Detailed Analysis of "The Analects": For All Who Have Misinterpreted Confucius (2)
2006/10/14 12:23:01
Discussing the way of becoming a sage in an era where everyone scrambles to be an economic man—how wildly impractical. Of course, any impracticality is judged from a particular standpoint, and the impracticality of the sage requires a non-sage's perspective, for example: the economic man, the social man, the duck, etc. No logic without premises can be unconditionally proven, and no perspective is absolute or free of preconditions. Since this is the case, the world's cacophony already has no shortage of economic men, social men, and ducks—the sage too has its own inevitable cacophony.
From this angle, no perspective has eternal value, yet no perspective is eternally without value either—The Analects is the same, Confucius is the same, the sage is the same. But misinterpretation is not to be tolerated. One must first clarify what The Analects is actually saying; otherwise, all praise or disparagement is meaningless. Of course, in a cacophonous age, meaninglessness is the greatest meaning—so let the greatest continue being the greatest, until it dies of yang excess. To continue the journey through The Analects, the prerequisite for entering the journey of The Analects is to aspire to become a "sage," or at least to have the interest to understand how to become a "sage." As for those who aspire to be ducks or duck kings, this door is not for you.
The subject of "learn" has been resolved, so what is the object of "learn"? That is, what must the "gentleman" learn in order to achieve "sagehood"? Throughout the ages, virtually all interpretations have treated this "learn" as the learning of various ordinary skills and knowledge. If that were truly the case, one might as well insert "the arts of the bedchamber" as the object, turning the sentence into "(The gentleman) learns (the arts of the bedchamber) and at due times practices—is that not a pleasure?" With that, Confucius would truly become "Old Number Two," a pioneer of the "sexual revolution" in 1960s Euro-America, or at least the ancestor of the later Daoist Wuliu School. And carried forward to today, it could be listed as Chapter One of "The Duck Analects."
But The Analects is not "The Duck Analects," nor is it "The Mathematical Analects," "The Medical Analects," or "The Literary Analects." The Analects does not ordinarily discuss so-called educational issues. Confucius was an educator, but that was merely his side job—just as some people today are professors whose side job can be "screaming beasts," and if such side jobs typically occur around midnight, then it becomes "screaming sales," which is peddling. As for whether they're peddling their bodies or something else, that's not important. The Analects ultimately explores the core question of Confucianism: how to become a "sage." Therefore, the "learning" here is not in the ordinary educational sense but rather "hearing the Way," "seeing the Way," "studying the Way." The object following "learn" can only be the Way of becoming a "sage."
And this "learning" here is first of all "hearing the Way"—without hearing, there is nothing to learn. Next is "seeing the Way"—without seeing, there is likewise nothing to learn. Only after "seeing the Way" can one truly "study the Way"; otherwise, it's all a blind cat groping for a dead mouse. Even in foreign lands where the moon is never full, in that wicked and wounded capitalist society, if you wanted to learn to be a duck, you couldn't escape this process. First, you'd need to hear that such a thing as ducks exists, and also hear where the ducks' venues are—even if you don't know the specialized term for such places: "duck shops." Then, naturally, you'd need to go see what it's all about—seeing is believing after all. You can't just blindly invest because someone tells you the industry has a future. Even if "duck" is a very promising sunrise industry, you can't invest blindly. You must personally and unmistakably see its benefits—what's the welfare like, will wages be delayed, can you control your own working hours, how much risk is there, and so on. Only after seeing all of this clearly can you go "learn" to be a "duck"—that way you'll have confidence and a goal. Just think: if even the "learning" of becoming a "duck" involves such a process, how much more so for learning the Way of becoming a "sage."
Cognate with "learn" (xué) is "calibrate" (jiào), which is also "emulate" (xiào), meaning to "follow the model of." "Learning" is not one person's blind solo practice; it requires "emulation." Emulate what? The "sage," of course. "Calibrate" must include at least two indispensable aspects: 1) comparison; 2) correction. "Compare" yourself against the "sage," learn from and emulate the sage so as to become a "sage" yourself. But this kind of "learning" and "emulating" is not fixed and once-for-all; it requires constant "correction." Like a watch—after you set it by a time signal, it doesn't stay accurate forever; you must constantly "correct" it, or the watch will develop significant deviation.
And since Confucian thought is one of active engagement with the world, this work of "correction" is not merely "comparing" against the "sage's" theory but must be directed at reality. Divorced from reality, there is no "correction," and no "learning." And "learning" in reality is necessarily collective—in modern terminology, social. Therefore, the complete meaning of the word "learn" is: hearing "the Way of the sage," seeing "the Way of the sage," "comparing" against the "sage," and constantly "correcting" in real society. Only this can barely be called "learning."
Regarding "learn" in "to learn and at due times practice," here is a summary:
Q: What is learning? A: Hearing "the Way of the sage," seeing "the Way of the sage," "comparing" against the "sage," and constantly "correcting" in real society.
Q: Who learns? A: The gentleman.
Q: What is learned? A: The Way of becoming a "sage."
Q: What can learning lead to? A: A "sage."
(To be continued)
Strict prohibition against plagiarism—violators will be prosecuted
Replies
缠中说禅 2006/10/15 22:18:55
[Anonymous] 5131k
Misinterpreting Confucius or misinterpreting The Analects—please clarify.
==============
Confucius and The Analects—one yet two, two yet one.
缠中说禅 2006/10/19 15:52:05
Announcement Everything this ID writes in "Detailed Analysis of The Analects — For All Who Have Misinterpreted Confucius" breaks new ground no one has covered before. Arrangements have been made for publication after the series is complete, so the serialization will only appear on this ID's blog. Please refrain from reposting if possible; if you must repost, be sure to credit the source, lest we have to file copyright lawsuits later.
Strict prohibition against plagiarism—violators will be prosecuted
缠中说禅 2006/10/14 12:34:59
Plagiarism is rampant these days. Everything this ID writes breaks new ground no one has covered before. If anyone plagiarizes in the future, please help collect evidence.