Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet (Sanskrit?)

[Rieko Suzuki]

Dear Honyakkers,

I am currently translating (E to J) an essay originally written in Braille
(in which language I am not sure) and converted into English.
The author is an Indian and he cites some phrases from "epics of Hindu",
such as teaching of "Lord Shri Krishna".
I cannot find the meaning of " Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" in the sentence
below.
I tried to use some Sanskrit-English dictionary sites, but they didn't help.

The sentence goes as follows:
If environmental consciousness is developed naturally in the human beings in
accordance with the principle of "i. Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet", he will
be able to control pollution and enjoy peace in natural course.

Any hint or idea will be greatly appreciated.

Rieko Suzuki

[Dr. M. S. Niranjan]

I found this in the site given below:

‘Aatmanah pratikulani…………Samacharet’ (Mahabharata) — What you feel adverse to your self should not be done to others.

This very approach could lead to uproot all sorts of enmity, hatred and violence prevalent in the world. The Vedic message, for universal peace and harmony is thus significant beyond space and time; but never has it been so meaningfully relevant, as it is today, in contemporary global context."

https://multithinker.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-importance-of-utilizing-the-gita-to-solve-problems-of-the-21st-century/

If I find anymore, I will post here.
Dr. M. S. Niranjan

[Hào Anh Lê 黎英豪]

This seems related: Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet: The Ultimate Downfall Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet (Mahabharata 5.15.17) is a very famous conclusive sentence of the Mahabharata, which is supposed to be the essence of the canon of dharma or virtue: What is not good for me cannot be meted out by me to others. What is not good for me would not be good for others also, because others are like me in every respect. Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet: The Ultimate Downfall Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet (Mahabharata 5.15.17) is a very famous conclusive sentence of the Mahabharata, which is supp... shuvamsblog.blogspot.com “Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet – What I do not want others to do to me, I do not do to others.”  Corporate Initiative “Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet – What I do not want others to do to me, I do not do to others.” This simple and… purnavidya.org Atman = soul eva: certainly/ only Sounds like The Golden Rule Hào Anh Lê

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dr. M. S. Niranjan]

One more site has descriptions of this.

http://www.tantrik-astrologer.in/BOOK/linked/1149.pdf

Dr. M. S. Niranjan

On 2016/09/27 12:50, Rieko Suzuki wrote:

[Mark Spahn]

Sure sound like the   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

[Rieko Suzuki]

Dr, Niranjan, Mr. Hao and Mr. Spahn, thank you so much for your quick responses.

It was really worth asking the list.

 

I fully agree that the phrase corresponds to the golden rule, but I wonder how you have come up with those sites although the spelling is not exactly the same.

Sorry if this sounds like a naïve question.

 

Rieko Suzuki

 

[Hào Anh Lê 黎英豪]

In my case, I already knew that "atman = soul" (college dorm mate named Atman). "Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" produced no Google results, so I just searched "Atman" by itself. That gave me: "AREWELL RED MANSION: A Novel - Stellar Publishers www.stellarpublishers.com/redmansion.html Cached There's a sookti in the Upanishads – Atman eva hi krute sarvaha priyo bhavati. It is the eternal soul that does things, and whatever it does benefits everyone." Which led me to believe that "Atmaneva" is more correctly "Atman eva". That didn't lead to much more, so I searched for "Preshaan" (nothing useful) and then "Samacharet". 6th result down after images: my life-shuvam: Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet: The ... shuvamsblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/atmanah-pratikulani-paresham-na.html Cached Similar Jun 25, 2013 - Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet (Mahabharata 5.15.17) is a very famous conclusive sentence of the Mahabharata, which is ... Then I searched for "Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet" which led me to translations that seem to reflect the golden rule. "Finally, the essence of both traditions is “Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet,” do not do unto others what you do not want to have done to you. Om.  Source: http://defence.pk/threads/hinduism-and-judaism-similarities.21842/#ixzz4LRTXOgiF" aatman = आत्मन् samacharet = समाचरेत् Atmanah pratikulani paresham na samacharet = आत्मन् प्रतिकूलानि परेशां न समाचरेत्। aatman pareshaan samaacharet = आत्मन् परेशां समाचरेत्। aa = Ā = A Lê, Anh Hào (Vietnamese middle names always stay in the middle, no matter the order)

--

[Dr. M. S. Niranjan]

On 2016/09/27 17:00, Rieko Suzuki wrote:

but I wonder how you have come up with those sites although the spelling is not exactly the same.

I just happened to have studied Sanskrit when I was young and also had to read and recite the Bhagavad Gita when I was a child. That made me think that the words did not seem to have spelled correctly according to Sanskrit, and I tried some spellings that I thought were right, thus got the sties in Google.
Dr. M.S. Niranjan

[Herman]

On 27/09/16 01:00, Rieko Suzuki wrote:
>
> I fully agree that the phrase corresponds to the golden rule, but I
> wonder how you have come up with those sites although the spelling is
> not exactly the same.
>

It is not exactly the same phrase.

I believe "Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" would literally mean
"self-like others treat", while "Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na
Samacharet" would be more like "self's unpleasant other no treat" The
idea is the same though.

Herman Kahn

[ZD Hao]

Here is a Chinese version of it:

己所不欲，勿施于人

Here are some translations of it to several other languages including Japanese that are on the web at

 https://zh.wiktionary.org/zh-hans/%E5%B7%B1%E6%89%80%E4%B8%8D%E6%AC%B2%EF%BC%8C%E5%8B%BF%E6%96%BD%E6%96%BC%E4%BA%BA

翻译

• 英语:"do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you"
• 德语:"Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tu, das füge keinem anderen zu"
• 日语:“他人にしてもらいたいと思うような行为をせよ”

• 西班牙语:"Trata a tus congéneres igual que quisieras ser tratado"
• 法语:"Ne fais pas aux autres ce que tu ne voudrais pas qu'on te fasse"

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Rieko Suzuki]

Mr. Le and Dr. Niranjan, thank you for explaining how you have arrived at the sites.

Hermanさん
Thank you so much for your input.

> I believe "Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" would literally mean "self-like
> others treat", while "Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet" would
> be more like "self's unpleasant other no treat" The idea is the same though.

Before reading your post, I was going to add a comment that "Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" must be a mistake for "Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet", which comes from Mahabharata, but is it proper Sanskrit (though there may be an issue of transliteration)? If so, I will just translate it into 己の欲せざるところを人に施すなかれ without a comment. Having said that, I have noticed that 己の欲せざるところを人に施すなかれ seems like a direct translation of the Chinese version己所不欲，勿施于人 suggested by Mr. ZD Hao.

Rieko Suzuki

[Rieko Suzuki]

Sorry, I was confused.

Herman said

> > I believe "Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" would literally mean "self-like
> > others treat", while "Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet" would
> > be more like "self's unpleasant other no treat" The idea is the same though.

If "Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" is proper Sanskrit and literally means "self-like others treat", I will translate it into 己の欲するところを人に施せ without adding a comment. I may be splitting hairs...

Rieko Suzuki

[Kirill Sereda]

Rieko wrote:
>> Having said that, I have noticed that 己の欲せざるところを人に施すなかれ seems like a direct translation of the Chinese version己所不欲，勿施于人 suggested by Mr. ZD Hao.

Yes, the expression comes from the Analects of Confucius. In Chapter XV "Wei Ling Gong", Confucius is asked by Duanmu Ci, a.k.a Zi Gong, one of his Ten Disciples:

「有一言而可以終身行之者乎？」
"Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?", to which Confucius answered:
「其恕乎！己所不欲，勿施於人。」
"Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." (trans. by Legge)

Kirill Sereda

[Muneo Saito]

Here’s論語 (Confucius) version.

 

『論語』顔淵2、衛霊公23

己(おのれ)の欲(ほっ)せざる所(ところ)は人(ひと)に施(ほどこ)すこと勿(なか)れ

 

Refer to: http://kanbun.info/koji/onorenoho.html

Muneo Saito

Tokyo 

[Herman]

I suppose 己の如く人に施せ would be a more literal rendering, but the above is
fine.

My knowledge of Sanskrit is too minimal to say whether that qualifies as
proper Sanskrit, but in any case, it doesn't seem plausible to take it
to be a misspelling of "Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet".

Herman Kahn

[Rieko Suzuki]

Hats off to you, Herman さん。
己の如く人に施せ is indeed more literal and still makes sense.
Thank you so much.

I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread.
Since my knowledge of Sanskrit is zero, initially I was thinking of leaving it out, which would have made the translation unkind to the readers.
I really appreciate the collective wisdom of this list.

Rieko Suzuki

> > If "Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet" is proper Sanskrit and literally
> > means "self-like others treat", I will translate it into 己の欲すると
> ころを人に施
> > せ without adding a comment. I may be splitting hairs...
>
>
> I suppose 己の如く人に施せ would be a more literal rendering, but the above
> is
> fine.
>
> My knowledge of Sanskrit is too minimal to say whether that qualifies as
> proper Sanskrit, but in any case, it doesn't seem plausible to take it
> to be a misspelling of "Atmanah Pratikulani Paresham na Samacharet".
>
> Herman Kahn
>

[Muneo Saito]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 1:05:10 PM UTC+9, rie...@m5.dion.ne.jp wrote:

Refer to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

It gives comprehensive answers to your question. You should also refer to Japanese version,

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%84%E9%87%91%E5%BE%8B

 

Cheers.

Muneo

 

[Kirill Sereda]

Rieko wrote:

>> I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread.

In Chapter VII of The Analects of Confucius, The Master says:

"三人行，必有我師焉。"
"When I walk along with two others, they may serve me as my teachers." (trans. by Legge)

Kirill Sereda

[Kirill Sereda]

The Scottish sinologist Legge was a great man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Legge

But he was a man of the Western World and could not accept/understand/interpret the Chinese World in its entirety.

There must be a better translation!

Kirill Sereda

-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirill Sereda
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 12:12 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet (Sanskrit?)

[Herman]

On 29/09/16 08:04, Kirill Sereda wrote:
> The Scottish sinologist Legge was a great man
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Legge
>
> But he was a man of the Western World and could not accept/understand/interpret the Chinese World in its entirety.
>
> There must be a better translation!
>

Or maybe Legge did not understand the concept of translation in its
entirety, as his translation "When I walk along with two others, they
may serve me as my teachers" is not really accurate at the literal level.

A literal translation of 三人行，必有我師焉 could be
"[When] three men walk, surely one has one's teachers."

To make the meaning clearer, perhaps this could be elaborated as follows:

"When three men walk together, surely each walks in the company of his
teachers!"

Legge gets the general idea right, but gets the "spirit" of the
statement backwards.

Herman Kahn

[Kirill Sereda]

This saying is almost always quoted as "三人行，必有我師", forgetting the final "焉", which means "among them". What Legge missed here is this word, "焉", which shows that the speaker is NOT one of the "三人" (not walking "with two others"), but an observer.

The level of understanding of Chinese language and culture in the West is a solid D. It hasn't changed for hundreds of years. It is still at the level of Taiping Rebellion and Legge.

Kirill Sereda

[ZD Hao]

It appears that Legge's interpretation is correct, according to this web site (Mr. Muneo Saito mentioned in one of his e-mails):  http://kanbun.info/keibu/rongo0721.html

論語　述而第七　21

07-21 子曰。三人行。必有我師焉。擇其善者而從之。其不善者而改之。

子（し）曰（いわ）く、三人（さんにん）行（おこ）なわば、必（かなら）ず我（わ）が師（し）有（あ）り。其（そ）の善（よ）き者（もの）を択（えら）びて之（これ）に従（したが）い、其（そ）の善（よ）からざる者（もの）は之（これ）を改（あらた）む。

• 三人 … 自分と他の二人。皇侃（おうがん）本等では「我三人」に作る。
• 行 … 行動する。また、劉宝楠『論語正義』に「行とは道路を行くなり」（行者、行於道路也）とあり、「道を歩いているとすれば」との解釈もある。こちらは「ユケバ」「アユメバ」と訓読する。
• 有 … 皇侃（おうがん）本等では「得」に作る。
• 我師 … 自分のお手本となる人。
• 焉 … 文末にあるので訓読しない。
• 択 … 選ぶ。
• 従 … 見倣う。
• 改 … （自分にもある同じ欠点を）直す。
• 下村湖人（1884～1955）は「先師がいわれた。三人道づれをすれば、めいめいに二人の先生をもつことになる。善い道づれは手本になってくれるし、悪い道づれは、反省改過の刺戟になってくれる」と訳している（現代訳論語）

Thank you.

Zhidong Hao

301-300-0227 (cell)

zdha...@gmail.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kirill Sereda]

Understanding “三” literally as an exact number is most likely a mistake.  In ancient Chinese, “三人” is used to refer to “many” people, “a crowd”.  In addition to “three”, other multitude-designating numerals include “six”, “nine”, “ten”, “hundred” etc.  The meaning of “三人行” is “In a crowd of passers-by”.

 

Kirill Sereda

 

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ZD Hao
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:22 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet (Sanskrit?)

 

 

It appears that Legge's interpretation is correct, according to this web site (Mr. Muneo Saito mentioned in one of his e-mails):  http://kanbun.info/keibu/rongo0721.html

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Herman]

Legge's error lies in that the wording "they may serve me as my
teachers" does not capture the sense of 必 and has an air of magnanimous
arrogance, whereas 必有我師焉 (必ず我が師有り) has a spirit of respect and humility.


Herman Kahn

On 29/09/16 20:22, ZD Hao wrote:
>
> It appears that Legge's interpretation is correct, according to this web
> site (Mr. Muneo Saito mentioned in one of his e-mails):
> http://kanbun.info/keibu/rongo0721.html
>
>
> 論語　述而第七　21
>
> 07-21 子曰。三人行。必有我師焉。擇其善者而從之。其不善者而改之。
> 子（し）曰（いわ）く、三人（さんにん）行（おこ）なわば、必（かなら）ず我
> （わ）が師（し）有（あ）り。其（そ）の善（よ）き者（もの）を択（えら）び
> て之（これ）に従（したが）い、其（そ）の善（よ）からざる者（もの）は之
> （これ）を改（あらた）む。
>

> * *三人 … 自分と他の二人*。皇侃（おうがん）本等では「我三人」に作る。
> * 行 … 行動する。また、劉宝楠『論語正義』に「行とは道路を行くなり」

> （行者、行於道路也）とあり、「道を歩いているとすれば」との解釈もあ
> る。こちらは「ユケバ」「アユメバ」と訓読する。

> * 有 … 皇侃（おうがん）本等では「得」に作る。
> * 我師 … 自分のお手本となる人。
> * 焉 … 文末にあるので訓読しない。
> * 択 … 選ぶ。
> * 従 … 見倣う。
> * 改 … （自分にもある同じ欠点を）直す。
> * 下村湖人（1884～1955）は「先師がいわれた。三人道づれをすれば、めいめ

[ZD Hao]

I agree, the wording "they may serve me as my teachers" does not capture the sense of "必"

Thanks.

Zhidong Hao

[ZD Hao]

Found another web site (http://baike.baidu.com/view/665330.htm?fromtitle=%E4%B8%89%E4%BA%BA%E8%A1%8C%E5%BF%85%E6%9C%89%E6%88%91%E5%B8%88&fromid=3478015&type=syn); this interpretation of "三" is the same as yours. However, it still says that "我" is among "三人"

Thanks.

Zhidong Hao

[Kirill Sereda]

"必" is a beautiful character: a pierced heart. It means "definitely" etc.

Legge's "they may serve me" is a very odd translation, for sure. But all of Legge's translations are like that, every single sentence.

Kirill Sereda

-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:07 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet (Sanskrit?)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Mika J.]

2016-09-30 12:06 GMT-07:00 Herman <sl...@lmi.net>:

"they may serve me as my teachers" does not capture the sense of 必 and has an air of magnanimous arrogance, whereas 必有我師焉 (必ず我が師有り) has a spirit of respect and humility.

Yes, exactly!  Thank you for articulating this.

Sorry for coming in late on this thread, but I was wondering why 己の如く人に施せ  just wan't working for me.

I think this rendition was suggested as more 'literal' structurally, for the removal of the double negative (to match the form of 'self-like others treat').  In Japanese, however, 己の如く points to nowhere and is totally baffling, at least to this reader.  

Perhaps what we want to say is 我が身の如く for the first half, and for the latter half 人に接せよ, because 施（ほどこ）せ loses its coherency without the presence of 欲するところを.

But more importantly, given the simple universal nature of this little word of wisdom, why doesn't the Japanese language have the same kind of expression that we can call our own, a phrase that people actually use? 

Well, I'm thinking aloud here that we just say 人の身になる when we pass this little nugget of wisdom among ourselves.

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

[Herman]

On 06/10/16 10:18, Mika J. wrote:
>
> But more importantly, given the simple universal nature of this little
> word of wisdom, why doesn't the Japanese language have the same kind of
> expression that we can call our own, a phrase that people actually use?
>

The expression is built around pronouns, which the Japanese language
sort of lacks, from a pragmatic standpoint.

Herman Kahn

[Kirill Sereda]

Perhaps the apparent absence of similar native sayings in the Japanese language has something to do with the unique Japanese traditional ethical system, with its concepts of "面目", "義理", etc. Just a hunch.

Kirill Sereda

-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 11:53 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet (Sanskrit?)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Mika J.]

Hi Kirill,

Oh sorry, it was my fault for not making it clear that mine was just a rhetorical question!

The point I was trying to make was that 'of course we do, just that we never phrase it exactly like that.  

In Japanese, 人の身になる、人の立場で考える is the natural way to express this idea.'

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Mika J. <mik...@gmail.com> wrote:

But more importantly, given the simple universal nature of this little word of wisdom, why doesn't the Japanese language have the same kind of expression that we can call our own, a phrase that people actually use? 

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kirill Sereda]

Hi Mika,

 

Well, of course, these expressions do describe the action that is required by the Golden Rule. They are not in the form of a precept, though (like the Golden Rule).  Well, I don’t know, but could this be because the Japanese culture is already so reciprocity-centered that it is unnecessary to formulate a precept?

 

Kirill Sereda

 

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mika J.
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 1:54 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Atmaneva Preshaan Samacharet (Sanskrit?)

 

Hi Kirill,

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Herman]

On 06/10/16 10:18, Mika J. wrote:

> Sorry for coming in late on this thread, but I was wondering why 己の如
> く人に施せ just wan't working for me.
> I think this rendition was suggested as more 'literal' structurally, for
> the removal of the double negative (to match the form of 'self-like
> others treat'). In Japanese, however, 己の如く points to nowhere and is
> totally baffling, at least to this reader.
>
> Perhaps what we want to say is 我が身の如く for the first half, and for
> the latter half 人に接せよ, because 施（ほどこ）せ loses its coherency
> without the presence of 欲するところを.
>

"己の如く人に施せ" was my primitive attempt to incorporate 己の如く into
the language of the established precept 己の欲せざる所は人に施す勿れ, and does
not really make sense unless one artificially interprets 人に施せ as a
reference to the overall sense of that precept (which I suppose some or
perhaps most readers may do).

However, just looking at the language 己の如く人に施せ alone, the expression
does not really make sense because it is not clear what the object of 施せ
would be.

Also, 施 (at least in the sense used in the original formulation) has a
negative connotation (like "impose"), and so really needs to be in the
form 施す勿れ. "己の欲するところを人に施せ" is thus also a dubious reformulation,
because it would be saying "impose on others what you want". 己の欲せざる所,
on the other hand, has the sense not so much of "what one does not want"
but rather "what to oneself is unpleasant", and so it makes sense to
say, "do not impose this upon others".

Herman Kahn

[Herman]

On 06/10/16 13:23, Kirill Sereda wrote:

>
> Well, of course, these expressions do describe the action that is
> required by the Golden Rule. They are not in the form of a precept,
> though (like the Golden Rule). Well, I don’t know, but could this be
> because the Japanese culture is already so reciprocity-centered that it
> is unnecessary to formulate a precept?
>
>

Well, there is an expression in the form of a precept:
己の欲せざる所は人に施す勿れ. If the question is, why isn't there yet another
formulation of this precept which is not based on Chinese and is not in
kanbun format, maybe it is because the language does not lend itself to
a suitable formulation of this concept in precept form.

For example, the colloquial Japanese translation of the Biblical "Do
onto others..." is 人にしてもらいたいと思うことは何でも、あなたがたも人にしなさい.

I suppose this gets the idea across, but does not sound particularly
precept-like.


Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Kirill Sereda <kvse...@att.net> wrote:

but could this be because the Japanese culture is already so reciprocity-centered that it is unnecessary to formulate a precept?

That might not be too far off.  Social exchanges such as お互い様です、お世話になります、お陰様でなんとか and casual comments like こっちの身にもなってくれ might slightly reduce the collective need for such a gold-plated precept among the Japanese speakers.