ChiDragon
-
Content count
8,604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Everything posted by ChiDragon
-
I think most of the answers about Robber Cheh is in Chapter 29. The other native sources are pointing to the fact that he was the brother of 柳下季, a friend of Confucius. English translation of the modern interpretation. Confucius and Liu become friends, Liu's younger brother named 盜跖(Robber Cheh). 盜跖 led a troop of nine thousand men. He tyrannize the world, rob people's home, takes life stocks, takes others' wives, greedy for wealth and disregard who are his relatives, abandon his parents and brothers, does not worship his ancestors. All the big countries need to defend their castles while in his path; and the small countries had to stay inside their castles. All the people are aggravated with his presence. Ref:柳下季(Liu Xia Ji) was known as 柳下惠（前720—前621) http://baike.baidu.com/subview/46796/12861540.htm?fromtitle=%E6%9F%B3%E4%B8%8B%E5%AD%A3&fromid=676384&type=syn
-
The modern Chinese writings are not any different than English. However, the Chinese classics are written in metaphoric style. They are like riddles. One just by knowing the characters is not suffice to interpret the classics. They are lots of characters had their own meaning in the past. One must know what they mean before to avoid using contemporary definitions of the characters. One, also, should avoid using mixed cultural philosophies to contaminate the original thoughts. The reader requires to speak and read the language fluently with a good cultural and historical background in order to solve the riddles. In addition, it requires a strong clear logical mind with inductive and deductive reasoning to rule out all the fallacies and sort out the facts. One should not lock in with the first interpretation as it comes in mind. It should be constantly update as new information or understanding which come in mind. Do not rely on somebody else saying, blindly, if it doesn't make any sense. One must ask the question, this is what I think it means, is it really? Do I have all the back up sources for confirmation....??? The initial approach is to find out what did other people say about this before reaching one's own conclusion.
- 119 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- zhuangzi
- chuang tzu
- (and 4 more)
-
The former example was using the two shepherds in doing different things but causing the same result. It seems to me this Chapter is about the sacrifice in the value of death rather than the risks. A comparison was made between a gentleman and villain. Two persons maybe dead at different place for a different cause. A person who dies for benevolence and righteousness was a gentleman. A person who dies for goods and wealth was a villain. Thus Robber Cheh was used, here, as an example as a villain.
- 119 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- zhuangzi
- chuang tzu
- (and 4 more)
-
MH..... Yes, you are right. I did not do my homework. Btw I just have glance at Chapter 19, Robber Cheh was no Robin Hood but a tyrant. Edited to add: Okay, I had gone through Chapter 19. At the end, Robber Cheh had kicked Confucius out of his camp and he was not the image Robin Hood later became.
- 119 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- zhuangzi
- chuang tzu
- (and 4 more)
-
FYI...... Chapter 10 was not about any special robber character like Robbin Hood. It is about the principles of robbers. It was describing how a good or professional robber should be. BTW Chih(跖) was not a robber. He was a scholar explaining the principles of the robbers(盗) to a disciple. Here is the trasnlation from Chapter 10 A disciple of Chih(跖) asked Chih said "Do robbers have principles also?" Chih said: "Why shouldn't they have any principles?" 1. Knowing what was stored in the room, it was intelligent(圣也). 2. Moves in first, it was brave(勇也). 3. Moved out last, it was an obligation of leadership. 4. Know when is time to take action, it was wise. 5. Dividing (the goods) equally, it was benevolent. Those who can became great robbers without knowing these five principles; they have not existed in the world yet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 故跖之徒问于跖曰：“盗亦有道 乎？” A disciple of Chih asked Chih said "Do robbers have principles also?" 跖曰：“何适而无有道邪？" Chih said: "Why shouldn't they have any principles?" 1. 夫妄意室中之藏，圣也； Knowing what was stored in the room, it was intelligent(圣也). 2. 入先，勇也； Moves in first, it was brave(勇也). 3. 出后，义也； Moved out last, it was an obligation of leadership. 4. 知可否，知也； Know when is time to take action, it was wise. 5. 分均，仁也。 Dividing (the goods) equally, it was benevolent. 五者不备而能成大盗 者，天下未之有也。” Those who can became great robbers without knowing these five principles; they have not existed in the world yet. Ref: http://so.gushiwen.org/guwen/bookv_3263.aspx
-
In this case, the original character 道(tao) is in its native language; thus it has to be correct. It is only a matter of interpretation. However, in most cases, "principle" is the most logical translation for it.
-
Professional thieves robbers have a set of principles to be followed. These principles were talked about in Chapter 10 of Chuang Tzu. What I had posted is only one of principles. The principles of the thieves robbers in chapter 10 are different from the principles of morality.
- 119 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- zhuangzi
- chuang tzu
- (and 4 more)
-
Very good! I'm glad that we have something is debatable. Let's analyze. Lin Yutang's translation: "Is there then Tao (moral principles) among thieves?" "moral principles" is Lin's idea. However, it should read as: "Is there then Tao (principle) among thieves?" As common sense, why do thieves have any moral principle. If they do, then would they rob? Perhaps, we might say they have the principle of thieves. What is the principle of thieves? Thieves have no moral principle, they cheat each other with the things they'd robbed by divided unequally. However, a good leader among them has the principle of justice. He made sure that the members of his gang and himself do not cheat each other. He set a rule that all goods must be divided immediately after the robbery to avoid any misunderstanding. This is what the principle of the thieves was about. It was as simple as that. As the old saying: 盜亦有道 A thief has tao too.
-
That was Watson's translation and his saying which did not reflect Chuang Tzu's saying. His story was completely twisted to make you believe that it is the way rather than the principle.
-
"Does the thief too have a Way?" is very misleading by this translation. It should read: "Does the thief too have a principle(道)?"
-
No, it is ten divided by 3.
-
It is 3 out of every group of 10 but not the same group of 10.........
-
Correction...... In the modern Chinese, 十分之三 which is 3 out of 10 or 3/10. For instance, a pie was divided into ten parts, and you ate 3 parts which is 3 out of 10. In your case, "ten divided by 3" is 10/3 but not 3/10. "八成 is a simplified way of saying 十分之八" 八成 means 8 out of 10 which is 80%. 七成: 70% 六成: 60% 五成: 50% 四成 40%.....
-
dustybeijing...... Here is a good example for one to express one's age from Confucius: 十有五 for the age of 15. http://baike.baidu.com/view/2329967.htm
-
十有三, has two possible interpretations: 1. Three out of ten. 2. Ten plus three which is thirteen. Its interpretation depends on its contextual meaning within a phrase or sentence.
-
1. 出生入死。 2. 生之徒，十有三。 3. 死之徒，十有三。 4. 人之生， 5. 動之於死地， 6. 亦十有三。 1. From birth to death, 2. Those who lived longer are three out of ten, 3. Those who die sooner are three out of ten, 4. Some of the people could have lived longer, 5. But they choose to run toward death, 6. Also, three out of ten.
-
ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism
ChiDragon replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in Confucian Philosophy
My two-headed snake.... I am always follow your ping-pong thoughts with consistency. One way or the other but not both which made it inconsistent. -
ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism
ChiDragon replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in Confucian Philosophy
Why did Lao Tze says: 天地不仁 聖人不仁 What he was actually saying: Nature is 不仁(bu ren). Humans such as scholar and ruler should follow Nature as model. Why is Nature 不仁(bu ren)? It is because Nature is emotionless and couldn't careless. When lightning strikes and sets a fire where ever it wants. It doesn't pick a spot in its favor. Its fire burns down any house regardless who owns it; hence, it could be a saint or a criminal. Its flood will destroy anything in its path. Nature acts all things in a natural way without any favoritism. That's why Nature is bu ren. Does anyone think that Nature has any mercy for its actions....??? Humans do have emotions and prejudice sometimes. In the TTC, Lao Tze was suggesting that human should following Nature to do away with the prejudice and become impartial when justice has to be served. -
ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism
ChiDragon replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in Confucian Philosophy
Okay! We have the translated definitions for 仁(ren). But one needs to know where does has the actual meaning by application. Let's look at each definition. The character must be compounded with another character or put in a phrase to get its contextual meaning. 1. benevolence: normally it was related with governing a country like: 仁治: rule with benevolence 2. humanity: 仁愛; 仁慈; 人道 3. mercy: 仁慈 4. kindness: 善良; 仁慈 5. charity: 慈善 6. kernel: 杏仁(almond) In the case of 不仁, "no mercy" is the best fit for it. Unfortunately, the ancient Chinese classic has no grammar like the modern language. If one does a direct translation, then it would read like this and makes no sense. 天地不仁: heaven earth no mercy In order to a better grammar, thus one would rephrase it as: "Heaven and earth have no mercy." Since heaven and earth maybe considered to be Nature, one can even reduce to say: "Nature has no mercy" Unfortunately, interpreting classic is like a guessing game. One has to phrase it to make the most sense out of it by trail and error. 1. Heaven and earth have no benevolence 2. Heaven and earth have no humanity 3. Heaven and earth have no mercy 4. Heaven and earth have no kindness 5. Heaven and earth have no charity 6. Heaven and earth have no kernel It seems to me that line 3 makes most sense. @MH.... "I will hold my tongue for now as I feel I am beginning to beat a dead horse." Yes, we are indeed. -
ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism
ChiDragon replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in Confucian Philosophy
Only if I don't read Chinese. -
ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism
ChiDragon replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in Confucian Philosophy
Well, the thing is not what one likes it or not. If you said you do understand what "Wu Wei" meant, then you would not be so bias with your own thoughts. 天地不仁 Direct translation: Nature has no mercy Interpretation: Nature is impartial This is the way as you had indicated and understood as "impartial". Your mind just cant get over that. I can understand that from an English speaker because everything has to be exact and precise in English. Other than that, anything will not be acceptable if the words were written metaphorically. Sorry, MH.... For the interpretation of the Chinese classics, one need to know some basic rules in order to proceed for a better comprehension. -
ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism
ChiDragon replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in Confucian Philosophy
The interpretation for this classic throughout the TTC: A sage was not meant to be a "sage" per se. A sage was classified as a gentman, scholar, or a ruler of a country. Thus it is someone has to make an impartial judgement. I thought I had made it very clear during the discussion in Chapter 5 that "no mercy" has an implication of impatiality. -
純粹而不雜，靜一而不變，惔而無為，動而以天行，此養神之道也 純粹而不雜，靜一而不變 It's pure but not murky, still but not changing 惔而無為，動而以天行， Anxious but being calm(wu wei), move with nature, 此養神之道也 This was said to be the principle of cultivation of the soul.
-
水之性，不雜則清，莫動則平，鬱閉而不流，亦不能清，天德之象也。 水之性，不雜則清， This is the characteristic of water. If it's not murky, then it's clear. 莫動則平，鬱閉而不流，亦不能清. If it is not moving then it is still. If it is dammed and hemmed then it is not flowing. Also, it cannot be cleared. 天德之象也。 This is said to be a phenomenon of nature.
-
ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism
ChiDragon replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in Confucian Philosophy
Yes, I think so. 1. Heaven and Earth are not benevolent partial; 3. The Sage is not benevolent partial; However, I still would like to translate them as: 1. Nature has no mercy; 3. The Sage has no mercy;
