Current location - Music Encyclopedia - Today in History - Is the legend of Yao and Shun's abdication a fabrication of Confucianism or a real historical event?
Is the legend of Yao and Shun's abdication a fabrication of Confucianism or a real historical event?
Yao Shun's abdication is only a fabrication of Confucianism, not a real historical event. Shun's throne was actually taken away from Yao.

First, judging from the history, natural laws and existing toast system before Yao, there is no abdication.

The four emperors before Yao and Shun were the eldest son of the Yellow Emperor, Zhuan Xu was the grandson of the Yellow Emperor, the eldest son of Di Zhi and the second son of Yao. They all inherited the throne from their immediate family members and never abdicated. Shun is the sixth grandson of Zhuan Xu, and his relationship with Yao has developed into a five-clothing relationship. There is no inheritance at all, he can only seize the position. Judging from the survival law of nature, the status of the Wolf King is determined by the duel between wolves. Judging from the existing African chieftain system, chiefs' inheritance rights are hereditary, and there has never been such a thing as abdication.

Second, from the perspective of interests, humanity and archaeology, he did not abdicate.

What are the benefits of ancient emperors? We can't go through ancient times, just look at the existing African chieftaincy system. The position of a chieftain is similar to that of an ancient emperor in China. A big chief can have hundreds of wives, who have absolute power in politics, economy, military affairs and culture. Archaeologically, with? Three yellow and five emperors? Dawenkou culture and Liangzhu culture, which correspond to the times, have experienced great class differentiation and the gap between the rich and the poor. The life of ancient emperors was not as claimed in some books? Mautz doesn't cut, but picks awkward dishes, quinoa soup. ? From the perspective of human nature, in the face of absolute rights and interests, it has always been a bloody struggle. Where are you from?

Third, according to historical records, it was Shun who usurped Yao's throne.

Spring and Autumn Annals was compiled by Confucius, who is not a historian. Annals of Bamboo Books is the official history book of Jin and Wei Dynasties, which is called Annals of Bamboo Books. The only chronological general history in ancient China that has not been tampered with by Qin Huohan Confucianism? . Historical Records is more than 200 years later than the bamboo chronicles. After burning books and burying Confucianism, Chu and Han contended, the historical materials that Sima Qian could refer to were also limited. From the perspective of modern archaeological excavations, the credibility of bamboo annals is even higher than that of historical books. Gu Zhuzhi said,? Once upon a time, Yao was morally corrupt and imprisoned by Shun. Shun imprisoned Yao, then suppressed him, so that I wouldn't pick up my father? . Yao did not give the throne to Shun, but to his son. Unexpectedly, Shun staged a coup and imprisoned Yao, who later died in Pingyang. Han Feizi also holds the same view. Shun forced Yao, Yu forced Shun, Jie and Zhou. Who killed his monarch and was killed by people and ministers? . First proposed? Zen concession theory? It's called Shangshu, but Shangshu is not a history book, and it has been forged and tampered with by Han Confucianism, so the statement of abdication is very suspicious. Xunzi, who is also a Confucian, once criticized? The husband said that Yao Shun abdicated, which is an empty talk, a shallow biography and a humble speech. .

In short, Yao and Shun never abdicated in history. The doctrine of the mean is only an ideal, and usurpation is the reality.