Tai Chi vs. Marching

[Steve James]

Well, tcc is fundamentally based on Sun Tzu's Art of War. What it doesn't mean is that war is art -if art is mistaken as beauty. Rather, it's how one (army or individual) accomplishes a task.

That can (or should) mean, for ex., winning a battle with little or no loss of human life. The "art of fighting without fighting" for ex, to return to BL. However, the act of marching or drilling can also be art-istic. Since it's Veterans Day, how about this example? Is it art?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev_W4AGh0co

[Trick]

the ”art of war” would be something as - philosophy/law of the soldier, translated.

[Trick]

since the ”art” of war was written about here, i wanted to check out a little on Sunzi, and very well to this threads topic, the legend has it that Sunzi got the job as military advisor by impressing his overlord by in a short time teaching the concubines of the palace to march orderly.

unfortunately it didnt last long, the small kingdom of Wu which Sunzi worked for was short lived and was soon overtaken.

[Steve James]

As the story goes, it wasn't about making them march; it was about making them take what they were doing seriously. He did it by cutting off some of their heads. Then, the rest fell right into shape. He repeats the idea in chapter six, iirc, on strategies?, when he talks about placing one's men on the "killing ground" (but leave an escape route for the enemy).

It doesn't matter that Wu didn't survive. Most others didn't either. However, Sun's "AoW" is still ready and taught at military academies. Anyway, the other Art of War was written later by Sun Bin, who's said to be related to Sun Tzu.

But, these texts were read by generals first, and then turned into philosophy. Then again, the Tao-ist philosophy was always a component of Sun Tzu and Sun Bin's work. Again in chapter 6 of the AoW.

“The Tao of the universe is like a great river. It flows steadily onward, and nothing can stop it. The clever general learns from the Tao and uses it to his advantage.”

[Bao]

Well, tcc is fundamentally based on Sun Tzu's Art of War. What it doesn't mean is that war is art -if art is mistaken as beauty. Rather, it's how one (army or individual) accomplishes a task.

The book's name in Chinese is 孫子兵法, Sūnzǐ bīngfǎ. Fa, 法, means method, not "art". It's the same "fa" as in "quan fa" boxing method.

So Chinese don't regard it as a book on art.

Here in the West the Sunzi bingfa is regarded as a standout and unique work. But actually it's only one of the seven Chinese military classics. They are all important and in China they are studied together. Personally I don't find Sunzi that exceptional, at least a couple of the others are more interesting. All of them are well worth a read.


The Seven military classics are:

Jiang Ziya (Taigong)'s Six Secret Teachings (六韜)
The Methods of the Sima (司馬法) (also known as Sima Rangju Art of War)
Sun Tzu's The Art of War (孫子兵法)
Wu Qi's Wuzi (吳子)
Wei Liaozi (尉繚子)
Three Strategies of Huang Shigong (黃石公三略)
Questions and Replies between Tang Taizong and Li Weigong (唐太宗李衛公問對)


Also notice that Sun Bin is not regarded as "classic" in this sense and doesn't have the same status as the seven above.

[Steve James]

Hmm, I'm not Chinese capable, but the Sun's book is always sold as "The Art of War." If it's a mistranslation, then it's been going on for the last century.
Anyway, I started reading the Sunzi in the 60s (same time I started reading the Go RIn No Sho).
I didn't read Sun Bin until the 80s because the text wasn't discovered until the 1970s.
But, have you read those other classics? Do you know which came earliest? What do you like about the others that make them more valuable than Sun Tzu'?
I can find direct references/quotes from Sun Tzu in the (Yang) tcc writings. If there are other references, help a bro out.

[Bao]

Hmm, I'm not Chinese capable, but the Sun's book is always sold as "The Art of War." If it's a mistranslation, then it's been going on for the last century.

Tai Chi Chuan doesn't mean "Grand Ultimate Fist" and the "harmony" in "6 harmonies" isn't the character for harmony.

Many translations as Zunzi Bingfa are examples of orientalism. Translators want to give names, terms and book titles a fancy flare without respecting the original meaning.

But, have you read those other classics? Do you know which came earliest? What do you like about the others that make them more valuable than Sun Tzu'?

Yes. I bought this collection a few yrs ago (maybe the same year this edition was released): https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Military-C ... 784289116/ Hard cover is recommended.

Sunzi is the oldest and that is maybe why it's most famous. Sunzi was born around 544 BC. The next is Wu Qi's Wuzi, he was born almost exactly 100 yrs later, in the year 440 BC to be exact.

There are some stories and examples of interesting tactics of warfare in some of the other texts with more rich descriptions. Maybe the Six Secret Teachings, The Methods of the Sima and Wuzi are the most interesting, but I like all of them a lot.

I can find direct references/quotes from Sun Tzu in the (Yang) tcc writings. If there are other references, help a bro out

I'll think about it. Later.

[Steve James]

Tai Chi Chuan doesn't mean "Grand Ultimate Fist" and the "harmony" in "6 harmonies" isn't the character for harmony.

Many translations as Zunzi Bingfa are examples of orientalism. Translators want to give names, terms and book titles a fancy flare without respecting the original meaning.

The issue isn't translation; it's interpretation of the term art. Art and method can be synonyms when used as verbs. Anyway, artists (painters/musicians, etc.) didn't study Sun Tzu. Anyway, the Way of War would work, but still not be an word for word translation. Doesn't matter.

[Bao]

The issue isn't translation; it's interpretation of the term art. Art and method can be synonyms when used as verbs.

Well, for a translation if you use "art", you also need to understand the word "art" in Chinese. "Art" implies "art" which can, yes, be interpreted in various ways. Fa or "法" has nothing to do with "art" as in "fine art" or "art form". It gives the wrong associations and the wrong idea of the meaning of the book.

Fa, 法 means "law", "rule", it can imply regulations of how to do something. Examples of use: "Fajia" = legalism, "yongfa" = "Use" (how to use something).

"Art" in Chinese is "艺术" yìshù or měishù 美术 or 精美艺术 Jīngměi yìshù. The character "术" can be a component in words for "technique" and "skill". However, and again, the character of "fa" doesn't imply "art" as in "fine arts".

I would personally prefer a translation as "Sunzi's Rules of Warfare" over "Art of War". But IDK, maybe it's more a matter of taste.

[Trick]

Bao - good explaination on ”bingfa”

i was trying in my previous post to put that info in just a few words, but it didn't hit home that clear.

[vadaga]

Art is a slightly idiomatic mistranslation.
The word in Chinese actually is more like 'method' as noted. There is a different word used when we are talking about 'fine arts' vs 'martial methods'
AFA 'soldier', we gotta remember that Sunzi was writing in classical Chinese where some of the usages were different- here is the original text (which, as classical Chinese goes, is actually one of the most readable things I have come across ) https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%AD%AB%E5%AD%90%E5%85%B5%E6%B3%95#%E5%A7%8B%E8%A8%88%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80 in some places I would probably use 'troops' or 'force' rather than 'soldier' were I to translate this into English. we see one example of '兵士' in the text but none of '士兵' which is the modern Mandarin word for soldier

[Steve James]

Well, "method" or way might be a more precise translation of the meaning into English. But, in English, the "art" of war isn't different from the "art" of poetry or the "art" of drawing or "art" of motorcycle racing or "art" of calligraphy.

No one has even suggested that "art" always refers to the Mona Lisa. That's a cultural interpretation. In the European tradition, art is generally useless. You can't do anything with the Mona Lisa or the Pieta or a Picasso except admire them. When there's a utilitarian value, we tend to call it craft, not art.

Whoever was the first to use the translation Art of War, it's unlikely that it was because the writer was thinking of art as in painting or aesthetic beauty. If he did, the translation stuck. It doesn't matter because changing the title wouldn't affect the contents, for one. More importantly from my pov, is that unless I could read the text in Chinese, debates about the meaning in Chinese are useless.

I have to agree with you guys about the Chinese. I disagree completely about the term art in English.

[origami_itto]

Well, "method" or way might be a more precise translation of the meaning into English. But, in English, the "art" of war isn't different from the "art" of poetry or the "art" of drawing or "art" of motorcycle racing or "art" of calligraphy.

No one has even suggested that "art" always refers to the Mona Lisa. That's a cultural interpretation. In the European tradition, art is generally useless. You can't do anything with the Mona Lisa or the Pieta or a Picasso except admire them. When there's a utilitarian value, we tend to call it craft, not art.

Whoever was the first to use the translation Art of War, it's unlikely that it was because the writer was thinking of art as in painting or aesthetic beauty. If he did, the translation stuck. It doesn't matter because changing the title wouldn't affect the contents, for one. More importantly from my pov, is that unless I could read the text in Chinese, debates about the meaning in Chinese are useless.

I have to agree with you guys about the Chinese. I disagree completely about the term art in English.

In english it can mean, as I referred to above, the object/result and/or the process itself. We apply our art to create our art.

In common modern American usage I agree it usually refers to "useless" things, objects of no critical value, but once upon a time it was common to refer to the skill of a tradesman in executing their craft, their art.

WHen I think of a craft I think of a procedural, technique based process that is hard to do wrong.

Art on the other hand is a skilled trade, whether it be fine art or the way a carpenter sets a beam by hand.

[origami_itto]

In olden times strategy was listed among the Ten Abilities and Seven Arts as
a beneficial practice. It was certainly an art but as a beneficial practice it was not limited to sword-fencing. The true value of sword-fencing cannot be seen within the confines of sword-fencing technique.

If we look at the world we see arts for sale. Men use equipment to sell their own selves. As if with the nut and the flower, the nut has become less than the
flower. In this kind of Way of strategy, both those teaching and those learning the way are concerned with colouring and showing off their technique, trying
to hasten the bloom of the flower. They speak of "This Dojo" and "That Dojo". They are looking for profit. Someone once said "Immature strategy is the cause of grief". That was a true saying.

[Steve James]

A person can call anything art, and find art in anything. Where I agree with those who'd prefer "method" to "art" in this case is because I would understand the reluctance to have a book called "the art of killing." Imo, the reason Giles chose "art" for Sun Tzu's book was because it was the opposite of a 'method' of killing an enemy, and he had a choice. My point is only that changing the name would be confusing and not add anything.

As with Musashi's work, its value is that it can be applied to all aspects of life. Especially those areas where there are or can be conflicts, and especially because there are always those who will try to take advantage. Iirc, Sun's problem was convincing a king that he could raise and train an army to fight a larger kingdom's advances. How can a small force defeat a larger one. Imo, that's why Sun's work is the first (Chinese?) military "classic." There were lots of martial texts written after Sun.

Qi Jiguang, he wrote military treatises too, but their names are straight forward: "New Book of Military Efficiency" and "Practical Records of Military Training," etc. There are a few tcc-looking things in his work, and a lot of the Sunzi. But General Qi was more interested in tactics aopt strategy or philosophy.