Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s7.t6.10

v1.c7.s7.t6.10

Daoism and Confucianism demonstrated homology so that “Existence was reflected because Confucius advocated non-existence, while Lao Zi advocated existence and disadvantages were revealed”. Ruan Ji and Ji Kang put forward a viewpoint of “going beyond moralisation and keep unconstrained in the nature” due to dissatisfaction with the rulers surnamed Sima. After the rulers surnamed Sima usurped the regime of Wei Kingdom, they advocated ruling the country with filial piety, but they avoided to mention loyalty closely related to filial piety for purpose of downplaying the illegality of regime through the replacement of connotation of “moralisation”. Moralisation, referred by Ji Kang, was different from that referred by Wang Bi and He Yan, which was manipulated by rulers and descended into opposite side of human nature. Ji Kang regarded ceremony and moralisation as chains, and believed ceremony and moralisation were the shackles of human nature and went contrary to the nature. Only going beyond moralisation and removing ceremony was the way out to recover the nature and comply with the truth. Guo Xiang’s viewpoint was different from Ji Kang’s, who stated that “moralisation is the nature”. As Taoism was not respected and Seven Intellectuals in Bamboo Forest (Ji Kang and others intellectuals) got adrift and never followed decorum despite great reputation, Guo Xiang put forward a proposition that “I can neither engender creatures, nor creatures engender me. So I am the nature. moralisation was inborn existence which was the same as the nature and should not be destroyed. According to Chuang Tzu, “Haltering horse head or piercing cattle nose is human behavior”. Guo Xiang believed that “It is inevitable to halter horse head or pierce cattle nose in the lifetime. As a result, moralisation is created by humans, but the reason is natural”.