[traditional words and building autonomous knowledge systems]
Submitted by li shu (assistant researcher, institute of philosophy, chinese academy of social sciences)
There are many types of concepts of traditional chinese philosophy in which human beings, whether or not they exist, the sun and the air are typical. In these contexts, it may be that there is a difference of opinion as to which group is the most fundamental and valuable. However, when it comes to model systems, their universal application, and their distinctive features, it is inconvenient and uniquely placed. “the most common and characteristic dimension of the thinking of chinese intellectuals, whether day-to-day thinking or philosophical thinking, is actually this body.” (the history of physical use, ideology and documentation: a study of song myungjuism, a japanese scholar, editor-in-chief, wu shui, our wife and father, huadong teacher training university press, 2010, p. 53) also stated that moon pee won's philosophy of song ming science is “correspondingly built up through a `body use' context.” (system of science, people's press, 1989, p. 148) this central position and critical importance do exist。
Why is physical so important? Or why has the chinese philosophy system developed into a particular hub? This in itself is a profound philosophical problem. We do not believe that a mere understanding of the concept is sufficient to answer that question. It's actually a very successful philosophy. Physical treatment is primarily internal and external, constant and variable, and foundation and performance. As it is always linked to both the general and the specific ends, the body naturally acquires a theoretical characteristic that is both in contours and incarnations and in abstractions. This quality, commonly known as the classical philosophy of china, is “completely” or “use”. The word “through” is, in the end, the word “through”. It is precisely because of its combined “division” and “accessible” functions, i. E., the division of judgement, the difference in direction, and the conflation of roles and characteristics, that it should be more than one-size-fits-all, so that all the different and even the opposite aspects of chinese philosophy can be translated into one-size-fits-all ideas. Looking at the history of physical development from the point of view of “division” and “access”, some new insights into this old dimension can be found。
Stereo
In the history of chinese philosophies, rhetoric did not appear from the outset, and its arrival was a lengthy process. The history of physical access is a history of dividing borders and establishing roads, and, in a sense, a history of chinese philosophy moving towards full maturity。
It has been pointed out that, although the literature of the two former qin-hangs is not short of monotongues or words, there are very few cases of physical resonance, which seems to have begun to take shape at the time of han wei. It is generally accepted that the book is written in east han's late zhou yiqing convergence, which includes the words “in the spring and summer, in the autumn and winter” and in cao wei's "in the old man's note" which also states that “everything is useless and can't be taken lightly”. The combination of body and use shows a tendency to fix it in a general sense of being internal, in form, to use it externally. However, this meaning is quite different from that of the dominant future generations, which are so-called inherently superstitious that it has not been removed from qinhan's specific form. Physical use is specific, both indicating that the physical dimensions have not yet been opened in this mode and meaning that neither party in use is able to communicate within itself. This situation is not changed until buddhism is brought to china and china's inherent ideology。
At around qi liang, words are officially spoken. According to shimada, at the turn of the 5th and 6th century, in the form of a clear pairing, the meaning of the body began to change from concrete to concrete. This is the beginning of a post-mortem theory. Bo liang and others are monks or fine buddhists, and therefore from the very beginning a set of words developed by virtue of buddhists as the main idea. As soon as it appeared, it showed a powerful theoretical shape: from qi liang to qi tang, the buddhist denominations have no choice but to use it as a “concept equivalent” common to different sects. The omnibus doctrine proposes the “three” models used in a physical way; three principles refer to equality in physical use and physical power; the philosophies of the ceiling will link physical use to the board of directors; and the chinese strictures, based on the idea of hidden materiality, have developed, inter alia, to the point of maturity and complexity, not only in terms of their philosophical core of “self-cleaning clean circle”, but also in terms of the proposed “body-free” “body-dependent” “absorbing body” “absorption” is a typical expression of the concept of physicality. Physical use is also common in the realms of knowledge and zen. Tang dynasty has used the term “my law will always be written in two words” ("sweet teacher's record") to indicate the place of the body in the thinking of the times, but it is only in the context of zen law practice; if looking at the entire chinese philosophy, it is possible to say that it is not only the backbone of zhong dynasty, but it is also the backbone of chinese philosophy, but it is also the backbone of chinese philosophy, which was constructed and interpreted in chinese philosophy for 1,500 years。
Qi liang's subsequent development of this body language is the greatest difference in body theory from the hanwei period, the discovery of the “body world”. The new approach understands it to be based on possible grounds, principles, foundations and sources, which divides the world into two parts, finding a permanent “one-size-fits-all” (liang wudi, the monsignor of buddha). The discovery of the “body world” provides a deep basis for the interpretation of the world in terms of bodyism, from which the phenomenon of inactivity acquires its own roots, with the creation of a stable and clear structure of physical schooling; in the course of the world's troubled affairs, the subject finds a stable spiritual orientation, with the special emphasis of son's mind, sex, mind and celibacy being given to it; at the same time, it is possible to recognize the differences: since the full basis used and the likelihood of being fully captured in the body, the rationale and thorough grasp of the body can be used in a holistic and adequate manner, which is the philosophical basis for the theory of cognitive and sanctuary methods. In short, the use of words establishes the superstitious position of the body as the basis, the dominant principle and the principle of application, and its discovery is the first word of the concept。
Use
While the establishment of the essence is the essence of the concept, it does not seem to be the true triumph of the exercise. There are many models in the history of chinese and foreign philosophies that distinguish the body from the phenomenon, different from the key to the other models, with the word “general” at the same time, i. E., rather than simply emphasizing the superstitiousness of the body, the idea that the body has to be developed for its use, always rooted in the body, not in the outer two ends, but in the coherent whole. Here, the unity, consistency and even the homogeneity of the use embodied in “through” are the essence of this model and the root cause of its value。
By way of interpretation, it is used as a two-to-one category of differentiation, often in order to distinguish between differences of a different nature. However, even the use of such distinctions remains in the context of some greater integration, and the use of matching shows a fundamental link that transcends the dichotomy between the two. The predecessor has summarized two common forms of pairing, the first of which is “a b b b a” and the second of “a c c c c b c”. Whether the former is “mutually used” or “mutually used” by the latter, it is always the premise that the words used together are in a single unit, and whether the name of the same unit (“c”) is stated does not affect the fact that it is common. This means that the essence of the rhetoric is in the context of integration; or, rather, the concept itself is recognition of integration。
In addition to matching, physical appearances are often presented in parallel. It is worth noting that, in such cases, there is little difference in the meaning of physical combinations, which is essentially what is meant by consistency, and that the spirit of physical “access” is shown more centrally. From the one-size-fits-all “body-to-body” “body-to-body-to-receiving” of buddhist science, to the one-source “body-to-body” “body-to-body” “body-to-body-to-body-to-use” of scientific science, the emphasis of the ancient chinese philosophy, when using the concept of body-to-body use in parallel, seems to be on the side of “consistent” rather than “different”. This is probably not an accident, and it shows that the whole interpretation of physical use as a mode of thinking is based on convergence of differences rather than on manufacturing distinctions. Further, if the word “joined-up” “must” is still to be seen as two interdependent but distinct individuals, then the word “one-single” clearly shows a deeper integration: both parties come from the same source and share the same ethos. This is only one step away from directly affirming the sameness of the body。
In the most typical expression of the same, it appears in the proposition of “in vivo”. Cheng hyun-young, who had been heavily influenced by buddhism, had earlier proposed the term “immediately in use” in his interpretation of guo yiu’s note; later, the six-ancestral scriptures had the phrase “presumed to be a good body, and to be used in a good way, and to be used in a good way, and to be well in a good way”; on the basis of that, wang yang-ming had more clearly stated the rationale of “i. E. Body, for body, for body, for body use, for body use” (accord). Physical use means that the body is not only connected with each other, but each has the other inside itself, or can be the other at any time. By continuing to push this logic downward, it is certain that the same approach will be recognized and that the two are essentially just one thing. It is in this context that modern chinese philosophers have developed, advanced the idea of physicalism, or argued that “all of us are using” “all of us” (the horse floats) or directly “one of us” (one of us), stating that the physical relationship described in “that is, the body is in use and the body is in use” is as if the sea was one of us, and that “the sea is all of us” (the body theory). At this point, it finally shows what it means: it is never dual-use, nor is it related to two existences, but is the same entity that is shown in different ways。
It is not an insignificant conclusion that the use of the term has come to the same end after a long history of development. It means that, after its true maturity, china's philosophy has always had a profound monistic insight into the world, rather than simply seeing it as an external combination of several entities or forces. The use of the same is not a denial of difference, but simply a perception that different sides are always presented in the same true nature. It is also because the world is by nature one that each of the different uses has real meaning. China’s philosophy is rarely based on the notion that western philosophy “is not real, and is not true” (zhang tai-yu), but rather tends to be used in a single day, which is generally regarded as a reality and as something of great use. This means that the absolute certainty of existence is derived from the absolute confirmation of the one dollar of the world。
Variable
China's philosophical history is characterized by a complex system of words. There are not only the above-mentioned ideological patterns, but also physical languages in the sense of physical functioning. While the former focus primarily on the existence and underlying relationship, the latter discuss more about the structure and function of the thing itself than about physics. This is reflected in the philosophy of northern songxi. The two approaches are one and the same and together form a system-wide whole of ideas。
This is not even the case with the idea of the use of the term. Generally, physical use is seen as a static analytical category, describing the structure of the existence of the relatively stable thing. It is worth noting, however, that in recent times, the emergence of the “west-westerly” phrase has effectively assumed another “movement” function in history, namely, the gradual introduction of new civilizational elements that were not of their own accord within a framework of physical stability and self-sufficiency. “the use of fermentation in the body is bound to continue to promote the metabolism of things.” (chang yu) it should be recognized that, as a tool of thought, the approach seems to have played a role of acceptance and guidance in the renewal of civilization。
Why is it that, in their approach, two extremely contradictory ideas are coloured? Why does the vast body of the body's inner form, the guiding of its well-known values, and the historical function of a dynamic physical resolution and the transformation of power, which are quite different ideas, converge and are interwoven in this particular conceptual model? These questions are far from self-evident. It is to be pointed out that, while the concept is a “coherent movement”, the convergence of tributaries is often not the reason why the river of thought flows eastward to the sea; the notion of the underlying value and pervasive influence must have acquired an extraordinary element of thought at its source. In terms of approach, it seems that some of the complete interoperability and wide-ranging inclusiveness inherent in this model is the reason why it can become the backbone of china’s philosophical concept, and it is probably still necessary to start with the fact that its use has become the backbone of ideas, the stream of rivers and the further construction of future chinese philosophy。
The daily light (04 october 2025, 07th edition)
