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