Re examination of the mystery of “Confucius meets Nanzi”: did Confucius do anything wrong?

Spread the love



Re examination of the doubtful case of “Zi Jian Nan Zi”

If old Master Kong had done something that he could not explain clearly, he would have met Nanzi. According to the Analects of Confucius – Yong ye, “when Zi saw Nanzi, Zilu did not say. The master said by oath: ‘if you give me something, heaven hates it! Heaven hates it!'” the annotation of the thirteen classics quoted kong’an of the Han Dynasty as a note: “Nanzi, lady Wei Ling, is promiscuous,… Swear, swear. Zilu did not say, so the master swore.” Zhu Xi’s “notes to the collection”: “Zilu was displeased because the teacher saw this fornication as a disgrace. He swore. He swore. So he swore. No, it means that it is not in line with the ceremony, and it is not in line with the Tao. He is disgusted and rejected.” Li Zehou’s Translation: “Confucius paid a visit to Nanzi, but Zilu was not happy. Confucius swore, ‘if I do something wrong, God will punish me! God will punish me!'” most of today’s annotations to this chapter are similar to this.

Such records and explanations make the “son meets Nanzi” confusing: Confucius met a beautiful and licentious woman, which caused his students’ disgust (Zilu did not say, “speak” and “be happy”). That’s all right. The key is that Confucius quickly swore that “God will punish me” when he saw the students unhappy. How can it not make people worry? No wonder those who belittled Confucius often made a fuss about this. During the “May 4th Movement” and “down with the kongjiadian”, Lin Yutang wrote a one act play “son meets Nanzi”, which was staged by teachers and students of the second normal school of Shandong Province (in Qufu) (1929). As a result, the descendants of Confucius jointly appealed to the Ministry of education, which alerted Chiang Kai Shek and personally ordered “strict punishment” and caused a sensation.

In this way, several key words are interpreted as follows: arrow = oath (swear), so = if (if), no = wrong (do wrong), Zhi = me (refer to Confucius himself). What makes people confused is: 1 “Arrow” and “oath” are acceptable. There are many use cases in ancient books. The question is whether it means “swear”? 2. “Suo” is generally an auxiliary pronoun, and it is not common to use the hypothetical conjunction “RuO (if)”. 3. “no” means “wrong (doing wrong)”, which is also very reluctantly. 4. in ancient Chinese, “Zhi” is generally a demonstrative pronoun, which can refer to the third person “he” or “it”, but “Zhi” of “tianyuzhi” means “I”, which is also unconventional.

There has been little objection to the view that the “arrow” of “the master’s arrow” is consistent with “oath”. The key is whether it means “swear”? YangBoJun and Li Zehou both translated “Confucius’ vows” as “Confucius’ vows”. It is obvious that “Zhi” has not been found and has been ignored, exposing the defects of this annotation. “Rites · big shooting”: “the swearing of Si he on the west side said:” the Duke shoots the Marquis, the doctor shoots the ginseng… “” and “Guoyu · Yue language”: “jurjian… Is the swearing of his parents’ brother Kun: ‘… The second and third sons of the general and his wife take a fan’.” it can be seen that “Zhi” is the object of “oath”, that is, the audience. From the words of “oath”, it is a serious and formal language from top to bottom, namely “warning and order”. Quote the “oath” in “rites of Rites” and Zheng Xuan’s note in “notes to the thirteen classics”: “the oath still tells.” “Erya · Shiyan”: “Gao, oath, and honor”. GuoPu notes: “both (Gao and oath) are about it. Be diligent and conscientious to warn the public.” “Zhou Li, Chun Guan, Dian Ming”: “swear to the son of heaven.” Sun Yirang just said, “an agreement is an oath. By extension, an oath can also be taken if there is a policy or an order.” “Yi Zhou Shu · world capture”: “use small animals, sheep, dogs and pigs to worship the gods, water and soil in the oath society.” Kong Chao noted: “swear, tell.” It can be seen that the “arrow” of the “master’s arrow” means “swear”, which means “admonish”, not “swear”. The sentence means “master admonishes Zilu”.

Zanglin’s miscellaneous notes on classics and righteousness: “where the ancients swore so many ‘things not to do’,” Zuozhuan · the twenty fourth year of Xi “: Chong er said: ‘what not to do with my uncle is like white water’…. this reporter’s brief words,” what not to do “are even more swearing.” It can be seen that the idea of interpreting “Suo” as “if” is: “to give what is not, heaven hates it” is an oath, in which “Suo” is taught as “if”. However, it is necessary to consider and demonstrate whether the two words “give or not, and heaven is disgusted with it” and “what is not with my uncle is like white water” are the same sentence pattern, and whether the two words “Suo” are synonymous. Compare the following three sentences:

A. those who do not agree with uncle are like white water. (Zuozhuan · twenty four years, assumptions about possible future conditions)

B. heaven is tired of giving what he doesn’t. (Analects of Confucius Yong ye, explanation and explanation of the established event)

C. for the women’s camp, the water will arrive and the watch will be extinguished. (Warring States policy: Qi, Han and Wei attack Yan, explanation and explanation of the completed event)

B. the structural similarity of B and C exceeds that of B and a, so B and C are isomorphic, and B and a are only approximate. It is obvious that the “Suo” of “giving or not, heaven hates” should be synonymous with the “Suo” of “women run, water all come, destroy the table”, and should not be synonymous with the “Suo” of “those who do not agree with uncle are like white water”. So, what does “Suo” mean?

“Nvsuoyingzhe” is a typical word structure of “Suo”, which means “what you built (military camp)”, “Suo” is an auxiliary pronoun, referring to the object of “camp”, just as “you said” “Suo” refers to the content of “say”. The word “Suo” in the structure of “Suo” must be followed by a verb. The problem is that “no” and “no” are not verbs in the “give what you don’t”, so Zang Lin suspects that “there are more oaths when you don’t”. To interpret “no” as a verb such as “doing something wrong” is obviously a forced solution.

It turns out that “no” here should be a borrowed word of “despicable”. The “give to the despicable” was quoted twice in Lun Heng Wen Kong Pian as “give to the despicable”. It can be seen that “no” in the Analects of Confucius by Wang Chong must be “despicable”. Tang ludeming’s “classical interpretation”: “No: Zheng Miaofeng has rebelled, but he doesn’t. Wang Bi and Li are full of despicable opposition.” It is believed that reading “no” (Fang Youfan) is Zheng Xuan’s “Miao” (fallacy), and the correct pronunciation is “Bei Beifan” (i.e. B ?)”? According to guoxiliang’s ancient pronunciation Manual of Chinese characters, the ancient “no” and “despicable” sounds are both “the part of helping mothers”. It is often used in ancient books: “Shang Shu Yao Dian” means “no virtue, no throne.” “Records of history · five emperors’ records” is quoted as “despising the virtue of the emperor.” As “Suo… Zhe” can only be a verb, “bu” and “no” do not have the conditions to be in this position. Only “Bi” can make the sentence fluent and smooth. Then “giving to those who do not” is actually “giving to those who despise”, that is, “what we (we) despise”.

There is no dispute that “heaven” of “Heaven loathes” is understood as “heaven”, “heaven”, and “loathing” is understood as “loathing”. The key is who does “Zhi” mean? Confucius? It is extremely rare that “Zhi” in this object position refers to the speaker. At present, this usage is not listed in ancient Chinese function words and grammar works, that is to say, it is considered that “Zhi = I” is an isolated case.

We believe that “Zhi” here refers to the “giving or not (despicable) person” mentioned above, specifically referring to the “seeing Nanzi”. Then, “give what you don’t, heaven hates it, and heaven hates it.” Namely: “what we despise, Heaven (also) hates it, and Heaven (also) hates it!”

From the point of view of logic, it is “seeing Nanzi” that makes “Zilu not say”. So is Zilu right to “see Nanzi” and “don’t tell”, or does he doubt that Confucius did something wrong when “see Nanzi” and “don’t tell”? As a “gentleman” Confucius, if he is not guilty, he will first think that it is because of “seeing Nanzi”, and will not definitely think that Zilu is unhappy because he suspects that he has done something wrong. Confucius should also aim at “seeing Nanzi” if he wants to answer and explain. Nanzi had a bad style of work and meddled in the political affairs of the state of Wei. It was just “giving to the contemptible”. So going to “see Nanzi” was also “giving to the contemptible”. Confucius wanted to explain and explain that “seeing Nanzi” meant “Heaven hates it”. Naturally, it also meant that he was unwilling and had nothing to do. The implication is: not only are you unhappy, but neither of us is happy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.