Detailed Analysis of "The Analects": For All Those Who Misinterpret Confucius (23)
2006/11/6 12:18:47
The Master said: To use the uneducated to make the people tremble — this is called abandoning them.
Detailed Analysis: This chapter has only nine characters, yet just the five characters "以不教民战" alone have produced countless erroneous interpretations throughout the ages. Mencius believed: "To use the people without educating them is called bringing calamity upon the people. One who brings calamity upon the people would not be tolerated in the age of Yao and Shun." Zhu Xi believed: "To use uneducated people in war will inevitably lead to defeat and destruction. This is called abandoning your people." Qian Mu believed: "Using untrained civilians to face battle — one can only say they've been cast aside." Li Zehou believed: "Not providing the people with military training is called abandoning them." Even more extreme, some believe Confucius was emphasizing nationalizing and popularizing defense education, stressing the need for comprehensive national defense education. Alas, seeing such supposed great scholars display such insight, one understands the meaning of "when there are no heroes in the world, mediocrities achieve fame." The most absurd thing is that these so-called great scholars couldn't even get the basic grammar right. They all treated "不教民" as a single phrase. While this reading is barely defensible grammatically, it can only be considered a clumsy phrase. In the gem-like precision of The Analects, how could such a sloppy phrase appear? The meanings of the above four scholars are roughly similar. Mencius's interpretation at least comes close, Zhu Xi's is already off the mark, and Qian and Li's are simply speaking irresponsibly.
Interpreting "以不教民战" as "using untrained civilians to face battle" is absurd. May I ask: does using "trained civilians to face battle" then count as "not abandoning them"? The duty of soldiers is to protect the state and its people. If a nation's army has deteriorated to the point where it needs "civilians to face battle" — whether those civilians are "trained" or "untrained" — it can only be a disgrace to the military and the nation! It is all "abandoning them"! If so, wouldn't it be more concise to simply say "以民战，是谓弃之" (using the people in war is called abandoning them)? Furthermore, when the Nazis and militarists "trained civilians to face battle," would that not be "abandoning them" in the eyes of the great scholar Qian? As for interpreting "以不教民战" as "not providing the people with military training," that can only be called shameless. Does it mean that in countries where everyone is a soldier and everyone is armed, that is not "abandoning them"? Having a powerful nation that allows the people to live and work in peace, free from worries about national security — would that instead be "abandoning them"? If so, then today's Afghanistan and Iraq must have the best governments in the world, because their citizens receive the most direct, most frequent, and most practical military training every single day, free of charge. The great scholar Li's interpretation is truly boundless in its shamelessness.
"不教" means not following the way of "making people good" through "庶 (prosperous), 富 (enriched), 教 (educated)" as described above. Since "庶" and "富" ultimately culminate in "教," "不教" naturally also means the absence of "庶" and "富." "教" is the way of "making people good" and also the way of "making the people good." "不教" (not educating) can only lead to "民战" (making the people tremble). What does "民战" mean? "战" means to tremble, to be in terror — here used as a causative verb. "民战" means "making the people tremble" — making the people shudder and live in fear. As stated above, the six-character maxim for long-term national stability is "make people good, overcome cruelty and eliminate killing." "Making people good" and "overcoming cruelty and eliminating killing" are mutually complementary. Not practicing the way of "making people good" leaves only "cruelty and killing" — using white terror to suppress, attempting to make the people tremble and live in fear as a means of governing the nation. "弃" means to violate, to betray. "是谓弃之" — this is called abandoning and betraying the people. And those who abandon the people will inevitably be abandoned by the people in return. This chapter argues the way of "making people good" from the opposite angle. "以" has its original meaning of "using." "以不教民战，是谓弃之" — using the absence of the "making people good" approach, resorting to "cruelty and killing" in an attempt to make the people tremble in fear to govern the country, is abandoning and betraying the people, and will ultimately be abandoned by the people in turn. This is the true meaning of "以不教民战，是谓弃之." The interpretations of the above four great scholars are nothing but jokes.
This chapter powerfully argues, from the negative side, the necessity and rationality of the six-character maxim for long-term national stability: "make people good, overcome cruelty and eliminate killing." "Overcoming cruelty and eliminating killing" — one cannot attempt to use "cruelty and killing" to make the people tremble in fear; a nation cannot achieve long-term stability through such means. Yet throughout history, many have failed to understand this most obvious of truths — failed to understand that the most solid foundation for long-term national stability lies in "the people's joy" rather than "the people's trembling," in "making the people good" rather than "making the people tremble." Such muddleheads are too numerous to count. The Analects immediately provides an example, which leads to the next chapter.
Duke Ai asked Zai Wo about the altar of the earth god. Zai Wo replied: "The Xia dynasty used pine, the Yin dynasty used cypress, and the Zhou dynasty used chestnut — saying it was to make the people tremble with dread." When the Master heard of this, he said: "What is already taking shape, do not comment on rashly; what is already becoming accomplished, do not advise against futilely; what is already past, do not compound with further harm."
Detailed Analysis: Duke Ai of Lu asked Confucius's disciple Zai Wo about "the sacrifice to the earth god." Zai Wo, being too clever for his own good, answered: "The Xia dynasty used pine wood, the Yin dynasty used cypress wood, and the Zhou dynasty used chestnut wood — the purpose being to make the people tremble with dread (a pun on 'chestnut' sounding like 'tremble')." When Confucius heard this, he admonished: "What is taking shape should not be commented on rashly; what is becoming accomplished should not be advised against futilely; what is already past should not be compounded with further harm." "成事" (matters taking shape) does not refer to things already completed, but rather things in their nascent stage. At this point, further observation is still needed — one must not comment rashly or make hasty judgments. "遂事" (matters becoming accomplished) refers to things about to be completed, already irreversible — one should not waste words advising against them, as this only breeds resentment. "既往" (what has already passed) refers to things already completed. One should practice "不咎" — where "咎" originally means disaster or calamity. For things already done, if they were mistakes, one should not compound one error with another and create further disaster. This passage addresses the attitudes one should adopt at three different stages of a matter's development, yet conventional understanding is basically all wrong, especially the most commonly used "既往不咎" — interpreting "咎" as "pursue accountability" and the like is utterly wrong.
Zai Wo had a sharp tongue and, among Confucius's disciples, was the one who most loved to stump Confucius with trick questions. Yet he also frequently showed off his eloquence and did foolish things. Duke Ai of Lu was suppressed by the three great families of Lu and was quite displeased. His question about "the sacrifice to the earth god" was not asked without reason. The state is the altars of grain and soil — asking about "she" (the earth altar) was asking about the state, about state affairs. Zai Wo naturally understood this and, being too clever by half, interpreted the Zhou dynasty's use of chestnut wood as being meant to "make the people tremble with dread." But this kind of superficial wordplay interpretation was exactly what Confucius opposed, and moreover, Confucius did not believe that the Zhou dynasty's use of chestnut wood was actually meant to "make the people tremble." Therefore he admonished Zai Wo, with the key point being "what is already past should not be compounded with further harm." The Zhou dynasty's use of chestnut wood was a "matter already past," but Zai Wo engaged in superficial wordplay, and moreover on the occasion when Duke Ai was obliquely asking about state affairs — this could only give Duke Ai an unwholesome suggestion, essentially encouraging Duke Ai to practice the arts of "cruelty and killing," thereby inviting disaster. Therefore Confucius issued this particularly stern admonishment. Connecting this with the previous chapter's argument that "以不教民战，是谓弃之" (not educating, making the people tremble — this is called abandoning them), we see that Confucius's opposition to the arts of "cruelty and killing" that "make the people tremble" was thoroughgoing and consistent. Even when such implications appeared in his own disciple's speech, he admonished severely. One must have a clear understanding of this.
(To be continued)
Strictly prohibited to plagiarize, violators will be prosecuted
缠中说禅 2006/11/6 19:29:56
[Anonymous] 一枝山
2006-11-06 17:42:13
"以不教民战，是谓弃之。" — Using the absence of the "making people good" approach, resorting to "cruelty and killing" to make the people tremble in fear to govern the country, is abandoning and betraying the people, and will ultimately be abandoned by the people in turn. This is the true meaning of "以不教民战，是谓弃之."
On its face, this interpretation is clearly coherent. The host truly has great talent!
However, is this interpretation also coherent within the context of the original arrangement of The Analects? Must the order be rearranged?
Also, why doesn't the opening of The Analects begin with teaching the people the way of the gentleman, rather than the Way of the Sage?
=======
The people who arranged the original edition fundamentally did not understand The Analects, so how could the sequence possibly be correct? The way of the gentleman and the Way of the Sage are a relationship of one-yet-two, two-yet-one. The way of the gentleman is the "hearing, seeing, learning, and practicing" of the Way of the Sage. A so-called gentleman who does not walk the Way of the Sage is merely a hypocrite. Without the torch-passing of generation after generation of gentlemen, the Way of the Sage would not be known.