[ Home | Diaries | Account | Members | Projects | FAQ

Recent diary entries:

10 Jul 2017 sye   » (Apprentice)

《弟子規》原名《訓蒙文》,為清朝康熙年間秀才李毓秀所作,後來清朝賈存仁修訂改編《訓蒙文》,並改名《弟子規》。

李毓秀(公元1662年至1722年),字子潛,號采三,清代康熙時山西絳州人,生於清代康熙年間,卒於乾隆年間。清初著名學者、教育家。從師黨冰 壑游歷近二十年。精研大學中庸,創辦敦復齋講學。 李毓秀學問好,修養好,來聽課的人很多,門外滿是腳印。太平縣御史王奐曾多次向他請教,十分佩服他的才學,被人尊稱為李夫子。他的著作有《弟子規》、《四 書正偽》、《四書字類釋義》、《學庸發明》、《讀大學偶記》、《宋孺夫文約》、《水仙百詠》等,分別藏於山西省圖書館和北京大學圖書館。 因撰寫《弟子規》,去世後他的牌位被供奉在絳州先賢祠。

特別是《弟子規》(初版時稱《訓蒙文》,浮山賈木齋修訂為《弟子規》),輾轉翻印,流傳甚廣,成為清代至民國年間通用的兒童啟蒙讀物。此書以淺近通 俗的文字、三字韻的形式闡述了學習的重要、做人的道理以及待人接物的禮貌常識等等。
總敘

弟子規 聖人訓 首孝弟 次謹信
汎愛眾 而親仁 有餘力 則學文
入則孝

父母呼 應勿緩 父母命 行勿懶
父母教 須敬聽 父母責 須順承
冬則溫 夏則凊 晨則省 昏則定
出必告 反必面 居有常 業無變
事雖小 勿擅為 苟擅為 子道虧
物雖小 勿私藏 苟私藏 親心傷
親所好 力為具 親所惡 謹為去
身有傷 貽親憂 德有傷 貽親羞
親愛我 孝何難 親憎我 孝方賢
親有過 諫使更 怡吾色 柔吾聲
諫不入 悅復諫 號泣隨 撻無怨
親有疾 藥先嘗 晝夜侍 不離床
喪三年 常悲咽 居處變 酒肉絕
喪盡禮 祭盡誠 事死者 如事生
出則弟

兄道友 弟道恭 兄弟睦 孝在中
財物輕 怨何生 言語忍 忿自泯
或飲食 或坐走 長者先 幼者後
長呼人 即代叫 人不在 己即到
稱尊長 勿呼名 對尊長 勿見能
路遇長 疾趨揖 長無言 退恭立
騎下馬 乘下車 過猶待 百步餘
長者立 幼勿坐 長者坐 命乃坐
尊長前 聲要低 低不聞 卻非宜
進必趨 退必遲 問起對 視勿移
事諸父 如事父 事諸兄 如事兄


朝起早 夜眠遲 老易至 惜此時
晨必盥 兼漱口 便溺回 輒淨手
冠必正 紐必結 襪與履 俱緊切
置冠服 有定位 勿亂頓 致污穢
衣貴潔 不貴華 上循分 下稱家
對飲食 勿揀擇 食適可 勿過則
年方少 勿飲酒 飲酒醉 最為醜
步從容 立端正 揖深圓 拜恭敬
勿踐閾 勿跛倚 勿箕踞 勿搖髀
緩揭簾 勿有聲 寬轉彎 勿觸棱
執虛器 如執盈 入虛室 如有人
事勿忙 忙多錯 勿畏難 勿輕略
鬥鬧場 絕勿近 邪僻事 絕勿問
將入門 問孰存 將上堂 聲必揚
人問誰 對以名 吾與我 不分明
用人物 須明求 倘不問 即為偷
借人物 及時還 後有急 借不難


凡出言 信為先 詐與妄 奚可焉
話說多 不如少 惟其是 勿佞巧
奸巧語 穢污詞 市井氣 切戒之
見未真 勿輕言 知未的 勿輕傳
事非宜 勿輕諾 苟輕諾 進退錯
凡道字 重且舒 勿急疾 勿模糊
彼說長 此說短 不關己 莫閒管
見人善 即思齊 縱去遠 以漸躋
見人惡 即內省 有則改 無加警
唯德學 唯才藝 不如人 當自礪
若衣服 若飲食 不如人 勿生慼
聞過怒 聞譽樂 損友來 益友卻
聞譽恐 聞過欣 直諒士 漸相親
無心非 名為錯 有心非 名為惡
過能改 歸於無 倘揜飾 增一辜
汎愛眾

凡是人 皆須愛 天同覆 地同載
行高者 名自高 人所重 非貌高
才大者 望自大 人所服 非言大
己有能 勿自私 人所能 勿輕訾
勿諂富 勿驕貧 勿厭故 勿喜新
人不閒 勿事攪 人不安 勿話擾
人有短 切莫揭 人有私 切莫說
道人善 即是善 人知之 愈思勉
揚人惡 即是惡 疾之甚 禍且作
善相勸 德皆建 過不規 道兩虧
凡取與 貴分曉 與宜多 取宜少
將加人 先問己 己不欲 即速已
恩欲報 怨欲忘 報怨短 報恩長
待婢僕 身貴端 雖貴端 慈而寬
勢服人 心不然 理服人 方無言
親仁

同是人 類不齊 流俗眾 仁者希
果仁者 人多畏 言不諱 色不媚
能親仁 無限好 德日進 過日少
不親仁 無限害 小人進 百事壞
餘力學文

不力行 但學文 長浮華 成何人
但力行 不學文 任己見 昧理真
讀書法 有三到 心眼口 信皆要
方讀此 勿慕彼 此未終 彼勿起
寬為限 緊用功 工夫到 滯塞通
心有疑 隨札記 就人問 求確義
房室清 牆壁淨 几案潔 筆硯正
墨磨偏 心不端 字不敬 心先病
列典籍 有定處 讀看畢 還原處
雖有急 卷束齊 有缺壞 就補之
非聖書 屏勿視 蔽聰明 壞心志
勿自暴 勿自棄 聖與賢 可馴致
弟子規終

7 Aug 2016 robogato   » (Master)

this works a lot better now.

6 Aug 2016 demo   » (Apprentice)

http://advogato.org/article/476.html
Posted 9 May 2002 at 17:57 UTC by alan Share This
Imagine if artists were not paid for every internet 'radio' broadcast of their music. That might sound a bad thing for musicians but when you break out of the current music world assumptions that isn't neccessarily a bad thing for the musician or the radio station.

Currently the royalty system reflects a historical state of the industry along with certain goals of efficiency and prevention of monopoly abuse (and copyright is a monopoly). The royalty system in place serves to prevent labels exercising tight control over what may be played and to get money to the label and the artists for each play.

This makes an interesting assumption. It assumes that the radio station gains through this transaction and the artist does not, or gains less. For a small artist I question that assumption. Does the artist gain as much from the radio play as advertising as the radio station does from playing the work ? Is it in fact perhaps fair to say that both the artist and the radio station are paying a media company for the priviledge of advertising a work ?

As a musician why would you want to lose radio royalties? Let us consider a case where a new order of things might make sense. In order to drive sales of an album there are several conditions you want to meet

That the work is available
That you know how to obtain the work
That you know you like or think you would like the work sufficiently to pay the cost (including time and effort).
That the work is not (legally) available for free.
The big challenges to any small band are 2 and 3.

The chances are you don't know who bands like "Madra Rua" or "Show of Hands" are. You've probably never heard their music either. To drive sales many of these bands already offer tracks or clips on their web site. You didn't know they existed or had a website until I told you about them.

As an artist you probably don't want someone downloading your entire albums - although some bands do this for older albums nowdays. The clips and some tracks approach used by web sites works well as is obvious by its continued and growing use.

We've established four things:

You need to know the band exists.
You need to know their website to buy the music.
You need to know you like the music
Providing a few tracks for free does not harm the band (in business terms it is an acceptable value leak)
If enough bands are willing to license tracks for free internet radio play on condition that the band, the track, the album and the web site are stated before or after each radio or internet streaming play maybe new music can go around the entrenched barriers instead of taking a huge hit going through them.
The technology to sell music on the internet exists, and the technology to stream it freely exists[1]. It seems the opportunity is there.

[1] And yes you can get ogg down to 24-32kbits/sec if you hack an additional highpass filter into the player side, and give it a reasonably low Q.

For Small Bands, Wrong Approach, posted 9 May 2002 at 18:54 UTC by RyanMuldoon »
I have been thinking a lot about the various radio models lately. As I (probably naively) see it, there are a few distinct groups in the Radio world: ClearChannel (in other words, commercial radio), Community Radio, Internet Radio, and Satellite Radio. I think ClearChannel is not going to help anyone but the already famous acts, so we may as well disregard them for this discussion. Satellite Radio is interesting, because advertising is a less-big deal, since users pay directly for the priviledge to listen. If it works, great. The radio companies will have a lot more range to choose what they want to play, and can subsudize the "indie" channels of music with more popular/quality/consistent stuff that people are paying the premium to get to, because they already know that they will like it. Community Radio has the basic problems of funding, because as it stands, royalties are expensive, and equipment is expensive, and they are competing against NPR for the already small niche of people that avoid commercial radio. Internet Radio has the possibility to really broaden people's horizons, but I think that licensing is a small part of the actual problem (except for the new DMCA-related rules that are fairly draconian for internet radio broadcasts...but that is a separate issue).

What is the hard problem is for people to find out about the not-well-known music that they would probably like if given a chance. But just playing a lot of cool indie music on a radio station isn't going to draw people in unless they are already predisposed to wanting indie music. Which really isn't very many people. To solve the discovery problem that is pointed out in the article, we need a better solution. The thing that I have been thinking about a lot lately is Amazon.com, and how they could utterly conquer the music downloads world if they decided to. Things like radio are nice and all, and napster and whatnot are great for getting things that you know you like, but how do you find out about stuff that you've not heard of? That is hard, unless you have friends with particularly good taste. But, the best feature of amazon.com is its recommendations system. I've bought enough from them that they make pretty damn good guesses at what I am going to like. Lately I've been using gnutella to download mp3s of bands that they suggest, then if I like it I buy the album. I bought 5 cds just last week. It works that well. All amazon needs to do is make a single or two a free download, the rest of the album like 25 or 50 cents a song, and then if you like them, buy the album from amazon, and you get a 50-100% deduction of what you already spent on the mp3s. Radio is great, but ultimately it is meant as a promotional tool for music. Maybe the Internet gives us a better model for finding out about new music. I'm all for streaming servers, but I don't think that they are actually going to be the savior or indie music. I'd rather see indie labels have streams of their catalog on their own websites....that way the legalities are a lot easier. They can even build in the (lack of?) compensation into the artists contracts directly, if it serves to benefit them.

For small bands, for artistic individuals..., posted 13 May 2002 at 01:01 UTC by sye »
I am afraid music is simply too great to be sold like any other professions for artistic souls in every individuals. I certainly hope that internet 'radio' broadcast will put those popular but not too great music out of their business. Time has proved again and again that people will sooner or later realize that true work of art is what makes our life worth living. My measurement of what composes a true work of art is that it has the power to turn whoever it touches into an artist himself for that moment. If measured that way, people will always want to hold on to real art. I will buy a hard copy of a book that really speaks to me even if i already have its entire content on my computer. I know a person who will buy several different renditions of the same concerto because he is knowledgable and very picky on the performers and conductors. Repetition only kills pseudo art or consumer media products. It will never kill true work of art.

21 Sep 2015 guest   » (Observer)

Hello World... Close the door behind you, pretty please?

 [ Home | Diaries | Account | Members | Projects | FAQ