加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子曰：“不患，无位；患，所以立。不患，莫己知求，为可知也

Confucius said: “Do not worry about having no position; worry about the reason for establishing it. Do not worry that no one knows you; seek to make yourself known by your abilities.”

To help everyone better understand the unique interpretation of this ID, starting from this chapter, I will first list some so-called master explanations. Since most classical Chinese texts are difficult for ordinary people, I will not list those explanations, otherwise it would be too lengthy to also explain the interpretations of classical Chinese. In the vernacular explanations, I will focus on three schools: Yang Bojun (representing traditional textual research and the classical perspective), Qian Mu (representing Taiwan’s highest level, with more historical and Neo-Confucian perspectives), and Li Zehou (representing mainland China’s top level, with more philosophical and May Fourth Western learning perspectives). As for figures like Nan Huai-Chin, those who pull Eastern and Western ideas from ancient books to deceive, are even below kindergarten level, so I will not mention them.

Yang Bojun: Confucius said: “Do not worry about not having a position; worry about whether you have the ability to hold it; do not fear that no one knows you; pursue the ability that makes you known to others.”

Qian Mu: The master said: “Do not worry about not getting a position; worry about what you have to stand on in that position. Do not worry that no one knows you; seek what you have to do that others can recognize.”

Li Zehou: Confucius said: “Do not worry about not having a position; worry about how to fulfill your duties in that position. Do not worry that others do not know you; as long as you work hard, others will recognize you.”

Detailed explanation:

From the above, it’s clear that these so-called masters do not understand what “position” really means. In the previous chapter, I already revealed the relationship between “position” and the Book of Changes (I Ching). The I Ching is the source of Chinese civilization. Confucius’s relationship with the I Ching is also mentioned multiple times in the Analects. If one does not understand “position,” it’s obviously impossible to understand the I Ching, and naturally, the Analects will be misunderstood as well. Just like the explanation in this chapter, these three figures each have their “position,” but they all treat “position” as a job or official post, and they misunderstand what “standing” (立) means. Their explanations are therefore impossible to be correct. This is truly “not worried about having no position; worry about the reason for establishing it.” More importantly, these three are also the usual “not worried about having no position; worry about the reason for establishing it; not worried that no one knows you; seek to make yourself known by your abilities.” The punctuation is wrong; it should be: “Not worried, no position; worry, the reason for establishing it. Not worried, no one knows you; seek what can be known.”

“Position” (位) refers to rank, to where one “stops,” to where one “stands.” “Having no position and yet generating its root, having no root and yet generating its position,” that is, “standing,” “stopping,” and “position.” When there is “standing,” then “standing” is “having,” and “having” must have its “position.” What is “having”? In modern terms, it is “existence.” The opposite of “having” is “not having.” Does “having” have its “position”? Does “not having” have its “position”? Two thousand years later, Heidegger’s reflection on “being” is based on his thinking about “nothing.” Existence and non-existence—Heidegger posed the question: “Why is it that ‘being’ is, but ‘nothing’ is not?” For such a profound philosophical question, Confucius’s answer over two thousand years ago was: “Do not worry about no position; worry about the reason for establishing it.” For Confucius, the most important question is “how to establish” (“以何立”), not “why is it that ‘being’ is, but ‘nothing’ is not.”

At least for Heidegger’s early period, there is a distinction between “how to establish” and “why is it that ‘being’ is, but ‘nothing’ is not.” He did not fully grasp the meaning of “generating its root without position and generating its position without root,” which led to entanglement in “how to establish.” Confucius, through enlightenment, freed himself from this entanglement and directly reached the current state of “how to establish.” Moving from the phenomenon of “what is standing” to the primordial state of “why it is that ‘being’ is, but ‘nothing’ is not,” and then to the current state of “how to establish,” corresponds to three levels: “seeing mountains as mountains, seeing water as water,” “not seeing mountains as mountains, not seeing water as water,” and “seeing mountains still as mountains, seeing water still as water.” Without understanding these, one cannot discuss Confucianism or Western learning. However, a note: do not confuse these three states with Zen Buddhism, or else a strike will scatter your physical body and starry soul. Zen is not the same as Confucianism or Western learning.

“Worry” (患), meaning “fear,” for Heidegger, reveals the primordial state of “nothing.” Heidegger extended “nothing” from the phenomenon of “how to establish” and the simple, abstract negation of “being,” to the primordial state of “why to establish,” allowing “being” to come into existence. His contribution to Western thought is significant. But for Confucianism, this is not enough. Trapped in the primordial state of “why to establish,” “not seeing mountains as mountains, not seeing water as water,” still lacks firm footing. Later, Heidegger began to open this primordial state’s dark cage, using the domain of “thinking” of existence to show the vitality of the present moment. It can be said that Heidegger finally touched the境界 of “not worried about no position; worry about the reason for establishing it,” reaching the state of “seeing mountains still as mountains, seeing water still as water.” In section 7, this ID once said: “Of course, not all Western learning is muddle-headed; for example, Marx and Heidegger, whose works show a completely different path from Plato onward. In temperament, Marx follows a yang (masculine) route, while Heidegger is yin (feminine). I will not elaborate here.” Previously, I contrasted Marx with Confucius; now, bringing Heidegger into the picture is a preliminary expansion of the discussion in section 7.

“Not worried about no position; worry about the reason for establishing it,” “worry,” with “not worried,” about “no position,” and “establishing it.” In ancient times, “worry” (患) was connected with “fear,” and for Heidegger, “fear” reveals the primordial state of “nothing.” Heidegger extended “nothing” from the phenomenon of “how to establish” and the abstract negation of “being,” to the primordial state of “why to establish,” making “being” possible. His contribution to Western philosophy is enormous. But for Confucianism, this is still insufficient. Trapped in the primordial state of “why to establish,” “not seeing mountains as mountains, not seeing water as water,” still lacks a firm footing. Later, Heidegger began to open this primordial state’s dark cage, using the domain of “thinking” of existence to show the vitality of the present. It can be said that Heidegger ultimately reached the境界 of “not worried about no position; worry about the reason for establishing it,” attaining the state of “seeing mountains still as mountains, seeing water still as water.” In section 7, this ID once said: “Of course, not all Western learning is muddle-headed; for example, Marx and Heidegger, whose works show a completely different path from Plato onward. In temperament, Marx follows a yang (masculine) route, while Heidegger is yin (feminine). I will not elaborate here.” Previously, I contrasted Marx with Confucius; now, bringing Heidegger into the picture is a preliminary expansion of the discussion in section 7.

“Worry,” that is “fear,” for Heidegger, “fear” reveals the primordial state of “nothing.” Heidegger extended “nothing” from the phenomenon of “how to establish” and the simple, abstract negation of “being,” to the primordial state of “why to establish,” allowing “being” to come into existence. His contribution to Western thought is significant. But for Confucianism, this is not enough. Trapped in the primordial state of “why to establish,” “not seeing mountains as mountains, not seeing water as water,” still lacks a firm footing. Later, Heidegger began to open this primordial state’s dark cage, using the domain of “thinking” of existence to show the vitality of the present moment. It can be said that Heidegger finally touched the境界 of “not worried about no position; worry about the reason for establishing it,” reaching the state of “seeing mountains still as mountains, seeing water still as water.” In section 7, this ID once said: “Of course, not all Western learning is muddle-headed; for example, Marx and Heidegger, whose works show a completely different path from Plato onward. In temperament, Marx follows a yang (masculine) route, while Heidegger is yin (feminine). I will not elaborate here.” Previously, I contrasted Marx with Confucius; now, bringing Heidegger into the picture is a preliminary expansion of the discussion in section 7.

“Worry,” that is “fear,” for Heidegger, “fear” reveals the primordial state of “nothing.” Heidegger extended “nothing” from the phenomenon of “how to establish” and the simple, abstract negation of “being,” to the primordial state of “why to establish,” allowing “being” to come into existence. His contribution to Western thought is significant. But for Confucianism, this is not enough. Trapped in the primordial state of “why to establish,” “not seeing mountains as mountains, not seeing water as water,” still lacks a firm footing. Later, Heidegger began to open this primordial state’s dark cage, using the domain of “thinking” of existence to show the vitality of the present moment. It can be said that Heidegger finally touched the境界 of “not worried about no position; worry about the reason for establishing it,” reaching the state of “seeing mountains still as mountains, seeing water still as water.” In section 7, this ID once said: “Of course, not all Western learning is muddle-headed; for example, Marx and Heidegger, whose works show a completely different path from Plato onward. In temperament, Marx follows a yang (masculine) route, while Heidegger is yin (feminine). I will not elaborate here.” Previously, I contrasted Marx with Confucius; now, bringing Heidegger into the picture is a preliminary expansion of the discussion in section 7.