Detailed Explanation of the Lunyu: For All Those Who Misinterpret Confucius (35)
2006/11/26 12:13:49
The Master said: Seeing — that which one relies on; contemplating — that which one follows; observing — that in which one finds repose. How can a person be hidden? How can a person be hidden?
Yang Bojun: Confucius said: "Examine what friends a person associates with; observe the means and methods he adopts to achieve certain goals; understand his state of mind — what he is at ease with and what he is not — then how could this person possibly hide? How could this person possibly hide?"
Qian Mu: The Master said: "One should observe why he undertakes a certain matter, then observe how he goes about doing it, then observe his state of mind while doing it — whether at ease or not. How can that person hide any further! How can that person hide any further!"
Li Zehou: Confucius said: "Look at what he does; observe the origins and ends of his actions; understand his psychological attachments. Where else can he hide! Where else can he hide!"
Detailed Explanation: Confucius — CIA and KGB forerunner? After reading the three interpretations, one cannot help but wonder. The rotten Confucians' "self-centrism" logic finds its most brazen performance here. The sole realistic premise of such interpretations is: starting from "self-centrism," there are only two kinds of people — those who conform to "me" and those who don't. The former are friends, the latter enemies. The observation, watching, and understanding in all three interpretations are conducted from "self-centrism." The final so-called "nowhere to hide" actually corresponds to this proposition: no matter who, under "self-centrism," everyone can be classified, and no one can escape. Under this logic, the human world is constituted thus: every person classifies others from the position of "self-centrism," and the human world fractures in this mutual classification.
Henceforth, human society becomes a kind of "chicken-duck-goose-rabbit" concentration camp where everyone uses so-called "seeing, contemplating, observing" to strip others bare and is stripped bare by others. Then all manner of seduction, violation, self-torment, SM, and group games unfold. The rotten Confucians placed this chapter under the "On Governance" section — in their minds, politics is seduction, violation, self-torment, SM, and group games. For over two thousand years, politics has thus been shaped by them into precisely this, and this is the history self-created by interpretations like those of the three above. Such rotten interpretations by rotten Confucians have permeated every corner of history. Such politics constituted a self-replicating contagion process, becoming the non-a-priori a priori foundation of every part of the social structure.
In truth, this chapter has nothing to do with two thousand years of rotten Confucian "self-centrism" nonsense. The resulting punctuation "Observe what he does; examine his motives; investigate what makes him content. How can a person hide?" is also completely wrong. The correct punctuation should be: "Seeing — that which one relies on; contemplating — that which one follows; observing — that in which one finds repose. How can a person be hidden? How can a person be hidden?" Here, "yǐ" (以) means "to rely on"; "yóu" (由) means "to follow"; "ān" (安) means "to find repose in"; "sōu" (廋) means "winding, circuitous." "Qí" (其, one/one's) refers to any individual person — the individualized real existence of "person" within the "heaven-earth-person" structure. Reality necessarily has its "worry," and its "worry" gains rank-order through "do not worry." The individualized real existence of "person" is the same. What this chapter discusses is the "do not worry" upon which the "worry" of the real individual, manifesting different rank-orders, is based. It must be pointed out that this "do not worry" of the real individual is itself a "worry" within the "heaven-earth-person" structure. There is no absolute "do not worry" — this was made clear in the earlier discussions of "worry" and "do not worry."
Standing within the self-system of the real individual, the "do not worry" structure cannot be examined, because there, "do not worry" is the basis of all bases and also the basis for examining its structure — any examination becomes a tautology. It's like trying to prove the equivalence of the sum of interior angles of a triangle equaling 180 degrees and the uniqueness of parallel lines within a Euclidean geometric axiom system. But standing within the "heaven-earth-person" structure, the "do not worry" of the real individual becomes its "worry" and therefore has its rank-order, making it possible to examine its internal structure. This is like standing outside Euclidean geometry, Lobachevskian geometry, and Riemannian geometry to examine their respective axiomatic structures, using the sum of interior angles of triangles for corresponding classification research. And this chapter similarly conducts classification research on the individual's "do not worry," arriving at a "seeing, contemplating, observing" structure of individual "do not worry." This is why Confucius exclaimed "How can a person be hidden? How can a person be hidden?" — in a colloquial way, it means "people are nothing more than this." Just as under an axiomatic perspective, the postulate that "the sum of interior angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees" is no longer mysterious — nothing more than this.
Over two thousand years later, Kant appeared in Western scholarship, conducting a thorough study of human a priori capacity (in the Lunyu's discourse system, this is the individual "do not worry" mentioned above). He wrote the three great Critiques — the most important works in modern philosophical history — becoming the most important source of modern philosophy. From then on, no philosophical research could bypass Kant. And this chapter of the Lunyu is Confucius's three great Critiques; its significance is the same as Kant's, and it must be compared with Kant's for deeper understanding. Without knowing one's "do not worry," how can one know one's "worry"? Without knowing one's "worry," how can one be free from worry?
Kant divided human cognitive capacity into the lower cognitive capacity of "sensibility" and the higher cognitive capacity of "reason." Sensibility is the beginning of cognition, the unsurpassable scope of cognition, and the object and material for higher cognition. Higher cognitive capacity is divided into understanding, judgment, and reason. Experience is not the direct result of sensibility but the result of understanding synthesizing sensory material. For example, the so-called natural world studied by science, and even every individual person — these experiential objects of cognition are not grasped by sensibility but are the result of understanding's operation. Judgment — more precisely, determinative judgment — is the capacity to apply the a priori laws of understanding to form experience and objects of cognition. Reason is the capacity to expand the a priori laws of understanding as far as possible. Generally, the limit of this capacity is to produce absolute subjective ideas such as God, the world, and the soul. But once this capacity leads reason to self-expand to the point of treating the fabricated ideal illusions as real existences, various errors arise — such as the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and so on. Therefore, the application scope of reason must be limited. However, this limitation is in turn the practical premise for humans to escape natural necessity. The practical exercise of human reason has as its premise the freedom of the will (the higher human faculty of desire), and this is what makes morality possible. But the practical premise of reason, in Kant's framework, cannot be applied to what actually exists — it pertains only to "ought" and not to "is."
Between understanding and reason, if connected solely by determinative judgment, then humans would be a machine of necessity, the freedom of the will would be impossible, and the practical exercise of reason would also be impossible. Kant thereupon revealed "reflective judgment," making possible the coordination of the freedom of the will with the necessity of understanding. Humans first create in art a unity of nature and morality, necessity and freedom. Kant then extended this to the possibility of the world moving from necessity to freedom. Subsequently, the Leninist movement extended this into practice, becoming what could be called a performance art piece in which human society, within the Kantian paradigm, conducted an experiment on the possibility from necessity to freedom. Of course, this had nothing to do with Marx.
With Kant's comparison, Confucius's three great Critiques gain the possibility of clarity. "Seeing" (shì, 视) — the looking between person and object of cognition, corresponding to sensibility and the higher human cognitive capacity constituted by understanding and reason connected through Kant's determinative judgment — that is, all of humanity's cognitive capacity. "Contemplating" (guān, 观) — a view, corresponding to the free will connected by "reflective judgment." "Observing" (chá, 察) — direct "contemplation" (guān) of the present moment — the present-moment praxis of the free will. "Seeing — that which one relies on" — cognitive capacity is what a person relies on. "Contemplating — that which one follows" — the free will is what a person follows. "Observing — that in which one finds repose" — the present-moment praxis of the free will is a person's ultimate refuge. Where Confucius surpasses Kant is that, like Marx, he would not assume an artistic path from necessity to freedom. You are already free by nature — why seek freedom? Leninism is the inevitable extension of Kant's artistic path and has nothing to do with Marx, let alone with Confucius's "Way of the Sage."
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's Vernacular Translation
The Master said: Seeing — that which one relies on; contemplating — that which one follows; observing — that in which one finds repose. How can a person be hidden? How can a person be hidden?
Confucius said: Cognitive capacity — what a person relies on; free will — what a person follows; direct "contemplation" of the present moment, the present-moment praxis of the free will — a person's refuge. How can a person be winding and hidden? How can a person be winding and hidden?
(To be continued)
Strictly prohibit plagiarism, violators will be prosecuted
Replies
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 12:27:10
Whether or not you trade stocks, to not be played by stocks or anything else, but to play stocks and everything else, you need to study the Lunyu well. Without knowing one's "do not worry," how can one know one's "worry"? Without knowing one's "worry," how can one be free from worry?
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 12:39:13
[Anonymous] 股王之王
2006-11-26 12:29:43
Didn't get a seat. Harsh, sitting alone. No need to study others so much — just do your own thing well.
==============
Free to use if not used, free to do if not done — but absolutely never do yourself.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 12:46:11
nlittle
2006-11-26 12:35:01
Thank you, host.
Just remembered — I had asked about Buddhism, idealism, and materialism, which led to the comment being deleted.
Can't help but say, some people are clearly feeling guilty.
============
I don't think that's the case. There must be other reasons.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 12:52:29
[Anonymous] CCTV
2006-11-26 12:35:49
The host is so punctual — basically the same time every day. Is the host a very rigid person in real life? Today you mentioned Kant — Kant was apparently extremely punctual with his daily walks too. Are you like Kant?
=============
Noon — yang reaches its peak and begins to wane. Understand?
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 12:54:18
nlittle
2006-11-26 12:38:30
Talking business — still the stock market. Regarding the put warrant market — the main players' tactics are very treacherous. I'm really not suited for it. I lost over 100,000 on 580999, so I'm preparing to play a mid-term bet. If I lose, bad luck on my part. If I win, I'll keep the principal and donate the rest — let other retail investors lose a bit less.
=============
As long as you didn't buy too high, there are opportunities.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 13:12:38
[Anonymous] toLZ
2006-11-26 13:04:21
Didn't we agree no stock talk on weekends? Why are we at it again?
========
Mainly because his comment was deleted by Sina, so it's a special case. That's it — won't happen again.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 13:31:50
[Anonymous] Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán
2006-11-26 12:52:29
[Anonymous] CCTV
2006-11-26 12:35:49
The host is so punctual — basically the same time every day. Is the host a very rigid person in real life? Today you mentioned Kant — Kant was apparently extremely punctual with his daily walks too. Are you like Kant?
=============
Noon — yang reaches its peak and begins to wane. Understand?
==============
Note: this one was written by this ID. Just now Sina seemed to have a glitch — it suddenly popped out.
But it must be noted: as of now, only this anonymous one was written by this ID, because it was caused by a sudden system error.
Note: some mischievous people may intentionally use this method to impersonate this ID. If you get fooled, that has nothing to do with this ID. This ID doesn't mind people messing around like this.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 13:36:31
[Anonymous] 古代
2006-11-26 13:32:06
Teacher, I'm somewhat confused by this: Only by learning the fundamentals well and understanding "Confucius's" thought with heart can one naturally achieve the story of Zhuangzi's ox-carving. Without having tasted "wasabi duck feet," how would you know the flavor? Buddha said: Originally there is nothing... but I am a mortal and rather slow-witted, so I can only study with heart.
============
Breakthroughs in understanding don't come from effort alone. Effort by itself is useless. As the saying goes, "poetry's craft lies beyond the craft itself." If effort alone can't even produce good poetry, let alone anything else.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 13:44:16
[Anonymous] Xiao Ming
2006-11-26 13:42:17
"But it must be noted: as of now, only this anonymous one was written by this ID, because it was caused by a sudden system error."
-------
Without anonymous, what's displayed is the host's ID.
============
I'm referring to this one — it was written by this ID. Today Sina is being a bit strange — how did it suddenly pop out and make this ID have to log in again.
[Anonymous] Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán
2006-11-26 12:52:29
[Anonymous] CCTV
2006-11-26 12:35:49
The host is so punctual — basically the same time every day. Is the host a very rigid person in real life? Today you mentioned Kant — Kant was apparently extremely punctual with his daily walks too. Are you like Kant?
=============
Noon — yang reaches its peak and begins to wane. Understand?
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 13:46:34
[Anonymous] WTOWC
2006-11-26 13:38:32
Host, I see several other anonymous "Kong Qingdong" comments that call you "niece" — is that also someone messing around?
=============
Probably, but hard to say. Men are face-conscious — even stripped bare they still might want to cover up anonymously. This ID has no interest in such matters. Whatever — whoever wants to, go ahead!
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 13:59:17
[Anonymous] nn
2006-11-26 13:50:03
The host is currently playing with Confucius; I'm being played by the host. Who plays you doesn't matter — what matters is having fun. If I'm having fun, I'm willing to be played. If not, I won't. Playing stocks is fun. Making money means you're playing; losing money means you're being played. Playing or being played no longer matters — the key is enriching one's leisure life. Whether I make or lose money doesn't greatly affect my life — it's just a numbers game. Thanks to the host for providing a place where one can be happily played. The host has already turned Confucius into Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's spokesperson, but it really does make sense. Continuing my support! Does the host agree with my view?
=============
That's not right. This ID only interprets according to Confucius's meaning and has not added any of this ID's own ideas. This ID can understand Confucius, but how could Confucius understand this ID? This point was made long ago. But Confucius is a very important foundation — without understanding Confucius, more advanced matters are out of the question.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 14:01:24
[Anonymous] Xiao Ming
2006-11-26 13:50:45
The host is so erudite — truly impressive!
With the host's learning, serving as a national strategic research advisor wouldn't be beneath you at all?
If that were actually the case, it might be a blessing for us common folk.
============
Such work has others to do it. This ID only does what others cannot.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 14:04:57
[Anonymous] Xiao Ming
2006-11-26 14:02:17
I wonder why the host harbors such deep animosity toward men? Always seizing opportunities to mock and attack.
Men being face-conscious is actually a good thing. Imagine — if someone didn't even care about their face, "one wouldn't know what's acceptable"!
But losing face in front of the host is really not about losing face. Just like a man losing face in front of the woman he loves — nothing to worry about.
What does the host think?
================
Such male-centric thinking — best to think less of it. That era is long past.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 14:13:44
It's 2 o'clock. The sky outside remains gray — this November sky in Beijing.
Heading off. Goodbye!
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 16:22:26
Is this fun?????????????????????
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 19:57:59
In the mood tonight — everyone's welcome to ask questions.
Let's go all night!
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 20:11:24
I'm a fake!!!!!!!!! Go ahead and hit me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
缠中说禅 2006/11/27 12:27:05
Those who posted questions here — please check today's new post for answers.
缠中说禅 2006/11/26 12:22:04
This chapter is a bit profound, because Kant's philosophy is something very few people can clearly grasp. Now to say that Confucius, in one sentence over two thousand years ago, covered what Kant spent decades researching — probably very few people can accept this. Enough for everyone to study for a while.