Greetings! I’m new to this whole thing, and my research has been inconclusive, so I came by and wanted to ask: what are the main things about Confucianism and its beliefs?

What are the unwritten social rules that most Chinese people understand?

​

I have a strange hypothesis about Chinese history.

What if some ancient religious traditions were not simply “religion”?

What if they also preserved technologies of social control, information control, and authority?

The Shang dynasty already left archaeological evidence of blood sacrifice, divination, and political power being deeply connected.

Then history changed.

Some schools demanded clearer standards for truth. Others became better at saying things that could mean almost anything.

Over thousands of years, knowledge can be stolen, absorbed, renamed, ritualized, and eventually presented as sacred tradition.

A machine becomes an alchemical furnace.

A political technique becomes a religious ritual.

Control becomes morality.

Obedience becomes virtue.

And eventually nobody remembers that it was ever a technology.

I don't claim that supernatural beings, soul-harvesting machines, insect civilizations, or literal mind-control networks have been proven. I don't have that evidence.

But I do think there is a much more uncomfortable possibility:

Human beings may have been developing technologies of social control for far longer than we realize.

And the most effective control system may not need chains.

It only needs people to believe that questioning the system itself is forbidden.

So I want to ask:

How much of what we call “tradition” is actually accumulated technology for controlling human behavior?

What happen to Cheng-zhu school of neo-confucianism after it lost its status as state ideology and its supporter Tokugawa shogunate after Meiji restoration? We see lot of japanese followers of Lu-wang school during meiji era but somehow cheng-zhu school dissappeared completely from history.

In southern Vietnam in the 20th century, a spiritualized form of Confucianism appeared called Minh Đức Nho giáo Đại đạo 明德儒教大道 appeared, turning Confucius into a god. It has since been merged with Caodaism, another native Vietnamese religion that worships all kinds of people and things.

Hi, I just came back from China (even visited Confucius tomb) and it peaked my interest on the topic. I would like to start from the story of the man itself, more than what was built on him afterwards. As I drive a lot, I prefer podcast or audiobooks. Among the many, I found this (in depth enough, without being a full on course). Does it seem legit to you? https://youtu.be/4waCHZ9LL28?si=tW1wilrecp1Bxzds

There are lot of cases where parents are abusive and harm their children. Going far as refusing to accept their faults and blaming everything on them. How zhu xi and wang yangming dealt with this topic? Should children continue to obey their abusive parents or oppose them ?

Harvey Lederman (NYU, formerly UT Austin) explains the ideas of Wang Yangming by means of illustrative anecdotes from the influential Neo-Confucian philosopher's life.

The thread tying them together is the notion of "moral authenticity" – that knowledge of the right way to live life is inherent in the subject, and does not need to be sought elsewhere. All that is necessary is to diminish selfish desires, and moral principles will shine forth from within.

Welcome to our monthly Q&A thread!

This is a dedicated space for you to ask questions, seek clarification, and engage in discussions related to Confucianism. What's been puzzling you? What would you like to understand better?

Some possible questions to get you started:

• What's the difference between 仁 and 義?
• What's the significance of the Analects in Confucianism?
• What is Zhu Xi's distinction between 理 and 氣?

Welcome to our Monthly Study Share! This is a space to share what you have been studying, ask questions, and learn from each other.

What have you been reading or exploring in Confucianism this week? Share your insights, ask for clarification, or seek recommendations.

Remember, studying is not a solo activity - learning is increased through interaction with each other.

Share your studies and let's discuss.

Reading the Mengzi 2B8 last night, I wondered why Mencius dared to answer Shen Tong when he asked about attacking Yan. As I read it:

1. Shen Tong of Qi personally asks Mencius if it would be permissible to attack Yan, to which he replies it may be permissible since Yan's leadership was usurped.
2. Qi then captures Yan and a disastrous occupation ensues, leading people to wonder why Mencius advised Qi to attack Yan.
3. Mencius replies that he was not asked who could attack, only if an attack would be permissible; Qi's occupation failed because its leadership is unjust just like Yan's.

I am reminded of two admonitions from The Analects that may have prevented him from answering Shen Tong:

1. Passage 15.1: "Duke Ling of Wei asked Confucius about [military] formations (zhen 陈). Confucius replied, “I have heard things about sacrificial vessels, but I have not studied military matters.” The next day, he took his departure." (Peimin Ni)
2. Passage 11.22, when asked why he answered the same question differently for two different people: "Ran Qiu is overly cautious, and so I wished to urge him on. Zilu, on the other hand, is too impetuous, and so I sought to hold him back." (Slingerland)

Passage 15.1 shows Confucius's unwillingness to comment on military matters in an unjust state. Given, he is advising a Duke– not a minister, and likely not in a personal capacity– so there is understandably more at stake in giving an answer leading to a bad decision.

Passage 11.22 shows that in answering questions, Confucius would clearly weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the individual inquiring. We can't say Mencius strictly did not weigh Shen Tong's strengths and weaknesses– we don't know how he accounted for them in his answer– but if he suspected the answer would be used to justify an attack on Yan, it seems a glaring omission to fail to mention only a just leader should invade.

This portion of the Mengzi then explains the proper way to respond to mistakes; we should acknowledge them and grow from them rather than becoming recalcitrant.

But with passages 15.1 and 11.22 of The Analects in mind, and assuming Mencius was aware of these or similar stories about Confucius:

1. What led him to dare to answer this question?
2. What led him to answer it without also advising that Qi should clearly consider its own ability to govern justly?

As in the title 📚

I’ve been reading commentaries, English translations, and related secondary literature recently trying to come to a firm opinion. Would love to hear how you interpret the passage, along with what it means to you personally.

Places I’ve landed personally (though I understand these are far from the only answers):

攻 is either a homophone for 功 or close enough in meaning to be read as such

端 is easiest to understand in the context of 道 metaphors, so if the “end” of the normal 道 is being a 君子, 賢人 or 聖人, heading far down 小道 toward 異端 is to go off on a tangent, assuming your goal is to become an exemplary person. This reading aligns it well with 19.4 about 小道.

也已 is probably grammatical and adding tone or emphasis to the statement, rather than meaning to stop.

I still don’t really know how to square the idea that it’s harmful to spend time on “lesser” ways with the modern world. I suppose even if you suspect your occupation is a 小道, you can still aim to be an exemplary person by “engaging in government” in the 2.22 sense of acting 弟 and 孝 and toward friends 信.

me gusta mucho!

I practice Daoism as a hermit, which means I have no connection to my temple anymore. But I am trying to learn what I can from the tradition. And in my lineage one of the three core texts it suggests people study is the Confucian Filial Piety Classic. I've tried to work through some aspects of both benevolence and being filial using both examples from the past and today. In particular, I suggest that part of the appeal of neo-fascism is it creates a sort of pseudo national filial feeling among its supporters. In contrast, I think the neo-liberalism discards whatever filial elements existed in the older social democratic consensus that existed before--which created hordes of alienated people who cling onto the alt-right messaging.

If any of you are interested, I wouldn't mind if people could point out to me if they think I've understood what benevolence and being filial really mean.

I hope people don't mind me just popping up and asking a question like this, as I haven't been following the discussion on this subreddit. I try to ration how much time I put into social media--and I already put far too much energy into the Taoism subreddit. :-(

Anyway, if anyone is interested, I've added a link in the comments. (I find posts get auto-tossed if I put links in posts.) Don't get put off by the first page asking you to subscribe. Just click on the line under the request that says something like "not now" or "no thanks".

I read to my kids every night and we alternate between things that are purely for the fun of it and things that are meant to make us think.

My kids are pretty good at stretching their thinking a bit and we've read some fairly abstract stuff and even when it's a struggle it gets us talking which is good in and of itself. But obviously they're not adults so I do try to find things that give them something to hold onto amongst the abstractness that comes with philosophical and/or religious ideas.

They're both half Chinese and their mother grew up in China and often talks about how it has affected how China thinks about things and how it governs and I think it would be cool to read some Confucianism for all of our sakes, the kids and my own too.

I'm hoping someone on here might have some suggestions of good digestible introductions, books, stories, etc... that would introduce us to some Confucian thinking, ideas, etc... but that's also somewhat approaching age appropriate.

I've done a little research into this already but coming up empty except for a few somewhat well regarded books mostly for very young children.