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.