Alo and De Xing #121
(PD) Alo and De Lake on Land.
Copyright ©2019 April 07, 2019
Alo: While rereading some of my translations, I paused again at a reference of contrasts... first sentence, easy... 'Zi say: Junzi bosom virtue-goodness, tiny people bosom earthen-products'... or, as we might say today, 'junzi bosom walk-virtue, tiny people bosom materialism'. Two sentences, each presenting contrasts... first sentence's walk-virtue is as a contrast of materialist hoarding... second sentence, returned my mind to questioning the original intentions... 'Junzi bosom justice, tiny people bosom favor'. The original word, that we have given the term 'justice', more explicitly implies 'punishment' in modern dictionaries... often said to imply 'harm, punishment, rule by law' and others... there, I pause, and question the author's original meaning...
Yan: Yes, the ancient word, composed of two roots... 'open' and a 'utensil'... both roots, suggest physical harm... the word, regardless of how we might prefer otherwise, does appear to point to physical harm... like, a physical punishment... I had paused on that word also...
Alo: Yes... contrasting 'punishment' to the idea of 'favor', is a good enough contrast, but... the idea of 'junzi bosom punishment'? It would, of course, depend on the circumstances of why an individual might deserve punishment, but still, to hold the thing in one's heart, no, that conflicts with the idea of what a junzi is supposed to be. The heart is as the seat of creative emotions... the heart, is as the ocean of where the best of values exist... the heart, is as from where love glows... to insert an emotion of external physical punishment into the heart, then that would fully destroy one's own virtues, love, and centeredness. Either the ancient word implied something different than 'punishment', or else the whole of all ancient words fall.
Yan: Perhaps, the ancient word was commonly used differently within the ancient culture... perhaps, the ancient word might have been similar to how many people today, while being playfully feisty, might say 'I'm going to kill you!', but actually mean something like 'I'm going to pester and tease and tickle you!'. My hope, is that the ancient word was used similarly softly, and vague...
Alo: Yes, agreed... but still, even if we choose the softer synonyms, like 'rule by law', even that gives harm to the heart... laws, are as mental, mental choices, not from the heart... and yes, justice is important... fairness, is important... holding a sense of fairness within the heart, it is as an inner balance... a centeredness... an inner harmony of ingredients... but the sense of fairness is as the judge of mental choices, and not the judging itself...
Yan: Agreed... foundation of fairness first... foundation, balance, is inside, foundation is of one's own qualities... but to choose laws and punishments, those are directed and chosen towards external things... curve of purpose, and curve of application, are different than the outward curves of giving love... warmth of heart, gives love... heart not be warm if giving punishment...
Alo: Precisely... giving love, gives heart... gives all of one's self to another... and it is irrational to me to accept the idea of 'punishment is the giving of heart'. 'Give an emotion of punishment'? When I attempt to create a sense of what the ancient words might mean if we accepted the word to imply 'punishment', about all that I myself am able to find is a thing that I might term to be something similar to 'rage'... some, form, of angry violence...
Yan: Agreed, and, if the ancient word did indeed imply 'bosom punishment', then, like you said, the idea nullifies the whole of the idea of what a junzi is supposed to be... nullifies centeredness... nullifies all interpretations of virtue, morality, goodness, and inner balance...
Alo: 'Fairness'... if only the ancient book had used a word that implied 'fairness', or 'balance', then all of the other words would be of harmony... but, no... the book appears to have used a word connected to external physical harm to another person, and far worse, implied that the word should be held to one's bosom... surely there must be a different interpretation of the word. Known synonyms, are somewhat more reasonable, but still stretch the imagination... 'junzi bosom achievement, tiny man bosom benefit'... that could work, weakly, but still, it feels inadequate...
De: Woman, child, symbols, together... can mean 'good'... use, 'open' and 'utensil' symbols together... what can mean today?
Alo: To use a utensil to open a box... access what is inside the box... also can use the utensil to open vegetables... different synonym says 'a die that is used in casting'... that could also work, but, I suspect that the synonym was not born until recent centuries... I doubt that the ancients had nuts and bolts... although, still, there, the idea of 'opening one's self' could be valid, although, still not fit the sentences' structure...
De: Access? Find what, is inside?
Jun: Find heart's inside... study, self?
Yan: There, all suggestions are useful and valid, but the sentence structures still appear to be suggesting something different...
Alo: Yes, precisely... the sentences' structures themselves dictate which synonym is to be chosen... first sentence, junzi possess inner quality, tiny man desires outer non-quality... second sentence, junzi possess inner something, tiny man desires outer benefit, or an outer favor... the idea of 'punishment' is an outer thing, not an inner thing... the idea then, is to look for something that is a contrast to an external materialist benefit or favor...
De: Self-achieve... self-opening... maybe, something, nearing, self-law... self-punishment... but, still, our modern idea of punishment, cannot be good...
Alo: Agreed... self-punishing, is not creative... self-correcting, yes, but not self-punishing... all wrong...
Yan: To me, any synonym that points to 'law' or 'punishment', cannot be acceptable... like what you have already said, if the word points to an outer harm of another person, then the word cannot fit the sentences... all becomes contradictory... all falls as worthless...
Alo: Agreed... 'open'... 'access'... implies, reaching in to grasp the wanted thing... the other synonyms, 'model, example'... better, but still outer... and so my thoughts return to the idea of 'justice' being given the adjoining concept of 'fairness'... if punishment is supposed to be fairness of one's bad behavior, then, maybe that would be closer, as well as be somewhat compatible with the idea of holding the thing in one's bosom...
Yan: Ancient culture, maybe like today... old word, 'irregardless', means, 'regardless', but spoken with an additional emotional tone that implies a strength of being regardless... irregardless carries the 'i-r' as a prefix, similar to other words like 'irreplaceable'... sort of a doubly-expressed negative, while actually implying to not be a double negative... older people still use the word, the word still has meaning as spoken, but the word looks irrational when read... maybe the ancient word might be similar... the ancient word, somewhat similar of pronunciation to another ancient word that points of inner character, 'xing', of inner achieve... maybe, whoever wrote the ancient word, mistakenly wrote the wrong word... might could have originally implied 'junzi bosom inner character, tiny man bosom outer benefit'... if, that were plausible, then, sentences have meaning...
Alo: Very much agreed... then, a chidao interpretation, that strives to retain harmony throughout the book, might choose similar words as what you said... 'Master say: Junzi bosom inner-virtue-goodness, tiny people bosom outer-earthen-materialism. Junzi bosom inner-character-achieve, tiny people bosom outer-materialist-benefit'... not perfect, nor comfortable, but the underlying concept is true... junzi, his goal, is what is held within his heart... outsiders, their goal, is what is held within their hands...
De: 'To pierce the heart'...
Alo: Precisely... and, now, to toss a monkey wrench inside of all, what if, the first sentence implied junzi bosom an outward thing? No known society has ever known the difference between ethics, morals, and virtue... some ancient books speak of virtue and filial piety as being external behaviors, without any consideration of one's own heart... and so, the sentences then might read as 'Master say: Junzi bosom outer-moral-behavior, tiny people bosom outer-earthen-materialism. Junzi bosom outer-justice-law-punishment, tiny people bosom outer-materialist-favor-benefit'...
Yan: Ouch... yes, if we accept the common modern definition of virtue, then the sentences mean something fully different, and fall much harder as well...
Alo: Yes, and fall immediately... entire book falls... entire ancient culture falls... the whole of all ancient words, falls... all because of, only, one single word...
Yan: The world philosophy, it is already worthless because of not knowing what 'virtue' means... that would be very depressing if other philosophies also fell for the same reason...
Alo: There, and that is why we have chosen the chidao interpretations... to make use of beautiful ancient words, to choose interpretations that enable harmony, and to enable the words to have meaning... meaning, that is real, and not a meaning that is flat of only what the eyes can see... if a man, and his words, cannot feel his own heart, and have no centeredness, then his words are flat... not so much as know the difference between inner and outer... worthless...
De: Maybe... 'Zi say: Junzi's heart, walk-virtue... tiny people's heart, hungers for materialism. Junzi's heart, inner-balance... tiny people's heart, imbalanced weight of selfish favor'...
Alo: And very true... very true, and logical, to what is real in this Reality... reasoning the words differently, would be illogical, irrational, not relate to what is real in Nature... and here, look again at the word's symbols... first symbol, can imply 'even'... can imply two stems, or lengths, of equal size... second symbol, implies a knife... numerous possibles, but is this not an idea of 'equal cut'? An equal cut, is a mental judgment... fairness... an internal weighing of balance... does not have to be external... and too, what of 'favor'? Does that not also begin with the tiny person not having a balance of heart and mind?
Yan: Yes, inferior of mental ability, if not able to balance evenly...
Alo: Then, perhaps, best to choose 'Junzi bosom even-cut'... agrees with De's idea of inner balance... agrees with all ancient texts' ideas of inner balance... ancient use of the word, may have been a metaphor, or slang, to imply a similar idea, but unknowable for certain today...
Yan: Fairness... all but an unknown today... most people want something for nothing... not able to mentally think with balance...
Jun: Not able, self-think...
Yan: Yes, precisely... east man, he had written 'the superior man thinks of virtue, the small man thinks of comfort... the superior man thinks of the sanctions of law, the small man thinks of favors which he may receive'... a different translation spoke of junzi being a ruler, like a king or prince... the translation phrased the words to imply something like 'rulers value law, while slaves value easy treatment from the rulers'... but here, in both cases, the idea of 'junzi' is removed from the individual having good inner qualities, while the focus is placed upon a subservience to a master-slave system of caste... the translations fully destroy the whole of the ancient books... all, ancient books...
Alo: And there again, if a translation does not retain harmony with the book's surrounding sentences, then the translation is incoherent... illogical... does not relate to what is real in this Reality... does indeed destroy all value that the book may have had.
Yan: Agreed... and, if, the book's other words... including the term 'junzi'... were then interpreted to also imply governments, rulers, and slaves, then that also means that the book's alleged 'superior man' must have been similarly ignorant... the so-called 'superior man' would have held his rank solely upon the grade of being born into the ruling families... the 'superior man' would then possess less virtue and fairness than the so-called' inferior' people...
Alo: Precisely... selfishness is a mental act that is not balanced relative to what is real in Nature, selfishness is destructive to self and nation, selfishness renders the rulers to be inferior of intelligence... and there, relative to what is real in Nature, and, what must be used as the sole standard of what is right and what is wrong, any translation that does not permit 'junzi' to have quality inner traits, must then be grossly illogical, grossly contradictory, grossly incoherent, and grossly inferior of intelligence.
Yan: Very much agreed... the east man, in the sentence before, had said 'the superior man, in the world, does not set his mind either for anything, or against anything; what is right he will follow'... in the following sentence, the east man said 'he who acts with a constant view to his own advantage will be much murmured against'... and there, as we have witnessed within all modern translations of all ancient texts, all of the translators contradicted their own words from sentence to sentence, often within the same sentence... literally, the translators' phrasings were what would be expected from seriously ill old people suffering of dementia.
Alo: Agreed... and, also, reading the words, is similarly harmful to the reader as is attempting to rationalize an ill person's spoken words of dementia...
Yan: But all translations, available to the public, are of dementia... none are coherent... perhaps... perhaps, merely the way of outsiders... not able to think...
Alo: All outsider writings... all outsider philosophies... all outsider ideologies... all government school topics... all are similar... all in direct opposition to what is real within this Reality... none, agree with Nature's way... none logical... none, within harmony, with anything, except, of course, perpetual incoherence. But also, and more importantly... if junzies were to 'bosom law', then all junzies are quite stupid... all man-made laws can change... all man-made laws do change... and if a law can be changed, then the law was never valid, and never rational. The only laws that cannot be changed, and are always valid, are Nature's laws... if a junzi does not base his reasoning upon the standard of Nature's laws, then the junzi is an ignorant person... incoherent... dementia...
Yan: The global religion, it teaches 'cause and effect'... it teaches, 'conservation of energy'... all outsiders worship the global religion, and claim that the global religion's words are true truth, but... all outsiders also claim that they are able to receive an infinity of material rewards and magical powers in an afterlife... the energy necessary to enable the magical powers, from where could it arrive? The believers in the global religion, contradict their own words... and not able to discern why...
Alo: My sigh... yes...