Detailed Analysis of "The Analects" — For All Who Misinterpret Confucius (Ten)

2006/10/22 12:02:50

The Master said: It is humans who can make the Way great, not the Way that makes humans great.

Detailed analysis: This statement is slightly different from the previous ones — its literal meaning is quite simple. "Blossom forth" (弘) means "to cause ~ to become great/glorious." "It is humans who can make the Way great, not the Way that makes humans great" — "Humans can cause the Way to become glorious, not the Way causing humans to become glorious." However, what is simple on the surface is often more complex to understand. This simple sentence establishes the fundamental view of "The Analects" and Confucianism regarding the relationship between "humans" and "the Way."

There is a very bad tradition of always seeking "the Way" in the ethereal and intangible. This kind of trick has fooled the restless-minded for thousands of years. But for "The Analects" and Confucianism, such tricks are ineffective. Confucianism has always been this-worldly. Regardless of what this "Way" may be, it must ultimately come down to "humanity's bearing of responsibility." In "The Analects," "the Way" refers only to "the Way of the Sage," concerns only the present world, and pertains only to "people not being resentful" in the present world. Any tricks that push things off into the ethereal void are nothing but tricks.

There is an even worse tradition: using "the Way" to oppress "humans" — depicting "the Way" as some ethereal distant vision, and then making real-world "humans" serve as cannon fodder for this ethereal distant vision. This is even crueler than "one general's success built on ten thousand soldiers' bones." At least with the latter, there is still "one general's success" for everyone to curse. But when "the Way" is deliberately or unwittingly dressed up as an ethereal distant vision, even cursing it becomes an absurd scene in this fraudulent theater. This kind of absurd tragedy has been repeated endlessly throughout history.

But compared to the following type, the above two are nothing. History never lacks this kind of person: they pose as "those who have attained the Way" or "practitioners of the Way," appointing themselves as representatives of "the Way." They become earthly gods, making the laws of the human world, and anyone who defies them commits the gravest heresy. History has never lacked such people, yet every one of them invariably puts on a sanctimonious face and an attitude of "saving the people from fire and flood," while secretly doing things unfit for human eyes. Are such people who "wield a private way to command others" really so rare? Yet "the Way" is the great Way, the public Way — not the petty, private way of any individual or group. Only "humans" can make "the Way" glorious. Apart from "humans," there is no "Way" that can make "humans" glorious.

The manifestation of "the Way" is the spontaneous emergence of "humanity's" present-world existence in the here and now. Separated from the here and now, separated from the present world, there can only be an ethereal distant vision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Way of the Sage" of "The Analects" and Confucianism. Here we see more clearly the fundamental divergence — mentioned earlier — between "The Analects"/Confucianism on one hand, and Plato, Christianity, scientism, and similar Western schools of thought on the other. For the latter, it is "the Way that makes humans great." In Plato, "the Way" is the light of reason; in Christianity, "the Way" is God; in scientism, "the Way" is science. But for "The Analects" and Confucianism, it is "humans who make the Way great." The light of reason, God, and science all depend on "humans." Without "humans," these so-called "Ways" have no meaning whatsoever. It is precisely because of this spirit in "The Analects" and Confucianism that Western-style religion has never been able to flourish in China.

Some may ask: does this mean "The Analects" and Confucianism deny objective laws? In fact, the very premise of this question arises from a Western intellectual framework. For "The Analects" and Confucianism, whether objective laws exist or not is not a primary premise — regardless of their existence or nonexistence, they are something "humans" must bear. Within the "Heaven, Earth, Humanity" model, objective laws belong to the domain of "Heaven and Earth," constituting the stage upon which "humanity" performs. To use an analogy: for "humanity" as the actor, regardless of the stage, performing well is what matters most. And a good actor, no matter what the stage is like, will make full use of the present, real conditions that constitute that stage. "The Analects" and Confucianism do not deny the existence of objective laws, but these merely constitute the stage for "human" activity — they do not constitute "humanity's" performance or manifestation. For "The Analects" and Confucianism, "the Way" refers specifically to the present-world, here-and-now "Way of the Sage," and is not what is commonly understood as ontological substance, origin, or laws of nature. This point, for Chinese people who have already been too deeply influenced by Western learning, bears repeated emphasis.

Some have classified Confucianism under the Western paradigm of "humanism," which completely misses the mark. The "human" in Confucianism is spoken of within the cosmic structure of "Heaven, Earth, and Humanity," and does not need some "-ism" of "humanism" to "found" humanity. Once "humanism" is made into an "-ism," it loses all its own ideas and becomes a farce of ideology. And using the Western paradigm of "structure" to examine "humanity" within the "Heaven, Earth, Humanity" structure of Confucianism is equally off-target. "Humanity" within the "Heaven, Earth, Humanity" structure is not some kind of constituent element, but rather a manifestation. "Heaven and Earth" are merely the stage for "humanity's" manifestation, and all of this is in the here-and-now, in the present world. The "humans" here carry two meanings: one refers to the gentleman who is currently "hearing, seeing, learning, and practicing" "the Way of the Sage"; the other refers to those who temporarily cannot "hear, see, learn, and practice" "the Way of the Sage" — the "people who do not understand." These two kinds of people make up all people — in modern terms, they include everyone who constitutes society.

Therefore, according to these two different meanings of "human," "It is humans who can make the Way great, not the Way that makes humans great" must be understood from at least two angles: First, for the gentleman currently "hearing, seeing, learning, and practicing" "the Way of the Sage," their "hearing, seeing, learning, and practicing" can cause "the Way of the Sage" to be manifested and to emerge — but it does not mean that their "hearing, seeing, learning, and practicing" of "the Way of the Sage" makes them superior to others or allows them to lord over others, becoming so-called elites, or even acting under the banner of "hearing, seeing, learning, and practicing" "the Way of the Sage" to pursue their own private way. Second, for those who temporarily cannot "hear, see, learn, and practice" "the Way of the Sage" — "the people who do not understand" — the manifestation and emergence of "the Way of the Sage" cannot be separated from them. Transforming "the world of those who do not understand" into "a world without resentment" cannot be separated from "the people who do not understand." One must not, under the banner of an abstract, ethereal "Way of the Sage," exploit "the people who do not understand" and use them as cannon fodder for an abstract, ethereal "Way of the Sage."

"It is humans who can make the Way great, not the Way that makes humans great" — ultimately there is only one point: "the Way" is not the purpose; only "humans" are the purpose; only real-world "humans" are the purpose. Any so-called "hearing, seeing, learning, and practicing" of "the Way of the Sage" that treats some ethereal so-called "Way" as the purpose and uses real-world "humans" as the means runs directly counter to "The Analects." For "The Analects," Confucius, and Confucianism, "humans" are both the beginning and the purpose, while "the Way" is the means. Even "the Way of the Sage" is merely the means for transforming "the world of those who do not understand" into "a world without resentment." From beginning to achievement, nothing can be separated from "humans." "The Way" is something "humans" walk — not something that walks "humans." "The Way" is something "humans" make glorious — not something that makes "humans" glorious. Only by understanding it this way can one begin to understand "It is humans who can make the Way great, not the Way that makes humans great."

And humanity, cast without foundation into this world — this is humanity's here-and-now, humanity's bearing of responsibility. This constitutes humanity's having no fixed position. And "humans generate their foundation from having no position, and generate their position from having no foundation" — this is what gives rise to the existence and development of human society, and of the individual. Here there is no so-called tragedy, comedy, or drama. Without humans, there is no Heaven and Earth, and there is no stage for humanity's manifestation — so where would tragedy, comedy, or drama come from? Tragedy, comedy, and drama are merely the positional manifestations that emerge from humanity's "generating foundation from having no position and generating position from having no foundation." As for the presuppositions of so-called reason and emotion — without humans, where would reason and emotion come from? Here there is only bearing of responsibility — humanity's bearing of responsibility — first and foremost, the bearing of responsibility toward "humanity." From this bearing comes what we call joy, sorrow, emotion, intellect, perception, desire, and all other such entanglements. Only in this way can one further understand what is meant by "It is humans who can make the Way great, not the Way that makes humans great."

(To be continued)

Strictly prohibit plagiarism — violators will be prosecuted

Replies

缠中说禅 2006/10/22 12:18:55
Going forward, I'll try to maintain six chapters per week. I'll also write about other topics — it won't just be about Old Master Kong.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 12:27:07
If you are all going to discuss "The Analects" based on the version that was tampered with and distorted by Zhu Xi and others, then there's nothing to say. Please first understand "The Analects" properly before coming to object. Shouting based on preconceptions is useless. This ID's interpretations are unprecedented, but they are not issued arbitrarily — I will insist on the scientific rigor, precision, and seriousness of the interpretation. The meaning is what it is. Please be patient and set aside your preconceptions to read slowly. Textual interpretation can be debated, but coming in with preconceived notions and bigotry is counterproductive.