Chapter 57 Fifty-seven meanings

In Confucianism, benevolence and righteousness are closely related.When Mencius saw King Hui of Liang, he said that his idea of ​​governing the country and the world was the first to clarify that "there is only benevolence and righteousness".Confucius regarded benevolence as the supreme virtue, and he also valued righteousness, saying, "To be rich and honored by injustice is like floating clouds to me", and "A gentleman's official position is also to practice righteousness" (borrowing the mouth of Zilu).In this way, righteousness is also a virtue.Is there any difference with Ren?There should be differences, namely: benevolence indicates what should be done; righteousness just means that what should be done must be done, and what should not be done must not be done; benevolence has specific content, which is "loving people", while righteousness does not, Should not, to find another standard.But righteousness is a kind of moral restraint. Whether good deeds can be seen in practice depends on whether the restraint is effective. more important.This is how Mencius viewed it. He said in Gao Zi 1:

Fish is what I want, and bear's paw is also what I want. You can't have both, and those who give up the fish and take the bear's paw are also.Life is also what I want, righteousness is also what I want, the two cannot be obtained at the same time, and those who give up life for righteousness also.Life is also what I want, what I want is more than the living, so I don't do it for nothing.Death is also what I hate, and what I hate more than the dead, so I don't avoid (avoid) what I suffer from. In the same article also said; Benevolence is the human heart, righteousness is the way of people.

This means that if you have a kind heart, you must be determined to put it into practice. This determination is righteousness, and you will not hesitate even at the critical moment of life and death. This is called sacrificing one's life for righteousness.Obviously, people, standing in the world and following the law, should take righteousness, that is, do what is right, no matter how difficult it is, and do not do what is not right, no matter how difficult it is to control. As a principle of doing things, or a kind of virtue, it is estimated that no one will object.The problem comes from the transition to specific content, that is, whether a certain thing should be done or not, or in other words, if it is done, it is right or wrong. Different people may have different opinions.If these different people are from different regions and different times, it is almost inevitable that they have different views.Simply speaking of different eras, the emperor humiliated and his ministers died, and the old era regarded it as righteousness. After the Revolution of 1911, except for a few survivors, who else saw it this way?This difference in views will also be manifested in the same era. To give an example of a recent incident of a small size, the eradication of the four olds in the early days of the Cultural Revolution was of course righteous in the eyes of those who were eradicated. Is it righteousness to believe?For a certain matter, it doesn't matter if you do it righteously or not. The difference of opinion doesn't matter.But this brings us to a big question, how to judge whether something is righteous or unrighteous before doing it?Obviously, if this problem cannot be solved, choosing righteousness and giving up unrighteousness will become empty words, because if you don’t know whether it is righteousness or unrighteousness, it will be difficult to make a choice, and you will inevitably be in a dilemma.

There are probably not many situations of these two dilemmas, because most of the things that a person has to deal with in his life are trivial matters, which are generally handled according to habit, and the problem of distinguishing between righteousness and unrighteousness will not be encountered.But there will be exceptions, for example, if a person who is not far or near treats you to dinner, and suspects that his money may come from an improper source, whether to go to the banquet will involve the issue of righteousness or injustice, and you will be in a dilemma.But such things are of little consequence after all, and it's okay not to think too much about them.The things that matter are usually the big ones that aren't homely.It can be within the family, such as couples who have been married for many years, have enemies, have children, intend to divorce, whether to divorce or not, may involve the issue of righteousness or injustice.Most of them are outside the family. For example, if there is a struggle in the political field, no matter whether you are on the left or right, you cannot escape the question of righteousness or injustice.If there is a problem, in order to solve it, there must be a standard for distinguishing right from wrong.It is not difficult to find a standard, but the difficulty is that this standard can also convince others.In other words, other people may have other standards.With different standards, some people will regard the same thing as righteous while others will regard it as unrighteous.How to deal with such differences?Theoretically it can be debated, but in fact it is often the case that if the two sides are evenly matched, they will go their own way without seeking each other. Put him in jail.Guan, the body seems to be convinced, but the heart is certainly not, because he will not give up his standard of distinguishing righteousness from unrighteousness.

It can be seen that what matters most is the standard for distinguishing right from wrong.Standards have different origins, different depths and breadths, and there are inevitably issues of right and wrong.As far as ordinary people are concerned, judging whether something is right or wrong is always based on intuition, that is, no other standard can be thought of.Take saving lives and healing the wounded as an example. Person A met two people who were in danger of death. B was in a car accident, and C was in suicide. He tried his best to rescue them.If some people have the habit of being unreasonable, ask this good deed, commit suicide, because he feels that life is worse than death, and you let him not die against his will, right?If this person A is infected by paganism and thinks deeply, he will feel confused, because he is not [a few lines of PDF are not scanned here] unreasonable.There are many examples, and there are two kinds of big and small: such as believing that the supreme ruler is a god, and being used to shouting long live, believing that women observe festivals as a great virtue, asking for blessings, it is a big one;The second is fashion, that is, urban and rural areas, streets and alleys, three religions and nine streams, all think how to be glorious.Similarly, what everyone is flocking to may really be glorious.But it can also hide big problems, such as wealth, enjoyment (or emphatically richness) first.The wind is powerful, and the power comes from the power of the people, and the tradition is more powerful, because in addition to the power of the people, there is a long time.This situation makes us have to think of a big problem. The standard is not necessarily reliable. When something happens, it will become a big problem to judge the definition or injustice. What should we do?

An ideal way is to have insight into life, extensively refer to academic theories, and then stick to it.This is when something happens, deciding how to deal with it is not only knowing what is happening, but also knowing why.There are many sages in ancient and modern China and abroad who are like this.But sages are a minority after all; and this consistent approach may not always be in line with the time, and they will sit down and talk about it, but they can't implement it.I have no choice but to seek truth from facts, not to be perfect in terms of standards, and to blame the mouth. This spirit is that the ideal is high, and the strength is not enough, but you can't stand still, so you have to retreat and settle for the second, which is what you believe in.Still taking saving lives and healing the wounded as an example, seeing someone committing suicide, because they believe (or don’t think) that life is better than death, they try their best to save them, without asking whether life is really better than death, or whether life is really better than death for those who don’t want to live.This kind of method of retreating and being content with the second is not only a last resort, but also a positive reason can be found.One is that the standard for judging right and wrong is common sense as far as its finished product is concerned. Common sense has been approved by the group for a long time, so it must contain reasonable elements, or in other words, useful elements.Second, act according to what one believes, even if the belief may not be reasonable, it is still advisable to just believe and practice.For example, in the old days, many women believed that starving to death was a minor matter, while infidelity was a major issue, so they even kept chastity for their unmarried husbands all their lives. From what we see today, this belief is wrong, but for what you believe in yourself and then practice People, we should still pity and add some admiration.Of course, it would be even better if we could decide whether to accept or not to accept or not to accept common sense beliefs instead of following others’ opinions.

The result of speculation may be in line with tradition and fashion (including top-down orders), or it may not be in line with tradition and fashion. How to deal with it?You can only believe what you believe, because it is unreasonable and immoral to believe what you don't believe.Then do what you believe, which is to take righteousness.On the other hand, doing what one does not believe is compromising, even deceitful, and righteousness will be emptied.In this way, it is to conduct oneself in the world, for non-domestic major matters, to judge right and wrong, the standard can (not best) not to go deep into it, but after judging right and wrong, one must resolutely choose righteousness and give up unrighteousness, even as Mencius said, sacrificing one's life is also No hesitation.Is this perhaps too idealistic?Walking on the street and looking, it is indeed the case, because there are so many people, many people are doing everything for self-interest, and it is impossible to imagine that there is still the issue of righteousness and injustice.So, why the emphasis on derivation?I just hope that some people, even if there are not many, can still "be poor and live alone".