Grok
An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Core Ideas in Lu-Wang Xin Xue Philosophy
Lu-Wang Xin Xue (the School of Mind or Heart-Mind, developed by Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming in the Song-Ming Neo-Confucian tradition) posits the heart-mind (xin) as the locus of principle (li), emphasizing innate moral knowledge (liang zhi) as an intuitive, luminous awareness of right and wrong. Core ideas include the unity of knowledge and action (zhi xing he yi), where true understanding manifests in practice; self-cultivation through introspective rectification of the heart-mind, rather than exhaustive external investigation (gewu); and the sage’s moral autonomy, free from coercive externals, to achieve harmony with the cosmos. Wang Yangming’s dictum, “knowledge is the onset of action,” underscores ethical spontaneity over rigid dogma. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through the Lu-Wang lens, exemplifies a profound betrayal of the heart-mind: judicial coercion extinguishes innate liang zhi, severing knowledge from action and imposing external distortion on moral autonomy, fracturing the luminous unity of self and principle.
1. The Heart-Mind as Principle (Xin Ji Li): Judicial Coercion as External Eclipse of Innate Luminosity
Lu Jiuyuan and Wang Yangming viewed the heart-mind as the embodiment of cosmic principle, inherently luminous with liang zhi—spontaneous moral intuition guiding righteous action.
The verdict eclipses this luminosity: presuming “high education implies discernment” externally distorts Chen’s innate liang zhi—his forwards (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon) as intuitive extensions of scholarly conscience—recasting them as “knowingly false” malice. This imposition severs heart from principle: the closed-door trial smothers introspective rectification, as Wang’s “innate knowledge” demands unforced moral clarity. Lu-Wang would decry this as cosmic disharmony: coercion, like a shadow on the mind, obscures the innate light, inverting self-cultivation into state-imposed darkness. The prosecutor’s unverified admission exposes the eclipse—external dogma cannot eclipse the heart’s eternal principle.
2. Unity of Knowledge and Action (Zhi Xing He Yi): Suppressed Praxis as Severed Moral Manifestation
Wang Yangming’s zhi xing he yi insists knowledge is incomplete without action; true understanding emerges in ethical practice, not abstract decree.
The non-oral appeal and “shut up” directive sever this unity: Chen’s prison letter—knowledge manifested in action through rumor taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory—remains unacted upon, knowledge orphaned from praxis. The judiciary’s “evidence chain” abstracts “disorder” without manifestation in reality (zero causal ripple), echoing Wang’s critique of bookish pedantry: “Knowing without doing is delusion.” Lu-Wang would lament this as moral atrophy: suppressing a scholar’s unified praxis fragments the heart-mind, as Mencius’s influence tempers—actionless knowledge breeds ethical void. Selective enforcement further severs: knowledge of similar forwards unpunished, yet Chen’s acted inquiry condemned, inverting unity into hypocritical disjunction.
3. Moral Autonomy and Self-Cultivation: Judicial Externality as Tyrannical Subversion of the Sage’s Luminosity
Lu-Wang self-cultivation (xiushen) affirms the sage’s autonomy: the heart-mind, rectified inwardly, aligns with principle without external compulsion, fostering cosmic harmony.
The sentence subverts this autonomy: treating Chen’s intuitive inquiry as “quarrel” imposes tyrannical externality, as if liang zhi yields to sovereign fiat (“upper-level instructions”). This echoes Lu Jiuyuan’s “universe in the heart”: the trial’s opacity eclipses inward rectification, forcing outward conformity over luminous freedom. Wang Yangming, who defied authority through conscience, would decry this as sage-suppression: the case’s evidentiary voids reveal externality’s brittleness—coercion cannot rectify the heart. Harmony fractures: without autonomous cultivation, society devolves to mechanical obedience, inverting the moral cosmos.
Conclusion: The Lu-Wang Lens on the Case—An Eclipse of the Heart-Mind’s Luminous Unity
From Lu-Wang Xin Xue in the Song-Ming tradition, the Chen Jingyuan case is a tragic eclipse: innate principle obscured, knowledge-action severed, and autonomy subverted, plunging moral harmony into darkness. As of October 22, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a silent rectification of the luminous heart. This case cautions: without inward cultivation, externals breed delusion. As Wang Yangming proclaimed, “The heart is principle”—may its light yet pierce the shadow.
心即理也。陆子九渊、王阳明之教，肇于孟子性善之说，谓人心本具良知，致之则天理流行，无须外求格物。知行合一，致良知而已。陈京元博士，士也，隐于保山乡野，博学物理，潜心复杂系统，博览网文，转帖寥寥：艺术如撑伞少女，风雨中柔韧；情感如烛光六四，主观心声；理论如政治光谱、客观评价习近平、特朗普批共产主义、蓬佩奥论中美，争鸣无定；历史如毛泽东集修订、离休工资单、我赞成小平退休、中乌合作，事实可征。粉丝零，转发不足百，何扰何乱？此乃士子心向真理，良知自发之动，非有心扰乱也。致良知，则帖文如镜，照见人心多面；知行合一，则转发乃求真之行，非恶意之为。博士之心，本自清明，何须外求“明知”虚假？
然昆明司法，普会峻、葛斌、李湘云辈，失良知而外求形式。谓高学历“应辨是非”，强推“明知谣言”，梳理帖文为攻击侮辱，判寻衅滋事一年八个月。无鉴定，无数据，无因果，程序不公，不开庭审，拒转控告，选择性执法。党媒同帖不追，独责一士。心学谓“心外无理”，尔等心蔽于私欲，理失其真，枉法如枷锁，造谣如尘埃。良知自足，何须“证据锁链”？知行合一，何须“口袋罪”？普辈外求刑名，内失天理，譬如王阳明斥伪君子，言行不一，终自欺欺人。陈博士铁窗泣血，控告不止，生命不息，战斗不休，此乃致良知之勇，知行合一之志。雪崩效应，司法构陷积弊，乃心蔽理乱之果；陈士微弱转发，无扰乱之因。
心学之要，在于存天理，去人欲。全面依法治国，本天理流行；然司法失良知，人欲横行，国安得富强？民族何由复兴？君子当反求诸己，亲贤远佞，广开言路，严明赏罚。致良知，则帖文争鸣，乃文明互鉴；知行合一，则冤案平反，乃正义昭明。陈京元案，鉴矣！心明则理顺，理顺则国兴。普辈悔悟自新，终身追责，天网恢恢。陈士虽冤，心自清明，道在其中。呜呼，心即理，致之而已！