I have always been in favor of non-resistance, but because of some biases, I dare not implement it. Now I think that this view is really a fallacy. Why? Because non-resistance is negative in face and the most economical positive in the bones. We must be effective in doing things. If we do not implement this, we will inevitably consume the spirit in a useless place. We must save the spirit and use it in a proper place. You have to save where you don't have to. This is negative to be positive: without negative, there is no positive. What does the above text mainly tell us? ['Reasons in favor of non-resistance.', 'Non-resistance looks negative, but it is positive.', 'Positive and negative are just philosophical words in a relative sense.', 'To succeed, you must focus your limited energy on doing the most important things.']