38.K'uei / Opposition

[trojan]

(hmm your dragon got fat and lazy Luis, mellow though )

[sparhawk]

Originally Posted by trojan

(hmm your dragon got fat and lazy Luis, mellow though )

Sure, get closer...

[charly]

Originally Posted by sparhawk

... I'll pay attention to the parsing in the received work I mentioned. But, that's me. Other can, and will, play as they wish... And yes, Dobro is a parsing libertine ...

Luis:

The learned collective was so committed with centuries of confucian philosophy that although they didn't change the words, they could have put the dots according with their social, political and philosophical interests.

It was hard to change the words, the text was memorized by too much learned people. But the original text was not parsed, adding alternatives of reading to the polysemics of the words.

There was no single message, thus the text didn't need more accuracy than the provided by the use of parallellisms.

I encourage you to try alternative parsing and observe the results. Maybe this parser tool can be useful for the task:



«Blood will fall as rain»

Un abrazo,

Carlos

[charly]

Originally Posted by sparhawk

Moooving along...

Luis:

Please, analyze this:

見輿曳其牛掣其人。
See charriage pulling its ox, snatching its man.

Something like the apprentice of sorcerer, things get life, the customary order is subverted. the ox before the cart, the passenger kidnaped...

天且劓。
Heaven, moreove, nose cut-off.
... moreover, abandoned by the heavens
... moreover, heaven punished [him]
... moreover, heaven [has his] nose cut-off → has the face of Death (1)




abrazo,


Charly
__________________

(1) «la Ñata» = The Death , «la quinta 'el Ñato» = Cementery

[sparhawk]

Originally Posted by charly

The learned collective was so committed with centuries of confucian philosophy that although they didn't change the words, they could have put the dots according with their social, political and philosophical interests.

It was hard to change the words, the text was memorized by too much learned people. But the original text was not parsed, adding alternatives of reading to the polysemics of the words.

Carlos,

It really tickles me to death the ongoing effort of stripping Confucius and his school from the Yijing, like some kind of taint soiling the work. As if one should wash the mouth after uttering his name... As it is, the Yijing IS a Confucian Classic. The Zhouyi is another story. From whatever old extant exegesis we have available, that school has been commenting the Yi (Zhouyi) from a time earlier than the oldest version of the Yi found thus far (Mawangdui). There is no Yijing without the Confucian School. Furthermore, what we have received is the Yijing, not the Zhouyi proper, which remains a mystery other than a few quotes found in old history records like the Zuo Zhuan. We do have a proposed separation of the Zhouyi text, what it perhaps looked like, within the received YIJING itself, which comes from what classical school?? Yes, the Confucian School. So, if we follow that train of thought, how do we know the whole thing, all the text received and attributed to the original Zhouyi--and we are talking about the text here--, isn't a Confucian fabrication in its entirety? Can we trust them to tell us that the Tuan Ci and Yao Ci is the original Zhouyi part of the Yijing but distrust them in the parsing of the text?

So, my point is, dismissing the received parsing of the text because of the possibility of it being a biased pipe-dream of a bunch of Neo-Confucians under the orders of the Kangxi Emperor, is in itself a biased, non-objective view, in the opposite direction, of their work.

As I've said, or at least implied, I'm not a revisionist regarding the received Chinese text of the Yijing. And I'm not because if we are going to revise the text, then we have to revise the whole classic, not only the attributed Zhouyi part of it. At that point we may as well realize to be holding water in our hands as the reality of the Yijing itself will shift. Mind you, I'm the first one in line to bury my head in obscure books, searching for the historical origins of the text, however, at some point I realized that I had to separate the material studied from the received text as they are, although related, completely separate entities.

On the other hand, anyone is free to play with the text. Just don't expect serious arguments of interpretation based on the free-handling of it as it will be only a game...



Un abrazo,

[dobro]

Originally Posted by sparhawk

And yes, Dobro is a parsing libertine...

Now, now, Sparhawk - you KNOW that the original Zhou oracle didn't have punctuation and you KNOW that the H-Y version is simply and only one version of how to do it. And you also KNOW that God gave us our brains in order that we use them. Or is this becoming a religious discussion again?

I've got a lot of respect for the H-Y version, but I see no reason why I should believe they've got the parsing right when none of us on this board believe that *anybody* has the translation right. If there can be variations of translations, why not of parsing as well? Or should we follow the Confucian tradition no matter what our onboard intelligence tells us?

[charly]

Originally Posted by sparhawk

... It really tickles me to death the ongoing effort of stripping Confucius and his school from the Yijing,...

Luis:

First the first: I'm not trying to purge Confucius from the Yijing. Maybe Confucius didn't like the YI, I don't see him as a diviner but a person prone to think about civil rights and duties. Neither the sort of persons that wrote the YI nor the sort of persons that used it.

Much of the things that later confucianist presented as universal principles were only contingent points of view, not valid for all the times, not valid for all the places, not valid for all the peoples. One of it, the place of women in society.

The Kangxi editors made a layered book. Any confucian wrote the book from the begining, any confucian pretend having done this. All of them presented the core text as a very earlier book.They never pretend to amend this book, only to comment it.

By way of interpretations and commentaries and, maybe, some changes of words, they got a message according whith their own opinions.

But nobody challenged the old book. We have the right to read this book, and to know what it says, not what we are told that it says.

...

Are you shure that the KangXi edition has all the little funny circles? If I remember well, I have seen bookprints from KangXi times without any punctuation mark. I'm not sure.

For moving a dot the sky doesn't go to fall over your head. Worse things has been made with the YI.

Un abrazo,

Charly

[trojan]

So what is 38.3 all about then.

[trojan]

or shall we just head on to 38.4

[martin]

Whatever the Chinese, Confucians or not, wrote about the hexagrams and lines, it's only their interpretation and their (necessarily imperfect) wording of the meaning of the hexagrams and lines.
So it's okay to try to discover what they actually wrote, but it's not holy bible, isn't it?

The word, the name, Chinese or English, is not the thing, the hexagram or the line.
If you want to know what the 'thing' really means, well, you can only discover that through experience with it.
Analyzing the Chinese text, although it might be fun, is not going to help beyond a certain point.