(NPPLC) Chapters #28 (孟子梁惠王下S1), 29 (孟子告子上S10) & 30 (孟子梁惠王下S15)

[somethingfunny]

This thread is for the discussion of chapters twenty-eight, twenty-nine and thirty in A New Practical Primer of Literary Chinese by Paul Rouzer.

 

The last three chapters of this unit seem to be an assortment of excerpts from Mencius.  I haven't looked ahead to see if all three are related, but have decided they must have some common theme and therefore I have included them together in one thread.  They are all fairly short with not very much new vocabulary, so hopefully I (we/you) should be able to move through them fairly quickly.  I'll probably do one a day for the next few days.  I'll post the original text along with my comments/discussion points, so please feel free to go back through the thread and not just focus on the most recent post.

 

孟子梁惠王下 (Section 1):

 

　　莊暴見孟子，曰：「暴見於王，王語暴以好樂，暴未有以對也。」曰：「好樂何如？」

　　孟子曰：「王之好樂甚，則齊國其庶幾乎？」

　　他日，見於王曰：「王嘗語莊子以好樂，有諸？」

　　王變乎色，曰：「寡人非能好先王之樂也，直好世俗之樂耳。」

　　曰：「王之好樂甚，則國其庶幾乎，今之樂猶古之樂也。」

　　曰：「可得聞與？」

　　曰：「獨樂樂，與人樂樂，孰樂？」

　　曰：「不若與人。」

　　曰：「與少樂樂，與眾樂樂，孰樂？」

　　曰：「不若與眾。」

　　「臣請為王言樂。今王鼓樂於此，百姓聞王鐘鼓之聲，管龠之音，舉疾首蹙額而相告曰：『吾王之好鼓樂，夫何使我至於此極也？父子不相見，兄弟妻子離散。』今王田獵於此，百姓聞王車馬之音，見羽旄之美，舉疾首蹙額而相告曰：『吾王之好田獵，夫何使我至於此極也？父子不相見，兄弟妻子離散。』此無他，不與民同樂也。

　　「今王鼓樂於此，百姓聞王鐘鼓之聲，管龠之音，舉欣欣然有喜色而相告曰：『吾王庶幾無疾病與，何以能鼓樂也？』今王田獵於此，百姓聞王車馬之音，見羽旄之美，舉欣欣然有喜色而相告曰：『吾王庶幾無疾病與，何以能田獵也？』此無他，與民同樂也。今王與百姓同樂，則王矣。」

 

For a translation into modern Chinese go here.  For some reason, the baidu/baike links me to a text that doesn't match this one and I don't really know why.

 

First, a few language questions:

 

1. 王之好樂甚，則齊國其庶幾乎？What is Mencius talking about?  I've seen this interpreted as "If the king likes music, then the state of Qi is fine in terms of governance."  Clearly the phrase 庶几 is the problem here and I'm afraid Rouzer's explanation leaves me needing more.
2. 今之樂猶古之樂也 Rouzer has 由 rather than 犹.  I assume this is a transcription/version issue.  Is he saying "Today's music is like old music."  I'll leave Mencius' assessment here and be thankful he wasn't a music critic today.
3. 不若與人 What's going on here then?  Obviously from the following question he's saying that he likes listening with other people, but he can't just say that can he?  For me, this four-character phrase has the meaning of not liking music with other people, but clearly 若 has some negatory role which creates a double negative, but I can't see it.
4. 舉疾首蹙額 Is 疾 here acting adverbially?
5. 夫何使我至於此極也 "Then why does he force me to this extreme?" The extreme which is then elaborated upon in the following sentence.  Correct?
6. 與民同樂  Should I take 同 to mean share?

 

A few thoughts:

 

So, if the people are happy to hear the kings music and see him hunting, then it is because he shares music with them.  And if they are not happy to hear his music or see him hunting, then its because he doesn't share the music with them?  I don't quite get what Rouzer means when he says that Mencius is providing a diagnostic on how to assess whether or not he is behaving correctly.  Surely Mencius is being fairly explicit:  share music with the people and they will like you.  Or is he using music as an analogy and saying, the action that produces the favourable outcome is the correct action?  If so, it seems like a pretty roundabout way to say something fairly straightforward.

 

Also, what is the relation to ancient music?  Why does Mencius make that comment?

[somethingfunny]

孟子告子上 (Section 10):

 

孟子曰：「魚，我所欲也；熊掌，亦我所欲也。二者不可得兼，舍魚而取熊掌者也。生，亦我所欲也；義，亦我所欲也。二者不可得兼，舍生而取義者也。生亦我所欲，所欲有甚於生者，故不為茍得也。死亦我所惡，所惡有甚於死者，故患有所不辟也。如使人之所欲莫甚於生，則凡可以得生者，何不用也？使人之所惡莫甚於死者，則凡可以辟患者，何不為也？由是則生而有不用也，由是則可以辟患而有不為也。是故所欲有甚於生者，所惡有甚於死者，非獨賢者有是心也，人皆有之，賢者能勿喪耳。一簞食，一豆羹，得之則生，弗得則死。呼爾而與之，行道之人弗受；蹴爾而與之，乞人不屑也。萬鍾則不辨禮義而受之。萬鍾於我何加焉？為宮室之美、妻妾之奉、所識窮乏者得我與？鄉為身死而不受，今為宮室之美為之；鄉為身死而不受，今為妻妾之奉為之；鄉為身死而不受，今為所識窮乏者得我而為之──是亦不可以已乎？此之謂失其本心。」

 

OK. Personally, I really, really liked this lesson.  It's quite different from everything we've seen before, and rather than Mencius in conversation with a king explaining vague agricultural policy, here he is delivering a short monologue with some valuable (and slightly) complex lessons.  The language is rather more complex than what has gone before and while I feel like I have a grasp on the overall lesson he is trying to give, it's a fairly light grasp and one that I don't want to dwell on further until I've cleared up a few things I'm not 100% sure about.

 

The first thing I'd like to talk about is the whole 鱼与熊掌，不可得兼 which gets translated to the common English saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too)."  The impression I get from the text here is subtly different.  The English saying is very much you can have one but not the other - the resolution of conflicting beliefs/actions.  For example, you can't be the boss of the company and have everyone like you.  Or, you can't drive around in a 4x4 and talk about action on climate change.  Mencius' argument seems to follow a "If you have to choose one, then which will you choose?" approach.  As in, which is better:  to be famous and hated, or loved and unknown?  While both cases involve a set of mutually exclusive ideas, the Mencian framing emphasises the process of choosing between the two whereas the English saying emphasizes their inability to coexist.  This is at least my interpretation, and I'm sure a philosopher (or anyone that has studied this formally) would be able to enlighten us further on this point.

 

Moving on, I'd like to go through a few phrases I had trouble understanding:

 

1.  死亦我所惡，所惡有甚於死者，故患有所不辟也 "Death is what I hate, but what I hate is even greater than death, therefore I do not avoid grief."  Really not clear on the last third of this sentence.
2. 如使人之所欲莫甚於生，則凡可以得生者，何不用也? "If there is nothing that people desire that is greater than life, then how is it that all those who have a life do not use it?"  In other words, if life is what people want most of all, why do they waste their lives (by doing assorted bad deeds or playing on their iphones all day I assume is what Mencius is going for.)
3. 使人之所惡莫甚於死者，則凡可以辟患者，何不為也？"If there is nothing that people hate more than death, then why do people not attempt to avoid grief?"  Not really sure about the second half of this 'couplet'.  I dislike nothing more than death, so while I am able to avoid 患, why don't I do so?

 

I'd really like to get these lines cleared up before going on to a further discussion of what Mencius is getting at.  It's my understanding that later, when he refers to 万钟 he is talking about salaries for officials.  How am I supposed to know this if he hasn't explicitly stated that this is the point he is making?

 

I know of feel like I should have separated these three topics out now as this seems fairly unrelated to lesson 28, and is much more interesting.  However, please feel free to go back and check out the points I raised in my first post.  Please preface your response with an indication to which lesson you are talking about.  Thanks for any help anyone can provide!

[evn108]

 

 

 

1.  死亦我所惡，所惡有甚於死者，故患有所不辟也 "Death is what I hate, but what I hate is even greater than death, therefore I do not avoid grief."  Really not clear on the last third of this sentence.
2. 如使人之所欲莫甚於生，則凡可以得生者，何不用也? "If there is nothing that people desire that is greater than life, then how is it that all those who have a life do not use it?"  In other words, if life is what people want most of all, why do they waste their lives (by doing assorted bad deeds or playing on their iphones all day I assume is what Mencius is going for.)
3. 使人之所惡莫甚於死者，則凡可以辟患者，何不為也？"If there is nothing that people hate more than death, then why do people not attempt to avoid grief?"  Not really sure about the second half of this 'couplet'.  I dislike nothing more than death, so while I am able to avoid 患, why don't I do so?

1. For 所惡有甚於死者, don't forget the particles: 有 and 者 are important here. He's not saying "what I hate is even greater than death," he's saying "there are things that I hate even more than death," which hopefully makes the next part make more sense. "I detest death, but there are things I detest even more than death, so, there are some forms of suffering (not sure grief really works here, talking about physical distress/life threatening situations) that I do not avoid."

2+3. Just going to offer my translation here, hope it makes sense. Sentences follow the same structure, I'll do the first literally and the second in a more streamlined way. "Supposing among that which people desire there is nothing that exceeds [their desire for] life, then all of the things that may be used to obtain [extend] life--why do they not use them?"

"If people truly detest nothing more than they detest death, then why is it that there are means of avoiding death that they do not employ?"

 

Hope this helps

[somethingfunny]

Thanks evn108, thats a big help.  I'll now try to work through the reasoning that he's providing:

 

• You can have life, of you can have justice.
• Life is what I want, but there are things I want which are greater than life, therefore I do not act for illicit gains. (Not sure about 故不為茍得也)
• Death is what I hate, but there are things I hate which are greater than death, therefore there is suffering which I do not avoid. (Again: 故患有所不辟也)

Not a 100% on the last part of those two lines.  Also, would it be more appropriate to translate this as a 'fear' of death.  Or does he really mean hate?

 

Now here's the heart of the argument:

• If there is nothing people want more than life, then why do they not employ all the means by which they can attain life?
• If there is nothing people hate more than death, then why do they not employ all the means by which they can avoid suffering? (Should I equate suffering and death here?  He uses 死 and 患 in this case, but only 生 in the opposite case)
• If there are ways to obtain life, but they are not employed, it is because what we want is greater than life.
• If there are ways of avoiding death, but they are not employed, it is because what we hate is greater than death.

Rouzer comments that this is close to a syllogism in the western sense.  I'm no philosopher, but having read the opening paragraph to the wikipedia page, I will now attempt to frame it in this way:

 

• I desire life more than anything.
• X will give me life.
• I do not do X.
• Therefore life is not what I desire more than anything (ie there are things I desire even more).

I'm going to take a break and then look at the second half again.  

[somethingfunny]

OK, I'd like to look at the second half of Lesson 29.  Starting with:

 

非獨賢者有是心也，人皆有之，賢者能勿喪耳

 

Rouzer is fairly unclear (in my view) about how to treat the last part of this sentence.  Should it be 贤者能毋丧之而已 which I translate as "Wise men are able to not allow it to die and that is all"  Where I assume the 'it' refers to 心, or the idea of people desiring something more than life itself, fearing something more than death itself.  Which makes me think its something along the lines of: "Everyone desires something more than life, its just that wise men are able to act upon these instincts."

 

Then what follows is fairly straightforward:

 

• If you have food you live.
• If you don't have food you die.
• If you abuse a man as you give him food he will not take it.

Is he now talking about common people, or 贤人?  I'm not sure if I'm fully in step with Mencius' thinking.  Originally I thought we were talking about 'justice' being more important than life, as in you wouldn't kill another man to ensure your own life.  But it sounds like he's talking about pride being more important than life, like I'm not going to eat this guy's food to stay alive if he doesn't respect me.  I guess he would have interpreted it as honour, and it would have been a much bigger deal to him.  Also, this all seems very hypothetical, like he's saying that this is how we should act rather than how we do act.  It's nice saying that we desire honour more than life, but really, when it comes down to it and theres two people but only one serving of 方便面，香肠 and  面包 left, are we still going to be talking about what we desire more than life?

 

I think I'll leave it there to see if anyone (evn108 I'm looking at you) can comment on this before discussing the last couple of lines.

[yvesc]

#1 --------

 

3. 不若與人

 

「獨樂樂，與人樂樂，孰樂？」曰：「不若與人。」

"enjoying music alone, enjoying with other people, which is (greater) enjoyment? -- Answered: (alone) is not as good as with others" 

This 不若 is similar to modern 不如. 

 

4. 舉疾首蹙額 Is 疾 here acting adverbially?

more like a verb/adj. 疾首 is parallel with 蹙額

 

6. 與民同樂  Should I take 同 to mean share?

That sounds a strange question; 樂 is a verb.

 

#2 -----------

 

1. 死亦我所惡，所惡有甚於死者，故患有所不辟也 "Death is what I hate, but what I hate is even greater than death, therefore I do not avoid grief."  Really not clear on the last third of this sentence.

 "what I hate is even greater than death" is not the meaning.

(死)亦[我(所惡)]  dying is what I abhor

  (所惡)有[(甚於死)者] (among) what I abhor, there are things (that I abhor) more than death

 故(患)有(所不辟)也 therefore (among) perils there are those that I do not avoid.

 

2. 如使人之所欲莫甚於生，則凡可以得生者，何不用也? "If there is nothing that people desire that is greater than life, then how is it that all those who have a life do not use it?" 

wrong translation, not "that is greater than life", not "all those who have a life"

如使(人之所欲)莫(甚於生)，則[(凡可以得生)者]，何不用也 if (among) what people desire, there is nothing (they desire) more than life, then all those things that can procure life, why don't they use them?

1. 3. 使人之所惡莫甚於死者，則凡可以辟患者，何不為也？
2. that's symmetric with the previous one.

PS: I started typing this two days ago, thus it is out of sync with the thread.

[yvesc]

#3 ------

賢者能勿喪耳

yes, it's "the sage is able to never lose it", unlike common people who, despite having the right feelings, will sometimes err.

喪 is not "to die"

[somethingfunny]

Thanks yvesc.  I'm still a little unsure of the logic behind:

 

"dying is what I abhor. (among) what I abhor, there are things (that I abhor) more than death, therefore (among) perils there are those that I do not avoid."

 

As in, I see how it translates to this, but I don't know what it means (in English).

[yvesc]

"I abhor the idea of dying, but because there are things I abhor even more, I will sometimes not dodge things that might lead to my death"

[somethingfunny]

OK, so for the last couple of lines he's talking about large payments (to government officials I believe).  He asks why he would possibly want so much money... To have a beautiful house?  To employ some beautiful ladies?  I'm assuming he uses these two bad examples of using money and then comes up with a more noble third: To give to the poor that I know?

 

Then he gives three parallel contrasts:

 

Before it was life and death and you didn't take it.  Now you take it for a beautiful house?

Before it was life and death and you didn't take it.  Now you take it to get beautiful ladies?

Before it was life and death and you didn't take it.  Now you take it so you can give it the poor that you know?

 

This pattern makes me think that maybe his third reason wasn't so noble after all.

 

He finishes up by posing a (rhetorical?) question:  Can this be stopped?  No.  And this is the loss of heart (of the common man that he was talking about before, in contrast to the 贤人).

 

I hope I've got that right.

 

So, in summary:  There are things we value more than life, namely honour.  A wise man is able to follow through on this and will refuse food from a person who degrades him - even if it results in his own death.  Average Joe though will not, and instead will take lots of money and build himself a big house with lots of beautiful women and he'll Lord it up over the poor, throwing small change at them in the street.  I'm not 100% sure how is reasoning on the "some things are more important than life" in the first part relates to the "don't accept more money than you need" towards the end.

[somethingfunny]

Lesson 30 is pretty straightforward.  

 

滕文公问曰：“滕，小国也。竭力以事大国，则不得免焉，如之何则可？”孟子对曰：“昔者大王居邠，狄人侵之。事之以皮币，不得免焉；事之以犬马，不得免焉；事之以珠玉，不得免焉。乃属其耆老而告之曰：‘狄人之所欲者，吾土地也。吾闻之也：君子不以其所以养人者害人。二三子何患乎无君？我将去之。’去邠，逾梁山，邑于岐山之下居焉。邠人曰：‘仁人也，不可失也。’从之者如归市。或曰：‘世守也，非身之所能为也。’效死勿去。“君请择於斯二者。

 

It's the story of Duke Wen of Teng who is worried because Teng is a small country.  Mencius tells him about King Tai who lived in Bin and was repeatedly attacked by barbarians.  He tried bribing them but eventually realised that what the barbarians really wanted was his land, not his bribes.  Worried that he shouldn't harm his people by engaging in military battles, he moved and settled at Mount Qi.  The people of Bin came in two kinds: (1) Those that felt their king was benevolent followed him.  (2) Those that felt they shouldn't abandon the land they had always lived on stayed to fight to the death.  Mencius presents these two options to Duke Wen of Teng.

 

I do (obviously) have a few questions:

 

1. 竭力以事大国，则不得免焉，如之何则可？"To exhaust your strength by serving a larger country and then still not avoid being attacked by that country, what can be done with regards to this?"  Am I translating the middle part correctly?
2. 其耆老 Who are these people?
3. 二三子何患乎无君？I've forgotten what that 乎 does, but I know its something important.  This sentence is basically "You guys... why are you worried about not having a king?"  Seems like a strange thing to say.

 

I'm not really sure what Rouzer was trying to achieve by putting this chapter in here.  No doubt he had something in mind, and taking his course there would probably have been some relevant bit of grammar or history to tie it in to having it at this point.  Otherwise it seems like the previous lesson was much more interesting, much more challenging and had much more to discuss.

 

Having these three lessons together in one thread didn't really work and the later discussion was a bit messy.  I'll try and avoid it with the remaining chapters unless they are very clearly linked to one another, although this does mean clogging up the board a bit (sorry).  The next unit has two lessons about warrior women.  They are very different in that one of them looks like a normal text where as the other is in the form of a poem.  Therefore I will not put these together but will give each its own thread.

 

Please read through this entire thread as there are lots of talking points along the way.  Otherwise, see you in Lesson 31!

[ilande]

I've been speeding through the chapters for the past 2 weeks, but I thought I'd pitch in with a few questions, now that I think I'll have to slow down a bit with school starting and all. If these threads are still alive that is.

 

Anyway, to the point.

 

1. 萬鍾於我何加焉 Do I read this as "what is added on 萬鍾 compared to me" meaning: what do 萬鍾 have that I don't?

 

2. 從之者如歸市 I don't quite follow this. Is this 如 a verb? And if 歸市 means "give allegiance to" how does it come to mean that? And how does it play together with 如? "Those who followed (the king?) went to where they have their allegiance"? Does the following phrase then, in contrast, refer to those who stayed?

[Publius]

1. 萬鐘 is not a person. 萬 = 10,000. 鐘 = unit of volume. 萬鐘 is short for 萬鐘之俸祿. In ancient times, salary was paid in the form of goods -- salt in the West, millet in the East. 萬鍾於我何加焉 => What am I to gain with a salary of 10,000 bushels.

 

2. 歸市 = 歸趨於市集 = flocking to the market/fair. 從之者如歸市 => People followed the king like they were going to Scarborough Fair.

[ilande]

Thank you, that makes sense. I don't know why Rouzer translated 歸市 as "give allegiance to", when a more literal translation makes more sense...

 

I knew 萬鍾 wasn't a person, but I mistakenly translated it as "someone who makes a lot of money", when it apparently just referred to the money itself.