[ { "id": 209081, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-1980", "page_number": 243, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "GEOMANTIC TERMS \n\n211 \n\nTo ensure the correct flow of water through a site the geomancer makes use of two ancient patterns commonly known as xiantian ★ A and houtian ✶ which refer to two different arrangements of the eight trigrams2. Since the trigrams also symbolise eight major compass points the xian and houtian are, in fact, two different methods of organising space. Geomantic practice requires that water flows from its zhengqiao wei trigram in the xiantian to the position occupied by the same trigram in the houtian. For instance, water originating in the qian #(E) trigram, which in the xiantian is correlated with the north, must flow towards the southwest, that is towards the compass point occupied by qian in the houtian. One must, however, remember that geomantic compass points are the reverse of ours so that north is south; east, west; etc.) Moreover, in its journey from xian to houtian water must always flow in front of the chao (which see). \n\nSince geomancy is a directional science it has coined a number of terms for the twenty-four compass points and the four quarters. Three of these terms, namely shan ↳, xiang 6, and zuo, have been systematically misinterpreted since J. Edkins' day. \n\nShan has consistently been taken to mean “site” which is only true in those rare cases when it is used as an abbreviation of shan-long. In all other instances shan means \"compass point\" so that shi’er shan + refers to the twenty-four compass points and not to twenty-four sites. \n\nXiang and zuo are two esoteric names for two of the four quarters. Just as qinglong ✯✯ stands for east and baihu éʼn ✯ for west, xiang means south and zuo north. But it must be stressed that these terms do not necessarily refer to actual compass points but indicate the back, front, left and right sides of a grave. \n\nLike other parts of the earth, geomantic sites are also subject to cosmic influences but a detailed explanation of all stellar influences would go beyond the scope of this paper. (Readers interested in the subject are referred to B. Frank's study of the jiugong Лg and E.H. Schafer's Pacing the Void, T'ang Approaches to the Stars. University of California Press, London and Berkeley, 1977) \n\nTwo sets of so-called stars play a role in geomancy but, for the most part, these are not real celestial bodies masquerading under esoteric names but purely imaginary entities conventionally referred to as xing or stars. \n\n* Much effort has been expended to explain how the xiantian changed into the houtian but none of the explanations are entirely convincing One of the best known is M. Granet, La Pensee chinoise (1934), reprinted Albin Michel, 1968, pp. 167 sq.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214957, "series_id": 26, "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine", "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "RAS-2000", "page_number": 53, "title": "RAS-2000", "content_text": "8 \n\nposed as to whether the Chinese as a whole were \"anti-commercial\" or whether it was only the government. Greenberg believes that \"trade in the long run mattered little to the Chinese economy.\"2 A further factor contributing to distrust of foreigners and the consequent restriction in contacts and trade was fear of European expansionist policy apparent to the Chinese in Tibet, the East Indies, the Philippines, Burma, and Nepal. \n\nBy the 1830s British demand for tea had become enormous; tea worth twenty million pounds sterling was imported into Britain annually. It was paid for from huge profits made on the sale of smuggled opium. Many foreign firms in Guangzhou, other than British, had engaged in the lucrative trade, with two notable exceptions,13 Britain accounting for more than 80% of the trade. Dissatisfied with the capricious nature of its trade in Guangzhou, Britain made three high-level attempts to form full diplomatic relations with Beijing, sending embassies under Macartney in 1793, Amherst in 1816, and Napier in 1834; all failed. The last two reached no further than Guangzhou before being unceremoniously sent back. But it may be of interest to deal in some length with Macartney's Mission because it seemed to succeed; that it failed was the most significant disaster in relations between the two nations, eventually leading to war. \n\nAfter a long journey, Macartney's Embassy embarked on Chinese boats to proceed up Baihe (Peiho) River on the 9th of August 1793. The following day they reached Tianjin (Tientsin) where they met the Emperor's envoy at a formal ceremony, which, however, lasted a mere 20 minutes. After staying in Beijing for some two weeks, they set out for Chengde (Jehol) where, on the 30th of September, they met Emperor Qianlong (1736-1795). Lord Macartney was graciously permitted to dispense with kowtow; it was agreed that the salutation was to be made on the right knee. According to Macartney, the Emperor was polite, and the conversation, conducted through interpreters, was lively and interesting. Moreover, the various scientific instruments, which were brought as gifts, were examined with obvious interest. The Embassy was told that they should depart on the 7th of October. Three days' grace was promised but immediately withdrawn, ostensibly because the Emperor was concerned that an early onset of cold weather would inconvenience the Ambassador. To reach their ships at Zhoushan (Chusan) Island, the Embassy had to travel across China, partly overland and partly by rivers - a journey that took nearly two months. It has", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2000.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/nk328168n", "rank": 0 } ]