The JunZi and the Trigrams

[meng]

Lindsay, I kinda think there are 64 truths found in the Yijing. That they are obvious and observable all around us makes them no less of a truth. All they require is a context. In addition, isn't the Yijing really a book of stories and metaphors? And isn't that what the Bible and Koran also are? As well as the Bhagavadgita and Spiderman?

 

[Sparhawk]

Why can't the Yijing be considered a religious work in the same vein as the Bible or Koran? I would say it can be, if it is regarded as a 'legitimate spiritual message, which comes to our planet.' Or perhaps none of them 'came to our planet'. Perhaps they originated here entirely from the mind of man. In which case, what makes them sacred or religious but those who follow them religiously?

Interesting POV... Personally, I'd like to reply: "Because it isn't." I can't find any theological concepts in it, unless I want to follow some sort of "natural theology" path derived from it, which would be fine, if it wasn't that anyone with the proper kind of neurons can do the same with a book on "chaos theory". I mean, anyone, so inclined, will find God anywhere.

 

[Sparhawk]

Luis - 'a few transcription errors' is what I want to believe, actually. And that's why, as I continue to work on my own rendition of the Yi, that it continues to fall more and more closely in line with the structure of the Kangxi version, and why I try to harmonize it with the meaning of that version as well. But if the Yi is a work that has evolved over time in the hands of the people who understood it and used it and loved it, then why should that process stop now? I would trust my judgement to make a change if people like you and Brad and Lindsay and Hilary were convinced it was a positive change.

Dobro, I've no arguments against that, really. I've only a comment and is to point out that one thing is "evolution" and another one is "revisionism". There's a tenuous, very thin line dividing those two.

 

[fkegan]

Didn't Christianity only become a religion after the death of Christ. The story of Christ and his death could not be told till after his death, and his death seems to form a pretty big part of his message doesn't it ?

That is one of the big questions in Christianity--The Historical Jesus (by Crossan) vs. Constantine's confusion of Deus Solus meaning Only God or also considered his mother's cult of the The Sun God (how Christmas gets to be 25 December, the victory of the light and birthday of the Sun God) vs. Aquinas' notions that everything must fit together (Aristotle and Aquinas both describing God's work). Each of the three totally mutually exclusive, but now part of modern Christianity.

The trouble when Buddha died was political. Rulers with armies came to collect his body to add to their treasures. Then after 500 years there was a lament over the Original Truth of the Buddha being lost ... and blamed upon the wrong sorts of folks being allowed into the Community (Buddha's universality disturbed later monks).

It seems there is generally a problem in communication and transmission. I suspect most folks don't understand what others (even the Great Teacher in their recent history) have to say which tends to get more and more obvious as the original, revered teacher is no longer around to correct others.

That is why it is nice that the Yi can be understood from its structure and sequence first and then the various commentaries and their transcription errors seen as just layers of poetic costume added to fit the fashion of the day. Of course confusing costume for living person or even deeper eternal process has its problems too.

Much of this delightful thread is actually a discussion of the nature of the Occult or divination which is subjective and eternal and grounded in the relevant person involved... something like Jesus' "Before Moses Was..I AM" though we tend to be a little less in your face about it with our oracles.

Overall, I suggest the one thing we should be able to agree with and upon IS...

a chocolate and cognac cake from Waitrose, who really understand the way of the junzi.

Cake of chocolate and cognac! Three great cultural epitomes in one. Cake the essential ritual vehicle of the Indo-European gentile pagans (why Western custom still dresses in white with a ceremonial cake for weddings). Chocolate the contribution of the rest of the world to ultimate food magic and delight. Cognac--the accidental discovery that Champagne could be made even better by distillation and aging--the ultimate modern addition to the Sacred. And overall, the junzi as a purely personal, subjective experience like eating a cake of both strong and subtle favors, textures and ingredients like a truly excellent Oracle...

Frank

 

[turtlfur]

Who is the junzi

xinshu
是故明君而君子，貴尚學道而賤下獨思也

To be a bright (enlightened) ruler that is jūnzǐ, one must value and esteem study of the dao and furthermore one must not place value on one's personal or individual thoughts also.

I feel that one of the most defining characteristics of the junzi is his consideration for others. He is a ruler of himself in that he subordinates his egotism, taking care of those around him, putting his needs last.

Also he is perpetually striving to cultivate his spirit, unceasingly, just like the eternal revolutions of the sun, moon and stars.

He stands between heaven and earth, and mediates between the sacred and secular worlds.

He is a living embodiment of De, 德 which can be translated in so many ways........
virtue, power. none of the english words do it justice, but anyone who has read the dao de jing knows something about De.

De appears in 14/64 lines of the Da Xiang (or image texts of the Great Treatise). So it is certainly significant to consider "de" when we are thinking about the junzi.....

more to come

 

[maremaria]

.....putting his needs last.

what do you mean by that ?

 

[turtlfur]

The junzi puts the needs of the community above the needs of his individual ego or selfish desires.

 

[bradford]

The junzi puts the needs of the community above the needs of his individual ego or selfish desires.

Who makes up all them rules for him to follow?

 

[meng]

This is why I think that the ruling characteristics of a junzi is determined by the nature of that individual, and not by the law of Moses nor dharma of Buddha. If selflessness puts to work your more subtle/refined nature, then it’s good to exercise it. But if you follow the path of (let’s say) an animal, then it is the law of that animal which manifests the junzi in you.

 

[heylise]

if you follow the path of (let’s say) an animal, then it is the law of that animal which manifests the junzi in you.

The ideal of putting others before yourself is a morality of “majority decides”. In a community where many people live close to each other, this morality gets the upper hand. Not especially in the soul of people, but in their conscious wish to be ‘good’.

And in those circumstances, which are fairly safe, it is an excellent moral. It is the best way to survive all together.

When these same people are suddenly thrust in a jungle where nobody else helps them, it does not survive very long. And if it does, the individual does not survive very well. The jungle of the slums in big cities proves it, hardly anybody there adheres this morality.

It is a very good moral, for survival of the group as a whole, it is indispensable. But for the survival of the individual putting his own needs first can be just as valuable.

So I don’t think anyone can make any rules for the JunZi, because nobody can reckon with all circumstances. One of the talents of the JunZi is, in my eyes, exactly that he adapts everywhere, and finds the best course of action wherever he is.

LiSe

 

[hilary]

xinshu
是故明君而君子，貴尚學道而賤下獨思也

To be a bright (enlightened) ruler that is jūnzǐ, one must value and esteem study of the dao and furthermore one must not place value on one's personal or individual thoughts also.

Hi Turtlfur. Thank you for the quotation - can you say more about the source?

Off-topic drift begins here:

LiSe, are you sure that the ideal of putting others before oneself is just an artefact of a society's survival instinct? Can't it also do something good for the survival of the individual? Not in the sense of material survival, having more to eat and not being eaten, but in the sense of keeping the whole self alive?

Depends what aspect of oneself is relegated to second place, I suppose. Turtlfur was talking about 'the needs of his individual ego or selfish desires'. Like 'I want a bigger TV, take your charity appeal somewhere else,' presumably.

 

[fkegan]

Junzi in terms of ideals or Tao

Hi Hilary,
I have finished reading your new Ebook and even looked up Jun Zi in the index before posting now. Nice to have everything directly connected to this term in one place.

I would suggest a Confucian and Taoist split in the interpretation. For the Confucian, the junzi is made of finer clay, not by birth solely, but by achievement of Confucian ideals.

To the Taoist, the junzi is in tune with the Tao rather than merely objective considerations including Confucian dogma. It would be a matter of intent and ability to perceive where the Tao leads now. At times serving one's own interest may be what is called for, at times the Tao requires realizing that other interests are truly what will serve you best, not a time to cling to the separation of individual from others.

Frank

 

[heylise]

LiSe, are you sure that the ideal of putting others before oneself is just an artefact of a society's survival instinct? Can't it also do something good for the survival of the individual? Not in the sense of material survival, having more to eat and not being eaten, but in the sense of keeping the whole self alive?

Depends what aspect of oneself is relegated to second place, I suppose. Turtlfur was talking about 'the needs of his individual ego or selfish desires'. Like 'I want a bigger TV, take your charity appeal somewhere else,' presumably.

No, course not an artefact. It is a big and good ideal, but in modern life, which is often without direct life-threatening dangers, it is raised up too high. As if everything else is selfishness. That happens a lot and then I protest. I see two realms which each have their qualities.

In regard to the junzi, I take it for granted that he can at least master his selfishness.

LiSe

 

[hilary]

Got it.

One of the talents of the JunZi is, in my eyes, exactly that he adapts everywhere, and finds the best course of action wherever he is.

I agree completely. The one in the Daxiang seems to me to be like this - embodying the energies of the landscape, which lead to completely different ways of being according to the time.

 

[meng]

Like 'I want a bigger TV, take your charity appeal somewhere else,' presumably.

Giving to the charity would still be giving to ones own selfish needs, just a more subtle and refined expression of it. Hanging upside down on a cross as a martyr for the sake of your belief, likewise.

And while the ego isn't all there is, it's all we've got to express our individual self with. Even to present a noble idea such as selflessness, it is just a more subtle and refined expression of ego.

 

[bradford]

So I don’t think anyone can make any rules for the JunZi, because nobody can reckon with all circumstances. One of the talents of the JunZi is, in my eyes, exactly that he adapts everywhere, and finds the best course of action wherever he is. LiSe

Got it. I agree completely. The one in the Daxiang seems to me to be like this - embodying the energies of the landscape, which lead to completely different ways of being according to the time.

I think these are the most important observations of the thread so far.
Screw the moralizing rules - this is the Book of Changes, not the Book of Fixations.
Shun Dong, adaptive movement, characterizes his behavior. As to the noblesse oblige,
that just goes with the nobility, zi ran with anyone capable of gratitude.

 

[meng]

Agrees. :bows:

 

[Sparhawk]

Screw the moralizing rules - this is the Book of Changes, not the Book of Fixations.

Amen! :bows:

 

[fkegan]

Now that we have dispatched the moralizing rules and fixations... anyone care about the relationship between the trigram imagery and the Confucian innovation of the junzi as human symbol or exemplar of idealized wise conduct?

For example, hex 10 Image notes that the trigrams Lake and Heaven have clear differences in elevation (although both tend upward, since the Lake is evaporating water vapor under the influence of Solar flux). The Junzi thus notices what is the true status (elevation) of folks and makes clear distinctions of social rank that follow this natural or inherent elevation or topographical reality.

There's a mix of trigram metaphors and junzi idealism. A lake under the clear sky is indeed an image of natural elevation or status even though off at the horizon the waterline is hard to perceive and the difference between the sky and the reflection upon the water does come together. However even with such difficulty at the distant horizon, right here and now the distinction between sky above and lake below is easy. There is something to be said for taking this as a metaphor for the Junzi making clear the true nature and worth of each person.

Frank

 

[turtlfur]

I feel that the "moralizing rules" that we are talking about are more flexible than they seem. The Junzi's virtues in the Da Xiang have roots in the philosophy of Confucius, which many people feel is authoritarian and rigid. But I don't really see it that way.

There are many ways to read Confucius; some see his philosophy as rigid and others (such as Herbert Fingarette) see it as mystical. In my experience, I have found that these Confucian "rules for morality" which may seem strict are almost invariably based on circumstance. A closer look at the virtues of Confucius reveals this idea (what is appropriate or righteous in one situation is not necessarily right in another). Yet there is an overarching theme for the Confucian Junzi which is that he constantly strengthens himself through self-cultivation, which (directly or indirectly) benefits all people (as well as himself).

So in a sense there are no moralizing rules, per se, but there are methods through which human beings can harmonize with nature and achieve a state of grace. The DaXiang presents us with these methods which are employed by the Junzi based on the energetic pattern represented by the image of each hexagram.

 

[meng]

Hi turtlfur,

I'd like to believe that, that Confucius' doctrine was at all an open one. Though I have nothing against Confucius (I'd count myself blessed ten times to sit in his company), I can't help but to cock a suspicious eyebrow to the suggestion that moralizing rules can be flexible.

 

[Sparhawk]

I can't help but to cock a suspicious eyebrow to the suggestion that moralizing rules can be flexible.

Put that way, sounds a little oxymoronic, doesn't it?

 

[hilary]

Happy to see the dragon has found new inspiration!

Giving to the charity would still be giving to ones own selfish needs, just a more subtle and refined expression of it. Hanging upside down on a cross as a martyr for the sake of your belief, likewise.

And while the ego isn't all there is, it's all we've got to express our individual self with. Even to present a noble idea such as selflessness, it is just a more subtle and refined expression of ego.

there is an overarching theme for the Confucian Junzi which is that he constantly strengthens himself through self-cultivation, which (directly or indirectly) benefits all people (as well as himself).

So maybe self-cultivation = making one's selfishness subtler and more refined?

 

[maremaria]

Isn’t self-cultivation an expression of selfness ?

There is a choice Junzi has to make. Between all the things or people around him he choose what is best for him. What it’ll make him make the next step towards the path or just stay in his path.

I’m not really well informed what Tao or Confucius says Junzi is but the Junzi I have in my mind is someone who is selfish and passionate. He loves his self, his life and the Life. Maybe his “role” is not to take care of the “community” but to inspire community to take care of itself.

 

[meng]

It depends on the individual's true nature. That's why fixed rules don't apply to the general description of junzi. Someone's nature/dao/genius may in fact be selflessness. I think we all have had the good fortune to have met someone like this at least once during our lives. Another's nature/dao/genius may be loud and dynamic. Another's may be both, or neither, depending on the time and circumstance.

I have a problem/issue/whatever, when anyone tries to portray 'the superior person' of any culture or belief as necessarily being this demure, quiet, selfless dude; as though the path to sagehood means taking no risks, never speaking out against popular opinions, never challenging the mores, or never questioning the "facts". No offense to anyone, but that seems like a really dull junzi, and not one I'd care to learn from or go see.

 

[Sparhawk]

I have a problem/issue/whatever, when anyone tries to portray 'the superior person' of any culture or belief as necessarily being this demure, quiet, selfless dude; as though the path to sagehood means taking no risks, never speaking out against popular opinions, never challenging the mores, or never questioning the "facts". No offense to anyone, but that seems like a really dull junzi, and not one I'd care to learn from or go see.

A "make no waves" dude as a metaphor for Junzi? I don't think so and I agree with you. He's got "change" written all over him. Perhaps, being a Junzi is more a matter of correctly "timing" his/her changes, while keeping in mind ethical concerns.

 

[fkegan]

A "make no waves" dude as a metaphor for Junzi? I don't think so and I agree with you. He's got "change" written all over him. Perhaps, being a Junzi is more a matter of correctly "timing" his/her changes, while keeping in mind ethical concerns.

The Junzi would have great timing since he is at one with the Tao.

He is also an imaginative narrative example--a literary fiction which allows the Junzi to have only the highlighted ideal qualities without all the rest of the humanity that complicates flesh-and-blood folks one might actually might or interact with somehow.

Confucius' innovation was to apply traditional trigram imagery to this narrative device, to create the Junzi metaphor. The ugly Confucians after his time and operating within the Establishment or the Imperial Civil Service tried to make these snippets of imagination into objective rules to be followed. Whether these are terrible things or just simplifying assumptions probably depends upon one's context. Working in the Imperial Civil Service and trying to avoid getting in trouble those screwable rigid moralisms probably worked better than they do for free citizens outside a cubicle today.

Frank

 

[meng]

Ethics is something I'm interested in hearing more about, as it pertains to the junzi. Especially the contrast between ethics and moral rules.

 

[maremaria]

(The Junzi is a dancer, dancing in his path and his movements perfectly attuned with the rhythm of the/his music )

 

[Sparhawk]

Ethics is something I'm interested in hearing more about, as it pertains to the junzi. Especially the contrast between ethics and moral rules.

A little detour but somewhat on topic, here is an interesting post by Manyul Im:

While I’m thinking of it, here’s something that occurred to me while I was at the APA meetings last week, listening to Stephen Angle and Michael Slote talking about Bryan van Norden’s book, Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism in Early Chinese Philosophy (also reviewed on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews here). I wondered how things would look if instead of trying to read Confucius, Mencius, Mozi, Xunzi, or other Chinese philosophers as virtue ethicists, Aristotelians, Humeans, Kantians, or consequentialists someone did a close comparative exegesis from the other direction: try to read Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Mill, Hursthouse, Slote, or some other Western philosopher as a Confucian, a ritualist, a Mohist, or Daoist. That’s probably a bit of the crank in me being tired of the philosophical taxonomy game that seems only concerned with assimilating Chinese philosophy into Western ethical theory.
On the other hand, I’m on record (comment #23) saying that “philosophy” is really a Western concept. So, maybe it’s really that I’m tired of the taxonomy game in either direction when it’s not clear what that gets us. So what if Mencius is more like Aristotle than Hume, or vice versa? Why not just try to understand Mencius as Mencian and just leave it at that? Am I just being cranky or missing something of value in the taxonomy enterprise?

BTW, some mind-bending discussions in that blog...