Confucius once said: "Acting for profit invites many complaints."

But this statement has been misunderstood entirely. Looking into traditional annotations, most follow Zhu Xi's interpretation—explaining "放" as "depend on," which changes the meaning to "as long as one acts around profit, it is easy to attract resentment." Later explanations are similar, merely demonizing "利" (profit), as if pursuing gains itself is the root of all evil.

The question is, if "放" truly equals "依" (depend on), why didn't Confucius directly say "依于利而行，多怨"? Precision in word choice is highly valued in Chinese. Consider that famous poem line "Spring breeze again greens the southern banks," where the word "绿" (green) cannot be changed; the entire mood relies on it. As a classic of Chinese literature, every character in the Analects must have its necessity. Even someone like Lü Buwei dared to boast that his book was "a thousand gold per character," indicating the high value of changing a single character—let alone the Analects.

Re-examining the character "放," it should be pronounced with a falling tone and carries meanings like "abandon" or "indulge." Someone might ask: "Abandon" and "indulge" are completely opposite; how can they be used together? Actually, in this context, "放弃" (abandon) refers to not acting according to profit, while "放纵" (indulge) means being driven by profit and losing judgment. Seemingly contradictory, but both point to the same issue: as long as "利" (profit) becomes the sole criterion for action, whether by forced abandonment of principles or by voluntarily indulging desires, the result is the same—people around you will harbor resentment.

This interpretation truly hits the core of human nature.