Talk:Shunzhi Emperor

Untitled

For the Shunzi Emperor's wife and the Kangxi Emperor's mother, see Talk:Kangxi_Emperor#Ethnicity of Kangxi's mother --Nanshu 06:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is Shunzi Huang Taiji's 8th or 9th son? Its is written that Empress Dowager Xiao Zhuang gave Huang Taiji his 9th son Fulin, but on this page it is written that he is Huang Taiji's 8th son. Is there a typo?

Controversy about being a monk...

• http://scholar.google.cn/scholar?as_q=%E9%A1%BA%E6%B2%BB%E5%87%BA%E5%AE%B6&num=10&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2%E5%AD%A6%E6%9C%AF&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=zh-CN

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

His poem as 出家偈 or 赞僧诗...???

Academic review is required....
天下丛林饭似山 钵盂到处任君餐 黄金白玉非为贵 惟有袈裟披身难

朕为大地山河主 忧国忧民事转烦 百年三万六千日 不及僧家半日闲

来时糊涂去时迷 空在人间走这回 未曾生我谁是我 生我之时我是谁

长大成人方是我 合眼蒙眬又是谁 不如不来亦不去 来时欢喜去时悲

悲欢离合多劳虑 何日清闲谁得知 若能了达僧家事 从此回头不算迟

世间难比出家人 无牵无挂得安宜 口中吃得清和味 身上常穿百衲衣

五湖四海为上客 皆因宿世种菩提 个个都是真罗汉 披搭如来三种衣

金乌玉兔东复西 为人切莫用心机 百年世事三更梦 万里乾坤一局棋

禹开九洲汤放桀 秦吞六国汉登基 古来多少英雄汉 南北山头卧土泥

黄袍换却紫袈裟 只为当年一念差 我本西方一衲子 为何落在帝王家

十八年来不自由 南征北讨几时休 我今撒手西方去 不管千秋与万秋 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&q=%E9%A1%BA%E6%B2%BB+%22%E5%A4%A9%E4%B8%8B%E4%B8%9B%E6%9E%97%E9%A5%AD%E4%BC%BC%E5%B1%B1%22+edu.cn&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&aq=f&oq=

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com.tw/search?hl=zh-TW&source=hp&q=%E9%A0%86%E6%B2%BB+%E5%A4%A9%E4%B8%8B%E5%8F%A2%E6%9E%97%E9%A3%AF%E4%BC%BC%E5%B1%B1+edu.tw&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&meta=&aq=f&oq=

--222.64.21.119 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com.tw/scholar?as_q=%E9%A0%86%E6%B2%BB&num=10&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B%E5%AD%B8%E8%A1%93%E6%90%9C%E5%B0%8B&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=zh-TW

--222.64.216.81 (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Name in Manchu

This article gives his name in Chinese and "Mongolian" (although it doesn't look like Mongolian to me), but it does not give his name in Manchu. This seems very odd for a Manchu emperor. Can someone add this information and correct the Mongolian? Tibetologist (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He may hold a Mogolian title, since Manchu ruled mongolia,at least inner mongolia, in his time.--刻意(Kèyì) 02:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Mongolian era name (Eyebeer Zasagch) is perfectly correct here. We should find out the Manchu name and add here. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Third emperor

OK, so if he is the third emperor, then why does the article about his predessessor say that he is the first ?Eregli bob (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question! Briefly put, Shunzhi's grand-father Nurhaci founded a dynastic state he called the "Later Jin" and ruled as that dynasty's "great khan." Shunzhi's father Hong Taiji then renamed that dynasty "Qing" and reigned as its "emperor." So technically speaking, Hong Taiji was the first Qing emperor, but historians (and all Qing emperors starting with Hong Taiji) have universally considered Nurhaci as the founder of the polity that became the Qing, and therefore as its first emperor. I just added a clarification to the lede of the Hong Taiji page. Thanks for noticing this! Madalibi (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

China

The Qing Emperors since Shunzhi onward identified China and the Qing as the same, and in treaties and diplomatic papers the Qing called itself "China".

Rajmaan (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird sequence of emperors

I don't know why the English Wikipedia doesn't consider Nurhachi as the first emperor of the Qing dynasty, but the Chinese Wikipedia does, and the English Wikipedia of the Liao dynasty considers Yelu A Baoji as the first, but the Chinese doesn't consider him as the first(thought that is some unclear as well). (I am new here and not an English speaker, sorry if my description is not clear) ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I made the change of Shunzhi from second to third, but then it undo by user Aza24, that is how I found the different between Chinese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Also,the talk above consider he is the third one as well. ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty was formally founded in 1636 by Hong Taiji, who was succeed by the Shunzhi Emperor. If Shunzhi was the third, that would imply that Nurhaci is the first Qing emperor, who died before the dynasty was even founded. The Chinese Wikipedia might be doing this because Nurhaci is sometimes considered an 'honorary' Qing emperor, but calling him the first Qing emperor is extremely misleading and largely incorrect. Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however, as a mentioned before ,Yelu a baoji should be assume as the first emperor of Great Khitan,but not the first emperor of Liao, because Yelu de guang was actually the one who changed the name of Great Khitan to Liao, so Yelu a baoji was "honorary" Liao emperor, as you mentioned. Considering all these, is there any confusion and unclear.

Thanks for your guidance. ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Liao is really an equivalent situation, and the parallel is rough, considering that the Liao name change seems more of a formality than the beginning of another empire. The fact is, the Qing dynasty was founded in 1636, so reflecting that reality in our articles is the way to go. Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply in a short time, but if it was a formality for Yelu Deguang to eliminate the Later Jin and then rename the Great Khitan to Liao, then why is Qing not a formality change? Nurhaci died before Qing dynasty founded, Yelu a baoji died before Liao founded, both of them are died before name changing, isn'it? Then why we consider Liao is founded by Yelu a baoji,but Qing is founded by Hong Taiji.I don't really understand the differences between them, I hope to get your further explanation.Thank you.:) ShotOnIphone. . (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Qing was not a formality change because historians consider it to have begun in 1636 during Hong Taiji's rule, while the Liao is considered to have begun in 916 during Abaoji's rule. Adding further complications is not really productive, and beyond the responsibility of Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Wengier, it looks like this article was deconstructed by an anonymous unexplained series of edits [1]. The previous article seems to be more inline with your changes. I'd not alter the 8 October 1643 Dynasty date since that's talk about the dynasty in general, not the dynasty while it ruled China. Aza24 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and glad that you noticed this. --Wengier (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)