In the Judgment of Hexagram 24 Fu / Return it is said (extracts):
Going out and coming in without error. Friends come without blame. To and fro goes the Way. On the seventh day comes return.
And the nine in the fifth place of Hexagram 39 Jian / Obstruction says:
In the midst of the greatest obstructions, Friends come.
While the image of the six in the second place says that because the king’s servant is beset by obstruction upon obstruction, in the end, there is no blame.
In his tenth prophecy of the Ma Qian Ke, with the accompanying Hexagram Jian / Obstruction, the great Zhuge Liang or Kongming has had established that the Chinese phrase for ‘Friends come without blame’ or ‘Peng Lai Wu Jiu’ in pinyin can also be read as ‘Friends come, no blame’.
Now whether or not the friends (Peng) that have been referred to in both Hexagrams represents the same phenomenon is the subject of this romance. But as usual whenever this student writes about things related to Tao and Heaven, there would be no damage to your health and well being if you take it in with a bit of salt!
Friends come without blame, to and fro goes the Way
Signifies the Return (Fu)
Friends come no blame, in the midst of obstructions upon obstructions
Signifies Obstruction (Jian)
The Holy Sages allowed the least knowledgeable to reveal the truths
So that more can be taught, a phenomenon of Wu Wei
From the Tao Te Ching, Analects, down to the Daoist texts
The least knowledgeable among those with profound knowledge had taught the most
Therefore do not be surprised if you cannot learn anything profound here
Since the author knows only a touch of the ancients and Zhouyi
However, while we may have the same teacher, our experiences vary
And the romance may contain a hint or two to help expand your deep knowledge
Heaven and Earth had closed since 15 September 2008
Signifying no Tao all under Heaven
Friends cannot come because of the obstructions upon obstructions
Therefore no blame can be accorded
Laozi, Confucius, and Mencius knowing this phenomenon
Had warned the able to hide until Heaven and Earth (re)open
Those who had refused to listen, suffered along with the hundreds of millions
Causes were known, retribution was duly paid where people had revolted
To foreknow when Heaven and Earth will reopen is easy and simple
Heaven first send down the Great Light to help the correct, central, and blessed
Then ‘Friends come without blame’
Both phenomena presage the phenomenon of ‘To and fro goes the Way’.
In case you have doubts, I can help you count
It has been forty nine months since there was no Tao on Earth.
Those who practised neidan meditation during this period knows not when to stop
Conversely, they too would not know when to start
The adept(s) had to forego the embryo within
Since it cannot survive without Tao on Earth
A time when Guan Yin had indicated that Buddhas give no blessings
Friends had tried to come amidst the greatest obstructions, and accorded no blame
If you want to experience ‘Friends come without blame’
Empty your mind and still your heart to wait for the Return.
It is not necessary to sit but just be quiet.
Friends come when you are ready and whenever there is Tao all under Heaven.
An overheard conversation:
Welcome back, my friends!
It has been a long time.
Forty nine (49) months to be exact.
An eternity some say.
Yet there is no blame.
For Heaven and Earth had closed.
And there was no Tao all under Heaven.
With so much obstructions placed upon travels
Even Buddhas give no blessings
As told by Guan Yin
Yes, I know that you came a few times earlier.
But, your calls at the gate were mumbles.
Anomalies still happen whenever there is no Tao on Earth.
Though a few culprits have been overthrown
Most roam freely while the innocents still suffer
The forgoing of the embryo again is not a great loss.
Compared to the sufferings of the hundreds of millions people on Earth.
Heaven by sending down the Great Light last year indicates that the correct, central, and blessed are not completely forgotten.
Except for the able who else could appreciate that they have to hide?
Meanwhile they wait for the reopening of Heaven and Earth and the ensuing abundance of Tao once again.
My palms have suddenly grown hot.
As if we shook hands.
Pray tell your shy female companions, their first ever visit is much appreciated.
And that they sing the melodic song in harmony with you.
Send my regards to our Buddhist friends; I do miss their chiming in now and then.
Your long visit today may presage that of Tao moving to and fro freely again.
Do not worry too much, even if this conversation is overhead and published.
Any listener would stretch their Tao and Yijing knowledge to the limits before appreciating any of what has been said.
Otherwise they will dismiss it as a self-talk by a cranky old man.
And whichever way they choose, they are correct. Since how would he know?
Allan Lian
All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Mencius. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mencius. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Review of Homer H Dubs’ article on ‘Did Confucius study the Book of Changes?’
Over the past eight decades, anyone after reading the late US Professor Homer Dubs’ 1928 influential article published in the Tongbao, the first international journal in sinology established in 1890, would be confounded as to whether or not Confucius had actually studied the Book of Changes. The article in simple English is very persuasive and well supported by several quotations from the Analects, and one each from the Book of History and from the Records of the Grand Historian. (Homer H Dubs’ article on ‘Did Confucius study the Book of Changes?’, is kindly made available by Steve Marshall for those interested at http://www.biroco.com/yijing/dubs.pdf )
Professor Homer Dubs (1892 to 1969) was a Yale graduate in philosophy, a Columbia University masters, and after having earned a PhD from the University of Chicago with a dissertation on the Chinese philosopher, Xunzi that he would publish in two volumes, taught at several US Universities before taking up the Chair of Chinese at Oxford that had been held by James Legge. In addition, Dubs grew up in China as a child of missionary parents and returned there as a missionary after obtaining his masters and his Bachelor of Divinity. The professor, an American sinologist and polymath, is best known for his translation of sections of Ban Gu’s Book of Han. (The life, credentials, works, and later eccentricities of Homer Dubs can be further read at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_H._Dubs)
Anyone not having studied ancient Chinese philosophy as deep as Homer Dubs, a professor at the University of Minnesota when he published the well debated article, could be influenced or swayed by his persuasive and substantiated arguments to believe likewise that Confucius would have nothing to do with the Book of Changes anymore than about spirits. With his impressive array of scholarly credentials and works, his immense knowledge of ancient Chinese philosophy, and stature, it would seem nigh impossible to provide a substantive review of the article. To challenge such a scholarly article supported by various historical citations appears daunting even to those who continue to believe that Confucius did study the Book of Changes; unless they happened to be equally or more steeped in ancient Chinese philosophy than him. Of his contemporary sinologists, Richard Wilhelm would have been the ideal candidate and/or Yijing aficionado to review Dub’s 1928 article even though his eminent Chinese mentor has had passed away by then. However, Wilhelm was probably too ill when the article was published, and had passed away two years later.
Apparently, this influential 1928 article has yet to be reviewed. Therefore under the circumstances, this student who knows only a touch of the ancients and the Zhouyi, with no particular talent or virtue to speak of, takes up the challenge to review Homer Dubs’ article readied to be shamed if he falters. In the review, reasons would be submitted on why the article has had blindsided both Dubs’ admirers and dissenters for more than eighty years.
Dubs had probably started out the article to provide a contrary view to that of Professor Hu Shih’, which according to him was the best and most critical scholar of the day. And I would tend to agree with Dubs’ poor assessment of Hu Shih, if the eminent Chinese Professor had not provided any further evidence that Confucius actually used the Book beyond his famous saying that ‘if some years were added to his life, he would give fifty to the study of the Book of Changes and then might come to be free from great faults’ (VII, xvi) and/or that of Sima Qian’ Records of the Grand Historian on the life events and works of the great sage. (Pages 82 and 83 Tongpao XXV 1928)
Now to write a scholarly article to uphold or to refute the age old Chinese belief that Confucius has had studied the Book of Changes, it could do great injustice to the ancient sage for not having discussed the ancient classic, the ten wings, and the four Confucian books as a whole.
If Professor Hu Shih only knew what his peers would know, it reflects a run-of-the-mill mentality, and no special in-depth knowledge of both the four Confucian books and the Book of Changes that we can learn from. However, neither did Professor Dubs know much about the Book of Changes of Zhou or the Ten Wings, if at all, since he rarely touched on them in his article, if his admirers and/or dissenters have not noticed.
The following analyses and findings of Dubs would depict his level of knowledge, if any, of the Zhouyi and the Ten Wings:
According to Dubs, Sima Qian in his monumental Historical Record states that Confucius wrote various appendixes to the Book of Changes. Relying on Legge’ correct assessment that the attribution of the entire Ten Wings to Confucius is wrong and that we cannot be sure that any of it is from the pen of Confucius himself. He reasoned that: ‘They (The Ten Wings) were too trivial and unworthy to a great man. So we cannot conclude from the Book of Changes itself that Confucius had any connection with it, rather the contrary. Likewise Sima Qian’ evidence must be ruled out as secondary and based on insufficient evidence’. (pages 83 and 84)
The fact that Confucius did write various appendixes to the Book of Changes of Zhou as indicated by Sima Qian had been likely confirmed by James Legge (and Richard Wilhelm in his W/B translation) seemed to be lost on Dubs probably in his over eagerness to refute the age old belief. The whitewashing of the Records of the Grand Historian, which he himself ascribed as monumental, was to be repeated in the article when Dubs tried to cover up (Xunzi’ student) Li Si’ infamous acts. If Dubs had been a student of the Book of Changes, he would not have so lightly dismissed the involvement of Confucius in the writing of the Ten Wings by just relying on the thoughts and the feelings of Legge.
Dubs has had cleverly blindsided Yijing aficionados and scholars by quoting sources from the Analects which supported his prejudices against Chinese ancestor worship, prayers, and divination. Such prejudices could have arisen because of his previous missionary background together with his adoration for Xunzi (who hated the evil princes who did not follow the Way but gave their attention to magic and prayers and believed in omens and luck – Shiji). He provided an unclear quotation - and considered it without basis as ancestor worship - on Confucius teaching Chi Lu that he must be able to serve men before learning how to serve the dead, to support his contention that the sage has nothing to do with divination (and spirits). (In his translation, James Legge had mentioned the distinction by way of notes between ghosts (Gui) and spirits (Shen); and that Confucius had used ghosts (Gui) in the quotation. And the differing views offered by past eminent scholars on this particular quotation.) (XI, xi) (84)
Dubs further displayed a lack of deep understanding of ancient Chinese philosophy when he contended that Confucius holds prayers useless by offering two inappropriate supporting quotations from the Analects, ‘He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray.’ (III, xiii) And – “where the sage had indicated there was no necessity for his student to offer prayers on his behalf for his illness, because his praying has been for a long time.” (VII, xxxiii) (84) By applying the first quotation, he like his idol, Xunzi, clearly did not understand that Heaven has a moral will. Also did he not understand what Confucius has said about his own prayers in the latter quotation? Therefore the presented argument of Dubs that since Confucius holds prayers useless, divination is useless too, holds no water.
By quoting the statement ‘divination, when fortunate, should not be repeated’ from the Book of History to support his contention that indeed divination is superstition, he laid bare his ineptness, if he had any knowledge at all, of the Book of Changes. (84) Only the ignorant would be foolish enough to again ask the Book of Changes after obtaining a fortunate prognostication, or a happy omen. Furthermore there was no cause whatsoever for Dubs to cast aspersions on the exemplary Emperor Shun and the Great Yu, as superstitious, just to sway readers to his preferred way of thought or belief. (The historical statement on divination was made by Shun to Yu, in the Great Counsels of Yu.)
To answer his questions as to why there were no records of Confucius teaching or of his recommending the Book of Changes to his students, I can only submit my opinion that if the great sage knew that he has not fully comprehended a profound subject like the Book of Changes, he would not have proceeded to teach the subject to his students. And since Confucius was versed with the Odes, the Rites, and the Music, and found them easier to learn, he recommended his students to study them instead. (85)
This usual opinion of mine is probably now supported by the missing and recently found chapter Yao of the Analects wherein Confucius indicated that his divination accuracy is 70% and about the same as one of his students. (But it would be rather unfair to the late Professor Dubs to use the Yao Chapter to counter his well articulated points on why Confucius did not study the Book of Changes.)
Dubs then tried to hoodwink less knowledgeable readers in ancient Chinese philosophy by making the statement that, ‘Should Confucius have honored and admired it, we should expect that his disciples and followers would have likewise studied and spoken of it. On the contrary they maintain a complete silence for centuries after his death.’ And immediately after that he launched into a vile attack on the author of the Doctrine of the Mean as superstitious, because the author believes in spirits and in divination. (85)
Surely, the learned Professor of ancient Chinese philosophy like James Legge knew that it was Confucius’ beloved grandson (and student), Zisi who wrote the Doctrine of the Mean! Therefore was there or was there not evidence that Confucius’ disciples did study and speak about the Book of Changes? Or did Dubs again try to whitewash important ancient writings that supported the age old belief by casting aspersions on the texts and/or personages? Furthermore, would this renowned grandson of Confucius who is the accredited teacher of Mencius, turn against his own grandfather’s teachings by writing something deemed unbecoming? It is left to readers of this review to decide.
In addition, Dubs indicated that Mencius was quiet on the matter and so was Xunzi. Without knowing much about the Book of Changes and the Ten Wings, Dubs certainly would be clueless as to the profound Yijing knowledge of Mencius; even though he has had read his Book. From brief accounts of Xunzi in the Wikipedia, it is quite possible that this particular philosopher did not study the Book of Changes since unlike Mencius he disbelieved that Heaven has moral will. Therefore, Xunzi may not even know what the Mandate of Heaven was. Similar to some pedant scholars, Dubs argued that it was not until Zuo Zhuan that the Book of Changes was mentioned, totally disregarding the existence of the Doctrine of the Mean which is traditionally honored as one of the four Confucian books.
One can discern that Dubs then at the age of 36 adored Xunzi as his hero, probably influenced by his teachings while writing the thesis on the ancient Chinese philosopher for his PhD. Since in the article, he had made several attempts to raise the stature of both Xunzi, and his rouge student, Li Si who as the prime minister of Qin buried Confucians alive, and burned many categories of books. However, in the eyes of the learned and the wise, Xunzi would never be equally great as Mencius as Dubs has had wished. (85) And Li Si is still rouge because of his despicable acts against humanity and learning. Since Xunzi the teacher did not understand much about Heaven, neither would his student or followers! And to the Chinese, the acts of a student reflect upon the teacher. Mencius is honored as a Confucian sage while Xunzi will remain as an eminent philosopher because his theory on human nature directly contradicts that of Mencius’ Man is born good.
On Li Si’s infamous acts of ‘Burning of books and burying of scholars’, an event recorded by Sima Qian, the Grand Historian of Han, Dubs again tried to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Records of the Grand Historian. (88) While Dubs will certainly know the fact that Sima Qian on the pain of death dared to record the dastardly acts of the first Han Emperor’s wife, Empress Lu after Liu Bang’s death, the professor because of his vested interests still tried to mislead readers; admirers and dissenters alike. That Li Si was subjected to the Five Tortures by the second Qin emperor and later put to death by the prime minister of the day was no more than what he had deserved.
Even though he did not quite make out a convincing case to those in the know for condemning the Book of Changes as superstition; Dubs deviously praised the wisdom of Confucius for not having anything to do with superstitious things. This would confound both the Yijing aficionados and those who hold on to the age old belief.
Without an in-depth Yijing knowledge, how could one appreciate the age old connection between the commentaries by Confucius and/or his students, and Mencius contained in the Ten Wings and the Zhouyi?
Using selective irrelevant citations coupled with flawed analyses which led to incorrect findings, Professor Dubs still unabashedly conclude that Confucius did not concern himself with the Book of Changes anymore than about spirits. Yet his flawed findings and misleading conclusion that Confucius did not study the Book of Changes had stood unchallenged for more than eight decades!
Surely, the late Professor Dubs would not mind it a bit, if my review can finally put his misleading arguments to rest, once and for all. If the influential and yet misleading article is not brought to light and shamed, it would continue to be a disservice to the Book of Changes, Confucius, the current and future generations of Yijing aficionados. Although it is never too late or too old to study the Book of Changes, the ‘lost’ generations (the misled) in between the eighty odd years cannot be brought back to the Light.
In case readers think that the review is nothing but hype, and that this student only know the famous quote used by generations of scholars - including the late eminent Chinese Professor Hu Shih - to support the belief and/or contention that ‘Confucius did study the Book of Changes’, I append below just a few assorted quotations from the Analects for your reading pleasure. Please put on your thinking cap before reading the quotations since they have proven too deep even for generations of eminent Chinese scholars of ancient Chinese philosophy, and without any exception, readers should also know their Yijing studies well otherwise the quotations’ trails to the ancient classic will remain hidden:
‘I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there.’
[Analects 7.19]
‘The Fang bird does not come; the river sends forth no map; - it is all over for me!’
[Analects 9. 8]
‘When Tao pervades all under heaven, be prominent. When Tao recesses, go into hiding.’ [Translated by AL]
[Book 8 Chapter 13 of the Analects]
The Master said,
‘The people of the south have a saying – ‘A man without constancy cannot be either a wizard or a doctor.’ Good!
‘Inconstant in his virtue, he will be visited with disgrace.’
The Master said,
‘This arises simply from not attending to the prognostication.’
[Analects 8. 22 Legge]
Allan Lian
All rights reserved.
Professor Homer Dubs (1892 to 1969) was a Yale graduate in philosophy, a Columbia University masters, and after having earned a PhD from the University of Chicago with a dissertation on the Chinese philosopher, Xunzi that he would publish in two volumes, taught at several US Universities before taking up the Chair of Chinese at Oxford that had been held by James Legge. In addition, Dubs grew up in China as a child of missionary parents and returned there as a missionary after obtaining his masters and his Bachelor of Divinity. The professor, an American sinologist and polymath, is best known for his translation of sections of Ban Gu’s Book of Han. (The life, credentials, works, and later eccentricities of Homer Dubs can be further read at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_H._Dubs)
Anyone not having studied ancient Chinese philosophy as deep as Homer Dubs, a professor at the University of Minnesota when he published the well debated article, could be influenced or swayed by his persuasive and substantiated arguments to believe likewise that Confucius would have nothing to do with the Book of Changes anymore than about spirits. With his impressive array of scholarly credentials and works, his immense knowledge of ancient Chinese philosophy, and stature, it would seem nigh impossible to provide a substantive review of the article. To challenge such a scholarly article supported by various historical citations appears daunting even to those who continue to believe that Confucius did study the Book of Changes; unless they happened to be equally or more steeped in ancient Chinese philosophy than him. Of his contemporary sinologists, Richard Wilhelm would have been the ideal candidate and/or Yijing aficionado to review Dub’s 1928 article even though his eminent Chinese mentor has had passed away by then. However, Wilhelm was probably too ill when the article was published, and had passed away two years later.
Apparently, this influential 1928 article has yet to be reviewed. Therefore under the circumstances, this student who knows only a touch of the ancients and the Zhouyi, with no particular talent or virtue to speak of, takes up the challenge to review Homer Dubs’ article readied to be shamed if he falters. In the review, reasons would be submitted on why the article has had blindsided both Dubs’ admirers and dissenters for more than eighty years.
Dubs had probably started out the article to provide a contrary view to that of Professor Hu Shih’, which according to him was the best and most critical scholar of the day. And I would tend to agree with Dubs’ poor assessment of Hu Shih, if the eminent Chinese Professor had not provided any further evidence that Confucius actually used the Book beyond his famous saying that ‘if some years were added to his life, he would give fifty to the study of the Book of Changes and then might come to be free from great faults’ (VII, xvi) and/or that of Sima Qian’ Records of the Grand Historian on the life events and works of the great sage. (Pages 82 and 83 Tongpao XXV 1928)
Now to write a scholarly article to uphold or to refute the age old Chinese belief that Confucius has had studied the Book of Changes, it could do great injustice to the ancient sage for not having discussed the ancient classic, the ten wings, and the four Confucian books as a whole.
If Professor Hu Shih only knew what his peers would know, it reflects a run-of-the-mill mentality, and no special in-depth knowledge of both the four Confucian books and the Book of Changes that we can learn from. However, neither did Professor Dubs know much about the Book of Changes of Zhou or the Ten Wings, if at all, since he rarely touched on them in his article, if his admirers and/or dissenters have not noticed.
The following analyses and findings of Dubs would depict his level of knowledge, if any, of the Zhouyi and the Ten Wings:
According to Dubs, Sima Qian in his monumental Historical Record states that Confucius wrote various appendixes to the Book of Changes. Relying on Legge’ correct assessment that the attribution of the entire Ten Wings to Confucius is wrong and that we cannot be sure that any of it is from the pen of Confucius himself. He reasoned that: ‘They (The Ten Wings) were too trivial and unworthy to a great man. So we cannot conclude from the Book of Changes itself that Confucius had any connection with it, rather the contrary. Likewise Sima Qian’ evidence must be ruled out as secondary and based on insufficient evidence’. (pages 83 and 84)
The fact that Confucius did write various appendixes to the Book of Changes of Zhou as indicated by Sima Qian had been likely confirmed by James Legge (and Richard Wilhelm in his W/B translation) seemed to be lost on Dubs probably in his over eagerness to refute the age old belief. The whitewashing of the Records of the Grand Historian, which he himself ascribed as monumental, was to be repeated in the article when Dubs tried to cover up (Xunzi’ student) Li Si’ infamous acts. If Dubs had been a student of the Book of Changes, he would not have so lightly dismissed the involvement of Confucius in the writing of the Ten Wings by just relying on the thoughts and the feelings of Legge.
Dubs has had cleverly blindsided Yijing aficionados and scholars by quoting sources from the Analects which supported his prejudices against Chinese ancestor worship, prayers, and divination. Such prejudices could have arisen because of his previous missionary background together with his adoration for Xunzi (who hated the evil princes who did not follow the Way but gave their attention to magic and prayers and believed in omens and luck – Shiji). He provided an unclear quotation - and considered it without basis as ancestor worship - on Confucius teaching Chi Lu that he must be able to serve men before learning how to serve the dead, to support his contention that the sage has nothing to do with divination (and spirits). (In his translation, James Legge had mentioned the distinction by way of notes between ghosts (Gui) and spirits (Shen); and that Confucius had used ghosts (Gui) in the quotation. And the differing views offered by past eminent scholars on this particular quotation.) (XI, xi) (84)
Dubs further displayed a lack of deep understanding of ancient Chinese philosophy when he contended that Confucius holds prayers useless by offering two inappropriate supporting quotations from the Analects, ‘He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can pray.’ (III, xiii) And – “where the sage had indicated there was no necessity for his student to offer prayers on his behalf for his illness, because his praying has been for a long time.” (VII, xxxiii) (84) By applying the first quotation, he like his idol, Xunzi, clearly did not understand that Heaven has a moral will. Also did he not understand what Confucius has said about his own prayers in the latter quotation? Therefore the presented argument of Dubs that since Confucius holds prayers useless, divination is useless too, holds no water.
By quoting the statement ‘divination, when fortunate, should not be repeated’ from the Book of History to support his contention that indeed divination is superstition, he laid bare his ineptness, if he had any knowledge at all, of the Book of Changes. (84) Only the ignorant would be foolish enough to again ask the Book of Changes after obtaining a fortunate prognostication, or a happy omen. Furthermore there was no cause whatsoever for Dubs to cast aspersions on the exemplary Emperor Shun and the Great Yu, as superstitious, just to sway readers to his preferred way of thought or belief. (The historical statement on divination was made by Shun to Yu, in the Great Counsels of Yu.)
To answer his questions as to why there were no records of Confucius teaching or of his recommending the Book of Changes to his students, I can only submit my opinion that if the great sage knew that he has not fully comprehended a profound subject like the Book of Changes, he would not have proceeded to teach the subject to his students. And since Confucius was versed with the Odes, the Rites, and the Music, and found them easier to learn, he recommended his students to study them instead. (85)
This usual opinion of mine is probably now supported by the missing and recently found chapter Yao of the Analects wherein Confucius indicated that his divination accuracy is 70% and about the same as one of his students. (But it would be rather unfair to the late Professor Dubs to use the Yao Chapter to counter his well articulated points on why Confucius did not study the Book of Changes.)
Dubs then tried to hoodwink less knowledgeable readers in ancient Chinese philosophy by making the statement that, ‘Should Confucius have honored and admired it, we should expect that his disciples and followers would have likewise studied and spoken of it. On the contrary they maintain a complete silence for centuries after his death.’ And immediately after that he launched into a vile attack on the author of the Doctrine of the Mean as superstitious, because the author believes in spirits and in divination. (85)
Surely, the learned Professor of ancient Chinese philosophy like James Legge knew that it was Confucius’ beloved grandson (and student), Zisi who wrote the Doctrine of the Mean! Therefore was there or was there not evidence that Confucius’ disciples did study and speak about the Book of Changes? Or did Dubs again try to whitewash important ancient writings that supported the age old belief by casting aspersions on the texts and/or personages? Furthermore, would this renowned grandson of Confucius who is the accredited teacher of Mencius, turn against his own grandfather’s teachings by writing something deemed unbecoming? It is left to readers of this review to decide.
In addition, Dubs indicated that Mencius was quiet on the matter and so was Xunzi. Without knowing much about the Book of Changes and the Ten Wings, Dubs certainly would be clueless as to the profound Yijing knowledge of Mencius; even though he has had read his Book. From brief accounts of Xunzi in the Wikipedia, it is quite possible that this particular philosopher did not study the Book of Changes since unlike Mencius he disbelieved that Heaven has moral will. Therefore, Xunzi may not even know what the Mandate of Heaven was. Similar to some pedant scholars, Dubs argued that it was not until Zuo Zhuan that the Book of Changes was mentioned, totally disregarding the existence of the Doctrine of the Mean which is traditionally honored as one of the four Confucian books.
One can discern that Dubs then at the age of 36 adored Xunzi as his hero, probably influenced by his teachings while writing the thesis on the ancient Chinese philosopher for his PhD. Since in the article, he had made several attempts to raise the stature of both Xunzi, and his rouge student, Li Si who as the prime minister of Qin buried Confucians alive, and burned many categories of books. However, in the eyes of the learned and the wise, Xunzi would never be equally great as Mencius as Dubs has had wished. (85) And Li Si is still rouge because of his despicable acts against humanity and learning. Since Xunzi the teacher did not understand much about Heaven, neither would his student or followers! And to the Chinese, the acts of a student reflect upon the teacher. Mencius is honored as a Confucian sage while Xunzi will remain as an eminent philosopher because his theory on human nature directly contradicts that of Mencius’ Man is born good.
On Li Si’s infamous acts of ‘Burning of books and burying of scholars’, an event recorded by Sima Qian, the Grand Historian of Han, Dubs again tried to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Records of the Grand Historian. (88) While Dubs will certainly know the fact that Sima Qian on the pain of death dared to record the dastardly acts of the first Han Emperor’s wife, Empress Lu after Liu Bang’s death, the professor because of his vested interests still tried to mislead readers; admirers and dissenters alike. That Li Si was subjected to the Five Tortures by the second Qin emperor and later put to death by the prime minister of the day was no more than what he had deserved.
Even though he did not quite make out a convincing case to those in the know for condemning the Book of Changes as superstition; Dubs deviously praised the wisdom of Confucius for not having anything to do with superstitious things. This would confound both the Yijing aficionados and those who hold on to the age old belief.
Without an in-depth Yijing knowledge, how could one appreciate the age old connection between the commentaries by Confucius and/or his students, and Mencius contained in the Ten Wings and the Zhouyi?
Using selective irrelevant citations coupled with flawed analyses which led to incorrect findings, Professor Dubs still unabashedly conclude that Confucius did not concern himself with the Book of Changes anymore than about spirits. Yet his flawed findings and misleading conclusion that Confucius did not study the Book of Changes had stood unchallenged for more than eight decades!
Surely, the late Professor Dubs would not mind it a bit, if my review can finally put his misleading arguments to rest, once and for all. If the influential and yet misleading article is not brought to light and shamed, it would continue to be a disservice to the Book of Changes, Confucius, the current and future generations of Yijing aficionados. Although it is never too late or too old to study the Book of Changes, the ‘lost’ generations (the misled) in between the eighty odd years cannot be brought back to the Light.
In case readers think that the review is nothing but hype, and that this student only know the famous quote used by generations of scholars - including the late eminent Chinese Professor Hu Shih - to support the belief and/or contention that ‘Confucius did study the Book of Changes’, I append below just a few assorted quotations from the Analects for your reading pleasure. Please put on your thinking cap before reading the quotations since they have proven too deep even for generations of eminent Chinese scholars of ancient Chinese philosophy, and without any exception, readers should also know their Yijing studies well otherwise the quotations’ trails to the ancient classic will remain hidden:
‘I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there.’
[Analects 7.19]
‘The Fang bird does not come; the river sends forth no map; - it is all over for me!’
[Analects 9. 8]
‘When Tao pervades all under heaven, be prominent. When Tao recesses, go into hiding.’ [Translated by AL]
[Book 8 Chapter 13 of the Analects]
The Master said,
‘The people of the south have a saying – ‘A man without constancy cannot be either a wizard or a doctor.’ Good!
‘Inconstant in his virtue, he will be visited with disgrace.’
The Master said,
‘This arises simply from not attending to the prognostication.’
[Analects 8. 22 Legge]
Allan Lian
All rights reserved.
Friday, February 04, 2011
The returning great light
The holy sages and the ancient sages (Laozi, Confucius, and Mencius) advise the able to go into hiding whenever there is no Tao on earth. Those who did not hide or were too late to do so suffered the consequences. And history keeps repeating itself down the millennia.
The great wealth destruction from September 2008 onwards brought financial ruin to many across the world. Natural disasters like earthquakes and floods, and wind borne diseases which turned into worldwide epidemics killed many people.
That was why in early 2008 the Book of Changes warned this student, there was going to be no Tao on earth.
Of late, the I Ching has told me times are changing.
For Heaven is sending down the light for the sake of the people.
The returning great light and the accompanying wind will penetrate and disperse the darkness which had hurt so many people on earth over the past few years.
During this change, it is advisable for the able to remain cautious since it is a transition from disorder to order and such change takes time. Just do not miss this return of the great light, or they may have to wait for ten years.
With this heaven sent great light, it is time to cross the great waters, and achieve supreme success. What should I do? Practise charioting! Or write a book?
The great wealth destruction from September 2008 onwards brought financial ruin to many across the world. Natural disasters like earthquakes and floods, and wind borne diseases which turned into worldwide epidemics killed many people.
That was why in early 2008 the Book of Changes warned this student, there was going to be no Tao on earth.
Of late, the I Ching has told me times are changing.
For Heaven is sending down the light for the sake of the people.
The returning great light and the accompanying wind will penetrate and disperse the darkness which had hurt so many people on earth over the past few years.
During this change, it is advisable for the able to remain cautious since it is a transition from disorder to order and such change takes time. Just do not miss this return of the great light, or they may have to wait for ten years.
With this heaven sent great light, it is time to cross the great waters, and achieve supreme success. What should I do? Practise charioting! Or write a book?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Providing Nourishment
In the commentary to the Judgment of Hexagram 27 Yi, Wilhelm and his mentor penned this:
In bestowing care and nourishment, it is important that the right people should be taken care of and that we should attend to our own nourishment in the right way. If we wish to know what anyone is like, we have only to observe on whom he bestows his care and what sides of his own nature he cultivates and nourishes. Nature nourishes all creatures. The great man fosters and takes care of the superior men, in order to take care of all men through them. Mencius says about this:
“If we wish to know whether anyone is superior or not, we need only observe what part of his being he regards as especially important. The body has superior and inferior, important and unimportant parts. We must not injure important parts for the sake of the unimportant, nor must we injure the superior parts for the sake of the inferior. He who cultivates the inferior parts of his nature is an inferior man. He who cultivates the superior parts of his nature is a superior man.”
[Mencius bk. VI, 1. 14]
In Book VI, Mencius discoursed why human nature is good. For that principle alone he was acknowledged a sage, since he knew human nature, heaven and earth, well.
In Part 1 Verse 14, he discussed more than quoted above. And a correction need to be made to the quote – “He who cultivates the inferior parts of his nature is an inferior man (Xiao Ren). He who cultivates the great parts of his nature is a great man (Da Ren).”
In his discourse, philosopher Kao, a student of Mozi was worsted.
If we think about Xunzi, said to be a follower of Confucius, who holds to the principle that human nature is evil (the direct opposite to that of Mencius) and taking his most prominent student, Li Shi, as an example then perhaps he was right. This student of his was evil. It was Li Shi the prime minister who advocated to the first emperor of Chin, Shih Huangdi, to burn all ancient books except those of Chin and to bury hundreds of dissenting Confucian scholars alive.
If we look at Hexagram Yi, the lower three lines did not turn to the summit for nourishment and therefore face misfortune. (Li Shi was a good example if we know how he died.) While the fourth and fifth lines which turn to the summit have good fortune. The sixth or top line being the sage and the source of nourishment also obtains good fortune.
In line with the advice of Mencius and what Hexagram Yi depicts, perhaps you know what is the right thing to do to provide nourishment in the cultivation of self,and how to obtain good fortune?
In bestowing care and nourishment, it is important that the right people should be taken care of and that we should attend to our own nourishment in the right way. If we wish to know what anyone is like, we have only to observe on whom he bestows his care and what sides of his own nature he cultivates and nourishes. Nature nourishes all creatures. The great man fosters and takes care of the superior men, in order to take care of all men through them. Mencius says about this:
“If we wish to know whether anyone is superior or not, we need only observe what part of his being he regards as especially important. The body has superior and inferior, important and unimportant parts. We must not injure important parts for the sake of the unimportant, nor must we injure the superior parts for the sake of the inferior. He who cultivates the inferior parts of his nature is an inferior man. He who cultivates the superior parts of his nature is a superior man.”
[Mencius bk. VI, 1. 14]
In Book VI, Mencius discoursed why human nature is good. For that principle alone he was acknowledged a sage, since he knew human nature, heaven and earth, well.
In Part 1 Verse 14, he discussed more than quoted above. And a correction need to be made to the quote – “He who cultivates the inferior parts of his nature is an inferior man (Xiao Ren). He who cultivates the great parts of his nature is a great man (Da Ren).”
In his discourse, philosopher Kao, a student of Mozi was worsted.
If we think about Xunzi, said to be a follower of Confucius, who holds to the principle that human nature is evil (the direct opposite to that of Mencius) and taking his most prominent student, Li Shi, as an example then perhaps he was right. This student of his was evil. It was Li Shi the prime minister who advocated to the first emperor of Chin, Shih Huangdi, to burn all ancient books except those of Chin and to bury hundreds of dissenting Confucian scholars alive.
If we look at Hexagram Yi, the lower three lines did not turn to the summit for nourishment and therefore face misfortune. (Li Shi was a good example if we know how he died.) While the fourth and fifth lines which turn to the summit have good fortune. The sixth or top line being the sage and the source of nourishment also obtains good fortune.
In line with the advice of Mencius and what Hexagram Yi depicts, perhaps you know what is the right thing to do to provide nourishment in the cultivation of self,and how to obtain good fortune?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Influence (2)
Mencius said,
‘Po-i, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the northern sea. When he heard the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Tai-kung, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the eastern sea. When he heard of the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Those two old men were the greatest old men of the kingdom. When they came to follow king Wen, it was the fathers of the kingdom coming to follow him. When the fathers of the kingdom joined him, how could the sons go to any other?
Were any of the princes to practise the government of king Wen, within seven years he would be sure to be giving laws to the kingdom.’
[The Works of Mencius Book 4, Part 1. 13 Legge]
To excel in the study of ancient Chinese philosophy we need to keep an open and empty mind to understand the thoughts of exemplary ancients.
If you cannot understand the thoughts of the exemplary ancients, studying the ideas of Chen Tuan and Shao Yong, and to a lesser degree, Wang Bi and Zhu Xi, could be complementary and helpful. Instead I see many fellow Yi and Daoist students examining and quoting thoughts of modern scholars as if these scholars know everything there is to learn about Tao and the Zhouyi.
If we carry a whole baggage of ideas borrowed over from modern scholars, we can certainly miss the woods for the trees.
Who is to say that these modern scholars, unless they are already first class scholars of Tao and the Zhouyi, understand the profound subjects in depth?
Take for instance, how many sinologists would want to settle for the word ‘virtue’ to be that of Te in the Tao Te Ching? Trying to be sophisticated or appear deep, they coin many meanings for Te until students especially those in the West who read or follow them are often confused. This can liken to ‘sincerity in disintegrating influence’. (Also refer to the recent entry, February 22, 2010, on this particular line in the Yi.)
In the first entry on Influence (March 31, 2010), I highlighted in bold the respective and yet similar comments by the two greatest old men of the kingdom at the time. King Wen’s virtue influenced the two old men and through them, influenced the sons of the kingdom.
James Legge probably prompted by his learned Chinese mentors referred to a conversation between king Wen and Tai-kung in the Book of History, whereby Wen indicated that his grandfather was looking for him (Tai-kung / Jiang Jiya / Patriarch Lu Shang) long ago. To my knowledge, Wen’s grandfather was pivotal to the aim of locating and employing the worthy to help expand the influence of the Zhou clan.
But somehow the more important historical values in the comments made by Mencius in passing, seemed to escape the notice of both Legge and his learned mentors.
One explanation could be that they thought the comments were of no significant value; since like me, they harbored no doubts to the authenticity of ancient Chinese classics and books.
The more likely explanation is that the comments present no significant historical values to them at all. Perhaps, a kinder way to say it must have gone above their heads, since they did not connect Mencius’s comments made in passing, to the Tao and the Zhouyi.
The three historical personages, Po-I, Tai-kung, and King Wen, knew Heaven and Earth. They also knew their roots, and the timing to do what is right. The two greatest old men of the kingdom recognized the virtue of King Wen and therefore joined him.
Legge and his mentors referred to King Wen, Prince Chi, and Chou Hsin in the Ming Yi / Darkening of the Light hexagram. Wilhelm and his mentor mentioned six historical personages: Po-I, King Wen, King Wu, Prince Wei Tzu, Prince Chi and Chou Hsin, whom the wise and learned deemed to represent the respective six lines in this Hexagram 36.
Both Legge and Wilhelm together with their respective mentors seemed not to have spotted the insight of the ancient sage, Mencius, given on the subject of Tao and the Zhouyi. There is no evidence to the contrary shown in their respective translation of the Book of Changes, notwithstanding their comments in the Ming Yi hexagram. It does not say they have missed important issues nor their respective translations are not quite up to mark. If you still do not own a Wilhelm / Baynes translation of the Book of Changes, it is high time you bought one.
I had already made a link to Tao and the Zhouyi in the first entry and this second one too.
Perhaps you can broaden your mind and deepen your Daoist and Yi studies by trying to spot the connection to the two profound subjects?
‘Po-i, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the northern sea. When he heard the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Tai-kung, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the eastern sea. When he heard of the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Those two old men were the greatest old men of the kingdom. When they came to follow king Wen, it was the fathers of the kingdom coming to follow him. When the fathers of the kingdom joined him, how could the sons go to any other?
Were any of the princes to practise the government of king Wen, within seven years he would be sure to be giving laws to the kingdom.’
[The Works of Mencius Book 4, Part 1. 13 Legge]
To excel in the study of ancient Chinese philosophy we need to keep an open and empty mind to understand the thoughts of exemplary ancients.
If you cannot understand the thoughts of the exemplary ancients, studying the ideas of Chen Tuan and Shao Yong, and to a lesser degree, Wang Bi and Zhu Xi, could be complementary and helpful. Instead I see many fellow Yi and Daoist students examining and quoting thoughts of modern scholars as if these scholars know everything there is to learn about Tao and the Zhouyi.
If we carry a whole baggage of ideas borrowed over from modern scholars, we can certainly miss the woods for the trees.
Who is to say that these modern scholars, unless they are already first class scholars of Tao and the Zhouyi, understand the profound subjects in depth?
Take for instance, how many sinologists would want to settle for the word ‘virtue’ to be that of Te in the Tao Te Ching? Trying to be sophisticated or appear deep, they coin many meanings for Te until students especially those in the West who read or follow them are often confused. This can liken to ‘sincerity in disintegrating influence’. (Also refer to the recent entry, February 22, 2010, on this particular line in the Yi.)
In the first entry on Influence (March 31, 2010), I highlighted in bold the respective and yet similar comments by the two greatest old men of the kingdom at the time. King Wen’s virtue influenced the two old men and through them, influenced the sons of the kingdom.
James Legge probably prompted by his learned Chinese mentors referred to a conversation between king Wen and Tai-kung in the Book of History, whereby Wen indicated that his grandfather was looking for him (Tai-kung / Jiang Jiya / Patriarch Lu Shang) long ago. To my knowledge, Wen’s grandfather was pivotal to the aim of locating and employing the worthy to help expand the influence of the Zhou clan.
But somehow the more important historical values in the comments made by Mencius in passing, seemed to escape the notice of both Legge and his learned mentors.
One explanation could be that they thought the comments were of no significant value; since like me, they harbored no doubts to the authenticity of ancient Chinese classics and books.
The more likely explanation is that the comments present no significant historical values to them at all. Perhaps, a kinder way to say it must have gone above their heads, since they did not connect Mencius’s comments made in passing, to the Tao and the Zhouyi.
The three historical personages, Po-I, Tai-kung, and King Wen, knew Heaven and Earth. They also knew their roots, and the timing to do what is right. The two greatest old men of the kingdom recognized the virtue of King Wen and therefore joined him.
Legge and his mentors referred to King Wen, Prince Chi, and Chou Hsin in the Ming Yi / Darkening of the Light hexagram. Wilhelm and his mentor mentioned six historical personages: Po-I, King Wen, King Wu, Prince Wei Tzu, Prince Chi and Chou Hsin, whom the wise and learned deemed to represent the respective six lines in this Hexagram 36.
Both Legge and Wilhelm together with their respective mentors seemed not to have spotted the insight of the ancient sage, Mencius, given on the subject of Tao and the Zhouyi. There is no evidence to the contrary shown in their respective translation of the Book of Changes, notwithstanding their comments in the Ming Yi hexagram. It does not say they have missed important issues nor their respective translations are not quite up to mark. If you still do not own a Wilhelm / Baynes translation of the Book of Changes, it is high time you bought one.
I had already made a link to Tao and the Zhouyi in the first entry and this second one too.
Perhaps you can broaden your mind and deepen your Daoist and Yi studies by trying to spot the connection to the two profound subjects?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Influence
Mencius said,
‘Po-i, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the northern sea. When he heard the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Tai-kung, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the eastern sea. When he heard of the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Those two old men were the greatest old men of the kingdom. When they came to follow king Wen, it was the fathers of the kingdom coming to follow him. When the fathers of the kingdom joined him, how could the sons go to any other?
Were any of the princes to practise the government of king Wen, within seven years he would be sure to be giving laws to the kingdom.’
[The Works of Mencius Book 4, Part 1. 13 Legge]
‘Po-i, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the northern sea. When he heard the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Tai-kung, that he might avoid Chou, was dwelling on the coast of the eastern sea. When he heard of the rise of king Wen, he roused himself, and said, “Why should I not go and follow him? I have heard that the chief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.”
Those two old men were the greatest old men of the kingdom. When they came to follow king Wen, it was the fathers of the kingdom coming to follow him. When the fathers of the kingdom joined him, how could the sons go to any other?
Were any of the princes to practise the government of king Wen, within seven years he would be sure to be giving laws to the kingdom.’
[The Works of Mencius Book 4, Part 1. 13 Legge]
Saturday, October 03, 2009
The mother of Mencius
While Confucians follow the doctrines of both Confucius and Mencius, Chinese mothers down the ages try to closely follow the example of Madam Chang, the mother of Mencius.
“According to Chao Chi, it was the misfortune of Mencius to lose his father at an early period; but in his youthful years he enjoyed the lessons of his kind mother, who thrice changed her residence on his account.
At first they lived near a cemetery, and Mencius amused himself with acting the various scenes which he witnessed at the tombs. ‘This,’ said the lady ‘is no place for my son;’ and she removed to a house in the market place. But the change was no improvement. The boy took to playing the part of a salesman, vaunting his wares, and chaffering with customers. His mother sought a new house, and found one at last close by a public school. There her child’s attention was taken with the various exercises of politeness which the scholars were taught, and he endeavored to imitate them. ‘This,’ she said, ‘is the proper place for my son.’
Han Ying relates another story of this period. Near their house was pig-butcher’s. One day Mencius asked his mother what they were killing the pigs for, and was told that it was to feed him. Her conscience immediately reproved her for the answer. She said to herself, ‘While I was carrying this boy in my womb, I would not sit down if the mat was not placed square, and I ate no meat which was not cut properly; - so I taught him when he was yet unborn. And now when his intelligence is opening, I am deceiving him; - this is to teach him untruthfulness!’ With this she went and bought a piece of pork in order to make good her words.
As Mencius grew up, he was sent to school. When he returned home one day, his mother looked up from the web which she was weaving, and asked him how far he had got on. He answered her with an air of indifference that he was doing well enough, on which she took a knife and cut through the thread of her shuttle. The idler was alarmed, and asked what she meant, when she gave him a long lecture, showing that she had done what he was doing, - that her cutting through the thread was like his neglecting his learning. The admonition, it is said, had its proper effect; the lecture did not need to be repeated.
His wife was squatting down one day in her own room, when Mencius went in. He was so much offended at finding her in that position, that he told his mother, and expressed his intention to put her away, because of ‘her want of propriety.’
‘It is you who have no propriety,’ said his mother, ‘and not your wife. Do not ‘The Rules of Propriety’ say, ‘When you are about to ascend a hall, raise your voice; when you enter a door, keep your eyes low?’ The reason of the rules is that people may not be taken unprepared; but you entered the door of your private apartment without raising your voice, and so caused your wife to be caught squatting on the ground. The impropriety is with you and not her.’ On this Mencius fell to reproving himself, and did not dare to put away his wife.
One day, when he was living with his mother in Chi, she was struck with the sorrowfulness of his aspect as he stood leaning against a pillar, and asked him the cause of it. He replied, ‘I have heard that the superior man occupies the place for which he is adapted, accepting no reward to which he does not feel entitled, and not covetous of honour and emolument. Now my doctrines are not practised in Chi: - I wish to leave it, but I think of your old age, and am anxious.’
His mother said, ‘It does not belong to a woman to determine anything of herself, but she is subject to the rule of the three obediences. When young, she has to obey her parents; when married, she has to obey her husband; when a widow, she has to obey her son. You are a man in your full maturity, and I am old. Do you act as your conviction of righteousness tells you you ought to do, and I will act according to the rule which belongs to me. Why should you be anxious about me?’
Such are the accounts which I have found of the mother of Mencius. Possibly some of them are inventions, but they are devoutly believed by the people of China; - and it must be to their profit. We may well believe that she was a woman of very superior character, and that her son’s subsequent distinction was in a great degree owing to her influence and training.”
[Pages 16 to 18, The Works of Mencius – James Legge]
Perhaps with the above stories, Yi students understand why the mother plays an important role in the family. (Refer to Hexagram 37 Jia Ren / The Family)
A good wife and a kind mother is all a man (whether he is an emperor, sage, or pauper) need. Whether your wife is good, beautiful, or not, friends do not mention her. Neither would the ancients. It forms part of Chinese culture down the ages.
“According to Chao Chi, it was the misfortune of Mencius to lose his father at an early period; but in his youthful years he enjoyed the lessons of his kind mother, who thrice changed her residence on his account.
At first they lived near a cemetery, and Mencius amused himself with acting the various scenes which he witnessed at the tombs. ‘This,’ said the lady ‘is no place for my son;’ and she removed to a house in the market place. But the change was no improvement. The boy took to playing the part of a salesman, vaunting his wares, and chaffering with customers. His mother sought a new house, and found one at last close by a public school. There her child’s attention was taken with the various exercises of politeness which the scholars were taught, and he endeavored to imitate them. ‘This,’ she said, ‘is the proper place for my son.’
Han Ying relates another story of this period. Near their house was pig-butcher’s. One day Mencius asked his mother what they were killing the pigs for, and was told that it was to feed him. Her conscience immediately reproved her for the answer. She said to herself, ‘While I was carrying this boy in my womb, I would not sit down if the mat was not placed square, and I ate no meat which was not cut properly; - so I taught him when he was yet unborn. And now when his intelligence is opening, I am deceiving him; - this is to teach him untruthfulness!’ With this she went and bought a piece of pork in order to make good her words.
As Mencius grew up, he was sent to school. When he returned home one day, his mother looked up from the web which she was weaving, and asked him how far he had got on. He answered her with an air of indifference that he was doing well enough, on which she took a knife and cut through the thread of her shuttle. The idler was alarmed, and asked what she meant, when she gave him a long lecture, showing that she had done what he was doing, - that her cutting through the thread was like his neglecting his learning. The admonition, it is said, had its proper effect; the lecture did not need to be repeated.
His wife was squatting down one day in her own room, when Mencius went in. He was so much offended at finding her in that position, that he told his mother, and expressed his intention to put her away, because of ‘her want of propriety.’
‘It is you who have no propriety,’ said his mother, ‘and not your wife. Do not ‘The Rules of Propriety’ say, ‘When you are about to ascend a hall, raise your voice; when you enter a door, keep your eyes low?’ The reason of the rules is that people may not be taken unprepared; but you entered the door of your private apartment without raising your voice, and so caused your wife to be caught squatting on the ground. The impropriety is with you and not her.’ On this Mencius fell to reproving himself, and did not dare to put away his wife.
One day, when he was living with his mother in Chi, she was struck with the sorrowfulness of his aspect as he stood leaning against a pillar, and asked him the cause of it. He replied, ‘I have heard that the superior man occupies the place for which he is adapted, accepting no reward to which he does not feel entitled, and not covetous of honour and emolument. Now my doctrines are not practised in Chi: - I wish to leave it, but I think of your old age, and am anxious.’
His mother said, ‘It does not belong to a woman to determine anything of herself, but she is subject to the rule of the three obediences. When young, she has to obey her parents; when married, she has to obey her husband; when a widow, she has to obey her son. You are a man in your full maturity, and I am old. Do you act as your conviction of righteousness tells you you ought to do, and I will act according to the rule which belongs to me. Why should you be anxious about me?’
Such are the accounts which I have found of the mother of Mencius. Possibly some of them are inventions, but they are devoutly believed by the people of China; - and it must be to their profit. We may well believe that she was a woman of very superior character, and that her son’s subsequent distinction was in a great degree owing to her influence and training.”
[Pages 16 to 18, The Works of Mencius – James Legge]
Perhaps with the above stories, Yi students understand why the mother plays an important role in the family. (Refer to Hexagram 37 Jia Ren / The Family)
A good wife and a kind mother is all a man (whether he is an emperor, sage, or pauper) need. Whether your wife is good, beautiful, or not, friends do not mention her. Neither would the ancients. It forms part of Chinese culture down the ages.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Human nature is good
About 2,400 years ago, because Mencius clearly understood that people have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, he gave a (by now) well known example to demonstrate that human nature (Ren Xing) is good, followed by an exhortation to develop its goodness:
What would people feel if they suddenly see a very young child about to fall into a well?
The people will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child’s parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing.
From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man.
He then went on to explain how these feelings generate the four cardinal virtues or ethics:
The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence (ren). The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness (yi). The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety (li). The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge (zhi).
According to Mencius, these virtues form parts of human nature, yet people say that they cannot develop (or cultivate) them. Therefore such people play the thief with themselves. If only they can develop and complete the four virtues, they will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas (the world). Without that development, they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with.
[Book II, Part 1. 5 – Legge]
More than two millennia later, man still do not quite understand the difference between good and evil. And what forms human nature.
Renowned Neo Confucians rejected the doctrines of Mohists and Xunzi (who propounded that human nature is evil) for the same reason, yet intellects from time to time questioned their very motive for the rejection.
Some Daoist and Yi students reject Confucian studies possibly following Zhuangzi because these students think it is hip and philosophical to do so. Female students at times reject the studies because Confucius and Mencius only talked about ‘man’ (Ren - people) occasionally translated as ‘men’; probably giving rise to a misconception that Confucians hated women!
If translators, professors, teachers, and ‘experts’ hold to wrong concepts and their pointing are not ‘corrected’, then their so called ‘wisdom’ get passed on to yet another generation. The reason I rant at their misleading statements and for providing inept translations for students. Perhaps, raising a cry of alarm to announce the danger!
Since people have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others (commiseration) which explains why human nature is good, perhaps Yi students, Daoists, Buddhists, and Confucians can understand why it is important to cultivate (develop) the four cardinal virtues to become a Junzi. After all, did the ancients not say as much in the Zhouyi, Tao Te Ching, Confucian books and the Buddhist scriptures?
Commiseration if expressed leads to compassion. Is original human nature, that of a baby or an innocent, not kind? Is human nature not therefore good?
If rulers of countries can lead by good example to display benevolence (ren) and justice (yi) in their every action for the people, perhaps then there can be lasting peace on earth.
Peace and prosperity have always been the top most wish of the ancients for the people of the world. Because these ancient sages and holy men cannot bear to see the sufferings of others!
What would people feel if they suddenly see a very young child about to fall into a well?
The people will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child’s parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing.
From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man.
He then went on to explain how these feelings generate the four cardinal virtues or ethics:
The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence (ren). The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness (yi). The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety (li). The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge (zhi).
According to Mencius, these virtues form parts of human nature, yet people say that they cannot develop (or cultivate) them. Therefore such people play the thief with themselves. If only they can develop and complete the four virtues, they will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas (the world). Without that development, they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with.
[Book II, Part 1. 5 – Legge]
More than two millennia later, man still do not quite understand the difference between good and evil. And what forms human nature.
Renowned Neo Confucians rejected the doctrines of Mohists and Xunzi (who propounded that human nature is evil) for the same reason, yet intellects from time to time questioned their very motive for the rejection.
Some Daoist and Yi students reject Confucian studies possibly following Zhuangzi because these students think it is hip and philosophical to do so. Female students at times reject the studies because Confucius and Mencius only talked about ‘man’ (Ren - people) occasionally translated as ‘men’; probably giving rise to a misconception that Confucians hated women!
If translators, professors, teachers, and ‘experts’ hold to wrong concepts and their pointing are not ‘corrected’, then their so called ‘wisdom’ get passed on to yet another generation. The reason I rant at their misleading statements and for providing inept translations for students. Perhaps, raising a cry of alarm to announce the danger!
Since people have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others (commiseration) which explains why human nature is good, perhaps Yi students, Daoists, Buddhists, and Confucians can understand why it is important to cultivate (develop) the four cardinal virtues to become a Junzi. After all, did the ancients not say as much in the Zhouyi, Tao Te Ching, Confucian books and the Buddhist scriptures?
Commiseration if expressed leads to compassion. Is original human nature, that of a baby or an innocent, not kind? Is human nature not therefore good?
If rulers of countries can lead by good example to display benevolence (ren) and justice (yi) in their every action for the people, perhaps then there can be lasting peace on earth.
Peace and prosperity have always been the top most wish of the ancients for the people of the world. Because these ancient sages and holy men cannot bear to see the sufferings of others!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)