Detailed Analysis of "The Analects": For All Who Have Misinterpreted Confucius (59)
2007/3/22 15:28:36
Ji Kangzi asked: "Among your disciples, who loves learning?" Confucius replied: "There was Yan Hui who loved learning. Unfortunately, he died young. Now there is no one."
Yang Bojun: Ji Kangzi asked: "Among your students, who is studious?" Confucius replied: "There was one named Yan Hui who was studious. Unfortunately he died young. Now there is no one."
Qian Mu: Ji Kangzi asked Confucius: "Among your disciples, which one is fond of learning?" Confucius replied: "Yan Hui was fond of learning. Unfortunately he died young. Now there is none."
Li Zehou: Ji Kangzi asked: "Among your students, who loves to learn?" Confucius answered: "There was one named Yan Hui who loved learning. Unfortunately he died young. Now there is no one."
Detailed Explanation: This chapter is consistent with the previous one, once again affirming that Yan Hui was the only student whom Confucius recognized as meeting his standard of "love of learning." The only difference is the person being addressed. This further proves that this view was not a one-time remark by Confucius but his consistent position. It also proves from one angle that those who carried on under Confucius's banner after his death were merely trading on his name for fame. As for those who engage in pedantic analysis of the minute differences between these two similar responses by Confucius, such efforts are trivial. Providing slightly different answers to the same question at different times and to different people is perfectly normal. Applying psychology, if a person answers the same question in exactly the same way every time, word for word, that only proves the person is insincere — the so-called answers are all recited from a script — and this clearly would not have been to Confucius's liking.
Some may counter-argue: if Confucius's students all later violated Confucius's teachings, how can you prove that this ID's interpretation of The Analects represents Confucius's original intent? And how can you prove this ID is not trading on Confucius's name for fame? This question has long been answered. To interpret The Analects, one must transcend The Analects. If your insight doesn't even match Confucius's, how could you possibly interpret The Analects? This ID can explain all 500-plus chapters of The Analects in a manner that is internally consistent and grammatically sound. If Confucius's views might not have reached the height of this ID's interpretation, that's Confucius's problem, not this ID's. Moreover, who can prove that Confucius's views didn't reach this height?
This ID only cares about the possible meanings that the text of The Analects can sustain, and these meanings are mutually consistent and non-contradictory throughout. This is like treating the 500 chapters of The Analects as 500 equations — this ID's interpretation is the maximum value of their common solution set. Throughout the ages, those who could even find the common solution are rare, let alone the maximum value. This ID interprets The Analects as clearly as examining a fruit in one's own palm. Don't assume for a moment that this represents this ID's own thought, and even less should you assume this ID is using Confucius's mouth to promote personal ideas. This ID's own thoughts — when I want to express them, I express them. Why would I need to borrow an ancient person's voice? This is merely the maximum value of Confucius's possible thought, but even at his maximum, how could Confucius possibly fathom this ID's thoughts?
Not just this ID — every person possesses boundless magnificence, covering heaven and earth. How could a single Confucius encompass it all? And when has Confucius ever encompassed anyone or stifled anyone? It is all self-encompassing, self-stifling. Then from time to time, a few clowns like Lu Xun or Hu Shi hop out — how laughable, how pitiable!
The Master said: When debating with him, his speech never weakens — could it really be only Yan Hui?
Yang Bojun: Confucius said: "The one who listens to my words without ever becoming slack — that would be Yan Hui alone, wouldn't it!"
Qian Mu: The Master said: "The one who, when spoken to, does not become slack — that would be Yan Hui, wouldn't it!"
Li Zehou: Confucius said: "The one who, after being spoken to, does not become lax or lazy — that would probably be Yan Hui."
Detailed Explanation: If we follow the interpretation above, then Confucius is absolutely a good-for-nothing. Confucius's words wouldn't even compare to an adult film. How many people, after watching an AV, can sustain their attention without flagging, impervious to any distraction? Why would you need Yan Hui for that? Confucius had three thousand disciples. If ultimately only Yan Hui fully grasped his essence, that's understandable — just as Bodhidharma traveled all of China and found only the Second Patriarch. But if Confucius taught for decades and only Yan Hui could "listen without becoming slack," then Confucius really should watch more adult films and learn a thing or two.
"语" (yǔ), original meaning "to discuss, debate, argue"; "之" (zhī), refers to the object of the discussion; "惰" (duò), to decline/weaken; "其" (qí), through to "岂" (qǐ), "could it be that" — expressing a rhetorical question; "与" (yú), same as "欤" (yú), expressing a rhetorical question. The meaning of this chapter is: could it be that only Yan Hui is eloquent in debate? That is to say, Yan Hui's greatness did not lie in his eloquence. Of course, a person who truly loves learning will naturally be eloquent, but the love of learning does not consist of eloquence. Many are eloquent debaters who are nothing but a mouth — what use are such people?
This chapter continues to affirm Yan Hui's learning — only Yan Hui truly grasped the marrow of Confucius's teaching. Confucius's learning does not reside in words, does not reside in text, does not reside in the torrential eloquence of a litigator — otherwise, wouldn't universal litigator-ification solve everything? Just like this era, where everyone can bluff and everyone can mock — but how many truly understand matters? Not knowing life while living, not knowing death while dying — that's called walking corpses. A human body is hard to obtain — how many can avoid wasting it on their mouths and in their beds? Those who can speak but cannot act, and those who can act but cannot speak — contemplate this!
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's Vernacular Translation
子曰：语之而不惰者，其回也与？
Confucius said: When anyone debates with him and his speech never weakens — is it really only Yan Hui who possesses such eloquence?
(To be continued)
Strict prohibition on plagiarism — violators will be prosecuted
Replies
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 15:35:00
Wait, I have a phone call to handle some business.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 15:42:32
[Anonymous] 听缠说禅
2007-03-22 15:36:42
Sister Chan, with this kind of late-session plunge, without you, what would we rely on to anticipate it? And how would we avoid it? My stocks all did well today, but when the broader market fell, they fell with it. I didn't get out...
-
The connecting line of January 24 and February 27 can't be broken through on the first attempt. Even if you just look at the 1-minute or 5-minute MACD, you'd know there would be a small consolidation divergence here. After 14:30, the Shanghai and Shenzhen trends diverged — that was the best signal.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 15:48:48
[Anonymous] CCTV
2007-03-22 15:46:57
Sis, using your theory, I predicted in advance today that the traitors would attack at the end of the session:
[Anonymous] CCTV
2007-03-22 14:03:19
The traitors might attack at the end of the session.
-
Keep it up — the road ahead is long.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 15:54:14
Sorry, kept getting phone calls. All clear now.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 15:55:56
[Anonymous] hehe2
2007-03-22 15:49:58
The principles the blog owner mentions are truly incredibly important. Unfortunately I'm too eager for quick gains and frequently violate them.
Today I knew I should be empty-handed. Of three stocks, only one was sold at the sell point. The other two — I was a bit too anxious and didn't sell at the sell points, so the operations were very flawed. Money I should have made was right in front of me and I still didn't make it.
Truly ashamed.
--
The stock market always has opportunities — the road is long. A hundred tempers make steel. The key is to summarize. Don't fear making mistakes — fear always making the same mistake. Perpetual self-examination, perpetual failure to change.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:03:48
空读
2007-03-22 15:35:59
Hello boss. For a price action of a certain level, how do you determine in the present moment whether it has ended?
For example, the second upward segment at the 30-minute level — if it hasn't reached the high of the first segment and turns down slightly, how do you determine whether it's a small dip forming a minor-level hub before another push higher, or whether it's already complete and will keep falling? How much of a downturn is needed to make this determination? Does it require the formation of a lower-level third-type sell point to confirm?
==
Divergence and consolidation divergence are the bases for segmenting price action. The so-called third-type buy/sell point's confirmation of consolidation ending ultimately also depends on the divergence and consolidation divergence of its internal structure. Don't wait until it's actually fallen to ask whether to sell — rather, once the price enters the interval nesting zone of divergence during the rise, you should gradually exit. Of course, small funds can wait until the last few price levels; large funds cannot. If you miss the first sell point, you must exit at the second sell point. If you wait until the third sell point, it's probably already dropped a lot. Better to sell too early than too late — stocks are all waste paper; if you have money, you'll never worry about not being able to buy waste paper.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:05:15
Two Tigers
2007-03-22 16:00:30
炼铁设备
2007-03-22 15:57:19
"The resistance of the January 27 and February 24 connecting line"
=================
Where can I see this?
=========
Same question.
==
Connect the two high points on those days and you'll have it. It changes every day, constantly moving upward. Draw the line on the chart and you can see it.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:06:22
[Anonymous] Night雨
2007-03-22 16:04:44
Beautiful sister, why haven't you been talking to me recently? I'm getting sad. Well then, I'll just keep talking to myself, haha. I've already become your loyal disciple.
=
Sorry, I didn't see your question. Please post it again.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:16:59
[Anonymous] 酒吧心情
2007-03-22 15:46:10
"However, some bulls right now are too reckless and too eager for quick gains, which isn't a good thing"
==
JJ's words speak straight to my heart.
Today's situation was exactly this — too aggressive, very easy to get ambushed.
I think we should learn from Chairman Mao: surround the cities from the countryside. The War of Resistance lasted 8 years, Liberation took 3 years.
Can't we wait a few more days in the stock market?
Hope JJ will comment...
==
This ID's current capability only allows managing my own territory. Like Bank of China staying motionless these past few days — that's actually the greatest contribution to the broader market. Even if the traitors dare to launch an attack on BOC at this level, how much downside room could there be? After all, BOC has earnings growth, the Olympics, and other special support. Now the key is stabilizing public confidence — the vast majority of people fear a false breakout, and that's the traitors' opportunity. So we absolutely must not rush. However, the market doesn't belong to this ID alone. Some people's money comes from dubious sources — they're in a rush to make a quick buck and bolt. Such people need the market to teach them a good lesson.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:20:54
[Anonymous] 悟禅
2007-03-22 16:13:27
Teacher, should it be January 24 and February 27?
[Anonymous] 千江月
2007-03-22 16:16:30
Dear lady, I'm so sorry! January 27 and February 24 don't exist on the chart!
It should be 1.24 — 2.27, right?
Two Tigers
2007-03-22 16:11:10
Dear lady, I'm so sorry! January 27 and February 24 don't exist on the chart!
-
Right, the typo can't be edited. Everyone please see the correction here.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:22:56
Everyone please note: it's the connecting line of January 24 and February 27 — the high points of the two previous charges toward 3000. The typo above can't be edited. Thank you all for pointing it out.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:25:59
[Anonymous] 钢股份
2007-03-22 16:21:44
Looking for a chance to build a position in BOC tomorrow!!
Your Majesty, you didn't see my question. The price action of Beijing Tourism and BOC before today's sell-off was different — I wonder how you considered this? Beijing Tourism has been pulling consecutive positive candlesticks — is there still an entry opportunity in the near term?
==
Regular investors don't need to participate in BOC — that's a war-fighting stock, and the range may not satisfy small funds' requirements. As for how I consider these things, there's no need to discuss that here. This isn't my own living room after all — all kinds of people are around. Showing all your cards would turn it from a strategic game into something else. Watch the price action — that's everything.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:28:14
[Anonymous] 听缠说禅
2007-03-22 16:13:04
Sister, the Analects detailed analysis should be a previous work, right? Otherwise writing one piece per day would wear you out!
==
There's no backlog — it's all written on the spot. This ID has one advantage: writing fast. So it's not a problem.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:47:52
[Anonymous] touchnet
2007-03-22 15:57:49
Boss, regarding yesterday's article:
-
"If it doesn't break below the low of the first segment, re-enter"
----------
Boss, is this "doesn't break below" determined by the sub-level?
==
Yes, it requires confirmation from the internal structure of that segment. -
The decomposition theorem can decompose into same-level consolidation and trends.
------
The hubs in this consolidation and trend are the same level, right? It's not that the consolidation hub is one level higher?
==
In same-level decomposition, of course all hubs are the same level. There's no issue of a consolidation hub being larger. If it's larger, decompose it into smaller ones — that's what same-level decomposition means. -
Regarding the starting point issue in level decomposition — can any high or low point in the price action serve as the dividing point of a trend type?
=
Of course not — it must be the ending point of the preceding trend type.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:50:20
[Anonymous] Xiao Ming
2007-03-22 16:46:22
Boss, 600343 — from my observation of the market, on March 13 there were constantly large orders being transacted yet the stock price barely moved. My interpretation at the time was that the market maker was adjusting positions before a push-up. Then on March 14, there was a steep pull-up, which I thought was the market maker testing the waters, further solidifying my conviction to hold. In hindsight, that doesn't seem to be the case. Can you explain what was happening on March 13?
=
You need to change your mindset. A stock doesn't necessarily have only one group involved. The current issue is that one group is too traitorous, and we don't want them sticking around — just like the time 999 broke below 10. As for the specifics, there's no need to ask too much.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:52:21
[Anonymous] Sina User
2007-03-22 16:50:18
May I ask the blogger: why is ICBC the big brother but still ranked behind BOC?
=
ICBC shouldn't have been more expensive than BOC to begin with. Before, it was only because it was a new IPO and the traitors found it easy to infiltrate. In terms of earnings, market cap, and management quality, which aspect does ICBC beat BOC?
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 16:56:45
[Anonymous] 中枢
2007-03-22 16:39:26
[Anonymous] 中枢
2007-03-22 16:35:53
Master Chan: Starting from a 30-minute bottom divergence, if the first upward segment is consolidation, what form would it take? Is it a+A+b, or just A alone? These two have different hub directions — the first is down-up-down, the second is up-down-up. Without resolving this issue, making judgments is very difficult.
----------
Supplement: The difficulty in judgment is that, for example A=a1+a2+a3. When the price action has reached a+a1+a2, I don't know whether a hub has already formed, or whether I need to wait for the subsequent a3.
==
This question happens to be what tomorrow's article will address. Please wait patiently for one day.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 17:01:00
Two Tigers
2007-03-22 16:34:59
Dear lady, you are truly an extraordinary woman for the ages!
By the way, what about the "media" thing you mentioned a few days ago?
==
It's already done. What exactly it is, it's not convenient to say, because I don't want it to face unexpected interference before it's fully formed. In any case, there's now a stable channel.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 17:02:06
[Anonymous] 中枢
2007-03-22 16:59:48
Finally got a reply from the teacher. Thank you! Though there's no answer for now :)
Another question: I read the precise definition of divergence the other day. In the multiple-meaning discussion of a+A+b+B+c, the "a" and "c" are not necessarily present. Does this mean they can be omitted, or that they can be viewed as extensions of A and B? Right?
=
They can also be absent altogether. For example, two simple hubs with a gap in between.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 17:02:32
Sorry, it's 5 o'clock. Must leave first. Goodbye.
缠中说禅 2007/3/22 15:29:02
Regarding the traitors' Thursday offensive, I already stated it clearly yesterday. The traitors are always very obedient. As for this ID's stocks, aside from some newly acquired Beijing stocks, basically all started proactive adjustments early this morning, precisely to deny the traitors any opportunity to exert force. The traitors were also really feeble — they could only resort to a late-session sneak attack, not a shred of originality. The next three days are particularly critical — as long as we can hold near the previous high over these three days, the validity of the breakout is assured, and many wavering people will come back. Technically, as I emphasized the past few days, there's the resistance of the January 27 and February 24 high-point connecting line. Today's resistance was mainly from this line — only an effective breakthrough of this line is the key to the market embarking on a new rally.
The current price action is very delicate. The traitors also have opportunities, since many people's confidence is shaky, but the traitors' opportunities won't cause any damage to this ID. This ID's principle is: steady advance, no recklessness. If the opportunity isn't ripe, just oscillate back and forth until it ripens — absolutely never give the traitors a good opening. However, some bulls right now are too reckless and too eager for quick gains, which isn't a good thing. This ID only manages my own people — I can't control what others do. As long as our strength keeps growing, let's see whose world it will be in a few years!