ren/humanity仁 refers to conformism

[Marblehead]

Yeah, this is a little off topic but still linked in a way. "Correct action" is a human attribute, not one of the Tao except in limited perspective.

 

China had done a great job saving the Panda. I don't hear much about their efforts to save the Tiger and Elephant. But man has been killing them long enough, I think. It's about time efforts were made to protect them now.

 

Nature (Tao) would allow them to naturally go extinct. But man has forced the issue. Forcing things is not the Way of Tao.

 

Tao is impartial. Man is partial and that is why man is not following the Way of Tao in this regard (ren).

 

And yes, I can imagine the joy of working with the Chinese language in the written form, being able to build upon root characters in order to express a more complicated thought.

 

With Tao's impartiality, Tao is seeking only balance, benefiting the totality. With man's partiality, man is seeking to create imbalance, benefiting only himself.

 

So from this perspective, yes, the Sage would be like Tao.

[ChiDragon]

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.

Edited November 11, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

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.

But ChiDragon, at least I am consistently inconsistent.

 

But then, for me to state that anything is static would be an error as well.

 

And I do reserve the right to change my mind.

 

Tao has given me everything I have ever needed. If I had been born in sub-Sahara Africa I would likely feel differently. But this difference would be a result of the nature of the planet, not of Tao.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I thought to say when posting earlier that it seems obvious enough Chuang Tzu was making a bit of a caricature of Confucius, and that when talking about ren, it’s not what it’s definition is, but how it was perceived by sages, which is that it was over-systematized. Heaven and Earth’s behaviour doesn’t follow these precepts. Dao follows it’s own way.

[Marblehead]

If ever there were direct opposites it would be that of Confucius and Chuang Tzu.

 

And this opposition applies to the concept of humanity as well.

[Taoist Texts]

On 11/3/2014 at 4:40 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

自誠明、謂之性。自明誠、謂之教。誠則明矣、明則誠矣。唯天下至誠、爲能盡其性。能盡其性、則能盡人之性。能盡人之性、則能盡物之性。能盡物之性、則可以贊天地之化育。可以贊天地之化育、則可以與天地參矣。其次致曲。曲能有誠、誠則形、形則著、著則明、明則動、動則變、變則化。唯天下至誠爲能化。至誠之道、可以前知。國家將興、必有禎祥。國家將亡、必有妖孽。見乎蓍龜、動乎四體。禍福將至。善、必先知之。不善、必先知之。故至誠如神。

 

21. The enlightenment that comes from sincerity is our own nature. The sincerity that comes from enlightenment is called “education.” If you are sincere you will be enlightened. If you are enlightened, you will be sincere.

 

22. Only the perfectly sincere person can actualize his own essence. Actualizing his own essence, he can fully actualize the essence of others. Fully actualizing the essence of others, he can fully actualize the essence of all things. Being able to fully actualize the essence of all things, he can assist Heaven and Earth in their transformation and sustenance. Able to assist in Heaven and Earth's transformation and sustenance, he forms a trinity with Heaven and Earth.

This actualize thing is rather funny. What does it even mean? Muller did not really know what to do with the original word 盡 jin, so he went with a catch-all actualize. Except jin is a total opposite of actualize

 

https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=盡

 

 

尽Trad. 盡

jìn

to use up to exhaust to end to finish to the utmost exhausted finished to the limit (of sth) all entirely

 

 

 

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

12 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

On 11/2/2014 at 4:40 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

自誠明、謂之性。自明誠、謂之教。誠則明矣、明則誠矣。唯天下至誠、爲能盡其性。能盡其性、則能盡人之性。能盡人之性、則能盡物之性。能盡物之性、則可以贊天地之化育。可以贊天地之化育、則可以與天地參矣。其次致曲。曲能有誠、誠則形、形則著、著則明、明則動、動則變、變則化。唯天下至誠爲能化。至誠之道、可以前知。國家將興、必有禎祥。國家將亡、必有妖孽。見乎蓍龜、動乎四體。禍福將至。善、必先知之。不善、必先知之。故至誠如神。

 

21. The enlightenment that comes from sincerity is our own nature. The sincerity that comes from enlightenment is called “education.” If you are sincere you will be enlightened. If you are enlightened, you will be sincere.

 

22. Only the perfectly sincere person can actualize his own essence. Actualizing his own essence, he can fully actualize the essence of others. Fully actualizing the essence of others, he can fully actualize the essence of all things. Being able to fully actualize the essence of all things, he can assist Heaven and Earth in their transformation and sustenance. Able to assist in Heaven and Earth's transformation and sustenance, he forms a trinity with Heaven and Earth.

This actualize thing is rather funny. What does it even mean? Muller did not really know what to do with the original word 盡 jin, so he went with a catch-all actualize. Except jin is a total opposite of actualize

 

https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=盡

 

 

尽Trad. 盡

jìn

to use up to exhaust to end to finish to the utmost exhausted finished to the limit (of sth) all entirely

(Emphasis added, ZYD)

You perhaps prefer Legge more literal translation of jìn?

 

Quote

24	中庸:	其次致曲。曲能有誠，誠則形，形則著，著則明，明則動，動則變，變則化。唯天下至誠為能化。
	Zhong Yong:	Next to the above is he who cultivates to the utmost the shoots of goodness in him. From those he can attain to the possession of sincerity. This sincerity becomes apparent. From being apparent, it becomes manifest. From being manifest, it becomes brilliant. Brilliant, it affects others. Affecting others, they are changed by it. Changed by it, they are transformed. It is only he who is possessed of the most complete sincerity that can exist under heaven, who can transform.

 

 

The question is not what any character can be taken to mean in any possible circumstance, but what it can reasonably be taken to mean within the context of the text itself, so the question is within the context does "actualize" convey in modern English the same thing as "cultivates to the utmost", and I can only hope that someone who has striven to "finish to the utmost" the cultivation of his "nature" (性, xìng), his shoots of goodness as Legge says, has made it actual, rather than leaving it as a mere unrealized potential.

 

If I wanted to dig through texts I could find similar uses of jìn, in Mencius and other sources, and similar translation of jìn, by many different translators, so the question is, do you really have a point to make or are you simply trying to be contentious by quibbling over "might be" meanings?

 

ZYD

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

2 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

the question is, do you really have a point to make or are you simply trying to be contentious by quibbling

 

Well, you know there is a saying 'one man's point is another man's quibble')

 

All the venerable translators got this concept wrong. In Confucian (or any other) texts JIN does  not mean to develop, it literally means 'to get rid, to exhaust, to run out of' nature. A total opposite to cultivation. But it is the root of all magic. That's all, hope not too contentious. If you would like a a detailed explication let me know.)

 

 

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

47 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

3 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

the question is, do you really have a point to make or are you simply trying to be contentious by quibbling

 

Well, you know there is a saying 'one man's point is another man's quibble')

 

All the venerable translators got this concept wrong. In Confucian (or any other) texts JIN does  not mean to develop, it literally means 'to get rid, to exhaust, to run out of' nature. A total opposite to cultivation. But it is the root of all magic. That's all, hope not too contentious. If you would like a a detailed explication let me know.)

 

A detailed explication would be interesting, that is why I asked.  In my own looking at some of these passages I have already looked at the "exhaust, use up, empty" translations and find them suggestive in certain contexts and passages, but not in others.

 

ZYD

[Taoist Texts]

13 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

A detailed explication would be interesting 

Of course. Simply put the purpose of this text - Doctrine of the Mean

https://ctext.org/liji/zhong-yong/ens

 

Is to teach the reader how to rule a kingdom. And turns out that the most important thing to that end is the foreknowledge of the events. Which kind of makes sense. If you know what's gonna happen, you gonna win all the time! But how to know things beforehand? The answer: you have to be sincere.

 

"It is characteristic of the most entire sincerity to be able to foreknow. When a nation or family is about to flourish, there are sure to be happy omens; and when it is about to perish, there are sure to be unlucky omens. Such events are seen in the milfoil and tortoise, and affect the movements of the four limbs. When calamity or happiness is about to come, the good shall certainly be foreknown by him, and the evil also. Therefore the individual possessed of the most complete sincerity is like a spirit ." (in knowing the future).

 

But what exactly is sincerity and how it is related to nature. And what is the nature, while we are at it?

The Master says that nature is the opposite of sincerity. While you have your own nature you are insincere.

Cf to Lao-zi: "He who devotes himself to learning (seeks) from day to day to increase ; he who devotes himself to the Dao (seeks) from day to day to diminish ".

So the first order of the day is to get rid of own nature. That's where JIN comes into play. We have to exhaust our nature, go beyond it, let ir run out and be gone.

 

But what next? Apparently our nature is not all that stand between us and the knowledge of the future, there are more natures (imprints in our mind) to get rid of. Those are nature of the external layers of the universe listed as follows: 23

 

...other men->nature of other men. -> the natures of animals and things. -> the transforming and nourishing powers of Heaven and Earth.

 

And only after that our wannabe prognosticating bidder to the throne "may with Heaven and Earth form a ternion." Again remember DDJ and the 'three greats'.

 

That's basically it. Get rid of the false mental imprints (natures), become sincere, and get to know the winning combination in the cosmic lottery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

Of course. Simply put the purpose of this text - Doctrine of the Mean

https://ctext.org/liji/zhong-yong/ens

 

Is to teach the reader how to rule a kingdom. And turns out that the most important thing to that end is the foreknowledge of the events. Which kind of makes sense. If you know what's gonna happen, you gonna win all the time! But how to know things beforehand? The answer: you have to be sincere.

 

"It is characteristic of the most entire sincerity to be able to foreknow. When a nation or family is about to flourish, there are sure to be happy omens; and when it is about to perish, there are sure to be unlucky omens. Such events are seen in the milfoil and tortoise, and affect the movements of the four limbs. When calamity or happiness is about to come, the good shall certainly be foreknown by him, and the evil also. Therefore the individual possessed of the most complete sincerity is like a spirit ." (in knowing the future).

 

But what exactly is sincerity and how it is related to nature. And what is the nature, while we are at it?

The Master says that nature is the opposite of sincerity. While you have your own nature you are insincere.

Cf to Lao-zi: "He who devotes himself to learning (seeks) from day to day to increase ; he who devotes himself to the Dao (seeks) from day to day to diminish ".

So the first order of the day is to get rid of own nature. That's where JIN comes into play. We have to exhaust our nature, go beyond it, let ir run out and be gone.

 

But what next? Apparently our nature is not all that stand between us and the knowledge of the future, there are more natures (imprints in our mind) to get rid of. Those are nature of the external layers of the universe listed as follows: 23

 

...other men->nature of other men. -> the natures of animals and things. -> the transforming and nourishing powers of Heaven and Earth.

 

And only after that our wannabe prognosticating bidder to the throne "may with Heaven and Earth form a ternion." Again remember DDJ and the 'three greats'.

 

That's basically it. Get rid of the false mental imprints (natures), become sincere, and get to know the winning combination in the cosmic lottery.

 

You pretty much went with that were I thought you would go, and I both agree and disagree with what you are saying, but I don't have time to explicate that it in detail, but part of the issue is with the difference between what is usually considered to be Mencius view of "nature", xing, as good, and Xunzi view of "nature" as evil.  In both cases what is meant by nature is "human" nature, but in the case of Xunzi, he takes human nature to be the "nature" of the body, and of human beings as animals, while Mencius takes nature to be, our "heaven conferred" nature, the "fullness of human potential", where "the 10,000 things are already there within us" which is Ren.  This is the difference between the "greater self" which Mencius says that we should grasp, and the lesser one which we should forgo.  From this perspective it is the lesser, "evil nature", that should be "emptied" so that that the "greater, good nature" can be grasped, it is this greater nature that is "actualized".

 

I started studying the Taoist Yoga text in mid to late 1971, and so it was very easy for me, forty or so years later, to see those aspects of Neidan that show up on the Zhongyong as well as Mencius, though I was puzzled as to how Mencius knew these things, and part of my early research into Warring States literature and the roots of Confucianism, was to find out where Mencius got these ideas.  When I read the Neiye, it all became abundantly clear, and then later, rather ironically, when I went to review the Daode Jing, and reread the introduction to Waley's translation, The Way and Its Power, a text that was very influential on my interpretation of Daoism and its relation to meditation and alchemy, there was Mencius in the introduction with the Neiye, something that I had completely forgotten in the intervening years.  That is the "secret" reason why I took the name Zhongyongdaoist on the Dao Bums, because, of this deep level connection to internal alchemy.

 

I hope that this short outline is clear enough, I can support it in detail with quotes from Mencius and other works, but to assemble that would take more time than I have now, or wish to put into an exposition here.

 

ZYD

 

 

 

Edit: Italicized Daode Jing in second to last paragraph.

[dawei]

On 4/13/2018 at 10:41 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

I hope that this short outline is clear enough, I can support it in detail with quotes from Mencius and other works, but to assemble that would take more time than I have now, or wish to put into an exposition here.

 

I think some stuff from Mencius would be useful... I had not heard of the greater self vs lesser self in Mencius... not that I read him much... but interested to hear more.  Thanks. 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

23 hours ago, dawei said:

On 4/13/2018 at 7:41 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

I hope that this short outline is clear enough, I can support it in detail with quotes from Mencius and other works, but to assemble that would take more time than I have now, or wish to put into an exposition here.

 

I think some stuff from Mencius would be useful... I had not heard of the greater self vs lesser self in Mencius... not that I read him much... but interested to hear more.  Thanks. 

 

Here are the two quotes from the Mencius, that are most relevant to the notion of the greater and lesser:

 

Quote

14	告子上:	孟子曰：「人之於身也，兼所愛。兼所愛，則兼所養也。無尺寸之膚不愛焉，則無尺寸之膚不養也。所以考其善不善者，豈有他哉？於己取之而已矣。體有貴賤，有小大。無以小害大，無以賤害貴。養其小者為小人，養其大者為大人。今有場師，舍其梧檟，養其樲棘，則為賤場師焉。養其一指而失其肩背，而不知也，則為狼疾人也。飲食之人，則人賤之矣，為其養小以失大也。飲食之人無有失也，則口腹豈適為尺寸之膚哉？」
	Gaozi I:	Mencius said, 'There is no part of himself which a man does not love, and as he loves all, so he must nourish all. There is not an inch of skin which he does not love, and so there is not an inch of skin which he will not nourish. For examining whether his way of nourishing be good or not, what other rule is there but this, that he determine by reflecting on himself where it should be applied? Some parts of the body are noble, and some ignoble; some great,and some small. The great must not be injured for the small, nor the noble for the ignoble. He who nourishes the little belonging to him is a little man, and he who nourishes the great is a great man. Here is a plantation-keeper, who neglects his wu and jia, and cultivates his sour jujube-trees; he is a poor plantation-keeper. He who nourishes one of his fingers, neglecting his shoulders or his back, without knowing that he is doing so, is a man who resembles a hurried wolf. A man who only eats and drinks is counted mean by others; because he nourishes what is little to the neglect of what is great. If a man, fond of his eating and drinking, were not to neglect what is of more importance, how should his mouth and belly be considered as no more than an inch of skin?'

 

and:

 

Quote

15	告子上:	公都子問曰：「鈞是人也，或為大人，或為小人，何也？」
	Gaozi I:	The disciple Gong Du said, 'All are equally men, but some are great men, and some are little men - how is this?'
		孟子曰：「從其大體為大人，從其小體為小人。」
		Mencius replied, 'Those who follow that part of themselves which is great are great men; those who follow that part which is little are little men.'
		曰：「鈞是人也，或從其大體，或從其小體，何也？」
		Gong Du pursued, 'All are equally men, but some follow that part of themselves which is great, and some follow that part which is little - how is this?'
		曰：「耳目之官不思，而蔽於物，物交物，則引之而已矣。心之官則思，思則得之，不思則不得也。此天之所與我者，先立乎其大者，則其小者弗能奪也。此為大人而已矣。」
		Mencius answered, 'The senses of hearing and seeing do not think, and are obscured by external things. When one thing comes into contact with another, as a matter of course it leads it away. To the mind belongs the office of thinking. By thinking, it gets the right view of things; by neglecting to think, it fails to do this. These - the senses and the mind - are what Heaven has given to us. Let a man first stand fast in the supremacy of the nobler part of his constitution, and the inferior part will not be able to take it from him. It is simply this which makes the great man.'

 

The underlined numbers in the upper left will take you to the Chinese Text Project.

 

Now, in the second of the above it is important to keep in mind, 耳目之官不思, The senses of hearing and seeing do not think, and, 心之官則思, To the mind belongs the office of thinking, the the character for thinking:

 

思, sì, think, consider, ponder

 

and that what Mencius means by "思, sì", may go significantly beyond what would normally be covered by "think, consider, ponder", and instead bear in mind its derivation from:

 

心, xīn , heart; mind, intelligence; soul

田, tián, field, arable land, cultivated

 

and be open to the idea that what he means is something more akin to "meditate, contemplate", then ordinary "thought", and that the character "田, tián", which is the same as in 丹田, dāntián, could be taken to have a meaning of "cultivating soul", our "greater nature".

 

The force of these passages will become stronger once we have make the acquaintance of the farmer from Sung who thought to encourage his crops to grow by pulling on them, but since that is a long quote we will have to cover it in another post, which will follow shortly.

 

ZYD

 

 

 

 

Edit: Corrected some spacing in the text.