加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子夏曰：百工居肆以成其事；君子学以致其道。

Zixia said: “All craftsmen dwell in their workshops to complete their work; the gentleman studies to attain his Way.”

Yang Bojun: Zixia said, “All kinds of artisans reside in their workshops to finish their crafts; the gentleman dedicates his life to learning in order to seek this Way.”

Qian Mu: Zixia said, “All craftsmen spend their days in workshops to produce their tools; the gentleman spends his entire life in study to pursue this Way.”

Li Zehou: Zixia said, “Workers in various trades complete their work at their production sites; the gentleman should strive to learn to accomplish his career.”

Detailed explanation:

Qian Mu’s interpretation mainly captures the grammatical structure of this chapter, while the other two haven’t even clarified the basic grammar. “百工居肆以成其事；君子学以致其道” is actually an abbreviated form of “百工居肆以成其事；君子居学以致其道,” which is a typical symmetrical metaphorical sentence pattern. The most amusing part is that Li Zehou, in his “Notes,” makes a grand discourse about intellectuals and laboring people, even bringing in the rural labor reform of intellectuals—such intellectuals are indeed “futilely wasting resources.”

The meaning of this chapter is quite simple: literally, it is like various artisans working in their workshops to complete their crafts; the gentleman, through study, completes his career. Here, Zixia transforms Confucius’s vivid concept of “learning” into a concrete, purpose-driven, patterned, and normative “learning” akin to a handicraft workshop. This is similar to how, after Plato, Greek philosophy turned Heraclitus’s “Logos” into “Logic,” structuring, formalizing, and grounding everything, which in turn corresponds to all ideological plays. The so-called later Confucianism sank into this kind of ideologicalization, and figures like Zixia suffered greatly.

Confucius had a special foresight regarding this dangerous trend, which is why the following chapter exists:

The Master said to Zixia: “You be a gentlemanly Confucian! Do not be a petty-minded Confucian!”

Yang Bojun: Confucius said to Zixia, “You should be a Confucian of a gentlemanly kind, not a petty-minded Confucian.”

Qian Mu: The Master said to Zixia, “You should be a Confucian of a gentleman, not a petty Confucian.”

Li Zehou: Confucius said to Zixia, “You should be a scholar-official Confucian, not a common folk shaman.”

Detailed explanation:

“女” (nǚ), meaning “you,” i.e., “汝.” The literal meaning of this chapter is very simple; the key issue is what exactly “gentlemanly Confucian” and “petty-minded Confucian” mean. Later generations labeled Confucius as a representative of Confucianism, but in the Analects, only this chapter mentions “Confucian.” The original meaning of “Confucian” (儒) refers to “artisans” or “techniques,” originally used in the Zhou Dynasty specifically for teachers of noble children, etc. Confucius’s students were almost never aristocratic children, and in the Analects, there is no record of anyone calling Confucius “Confucian,” nor does Confucius take pride in being “Confucian,” nor are there any sayings where he calls himself “Confucian.” The so-called “Confucian school” was all bestowed by figures like Zixia. The emergence of “Confucianism” as a school is merely a conventional, mistaken label.

The “Confucian” here has nothing to do with later Confucian scholars, students, or readers. In Confucius’s time, there was no such concept or designation. The “Book of Rites” mentions “Four words: Confucian, to govern the people through the Way.” But this text was edited by Liu Xin in the Han Dynasty; whether it is historically authentic is disputed—Kang Youwei was firmly opposed. Hu Shih regarded “Confucian” as originating from a class of people similar to Christian pastors during the Shang Dynasty, which is just the rambling of someone brainwashed by Western models. As for the “Confucian conduct” in the “Book of Rites,” it was written by later Confucians during the Warring States period and afterward, and is actually a distorted and transformed version of Confucius’s thought—an unworthy reference. Setting aside all these debates about “Confucian,” looking at the “Analects” itself, Confucius clearly did not regard “Confucian” as a label representing himself; this is very clear, as evidenced by the rare appearances of “Confucian” in the text.

Here, the explanation still adopts the standard from “Shuowen Jiezi”: “Confucian, gentle; a term for artisans. From ‘person’ and the sound ‘xū’.” Whether as teachers of noble children or later Confucian scholars, they can be seen as a kind of “artisans” in a certain sense. Confucius’s approach was straightforward and vigorous; though there was gentleness within strength, it was far from the “gentle artisans” of “artisans’ softness.” I propose a groundbreaking assertion: Laozi is actually the grand synthesizer of ancient “Confucian” thought, and Confucius took it a step further—no one like Laozi can be imagined. Laozi’s “Way” is “Confucian,” and Daoism should actually be called “Confucianism.” Since Yan Hui’s departure, Confucian learning has had no successors; those who borrow Confucius’s name to deceive the world are merely petty Confucians like Zixia.

In Confucius’s view, all so-called “Confucians,” including Laozi, were merely petty-minded individuals lacking wisdom, “petty Confucians.” But at that time, “Confucians” and various artisans had a broad influence in society. Confucius created a new term, “gentle Confucian,” to distinguish his own stance. What is a “gentle Confucian”? It is someone who is broad and unrestrained, yet grounded in the present; who transforms the “world of ignorance” into a “world of non-anger”; who bears the world without burden, and bears the burden without burden; who “hears, sees, learns, acts” and embodies the “Way of the Sage.” Confucius saw that Zixia and others could not bear this responsibility, hence the direct warning in this chapter, leaving a topic for future generations. The most direct evaluation of his disciples appears in the next chapter.

Duke Ai asked: “Which of my disciples is most eager to learn?” Confucius replied, “Yen Hui is eager to learn; he does not get angry or make mistakes twice. Unfortunately, he died young, and now there is no one like him. I have never heard of anyone else eager to learn.”

Yang Bojun: Duke Ai of Lu asked, “Among your students, who is the most eager to learn?” Confucius answered, “There is a person named Yen Hui who is eager to learn; he does not vent his anger on others nor repeat his mistakes. Sadly, he died young, and now there is no one else like him. I have not heard of anyone eager to learn since.”

Qian Mu: Duke Ai of Lu asked Confucius, “Which of your students is good at learning?” Confucius said, “Yen Hui is good at learning; he can control his anger without transferring it elsewhere, and he does not repeat his faults. Unfortunately, he died young. Now, I have not heard of anyone eager to learn.”

Li Zehou: Duke Ai asked Confucius, “Among your students, who loves to study?” Confucius replied, “There is someone named Yen Hui who loves to study. He does not vent his anger on others nor repeat his mistakes, but he died early. Now, there is no one left, no one I have heard of who loves to learn.”

Detailed explanation:

Regardless of what “not venting anger or making mistakes twice” precisely means, in this chapter, Confucius clearly states that, apart from Yen Hui, no one else meets his standard of eagerness to learn. This confirms that the earlier statement that Zixia’s learning was not Confucius’s learning is indeed justified.

However, the interpretations of the phrase “not venting anger or making mistakes twice” by the three scholars above are problematic. “Anger” here does not refer to ordinary anger or rage but to “exceeding” or “surpassing.” In “Xunzi: The Gentleman,” the phrase “punishments do not anger, rewards do not exceed virtue” uses this interpretation; “迁” (qiān) means “to change” or “to shift”; “贰” (èr) means “to deviate” or “to oppose”; “过” (guò) means “to surpass.” Classical texts favor symmetrical structures, often using similar but slightly different words to form balanced sentences. In “not venting anger or making mistakes twice,” “迁” contrasts with “贰,” and “怒” contrasts with “过,” with their meanings not being very different.

Confucius’s teachings are rooted in the present reality and seek to explore its origins. If “迁” or “贰” were involved, it would contradict this principle. Similarly, “anger” and “surpassing” (过) involve exceeding the present reality, which also conflicts with Confucius’s core teachings. Only Yen Hui could understand the essence of Confucius’s teachings and truly “not vent anger or make mistakes twice,” thus earning high praise. Others, like Zixia, presented their wisdom as accumulated knowledge over time, transforming the present into “migration” and “deviation,” which would not be recognized by Confucius.