Confudence (Confucian-confidence)

Tzu-kung asked about government.  Confucius said, “Sufficient food, sufficient armament, and sufficient confidence of the people.”  Tzu-kung said, “Forced to give up one of these, which would you abandon first?”  Confucius said, “I would abandon armament.”  Tzu-kung said, “Forced to give up one of the remaining two, which would you abandon first?”  Confucius said, “I would abandon food.  There have been deaths from time immemorial, but no state can exist without the confidence of the people.”  [Analects 12:7]

In such Analect, we can see that the idea of "confidence" must be instilled to that of the people. Such confidence depicts a satisfaction and contentment of the people to that of the ruler. Well, somehow, it is the trust the people give to their ruler, and such trust is mentioned as the highest considerations in one's state, overlapping the sustenance of necessity and security of the people. As what it have referred, a state can still exist even if it is unsecured and unsupported. But with no confidence of the people, one state can be badly crippled because of the fact that it is not of the ruler which is the real power of the state; for such power is of the people.

Nevertheless, since the trust of the people to the ruler is most to be considered, how can then one (ruler) achieve such? Through consistency and stability, indeed, then is the answer. Consistency of the ruler to be able to implement his principles constantly, without any sign of reluctance or fear. Stability then in the sense, that since the ruler is consistent, his image then, as a ruler can be considered as stable and straight enough to be relied on. In this way, one is indeed effective in being the ruler.

Synthesis Paper #4

           In my previous paper, we discussed about the characteristics of the Chun Tzu and the philosophy of it that is something rooted to our treatment to others; it is the non-preferential act to oneself that constitutes such thought where the attachment to others of the ideal man is the main root that holds on the different facets of things. But then, we can somehow ask ourselves, how about the self, given to the fact that the ideal man gives way to the benefit of others, how can then the ideal man favor his own self? And how can be his concern to his self affect his treatment to the others? We know that one needs to enrich first his own self before that of the others. As what it was said by Ralph Waldo Emerson: "You cannot pour on others the perfume without getting a few drops for yourself first" [1]. Thus, the philosophy that is then demonstrated in Ancient Chinese Philosophy by Confucius in the way he lays out the steps of self-cultivation is the idea that one's own self-development is the vital key to the betterment of the whole society which includes one's relationship with others.

           Such steps of one's self cultivation starts with the idea of learning. The said idea somehow triggers the element of edification; the very education itself. This is the primal pace for it symbolizes the ignition of the fire that will lead to one's development. Yes, it is the beginning where one can be able to realize the importance of gaining knowledge and of thinking. Learning then is the sense of encountering new things or newness in familiar things that will somehow help in adding up more contents to his cognitive aspect as human being. It loads him information that will allow him to unwrap the very things of things; the essence of things indeed. But somehow, it was mentioned by Confucius that, aside from knowing or learning things, one must be able to think of it [2]. To think or somehow reflect to one's knowledge allows one to know whether such are really to be considered as true knowledge or not. Aside from that, the act of thinking out one's learning enables him to grasp not only the learning's solitary value, but also it's relation to other aspects of knowledge, which could somehow justify things up and will enable one to see things more clearly. Nevertheless, even though thinking and learning here are distinct things, it doesn't mean that the presence of one scraps out the other. For actually, both are contributory to each other; the one allows the existence of the other by means of amplifying and strengthening up each other's idea of augmenting one's self.

           Such learning then, as mentioned minimally in the context of thinking, must be then carefully examined for it could somehow be brought up by falsehood or invalidity. This then will give way to the next step which is the investigation of things, where one is to be reminded of two things: First [3], is to know that there is a need to discover and find out things; every nukes and crannies must be unearthed to be able to somehow illustrate the whole. It is acknowledging the importance of the act of dealing deeper to that of a certain thing, leaving no piece or fragment untouched, for such then will unravel the mystery of a thing's entirety. But aside from that, one must also remember that he cannot just discover all of the things, for he must be able to recognize what are the only things that are included to the range of such idea or study [4]. Just like in reading a book, inspection is done in order for one to know whether such idea needs to be elaborated and somehow dealt further with or not. Such is needed though in order to guide one not to be lost or be in danger for having been sophisticated and complex inappropriately. By investigating rightly then, allows one to develop his self in terms of being sensible enough to consider all matters and suitable enough to consider only what is appropriate.

           Since things are now on the right track in making up one self develop to better one, one must observe consistency in his words and actions which is then the third step of nurturing one's self: the act of making the will sincere. Sincerity, as it was associated with consistency, talks about the accurateness and at the same time, the preciseness of one's motives; no speck of refutation or contradiction, just pure confirmation to one's own cause and intention [5].

           Now, such sincerity, in company of learning and proper investigation of things, then gives way to that last step which is the rectification of one's mind. Since one mind already knows and is able to grasp up true learning in it and somehow was able to dissect these learning up in accordance to what is only appropriate, and for the fact that it is observed consistently by means of one's sincerity, the mind can be able to perceive things attentively in accordance to the rules and principles of that of the person. Attentive in the sense that the mind is presently at work, without missing out it's focus to it's grounds as a symbol of uprightness. Yes, being focused enough to it's foundation, for even one's desires are not to be given more value than such of the mind's cause. As what the Master said, "A person who loves learning does not seek appetite nor comfort"[6]. This is just to prove that again, the main concern is the mind and the values, in order to nurture one's self, and not that of mere worldly desires or preferences.

           Thus, the idea that one's own development is the vital key to the betterment of the whole society, which  again includes one's relationship with others, is the very thought of such context of self-cultivation. This is for once one is able to nurture and foster one's self as guided by learning things up, with the assistance of proper investigation of things which will help one to somehow apply appropriateness in such pursuit of self-development that can be justified through consistency and indeed of sincerity of one's motive's which constitutes the attentiveness of the mind in all it's junctures as a medium of cultivation of the self of a person which will then later on give him an avenue to the holistic development of the society he is living in; as well as his relations to that of his fellows.

Chun Tzu: The Idol

For the Master, the ruler must be the role model of the people in his society. He must be able to make his self as a guide which the people in his society will follow and rely on. He also describes the ruler as the one who governs his state by virtue which acts like the north polar star, which remains in place while all the other stars revolve around it [i]. 

The point here is that the ruler must be able to influence the lives of his fellow statesmen in some point that they see the ruler as an exemplar in obtaining good life. Such powerful influence then requires a great deal of responsibility for the ruler, for since the whole society is counting on him, looking at whatever he does, seeing every little things he executes for whatever he does, they will also do. This is because, again, they see him as an example: If he is to do good, the others will do good, but if not, then why would the people do so? Somehow, we can say that the people is dependent and, if I were to use the term, submissive to that of the ruler. And since they follow him (blindly) without even thinking whether what the ruler is doing is good or not, as long as it is the ruler's, the ruler must then be able to equip his self with the the right things for even one single mistake can somehow result to a big societal chaos.

As what the Master also said: "The character of a ruler is like a wind and that of the people is like grass.  In whatever direction the wind blows, the grass always bends.” [ii]. Again, it is the character of a ruler to become influential in a sense that his people follows his way/direction. But again, such influence must be accompanied with the right amount of prudence and concern to that of one's responsibility as an example whose deeds are then followed by that of the people.

 

Confucian FAVORitism...

"...Zilu asked whether he should immediately carry into practice what he heard. The Master said, 'There are your father and elder brothers to be consulted;-- why should you act on that principle of immediately carrying into practice what you hear?' Zan Yu asked the same, whether he should immediately carry into practice what he heard, and the Master answered, 'Immediately carry into practice what you hear.' Gong Xihua [Kung-hsi Hwa] said, 'Yu asked whether he should carry immediately into practice what he heard, and you said, "There are your father and elder brothers to be consulted." Qiu asked whether he should immediately carry into practice what he heard, and you said, "Carry it immediately into practice." I, Chi [Ch'ih], am perplexed, and venture to ask you for an explanation. Confucius said, “Ch’iu is retiring; therefore I urged him forward.  Yu has more than one man’s energy; therefore I kept him back.”..."  [Analects 11:21].

What is it then said above? Was the Master favoring the old man for urging such forward without putting any hindrance in his way, allowing him to pursue his will? Or was he to favor the young and vigorous one in the sense that he puts such to safety by means of guidance in order for him (the young one) not to be lost or be in danger? 

Nevertheless, As I to interpret the said statement of the Master above, I see that the both parties, old and young, are favored by Confucius. As how it was addressed in my questions, he favored both of them, yet in two different manners which is somehow effective in the sense that it shows consistency to his thoughts of uplifting and showing reverence to the old and in guiding and applying a certain discipline to that of the new.

"Ch'iu is retiring", some accounts even add the word "slow" in order to emphasize the need for him to be favored by means of allowing him in whatever he believes to be allowed for him. The point is, given for example is a scenario where he approached a man and asked: "Should I kill you or not?". Let us say the man approached here was Confucius, he then said: "Kill me". But wait, do you think Ch'iu would do that? I don't think so, because of the fact that he already lived for a long time, so there is a certain indication that he knows already what is right and wrong; no questions ask. In the example, if he was told to kill Confucius by Confucius himself, it doesn't necessarily mean that he must kill Confucius, for again, he knows what he is to do and what he is not to do. Yes, he was told by Confucius, but the fact that he also has something to say about it, it is still up to him whether he would kill Confucius or not, well, just in my example. Thus, the Confucian idea of Chih (wisdom) as something incorporated to that of oldness was somehow observed by the said Analect above. And since, Ch'iu is to be considered as wise enough, Confucius gave him the right to decide for he already knows well, and there is no need for him to be guided. And for the fact that he knows, he is to trust his self and put into practice what he was able to perceive, or hear (as for the Analects), whether he heard it as good or bad, and not what he was told to do so.

"Yu has more than one man’s energy", here, it is to consider Yu as still an energetic, active, and vigorous man unlike Ch'iu who was somehow lethargic in a sense. And since Yu was very vigorous, there is a need for him to be favored by means of providing him a reliable guidance coming from that of those who are older than him. Yes, he is to be favored for the fact that he is not to be taken for granted; he is not to be forgotten and somehow is to be given sheltering care of. He is not to be in danger, and the Master can only prohibit such to happen by means of closing all the doors of possibilities; good or bad. It's just like, the Master can only choose if either he will seal the assurance of safety for with that he is assured that there is nothing bad that will going to happen to the young one, or he will allow the young one to explore, to see all things, but prudently speaking, could be of 50% chance of threat or danger. Now, what do you think? To be sure? Or not to be sure? Of course, to the one which is sure, right? For at least, by such assurance, there is no way for him to be in danger, for he is guided by a dependable control. Why is it there a need for a dependable control? Is it really that dependable though? Well for again, in respect to the idea of Chih, validated wisdom can be attained through a large period of time, when one is already old enough to experience things and was able to somehow, through that experience, evaluate what is to do and to not to do. 

Thus, again, both parties were favored, but again, in two different ways. And such differences though, must not to be perceived as absurd, and peculiar in a sense. Such differences though just entail that there is a certain appropriateness that must be observed in the thing called "favor".

Family or Work? All of the above

"The philosopher Zeng said, 'Suppose that there is an individual who can be entrusted with the charge of a young orphan prince, and can be commissioned with authority over a state of a hundred li, and whom no emergency however great can drive from his principles:-- is such a man a superior man? He is a superior man indeed." [Analects 8:6]

Again, there is an another wide shift from the traditional idea of a parent/family, to that of today's parental and familial issues. But first, let us deal with the comparisons: In the Analects, the "charge of a young orphan prince" can be somehow related to the idea of having a child. While, the "authority over a state of a hundred li" (li here, according to the traditional Chinese language, is a unit of measurement, which somehow can be interpreted as the "area of influence"), it can be imparted as the work or the occupation of the parents, for particularly, in Ancient China. societal ruling and governmental ordering is the prominent occupation, especially of men.

Now, by having such interpretation, we can now see that what the Analects is claiming is that, the ideal man/woman is someone who can balance his/her affair in both family (especially of the child/ren) and work, which somehow justifies the idea that the reality of most of the parental issues nowadays is totally different from what it should be.

Most of the parents of today are dealing with such conflict between family and of work. These parents, cannot set their priorities accordingly which leads to melancholic impacts to one of the two (family and work), which according to the real case, it is mostly the child/ren who are greatly ignored and somehow forgotten because of the demand needed for the work of the parents. In other words, it is usually the work that is being prioritized by the parents, instead of their child/ren. Well, in their defense, they are just doing it for the good of their child/ren. But, is it really that good?

Well, studies show that it is not. Why? because of the very fact that they isolate their selves, physically, emotionally, -holistically! from their child/ren for them to focus on their work. Such isolation indeed, is justified to create snags in the child's part; it will make him mentally incompetent, depressed, pained, ruined, and more. Thus, making the child/ren's relationship with their parents remote from each other which makes up what psychologists refer as the "childhood wounds".

Now, going back to the traditional, ideal parent, for such is indeed ideal and a very good example for all the parents of today to follow. This is for the fact that they are preoccupied by both persisting issues of "family v.s. work". Such Analects then is for them to see what they ought do as parents, the very roots of the family, because as people of doubled-responsibility, both family and work, they must observe and prudently accept the consequences such responsibility offers. Whether it talks about emergency cases, even of work or family, one must be able to decide in accordance to his/her priorities; not only as the provider of the family, but also as the source of attention of the child/ren.

Is Zhe Xue dead?

"The Master said: “The noble man is all-embracing and not partial. The inferior man is partial and not all-embracing” (Analects 2:14).

Yes, the ideal man, is indeed widely competent, and not only limited to a single, particular purpose. As it was mentioned, the ideal man is not an implement, or a tool of a single use, for instead he/she covers an extending breadth of can-do's. 

But nowadays, it seems like such principle was already buried far off under the ground; the people of today seems not to see their selves as some sort of a versatile kind of being, but rather they assume that they are crafted and molded to do a particular task. If they are to become an engineer, they become engineer. If they want to be a specialized doctor, they become a specialized doctor. Nothing more, nothing less. But actually, it is worse than that. What does it mean then?

It was because of what scholars of philosophy and societal studies referred as the "excessive professionalization". Excessive professionalization is the massive division and segmentation of human labor. If one is to be an engineer, it doesn't mean that he will cover all the concepts and practices of engineering, but rather he is only expected to do a specific task like that of being assigned to illustration or blueprint-making, or worse, is appointed to a definite task in making a blue-print (e.g. measuring the sides). Yes, humorous it may seem but it is the reality. 

Even in the study of philosophy; In the old times philosophy was a calling: it only attracted amateurs enamored of general problems. From that of the Kantian times, philosophy has become a profession. Technical competence, and the attendant caution, often replace the philosopher's passion of seeking what is to be sought. The philosophy chairs have become so plentiful that most of them are controlled by persons with neither avocation or desire nor vision. Worse, since employment and promotion depend on publication, far too many philosophical productions are potboilers, hence boring or sometimes irritating. Thus, the profession has been filled with functionaries that are neither advancing philosophy nor even transmitting the enthusiasm of the said study of search.

Does this mean that the primal essence of philosophy is somehow dead during the present times? Since the ideal man, which is the character of the Confucian philosophy, that is considered to be "all-embracing", is not followed by the people today, is it to conclude that philosophy, as what it was defined, doesn't exist nowadays?  Are we to restore such lost, and forgotten idea of the said study? Or are we to just live it out and go with the teeming flow of such new change, and somehow create a new philosophy instead? What do you think?

In perfecting one's knowledge...

Investigation of things, as for Chu Hsi, is the very act of perfecting, or simply refining one's knowledge. According to him, it is the primal area of education, for one must be able to carry out the principle of extending one's own knowledge in order for him/her to somehow understand why one is in need to study and learn. Well, if one will ask about what is the purpose of his/her efforts in knowing various, wide ranging things, actually, it is for him/her to tighten up his/her intelligence for him/her not to be ignorant enough and can be able to see things more clearly the world and all it's compositions around him/her.

But then again, we must be careful, for not all the sources of knowledge are to be taken an account for, especially now in the age of virtually-simulated, at the same time easily-accessed information, where one can manage to alter a certain knowledge that is maybe based on a certain bias, or where one can somehow make up knowledge, where in fact, is not knowledge at all. That is why there is the need to "investigate" in whether one knowledge is really a knowledge or not. How? By conducting an intensive examination to those of the things we interact with. When we see within such interaction somehow a justification of our knowledge, we will then consider it to be one-step closer to that of true knowledge. But in the case that it is not, then it is indeed one-step behind of certainty.

Now, there is a need for us to investigate and somehow explore things more.  If one then is not able to investigate more knowledge, what he/she knows is "still incomplete" (Chu Hsi).

That is why, in this short life of ours, we must somehow begin investigating and make our erudition stretched out, for we don't know when will be the last discussion we will hear from our teachers, or when will be the last lessons of our lives come. And as far as I am concerned, Nobody wants to die knowing that what they know is incomplete. Maybe that's the reason most of the dying people say when they mean that their mission in life is not yet finished. Thus, I say to you, let's go out there and feed our minds with intellect, for us to be contended and could therefore die without any intellectual disappointments, for we have already know what it is to be known, hence, our knowledge is indeed impeccable, -perfect.

Knowing knowledge...

"The Master said, Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, to recognize that you know it, and when you do not know a thing, to recognize that you do not know. That is knowledge." [Analects 2:17]

The Analects stated above can be divided into two: First, is that if you know a thing, you must acknowledge it as something that you are knowledgeable of. Second, is that if you don't know a thing, you must then admit such unfamiliarity.

When you know...say that you know.

Indeed, if there is a thing, which has, let's say, passed by you (maybe in the form of a problem, or a question, and the like), and somehow, you have known such precisely, you must indeed have appreciation for it and somehow give recognition for it, for it is something you know of. For example, there is a query about doing a first-aid for there is someone who needs an immediate care after having been in a car accident. And by chance, you are the only one there who definitely knows how to provide such instant medical upkeep. Would you just stand in the corner and do nothing? Or would you do it, which is indeed somehow a way of recognizing such knowledge? Definitely (as long as you're not that freak enough not to do so), you will do it, right? For if you are to do otherwise, it is not only your knowledge and capability that is put in the brink here, but also the person-in-need's life. Thus, you always need to give credit to the things you accurately know. Well, such is not an act of arrogance or conceitedness though, for rather it is an act of honesty and uprightness. As what Sir Pascua, a Philosophy teacher  in our school said: "It is not arrogant to say something that is true". Yes, but again, remember, something that is TRUE.


When you don't know...say that you don't know.

This though is the common mistake most of us people commit. This is for oftentimes, we claim something to be of our knowledge, but actually, is not. Usually, we tend to brag something and say "I know this one" but actually, it is either we pretend to know such or we actually think we know such, but unfortunately, we actually don't know it at all, Such prominence of committing such mistake is somehow justified by our use of call-names to those people we get to acquaint with, who illustrates such character: "Boy-SS (Swito-swito)", "BB (Buot-buot)", "Pabright-bright", and many others which pertains to such disposition of carrying faulty knowledge. Yes, sometimes we caught ourselves attributing such names to other people, but some of that times, we are actually the one who doesn't know that that person knows it actually, making ourselves the one that is "BB" then. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that most of us has somehow perpetrate such deceitful and unscrupulous character. Now, the problem is, it will allow transmissions of wrong knowledge, especially in cases where one is aware of doing such. Dishonesty, fraudulence, untruthfulness, treachery, or what have you, will somehow prevail in the society if most of us will still continue and will not do something against it. Now, the solution is, if one doesn't know, he/she must not say that he/she knows. One must be honest, no matter what cases will be brought upon against him/her. Even if the other people will consider him/her as someone who is illiterate or dumb or ignorant, as long as he/she doesn't act as if he/she knows, that one is indeed on the right track. In other words, it is far more better to admit one's ignorance than pretend to be something better-off. And that is, what the Master is saying about what is knowledge.

Lights, Camera, ACTION!

Tzu-kung asked about the superior man.  Confucius said, “He acts before he speaks and then speaks according to his action.”  [Analects 2:13]

Confucius said, “The superior man wants to be slow in word but diligent in action.”  [Analects 4:24]

Confucius said, “The superior man is ashamed that his words exceed his deeds.”  [Analects 14:29]

Action, in Chinese, is referred as "xing" or "hang", which is also associated to that of conduct, movement, or simply of walking. It's Chinese pictographic character (行) though illustrates a "street intersection". Now, what does it have to do with the term "action"? Why is it associated with the term "action" if it is merely a detour sign for a road crossing? Actually, as of my research, a lot says that the character has nothing to do with its meaning. And since my interpretations, even how straightforward and effective it may be, of the said character, I wish  not to address it though, for I don't consider myself to be such of an authority to do so.

Now, going back to the Analects, what the three of them is trying to say is simply one's actions is far more preferred than that of one's words; one must be able to act first, or maybe just consider acting it out first before giving off words to be noted upon. In other words, one must be attached more on his actions than to that of his/her words.

One good example would be the promises, let's say political promises. Nowadays, we have observed that a lot of our leaders do take an oath and swear things that are indeed catchy enough for one to somehow offer his/her trust. But the reality tells us that such are only words, one can never feel such development or sustenance for it is only of words. For words are only expressions, they can never feed the hungry nor shelter the homeless. Simply saying, no matter how good one's words are, as long as it is not justified through the use of actions, there will be nothing except a bunch of impassive and lifeless undertakings, or simply, words.

Same as to having a relationship under parental guidance. If you are the lover (let's say, the man), you are to expect that the parents, especially the father of the beloved, will not look at you the way you look at yourself. Even if you have such pure and clean intentions, you cannot deny the fact that the parents of your beloved will still be on doubt, maybe for they don't know you exactly at all or it's the societal reality that tells them about you by means of looking and evaluating those of your kind. Now, what you can do is not to defend through the use of words, for again, no matter how beautiful your words could be, it is still just words. But instead, you are to put the purity of your intents into actions, by means for example: you will follow their instructions, you will obey their commands and demands, etc. By that, there is no wonder you can gain an amount of their trust for they now have an idea of your untainted intentions to your beloved. Isn't that glorifying?

Thus, to act is the only way one can prove one's idea or principle that drives in him/her. Yes, it could be somehow illustrated through words; Well, it is actually even more appropriate if one is able to address such through words in order to comply a certainty. But then again, one's actions (in respond to that of his/her words) is the big deal, -the real package of such principle, for it doesn't only justify one's intuitive idea, but also it carries out a certain application of truth value to that of a certain idea. 

Sinceritranscendence

"...This is the character of the man: so intent upon enlightening the eager that he forgets his hunger, and so happy in doing so, that he forgets his bitterness of his lot and does not realize that old age is at hand..." -Confucius

To be sincere, in its utmost essence, is for one to be so keen and enthusiastic in his/her doings that even there are a lots of reasons not to do such; all the drawbacks and snags. Even if one feels hungry, for example, literally hungry, but since he is to do a blog (yes, it is me) and, somehow, we can say he is sincere in deciding to do such, no matter how hungry or sleepy he is, as long as he have that candor (sincerity) in him, he can definitely comply such activity.

Thus, to be sincere and eager in one's doing somehow initiates transcendence of one, that come what may, one is still be able to transcend and fulfill such eagerness inside him. And that, is sincere. 

SUPERior MAN

Confucius said, “The superior man is not an implement (ch’i).”  [Analects 2:12]

An implement: a superior man according to Confucius is not an implement. What is an implement by the way? According to its etymological meaning, it came from the late Latin language, implementum, which means "filling" or "fill in" or simply "to fill". Such primal definition was somehow adhered and justified in its present definition. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "implement", as a noun, refers to a "tool"; a useful piece of equipment designed to do a particular task. While, it was also considered as a transitive verb, which means "to carry out" or "to fulfill something". All of which, somehow fuses the term as something that constitutes "fulfillment" or "achievement", it could be also referred to be an instrument to achieve such nirvana-like satisfaction.

Now, relating to such analysis, we can somehow conclude that a superior man, or the ideal man pertained by Confucius, is not a means to achievement, -to success! therefore is of no use. How can he/she then be an ideal one if he/she will not act as a channel to accomplishment? What can we expect to him/her in our desire to success? Do this mean that the superior man is a hindrance, instead of a helping hand, towards fulfillment?

Before we will ask such, we must first understand, what is really meant by Confucius himself, and not by our mere interpretations. Now, what do Confucius mean in saying that a superior man is not an implement? Such one is not an "implement", because a superior man is not only envisioned to be of narrow and constricted drive or purpose, this is for such man indeed have a broad and wide concern, thus is not only range-bounded to that of a particular commitment. Thus, the superior man, as mentioned, is devoted expansively with aims that are ranging widely, and not only focused to that of fastidious goals that are boxed in; for the superior man transcends, -HE/SHE PUSHES THE LIMITS! And that is what Confucius meant in saying that a good man is not an implement, but is something that is indeed, multi-purposed. 

Wants vs. Needs

"The Master said: “I can live with coarse rice to eat, water for drink and my arm as a pillow and still be happy. Wealth and honors that one possesses in the midst of injustice are like floating clouds.” Analects 7:15

Yes, of course, the "needs" are the most essential. One must be able to comply such in order to live. The rice to eat, the water to drink, and a comfort resting; are needed. You cannot say that such can be taken for granted, as long as you are practicing righteousness with you, -NO! For how can you do such (practicing of righteous ways), if you are not able to fulfill your personal necessities, thus will die later on?

What the master pertained here to be less significant, therefore could be either lived with or without, is the "wants"; the individual desires, requests or wishes that are not really of use to one's existence. Well, it could somehow satisfy one's preference, but either way, one cannot say that, without it, he/she will die. 

Now, because of it's less importance, one can therefore, take for granted such desires for as long as one is still able to practice righteousness.

A beautiful mansion made by corruption and greed? Or a simple house made by righteous ways? It is still both houses anyway. Think again.

To belong? Or to be right?

The Master said: “To worship to other than one's own ancestral spirits is flattery. If you see what is right and fail to act on it, you lack courage.” [Analects 2:24]

People of today, and somehow of the past, believes that one way to live this world of ours is to conform to others; trends, social fads, crazes, or even just by simply going to the canteen, we need someone to accompany us. We usually see ourselves imitating or any ways possible, fitting in to somebody's businesses. We even, some of the times, enter cliques of friends, not because we are sharing the same primal interests, but because we think their interests are quite more better and somehow worthy to be adapted for.

According to sociology, it is a nature of the person to conform, in order to somehow belong. They call it the "sense of belongingness". We do need to be attached to somebody or a group of somebodies; no matter how risky it would be, or why it should be done, or what is the incentives/punishments of such, for as long as we have a person or a group to lean on, we are on the right track. Such was explained in the social movements we encounter like for example: the violent rallies. Yes, there are people in a certain rally who are really eager, firm and of course knowledgeable of what they are shouting out there for. But somehow, there are also these who just rides freely and merely goes with the flow of such movement. Yes, they are not really assembling for what is their really cause, because they are just there to somehow feel that they belong, and therefore, not aloof.

Who can survive being alone anyway? Yes, there are few who prefer to be alone, but can they survive such? Well, I am not pretty sure they can. Even maybe the most standoffish of all the person needs someone or an alliance to join them. Indeed, we all need such accompaniment.

But, if you are to know something that is right, would you still prefer conforming and following those who are stupid and wrong in their beliefs perhaps? How long can you tolerate such incorrectness, if you do happen to know what is really the correct one? Would you still waste time and just sit around conforming something that you know is wrong? Or would you rise up and break your silence that no matter what will happen to you, even if everybody is against you and your idea, for as long as you know what is right?

Thus, righteousness for me then, must be accompanied with the enough courage, for what will be the used of righteousness, if you are the only one who follows such, right? Again, as Napoleon said: "We are suffering because of the silence of the good people". For what is good, if nobody knows it, or let us say, only few knows what is really right? In other words, one must be righteous and somehow courageous enough to impose the right way to the whole world while prudently accepting that there will be a lot of conflicts you will face, but as long as you have the right one in your hands, you are not to be afraid of anything at all. Hence, you are not the one who must conform to their erroneousness, for instead, they must be the one who will conform to you for your righteousness. 

With great politeness, comes great sacrifices...

"Tzu-kung wanted to do away with the sacrificing of a lamb at the ceremony in which the beginning of each month is reported to ancestors.  Confucius said, “Tz’u!  You love the lamb but I love the ceremony.”  [Analects 3:17]".

Such statement above shows the importance of ritual politeness; the modesty which must be observed in a specific ritual/ceremony. Like Yi (Righteousness), it involves an expense, a certain sacrifice. Perhaps in Yi, we are to sacrifice our personal biases to establish what is righteous in a way, the same with the practice of Li,  what is needed to be sacrificed is also something that would somehow, once gone, will be beneficial for a specific ceremony/ritual. Therefore, It is indeed, yes, a sacrifice to one's own wild-spirited freewill, because you are to follow a certain circumstances which is therefore, of control over you.

What is the Master trying to say here is that, yes, it is also to be considered that we have our own personal preferences (like not to sacrifice the lamb), but if it is for the betterment of a certain rite, one must not be selfish enough to not to cooperate and exercise such practice. In other words, in matters concerning about the rituals, nothing is more important than the ritual itself. Let us say that, if the lamb is to be sacrificed for the ceremony, it must be done accordingly. 

Nevertheless, we are to comply such need to sacrifice matter/s that will, if not being get rid of, encumber the said practice. By showing that you are willing to give up something for the greater good of the ritual then you are really of a good chance to be considered as a Chun Tzu/ noble man. 

Am I right?

According to Blake Li and Marie Zheng: "The Chinese character 義/义 (pronounced yì) means justice, righteousness, or meaning".

The symbol 義 has broad and complex intent for it includes values such as justice, honesty, loyalty, and reliability. It is pronounced as Yi. It is composed of 羊 (sheep) on top and 我 (I, myself) on the bottom. 羊 and 我 , if combined make 義 which can be literally interpreted to signify “I am a sheep.” (Li and Zheng, 2012)

In ancient China, a sheep or lamb was sacrificed to honor the Gods. The character’s intrinsic meaning is that, in regard to this ritual, one can make sacrifices in the name of justice or righteousness. (Li and Zheng, 2012)

Sacrifices; why does it need for one to sacrifice something in order to acquired righteousness? I thought man is indeed good by nature, then why does he/she needs to give off something; is this something referred to be a part of the person -'bad' in nature that it needs to be omitted to attain justice/righteousness? Why not just live oneself off, and not sacrifice anything, cannot he/she attain "Yi" with that?

"As the Master said, A gentleman in his dealings with the world has neither enmities nor affections, but wherever he sees righteousness, he ranges himself beside it" (Analects 4:10).

In other words, a righteous person, in his life, do not carry with him/her "loads" of prejudices. He/she is not biased nor he/she will do, for he/she knows that to take side will somehow address his/her inconsistency as a just person. As we look at the word itself: Pre-judice; pre which means "before", or "primordial" or "advance", and judice, which comes from the word judicium which means "judgment". Thus, prejudice literally means an "advance judgment".

Just like, let's say, you are a judge of a given trial. To be a judge, or as what we define as the "host of justice", you must never lean on any of the side of the oppositions of a given case even if  you have known the people there, or at least it is a family of yours on the other side, or their motion is more related to your life, or any other else that will lead you to make judgments inefficiently. If you are to bend, yes, you could be considered a "judge", a human judge, but not a real promulgator of justice/righteousness.

Now, what does this "prejudice" have to do with sacrifice? We human beings are subjects of differences; in race, culture, way of thinking, society, understanding, etc. given that we have this unique ideas/beliefs/principles in us that we somehow carry with us all throughout our life. Such unique ideas/beliefs/principles though are, since unique, distinct from one to another'. Now, the point is, we are naturally biased. Although we deny it or not, but we do have this preferences in our selves that will somehow, disables us to make judgments as righteous as possible. 

That there, enters 'sacrifice'. We need to sacrifice these personal prejudices and biases of us in order for us to follow the path of righteousness as what Confucius described. We are then to let go of such individual predispositions and preconceptions for us to be truly just to the whole world; especially to the people.

Hence, what you need to carry us your guide then to live a righteous life is not your private partiality, but rather, righteousness itself. In simple words, you must be biased to righteousness, and righteousness alone. 

Obedience against Will?

In order to be loyal to one's parents, one must observe obedience. Obedience, in a way that one must "obey" a certain way of "obedience". In other words, one must not just impose his/her own way of obeying his/her parents; he/she is to abide by a particular and authentic method which is: to submit CONSCIOUSLY to that of their parents' verdicts.

Consciously, for the fact that one must not conform or follow carelessly. Even of the fact that he/she is only a child, who is under his/her parents, he/she must be able to somehow hash out as lightly as possible such of their ruling; question what is needed to be questioned, clarify what is needed to be clarified but, in a soft manner. In other words, the child has also something to say about his/her parents' ruling, especially in the times where their way of ruling is unbearable for the side of the child.

But take note: "As lightly as possible". Even if one's parents are wrong, he/she, as their child, must be able to establish such respect to those of his/her parents. Respect, not to the extent that the child must tolerate such wrongdoing because it is his/her parents', but respect in the sense that he/she is able to address to them such inefficiency and incompetence as gentle as possible for they are still his/her parents, for one cannot deny the fact that it will really hurt them if one will not address such effectively. And from that of hurting them, uprises a tension between that of the child and his/her parents.

However, such practice of obedience however prohibit the freewill of the child. "Will" here is to be describe as one's individual preference which is even though bombarded by such controlling factor (example here is that of the parents') can still be managed to be pursued upon. It is what Nietzsche referred as "transcendence"; the ability to somehow transcend over an unendurable and unbeatable situation.

This notion of the will however, is not exercised, therefore, opposite to what is mentioned to be as filial obedience. If one is really to follow his/her will, especially in the case where one's preference is different to that of their parents', he/she must disobey his/her parents. And if he/she is to obey his/her parents, one must therefore let go of his/her will and submit to that of their parents'. But are these two, obedience and will, really antithetical to each other, that the presence of one cancels out the other?

No, for one can willfully obey his/her parents. To prefer to that of their authority wholeheartedly is the only way one can practice both one's freewill and obedience to parents at the same time. Well, it doesn't mean that once one is to submit to his/her parents, he/she is not free then, just as if one will defy his/her parents, he/she is automatically free. Therefore, to accept that freedom is not a thing that is to be given by such circumstances (ex: defiance against parents) to that of the person, but rather a thing that should be given by the person to his self (something to be seen whenever one prefers to see it even under such control), is a key to live a righteous life.

"Tao"

"Confucius said, The Way is not far from man. When a man pursues the Way and yet remains away from man, his course cannot be considered the Way." [Doctrine of the Mean, 13]

I have observed that most of our brothers and sisters who are in constricted practice of their conservative kind of religious factions somehow forgets their human relationship with the other people. I know some of this people are really fastened to such of their belief that they tend to ignore the value of their fellow human beings. How can I say so?

I know this guy, a friend of mine, who was actually a member of a certain denomination of the Christian belief. He was totally clasped to the moral ideas he acquired by reading the Scriptures and listening to some of the group sharing. One day, he told me that I must change, for what I do practice is bad, and it will not save me at the end of the time. This thing he referred though as a subject for change is my habit in playing computer games. Well, I was ashamed, mortified and somehow humiliated for the fact that I am guilty of doing such. But how was it related to that of the idea of morality anyway? Nevertheless, I felt like I was detached from the other human beings. Such detachment really hurt me, for the fact that I am only a person, who is by nature, desires the 'sense of belongingness'; to belong and not to be rejected, especially by someone who I consider to be a friend of mine.

If we are to relate this to the idea of Way in the Ancient Chinese Philosophy, such moral ideas of my friend is different from that of the Way. Because although the Way signifies an idea of a moral that guides the people on what they ought do, it shall not be isolated to one's human relations, for it's primary goal is the harmony of the humanity, and not of any other "idea" or "virtue" of who-knows-what-it-is that is not of human concern. In the case of my friend, what he instilled was the idea of his belief, and not the idea of my value to him. Thus, is contrary to that of the Way, for the Way, or the "Tao", is not merely moral in essence, but also concerns about the human beings, especially their relation to their fellow human beings.

My "mother" (parents) knows best...

"The Master said, In serving his father and mother a man may gently remonstrate (argue) with them. But if he sees that he failed to change their opinion, he should resume an attitude of deference (submission) and not thwart (frustrate); may feel discouraged, but not resentful/annoyed (for they know the best)". Analects 4:18

You will see that this blog is credited merely to my mother even if this is to talk about both of the parents, and which includes my father. There are two reasons why I did so.

First is that, my father died when I was still young. I was 3 back then when he left this world. I can't even picture him out; what he looks like, how he is as my father, how he is as a husband to my mother -I don't know! Only his preserved old pictures was my link to his identity. Although my mother fondly say that I am totally like him (Despite of the fact that he looks like a celebrity which is totally not of my case). His attitude, his way of thinking, his way of handling situations, and all the others were somehow attributed to me. Such things then eased me out and somehow made me not miss him, for he is just like me and there's nothing to worry about. I'll just look at the mirror, or maybe see the way I live my life, and by doing so, I see him. Thus, because of his physical absence, I cannot share his being a parent of mine to you.

(Enough of the drama though) Now, second is that my mother acts as both, mother and father (she can even act as my grandparent, a teacher, a sister, a girlfriend, a bestfriend, or even as myself; a replication of me). She's indeed one hell of a woman, so to speak. She's so incredible that I can see her as what Nietzsche referred as "übermensch" or an "over-man" for the fact that she was able to withstand such toil which is to become an efficient single-parent. Therefore, I can rely on her as my parent, which is the subject of our today's discussion.

Now, to start with, few people nowadays tend to look at their parents as their idols or what have you. They see the latter as exemplars for them to follow. But unfortunately, as what I have said, they are only few in number. How about the most of the people then? Well, let's just say that they do not follow or obey their parents as they should. Contrary to that of the few, they see their parents as an obstruction to their will as a person. Why is that so? Because of the fact that people nowadays, like to explore and do things even if they are just brought up by curiosity. And their traditionally-oriented parents will prohibit them; not necessarily and merely because the parents know that it is harmful for their children but because, sometimes, it is new to them and they don't have any idea or assurance of what it could bring to their child. There are a lot of "what-ifs" in their mind and their children cannot blame them for they are just concerned. What they want their children to do is to just stick to the tradition, which is somehow familiar to them and therefore, proven and tested.

That is why I used the word "best". Yes, our parents know what would be the best for us in accordance to what they know as the "best". They consider things to be the "best" because they had experienced or somehow had an idea that such thing is totally the paramount of a certain matter. But as contemporary children will answer, "It is just their idea of "best", not our's, we are living in a totally different generation to that of our parents". These children see things now as diverse to that of the past, forgetting the fact that these generation they called their's was brought up by the generation of their parents, or simply by the past.

Therefore, we must obey them; we are to follow their orders for they live in the times which made your today. What they say as "for your own good" is really meant by them, and not just a lame catchy phrase that most of them say to their children. If you ask me: How did they know it was for your own good? C'mon, they know the best.

The "goodness" prevails...

"...Raise the upright, put them over the crooked, and you should be able to caused the crooked to become upright..." -Analects 12:22

As what our popular belief says: "The good always prevails over the bad". When the first one is given the authority over the latter, the first one will somehow change the latter. But if you have the latter (the bad) as the authority over the first (good), it is not sure that you will have the first change into that of the latter.

Now, why say so? It is because when the authority is really good, or let's say upright, such can diminish the presence of the bad in the crooked community. If it can't, then it is not really good; maybe it just presumes that it is good but it is not for real good. And when the authority of such community is not really good, it is impossible, or to safely say, hard for the community to somehow become upright.

Nevertheless, good people, that is put into authority over the corrupted, which could have outnumbered the first one, can still be able to persist and somehow change the devious majority for they are indeed good. And as we know it, "goodness" prevails.

Everything's "old" now...

Before, I used to have this collection of "nuggets of wisdom"; statements that are somehow influential and powerful enough to catch one's attention. I collected such statements, hid them inside my journal, not because I don't want to share it to the public, but rather I want to save it for the years to come, when such statements can be then named after me.

Yes, "ME", for I want to be known for something. I want everybody will look at me and say "Wow! That's one hell of a person.". I want the other people to see me as a creator of something new, something that has never been discovered before, something that will change the way things are now; for that something, is definitely new. In short, I want to impress others; I want them to admire me and thank me for making up something that will brought up a change in our world. That's why I hid them, because I want them to be credited to me, and not to anybody else.

But then I realized, which was somehow reiterated to me in the concept of the importance of the tradition; the significance of the old, that there is no such thing as "new" in this world. Somehow, something came from somewhere or someone in the past, and it can never be a "new" thing for it existed already before, (or maybe even before that 'before'). Well, maybe forgotten, maybe unacknowledged, maybe unknown, but there was. 

That's why, if we are to create something new, we must look back to the past; every nuke and crannies of antiquity and history, for what we might see now as something "new", might actually be something that is already "old and familiar".

Eager-learner

"...I only enlighten those who are eager to learn and arouse those who are bubbled to give their own explanation..." - Confucius

Students of today's generation, whether we accept it or not, are only obligated to go to school, and are not really eager to do so. Obligated, in the sense that it is only in respect to one's 'want' or 'need'. Maybe he/she wants to have an excellent job with an indubitable high income, or maybe he/she needs to, because it enables him/her to sustain such of the needs of the family he/she could have. Or it could be other's 'want' or 'need', like your father wants you to graduate or like your mother who needs you to finish studying for it will somehow decrease the risk of her heart ailment. 

To make the long story short, they are not eager to study. They just want to finish studying because of this and that, but they are not really into learning; they simply don't learn anything at all.

But when a man is really eagered to study, to learn more, and to be critical, it will really become a great form of education. Because in that way, a student will not rely only to what the teacher is offering in his/her discussions, activities, etc. In other words, the student will not be subservient; a yes-man. Subservient, is when a person submits to what the other is saying, no matter what are the consequences, as long as he/she was told this and that, he/she, like a shitty dog, will believe or follow. Indeed shitty, -passive! But when a student will come up with new ideas, even if it is right or wrong, as long as it is not only what the teachers give, thus, there is indeed an education. 

Why waste time and effort (and money) to a thing you thought as "education" that is actually not at all education? Right?

The Opposites

"The Master said, The gentleman calls attention to the good points in others ; he does not call attention to their defects. The small man does just the reverse of this."

I believe that every matter in this world has both a bad side, and a good side. Like the coin, it has a head, and a tail. Such presence of two opposites makes a matter somehow, neutral. Thus, there is really no 100% good thing, or a 100% bad. That's why one cannot impose a truth that a certain matter is indeed a good thing or a bad one, simply because it's just a matter of perspectives and biases. If one defines a certain matter as good, it doesn't make such matter really good. Maybe, for that person who defines, but not for everybody.

Now, A true person (gentleman) must look to the brighter sides of these things made up of two opposites. Since, no matter how awful such is, it still has a good side that would somehow compensate such downsides. 'Cause again by nature, we people, are good; we are of equal goodness in us. But our practices makes as different; unique, or simply deviant in a way. Simply, as what the Scriptures said: [That] "We are all unique yet fundamentally equal!".

A gentleman prefers to look at the good points because he is thinking for the common good; the good of all. Such of a person sees the bright side of a thing because he knows that everybody will benefit from it. How about the small man? Why do they prefer to look at the defects? This is because they are too selfish and insecure; what they wanted is for their own good only.

Let us all be "gentlemen" of our own ways; So I say to you, be an example you want others to be!

Looking back...

"The master said: He who by reanimating the old can gain knowledge of the new is fit to be a teacher".

We are now living in the times of fast change. Technologies, innovations, discoveries, inventions, and all other products of this thing called "modernization" are now prominent in this progressing world of ours. Progressing, for the fact that most of us now are only thinking of what we will become, to where we are going, and not to what we were used to be in the past.

This is indeed a sad story; we seem to forget the fact that our history is indeed important, for what we are now is because of what we were back then. The past shapes the present. Thus, the very answers to our current questions are found in the past. In other words, the past is the supplement that will somehow fill the missing pieces of our present life.

For example, when we do have a check-up with a doctor, we need to fill up this kind of form where we can find a list of illness/diseases that are for us to indicate whether we acquired it lately or not. Just like in my physical examination for our field work, I was given this form and I marked those infirmities I had in the past. Yes, in the past. Now, why is it needed to indicate such past ailments? I mean, I am fine now, and such ailments are not present in me anymore (except Amoebiasis though), but why is it still needed to mark those "past" things? This is because, it will help the physician/doctor to know more about our medical conditions, to advice us on what to do now, and to prohibit us on what to do not now. In my case, it is whether I am to join the field work or not. Hence, the past (ailments) really matters in the present (field work).

Most of you might think that such example is somehow weak for the fact that the past referred here, happened only recently; not like those of the ancient times that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago. Well, here is another example: The issue of the color of the skin. The 'black' people are still somehow discriminated and detached from those of the 'white's and other light colors. The first are somehow oppressed and subordinated under the rule of the latter. But the question is, why is it?

As of our Asian Civilization teacher: History will tell us that it started from the Ancient India during the 3rd century B.C.E. There were these people who were called: The "Dravids". They were dark-skinned; their palms, soles, teeth, and eyes were the only white things in their body. These people were the natives of the Southern India, who are still there nowadays. Given such title, natives, they are expected to be respected by those of the other kinds. But actually, they weren't, instead they were subject for subordination. They were entitled as "demons", for they constitute this dark aura present in their skin. As we can see in ancient literature, especially those involving the Indians, these Dravids somehow appear as the antagonist, the bad guys in the story. What is it then with the Dravids that they were oppressed? What did they do? Did they do something that would somehow result to such? Well actually, it is because of them being the minority during that time. They were only few compared to those who were non-natives. According to some study, they also have practices that were identified as inhuman like cannibalism, etc. Thus, there is no question for them not to be separated from the others.

Such conflict then lead to the formulation of the caste-system. There were then hierarchies lead by the superiors called Brahmins. Then many years later, the black people tend to realize that that life of theirs is unfair. And so they needed to fight back to such oppression.

Then Mahatma Gandhi came out of the picture, followed by Martin Luther King Jr. who entered the very halls of the issue and made himself the "king of civil rights" by making the whole world realize what they have realized; to feel what they feel. There began protests against the black-and-white detachment, and so on and so forth. You see, it happened a long time ago, but still it is still present nowadays. Therefore, past here is really of a bigger matter in dealing with the present matters. Guess what, if we are not to know the antique Dravids, would we have any idea how this all discrimination thing present today began?

Now, about the teacher stuff mentioned by the Master: We are all teachers here; we teach, advice, give information, and all other things that teachers do commonly. We might not be aware of that but it is true. We are not aware that even just by stating one's name is an act of teaching. In other words, to be human is also to be a teacher. Hence, to look and to revive such notion of the past in order to build up something new is not only a duty of a licensed teacher, but instead, it is also for us people, human beings who are capable of instructing others and at the same time, capable of being instructed. Who says a teacher cannot be instructed? Think again.

The point is, we must treasure the past for the present like how we treasure the present for the future. For we don't know, what we might do today will become something big for tomorrow. Although it is also important to cherish the present because as what they say, "Now, is the youngest you will ever become and the oldest of what you have ever been". But this, I tell you, your present will still be a past like it was a future before. As the hands of the clock move, your present, turns to a past. So look back, and use these "past" things for the betterment of your present, and later on, of your future.

Jiàoyù

Now, I ask you: What can you say about the educational system here in the Philippines? Or maybe, in your city? Or perhaps your very school?

As what John Dewey said: "Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself". By focusing to his definition of education as "life" itself, we can presuppose that all of us, living, are subjects for education. As long as we are able to breath, our hearts still beat and pump blood, as long as our very organs are not hindering our existence, we are indeed given the right for education; rich or poor, able or not, young or old, etc. This is because, by means of education, one can prove that he/she is living; living the very life of life, for that is education.

Yes, no matter who the person is, where that person lives, the person's history, status, category, or any other social matters of a person, as long as that person is living, he/she is privileged to be educated. 

As what the Master said: "From the very poorest upwards -beginning even with the man who could bring no better present than a bundle of dried flesh -none has ever come to me without receiving instruction".

What the Master was telling us is that, everyone of us is merited with the right of education (receiving instruction). All the people ranging from the poorest among all to anyone that situates above, deserves to be taught. What the Master pertained as the man who could bring no better present than a bundle of dried flesh, is not literally of such of a man. What he was trying to serve as an example is the person who clearly have nothing that even such of a shoddy matter (dried flesh), which they consider as something that can be acquired by any person in the society, seems to be so hard for him/her to give.

Indubitably, education is the real torrential flood; the deluge that no one of us can escape from. Again, no matter what constitutes you, as long as you belong to the term called "everybody", you are to receive instruction, or simply education.

Let's talk about love...

Most of the people nowadays, believe that there's no such love that lasts forever. Yes, maybe because they had been in such context; the heartbreaks, mistrusts, broken promises, etc. Name it and they already had it. With that, they tend to discourage lovers that even if the latter do have romance, sweet "call-names", longest relationships, gifts, kisses, flowers, -even love itself, they will still go apart. It is like, for them, every sweet "I love you" follows a sad "Goodbye".

This issue of everlasting love's inevitable end is somehow the tension my girlfriend and I have been dealing of. I mean, I believe we do have the proper ingredients for a perfect relationship; trust, loyalty, respect, obedience, and all. We do things in appropriate measures; we do understand each other's differences and weaknesses and we do treasure our similarities and strengths. In other words, as far as I know, we are indeed "perfect". But nevertheless, people around us somehow impose that even if everything seems to be impeccably fit for us, we will still end things up between us. It's like no matter how or what, things will still wane between us two, like a torrential flood; no one can escape such terror.

Well, perhaps, as what Confucius said: "One must not lose hope. What prevails is a problem that can still be solved".  Even if everybody and everything around us is able to prove that we will not last forever, we must still be able to hope that someday, as what fairy tales tell us, there is still going to be a "happily ever after". Like Confucius, we are strong enough not to flee such indubitable trepidation coming to our way, for actually it is dubitable; Well, who knows? Right? 

What I am trying to say is that,  it is not the lengthiness of this "forever-love" that stretches out more than a human being's lifespan which makes it's occurrence impossible; for it is actually the lovers' wrong actions which makes it unachievable.  As what Confucius advised us: "When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don't adjust the goals, adjust the steps". Hence it is really not the idea of believing a life-lasting love that needs to be altered, for it is the incorrect action steps of the lovers that needs to be so because these are the ones that somehow hinder the situation. Like Confucius' dream of peace and order, such dream is not the problem, it is the people's chaotic and messy way of life which is. If only the Way was embraced by the people, as what he said, there is no need for him to change things.

Going back, yes, it is really a hard time to have somebody to love; you are somewhat obligated to do efforts and stuffs, you tend to make decisions as if they were of life and death situations, you make yourself do difficult things, you make yourself worry, sad, depressed, stressed, stretched and all other painful things that you can ever imagine.

But when both of you will not only endure these things mentioned, but will also take the very risk that no matter what others will say; that even if it is imposed that your separation with each other is, let's say, the truth; that even if you know that you will still go back to what were both of you was before, -strangers, and still both of you sees it as something worth trying for and will choose to be with each other come what may, you know what dear, it is definitely LOVE.

Awakening...

After contemplating with my learning in today's session in my Ancient Chinese Philosophy class, I was bothered by the question:

"Why has the Way not prevailed?"

Of course, that is because there is something or someone that/who hinders such to happen or exist. This thing or person is maybe of heinous nature; brought up by wickedness and evil that is probably more influential than that of the Way. Such would be seen in the pugnacity of the people in the society/world; there are conflicts, tensions, clashes, skirmishes, quarrels, etc.

But according to the texts: "The border guard tells us that this is not due to the people's evil intent."  

Well, if not. what is it then the reason why?

As what is written in the passage: That is all because of the monotonous and careless toleration of the people who were living subserviently without a keen awareness of what’s happening around them. It is not the wickedness of the unscrupulous ones that disallows the existence of the Way but rather the taciturnity of the ones who could have been the role models of goodness and decency.

"It is instead because they have been asleep and, therefore, needs to be awakened. They have been taking things for granted. They have been careless and, in their carelessness, have not allowed the Way to prevail."

   

Such idea of carelessness can be best pictured in Napoleon Bonaparte's words, saying: "The world suffers, not because of the violence of the bad people; but because of the silence of the good people.”

Therefore, It is for the Chun Tzu to wake up his fellow people, and not to fight back the evilness of those deceitful ones. Not to become a lethal sword, but a bell; a wooden bell, that will somehow, awaken the very individuals of his society; unchaining them from the subservience and apathy they once have in their hearts and somehow encourage them to have some of that thing called "sensitivity".

Reflective thinking; The "me" in everything...

In studying the "The Spirit of Chinese Philosophy" of Fung Yu-Lan's book, I caught myself stucked in the discussion of the reflective kind of thinking. It was said that: "This [the] kind of thinking is called reflective because it takes life as it's object". In other words, when one is to think in a reflective manner, his/her life, and all that constitutes it, is the main basis of his/her thinking.

It's like a person's life (all that are life-related matters of him/her) is the "mirror" that "reflects" his/her way of thinking. If you are to think reflectively, you are the only one who can do that, for you alone are the one who lives that kind of life you have. Mine as well, I am the only who one who can think reflectively on my way, because I am also the only one who lives the life I have. It's like what Ferriols said: "If you want to see something, you must see it for yourself". Why? Because, again, it is only you who can look at it that way; your way. If I am to see it, and I am to tell you what I saw, I am not telling you what you see, but of course, of what I see; you may disagree or maybe agree but not totally. That's why to think reflectively, one must use his/her OWN life as the object, not any other else's.

I would like to end this with a quote from Bertrand Russell's Value of Philosophy, and I quote: "If the study of philosophy has any value at all for others than students of Philosophy, it must be only indirectly, through its effects upon the lives of those who study it. It is in these effects, therefore, if anywhere, that the value of Philosophy must be primarily sought".