Detailed Analysis of "The Analects" — For All Who Misinterpret Confucius (11)

2006/10/23 12:04:00

The Master said: To attack heterodox views — this is harmful indeed.

Detailed analysis: The key to understanding this statement lies in "attack" (攻) and "heterodox views" (异端). Some interpret "attack" as "to specialize in studying," and even more absurdly, some interpret "heterodox views" as "not following the middle way." These are all misinterpretations. The reason for this is mainly the lack of a holistic grasp of "The Analects," interpreting it in fragments — which is truly "harmful indeed."

Zhu Xi, the great Confucian scholar of the Song dynasty, in his "Collected Commentaries on The Analects," interpreted "attack" as "to specialize in studying." But the ancient form of "攻" (attack) has the phonetic component "工" (work) and the radical "攴" (to strike). In bronze script, "攴" depicts a hand holding an implement to strike. Accordingly, the original meaning of "攻" is "to attack." The meaning of "to specialize in studying" appeared much later, derived from "attack" extending to "to process/work on," then further extending to "to study/research." Moreover, "攻" is generally not interpreted as "to specialize in studying" — it simply means "to research," not "to specialize in researching." And what is wrong with "researching heterodox views," or even "specializing in researching heterodox views"? As the saying goes, ignorance on any matter is a scholar's shame. Without studying heterodoxy, how would you know it is heterodox? Without even knowing what heterodoxy is, how could you correct it or bring it into alignment? Therefore, this interpretation is incorrect. "攻" here means exactly its original meaning: "to attack, to assault."

"Heterodox views" (异端) — some have interpreted this as "not following the middle way, going down rabbit holes, being contrarian," and such interpretations are indeed themselves examples of "not following the middle way, going down rabbit holes, and being contrarian." If we say that "端" means "end" or "edge," then what is "异" (different) from the "端" (edge) would be precisely the "middle" (中)! On this point, Zhu Xi was correct — his interpretation of "heterodox views" is the commonly understood meaning: "setting up a separate doctrine," meaning "that which is not the Way of the Sage." But because he interpreted "attack" as "to specialize in studying," "to attack heterodox views" became "to specialize in studying what is not the Way of the Sage." It's a pity Zhu Xi wasn't born in our time, otherwise he would surely have felt that "specializing in curing non-Sage doctrines" is not "harmful indeed" — because nowadays the trend is "specializing in curing syphilis," "specializing in curing hemorrhoids," "specializing in curing infertility." If "non-Sage doctrines" were "cured" like "syphilis, hemorrhoids, or infertility," what would be wrong with that? How could it be "harmful indeed"?

But enough joking. "To attack heterodox views" means "to attack and assault those who set up separate doctrines outside the Way of the Sage." "This is harmful indeed" (斯害也已) means "this is a disaster, a harm." Harmful to what? Harmful to the practice of "the Way of the Sage." In the explanation of the previous chapter, "It is humans who can make the Way great, not the Way that makes humans great," it was already stated: "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.'" And "the people who do not understand" are precisely those "who set up separate doctrines and practice what is not the Way of the Sage." Against such people, one must not adopt the means of "attacking and assaulting"; one must not seek to eliminate them through "attack and assault" — otherwise, this would violate the Confucian spirit of "harmony in diversity" (和而不同), which also originates from "The Analects."

For the gentleman practicing "the Way of the Sage," "heterodox views" are merely the "unknowing" ones who "set up separate doctrines and practice what is not the Way of the Sage." Without such people, the practice of "the Way of the Sage" would become water without a source. "Not understanding" is like uncooked rice; "not being resentful" is like cooked rice; "the Way of the Sage" is like water and fire; practicing "the Way of the Sage" is like using water and fire to cook the rice into a meal; and the gentleman who practices "the Way of the Sage" is naturally the one who does the cooking. Without the rice — without the "not understanding," without those "who do not understand," without "the world of those who do not understand" — even the cleverest housewife cannot cook a meal without rice. How then could one practice "the Way of the Sage"? Regarding "heterodox views" — regarding those "unknowing ones who set up separate doctrines and practice what is not the Way of the Sage" — the gentleman practicing "the Way of the Sage" is not to attack or eliminate them, but rather, like cooking rice from raw grain, to transform them from "those who do not understand" into "those who are not resentful," into gentlemen who practice "the Way of the Sage," to transform "the world of those who do not understand" into "a world without resentment." Only in this way can one be truly practicing "the Way of the Sage."

(To be continued)

Strictly prohibit plagiarism — violators will be prosecuted

Replies

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 12:11:29
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.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 12:24:34
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.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 12:25:24
[Anonymous] 飞龙

2006-10-23 12:19:13
Good.

==========
Thanks for the support.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 12:30:42
[Anonymous] 一家之言

2006-10-23 12:30:29
Not bad, I'll show my support. But I'm more interested in your economics articles.

==============

I'll continue writing those. But if you limit "economics" to the narrow modern Western sense of the word, that's a bad influence from Western learning. The Chinese term "经济" (jingji) originally means "governing the world and aiding the people" (经世济民). Writing about "The Analects" is the true economics — the great economics.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 14:59:57
That's Bruno.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 15:16:00
The person in the picture is Bruno.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 16:41:37
[Anonymous] 狂歌

2006-10-23 16:29:49
"To attack heterodox views" means "to attack and assault those who set up separate doctrines outside the Way of the Sage." "This is harmful indeed" means "this is a disaster, a harm."
This interpretation doesn't hold up, does it? Attacking those who aren't on the same path is a normal, logical behavior — how can that be called "a disaster, a harm"? If you don't attack and educate them, how can you get them to accept the Way of the Sage?
Your logic seems to have some problems.

============
This ID's logic has absolutely no problems. Please re-read more carefully. Also, education is not the same as attack, but forced education IS attack — and that's a disaster. The acceptance of "the Way of the Sage" does not require forced education. This point will be explained in later chapters.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 16:44:44
[Anonymous] MM

2006-10-23 16:14:49
Noted. It's a pity that historical Confucians never actually practiced this way.

=========

You can't confuse Zhu Xi and his ilk with Confucius. In truth, after the Han dynasty there was no true Confucianism — it was all either castrated or given a facelift.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 16:46:13
[Anonymous] 8005k

2006-10-23 16:35:54
Just keep writing. "To attack heterodox views — this is harmful indeed." Take good advice and you'll eat your fill. Talk less, observe more, and you won't annoy people.
Sigh, vernacular Chinese is still the best — "take good advice and you'll eat your fill" doesn't need all this interpretation, everyone gets it.

========

Too bad no one has been able to produce anything in vernacular Chinese that matches "The Analects," "The Book of Changes," or "Zhuangzi." When vernacular Chinese can manage that, then we'll talk about vernacular Chinese.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 16:47:13
[Anonymous] 狂歌

2006-10-23 16:29:49
"To attack heterodox views" means "to attack and assault those who set up separate doctrines outside the Way of the Sage." "This is harmful indeed" means "this is a disaster, a harm."
This interpretation doesn't hold up, does it? Attacking those who aren't on the same path is a normal, logical behavior — how can that be called "a disaster, a harm"? If you don't attack and educate them, how can you get them to accept the Way of the Sage?
Your logic seems to have some problems.

============
This ID's logic has absolutely no problems. Please re-read more carefully. Also, education is not the same as attack, but forced education IS attack — and that's a disaster. The acceptance of "the Way of the Sage" does not require forced education. This point will be explained in later chapters.

缠中说禅 2006/10/23 21:24:06
[Anonymous] 老麻花

2006-10-23 19:57:11
Dear PL little sister (pretty?), Old Mahua has today reposted this to the <<Confucian Studies United Forum>>

========
No problem, just credit the source.

缠中说禅 2006/10/24 12:31:34
[Anonymous] 狂歌

2006-10-24 11:44:58
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán 2006-10-23 16:47:13

This ID's logic has absolutely no problems. Please re-read more carefully. Also, education is not the same as attack, but forced education IS attack — and that's a disaster. The acceptance of "the Way of the Sage" does not require forced education. This point will be explained in later chapters.

==================================
"Attack" doesn't necessarily mean violent assault or forced education. It has the meaning of "to overcome." For example, nowadays people often say "攻关" (tackling key problems). In any case, even if there are different interpretations of "attack," it's only a question of the means of education — the goal is still the same. Elevating it to "a disaster" is clearly inappropriate. So this interpretation doesn't hold logically. As for the rice analogy, that's even more absurd.
Here's a possible interpretation: If the attack goes too far (that is... =============
Interpreting "attack" as "tackling key problems" is going back to Zhu Xi's old approach. Besides, in ancient times there was no such modern meaning of "攻关" — if you said "攻关" in ancient times, it would mean "attacking a fortress pass." "攻" still means "to attack."