加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子贡曰：“贫而无谄，富而无骄，何如？”子曰：“可也；未若贫而乐，富而好礼者也。”

Master Zigong said: “Being poor without flattery, being rich without arrogance, how does that compare?” Confucius replied: “That’s acceptable; but not as good as being poor and happy, rich and respectful of rites.”

Detailed explanation: The previous chapter explained that it is necessary to achieve a society where the “not being different” in “poverty and wealth” leads to “poverty without resentment; wealth without arrogance” — a society of “not being different.” The so-called “not being different” means the intermediate process from “people not knowing” to “people not being angry,” which is an essential step. It allows all kinds of classes, social strata, and other “relations” to coexist equally in society, preventing any particular “relation” from dominating others and becoming the sole “relation” that overshadows the rest. Once one “relation” becomes dominant and takes precedence, it must be “not being different” from others, returning to the state of equality among all relations. Only “not being different” can lead to “being different”; only by accommodating all kinds of “differences” can one achieve the “great,” the so-called “Great Unity.”

However, this “not being different” society is only an intermediate stage. The ultimate goal of following the “Way of the Sage” is to realize the “Great Unity” where “people are not angry.” Because of this, this chapter follows. Master Zigong, a student of Confucius, thought that “not being different” was the highest state, so he asked: “Being poor without flattery, being rich without arrogance, how does that compare?” The phrase “poverty without flattery, wealth without arrogance” is what was discussed in the previous chapter as “poverty without resentment; wealth without arrogance,” which is the social state of “not being different.” But Confucius’s answer was: “That’s acceptable; but not as good as being poor and happy, rich and respectful of rites.” In other words, this “not being different” society of “poverty without flattery, wealth without arrogance” is acceptable and already quite good, but not the most ideal state. For Confucianism, the most ideal society is one of “poverty and happiness, wealth and respect for rites,” a “Great Unity” where “people are not angry.”

Due to the influence of conventional ideas, most people are accustomed to using “poverty and wealth” only from the perspective of wealth. But as emphasized repeatedly in the previous chapter, the “poverty and wealth” in the Analects do not refer solely to material wealth. Wherever differences among people arise—be it in knowledge, intelligence, wealth, political status, social roles, etc.—there will be “poverty and wealth.” The “Great Unity” of “people not being angry” does not mean eliminating all differences to achieve absolute equality, because such a possibility is fundamentally nonexistent. Human differences are inevitable. Exploring a society of absolute equality in all aspects is merely utopian and meaningless. The highest wisdom of Confucianism lies in not assuming the existence of such a meaningless society, but in recognizing the inevitability of human differences and exploring the possible ideal society based on that premise. The conclusion is the “Great Unity” where “people are not angry.”

Classifying social forms based on “poverty and wealth” yields three basic types: “poverty and flattery, wealth and arrogance,” “poverty and no flattery, wealth and no arrogance,” and “poverty and happiness, wealth and respect for rites,” corresponding respectively to societies of “people not knowing,” “people not being different,” and “people not being angry.” Following the “Way of the Sage” involves transforming a society of “people not knowing” into the intermediate stage of “people not being different,” ultimately reaching the “Great Unity” of “people not being angry.” The overall understanding of social forms in the Analects is very clear. However, since ancient times, corrupt scholars have been hindered by narrow-mindedness, and ignorant people have been misled by evil spirits, spouting nonsense about “overthrowing Confucius’s school.” Such people, who do not understand what Confucius, the Analects, or Confucianism truly teach, defile themselves with slander. How could they not leave a lasting stain in history?

“Flattery” (谄) means “to flatter,” not only in speech but in all behaviors. Why flatter? Because the weak have needs. In a society of “poverty and flattery, wealth and arrogance,” such “flattery” is ubiquitous. For example, between subordinates and superiors, workers and bosses, ducks and those who hire ducks, male graduate students and female professors, fans and idols, small countries and large countries, etc. As for “wealth and arrogance,” it needs no elaboration. “Arrogance” arises from strength and power. For instance, the United States is a typical example of a “wealthy and arrogant” nation; individual examples are everywhere. Ultimately, “poverty and flattery” leads to “poverty and resentment,” which breeds “hatred,” “hostility,” and even “rebellion.” But successful “rebellion” quickly turns into “wealth and arrogance,” creating new “poverty and flattery,” and the cycle continues endlessly. No one can escape this “poverty and flattery, wealth and arrogance” society of “people not knowing.”

The Analects and Confucianism see through this vicious cycle of “poverty and flattery, wealth and arrogance,” knowing that simply circling around is useless. The way to break this cycle is through “not being different” among people, ultimately achieving “people not being angry,” and breaking free from the vicious cycle of “poverty and flattery, wealth and arrogance.” To accomplish this, the first step is to realize “not being flattered” in “poverty,” and “not being arrogant” in “wealth,” which means achieving “not being different” among people. Why does “not being different” in “poverty and wealth” enable “people not being different”? Because as long as there are human interactions, various forms of “poverty and wealth” will inevitably appear. Eliminating or erasing these differences is impossible; the only way is to make them “not being different,” allowing all forms of “poverty and wealth” to coexist equally, to be “different,” and to accommodate all “differences” to achieve the “Great Unity.” Confucianism and the Analects believe that this “Great Unity” society can be realized in the present world, because it is rooted in Confucian engagement with the world and the spirit of this world.

“Poverty and happiness, wealth and respect for rites,” where “happiness” (乐, yue) signifies singing, dancing, and celebration, means even the weak and poor can sing, dance, and celebrate. Only “not being angry” makes singing and dancing possible, even the poor can be “not angry.” This is the true “not being angry,” the real “Great Unity.” Here, “rites and music” are both emphasized, not to say that “rites” belong to the wealthy and “music” to the poor, but as a rhetorical device of “intertextuality”: regardless of wealth or poverty, all “enjoy” and respect “rites.” Why emphasize both “rites and music”? “Music” refers to individual enjoyment, while “rites” refer to interpersonal relations. Everyone sings and dances, treats each other with respect, and this is how “people are not angry” becomes possible. Additionally, everyone singing and dancing also indicates that everyone has good cultivation, all are virtuous gentlemen of high moral standing. The so-called “cultivating oneself, regulating the family, and bringing peace to the world” depends on personal cultivation; without it, how can there be the “peaceful world” of “people not being angry”?