加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子曰：攻乎异端，斯害也己

Confucius said: “To attack heretical views is to harm oneself.”

Detailed explanation: The key to understanding this sentence lies in “attack” and “heretical views.” Some interpret “attack” as “suppress,” and even more so, interpret “heretical views” as “not following the middle path.” These are all misinterpretations. The reason for this is mainly due to a lack of a comprehensive grasp of the Analects, interpreting it in isolation. Such fragmented understanding is truly “harmful to oneself.”

Zhu Xi, a great Confucian of the Song Dynasty, in his “Collected Annotations on the Analects,” took “attack” to mean “suppress.” But the ancient character for “attack,” pronounced “gōng,” comes from “攴” (a hand holding a tool for striking). In bronze inscriptions, “攴” depicts a hand wielding an implement for striking. Correspondingly, the original meaning of “attack” is “to strike or assault.” The later meanings of “suppress” or “control” are relatively recent developments, derived from “attack” being extended to “processing” and then “research.” Moreover, “attack” is generally not interpreted as “suppress,” which would mean “research,” but simply “study,” not “specialized research.” So, what’s wrong with “researching heretical views,” or even “specialized research on heretical views”? The so-called ignorance of a matter is a shame for Confucians; if heretical views are not studied, how can one recognize them? Without knowing what heresy is, how can one correct or understand it? Therefore, this interpretation is incorrect. “Attack” means the original sense of “to assault or strike.”

Some interpret “heretical views” as “not following the middle way, being narrow-minded, or setting oneself apart,” which indeed fits the description of “not following the middle way” and “being narrow-minded or innovative.” If “端” (end, edge) is taken to mean “head” or “boundary,” then “异端” (heretical views) would be “different from the end,” which is just “the middle.” Zhu Xi is correct here; he interprets “heretical views” as the usual understanding—“different from the end,” meaning “deviating from the sage’s way.” But because he interprets “attack” as “suppress,” “attack heretical views” becomes “suppress those who deviate from the sage’s way.” Unfortunately, Zhu Xi was not born in contemporary times; otherwise, he would surely think that “suppressing those who deviate from the sage’s way” is not “harmful to oneself,” because nowadays, it’s common to “suppress syphilis,” “suppress hemorrhoids,” or “suppress infertility.” Treating “non-sage’s way” as “syphilis, hemorrhoids, infertility,” and “suppressing” them—what’s wrong with that? How could that be “harmful to oneself”?

Just a joke, I won’t continue. “Attack heretical views” means “to strike or attack those who deviate from the sage’s way.” “This is harmful,”—it’s a disaster, a damage. Harm to what? To the practice of “the Way of the Sage.” In the previous chapter’s explanation of “People can promote the Way, but the Way does not promote people,” it was already said: “For those who cannot yet ‘hear, see, learn, and practice’ the ‘Way of the Sage,’ the ‘Way of the Sage’ cannot be separated from them. To transform the world of ‘people not knowing’ into a world of ‘people not angered,’ it cannot be done without those who ‘do not know.’” And “people not knowing” are “those who deviate from the sage’s way,” and for such people, one should not use “attack or assault” methods. One cannot eliminate them through “attack or assault,” or it would violate the Confucian spirit of “harmony in diversity,” which also originates from the Analects.

For gentlemen who practice “the Way of the Sage,” “heretical views” are merely “those who deviate from the sage’s way and do not know.” Without such people, the practice of “the Way of the Sage” would be like water with no source. “Not knowing” is like rice; “not angered” 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 rice. The gentleman who practices “the Way of the Sage” is naturally the one cooking the rice. Without rice, without “not knowing,” without “not knowing” people, without the world of “not knowing,” even a skillful cook cannot cook without rice. How can one practice “the Way of the Sage”? For “heretical views,” for “those who deviate from the sage’s way and do not know,” the noble person does not aim to attack or eliminate them. Instead, like turning rice into cooked rice, they should transform “not knowing” into “not angered,” into a person who practices “the Way of the Sage,” transforming the world of “not knowing” into a world of “not angered.” Only then can it truly be said that they are practicing “the Way of the Sage.”