. This shows that the brutality of reform completely refutes the idea that revolution can be a peaceful transition; even internal reforms require violence and are a form of revolution.
The policies enacted by these Legalists directly touched the interests of the slave-owning aristocrats, which is why they were fiercely opposed. However, the reason why the Legalist route ultimately prevailed was because it aligned with the people’s interests and objectively represented advanced modes of production, thus inevitably replacing the reactionary Confucian route. Today, aside from blindly respecting Confucianism and opposing Legalism, and labeling Legalism as tyranny, some also vulgarize the Legalist route, claiming it as a supra-class political reform, as if the Qin Dynasty was able to unify China only because its monarch was clever and did not listen to flatterers, knowing that adopting Legalist policies could bring prosperity. This is a complete historical idealism, firstly viewing reform as purely a matter of the ruler’s personal will, rather than a result of class struggle, as if as long as some people above suddenly realize the truth, they can follow the correct path, and even the most reactionary regimes will “lay down their butcher’s knives and become Buddha”.
It is clear that this vulgarized theory of “reform” is fundamentally the theoretical basis of contemporary Chinese monarchists, portraying reform as something at the whim of rulers. Therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that Xi Jinping has been influenced by figures like Li Keqiang, who are “flatterers”, and cannot carry out “reform”. They are unaware that this group of labor protectionists supports Xi Jinping and aims to “purge the court”. This means Xi Jinping is still a “healthy force”; as soon as Xi realizes that the monarchist camp truly cares for the country, he will immediately promote and utilize these labor protectionists, push out Li Keqiang’s faction, and China can then be reformed into “socialism”. Therefore, exposing the class essence of the Confucian-Legalist struggle also helps to see through the reactionary fallacies of the monarchist camp.
Chapter 2, Section 4 of “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”
Discovering the figure of Zhuang Zhou from Taoism is truly remarkable; he said many profound things. Here are a few popular sayings even today.
“Free and Easy Wandering”; Zhuang Zhou used this to promote the so-called immortality, opening with examples of great fish and birds, the transformation of Kunpeng, which is essentially fabricating various strange and divine entities to personify the images of immortals who transcend the material world and whose spirits are indestructible, deliberately belittling the material world and elevating the spiritual world, spreading the theory of the immortality of the soul.
This is exactly the nonsense that modern xianxia (immortal cultivation) novels like to spout, which is why these reactionary novelists particularly favor Zhuang Zhou’s “Free and Easy Wandering”.
“You are not a fish, how do you know the happiness of fish”: a sophistic argument of relativism, using the trick of concept substitution to replace the question of whether fish have consciousness objectively with whether Hui Shi knew that Zhuang Zhou said fish are happy, confusing the subjective and objective distinctions, so that both sides have their reasons, and there is no absolute right or wrong.
Zhuang Zhou dreaming of a butterfly: erases the distinction between consciousness and matter, confusing the two, so that it can be said that consciousness (dream) is matter (butterfly), and matter (Zhuang Zhou) is consciousness (dream).
Zhuang Zhou said to establish a “world of supreme virtue,” where humans and beasts live together, united with all things, becoming indistinguishable between humans and beasts, and between humans and objects, all in a chaotic world without knowledge or desires. This is advocating doomsday theory, promoting end-of-the-world philosophy, similar to the apocalyptic themes favored by the bourgeoisie today. In fact, it reflects the thoughts of the declining ruling class in extreme despair, trying to hinder social progress and save themselves from extinction by destroying the entire human society.
《A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy》 Chapter 2, Section 6
This time, it discusses the School of Military Strategists, the School of Names, and the later Mohist School. The School of Names and the later Mohist School were both allies of the Legalists and made significant contributions to ancient Chinese science and philosophy. The School of Names studied the relationship between concepts and objective things, believing that “names should correspond to reality,” opposing the Confucian idea of “preserving names to justify reality,” and holding that clinging to outdated concepts could maintain the reactionary idealist slave system. Among them were correct speculations such as the infinitely divisible nature of matter and the dialectical relationship between relativity and stasis, which contributed to the development of Chinese philosophy. The later Mohist School not only focused on various parts of formal logic but also studied specific scientific content, such as the straight-line propagation of light, the definitions of circles and squares, and the lever principle. It can be regarded as the culmination of ancient Chinese science, comparable to contemporary Greek philosophy, logic, and science. The reason why the Mohist School achieved such great accomplishments is inseparable from the fact that its members all came from the working class and engaged in long-term productive practice. The various achievements of the Mohist School are a strong critique of the exploitative class’s long-standing propaganda of the “superior wisdom of the few and the ignorance of the masses,” demonstrating that laboring people are truly wise, while those “gentlemen” are fools who are physically lazy and ignorant of the five grains.
Chapter 7 of ‘A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy’
Xun Kuang and Han Fei were both legalist figures in the late Warring States period. They are the epitome of Legalist thought because it was they who summarized the correct parts of the progressive ideas from the past Legalists, Mohists, Nameists, and Militarists, as well as the practical experiences of reform activities by Li Kui, Wu Qi, Shang Yang, and others. They systematically proposed the reform and revolutionary ideas of Legalism, which were used by Qin Shi Huang, ultimately leading the Qin state to unify the six states under the guidance of Legalist principles. When explaining why reform was necessary, Xun Kuang and Han Fei put forward the view of historical evolution, believing that history is constantly moving forward. They cited primitive society, the late primitive society of Gun and Yu, the late slave-owning states of Shang Tang and Ji Fa (though slave society was still developing), and the late period of slave society at that time to demonstrate that the retrogressive route of returning to the past was absurd and impractical. Similarly, there was once a popular idea called ‘Walking the Tutor’s Path again,’ which openly promoted various reactionary and toxic ideas, claiming that because Marx and Engels critically absorbed the reasonable content of German classical philosophy, we should also read German classical philosophy, etc. They rationalized their extensive reading of what was supposedly progressive and revolutionary at the time. For people with such ideas and harboring such thoughts, the ideas of Legalism should be used to tell them: these books were created by the bourgeoisie at the time to oppose reactionary feudalism. However, when feudalism had been abolished and the bourgeoisie itself had become thoroughly reactionary, anyone who still used bourgeois books from hundreds of years ago as ‘progressive’ ideological weapons would definitely be ridiculed by the modern proletariat.
Chapter 1 of “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy” summarizes the class struggles since the Han Dynasty. The characteristic of the Han Dynasty is that Confucianism was further systematized and theologicalized during the Baihu Guan meeting after Dong Zhongshu, transforming into a religion. Meanwhile, the Legalist landlords of the Western Han further developed Legalist doctrines in the struggle, shifting from “emphasizing the roots and suppressing the branches” to “both roots and branches benefiting,” beginning to implement state-run handicrafts, nationalize salt and iron, and suppress the speculation activities of slave owners in industry and commerce. However, after reaching a certain stage of development, the landlord class also began to differentiate, with conflicts between large landlords and peasants intensifying. To safeguard their class interests, these large landlords deliberately adopted Confucian ideas as tools to rule the people, leading the landlord class to move toward the anti-legalist side of respecting Confucianism and opposing the law. At the same time, Legalist landlords still existed, but they could no longer dominate the regime. Thus, the conflict between Confucianism and Legalism later shifted into a struggle between two routes within the landlord class. After being suppressed, the Legalist landlords, due to escalating social contradictions, triggered peasant uprisings, which swept away the feudal manor system of the large landlord class. The fragmentation of the landlord class into regional powers was somewhat restrained. Under these circumstances, the Legalist landlords had the opportunity to leverage the decline of the large landlord class to re-establish Legalist regimes and implement Legalist policies, such as during the Eastern Han. It can be seen that the Confucian-Legalist struggle ultimately depended on peasant wars to drive it. Some people now often attribute the rise and fall of various landlord groups in feudal society (such as Liu Bang, Cao Cao, Li Shimin, etc.) to their so-called “personal talents” or “court struggles,” which is purely idealist. For example, people like Lin Biao liked to talk about “coup d’état history,” claiming that dynastic changes were caused by palace intrigues within the landlord class, and thus fantasized about when they could stage a military coup to become emperor. However, they tend to overestimate their own strength and underestimate the revolutionary power. Hua Guofeng and Ye Jianying once boasted about “fighting slowly with speed,” arresting four people, but if Shanghai had not adopted a surrenderist line and resisted, their tricks would have been impossible to succeed. Now, Xi Jinping believes that continuously strengthening fascist dictatorship can keep him securely in power, but other bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie like Bo Xilai cannot stage a coup to overthrow him. Yet, no matter how much effort he puts in, he cannot stop the increasingly fierce wave of struggle by the Chinese people. The Chinese revisionists will inevitably repeat the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is independent of the will of any superstitious historical idealists who believe in palace intrigues.
Chapter 2 of Section 3 of “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”
Dong Zhongshu’s section is very typical. In the TS textbook, he is loudly promoted as someone who “abolished the Hundred Schools and upheld Confucianism alone,” and it is said that Emperor Wu of Han adopted Dong Zhongshu’s advice to promote “Confucianism in appearance and Legalism in substance,” creating a basis for the so-called “merging of Confucianism and Legalism” and the false dichotomy of two ideological lines. But in reality, Emperor Wu mainly adopted Legalist figures, and Dong Zhongshu was ignored. At most, his individual sayings were used to deceive the people. When Dong Zhongshu saw that he was not being promoted by Emperor Wu, he began to spread rumors using superstitions like divination and astrology, and was arrested, nearly dying. In the end, he did not die but had to flee. It shows that during Emperor Wu’s time, the Legalist line was still upheld. Dong Zhongshu’s ideas were only adopted later, during the reign of Emperor Yuan of Han, when the large landowning class seized power and the Han Dynasty began to respect Confucianism and oppose Legalism.
Dong Zhongshu’s teachings systematized and theologicalized Confucian thought mainly through a set of very superficial and forced explanations. For example, distorting the theory of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements, claiming that Yin-Yang follows the will of “Heaven” and fluctuates, thus forming the four seasons. Then, distorting the Five Elements, claiming that the five elements are each in one direction of Heaven and Earth. He then forcibly applied the moral and ethical framework of Confucianism to these theories, creating what is called the “Three Bonds and Five Constants,” which were then said to be dictated by Heaven. There are also claims like “Heaven has Yin and Yang, and the body also has two kinds of greed and benevolence.” Honestly, these ideas seem very primitive today, but in the history of feudal society, they played a significant role. Because the concept of the Three Bonds and Five Constants was promoted by Dong Zhongshu as “heavenly and righteous,” even those who did not understand this theory of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements would be influenced by living in a Confucian society for a long time, leading them to believe that the Three Bonds and Five Constants are heavenly and righteous, revealing the disgusting aspects of Confucianism.
Today, many people still use the banner of “traditional culture” to promote this set of Confucian remnants, claiming that those who do not obey the Three Bonds and Five Constants are “not Chinese,” oppressing the Chinese people with TS, parents oppressing children, husbands oppressing wives, looking for reasons. This is simply ridiculous and hateful. These low-level ideas fabricated by Confucianists should be considered absurd by anyone with a bit of a class-conscious perspective. Treating citizens as slaves of rulers, children as slaves of parents, wives as slaves of husbands—are these reasonable? Many petty bourgeois now recognize that this set of ideas is “feudal garbage,” but many Confucianists still shamelessly imitate their predecessors and shout that “Chinese morals are declining because of the lack of Confucian ideas.” In the future, this set of ideas must be thoroughly criticized and eradicated.
《A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy》第三章第三节
This time, I read about Legalist Shang Hongyang’s counterattack against the reactionary ideas of Confucianism. Shang Hongyang at that time refuted various fallacies of the Confucian dog, and even pointed at Confucius’s nose to curse him as “violent, greedy, foolish, and ignorant,” exposing the false saint’s disguise. It is worth mentioning that the TS textbook hardly mentions him, but instead extols what is called “the first among a hundred Confucians,” Dong Zhongshu, revealing the true nature of TS’s Confucian dog. The TS’s advocacy of state-owned salt and iron was also distorted by them to defend their bureaucratic monopoly capitalism, even to the extent of celebrating the anniversary of “state-owned salt and iron.” However, at that time, the Legalists’ support for state-owned salt and iron, although also for their own exploitation, played a role in suppressing mercantile slavery, speculative profiteering, and protecting small farmers and artisans, which objectively had progressive significance. But TS’s bureaucratic monopoly capitalism, under the guise of “state ownership,” is merely swallowing private capital, with no real progress because they do not allow private capital to speculate, but instead lead in “official corruption,” engaging in even more aggressive speculation than private capital, and oppressing small producers more viciously, causing their bankruptcy. Today, the infamous urban management and rural management are the pawns used by TS to oppress small producers. TS’s analogy between salt and iron state ownership and their bureaucratic monopoly capitalism is completely absurd.
Chapter 4 of ‘A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy’
During the Eastern Han period, because of the dominance of Confucian landlords, superstitions related to divination and astrology began to proliferate. In fact, these things are all very primitive, similar to how nowadays the peeling paint reveals a map of China, or how some foolish experts in TypeScript (TS) forcibly interpret a Han Dynasty artifact inscribed with “Five Stars Rise in the East and Benefit China” as a prophecy of TS’s rise, or how babies are saluted immediately after birth as a sign of patriotism—these are all new-era superstitions and divinations. To maintain their rule, TS also began to follow the old path of Han Dynasty Confucians, openly promoting such absurd lies.
At that time, legalist thinkers like Huan Tan and Wang Chong firmly opposed these superstitions and made strong criticisms against the theory of the immortality of the soul (the idea that the soul remains after death). They used the relationship between a candle and fire to illustrate the connection between form and spirit (body and mind), believing that once the candle burns out, the fire will extinguish, so after death the spirit will dissipate—there is no such thing as ghosts or gods. Wang Chong’s famous saying, “Illness causes worry and fear; when worry accumulates, ghosts appear,” is still widely circulated today, meaning that the so-called ghost and god stories are just people’s fantasies, related to their poor psychological states. People interpret their illnesses as being caused by “evil spirits” or believe they are haunted by ghosts because they miss someone dearly (whether positively or negatively), imagining that their souls are not dead and can exist as ghosts. Thinking back, I used to believe in the immortality of spirits when reading horror novels, even imagining that I would become a ghost after death. But now I realize how laughable that is—it’s even less credible than the legalist landlords from thousands of years ago.
Chapter 1 of “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”
After the Eastern Han peasant uprising struck down the Confucian idea of “Mandate of Heaven” that endowed the emperor with ruling power, the large landowning class began to change tactics, absorbing the passive elements of Daoism and creating “Metaphysics” (玄学). Its core still followed the Confucian system, but it incorporated some Daoist features, using ideas like “wu wei (non-action) and non-doing” (无为而无不为), “valuing nothing” (贵无) to lull the people into obedience, telling them not to resist, to be content and obedient, and even falsely claiming that the suffering of the laboring people was all imagined, turning black into white. Furthermore, the ruling class also sought help from Buddhism, using concepts like karma, reincarnation, and other supernatural beliefs to deceive the people, making them endure the hardships of reality and attributing these sufferings to the elusive past lives, while encouraging them to pursue an equally elusive afterlife to escape suffering. Today, many petty bourgeoisie, due to their lack of understanding of social laws and Marxism, cannot comprehend their oppression, and thus say “it’s all fate,” and have even invented words like “Buddha-ism” and “lying flat” (躺平). In fact, the term “Buddha-ism” contains many of the dregs of past Buddhism, and it is not an exaggeration to say that it vulgarizes the reactionary remnants of Buddhism, which should be sharply criticized.
《A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy》 Chapter 4, Section 2
During the late Eastern Han Dynasty, the Legalist landlord Cao Cao advocated the Legalist路线, did not believe in the Mandate of Heaven, did not believe in Xuanxue, and killed the talkative and boastful descendants of Confucius, Kong Rong, attempting to restore the dictatorship of the landlord class. He established the unified Cao Wei Legalist regime in the north. Cao Cao was able to implement a merit-based political system, forming a sharp contrast with Confucian nepotism, and was capable of collective decision-making by consulting numerous landlord class strategists, avoiding subjective biases. Militarily, he employed simple dialectical and materialist思想, advocating reliance on human subjective initiative to grasp the situation of war, thereby defeating the enemy. He opposed the Confucian plea to heaven for victory and believed in依法治军 (rule of law in military discipline), rejecting the loose discipline of Confucian “礼治军” (礼治军). Economically, he implemented military colonization, developed feudal state ownership, and protected small peasant economy, which objectively promoted productive forces. In literature, he opposed exaggerated styles, advocating meaningful writing, and in 《龟虽寿》, he criticized the fatalistic view of “death and life are determined by heaven, wealth and honor depend on heaven,” believing that “the period of盈缩 (expansion and contraction) is not only in heaven, and the福 (blessing) of养怡 (nurturing and calming) can prolong life,” relying on human subjective initiative to extend lifespan. However, he also opposed the immortality of the soul, believing that although humans can prolong life, they cannot achieve eternal life, asserting that “神龟虽寿,犹有尽时,腾蛇乘雾,终为土灰” (Even a divine turtle has its end, and a soaring snake will turn to dust). Overall, Cao Cao was a progressive Legalist landlord, but he also suppressed the Yellow Turban uprising and held some superstitious views, showing class limitations, which must be pointed out. However, later Confucianists did not correctly affirm Cao Cao’s achievements and criticize his errors; instead, they frantically slandered him and completely negated him. Before the Song Dynasty, ancient people regarded Cao Wei as the “orthodox” regime of the Three Kingdoms (although orthodoxy was mistaken, it reflected the positive评价 of Cao Wei by Legalist landlords at the time, believing Cao Wei’s Legalist regime was most qualified to rule China). Cao Cao’s评价 was also high because during the Sui and Tang dynasties, the Legalist路线 was largely implemented, and Cao Wei was relatively correctly评价. However, during the Song Dynasty, due to the rampant Confucianists, a retrogressive路线 was promoted, advocating the “正统” (orthodox) theory, and praising Liu Bei (also a Legalist, but less so than Cao Cao; he initially followed Confucian路线, turning to Legalism after meeting Zhuge Liang, but ultimately his Legalist implementation was incomplete). Liu Bei was distorted as a great Confucian dog, claiming to be a “汉室宗亲” (relative of the Han imperial family) (ironically, during Liu Bei’s lifetime, landlords regarded this as nonsense and mocked him), claiming “restoring the Han” was superior to Cao Cao, the “treacherous rebel.” The respect for Liu Bei and criticism of Cao Cao can be said to be a black wind raised by Song Dynasty Confucianists, spreading widely after Luo Guanzhong’s 《Romance of the Three Kingdoms》, and still having lingering influence today. During the socialist period, Cao Cao’s reputation was restored, and his achievements were correctly affirmed from a historical materialist perspective. However, with the resurgence of capitalism, to promote the融合 of Confucianism and Legalism and advocate正统主义 (orthodoxism) (revisionists are unworthy of the name, so they are exposed for their true nature, and naturally follow Confucius’s “name must match reality” stance, promoting orthodoxy), they began to slander Cao Cao again, creating a foolish TV series based on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, depicting Cao Cao as a “ambitious” schemer and treacherous minister, even fabricating vulgar stories about his preference for “married women,” wildly praising Liu Bei and criticizing Cao Cao, and deifying Zhuge Liang. In the future, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms must be thoroughly criticized and the distorted history restored.
However, 《A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy》 itself also has some problems, mainly exaggerating Cao Cao’s late-life issues, believing Cao Cao believed in the Mandate of Heaven in his later years. Cao Cao’s phrase “If the Mandate of Heaven is with me, I am like King Wen of Zhou” does not mean he personally believed in the Mandate, but is a反证 (counter-evidence). The context is that Sun Quan was urging Cao Cao to declare himself emperor, then falsely claimed it was the Mandate of Heaven, and Xiahou Dun also used the Mandate as a reason for Cao Cao to become emperor, to which Cao Cao replied this phrase. It is more accurate to say Cao Cao opposed declaring himself emperor rather than believing in the Mandate; the true meaning is “Even if, as you say, I have the Mandate, I should be like King Wen of Zhou” (the unfinished sentence implying that if even the Mandate is so, then without it, there is no reason to declare oneself emperor). The “苟” (if) reflects Cao Cao’s reasoning based on假设 (hypothesis) of Sun Quan and Xiahou Dun, rather than a genuine belief in the Mandate. In fact, compared to this phrase, Cao Cao’s previous statement “施于有政，亦是为政” (governing is also politics) better reflects his compromise with Confucianism, meaning that practicing filial piety at home is also politics, using Confucian filial piety to deceive the people, and Cao Cao’s引用 (quote) of this phrase was clearly to训诫 (teach) Cao Pi to “be filial” and follow his wishes, completing his unfinished unification事业. Although the目的 (purpose) was Legalist, the方法 (method) was Confucian, showing limitations. Of course, even so, it does not mean Cao Cao believed in the Mandate of Heaven, so this book’s评价 (evaluation) of Cao Cao is somewhat inaccurate, possibly due to incomplete understanding at the time.
《A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy》第四章第三节
After reading, I found that many reactionary dross in history still has a widespread influence today, just in a different guise, such as metaphysics. Metaphysics originally referred to using some reactionary ideas from Taoism to embellish Confucianism, to uphold the Three Bonds and Five Constants of Confucianism, thus giving rise to concepts like “noble emptiness,” pursuing an illusory spiritual world, and telling people to “wu wei” (non-action), not to fight against the exploiting class, but to be content and obedient. This way, they believed one could achieve “nothing is impossible,” which meant eliminating all suffering. There is a phrase called “de yi wang xing,” now a pejorative term, meaning someone who exposes their ugly true nature in their arrogance, but at that time it was a praise term among metaphysicians. “De yi wang xing” originally was called “de yi wang xiang,” originating from metaphysician Wang Bi. The “yi” he referred to is spirit, and “xiang” or “xing” is form. “De yi wang xing” means that when the spirit is transcendent, one can forget the material world and all suffering in reality. Because the spirit is detached, the material world doesn’t matter to them, so they can do whatever they want without regard. Later, because metaphysics gained a bad reputation, metaphysicians became clowns, and they used “de yi wang xing”—which praised their libertine style—as a pejorative term.
Nowadays, the term “metaphysics” is widely used in the gaming field, regarded as a method to obtain high-level game items. Although it seems different from the “metaphysics” mentioned by Confucian scholars, the core is the same. The so-called “metaphysics” now most directly involves using the doctrine of fate to justify the reactionary nature of games. Many petty bourgeois players, unable to obtain high-level items, realize that game companies are deceiving them, forcing them to spend crazy amounts of money on high-level items. They initially want to “quit” the game, but the “metaphysics” rhetoric distorts the essence of their deception, claiming that it is because players do not follow “heaven’s will” or understand “metaphysics,” while the actual principle is mysterious and unfathomable. They promote the idea that by following various strange and absurd methods, players can surely get high-level items, denying that game companies have a reactionary tendency to exploit money. This leads more petty bourgeois players to be deceived, either continuing to indulge in the game hoping for vanity and status, or more dangerously, like gamblers, pouring more money into the game, hoping to draw high-level items through so-called “metaphysics.” This completely unrealistic doctrine negates the fact that game data is manipulated by the game companies, promoting “sincerity will bring results” and “creating something from nothing,” as if players can alter online data just by thinking (ridiculous like The Matrix). Furthermore, this methodology contains a world view of idealism, which outside of gaming can lead petty bourgeois to believe in fate, blaming their oppressed situation on “bad luck,” and thinking that “metaphysics” can help them escape this plight, thus being fooled by the bourgeoisie.
Even more outrageous is that many petty bourgeois gamers now generally believe an extremely reactionary creed: “Metaphysics can’t save the wicked, but paying money can change fate.” The first half means that metaphysics is only useful for those “lucky” ones with “fate,” and for those without “fate,” even metaphysics is useless. It combines the doctrine of fate with the idea of innate qualities (luck). The second half covers up class differences, claiming that no matter how much money you spend, you cannot upgrade your account, denying the greed of game companies, as if game companies are truly “fair,” leveling players based on “luck” rather than the amount of money spent. The first half further promotes the doctrine of fate, while the second attempts to conceal class differences in the game. Such pleasures dull the mind and degrade the brain!
Section 4 of Chapter 4 of “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”
Guo Xiang is a very interesting person. “A History of Ancient Chinese History” classifies him as a thorough idealist and mystic, believing that his concept of “Xuanming Realm” was meant to lull the working people into complacency. “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”, on the other hand, places Guo Xiang among semi-materialists, thinking that he opposed the idea of something coming from nothing and supported the view that things arise spontaneously, which is a materialist perspective. However, the description of the “Xuanming Realm” in “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy” is quite vague, making one doubt whether Guo Xiang truly held such views. Personally, I tend to think that “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy” sometimes isolates individual statements and misinterprets them, because it seems suspicious that someone advocating for the “Xuanming Realm” would also support materialism. A more reasonable explanation is that the so-called “self-creation of things” mainly refers to the automatic generation of phenomena, that is, “existence.” But simply discussing the issue of “existence” does not resolve the divide between materialism and idealism, because “existence” can have both material and ideal explanations. Therefore, describing the “existence” of things as natural and reasonable can also imply “self-creation of things.” From this perspective, the differences between Guo Xiang and other mystics are merely about “name and principle” versus “nature,” that is, whether to use Taoist teachings to uphold Confucianism or to see Confucianism as obstructive, discard it, and instead believe in Taoism, turning “name and principle” into serving “nature.” People like Ji Kang are examples of the latter, but he was clearly not an idealist, and Guo Xiang is similar. They both represent the most unrestrained and uninhibited members of the landlord class, because at that time they had already seized power. To justify their luxurious lifestyles, they directly claimed it was their “nature” or “natural.” On the other hand, they also needed the working people to immerse themselves in the “Xuanming Realm,” so they would no longer think about the suffering in reality or resist. A more modern way of putting it is that Guo Xiang believed in the “automatic generation” theory.
Concise History of Chinese Philosophy Chapter 4, Sections 5, 6, 7
To be supplemented
Chapter 1 of “Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”
After the Sui and Tang dynasties, a prominent feature was the trend of convergence among Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. This was because the class contradictions in feudal society further intensified. Whether it was the superstition of divination in Han Confucianism or metaphysical speculation, they were severely criticized. During the Southern and Northern Dynasties, the rise of monastic economy and the expansion of the landlord class of Buddhism and Daoism led to their adoption by rulers to expand influence in China, further merging with Confucian ideas, and being used by successive rulers to lull the people. On the other hand, due to the needs of productive forces development in the Tang Dynasty, science and technology developed on a large scale, providing richer concrete material for materialist philosophy. Figures like Lü Cai, a versatile Legalist, appeared at this time, knowledgeable in various scientific fields of the era. Lü Cai, representing the interests of small and medium landowning classes, was a materialist Legalist. This also shows that any materialist philosopher had to have specific research in science and technology of the time. Many Legalists, because of their research on agriculture, criticized Confucianism for discouraging production and harming the foundation of the state. Many ancient Legalist philosophers, such as Wang Chong, Cai Lun, Liu Hong, Zu Chongzhi, Shen Kuo, and Xu Guangqi, arrived at materialist conclusions through their research on various scientific disciplines. This once again reminds us that without understanding specific sciences, it is impossible to learn true materialism. For example, Confucianists at the time promoted ideas like the responsiveness between heaven and man, feng shui superstitions, the system of Na Yin (dividing surnames into five categories based on pronunciation, each with different destinies), and the Eight Characters of Birth. After studying astronomy, Lü Cai found that the responsiveness between heaven and man was false; after studying linguistics, he found that Na Yin was also false (due to significant pronunciation changes across dynasties, such claims are completely unfounded); after studying geography and history, he found feng shui and the Eight Characters of Birth to be false. Liu Zongyuan wrote “Heavenly Questions,” systematically answering various questions about worldview posed by Qu Yuan in “Tian Wen,” indicating that Liu Zongyuan also had some research in various scientific fields, thus able to draw relatively correct materialist conclusions. From this, it is clear that Lenin’s teaching in “The Tasks of the Komsomol” that communists should be good at absorbing all modern scientific knowledge is fully consistent with the development law of the history of materialist philosophy. We should also seriously study various scientific disciplines and criticize the prevalent idealist fallacies today.
It must be pointed out here that the peasant uprisings at the end of the Sui and Tang dynasties dealt a heavy blow to aristocratic clans and large monastery landlords, which allowed Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism to decline philosophically. Their old fallacies, such as metaphysics, collapsed. Moreover, it was precisely because the peasant uprisings transformed the feudal social relations and promoted the progress of productive forces that scientific and technological prosperity appeared at that time, giving rise to a batch of Legalist philosophers. In feudal society, the class struggle between the peasantry and the landlord class was the fundamental driving force for social development.
Additionally, a small correction should be made: “Concise History of Chinese Philosophy” was probably written before the authors studied carefully, as they grouped Yang Jian and Yang Guang into the same category, but this does not affect the overall reading.
《A Brief History of Chinese Philosophy》第五章第二节
The second section of Chapter Five mainly criticizes four Buddhist schools of the Tang Dynasty: Tiantai, Yishi, Huayan, and Chan. Among these four schools, all are very typical. Tiantai advocates the opposition of “name” and “form” (色), but both are based on “emptiness” (空). The so-called “name” refers to consciousness, and “form” refers to materiality. Tiantai states that “form” depends on “name” and does not exist objectively, which is essentially promoting idealism. However, directly stating this is too simplistic, so it then claims that both “name” and “form” originate from “emptiness,” similar to the concept of “creation from nothing” in metaphysics. The core of this “emptiness” is the “mind,” from which “name” and “form” are derived. Finally, Tiantai also advocates meditation practices to reach the “mind” from “name,” achieving self-return (consciousness returning to the “source”). It is clear that this set of ideas is pure nonsense and idealism, but when modernized and dressed in a “scientific” guise, it becomes different. Today, some Buddhists and idealist factions in quantum mechanics converge, promoting the so-called “all is emptiness,” forcibly denying the infinite divisibility of matter, claiming that “quantum” is the smallest unit, and that the existence of “Planck constant” means that lengths and times smaller than this constant are nothing—coinciding with the Buddhist concept of “all phenomena are empty.” This puts theologians on a pedestal while scientists look on. The phrase “form is emptiness, emptiness is form” is also a trick created by the Tiantai school, erasing the boundary between “nothing” and “being,” deliberately describing matter as illusory, and convincing people to deny the reality of worldly suffering to deceive the working people and prevent them from rebelling.
Yishi (Yogacara) is also very typical. Its founder is Xuanzang, who was highly praised in “Journey to the West.” Xuanzang translated many foreign Buddhist theories from India, forming this school. On the surface, it is called “Existential School,” seemingly different from the “Void School,” but in fact, it only admits that “being” is the “consciousness” of the mind, ultimately promoting idealism. Yogacara advocates the concept of “attachment,” divided into “self-attachment” and “dharma-attachment.” The former means stubbornly believing oneself to be objectively real, and the latter means stubbornly believing the material world exists objectively. Clearly, Yogacara is an extremely absurd form of idealism; it denies material existence and even the “self.” Like Hume, it defies the heavens. Xuanzang himself probably did not believe in this set of ideas, and it is said that he went insane after translating the Prajnaparamita Sutra, possibly due to mental issues. Moreover, Xuanzang’s disciples did not believe in these ghostly theories either. For example, his disciple Bianji had an affair with Princess Gao Yang and was executed by Emperor Taizong, indicating that Buddhist advocates promoting “attachment” are merely encouraging the working people to endure exploitation and oppression, while they themselves never do. Additionally, Yogacara’s “eight consciousnesses” (八识) now are called “the sixth sense” (第六感), but still originate from Buddhism. The five senses are the first to fifth “consciousnesses,” and the so-called “sixth sense” (第六识) mystifies perception, claiming it is some kind of a priori entity (similar to Kant’s “understanding”). Since the first six consciousnesses are considered “lower,” they are called “discriminative consciousness.” The “seventh sense” (末那识), also called the “manas consciousness,” mystifies human rational understanding, claiming it is some kind of a priori “rational thinking” (Kant calls it “a priori intuition”), and the “eighth sense” (第八识) is said to be the source of all previous seven “consciousnesses,” with “self-attachment” and “dharma-attachment” originating from it, and the material world coming from the eighth consciousness. It is also popularly called “Alaya consciousness” (阿赖耶识), which is exaggerated as divine, but in fact, it is similar to Hegel’s absolute spirit—complete nonsense. Yogacara relies on this set of ghostly theories of the eight consciousnesses to forcibly connect consciousness and the material world. It remains popular today, but a clear translation reveals its extreme absurdity.
Huayan (Avatamsaka) school advocates four “Dharma realms,” repeatedly emphasizing that the illusory spiritual world and the material world are eternally harmonious, portraying the feudal system as an absolute and harmonious “Tianli” (天理), similar to the “Heavenly Principle,” to discourage rebellion among the laboring masses. It also deceives them into believing that as long as they “settle down and establish their destiny,” they can enter “Heaven” in this world. Such rhetoric eventually became one of the theoretical foundations of Neo-Confucianism.
Chan (Zen) is the most rebellious of the four. “Lay down the butcher’s knife and become a Buddha on the spot”—I say this sentence is actually very reactionary. This is the view of Chan Buddhism, which became popular during the Tang Dynasty. The name “Chan” is derived from the meditation practice—Zen. However, Chan itself opposes the complicated doctrines and ascetic practices of Buddhism because they hinder the pacification of the laboring people. To spread Buddhism among the working class, Chan emerged to meet this need. The founder of Chan Buddhism, the Sixth Patriarch Huineng, truly established and spread it widely in China and even abroad. Huineng believed that the Buddha path does not require arduous practice; he said that humans are inherently Buddha, and human nature is Buddha-nature. His idea was that when people eliminate all distractions and desires, they become Buddhas. Therefore, human nature and Buddha-nature are fundamentally empty. Huineng’s Chan teachings are essentially the most extreme form of subjective idealism. Other subjective idealists believe that sensations are subjective creations, and they acknowledge a connection between the objective world and human perception. Huineng, however, directly denies all sensations and objective events, calling them empty, which eliminates the object of cognition and fundamentally cancels out the core philosophical issue. Huineng’s method of Chan states that as long as a person abandons all worldly happiness, human nature becomes Buddha-nature; but if they cling to any happiness in the real world, then even the Buddhas become ordinary people. Based on this, Huineng proposed the concept of sudden enlightenment—if a person abandons all distractions in an instant, they can become a Buddha immediately, without any practice or accumulation of virtue. The idea of “lay down the butcher’s knife and become a Buddha on the spot” is a concrete expression of Huineng’s sudden enlightenment, which is actually a defense of the extremely reactionary landlord class. It means that no matter how much the reactionary landlords oppress and exploit, how many people they kill, and how much blood they shed, as long as they put down the butcher’s knife and abandon distractions, they can become Buddhas instantly, and thus have no sins. Huineng is truly a reactionary dog.
There are many examples of Huineng’s subjective idealist ideas, which everyone should have heard of. For example, when Huineng was competing for the position of the Sixth Patriarch, he competed with another disciple to compose a verse (similar to a Buddhist chant in poetic form). The Fifth Patriarch of Chan was going to select his successor based on the quality of their verses. The other disciple finished first, with the verse: “The body is the Bodhi tree, the mind is like a bright mirror, constantly wipe it clean, do not let dust settle.” Huineng thought this disciple did not fully develop the subjective idealism of Chan. So he composed a new verse: “Bodhi originally has no tree, the bright mirror is also not a stand, originally there is nothing, where can dust settle?” The Fifth Patriarch of Chan saw that Huineng had elevated Buddhist subjective idealism to such heights, even more reactionary and dog-like, and thus passed the robe to him, making Huineng the Sixth Patriarch of Chan.
Chapter 5, Sections 3 and 4 of “A Concise History of Chinese Philosophy”
This study revealed that the “History of Ancient China” missed an outstanding Legalist landlord, Lü Cai. This person seems not very famous, but many of the remarkable achievements in early Tang Dynasty are related to him. During the Tang Dynasty, the “Yinyang Book,” an encyclopedia used to explain daily life rituals and norms, was mixed with a large amount of superstitious and supernatural content, which displeased Li Shimin. He ordered Lü Cai to correct it, removing many idealist contents. Lü Cai was a versatile scholar, knowledgeable in various fields, and he systematically refuted the idealist contents in the “Yinyang Book.” The original version of the “Yinyang Book” at that time, like many superstitions today, was full of astrology, divination, Feng Shui for tombs and houses, and the “Na Yin” (a system that assigns a fate based on the birth date and surname, integrating it into the five tones of palace, Shang, Jiao, Zhi, Yu), etc. Lü Cai used contemporary scientific knowledge to refute these, most famously opposing the “Lu Ming” (destiny based on birth date) theory, citing examples like Qin Shi Huang, Emperor Wu of Han, and the 400,000 Zhao soldiers killed at Changping to demonstrate its absurdity. He also studied linguistics to disprove the absurdity of the “Na Yin” system. After correction, the “Yinyang Book” was published and spread widely. Although it is now lost in China, two volumes of the “Great Tang Yinyang Book” are preserved in Japan. It is worth mentioning that Japan’s so-called “Onmyōdō” (Yin-Yang Way) also derives its name from this. After being introduced to Japan, Lü Cai’s “Yinyang Book” became part of the knowledge used by the Onmyōshi (similar to Japan’s astronomical, calendrical, and meteorological institutions), serving as the intellectual basis for the ruling landlord class. Of course, later these people changed, merging with Shinto and turning into Confucian dogs, becoming hereditary shamans and court officials, which is another story. Lü Cai also participated in composing “Qin Wang Po Zhen Yue” (Music for the Qin King Breaking the Formation) and wrote some military books. He debated Xuanzang (the famous Buddhist monk), though the details are unreliable now; it is generally believed that Lü Cai opposed Xuanzang’s idealism and that Lü Cai lost the debate. Historical records particularly note that Lü Cai was self-taught. Although we still do not know how he learned these things, it shows that practice leads to true knowledge and that struggle enhances talent.
Additionally, Han Yu is also a notable figure. Today, TS (a reference to a certain media or group) heavily promotes Han Yu, even portraying him as a frustrated official, which is actually an attempt to promote a retrograde Confucianism and revive Han Yu’s reputation. During Han Yu’s lifetime, a movement for classical prose (Guwen) was initiated, somewhat similar to the New Culture Movement of the Republic of China, both aiming at reform through literature and language. Today, TS praises Han Yu as much as they praise Hu Shi, making Han Yu a hero of the classical prose movement. In fact, the so-called classical prose movement aimed to return to the style of the legalist landlords of Cao Wei during the Three Kingdoms period (Cao Cao, Cao Pi), emphasizing plain, sincere writing and opposing ornate, superficial, contentless styles. The actual leaders of this movement were Liu Zongyuan and Liu Yuxi, both of whom were also legalist landlords. The so-called “Horse Talk” and similar writings by Han Yu are merely superficially similar to “Guwen”; they are more like formal imitations rather than true representations, because the style of “Guwen” was meant to serve practical content. Han Yu’s Confucian dogmatic writings are detached from reality, so even if his style appears similar, it is not truly so.