Xun Yue and Zhongchang Tong's Words of Gain and Loss (Total 274)
These things are the most important in the Zizhi Tongjian
Shangshu Ling Xunyue, who was serving under Emperor Xian of Han, and Shangshu Lang Zhongchangtong, founded doctrines in a turbulent world to promote their political ideas with the so-called "speculation"; their subjective intentions were to correct the ruling mistakes of the Eastern Han court in the last days, and Zhongchangtong was more prominent.
Xun Yue's doctrine was specially used to discipline the subjects, and once the operation was urgent, it was similar to the spells of Shen Bu and Han Feizi, and Cao Cao adopted his doctrine in the government at the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty to maintain the so-called high-pressure politics, which led to the immediate demise of the political system; the doctrine of Zhong Changtong was specially designed to hold the Lord accountable, with the intention of warning the Lord to stay away from arrogance and extravagance, so as to maintain political and indoctrination. In contrast, it can be said that his doctrine is more prominent.
Xun Yue's remarks contained the following words: "Indoctrination and ruin will degrade people of moderate virtue into villains with bad deeds, educate and practice them, and guide people of moderate character to the path of gentlemen." This is absolutely true, but when we look back at the so-called customs he wants to correct, it is the requirement: "The monarch listens to the words of advice, asks the responsibilities and rights of his subjects, praises his subordinate subjects, and verifies the actual situation." It was he who stubbornly believed that it was necessary for the Lord to prevent all petty officials from becoming villains and to inspect them. Therefore, his doctrine is just a copy of Shen and Han Zhishu.
Zhongchang Tong was anxious to believe that the monarch should be disciplined by "pursuing personal improper hobbies and desires, and openly committing despicable acts of fornication." What really needs to be abstained is that the imperial court does not arbitrarily change the system according to the convention, and I would like to ask: If the Lord does not advocate it, how can the subjects be lascivious?
The demise of the Eastern Han Dynasty, according to Zhongchang Tongzhi, accumulated the immorality of the three monarchs of Shun, Heng and Ling. That's true, but if the people of the world follow suit and complain about it, then the rule of law and supervision cannot be saved. And the question is, why did Xun Yue only hold accountable the petty officials at the end of the official field? Although Zhong Changtong understood that the monarch and his superiors were to blame for the political malpractice of punishment, he may not be able to deeply understand why this is the case. Therefore, he speculates that when he talks about the survival and change of dynasties, and the cycle of great rule and chaos, he reduces this to a completely unmatched law of change in nature. His theory actually contributed to Cao Cao's idea of usurping the Han Dynasty, and the doctrine invoked by Cao Cao's usurpation of Han was this so-called "Heavenly Dao". Cao Cao increased his confidence in usurping power for this reason, that is, this theory contributed to Cao Cao's rebellion.
Therefore, in the midst of chaos, intellectuals should not easily create doctrines. If you make a statement because you resent the emperor's previous mistakes, it is easy to overcorrect; if you avoid the current taboo, it is not easy to be aware of it. It is not detached from the chaos of the imperial court, even if it is a statement, there is no mistake.
Xun Yue is Shang Shu Ling, and Zhong Chang Tong is the Shang Shu Lang recommended by xun Yue, and the theory that they have two ends out of one nostril can draw useful conclusions?