The popular view in the history of thought is that "if you are rich, you will help the world, and if you are poor, you will be immune to it", which is the embodiment of "Confucianism and Taoism complement each other" as the essence of China culture: the first half of the sentence expresses Confucian idealism and the spirit of joining the WTO, while the second half shows an open-minded attitude and the realm of being born. But from the perspective of "literature and history", this statement is obviously flawed: as mentioned above, the whole sentence originated from Mencius and has nothing to do with Taoism. But Taoism, Laozi and Zhuangzi never seem to say anything like "goodness". On the contrary, Taoism in its original meaning advocates "abandoning benevolence and righteousness" to deconstruct morality, and pursues a "free" realm without right and wrong, good and evil, without emphasizing personal moral cultivation. It seems hard to believe that the first half is Confucianism and the second half is Taoism.
However, if the moral meanings of "saving the world" and "being independent" are removed and only understood as "doing something" and "governing by doing nothing", then this sentence (not only the second half) will become a pure Taoist thought. People often only regard "inaction" as a Taoist proposition. In fact, at least the Taoist master Zhuang Zhou has a pursuit. The hopeful side. In Zhuangzi Waipian Sam, Zhuang Zhou once compared himself to Teng Ape: "If you are in the south, it will take its branch, while Wang Chang is in the middle, although you can't be arrogant." Between thorns and bitter oranges, he looked sideways and shook to mourn chestnuts. This muscle is neither urgent nor soft, and the situation is inconvenient, which is not enough to show his ability. "When the monkey held the noble tree, he won the championship." Wang Chang, in the meantime, you can't sell yourself short. "And once you fall into the thorns, you will pick up your tail and be your grandson." Looking sideways, you will be shocked. In other words, in Zhuang Zhou's view, people are "promising" when they are in power, and the so-called "inaction" is the way of life when they are "inconvenient to be in power, not enough to show their abilities": "If you are confused today, can Xi get evil? "
As we all know, Taoism advocates the "inaction" of the unity of knowledge and action. There is nothing wrong with talking about "inaction". The "inaction" of the strong to the weak can be understood as tolerance, and the "inaction" of the weak to the strong will be a drag. The inaction of power to right means freedom, and the inaction of right to power means slavery. In the history of thought, some people (for example, Tan Sitong praised Zhuangzi's deconstruction of monarchical power in the late Qing Dynasty) talked about inaction in the former sense. But traditionally, the "inaction" in a sense after practice is undoubtedly the mainstream. The question is: the so-called inaction of Taoism is precisely a kind of "noble and soft" theory mainly for the weak. Is the "inaction" of the weak against the strong not just a struggle?
Helplessness is not enough. But Zhuang Zhou's reluctance is not self-reliance, but regards it as a lofty realm. In this realm, authenticity, existence, right and wrong, good and evil can all be inseparable, or inseparable "; That's all, that's all. ""He is right and because of him. " "The party cannot, the party cannot; Because it is right or wrong, because it is wrong. " "There, too, he was there. He is also a right and wrong, which is also a right and wrong. What if there is right and wrong? If there is no fruit, what is it? " "Evil? However, naturally. Is it evil or not? Otherwise, it is not. ..... nothing. Otherwise, nothing is impossible. ..... the mysterious and strange, the Tao is one. " This passage in Zhuangzi's On Wuqi has always been regarded as the essence of Taoist thought by theorists. Indeed, one of the major drawbacks of China's traditional era is the inconsistency between words and deeds. Confucianism only talks about benevolence and morality, while Legalists only talk about "law, technique and situation". The so-called "Confucianism shows the law" is also true. The above sophistry of Taoism is inherently incompatible "; Confucianism "and" Mana "provide a key adhesive, adding effective lubricating oil to the fierce friction between the king's watch and hegemonic logic: Legalists refer to deer as horses, while Confucianism says it is not a horse, but a pit; It's not right to say this horse. And Zhuangzi said: A horse is also a deer, and a deer is also a horse. The so-called "everything is together" is the same. Therefore, the deer is a deer, and Confucianism is also; And those who refer to deer as horses, especially Confucianism. Who said "big"? It is said that it is for "real people" and "people", which transcends the common view of right and wrong. So: Legalists are Confucianism, and Confucian law is also Confucian law. And those who express Confucianism in the law are great scholars! -Zhuang Zhou's logic is enough to demonstrate such "noble and shameless"!
To sum up, the Taoist view of "reaching is promising, and poverty is inaction" is used to interpret "reaching is helping the world and being independent". In fact, it means that if you gain power, you will be king, and if you lose power, you will be servile. This naturally goes against Mencius' original intention. Mencius dedicated words are:
"Mencius said Song Yue:' Is Zi good at swimming? My son travels. People know, but they are also embarrassed; If people don't know, they will argue. "Say,' Why are you so noisy?' Yue:' Respect morality and music, and you can make noise. Therefore, a scholar who is poor and disloyal can't get away from it. Poor and disloyal, so the scholar has his own way; People are not disappointed because they can't get rid of Tao. Ancient people, success, Zejia people; If you don't succeed, cultivate your morality and see the world. If you are poor, you will be immune to it, and if you are rich, you will help the world. " "
This is obviously an expression of idealism: if I succeed, I will benefit people all over the world. Even if I am frustrated, I will lead an honest and clean life, and I will never go along with the corrupt forces. The so-called "being alone" here means "never losing righteousness" and is by no means "carefree travel"; It is "self-cultivation in the world", not "birth". The second half of this sentence does not have the rare confused and cynical attitude advocated by Taoism. Taoism advocates "letting nature take its course", treats the world with the attitude of "carefree travel" and "not condemning right and wrong, getting along with the secular", and dissolves all contradictions into nothingness, which is specious and specious with the "being alone" in the empty talk of Meng Butterfly's metaphysics.
In short, if this sentence is the original meaning, it reflects Confucian idealism; If its ideal color is removed, its whole sentence reflects the cynicism of Taoism. But in either case, it seems hard to say that the first half of the sentence is idealism and the second half is cynicism (the commendatory term is "realism").
However, in the reality of the authoritarian era, although these two meanings are not the difference between two sentences, they may become the confession of the difference between the outside and the inside: "Success will benefit everyone in the world." If you are frustrated, you will live an honest life and refuse corruption. In fact, it often becomes "hegemony if you get power, and servile if you lose power." "Idealism in speech, power and cynicism in behavior. So that more than 2,000 years later, the idiom "being immune to evil" changed from a somewhat tragic "disloyal" person of Mencius to a "wise man who knows what he can't do and is immune to evil" in Mr. Zhu Ziqing's comedy! Poor Confucianism is said to have been "exclusive" for more than two thousand years. Under the double extrusion of "official Confucianism" and "new Confucianism", it is either "Confucianism shows the law" or "Confucianism shows the Tao". Where is there any real Confucianism?