Confucius Hated Females vs Confucius Did Not Hate Females

Many scholars and feminists claim that Confucius hated females. Scholars and feminists claim that Yang Huo #25 is the one sentence within all ancient Chinese texts that proves that Confucius hated females. Yang Huo #25 praises females. The sentence does not express hate towards females. The scholars and feminists are lying.

No known English-speaking scholar nor feminist is mentally able to read the ancient Chinese language. 100% of everything that the scholars and feminists claim about Confucius' sayings are made-up lies. The scholars and feminists have acute amentia.

Abstract

It is obvious that virtuous people do not hate people. Virtue does not include the inner ingredient of hate. Everyone who knows what virtue is, knows that virtuous people do not hate people. If Confucius was a virtuous man, then he did not hate people. Nevertheless, James Legge and other scholars have claimed that Confucius said "It is only the truly virtuous man who can love, or who can hate, others." (Li Ren 3). Scholars claim things that cannot possibly be true.

Scholars have also said that Confucius hated females. The sentence most commonly referenced is Yang Huo #25, of which James Legge and other scholars have falsely translated as "Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to." Unvirtuous feminists have read the scholars' false claims, and the dishonorable feminists now hatefully and aggressively falsely accuse Confucius of having hated females.

It is easy to recognize that the feminists and scholars are amential, and it is also easy to recognize that the feminists and scholars did not so much as exert an effort to read the original Confucian texts, but, for the purpose of this article, it is useful to gather an idea of the topics surrounding the claims of Confucius hating females. The following paragraphs briefly touch on the topics that help to permanently dispel the feminists' and scholars' false accusations.

[Note: Due to the continuous negativity and hate spewed by feminists and scholars, it is not possible to respond within a fully positive tone, but this article has strived to present its information accurately while avoiding a too-direct response to the feminists' and scholars' negativity.]

Cannot Read What Do Not Know

Throughout all of history, no known English-speaking scholar, philosopher, nor scientist has ever known what emotions are, nor what thoughts, memories, dreams, logic, ethics, morals, beauty, and ugly are. Confucian ideas focus on several key qualities: benevolence, mindfulness, mature calm voice, inner ethics, outer morals, and the many other qualities that mark a quality individual. When a person does not know what an English word means, then the person cannot translate a foreign word that means what the person does not know the meaning of.

Li Ren #4 is an adequate example. '子曰苟志於仁矣無惡也' The sentence roughly reads as 'Zi say: Thoughtfulness aspiration be benevolence {-carry}, nothing aberrant-heart {also}.' The 'carry', 'aberrant-heart', and 'also' words are incorrect, but without giving a finished translation, for the moment the sentence's words are dictionary-acceptable. James Legge translated the words as "The Master said, "If the will be set on virtue, there will be no practice of wickedness."" Hundreds of times 仁 (ren) was written in the Confucian texts with the meaning of 'benevolence'. 仁 cannot possibly imply "virtue". Christian missionary and Oxford University employee James Legge purposefully lied in almost everything he wrote. 惡 (e) is an extremely important topic throughout the Confucian texts, and the word is obvious of meaning, but no known English nor German scholar has ever been capable of translating the word. All of the scholars are themselves 惡.

Zhong Yong (aka Doctrine of the Mean) #1 includes the statement of 喜怒哀樂之未發謂之中, very roughly translated as 'Happy angry, grieve laugh, it have-not expressed, call it middle'. The word 中 (zhong) obviously implies 'middle', and the English word 'center' is often synonymous because English does not have words that relate to inner states (if science, academia, and philosophy knew what inner states are, then there would exist names for the inner states; the English names do not exist, which further proves that science, academia, and philosophy claim to believe in science's 'cause and effect', but none know nor care to know that causative inner states exist). Individuals who are 'centered' and who are consciously aware of their inner natures, easily understand what 中 points at. James Legge, however, who with no inner stability, with no inner Christian values, and with no warmth of heart, wrote: "While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of Equilibrium." Legge's word "equilibrium" proved that he possessed no mental concept of what 'centered' and 'middle' imply. All of Legge's writings are similar: he possessed no concept whatsoever of what the Chinese words implied, nor of what his own English words implied.

If a person does not know what a thing is, then the person cannot know what the thing's English word means, nor can the person know what the thing's Chinese word means. Competent electronic technicians know what the word 'choke' means. Competent automotive mechanics know what the word 'choke' means. The word 'choke' means different things within different vocational fields. Relatively few scholars know what 'choke' means within different vocations, and no known scholar knows what most all ancient Chinese words mean. 中 does not mean "equilibrium", 仁 does not mean "virtue", and 惡 does not mean "evil, hate, wickedness". If an individual cannot read 八 and intricately explain why the word means what it means, then the individual cannot read any ancient Chinese word.

The words chosen by scholars, describe their own inner selves and their own absence of learning.

Legge never translated a sentence correctly; Legge always merely wrote whatever fairytale nonsense that he wanted to write. Unfortunately, it is from Legge's hate, amentia, and vile nature that many scholars and feminists believe that Confucius hated females.

If a person cannot assemble bread, then he cannot be an expert baker. If a person cannot assemble an engine, then he cannot be an expert mechanic. If a person cannot design and assemble a circuit board, then he cannot be an expert electronic technician. If a person cannot sew, then the person cannot be an expert tailor. If a person cannot thread pipe, then he cannot be an expert plumber. Scholars and scientists cannot assemble an emotion, beauty, love, happiness, virtue, nor anything else that the scholars and scientists claim to be experts of. Scientists and scholars claim 'cause and effect', but no scientist and no scholar is able to name the causes of love, happiness, and beauty. Individuals who know of the ingredients, are able to create intense states of love and beauty that are so strong that the person literally weeps with happiness. Scientists and scholars cannot do that, because they know nothing of life, and, because they are callous psychopaths. The belief and claim that Confucius hated females, arrived from callous psychopaths.

Normal People Do Not Behave In Agreement With their Religions

Of most everyone who believes that god(s) created the heavens and earth, the people spit on and despise their god(s)' creation. The earth's pollution and destruction prove it to be so.

Of most everyone who believes that god(s) created the laws of the heavens and earth, the people deny that they themselves are bound by the laws of their god(s)'. The people's violence, greed, lies, and selfishness prove it to be so.

All religions (including the religion of science) are populated by people who profess belief with their mouths, but deny and hate on their religions by how the people behave. It is obvious everywhere throughout the world.

Similar applies to Confucianism. Many people claim to honor and trust Confucius' sayings, but almost no one behaves in agreement with Confucius' sayings. Confucius did not teach to bind girls' feet, but many Confucians did so. Confucius did not teach to favor males over females, but many Confucians did so. Confucius did not teach to kill female newborns, but many Confucians allegedly did so. People do bad things while falsely claiming that they are following the laws of their gods', and people also do bad things while falsely claiming that they are following the teachings of Confucius'. It is the common way of normal humans.

Feminists Bleat That Confucius Hated Females

The following is the given original text for Yang Huo paragraph #25. The paragraph is important because it is the primary source that feminists and scholars use while claiming that Confucius hated females. Each word is given a brief definition along with a micro commentary.

子: 'zi', implies numerous different things including 'child', 'son', and 'master'. Zi is used within the current sentence as an abbreviation of 孔夫子 Kong Fu Zi (Confucius). Confucius' birth name would simply infer 'Kong Man Child' (Kong is the surname), but personal names do not infer literalness (i.e. American children are often named Denver, Rose, etc.). An intensely disturbing discovery was that 100% of all known publicly-available translations of an ancient Chinese book purposefully omitted a translation of 孔. Kong is the absolute topmost important word in all Confucian texts, and yet 100% of all known scholars were mentally incapable of translating the word; the scholars simply omitted the word as if it did not exist within the sentence. The 100% failure rate proved that all of the scholars merely copy-pasted each other's work while literally none of the scholars actually read the Chinese text. All known English-speaking scholars of the ancient Chinese language are liars and frauds, and yet it is from the liars' and frauds' translations that feminists claim that Confucius hated females, which again proves all of the feminists to be amential.

曰: 'yue', implies 'say, speak', to make the sound of words come from one's mouth.

唯: 'wei' is dictionary defined as 'alone, only'. The word is composed of 'mouth' and 'bird'. The dictionary definition is utterly false. Wei is one of the topmost important words of the sentence, and yet no known publicly-available translation so much as gave an effort to translate the word. (Which ought not be surprising since scholarly translations also failed to translate 孔.)

女: 'nu', implies 'female, woman'.

子: 'zi', 'child, son, master', which is almost always translated as 'child' or 'children' within the current sentence's structure. However, it is fair to ask the valid question: if 君子 'jun zi' is a 'noble son/child/master', then why is 女子 'nu zi' not permitted to imply 'female master'? A junzi is considered to be the most favored quality person, so why not consider nuzi to be the most favored quality female person? Feminists hate on females because feminists refuse to believe that a nuzi (a quality female) can exist. The answer rests within how the remainder of the sentence is written.

與: 'yu', which is often lazily given the English definition of 'and'. Yu is not merely more important than 唯, yu is extremely-extraordinarily more important than wei. Unfortunately, no known English-speaking scholar is able to read ancient Chinese. Even if a healthy little three-year-old child were not able to read any language, still the child could easily discern what yu means. The failure of scholars to translate yu is inexcusable and unforgivable.

小: 'xiao' most commonly infers 'tiny' when used prior to 'ren', and of which commonly infers 'tiny people', which relates to low-grade people who are inferior of qualities: insignificant.

人: 'ren', infers 'person, people, character'. Xiao ren together might could infer 'small height people' as in children, but the sentence pattern will dictate what the words implied.

為: 'wei' is commonly dictionary-defined as 'be, act as' etc.. Wei is another extremely important word that no known scholar has been able to translate. Unfortunately, even the people who believe that they are following Taoism's 無為 'wu wei' ('doing nothing' or 'non-action') do not know what the two words mean (which is par for all religions and ideologies). 無 'wu' is close enough to the English word 'nothing' to hold a tiny (xiao!) degree of sensibility, but 為 is the defining word. Composed of a hand and an elephant, even little children know what it means, but, scholars do not know, nor do feminists. The whole of Taoism's 'wu wei' and the feminists' hatred towards Confucius are based upon wildly amential imaginations. 為 further defines what Yang Huo #25 is speaking about.

難: 'nan' is commonly interpreted as implying 'difficult'. For the moment the English word is sufficient.

養: 'yang' suggests 'nurture, cultivate, raise'. One person's concept of 'nurture' is not identical to what another person may describe. The question is whether yang infers merely feeding children like what a person does when feeding livestock, or does it imply cultivating an individual's qualities?

也: 'ye' is popularly dictionary-defined as 'also', as well as ye being used as a sentence particle that implies a pause or an end of sentence. Unfortunately, ye means something else, a meaning that also changes the sentence's topic.

近: 'jin' is dictionary-defined as 'close, nearby, intimate'.

之: 'zhi' infers 'it, him, her, the'. In today's world of rampaging feminists and feminine scholars demanding that pronouns be changed from 'he' to 'she' regardless of gender, the feminists ought to begin saying 'zhi' for everything: a zhi went to school, zhi married a zhi, zhi had three children, a zhi, a zhi, and a zhi (which (with a grin and a tease) might actually be an accurate description for feminist parents: three 'its'). Nevertheless, zhi is usually well enough translated as 'it' in the ancient Chinese texts if the reader grasps what the 'it' is pointing at.

則: 'ze' usually infers something like 'rule, standard, method'. Ze is one of many words that rely upon firsthand experience for the reader to glean a useful interpretation of what the word implies: if an individual has no inner standards, then the individual cannot know what standards are.

不: 'bu' commonly implies a negative: 'not, no, non-'. Using the English word 'not' is usually good enough.

孫: 'sun' or 'xun', the word is composed of 'child' plus 'silk string'. The meaning is simple; descendant. Again, if a person does not have firsthand experience with what 'descendant' implies, then the person may not grasp what the word suggests.

遠: 'yuan' is dictionary defined as implying 'distant, far away, fleeing, travel, shy away, leave'. The English definitions are close enough for general use.

之: 'zhi' infers 'it, him, her, the'.

則: 'ze' 'rule, standard, method'.

怨: 'yuan' is another word that scholars (like Legge and Dubs) gave outrageously negative and wrong definitions to. Dictionaries claim that yaun implies 'complain, enmity, hatred, resentment'. Scholars do not know what 思 (si) means, nor what 心 (xin) means, which mandates that they also could not comprehend what 怨 means. For the moment's purpose of looking at Yang Huo #25's sentence meaning, a good enough English word is 'ignore'.

Zi say: ??wei?? female child/master ??yu?? tiny people ??wei?? difficult nurture ??ye?? — nearby it standard not descendant — distant it standard ??ignore??.

Where are the words that James Legge and other scholars claimed to be in the sentence? Legge wrote: "The Master said, "Of all people, girls and servants are the most difficult to behave to. If you are familiar with them, they lose their humility. If you maintain a reserve towards them, they are discontented." Legge invented a hateful fairytale that did not so much as come close to what Confucius was recorded to have said. Plain and simple, Legge was a liar. Legge purposefully lied. Christian missionary and Oxford University employee James Legge purposefully hated on Confucius, as do feminists and scholars today hate on and falsely accuse Confucius.

Confucius' words gave high praise to females, or, to be more accurate, Confucius highly praised nu-zies (no sane male would ever praise a feminist nor any other tiny person of no qualities). If feminists and scholars were intelligent enough to read words, then the feminists and scholars would already know what Confucius said, and never would have all the lies been raised against Confucius.

As has been common within academia for over a hundred years, 100% of all known English-speaking scholars have spewed hate upon Confucius' sayings, and the proof is of the endless hate within the scholars' own translations. The act of hate is symptomatic of intensely inferior minds, of which Oxford University's James Legge, Homer Dubs, et al have given mountainous examples of.

And, no, this article will not give English translations of the missing words; if a person is not interested enough in Confucian texts to actually read the texts oneself, then the person does not deserve to be told words to be 'ear to mouth' memorized. Intelligent people exert effort to think and to analyze; lazy xiaoren have their hairy palms stuck out, demanding that they be given words to memorize.

Social Status of Men and Women

Furthering the accusations against Confucius are the academic papers claiming that 'Confucius said that all females are of a different social class than men'. Three facts: [1] Today's socially-fanaticalized preaching of equality is so dramatically pervasive that the normal human is no longer mentally capable of distinguishing differences of people's behaviors, appearances, and inner qualities. According to the feminists and egalitarians, everyone is identically equal regardless of shape, size, gender, criminal history, mental stability, and behavior. According to the feminists and egalitarians, well-experienced ladies of the night are allegedly equal to the most pure of convent nuns. According to the feminists and egalitarians, they do believe that there is no difference between themselves and junzies/nuzies. Everything they say just further proves that they themselves are the definition of xiao ren. [2] Quality females are in a class of their own. Their purposes in life are unique, their methods of outwardly expressing themselves are unique, their behaviors are unique, their reasonings are unique, and in most every measure a quality female is a creature that lives in a class of their own. [3] Kings are of a different social class than citizens'. Priests are of a different social class than kings' and citizens'. Junzies are of a different social class than kings', citizens', and priests'. Quality females are of a different social class than kings', citizens', priests', and junzies'.

And, just in case no one noticed, feminists have named themselves "feminists", which was an act of segregating themselves into a different social class, as did the egalitarians do when they named themselves "egalitarians". Amential hypocrites, every one of them.

The feminists' and scholars' insistence that different 'social classes' is a bad thing (while the scholars hypocritically claim for themselves to be in an upper social class because they paid money for a piece of paper that falsely claims that the scholars are learned), further proves the feminists' and scholars' amentia. The feminists want everyone to be as low and equal as the lowest common denominator (which is themselves), where no one is permitted to choose quality standards for themselves, and where no one is permitted to give honor, respect, and value to people of quality standards.

Another false claim by scholars is of Tao Bao #20, where it is claimed that a king had ten officials, but Confucius discounted one of the officials because one was a woman. What the scholars do not say is that the woman was 婦, a 'wife'. If the woman had been a common female, then the word used would have been 女. The texts do not clarify whether the wife was one of the officials' wives, but the text does clearly state 'wife'. Too, the sentence patterns within Tao Bao do not appear to mirror the mental and sentence patterns of Confucius' within other books, and so the text itself is suspect.

Further, it is dishonorable to speak about a man's wife. No polite man would speak of another man's wife. Feminists and scholars do not know that because they themselves are not polite nor honorable. The word 君子 (junzi) implies an individual who has control over one's mouth. The brevity of Confucius' words in Tap Bao #20 was mete for the topic, but no feminist nor scholar is intelligent enough to know why.

Another female scholar whined about there being no "equality of women" in the Analects. Again, men and women are not equal. Men have some qualities that tend to be superior to females', and females have some qualities that tend to be superior to males'. If females were equal to males, then roughly half of all chess tournaments would be won by females. It never has happened and never will happen. If females were equal to males, then roughly half of all inventions, architecture, and art would be done by females. It never has happened and never will happen. Males and females are most emphatically not equal.

Hydrogen and oxygen are not equal. If hydrogen and oxygen were equal, then water could not exist. Without water, life could not exist. If males and females were equal, then life could not exist. The laws of Nature rule all things, including males, females, and life. Scholars and feminists claim to believe in science's laws of Nature, but the scholars and feminists also deny that science's laws of Nature apply to themselves: the scholars and feminists demand things that are eternally impossible, which again proves the scholars and feminists to be profoundly amential.

Again, males and females — and junzies and nuzies — are not equal. If a female believes that they are not having the opportunities as what males have (i.e. digging ditches, dying in wars, slaving on farms, building dwellings, defending one's home, etc.) then why does the female not have enough intellectual gumption to go do it herself? Females can start their own businesses of digging ditches, building construction, car repair, and all other occupational fields, but, dishonorable females sit around with their hairy palms stuck out while waiting for a male to hand the females a job. If a female believes that they ought to become a Confucian scholar or such, then why have the females not formed their own Confucian schools and temples? Feminists sit on their wide backsides, hating on males, all while insisting that males hand the females things that no feminist will do (nor can mentally do) for themselves.

Nuzies have qualities that exceed all male qualities, and all nuzies are worthy of deep honor and respect, but feminists are honorless without good qualities, and they have earned no respect nor courtesy.

One feminist scholar actually claimed that yin-yang excludes females. Really! And there again is permanent proof that scholars are so intensely unlearned that they do not so much as know what yin-yang is. That is really pathetic, but, it is as expected, that a brainless feminist with a hand-out college degree would not know anything about even the most simple of things.

Seemingly competing for the world's dumbest things ever said, a female scholar claimed that 'junzi' (noble child/son) ought to be renamed as the gender-neutral 'superior person'. The same female scholar quoted the "superior man" words from James Legge, which again proved that the 'scholar' was fully ignorant of every word she said. And then the feminist scholar claimed that the male word 'junzi' somehow prevents females from attaining virtue. And yes, the 'scholar' did make sure to state that she graduated from a college, but she did not say whether or not she was handed a degree (many of us graduated college by the age of 15, but it was mere night school at a community college, and not degreed).

Another feminist university scholar claimed that Confucianism is a "religion". Wow, the female did not so much as know what Confucius spoke of, but, of course, the female scholar was anxious to falsely accuse Confucius of things that he never said.

Another thing: it is supposed to be a core academic standard that authors give references to the original sources from where the authors copy-pasted-stole their words. Why then did almost no feminist 'college graduate' give references to the Confucian texts spoken of within the female authors' articles? None of the female scholars would pass an Associate's class within a competent university.

The list of outrageous absurdities spewed by academicians is huge and beyond measure, but it is easily summed: the loudest mouths are from the scholars and feminists of whom themselves have never so much as read Confucian texts. Similar to James Legge and Homer Dubs, feminists and scholars copy-paste each other's words, add large sums of fairytale wording, exaggeratingly embellish their invented lies, and then demand that their lies are true truth. Ah, but that is the definition of academia itself.

Academic and Feminist Insanities

Almost no one on earth gives honor to their god(s)' creation, but all believers do expect to be given heavenly rewards from their god(s). It makes no sense that people hate on their god(s)' laws and creations, all while the haters expect their god(s) to give handouts of rewards for being hated on.

Parallel, no feminist and no scholar will exert the effort to read the ancient Confucian texts, but all scholars do hatefully demand that they know everything that Confucius said and that they ought to be handed a junzi diploma (literally!).

It is useful to give notice that feminists claim that Confucius hated females, but no known feminist has commented on 'Zi say: Noble man bosom virtue, tiny person bosom materialism. Noble man bosom fairness, tiny person bosom favoritism.' (draft version of 里仁 Li Ren #11, also given in Noble Fairness). Females demand material profits and material social status, while also demanding that favoritism be given to them. Feminists are so unlearned and so unread, that they are de facto xiaoren, and yet, since no feminist has ever read the ancient texts, then no feminist knows enough of the texts to whine about themselves being pointedly classified as xiaoren.

It is the way of normal people, to claim one thing, while the people do the opposite.

Parallel Inequalities

No man is able to attain quality inner traits without his having a wife with quality inner traits. No woman is able to attain quality inner traits without her having a husband with quality inner traits. Most everyone on earth professes with their mouth that they believe in their god(s)' laws of Nature, but almost everyone denies that their god(s)' laws apply to themselves. A primary law of Nature is that all things are composed of ingredients. There must exist numerous inner ingredients in harmony before an individual can attain a quality inner trait. No man and no woman can possess the ingredients that can only spawn from a spouse.

"Though a man might tame his mind, it is the woman who births his heart." Without the birth of one's heart, a junzi cannot exist, nor can a nuzi. It is the law of Nature, the law of Nature's Way, and also the law of all believers' god(s)'.

Feminists and scholars claim to believe in science and all of their other gods, but no feminist and no scholar is mentally able to behave in agreement with their beliefs. Within the topic of Confucianism, 100% of all feminists and scholars are hypocrite frauds.

Males have their roles in life, and females have their roles in life. None of the roles are ruled by customs. Confucianism does not rule roles, nor does Taoism, Yin Yang, Christianity, Buddhism, Science, Academia, or any other man-made ideology rule over roles.

If a feminist wants to become a nuzi, then great, all the feminist has to do is to become a quality person with quality inner traits. But, however, that cannot happen because feminists are full of lies and false accusations against innocent males, and too, the feminists are mentally incapable of changing their inner natures.

And there, the words have been spoken for feminists and scholars to 'enter ear come out mouth' memorize and repeat, which is all that feminists and scholars are capable of doing.

Sum

Another feminist recently replied hatefully that she had proof that Confucius hated females; the feminist quoted yet another false 'translation' given by yet another fraudulent scholar, as if everything that scholars say has to be infallible truth. The feminist was so deeply uneducated that she was not so much as able to write a coherent English sentence, but that is the norm for today.

If an individual cares enough for their own intellect, then they will exert the effort to read what Confucius spoke of instead of believing whatever gossip that feminists and scholars claim. Neither feminists nor scholars have themselves exerted an effort to read Confucian texts, and, so, why should anyone believe what they claim?

The unfortunate fact is that most everyone on earth has the belief that everything a scholar says must be true truth. It is everyone's own choice, to either choose to attain quality inner traits, or else to continue sticking out their hairy paws while expecting another equal-opportunity handout.

Confucius did not hate females, and even if he did, what difference would it make? Confucius was not a god, and, so, who cares what Confucius said? Actually, almost no one on earth cares what Confucius said, because almost no one on earth will exert an effort to read what he spoke of. Confucius never said anything new, but he did have a way of saying the right things elegantly. Beyond that, the Confucian writings are pretty much useless.

The group that hates females the worst, are the feminists themselves, who vocally demand of themselves and all other females to remain obnoxiously vile xiaoren.

Epilogue

A sixteen-second symphonic chord... a piano joins... by the third piano note, the eyes are watering, the heart feels the pressure of love... the torso is heaving... as the tears increase, the heart cries... the love and caring for another grows to become intense... as tears flow down the cheeks, there is a recognition of appreciation of having found and experienced one's greatest beauty in life... it has made one's difficult life worthy of having been lived... the music, is merely the music heard while the life's experience occurred, and now, merely hearing the first notes of the song, it brings back the inner memories of a beauty that does not exist within man's world... it can only exist, between a man and a good woman.

The actual experience that the memories were formed from, was massively stronger. Many hundreds of times, the life experiences are repeated, and each time, the tears are present with love and great happiness.

According to man's ideologies, his desires are to be given an eternal life, with streets of gold, and a well-stocked god-Mart where the people can buy everything for free, and where they can hoard for eternity. Ideologies cannot give beauty, nor love, nor tears of happiness for another... nor is man's science able.

The human creature is lowly, of no inherent qualities, but the human creature is the only one known that has the potential of recognizing Nature's Way, to choose to live within Nature's Way, and to choose to create as does Nature's Way create, to become as root of Source. The only known publicly-available written reference to Nature's Way, is within Confucius' words. People hate on themselves, and deny themselves happiness, when they hate on Nature's Way, by their hating on Confucius.

There are xiaoren, and there are nuzies... Confucius knew that.