RATIONALISING ‘天’ (TIAN1) IN MODERN CHINA The lecturer is correct about the Chinese ideogram ‘天’ (Tian1) but it is not as simple as he suggests.
This is one of the first Chinese characters that I learned to analyse. The British sinologist Richard Hunn (1949-2006) was teaching me how to read
The Zhouyi (i.e. Yijing) is demonstrably far older than the Dao De Jing, and it is an interesting consideration that the author(s) of the latter may well have been copying the organisation structure of the former, as a means to ensure political and social legitimacy for their text.
King Arthur – at least in the earliest strata of his legend – is an indigenous Romano-British King, who embodied what has become known as
‘The body of Henning’s article may be considered a rehash of the old ‘Wudang’ vs. ‘Shaolin’ mythology, with the facts (where they can be established), presented in a logical, if not meandering fashion; dates, names of emperors and portions of lineages, etc. China’s ‘Self Strengthening’ movement is mentioned near the end, as the final impetus for the association of Zhang Sanfeng with the development of Taijiquan – but oddly enough, Henning (who has written in military journals), does not acknowledge that this movement developed in China as a response to the rampant Western Imperialist aggression typical of the time. Curiously Henning makes no reference to the pre-Song uses of the term ‘Taiji’ which are known to refer to the practice (and usage) of martial arts. It is ironic therefore, that Henning would refer to Chinese myths and legends as ‘ignorance’, when so much of his historical omissions and oversights could well attract a similar criticism.’