Li Yousheng

Abstract: This paper analyzes Confucius’s sayings “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” and “Help others to establish themselves and achieve their goals,” finding that the former represents the basic need for social stability and security, while the latter represents secondary social goals. The paper further compares these sayings of Confucius with similar statements by Jesus and Tobi in the Bible, finding that only Confucius’s “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” is sincere and without any conditions, while the biblical statements are made under the premise of absolute obedience to God’s authority, distinguishing between friend and foe, and punishing evil. The essence of the modern prison legal system is precisely “doing to others what you would not have them do to you.”

I. Confucius’s “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” from the perspective of two-tiered societies and differences between Eastern and Western cultures

Safety is paramount during leisure time, while efficiency is valued at work. These two phrases can represent the differences between two societies, and can also be used to summarize the differences between Eastern and Western cultures. However, in Chinese history, the most important safety belonged to the emperor and his court, while the safety of ordinary people was secondary. At the social level, apart from the basic conditions of stability and security, primitive societies had no other objectives to discuss.

Dividing human society into genetically encoded natural primitive society and artificial secondary society reveals that humans in primitive society lived like other animals: living in the present and enjoying life. As a result, they observed and understood the world from a leisurely, amateur perspective. Confucius’ famous saying, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” represents this primitive perspective on human social life. Just as the biblical story tells of God telling Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge after creating them, today parents should also warn their children what they should never do when letting them play. When children live in the present and enjoy life, it is important to warn them of danger rather than instruct them on how to play; that is, as long as there is no danger, they can play however they want. Only when games reach the level of competition and winning in secondary society should goals and techniques be emphasized.

At the social level, apart from the fundamental conditions of stability and security, primitive societies had no other purpose. As man-made societies, secondary societies are established for a specific goal, namely, the society’s ideological and value system.

Confucius also said, “To establish oneself, one should establish others; to achieve oneself, one should help others achieve.” Confucius lived in the late Spring and Autumn period, an era in which the ancient Chinese superpower had not yet completely disintegrated. Confucius himself belonged to the so-called ruling class, hence his saying, “The benevolent man, wishing to establish himself, also establishes others; wishing to achieve himself, also helps others achieve.” In modern terms, this means: A virtuous person, wanting to succeed, also wants others to succeed; wanting to be understood, also wants to understand others. (Analects, 6:30) During the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, including the Spring and Autumn period, the upper class in China lived within a quasi-primitive society, already containing elements of a secondary society, though not quite qualifying as such. Confucius’s words describe the goals of Confucius and other scholars within this secondary society: to gain renown among the feudal lords and to succeed in officialdom. Due to the strong traditions of the primitive society at that time, there was also a strong atmosphere of equality and friendship among Confucius and other scholars.

Zhao Mei researched the American baby boomer generation by personally visiting and talking with them, becoming their friend, and thus gaining insights into the cultural differences between East and West from both the perspectives of ordinary people and scholars. Zhao Mei wrote,

Confucius said, “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.” The Golden Rule in the Bible is “Do unto others what you want others do unto you.” It is precisely because of this difference in philosophical ideas that most Americans believe that the American system is not the most perfect, but the best. The great idealism of Americans is manifested in their desire to impose this idea on others and promote it to the whole world. Compared with their parents, they are more tolerant at home, but internationally they want to impose their own values ​​on others. Therefore, they are more hegemonic. [1]

Some contemporary Chinese scholars regard Confucianism as a religion, and I have a dictionary of world religions that includes both Confucianism and Taoism. [2] If we consider both Confucianism and Christianity as religions, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” represents the original social religion of China, while “Do unto others what you would not have them do unto you” represents the secondary social religion of the West. Of course, they are just one of the many ideas of these two social religions, but they are just a pair that are in contrast: the former focuses on social stability and security; the latter focuses on the unity and success of religious organizations.

The phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” comes from Matthew chapter 7 of the New Testament of the Bible. A more complete and popular translation is: Jesus said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do unto you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.”

Just as Buddhism developed within the context of Hinduism, Christianity, founded by Jesus, developed within the context of Judaism. While both Buddhism and Christianity failed to compete with their respective mother religions in their home countries, they succeeded abroad. It was precisely within the powerful Jewish context that Jesus was labeled a rebellious heresy, leading to his execution. Faced with this brutal competitive environment, Jesus spoke these words, and the forced exile to unfamiliar foreign lands led his early Christian disciples to recite them, ensuring their enduring legacy. Competition and facing countless strangers are characteristics of a two-tiered society. As Zhao Mei stated above, the success of Christianity, led by Jesus, was precisely the result of actively promoting his doctrines by “doing what you would not have it done to you.”

II. A Comparison Between the Jewish Sage Tobi and Confucius

Surprisingly, the Catholic and Jewish Bibles, specifically the Book of Tobir, record that Tobir said the same thing as Confucius: “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” It’s unlikely that the Jewish Tobir spoke Chinese like Confucius; he simply conveyed the same meaning. This similar sentiment is interspersed throughout Tobir’s lengthy admonition to his son. To ensure readers fully grasp the original meaning while also concisely translating the text, a more accessible translation is provided below:

My son, be mindful of your duties in all your actions, and restrain yourself in all virtues and conduct. Do not treat others as you would have them treat you (do not do to others what you would not have them do to you). Do not drink excessively, nor become a drunkard. Share food with the hungry, and clothing with the naked. Use the surplus to help the poor; give without hesitation or coercion. Place bread at the graves of the righteous, but do not give to sinners. Listen to the advice of wise men, and do not despise the wise counsel of others. Always praise the Lord God, and ask Him to straighten your ways and make all your plans successful. There are no people among the nations who know the truth, yet the Lord Himself guides them; if He had decided to no longer be a counselor to mankind, all nations would have been cast into the depths of Hades. Therefore, my son, remember my commandments and do not forget my teachings.

The ancient Jews were a small but culturally advanced people surrounded by powerful enemies, repeatedly ravaged, and ultimately forced into exile after the fall of their nation. Tobir was a devout Jew born during the Assyrian dynasty, in the 5th or 6th century BC, during the period of captivity. Even in captivity, Tobir remained steadfast in his ancestral teachings and was hailed as a righteous man walking on the true path. Most scholars believe the life of Tobir was written around 200 AD, but some scholars argue it was a work from Tobir’s own time.

Only by understanding the harsh living conditions of the ancient Jews can one realize how important the concepts of friend and foe, and their incredibly powerful monotheistic faith, were to them. It was precisely because of this that their God was both infinitely loving and infinitely powerful; if anything displeased him, he would cast his people into the depths of Hades or destroy them with a great flood.

In contrast to the harsh and severe living conditions of the Tobi people, Confucius lived in a relaxed and free era. Because of a slight displeasure, Confucius, an important official of the State of Lu, left without saying goodbye, leading his students on a journey through various states. The Prime Minister of Lu had to send someone to the city gates under the guise of seeing him off to inquire about the reason for Confucius’s displeasure. Confucius traveled through various states for thirteen or fourteen years without finding a place to settle, yet he was still able to return to Lu and be respected. Living in such an environment lacking social authority, Confucius could certainly be indifferent to matters of spirits and deities. In fact, Confucius was not afraid of offending spirits and deities. During his travels, he encountered trouble in Pu, a place in the State of Wei, but because his disciple Gongliang Ru was determined to fight to the death, the local rebels were frightened, and the two sides negotiated and reached an alliance. Afterwards, Confucius broke the alliance. Zigong asked, “Can you not keep the conditions you have agreed to?” Confucius said, “If you want to make an alliance, the gods will not listen!” Here, without the gods’ permission, Confucius himself determined that the gods would not listen, showing that Confucius did not care about the gods’ pleasingness. [3, 4, 5]

After saying all this, it’s easy to see that the same phrase, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” is interpreted completely differently by Confucius and Toby. We can clearly see that the God in Confucius’s mind also followed this principle, not imposing His will on Confucius or anyone else. The gods of that time in China did not have this power. Toby’s God, or God, absolutely did not follow this principle. God demanded absolute obedience from people, regardless of their wishes. In Confucius’s “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” the word “others” encompasses all people; Confucius had no concept of enemies. In Toby’s “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” the word “others” does not include sinners or enemies. Toby’s philosophy is a prerequisite for the survival of people in a secondary society, a prerequisite that everyone understands. Similarly, we also say “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” but we still imprison people and fire on enemies on the battlefield.

Finally, comparing the life records of Confucius and Tobir helps us better understand that both Confucius and Tobir were human beings, and their inner journeys are incomparable. The Chinese translation of *Tobir* contains over 12,000 characters, partly written in the first person (“I”), resembling a modern novella: full of scene descriptions and personal emotions. We believe this work is a true account of Tobir’s life journey, realistically recording his feelings and experiences. It is the inner journey of an artificial being within a man-made secondary society, a journey that is a product of human civilization.

Sima Qian, a serious historian, wrote the “Hereditary House of Confucius,” a work of seven thousand characters, including stories of Confucius’ disciples and anecdotes from the history of the State of Lu, which is almost half the length of the “Biography of Tobit.” Sima Qian’s writing reads more like scholarly writing, without a trace of modern fictional style.

Because the Tobir section is written in the first person (“I”), and whether it is a self-narration by Tobir to his children and grandchildren before his death remains to be verified, we have selected Confucius’s most relevant self-narration of his life journey, which is the famous passage from “At fifteen, I set my heart on learning”:

Confucius said: “At fifteen, I set my heart on learning; at thirty, I stood firm; at forty, I had no more doubts; at fifty, I knew the will of Heaven; at sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth; at seventy, I could follow my heart’s desire without transgressing the rules.” (The Analects, 2:4)

A long-overlooked fact: Confucius was a philosopher rooted in and living within a primitive society, a philosopher of the original, authentic primitive society. This passage from Confucius describes his life’s journey from the perspective of the emotional aesthetics of primitive society, using the language of that society. It is a journey devoid of all considerations of worldly interests and power within a secondary society, a journey imbued solely with emotional and aesthetic significance.

If we compare this passage from Confucius with the biography of Tobir, the latter is 3,260 times longer. This difference in length is enough to show that they are talking about two completely different things. Reading Tobir is like reading a modern novel; if we savor this passage from Confucius, the feeling is more like appreciating a painting. Compared with similar contemporary novels, the primitive and clumsy writing techniques and language of Tobir are evident between the lines; compared with similar contemporary aesthetic summaries of inner journeys, if anyone were willing to try, Confucius would still be the undisputed master. Similarly, we find it difficult to agree with Tobir’s life experience and values ​​because it is a cultural creation of a secondary society at that time and place; but we can agree with Confucius’s inner journey because the original society is our root, and beauty can always touch our hearts.

III. Conclusion: Modern secondary society is an artificial society maintained by legal violence such as the military and prisons. Its essence is “do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” After comparing ancient and modern times, both in China and abroad, this article finds that only Confucius, the philosopher of primitive society, truly meant “do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” Others who said similar things were suspected of being hypocritical to some extent.

literature

[1] Zhao Mei (2001): “Baby Boomers”: An Idealistic Generation. From: http://ias.cass.cn/show/show_project_ls.asp?id=608.

[2] Wendy Doniger (1999): Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions. Springfield, USA: Merriam-Webster.

[3] You Sheng (2010): On the influence of Confucius’s inclusive thought of Great Unity on primitive society. Electronic magazine: Xue Deng, No. 14.

[4] You Sheng (2011): On the anarchist tendencies of Confucius and Mencius. Electronic magazine: Xue Deng, No. 17.

[5] Li Yousheng (2014): Looking at Confucius from a different perspective: Confucius’s ideal state. Suzhou University Press.

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share