Detailed Analysis of "The Analects": For All Those Who Misinterpret Confucius (24)
2006/11/7 12:06:07
The Master said: The barbarian tribes having their rulers, yet not conforming — the civilized states dismiss this as their own past.
Detailed Analysis: This chapter has provoked countless disputes throughout the ages. Let us first discuss the punctuation. Historically, there have been two versions. First: "夷狄之有君，不如诸，夏之亡也。" Second: "夷狄之有君，不如诸夏之亡也。" In the first version, "诸" is a pronoun referring back to "夷狄之有君," meaning effectively "不如夷狄之有君，夏之亡也" — interpreted as "Not having rulers like the barbarian tribes was the reason for the Xia dynasty's downfall." The so-called "having a ruler" is based on a "ruler-centric" position. In the second version, "诸夏" is a term first proposed by Guan Zhong in the first year of Duke Min of Lu (661 BCE) when mobilizing Duke Huan of Qi to send troops to rescue the state of Xing from northern Di attacks — this was a nascent stage of Chinese ethnic identity formation. Accordingly, the sentence essentially becomes: "The barbarian tribes have rulers, yet they cannot compare to the civilized states without rulers." This punctuation has two possible interpretations: one interprets "不如" as "not like," which is also "ruler-centric"; the other interprets "不如" as "cannot compare to," where "without rulers" means "without rulers yet having the Way" — based on a "Way-centric" position.
The debate over these two punctuations and three interpretations focuses on two issues: 1. Is it "诸夏" (civilized states) or "诸" + "夏" (the pronoun "these" + the Xia dynasty)? 2. Is it "ruler-centric" or "Way-centric"? The reason this issue has been endlessly debated is mainly because of the second point. "君" (ruler) does not solely refer to the supreme leader but also stands for the "state" — ruler and state being inseparable. Thus, the question of "ruler-centric" versus "Way-centric" becomes extremely serious. To this day, the debate over so-called "human rights" versus "sovereignty" is actually a variant of the same question. Throughout history, traitors and collaborators found their justification in this passage. Indeed, even acting as a lackey requires a memorial arch. All the memorial arches of traitors are inscribed from the so-called "Way-centric" perspective: because "the state lacks the Way," and "the Way" is greater than "the state," and "human rights" are greater than "sovereignty," therefore one must choose "the Way" and abandon "the state." Traitors have their logic too — that so-called logic is really just a "Way-centric" excuse wrapped in packaging.
However, both punctuations and all three interpretations above are wrong. The correct punctuation is: "夷狄之有君、不如，诸夏之亡也。" This is equivalent to a contracted combination of two sentences: "夷狄之有君，诸夏之亡也" (The barbarian tribes having their rulers — the civilized states dismiss this) and "夷狄之不如，诸夏之亡也" (The barbarian tribes' inferiority — the civilized states dismiss this). "亡" means to look down upon, to dismiss. "诸夏" refers to more civilized peoples, nations, and states. "诸夏之亡也" is an inversion of "诸夏亡之也," where "之" refers back to "夷狄之有君、不如." "如" has the original meaning of "to follow, to conform to." Not conforming to what? Not conforming to "the Way." But the "Way" here does not refer to the "Way of the Sage" but rather to the "Way" that the "civilized states" profess — including the "Qi-style" way of "despotism and hegemony" and the "Lu-style" way of "benevolence and virtue." "有君" means having their own rulers, their own states. "夷狄," like "戎" (the uncivilized) in "善人、教民七年，亦可以即戎矣" (a good person who teaches the people for seven years may then deploy them against the uncivilized), refers to uncivilized peoples, nations, and states with relatively lower levels of civilization. The meaning of "夷狄之有君、不如，诸夏之亡也" is: The uncivilized peoples, nations, and states with relatively lower levels of civilization, although they have their own national systems and political structures, because they do not follow or conform to the political and national structures of the more civilized peoples, nations, and states, they are looked down upon by the latter.
"亡" also carries the meaning of "the past." What the "civilized states" look down upon is actually their own past. Why look down upon it? Because "夷狄之有君" — the national and political structures of the barbarian tribes are all stages that the "civilized states" once went through and have now surpassed. The "civilized states" therefore look down upon them, giving rise to the notion that "夷狄之不如" — the barbarians are inferior. Every "civilized state" came from "barbarian" origins. Every more civilized people, nation, and state once went through an uncivilized, relatively lower stage of civilization. But some people, nations, and states — as the saying goes, "once rich, the face changes" — like many of today's so-called Chinese millionaires who start looking down on the poor, farmers, and migrant workers, forgetting that all Chinese came from farming backgrounds. Within three generations there are farmers, and every Chinese person has the blood of farmers flowing through their veins. The same applies to nations. The exploitation of weak nations by so-called strong nations — for instance, the United States today peddling its so-called "democracy and freedom" everywhere — its subtext is always "夷狄之有君、不如，诸夏之亡也." As long as different people, nations, and states coexist, there will inevitably be distinctions between "civilized states" and "barbarian tribes." For nations and states, anyone not practicing the "Way of the Sage" — whether the "Qi-style" way of "despotism and hegemony" or the "Lu-style" way of "benevolence and virtue" — will inevitably display the "advanced" looking down upon and exploiting the "backward."
The "Way of the Sage's" approach of "assimilating the uncivilized" negates the attitude expressed in "夷狄之有君、不如，诸夏之亡也." If "以不教民战，是谓弃之" (not educating, making the people tremble — this is called abandoning them) applies in the narrow sense to domestic affairs, then in the broader sense, between nations and across the world, the same principle applies: "以不教民战，是谓弃之." In this broader sense, "民" takes on the meaning of "peoples" and "nations." If a country or nation does not practice the way of "making people good" and instead uses "cruelty and killing" to make other countries and peoples tremble in fear to govern the world, this is abandoning and betraying all nations and peoples, and will ultimately be abandoned by all nations and peoples. A ready example is the United States. The rise-and-fall histories of all great empires throughout history serve as the best negative lessons for this broader-sense way of "making people good." Correspondingly, the six-character maxim for long-term national stability — "make people good, overcome cruelty and eliminate killing" — is equally the six-character maxim for lasting world peace. And the way of "making people good," constituted by these two sides of the same coin — "making people good" and "overcoming cruelty and eliminating killing" — has through this chapter expanded from the narrow sense of a single nation to the broader sense encompassing all under Heaven, extending from the family to the whole world.
As for the debate between "ruler-centric" versus "Way-centric" prompted by the conventional misinterpretations, it is a false polemic between two pseudo-propositions arising from erroneous interpretations. The "Way" — there is only the Way of reality; no "Way" is a priori or possesses some quasi-divine force. So-called "self-cultivation, managing the family, governing the state, bringing peace to all under Heaven" — all refer to a real "self," real "family," real "world." The way of "making people good" and the "Way of the Sage" are not abstract concepts, not excuses cloaked in the name of "the Way," but concrete and real. All "Way-centric" tricks must first establish an abstract "Way" — whether it be freedom, democracy, benevolence, or morality, there is no difference. Using this abstract "Way" as a "standard" is actually fabricating excuses in the name of "the Way." The "Way of the Sage" and the "way of making people good" are the great Way, and moreover they are the Way of reality. There is no fixed position to be based upon — so where could any "standard position" come from? Precisely because there is no fixed position on which to base oneself, one can generate the foundation from any position, generate any position from any foundation. This — this is the true great Way, the Way of reality.
(To be continued)
Strictly prohibited to plagiarize, violators will be prosecuted
Replies
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 12:14:14
Announcement
I just noticed someone saying their posts were deleted. Several of this ID's own posts left yesterday on Installment 23 were deleted as well, especially the couplet written for this series. I suspect the Sina moderator on duty yesterday had a fondness for Lu Xun or Hu Shi.
Let me reiterate: this ID does not delete posts here. But Sina does delete posts — those with links, those too long that look like spamming, those containing words the moderator on duty doesn't appreciate — these are all unlikely to survive. Please be mindful.
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 12:45:31
[Anonymous] MM
2006-11-07 12:26:49
"Live-butchering the May Fourth dogs, skinning the Song-Ming donkeys!"
劏? What character is this? Never seen it before.
======
劏 tāng
Dialect, meaning to slaughter.
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 12:46:54
[Anonymous] 老培哥哥
2006-11-07 12:32:18
Dear miss, expressing what no predecessors have expressed, correcting millennium-old errors! My utmost admiration!
[Anonymous] 老培哥哥
2006-11-07 12:38:55
Yesterday's interpretation of the single character "战" alone is enough to earn a place in the history of Confucian studies. Making the people exist in a state of "trembling" has been the primary technique of rulers from ancient times to the present, from Qin Shi Huang to Hitler without exception. But water can carry a boat and can also capsize it. A tyrant who abandons the people will ultimately be abandoned by the people.
===========
You flatter me. The best is yet to come; I will see it through from beginning to end.
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 12:49:19
[Anonymous] 常来看看
2006-11-07 12:45:26
I sat down alright, but wasn't allowed to speak for ages, so I had to come back again.
Dear miss, yesterday's interpretation of 既往不咎 (do not censure the past), with its context and setting, was brilliant!
As you said, his grand-uncle was admonishing the mouthy Zai Wo.
If someone else had asked Zai Wo that question, his grand-uncle might not have said 既往不咎 (do not censure the past).
Without analysis and discussion, how can we have "learning from the past to guide the future"?
=============
Thank you. "Not allowed to speak"? You can say anything here — as long as Sina doesn't delete it, that's fine.
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 12:50:29
[Anonymous] 老培哥哥
2006-11-07 12:49:07
Dear miss: does my understanding of "弃" (abandonment) still align with your original meaning?
=====
Yes.
Market's about to open, going offline first. Goodbye.
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 16:04:22
Praise Benevolence, Praise Righteousness (褒仁褒义)
2006-11-07 15:12:26
However, the punctuation "夷狄之有君、不如，诸夏之亡也" doesn't seem to conform to classical Chinese grammar. Could you cite some similar examples? Also, what do "people" have to say about "political structures and national systems"? The interpretation of "亡" as "the past" is correct.
=====================
"夷狄之有君、不如，诸夏之亡也" is the contracted combination of "夷狄之有君，诸夏之亡也" + "夷狄之不如，诸夏之亡也" — it fully conforms to grammar. "夷狄之" is comprehensive, encompassing people, nations, and states.
有君: Having their ruler. "君" stands for the ruler-state — in ancient times, ruler and state were inseparable. "诸夏之亡夷狄之有其君" means the civilized states look down upon the barbarians' national and political structures.
不如: "诸夏之亡夷狄之不如" means the civilized states look down upon the barbarians' national structures, political systems, customs, etc. as inferior to their own.
Why look down upon them? Because "夷狄之有君" — the national and political structures of the barbarians were all stages the "civilized states" had once gone through and already surpassed. The "civilized states" therefore look down upon them, giving rise to the notion of "夷狄之不如."
As for your later point, it is a misunderstanding of Confucius. Barbarian culture is a stage that all humanity must pass through. There is no question of looking down upon it — rather, the approach should be "assimilating the uncivilized."
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 16:19:24
[Anonymous] 单单
2006-11-07 14:42:47
In the host's view, is Laozi's "Way" an a priori Way or a Way of reality?
Please enlighten me.
-------------
A Way of reality wearing the garb of an a priori Way — but later generations only ever saw the garb.
Laozi will be discussed in the future as well. The title will be the same:
Detailed Analysis of "Dao De Jing": For All Those Who Misinterpret Laozi
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 23:14:11
[Anonymous] 褒义褒义
Your sentence uses "亡" in a single clause with both the meaning "the past" and the meaning "to look down upon." Is this permissible? Please enlighten me.
I feel that interpreting like this — where "亡" simply means "the past" — there's no ambiguity. And it wouldn't diminish Confucius either.
----------------
"The past" is only used as an extended explanation for why the looking-down happens. In the actual translation, only the meaning of "to look down upon" is used. "亡" cannot be translated as "the past" — in "之亡," it is an inverted form of "亡之," and "亡" must be a verb, which can only take the meaning of "to look down upon."
In the above explanation, "national system, political structure" is something you added, and "culture" is something I added — neither has been verified with Confucius himself.
----------------
"National system, political structure" was not added by this ID. In ancient times, "君" (ruler) and "国" (state) were inseparable, which inherently includes the meaning of "national system, political structure." And there is no meaning of "culture" here — one cannot arbitrarily add it.
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 23:15:40
shouma5688
2006-11-07 21:06:57
Reading the distinguished theories of Brother Chan truly feels like parting the dense fog to see the blue sky again! First comes the shock, then wholehearted conviction! If the stale Confucians of the Han and Song dynasties had known, who knows how many times they'd have died of rage! And if they further learned it was the work of a woman, even the most vivid imagination could hardly picture that exquisite scene!
===========
You flatter me.
缠中说禅 2006/11/7 12:10:03
Dog meat stew, donkey meat buns — bestsellers in autumn and winter!
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's detailed analysis of The Analects: live-butchering the May Fourth dogs, skinning the Song-Ming donkeys!
The best autumn-winter nourishment
Ample supply. Free tasting.