charles moyer <[log in to unmask]> says,

>     Wei writes, "And Confucius did believe in hate." I ask, Do you mean he
>believed in hate as a reality, an observed phenonmenon, or do you mean that
>he practiced hate himself as a feeling toward someone or something?
>

I am saying that Confucius believed that "inferior people" should be
subservient, should be shunned, kept in their place, and ordered around by
the "Superior Man".  His doctrine does not foster love or cooperation
between individuals, as equals in any sense.  In fact he opposed those who
preached equality or the mixing of classes.  He favored very strict
hierarchy.

For example, he says, "IF the superior man is not grave he will not inspire
awe  . . .  Have no friends who are not as good as yourself."  Compare this
with Christ's teaching.  Christ, when criticized for mixing with "publicans
and sinners," said that it precisely those people who had need of him.
Compare Confucius with his near contemporaries, Mo Tzu (who preached love
for all people, regardless of nationality and social status) and Lao Tzu (
who said the sage is like water, he descends to the lowest depths and
remains pure).

>Confucius, however, also said "If there be a knife of resentment in the
>heart or enduring rancor, the mind will not attain precision". But with an
>unusual persistence you seem  to blame him for everything his followers did
>throughout the ages as if he had done those things himself.

I think if an objective reader studies Confucius HIMSELF as revealed in the
Analects, and reads both sympathetic and critical commentary, he will come
to see that the man himself was EXTREMELY flawed, especially in comparison
with other world class sages, including Christ, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mo Tzu, and
many others.

>This makes as
>much sense as blaming the Inquisition on Christ or the self-immolation of
>Thich Quang Duc on the Buddha or female circumcision on Mohamed.

We should look both at Confucianism and at Confucius and make a distinction,
I agree.  Confucius can be blamed for only certain aspects of Confucianism,
those ideas which are contained in his writing which justify sexism,  rigid
hierarchies, political oppression, absolutisim, mind numbing ritualism, and
superstition.   Sure one can pick out quotes here and there which are nice,
but try reading the Analects all the way through and tell me whether you
honestly feel that CONFUCIUS' OWN PHILOSOPHY can be used to justify anything
other than a feudalist, aristocratic form of government.  I agree that
Christ cannot be blamed for the inquisition (but I do think Paul [Saul] of
Tarus can be blamed for the Southern Baptists' and other Christian sects'
mistreatment and subordination of women--perhaps you heard about the recent
vote by the Southern Baptist convention to forbid female pastors, a decision
based on quotations from "St. Paul".  Confucius made many statements similar
to Paul about the alleged inferiority of women.)  I agree that the
self-immolation of Vietnamese monks cannot be attributed to Buddha's
teaching (but even if it were, that would be an individual decision which
harms no one else, or oppresses no one else--- the essence of Confucian
teaching is "li" , propriety  [social rules] and filial piety, which
essentially means reinforcing social hierarchy in as rigid a form as
possbile).    I agree that Mohammed cannot be blamed for female genital
mutilation  [please don't call it female circumcision, that's a bit like
calling decapitation "cephalic circumcision"].  However, Mohammed does have
the distinction of being one of the few religious founders who sanctioned
and waged war.

>     I must thank you for prompting me to reread "The Great Digest" once
>again, but I have failed to see anything there which is as iniquitous as
>you
>seem to make it out to be. In fact it doesn't even strike me that Confucius
>was as much of an original thinker as as he was someone who believed in the
>great importance of leaving things that already work alone.

The Great Digest (Ta Xue, or Great Learning) was not written by Confucius,
and it is dubious how much of it owes anything to Confucius or to Confucian
teaching.  This is a great controversy.  That said, I think you will agree
that the opening chapter is a justification for the divine right of kings.
The second chapter exhorts readers to follow Chou (the Zhou dynasty ) which
began its rule in 1111 BC  (Both Confucius and Pound praise Zhou).  You said
Confucius believed in "leaving things that already work alone." Far from
that.  He was upset with the way things were going, and urged people to
REVERT to earlier hundreds of years old customs. He was a thorough going
reactionary in the most literal sense of the word in that he wanted everyone
to GO BACK to practices of the Zhou dynasty.   At the time when Confucius
wrote, now historians agree, China was making a transition from a
slave-owning society to feudal society.  The ideological battle was between
those who favored the emerging feudal class (the followers of legalism
fa-xue, invented by Han Fei Tzu) and those who favored the slave owning
class (Confucius and Confucians).

>For example, the
>model of the ax handle is never very far from one's hand. As a woodworker I
>appreciate the practicality of such an astute observation and here agree
>with this "cute moral philosopher".

I have no compaint against woodworking, or the analogy.  But you are aware,
perhaps, that Pound was very very fond of the "axe handle" image, and its
ideogram, Hsin1.  He equated it on several occasions, in published and
unpublished writings, with the "fasces", and with the ideology of fascism.

>     After reading your postings I have also picked up on Lin Yutang who I
>hadn't  read since the 8th. grade in 1957 "Between Tears and Laughter". I
>never forgot this book. Now forty-3 years later reading "The Importance of
>Living" I am confirming what I have always suspected, that Confucius is so
>imbued in the Chinese mind that he among other philosophers as well as a
>great body of folk wisdom and the ideogram itself cannot be subtracted from
>that enduring and vital balance.

I will restrain myself here.  But such praise of Lin Yutang, and putting
forth the notion "Confucius is so imbued in  the Chinese mind"  . . . comes
very close to provoking anger in me.  And frustration.

"The Chinese mind  . . ."  ?  What is this mental construct?  I will put
this as delicately as possible, with great respect for your learning and
sophistication.

There is a common saying in China, which very few Westerners seem to know :
"One hundred Chinese; one hundred different opinions."  There exists a
strong illusion in the West that there is such a thing as a unitary "Chinese
mind."  Lin Yutang was among those who wished to foster the illusion.  If
you would visit China (I don't know, perhaps you have), and if you would
talk to several dozen Chinese on any social, political, or philosophical
matter, you would discover a wide array of beliefs, going across a huge
ideological spectrum.   (Of course, people are reluctant to express such
beliefs to foreigners, because it could be dangerous).  Wide diversity of
opinion has existed throughout Chinese history, despite RIGOROUS attempts to
make it appear otherwise.  In fact the NEED for a Confucian ideology, and an
OFFICIAL state Confucian ideology, has been attributed to the tendency in
China to have diverse opinions.  This has always been seen by officials as a
threat to order. Thus, precisely because Confucius is the most hierachical
philosopher, because he is the greastest believer in ORDER for its own sake,
AND because other philosophers (such as Han Fei Tzu, Lao Tzu, Mo Tzu, Zhuang
Tze, and Buddhist philosphers) challenge vested power relationships, they
have been rejected as tools of statecraft for the most part.

Don't take my word for it, of course.  Do the research yourself.  I highly
recommend:

Wu Tien-wei.  Lin Biao and the Gang of Four:  Contra-Confucianism in
 Historical and Intellectual Perspective.  Carbondale: Southern
 Illinois University Press, 1983.

This book traces the whole issue of Confucius and Confucianism in Chinese
history and politics back to its earliest moments, and then brings it
forward to the period of Cultural Revolution.


I also recommend:

Elman, Benjamin A.  Classicism, Politics, and Kinship:  The Ch'ang-chou
 School of New Text Confucianism in Late Imperial China.  Berkeley:
 University of California Press, 1990.

for a excellent textual approach.  This does for Confucius and Confucian
studies what the early German textual critics did to and for the Bible,
freeing people from many illusions.

But ABOVE ALL , those who praise Confucius, and find merit in Confucian
thought should be fair, and at least make the comparison between Confucius
and his philosophical opponents.  PLEASE read Lao Tzu, Mo Tzu, and Han Fei
Tzu before you decide that Confucius is so wonderful.  (I have found no
evidence that Pound read any, but Confucian Chinese works).

One of the best translations of Lao Tzu's Tao te ching is available at

http://www.tao.ca/mountain/laotse.html

Regards,

Wei





________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com