加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子曰：以不教民战，是谓弃之

Confucius said: “Not teaching the people to fight is called abandoning them.”

Detailed explanation: The nine characters of this chapter, especially the five words “not teaching the people to fight,” have been misunderstood and misinterpreted for ages. Meng Ke believed that “not teaching the people and using them in warfare is called harming the people. Those who harm the people are not tolerated in the era of Yao and Shun.” Zhu Xi thought that “to use people who are not taught to fight will surely lead to defeat and disaster. This is abandoning the people.” Qian Mu argued that “using untrained civilians in battle is essentially abandoning them.” Li Zehou believed that “not conducting military training for the people is called abandoning them.” Some even go further, claiming that Confucius emphasized the education and popularization of national defense, advocating for comprehensive national defense education. Sigh, with these so-called experts’ so-called insights, one can see what ‘there are no heroes in the world, only young men who become famous.’ The most absurd is that these so-called experts even misunderstand basic grammar, treating ‘not teaching the people’ as a single word. Although grammatically it can be somewhat justified, it is definitely a clumsy phrase. How could such a poor phrase appear in the exquisite ‘Analects’? The interpretations of the four scholars above are largely similar; Meng Ke’s explanation is somewhat relevant, Zhu Xi’s is already outrageous, and Qian Mu and Li Zehou are simply talking nonsense.

It is truly baseless to interpret “not teaching the people to fight” as “using untrained civilians in battle.” Ask yourself, does using “trained civilians” mean “not abandoning them”? The duty of soldiers is to defend the country and the people. If a nation’s army falls to the point where it needs civilians to fight, whether they are “trained” or “untrained,” it is a disgrace to the army and the country! It is all “abandonment”! If so, wouldn’t it be more concise to simply say, “Using civilians to fight is called abandoning them”? Moreover, if Nazis and militarists “train civilians to fight,” does that not also mean “abandonment” in the eyes of the scholars? As for interpreting “not teaching the people to fight” as “not conducting military training for the people,” that is simply shameless. Do some countries’ universal conscription and armed citizens not count as “abandonment”? If a country has strong national power, allowing its people to live and work in peace without worrying about national security, is that not “abandonment”? If so, then Afghanistan and Iraq today must have the best governments in the world, because their citizens receive the most direct, frequent, and practical military training every day. The scholars’ explanations are utterly absurd and shameless.

“Not teaching” means not following the way of “the common people, the wealthy, and education”—the way of “good people.” The “common people” and the “wealthy” ultimately depend on “education.” Not teaching, therefore, also means not “enriching” or “benefiting” them. “Education” is the way of “good people” and also the way of “the people’s goodness”; “not teaching” can only lead to “the people fighting.” What does “the people fighting” mean? War, trembling, fear—here is the causative form: “the people fight” means “causing the people to tremble and fear.” As previously mentioned, the six-character maxim for long-term peace and stability—“Good people, eliminate cruelty, and remove killing”—is mutually reinforcing. If the way of “good people” is not followed, then only “cruelty” and “killing” will be used to suppress and control, attempting to make the people tremble and fear to govern the country. “Abandon” means to betray or forsake; “this is called abandoning”—that is, abandoning or betraying the people. Those who abandon the people will be abandoned by the people. This chapter from Confucius argues from the opposite perspective to demonstrate the way of “good people.” “Use” originally means “to employ.” “Not teaching the people to fight is called abandoning them.” Those who do not follow the way of “good people” and use “cruelty” and “killing” to make the people tremble and fear are betraying and abandoning the people, and in the end, they will be abandoned by the people. This is the true meaning of “not teaching the people to fight”—the explanations of the four scholars above are just a joke.

This chapter powerfully demonstrates, from the opposite side, the necessity and rationality of the six-character maxim for long-term peace and stability: “Good people, eliminate cruelty, and remove killing.” “Eliminate cruelty and killing” cannot be achieved by making the people tremble and fear; the country cannot be long-lasting and stable in this way. However, many people in history have failed to understand this simple truth: the most solid foundation for long-term peace and stability lies in “the happiness of the people,” not “the fighting of the people.” It is about “making the people good,” not “making the people fight.” Such ignorant fools are countless; the Analects immediately provides an example, which leads to the next chapter.

Duke Ai asked Zai Wo about the sacrifices to the land gods. Zai Wo replied: “The Xia kings used pine, the Shang used cypress, and the Zhou used chestnut, to make the people tremble.” Confucius heard this and said: “Do not speak of completed matters; do not advise on ongoing matters; do not blame past matters.”

Detailed explanation: Duke Ai of Lu asked Confucius’s disciple Zai Wo about “land god sacrifices.” Zai Wo, thinking himself clever, said: “The Xia used pine, the Shang used cypress, and the Zhou used chestnut to borrow homophones to make the people tremble.” Confucius heard this and warned: “Do not rashly comment on completed matters; do not futilely advise on ongoing matters; do not blame past matters.” “Completed matters” does not refer to things already finished, but to things that are in the process of becoming so—i.e., in the sprouting stage. At this point, observation is needed, and one should not rashly judge or make assumptions. “Ongoing matters” are those about to be completed; if they are beyond remedy, there is no point in wasting words on advice, as it will only breed resentment. “Past matters” are those that have already happened; if mistakes were made, they should not be compounded to cause further disaster. This phrase addresses the attitude to adopt at three different stages of development, but the common understanding is often mistaken—especially the most frequently used “no blame for past matters,” which wrongly interprets “blame” as “investigation” or similar, a gross misunderstanding.

Zai Wo, sharp-tongued and clever, often likes to challenge Confucius with strange questions. But he also frequently acts foolishly by speaking impulsively. Duke Ai of Lu was suppressed by the three great ministers of Lu and felt very uncomfortable. When asked about “land god sacrifices,” it was not an unprovoked question. The state is the ancestral temple; asking about “she” (祭祀) is asking about the state affairs. Zai Wo, understanding this, arrogantly explained that “the Zhou used chestnut to make people tremble.” But this literal interpretation is what Confucius opposed, and Confucius did not believe that the Zhou used chestnut to make people tremble. Therefore, he warned him: “Do not cause disaster by rehashing completed matters.” The Zhou’s use of chestnut is a “completed matter,” but Zai Wo, taking the literal meaning, and in the context of Duke Ai of Lu asking about state affairs, this only gives Duke Ai a bad hint—actually encouraging him to use “cruelty” and “killing” tactics, which could lead to disaster. Confucius’s warning is especially important here. Combining this with the previous discussion of “not teaching the people to fight” as “abandonment,” it is clear that Confucius’s opposition to the “cruelty” and “killing” tactics of causing the people to tremble and fear is consistent. Even in his disciples’ words and hints, he gives strict warnings, and we must have a clear understanding of this. **$WIN $SUN **$SUPER