Does the thief's denunciation of Confucius in Zhuangzi represent the Taoist view of Confucianism?

One article in Zhuangzi's Essays is widely regarded as a model of scolding Confucianism, that is, "stealing feet". Those who agree with this view think that Confucius is as hypocritical as stealing feet. Some people who seem to oppose it actually agree that stealing feet is Confucius who kills and sets fires, but one of them is obvious, the other is hidden, and all roads lead to the same goal.

Opponents cite the issue of time as an example. Zhuangzi makes good use of fables. They think that this article is nothing more than Zhuangzi's own spun story, with such nonsense as "One horse in the world". Who is he afraid to scold?

For the "attack" on Confucius in the article "Stealing Foot", its supporters seem to be at a loss: either take a step back and "take the essence and discard the dross"; Or simply fight back against Taoism's "abandoning wisdom." Without exception, they ignored Zhuangzi's own arrangement.

The Analects of Confucius admitted that Liu Xiahui was a "soy sauce maker". Zhuangzi said they were good friends, and the thief was Liu Xiahui's younger brother. In Confucius' view, stealing feet was rampant in the countryside, so he blamed Liu Xiahui for leaving him alone. He had to take care of this younger brother for Liu Xiahui.

Note here: Zhuangzi explained Confucius' original intention very clearly, that is, stealing chickens and wasting rice is too much and too simple.

In Liu Xiahui's response to Confucius, there is a saying:

"Debate is enough to modify right and wrong."

This is about stealing feet. The ancients cherish words like gold, and these five words can't be scribbled, so the cause of the argument is that the fallacy of stealing feet is "positive". Why is he ridiculous? In the present words: even if Confucius is hypocritical, is this the reason why the countryside is rampant?

Liu Xiahui is obviously moving closer to Confucius, which is all explained by Zhuangzi.

Next, Confucius didn't listen to Liu Xiahui's advice, but went by himself. As a result, he was scolded. Finally, the thief said:

"Qiu said, I abandoned everything. Anxious to go home, there is no need to say anything! Children's ways are crazy and arrogant, but also deceptive and hypocritical. It must be true, ridiculous! "

Can a hypocritical person say such a just thing? Absolutely. "It's the grandson who wants debts and the grandfather who owes debts" is playing this "truth". Zhuangzi has identified the character of the stolen foot through the mouth of Liu Xiahui, and later described Confucius' reaction as nothing more than saying that he "suffered from YaBaKui".

But it was not until Confucius was scolded like that and was "driven away" that he was neither angry nor rude-how you treat me is your business, and how you treat you and me has your own principles.

Will a shameless person "worship again" after being scolded? Absolutely not. "Farewell" is because Confucius thought that stealing feet hit the nail on the head and was ashamed. There is nothing wrong with stealing feet. The problem lies in the motive of stealing feet. The so-called "evil people use the positive law, and the positive law is also evil."

Why did Zhuangzi spend so much time writing about stealing feet and scolding Confucius? This is to echo Liu Xiahui's five-word comment on stolen feet-to show how "gorgeous" stolen feet are. Looking back at the fact that Zhuangzi admitted that bootlegging was rampant in the village, this way of "saying one thing and doing another" naturally appeared.

Zhuangzi's fictional characters should be inspired by The Analects of Confucius, and the Taoist version of Shao Zhengmao was pirated. Shao Zhengmao has "five poisons":

The mind is rebellious and dangerous, eccentric and firm, hypocritical and argumentative, ugly and rich, stable and peaceful. If one of these five things is punished by a gentleman, it is both.

Look at the stolen soles. There's nothing left.

After Confucius confronted the thief, Zhuangzi arranged for Confucius to give Liu Xiahui "result feedback". This is what he said:

Return to Dongdong Gate in Shandong and meet in Liuxia season. Liu said, "I haven't seen you for a few days. The horses and chariots look so good. Do you have to see me?" Confucius looked up at the sky and sighed, "Of course." Liu said to him, "Do you think your feet are right?" Confucius said, "Of course. Qiu's so-called' self-moxibustion is disease-free', it is inevitable to wash away the tiger's head and weave the tiger's beard! "

Back to the east gate of the road, Confucius happened to meet Liu Xiahui. Liu Xiahui said, "I haven't seen you for a while. It seems that you have gone out. Did you go to see the stolen foot? "

Confucius looked up at the sky and sighed, "Yes."

Liu Xiahui said, "Well, it's watertight."

Confucius said, "Yes. I just found my own cigarette, ran to the tiger's head to play with the tiger's beard, and was almost eaten by the tiger. "

Confucius in Zhuangzi changed his mind when he made a mistake. Ordinary people will not refuse to admit that Liu Xiahui is right, but will arrange a set of rhetoric on the road to deal with other people's doubts.

It's not difficult to know, but it's the hardest to know or not to tell. If "knowing" is ability, "not telling" is "controlling ability". The real ability is to "make people use technology", but the desire expressed is to "make people use technology". The result of "making people use skills" is that the skills will be as strong as they are. This is how Yang Xiu, who is extremely clever, plays himself to death. The average person is not as big as Yang Xiu, but he will certainly offend people unconsciously. Maybe when others are "sorry for themselves", they can't figure out why he did this to me.

For each other, you will laugh when you make a wrong judgment. Only in this way can we continue to "deceive ourselves" and think that we are "smart".

Lao tze cloud:

"The sage is not sick, because of his illness, the husband is only sick, so he is not sick."

There is nothing wrong with a saint, because he takes his own mistake as a mistake. Confucius' performance in Zhuangzi's works is completely in line with Lao Zi's statement that there is no need to provoke a tiger when he has nothing to do. Not only did I say nothing, but I almost died in the jaws of death.

Only when you truly realize your fault, treat it as a fault, and don't hide it or deceive yourself, is there nothing wrong. This is called "knowing its glory, keeping its shame, covering for the sky, covering for the sky, being enough for Changde, and returning to the park".

Zhuangzi's fictional name for this kind of "scolding" Confucius is "stealing feet". Why is it meaningful to use the word "thief"?

In the chapter of Turtle House, Zhuangzi described all kinds of "thieves" in detail, such as "those who steal the hook will be punished, and those who steal the country will be punished", and all kinds of "thieves" are best at doing extremely nasty things for extremely legitimate reasons.

The next article in "Stealing Feet" is "Saying Sword". In this article, Zhuangzi through the mouth of the prince of Zhao, confessed his daily wear "Confucianism":

"Today, the Lord will be convinced by Confucianism, and when he sees you, things will be greatly reversed."

Zhuangzi said, "Please wait for the sword suit."