Detailed Analysis of "The Analects": For All Those Who Misinterpret Confucius (21)
2006/11/3 12:02:03
The Master went to Wei, and Ran You drove the carriage. The Master said: "How populous!" Ran You asked: "Now that it is populous, what more should be added?" The Master said: "Enrich them." Ran You asked: "Now that they are enriched, what more should be added?" The Master said: "Educate them."
Detailed Analysis: Above we discussed the six-character maxim for long-term national stability — "make people good, overcome cruelty and eliminate killing" — and this chapter primarily elaborates on "making people good." Confucius "transmitted but did not create," and his ideas were spoken spontaneously in response to circumstances, which makes them all the more lively and vivid. "The Master went to Wei, and Ran You drove the carriage." When Confucius traveled to the state of Wei, his disciple Ran You drove the carriage to receive him. Along the way, Confucius observed the bustling streets of Wei and made the double-edged exclamation "How populous!" This exclamation employs the "comparison and evocation" (bǐxìng) technique of The Book of Songs. As the saying goes, "Without knowing the Songs, one cannot speak" — to understand The Analects, one must grasp this. Confucius used the "prosperity" of the streets he observed to evoke the "prosperity" in his own heart. These two are merely in a relationship of evocation, just as "The ospreys cry, on the islet in the river" does not equate to "A fair and virtuous maiden is a good match for the gentleman." This then leads into two rounds of questions and answers between master and disciple — a marvelous passage that expounds the complex question of how to "make people good" with utter perfection. It is poetic and mutually illuminating; together, master and disciple composed this chapter that will endure through the ages.
The meaning of the two questions and answers is straightforward, but the key difficulty lies in three characters: "庶" (shù), "富" (fù), and "教" (jiào). All existing interpretations take "庶" as "numerous population, thriving populace," "富" as "increasing wealth, economic prosperity," and "教" as "education and moral cultivation to improve quality." The reason for such interpretations is a lack of solid grasp of the overall thought of The Analects and Confucius. In truth, this three-character formula describes the sequential stages of how to "make people good," and since "making people good" is a crucial aspect of long-term national stability, this three-character formula addresses the sequential question of how to achieve lasting national stability. The conventional interpretation has serious flaws — for example, one cannot say that "education" only comes after being "enriched." If that were truly the case, how would one explain "revitalizing the nation through education"? There, education is placed before the nation's "prosperity" and "enrichment" — doesn't the sequence fall apart?
"庶" does not merely refer to "a large and thriving population." The key is the diversity of various people and social forms of existence — that is, "difference." Even if a place has people crowding every street, but they all wear the same clothes, have the same facial expressions, and display the same demeanor, it could never be called "庶" no matter what. The same goes for things: if every shop looks the same, every newspaper and media outlet looks the same, all culture looks the same — that is not "庶" either. As repeatedly mentioned above, only through "non-manifestation" can there be "difference," and only through "difference" can there be diversity worthy of the name "庶." The prerequisite for "庶" is freedom — without freedom, there is no diversity, and thus no "庶." But just as "Lu-style" states promote "benevolence" that is actually "false benevolence," in places that promote freedom, there is actually no real freedom either. In capitalist society, for example, so-called diversity is masked by the singularity of "capital." In capitalist society, there is essentially no diversity — there is only "capital." The color of people in capitalist society is really only one: "capital." In societies where "power-capital" forms a unity, the principle is exactly the same.
Therefore, in societies like capitalist ones, there is no real "庶." Without "庶," its "enrichment" is also one-sided. Only when there is true "庶" can one begin to speak of "enriching them." This is why, after the Master said "How populous!" it is followed by Ran You asking "Now that it is populous, what more should be added?" and only then comes the Master's response of "Enrich them." The sequence here must not be scrambled. "富" does not merely mean "increasing wealth, economic prosperity." As repeatedly emphasized above, "poverty and wealth" cannot be viewed solely from the angle of material wealth. Every aspect of society has its "poverty and wealth" problem, and "enriching them" is comprehensive — including wealth, human quality, and so on — all involve the question of "enrichment." And "enriching them" must be based on "庶" — that is, under the general principle of "difference" and "non-manifestation." This "enrichment" addresses all aspects of human life. In modern terminology, "富" is the comprehensive development of people, and "enriching them" means enabling comprehensive human development. Only through comprehensive human development can one speak of true "enrichment." But more importantly, this "enriching them" targets all people. If it only targets a certain portion, then even "non-manifestation" is not achieved, and one cannot speak of "enrichment" at all. Only by first "not manifesting" the appearances of "poverty and wealth" can one speak of "enriching" all people. Otherwise, the so-called "enrichment" becomes a mere verbal trick, the same sort of thing as "Lu-style" "false benevolence."
"教" must be built upon the foundation of "富." Different levels of "enrichment" correspond to different levels of "education." This "教," as already pointed out in the chapter on "education without discrimination," in ancient times encompassed "education, government decrees, legal orders, statecraft, edicts, doctrines, schools of thought, and religion." In modern terms, this "教" encompasses the entire superstructure. This "教" does not primarily refer to the commonly understood "education and cultivation to improve quality" — that meaning is actually already contained within "enriching them," which naturally includes improvement of human quality. In fact, "enrichment" is primarily directed at individuals — "enriching them" must ultimately be realized in each and every individual. But how each individual is connected into a social whole, manifested as the structure of the entire superstructure, is precisely "教." Given the inseparable relationship between superstructure and economic base, this "教" effectively refers to the entire social structure. "Enriched" then "educated" — its fully developed form is the social structure composed of comprehensively developed people freely associating to form the whole of society. In modern terminology, it is the entire social structure composed of a free association of comprehensively developed individuals. Those familiar with Western scholarship will recognize this as Marx's definition of communism.
Different societies have different levels of development of "庶, 富, 教." And the "free association of comprehensively developed individuals" is the picture that emerges from the full development of "庶, 富, 教." Only free individuals will have diversity, will have "non-manifestation" leading to "difference," and thus have true "庶." Only comprehensive development yields true "富." From "庶" to "富," developing fully to form the social structure constituted by the "free association of comprehensively developed individuals" — this is the true "教." "庶, 富, 教" means: from difference achieving greatness, and from greatness achieving great harmony. The developmental level of "庶, 富" determines the developmental level of "教." Only when "庶, 富" are fully developed can "教" be fully developed. "庶, 富" corresponds to "people not manifesting appearances," while the full development of "教" ultimately corresponds to "people not being resentful." Only the "教" constituted by the "free association of comprehensively developed individuals" forms the social-structural basis for a world of "people not being resentful." And only with "people not being resentful" is there true "making people good."
The over-two-thousand-year-old Analects and the over-one-hundred-year-old Communist Manifesto having such remarkable convergence is probably something those who wave the banner of old Marx while smashing the "Confucius shop" could never dream of. The petty whelps of the May Fourth movement and the little brats of '66 not only didn't understand Confucius but also didn't understand Marx — they were all nothing but a bunch of muddleheads. As the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome. At the ultimate level, great thoughts always share common dimensions. The methods Marx and Confucius used may differ, and the chasm created by their different eras and cultures makes them seem unable to meet. Yet in truth, they are kindred spirits. "庶, 富, 教" and the "free association of comprehensively developed individuals" reveal the ultimate convergence of the highest thought represented by two civilizations — this is also the ultimate intersection of Chinese and Western learning. Confucius endures through the ages; Marx endures through the ages. Standing at this point of ultimate convergence, Marx is a true Confucian, and Confucius is a true communist. This handshake across more than two thousand years — what was bound to come has finally arrived. This ID is merely acting as the matchmaker.
(To be continued)
Strictly prohibited to plagiarize, violators will be prosecuted
Replies
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 12:10:12
Author: 炼铁设备 Reply date: 2006-11-2 21:48:33
Setting aside the content of your post, just the fact that you connect the Cultural Revolution with The Analects feels far-fetched.
===========
There is nothing new under the sun. What Confucius saw was often more profound than Mao — this is precisely why Confucius is greater than Mao.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 12:18:21
[Anonymous] 炼铁设备
The founding emperor of this dynasty was a master of literature and history, with civil and military genius unmatched for five hundred years before or after — so why did he spend his entire life opposing the Confucian way, and in his later years still sought to topple the "Confucius shop"?
=============
This is mainly a matter of understanding, and more importantly, of historical necessity. When people use a misinterpreted Confucius to pave their way, of course you must strike it down — without toppling the false, how can the true emerge? But Mao still falls short of Confucius. Confucius and Marx are on the same level, while Mao — even he himself acknowledged he was merely a student of Marx. And Mao's foundational education all came from Confucius. So Mao was essentially shaped by both Marx and Confucius. As for what fraction of Marx and Confucius he attained — that is another topic.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 12:22:52
[Anonymous] AK47
2006-11-03 12:20:48
Although I can't find any fault with the reasoning, the conclusion is too sensationalist and a bit pointless.
===========
Ready-made conclusions are not sensationalist, but without sensationalism, society would never progress. Without Einstein's "sensationalism," would there be the theory of relativity? Please discuss the reasoning itself, not the conclusion.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 12:39:09
Real Men Do You
2006-11-03 12:27:42
It's one person's view, but as long as it makes sense, it deserves support. Host, you have my support.
==========
Thank you.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 12:42:58
[Anonymous] 我都说
2006-11-03 12:39:55
I don't like either Old Mao or Old Confucius,
But if I must choose one, I choose Confucius!
Old Mao was a man without political morality. He couldn't even compare to his rival Old Chiang —
Old Chiang ensured every follower by his side was promoted, enriched, and honored with titles for their wives and children.
=============
For a politician, having no morality is the highest morality — otherwise, one shouldn't be a politician. Politicians don't need to be liked. Someone like Bush can only be called a political practitioner — he doesn't qualify as a politician.
Both Mao and Chiang had Confucius in their blood, though each understood him differently. Both were politicians, but Mao was more outstanding because he was more thoroughly a politician, while Chiang was not pure enough.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 12:51:36
Market's about to open, going offline first. Goodbye.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 15:12:56
[Anonymous] tryrtytry
2006-11-03 12:59:24
Last night I dreamed I saw some Marxist-Leninist works together with ancient Chinese books. At the time I only browsed the ancient books and avoided the Marxist-Leninist ones. It seems the Marxist-Leninist works...
=========
Before fully familiarizing yourself with Marx, it's best not to read Lenin, Stalin, etc. Lenin and Marx are fundamentally not the same thing. Stalin is completely not the same thing.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 15:14:05
[Anonymous] sdf
==========
Please set aside your existing preconceptions first, then read this post. Otherwise it's completely missing the point.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 15:15:22
[Anonymous] tryrtytry
2006-11-03 13:27:33
If one frequently examines the colonial history and war history of the last century, one would have some basic understanding of appeasement. The means of violent revolution adopted in The Communist Manifesto was also forged in the cremation fires. It's just that for those who have not experienced the suffering of colonization and war, its proclamation always sends a chill down the spine.
==========
A product of misunderstanding.
缠中说禅 2006/11/3 12:08:42
This is a breathtaking chapter, absolutely unprecedented. This book would be imperishable on the strength of this one chapter alone. Just as Marx and Confucius are the most controversial figures, it is only natural that this chapter of this ID's would spark debate and divide its readers. Everyone is welcome to debate, even to curse — this ID does not delete posts here.