"The Analects" in Detail: For All Those Who Misinterpret Confucius (62)
2007/4/5 15:33:21
The Master said: "Ci, do you regard me as someone who keeps studying and thereby comes to understand?" The reply: "Yes, is that not so?" He said: "No! I thread through with one."
Yang Bojun: Confucius said: "Ci! Do you think I am someone who learns much and remembers it all?" Zigong replied: "Yes, isn't that so?" Confucius said: "No, I have one fundamental concept that threads through everything."
Qian Mu: The Master said: "Ci! Do you think I have studied much and memorized it all?" Zigong answered: "Yes." (Then added) "Isn't it so?" The Master said: "No. Within all this learning, there is a single thread connecting everything."
Li Zehou: Confucius said: "Zigong, do you think I am someone who learns and remembers a lot?" Zigong replied: "Yes. Isn't that so?" Confucius said: "No. I use one fundamental perspective to thread through everything."
Detailed Explanation: The literal meaning of this chapter is very simple, but all interpretations treat Confucius's "一以贯之" (threading through with one) as using one thought, one concept, one perspective, one logic, one God, or one -ism as a foundation — the Zigong-type "threading through with one." Of course, this concept is very conventional. Humans, from the most primitive worship of nature's mysteries — taking nature, heaven, and mysterious forces as "one" — to shamanic religions that take some kind of soul-like communication between humans and nature, God, or heaven, some mysterious resonance, as "one" — and then to so-called reason, the Dao, Brahman, absolute spirit, natural laws, scientific knowledge, capital power, commodity fetishism, and so on as "one" — humans, like duckweed, always need to find a "one" to rely upon. They even need to fabricate a so-called "humanity," humanize things a bit, but it's all like thirsty deer chasing mirages — a farce of self-gratification.
"一以贯之" — what can serve as "one" must be something "不患" (without anxious seeking). For people in reality, the most fundamental, most prerequisite, most capable of being "one" is the present reality itself. Everything that departs from present reality cannot be "one." As previously discussed, the key to the Analects lies in "bearing responsibility" — bearing responsibility for what? For this present reality. One must first bear responsibility for this present reality before it is possible to transform or transcend it. "Hearing, seeing, learning, practicing" the "Way of the sage" is simply another way of expressing "一以贯之." Only by directly bearing responsibility can one "hear, see, learn, practice" the "Way of the sage," can one "一以贯之." Otherwise, one can only continue manufacturing verbal garbage to perpetuate the trick of self-deception.
"之" has no specific referent — it can broadly refer to everything in present reality, whether concrete phenomena or some abstract theory, including everything in real life that can be "recognized" (識). Much learning does not lead to recognition. If one cannot directly bear responsibility for the present, so-called extensive learning is merely a word game. The kind of "learning" that Confucius recognized always takes direct bearing of responsibility for reality as its premise — that is, takes "一以贯之" as its premise.
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's Vernacular Translation
The Master said: "Ci, do you regard me as someone who keeps studying and thereby comes to understand?" The reply: "Yes, is that not so?" He said: "No! I thread through with one."
Confucius asked: "Zigong, do you regard me as someone who keeps studying and thereby comes to understand present reality?" Zigong replied: "Yes, isn't that so?" Confucius said: "No! I simply bear direct responsibility for present reality and thread through it."
The Master said: "Shen! My Way threads through with one." Zengzi said: "Yes." The Master left. The disciples asked: "What does that mean?" Zengzi said: "The Master's Way is simply loyalty and reciprocity."
Yang Bojun: Confucius said: "Shen! My doctrine is threaded through by one fundamental concept." Zengzi said: "Yes." After Confucius left, other students asked Zengzi: "What did he mean?" Zengzi said: "The Master's doctrine is simply loyalty and reciprocity."
Qian Mu: The Master said: "What I speak about in my daily teachings can all be connected by one thread." Zengzi responded: "Yes." The Master left. Fellow students asked: "What does this mean?" Zengzi said: "The Master's Way is nothing but loyalty and reciprocity."
Li Zehou: Confucius said: "Zeng Shen! My thoughts and actions are threaded through as one." Zengzi said: "Yes." After Confucius left, other students asked: "What does that mean?" Zengzi said: "What the teacher pursues is nothing more than loyalty and reciprocity."
Detailed Explanation: Regarding Confucius's "一以贯之," there has been endless debate for over two thousand years. The most common approach is to first assume a so-called doctrine of "benevolence" (仁), positing that everyone inherently possesses it in their heart, and thereby from one's own heart threading through the hearts of all people, and further threading through the hearts of people across all generations. The absurdity of this assumption is not even worth refuting. If this assumption held, then the Jews in concentration camps being skinned and dismembered must have felt Hitler's pleasure and benevolence, achieving continuous orgasm even while being skinned and dismembered. During the Nanjing Massacre, whether killers, victims, onlookers, or commentators, everyone must have been in continuous ecstasy — which is why collaborators have thrived ever since. Here, don't use the logic of "so-and-so isn't really human" as an excuse. As the old saying goes, "one kind of rice feeds a hundred kinds of people" — they're all human, just that in the present reality of a "people not understanding" society, these people are not the same kind of people. This isn't some God-given or a priori logic, but is determined by the practical logic of present reality. On this point, Confucius and Marx are consistent.
But Confucius's students were always too clever for their own good. The protagonist of this chapter, Zeng Shen, was only 29 when Confucius died, yet his single utterance "夫子之道，忠恕而已矣" (The Master's Way is simply loyalty and reciprocity) plagued China for over 2,000 years. The literal meaning of this chapter is simple, but the drama within it is similar to the following story of Shenhui.
Zeng Shen was Confucius's last disciple; Shenhui can also be considered Huineng's last disciple. But these two last disciples actually never entered the gate. One day Huineng asked: "I have a certain something — no head, no tail, no name, no label, no back, no front. Does anyone here recognize it?" This is like Confucius saying "参乎！吾道一以贯之" (Shen! My Way threads through with one) — here there is also an implicit question: "Do you recognize it?" Shenhui rushed to answer Huineng: "It is the source of all Buddhas, Shenhui's Buddha-nature." This is like Zengzi saying "夫子之道，忠恕而已矣" (The Master's Way is simply loyalty and reciprocity). What Confucius said afterward isn't recorded in the Analects, but in the Platform Sutra, Huineng responded to Shenhui's answer as follows: "I told you it has no name and no label, and you go and call it 'source of Buddhas' and 'Buddha-nature.' Even if you eventually put a thatched roof over your head, you'll only ever be a follower who understands intellectually!" This response could equally be given to Zeng Shen: "I told you my Way threads through with one, and you go and call it 'the Master's Way is simply loyalty and reciprocity.' Even if you eventually put a thatched roof over your head, you'll only ever be a follower who understands intellectually!"
Zeng Shen was indeed merely an intellectual follower. These two intellectual followers, Shenhui and Zeng Shen, share one thing in common historically — both became the ones who "spread and expanded" their respective traditions. Shenhui swept away the Northern School and made Huineng's Southern School prominent, while Zeng Shen later became "Master Zeng," becoming in practice the most influential among Confucius's disciples. Where Zeng Shen caused even deeper damage than Shenhui is that in Shenhui's time, the Chan school was abundant with great masters, and Shenhui's lineage — which never even found the gate — quickly died out. But among Confucius's disciples, Yan Hui, who truly grasped Confucius's essence, died even before Confucius, leaving no successors. The result was that this intellectual follower Zeng Shen made a great name for himself. The orthodox Confucianism that has had the greatest influence on China for 2,000 years is actually the Zeng family lineage. His school produced Zisi, who transmitted down to Mencius. Among the Four Books, apart from the Analects, the other three — The Great Learning, The Doctrine of the Mean, and Mencius — all come from Zeng Shen's school. From this, you can see what caliber the orthodox Confucianism of these 2,000-plus years really amounts to.
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's Vernacular Translation
The Master said: "Shen! My Way threads through with one." Zengzi said: "Yes." The Master left. The disciples asked: "What does that mean?" Zengzi said: "The Master's Way is simply loyalty and reciprocity."
Confucius said: "Zeng Shen! I 'hear, see, learn, practice' the Way of the sage, threading through with one." Zeng Shen said: "Yes." Confucius left. Confucius's other disciples asked: "What does '一以贯之' (threading through with one) mean?" Zeng Shen replied: "The Master's Way is simply 'devoting one's full heart to serving others, and extending one's own feelings to empathize with others.'"
(To be continued)
Strictly prohibit plagiarism, violators will be prosecuted
Replies
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:36:14
The bears might be unhappy tomorrow — after all, they haven't accomplished anything this week, and constant rising is too boring. This ID is really a bit disappointed in them. If this continues, this ID won't even want to play anymore. Currently the market's focus is very obvious — what this ID has repeatedly mentioned: second-tier, blue chips, third-tier concept stocks. Buy at buy points, sell at sell points. If you really can't manage that, just watch the 5-day moving average — anything that hasn't broken it is worth playing. There's nothing specific to say about individual stocks — just operate according to the charts. Alright, this ID has to go deal with that street again, signing off, goodbye.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:44:37
[Anonymous] 大鱼小鱼落鱼盘
2007-04-05 15:39:48
Today I saw Lu Qiao Construction hit the limit up.
Regret not buying it. I bought Gehua Cable instead — its upside and downside are both limited.
Blogger, currently it's all about the 10-yuan range stocks. A high-priced stock like Gehua has no play?
=
Rotation — they'll all get their turn.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:49:07
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán
2007-04-05 15:47:57
[Anonymous] 缠心雕龙
2007-04-05 15:36:54
Blogger, hello! Bumping this.
If Ai+2 and Ai don't have consolidation divergence (and assuming Ai+1's low doesn't break Ai-2's high), then you hold at the end of Ai+2. But what if Ai+3 crashes violently, falling below Ai's low without ending? By then you're certainly at a loss, and even the upward Ai+4 afterward may not get you back to breakeven. How do you handle this situation?
==
Without divergence and without evolving into an a'+B formation, it won't break below. Unless something that happens once in a century occurs — like a sudden world war, America suddenly having hundreds more buildings hit — something that causes this ID's theory's two premises to fail in a short time.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:51:44
[Anonymous] 笨笨
2007-04-05 15:48:50
Sister, 938 was limit-up yesterday. Why did it perform like this today? I really didn't spot a sell point yesterday.
----
Who told you there's a buy or sell point every single day?
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:51:57
[Anonymous] 缠心雕龙
2007-04-05 15:39:36
For the same-level operational procedure in Lesson 39, judging whether each segment Ai has ended is a big problem. If you could correctly judge the end of every Ai segment, you might as well buy low and sell high for each one — that would be the most efficient operation. Why bother comparing Ai with Ai+2? Isn't there still a decomposition and recombination issue between adjacent Ai segments?
=
You haven't understood same-level. First get your levels clear. Want higher efficiency? Use a smaller level — but there are limits to this.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:53:54
[Anonymous] Sina User
2007-04-05 15:41:07
Xia Bin does have some vision — he sees certain problems and can propose strategic and tactical steps for handling them, haha. Time is running out.
So you also don't understand what "one" means? Dizzy~.
=
It's in the article — please read carefully.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:57:38
[Anonymous] Hindsight
2007-04-05 15:52:53
Thank you, Master Chan, for your teaching. I've had good rhythm recently, with small gains.
The rhythm and timing of the main forces' actions always vary, but there are only so many time windows.
Recently they're investigating violations and even shut down Beijing Securities. I feel sorry for them. It's funny — years ago at Hualian Shopping Mall I ran into Lü Lixin. He was shopping with his wife. I shamelessly went up to chat with him, and he was pretty cordial, chatting with me about stocks. Later I saw he became the head of Beijing Securities. I wonder if he's still in charge? If you know him, Master Chan, please convey my regards at your convenience.
Tell him the friend who bumped into him at Hualian years ago, whom he recommended "Baoshang Group" and "Tibet Mineral" to, sends his regards and wishes him all the best!
Got carried away.
Recently the more I look at the 0021XX series of stocks, the more I feel they have potential — good for both offense and defense. I've said the same in the group. What does Master Chan think?
Haven't left comments in a while, but I've been studying your articles and replies all along!
Thank you!
==
Small-cap stocks on the SME board — continuing to play out according to the script. Mid-term, naturally no problem.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:58:24
[Anonymous] hehe2
2007-04-05 15:56:06
BLOG host, could you explain a bit more about how consolidation ends?
=
The third type of buy/sell point.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:01:17
[Anonymous] 缠心雕龙
2007-04-05 15:55:31
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán
2007-04-05 15:49:07
==
Without divergence and without evolving into an a'+B formation, it won't break below. Unless something that happens once in a century occurs — like a sudden world war, America suddenly having hundreds more buildings hit — something that causes this ID's theory's two premises to fail in a short time.
--------
I see. So those two premises can indeed be affected by sudden events. For example, Iran detaining hostages, oil prices suddenly hitting the limit up at opening — there's no forewarning.
=
Naturally. Like if tonight there's a sudden meeting announcing the stock market is being shut down, then no technique is useful. Technique can only work within a system. Those non-systemic risks — meaning events that are sudden for everyone — naturally can't be solved by technique. Otherwise, technique could predict what God is having for dinner today.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:02:52
[Anonymous] Night雨
2007-04-05 16:00:50
Beautiful sister, hello. A few days ago when the index was rising, my stocks weren't moving much. Keeping your teachings in mind, I held firm. Today my portfolio value hit a new high — very satisfying. Entered the market in the second half of 2006. Didn't make money in '06, even lost some. After studying here, gained 70% from the start of '07 to today. Thank you.
=
Keep going. The key is to preserve your best gains — otherwise riding the elevator up and down all day isn't fun.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:04:08
[Anonymous] 缠心雕龙
2007-04-05 16:01:39
[Anonymous] 中枢
2007-04-05 15:54:00
Chan Xin Diao Long: The teacher just confirmed that no consolidation divergence necessarily means no break below. Now the question is: if there IS consolidation divergence, do we still distinguish between two cases — break versus no break? But I can't figure out what impact these two outcomes have on subsequent operations.
-----------
If there's consolidation divergence, it's easy — check whether the previous low breaks the previous high. If it breaks, sell; if not, hold. Then keep applying the same logic going forward.
==
The concepts are confused. Divergence leads to a break — not the other way around, where a break leads to divergence.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:07:25
[Anonymous] 中枢
2007-04-05 16:03:14
Continuing to ask the teacher: After consolidation divergence, whether Ai+3 breaks below Ai's high — does this have no impact on same-level operations at this level, but after breaking it allows us to shift gears to a higher level operation?
=
Then why not exit first? Gear-shifting is a method adopted when there are sufficient profits or when the current movement shows obvious signs of gear-shifting — it's not an excuse to cover up a judgment error.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:08:49
[Anonymous] mmhh
2007-04-05 16:05:39
Hello Miss Chan!
I feel grateful from the bottom of my heart! I only use MM's principle of buying at bottom divergence and selling at top divergence — that is, MM's most practical method of buying at buy points and selling at sell points. Over the past two-plus months, I've tried it repeatedly and won every time, making short-term trades on a dozen stocks, all profitable. I firmly remember MM's teaching — never chase highs! I strictly follow MM's buy/sell principles, continuously summarize experience, and keep improving the precision of my buy/sell points, striving to free myself from financial pressure as soon as possible. Thank you again, Miss Chan! May your spirit be forever young! May your spirit be forever joyful!
=
The skill is your own. This ID can only give a nudge — ultimately solving the problem depends on yourself.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:10:38
[Anonymous] 在路上
2007-04-05 16:01:13
May I ask Sister Chan: If this bull market runs for 20 years as you've said, will the vast majority of individual stocks all hit their own all-time highs?
I thought of this from observing the monthly charts of Sister Chan's stocks — it seems you can infer the future amplitude from them.
==
Naturally. If the performance is too poor to make new highs, there'll be restructuring, and then they'll go for new highs.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:14:35
[Anonymous] 缠心雕龙
2007-04-05 15:49:15
[Anonymous] 中枢
2007-04-05 15:41:22
From the previous lesson: "Consolidation divergence between Ai and Ai+2" will evolve into "when i is even, Ai+3 breaks below Ai's high" or "when i is odd, Ai+3 breaks above Ai's low"; accordingly evolving into a higher-level hub. For example, in that case, Ai+1, Ai+2, Ai+3 form a 30-minute hub. All larger hubs naturally need the higher level to exist first — without even a 30-minute hub, how can there be daily, weekly, or monthly ones? But this phenomenon guarantees that under same-level decomposition, a small-level operation can automatically shift to become a higher-level operation.
------------
I think standing aside is correct. Consolidation divergence means it will break below.
-----------
After consolidation divergence it must evolve into a break below? High probability, but not absolute, right? Otherwise there'd be no concept of the third type of buy point.
Also, must there always be consolidation divergence before a break? Even less absolute, I'd think.
Please clarify, Blogger.
==
Consolidation divergence definitely leads to a break below. But a break below isn't necessarily always caused by consolidation divergence — the a'+B pattern can also cause it.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:18:02
[Anonymous] 你的样子
2007-04-05 15:49:17
Boss, I want to ask — if you don't use fundamentals or any other system, just relying on your technical system alone, can you place orders like a god?
Also, is Level 2 data useful? Is it worth spending money on?
==
If a system works, why would they sell it? Is something worth buying if it's sold to make money? If you understand market movements, the simplest system with just basic chart data is sufficient.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:19:52
[Anonymous] 中枢
2007-04-05 16:17:55
Teacher, your answer to Chan Xin Diao Long earlier — are you saying Ai+2/Ai consolidation divergence is equivalent to Ai+3 breaking below MAX(Ai)? (Without the informal method) If so, my question is resolved.
Could you answer my earlier question? About the specific location of the hub's end point.
==
It's not equivalence. Divergence definitely leads to a break, but a break isn't necessarily caused by divergence at that level — it could be caused by divergence at a smaller level triggering a'+B. This was explained very clearly in the lesson about the three outcomes of divergence.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:24:41
[Anonymous] Hindsight
2007-04-05 16:18:12
As you described in your article replies, this is indeed a period where — apart from someone or a group like yourself — everyone is being collectively brainwashed.
Various forces are performing, showing their acts to the leadership, watching for the leaders' cues, instilling certain images into the leaders.
Institutions are brainwashing us retail investors, telling us what goes down comes back up the same way, nothing to fear. So new retail investors and funds keep flowing in.
Retail investors are also brainwashing each other, huddling together for warmth...
Only here can one truly understand the market and grasp the present moment.
One thing I don't understand: I still don't get the current balance of forces. On the weighted stocks front — market goes up, inviting criticism. But weighted stocks can't just lie there either; everyone's here for profit. For stock index futures, they might be waiting for the right moment. At this rate, will they get anxious and retaliate explosively? When and under what conditions can a balance be reached, creating resonance? My question is rather stupid.
Thanks!
=
Nobody said large-cap stocks won't rise — it's just that launching large-caps consumes too much energy and also needs a good reason. For example, if futures are launched and they need to crush the shorts, pushing Bank of China up to 20 is no big deal.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:26:18
[Anonymous] Night雨
2007-04-05 16:20:24
Thank you sister for answering me. I'm fully invested in second-tier stocks, across different industries, making my own portfolio. These are all stocks that have been consolidating for a while. Some are your picks, some are my own. Currently a bit slow, but feels relatively safe. They'll gradually move from walking to jogging to sprinting — that feeling should be quite nice.
==
Having a feel for the market is good.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:28:03
[Anonymous] Sina User
2007-04-05 16:26:12
[Anonymous] Sina User
2007-04-05 15:58:51
Teacher, just now a counterfeit Master Chan appeared. How should we deal with this?
==
This ID's place is open and free — people can do whatever they want, as long as Sina doesn't intervene. If you can't even tell the fake from the real, how can you see through the market's illusions?
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 16:31:48
Sorry, it's 4:30, and today is a special day. I have things to take care of. Signing off, see you tomorrow.
缠中说禅 2007/4/5 15:34:37
Today the action in second-tier stocks around 10 yuan continues. Look at what percentage of today's limit-up stocks fall in that range and it'll be clear. The end-of-day sneak attack by first-tier blue chips isn't really much of a problem. With the current market movement, for some people this is indeed torturous enough.
Shenzhen, having already gotten very close to that resistance line, traded somewhat heavily today. If it can truly break through and hold above that line, then the Shenzhen Component Index at 10,000 points will be under the bulls' fire. So for this line, the bears won't easily surrender. 10,000 points isn't really that impressive — Shanghai's index will also reach this level someday. It's just that mainland indexes have never been at such levels before, and it takes some foreplay for retail investors and regulators to accept it.
Currently the regulators' mindset is also subtle. In China, things often involve balancing acts, and the bears are now crying to everyone. Whether they can move certain parties — that's hard to say. So overly optimistic sentiment is inadvisable. The best strategy currently remains stability — this applies not only to the bulls' regular army, but also to militia, guerrilla teams behind enemy lines, and so on.
Sector rotation, moving steadily, eliminating various pressures through oscillations of different levels — that's the right path. The way some stocks are being recklessly manipulated only benefits the bears.