Why did Yao Shunyu implement the abdication system?
When discussing Yao Shun's abdication, some people believe, others doubt or give different explanations. These views are enlightening, but it is difficult to draw conclusions. We have investigated the opinions of the pre-Qin philosophers on Yao and Shun's abdication, and found that although the attitudes of Confucianism, Mohism, France and Taoism towards Yao and Shun's abdication are inconsistent, even diametrically opposed, there are many common points implied in their contradictory views, which have certain unity.
Both Confucianism and Mohism regard Yao and Shun as saints and vigorously promote them. The Confucian concept of abdication obviously runs through the thought of destiny, advocating "heaven and saints, heaven and saints, heaven and sons, sons", so "Tang Yuchan, Xia Hou and Yin Zhou agreed" (On Mencius and Zhang Wan). Although Xunzi put Yao and Shun in the contradiction between Confucianism and the real society in On Zhengpian, we only blurred the thought of destiny in order to avoid its misleading role in political propaganda. Therefore, the Confucian view of Yao and Shun's abdication can be called "the theory of abdication by destiny". Mohism's view of abdication is extremely rich in the political thoughts of Shang sages and monks, with "the ancient sage is the government, the sages and Shang sages, although they are agricultural and industrial workers, if they can do it, …" (. He thinks he is the son of heaven. Moreover, Mohism put the abdication system into practice, and its leader, Ju (Ju) Zi, succeeded to the throne in strict accordance with the abdication system. Therefore, Mohism's view of abdication may be called "Shang Xian's theory of abdication".
Legalists and Taoists are both critics and opponents of the theory of abdication. Han Feizi, a master of legalism, said in the book On Doubts: "In ancient times, the so-called sage king knew his teacher, ... forced Yao, feared Shun, Jie, attacked Zhou, and the four kings and ministers killed him." In the Taoist view, it is not only commendable for the king to create the world, but also a forced "humiliation of the country", not the way to be king. The implication is that not only the courtiers should not be subject to the world, but also the king should not let the world be subject to people, and everything should be natural. The two factions, France and Taoism, oppose the theory of abdication, considering that the key is to worry that future generations will follow suit. "All laws are based on the Yao-Shun way, and there are chaotic ministers."
Needless to say, the attitude of Confucianism and Mohism towards Yao Shun's abdication story. Although Taoism is a critic and opponent of the theory of abdication, it does not deny the story of Yao and Shun's abdication. While praising others, it also confirms the inheritance relationship between Yao Shun and Yu. Han Feizi, a representative figure of Legalism, described the living environment of Yao Shun and Yu in five essays. It is good for the king to let everyone go. This shows that Han Feizi also admitted that the story of Yao Shunyu's abdication did happen. Although the attitudes and explanations of the pre-Qin schools were different, it is not difficult to find that there seems to be a gradual relationship between Yao Shunyu's thoughts of Confucianism, Legalism and Taoism. They all paid full attention to the negative and misleading effects of political propaganda, and tried to criticize Yao Shunyu's abdication theory and inheritance relationship.