加密数字货币交易所-《论语》详解：给所有曲解孔子的人-子曰：夷狄之有君、不如，诸夏之亡也

Confucius said: “The barbarians who have a ruler are not as good as the fall of the Zhou dynasty.”

Detailed explanation: This is a chapter that has triggered countless disputes since ancient times. First, let’s clarify the punctuation. There are two interpretations in history: 1. “The barbarians who have a ruler, not as good as the fall of the Zhou dynasty.” 2. “The barbarians who have a ruler, not as good as the fall of all of the Xia.” In the first, “诸” is a pronoun referring to “the barbarians who have a ruler,” which essentially means “not as good as the barbarians who have a ruler, the fall of Xia.” It is interpreted as “Unlike the barbarians who have a ruler, the fall of Xia is the reason for its demise.” The so-called “having a ruler” is based on “ruler-centrism.” The second interpretation, “诸夏,” was first proposed in the first year of Duke Min of Lu (661 BC), when Guan Zhong mobilized Duke Huan of Qi to send troops to rescue the state of Xing attacked by the northern Di. This marks the initial formation stage of the Huaxia ethnicity. The corresponding sentence actually becomes “The barbarians who have a ruler are not as good as the fall of all of the Xia.” This punctuation has two possible explanations: one is to interpret “不如” as “not like,” also based on “ruler-centrism”; the other is to interpret “不如” as “not comparable to,” with “无君” meaning “without a ruler” but “having the Way,” based on “Dao-centrism.”

The debate over these two punctuations and three interpretations centers on: 1. Is it “诸夏” or “诸” + “夏”? 2. Is it “ruler-centrism” or “Dao-centrism”? The ongoing dispute mainly revolves around the second point: “君” (ruler) refers not only to the highest ruler but also to the state itself. This makes the issue of “ruler-centrism” versus “Dao-centrism” very serious. Even today, the so-called debates over “human rights” and “sovereignty” are actually variants of this issue. Historically, traitors have found reasons within this debate. In fact, even when ducks still build arches, traitors do the same. All traitor’s arguments are written from the perspective of “Dao-centrism”: because “the state has no Dao,” and “Dao” is greater than the “state,” and “human rights” are greater than “sovereignty,” they justify taking “Dao” over “state.” Traitors have their own logic, which is essentially an excuse wrapped under “Dao-centrism.”

However, both the two punctuations and three interpretations above are incorrect. The correct punctuation is: “The barbarians who have a ruler, not as good as the fall of all of the Xia.” Equivalent to the condensed forms of “The barbarians who have a ruler, the fall of all of the Xia” and “The barbarians are not as good as, the fall of all of the Xia.” “亡” (fall) implies belittling; “诸夏” refers to more advanced civilizations, peoples, and nations. “The fall of all of the Xia” means “the fall of all of the Xia,” with “之” referring to “the barbarians who have a ruler, not as good as.” “如” originally means “to follow” or “according to,” so “not as good as” what? As “Dao.” But here, “Dao” does not refer to “the Way of the Sage,” but to the “Dao” that “诸夏” (the Huaxia) advocates, including the “Kingly Way” of the Qi style and the “benevolence and virtue” of the Lu style. “Having a ruler” means having one’s own ruler and country. “Barbarians” (夷狄), like “戎” in “善人、教民七年，亦可以即戎矣,” refer to uncivilized peoples, nations, and states with lower levels of civilization. The meaning of “The barbarians who have a ruler, not as good as the fall of all of the Xia” is: uncivilized peoples, nations, and states, although they have their own political systems, are looked down upon because they do not follow or adhere to the political systems and states of more advanced civilizations.

“亡” also has the meaning of past or former times. The “fall” that “诸夏” belittles is actually “the past of ‘诸夏’.” Why belittle? Because “the barbarians who have a ruler”—their political systems, states, etc.—are things that “诸夏” once experienced but have now surpassed. Therefore, “诸夏” looks down on them, leading to the idea that “the barbarians are not as good as.” Since “诸夏” all came from “夷狄,” the more advanced peoples, nations, and states have all gone through a primitive, less civilized stage. Yet some peoples, nations, and states, “when they become rich, their faces change,” just like many so-called Chinese billionaires today, who look down on the poor, farmers, and migrant workers, forgetting that all Chinese originate from farmers, with farmers in every generation, and every Chinese person carries the blood of farmers. The same applies to nations: the so-called strong nations oppressing weaker ones, such as the United States now selling “democracy” and “freedom” everywhere, implicitly saying “the barbarians who have a ruler, not as good as the fall of all of the Xia.” As long as different peoples, nations, and states coexist, there will inevitably be distinctions between “诸夏” and “夷狄.” For nations and states, any that do not follow the “Sage’s Way,” whether it is the “Kingly Way” of the Qi style or the “benevolence and virtue” of the Lu style, will inevitably look down upon and oppress those they consider “backward.”

The “Sage’s Way” of “immediately conquering” (即戎) is a negation of “the barbarians who have a ruler, not as good as the fall of all of the Xia.” If “not educating the people to fight” is considered in a narrow sense as targeting one’s own country, in a broad sense, between countries and within the world, it also means “not educating the people to fight,” which in this broad sense refers to “the people” as “ethnic groups and nations.” If a country or nation does not practice the “benevolent” way, and attempts to dominate the world through “residual violence and killing” to make other countries and peoples tremble and fear, it is abandoning and betraying all nations and peoples, and will ultimately be abandoned by them. A typical example is the United States. The rise and fall of all great empires in history serve as the best counterexamples to the “benevolent” way in this broad sense. Correspondingly, the six-character maxim “benevolent people, defeat the residual and kill” is also a long-lasting peace mantra for the world. The “benevolent” way, composed of the two sides of “benevolent people” and “defeating residual and killing,” has been extended from the narrow national context to the broad world context, from family to the entire world.

As for the common misinterpretation that leads to the debate over “ruler-centrism” versus “Dao-centrism,” it is a dispute between two false propositions caused by incorrect explanations. “Dao” only refers to the practical, real-world Dao; no “Dao” is a priori or possesses some kind of divine power. The so-called “cultivating oneself, regulating the family, and bringing peace to the world” all refer to the real “self,” “family,” and “world.” The “benevolent” way and the “Sage’s Way” are not abstract concepts, nor are they excuses called “Dao.” They are concrete and practical. All tricks of “Dao-centrism” require first establishing an abstract “Dao,” whether it is freedom, democracy, benevolence, or morality—there is no difference. Using this abstract “Dao” as a basis is essentially creating an excuse under the guise of “Dao.” The “Sage’s Way” and the “benevolent” way are the Great Way and the real way, and they have no rank or position—so where does “centrism” come from? Precisely because they have no rank or position, they can generate their foundation and position from nothing. This is the true Great Way, the real way.