Is the internal impossible in modern times

[cjurakpt]

I've held the opposite approach. Yin is what's temporary, always changing and adapting. With the hand waving example, Yin is what makes the air molecules move about because of one force or another (the waving hand, the transfer of heat from high concentrations to low). The sliding of a car when the brakes are slammed too quickly. For me, Yang is the permanance, the force that initiates change (where Yin is the act of change itself), like electrostatic repulsion. Yin is the potential of reality because of its infinte malleability.

The realization of Yin is Yang. The catalyst for the realization of Yin comes from Yang. Yin is constantly changing, forever moving in an infinte number of directions because of the always present forces of Yang acting upon it.

classically, Yin "is" structure, it is the empty vessel; Yang "is" function, it is the potential / act of filling the vessel; of course, one can say whatever one likes, such that yin is active, yang is passive: no difference, really - it's just a name, it doesn't really matter inherently - which means that to argue that one sees as "b" what most regards as "a" and one sees as "a" what most regard as "b" really isn't the point after all; one can certainly have one's own interpretation, it really doesn't matter as it is all inherently arbitrary; what "matters" is that there will always be a dichotomy whne one moves beyond the one / whole - one principle will be active, temporary, another will be passive, permanent - calling one yin or yang doesn't change the fundamental nature of the interelationship, it simply signifies according to one's own personal perspective

[mantis108]

classically, Yin "is" structure, it is the empty vessel; Yang "is" function, it is the potential / act of filling the vessel; of course, one can say whatever one likes, such that yin is active, yang is passive: no difference, really - it's just a name, it doesn't really matter inherently - which means that to argue that one sees as "b" what most regards as "a" and one sees as "a" what most regard as "b" really isn't the point after all; one can certainly have one's own interpretation, it really doesn't matter as it is all inherently arbitrary; what "matters" is that there will always be a dichotomy whne one moves beyond the one / whole - one principle will be active, temporary, another will be passive, permanent - calling one yin or yang doesn't change the fundamental nature of the interelationship, it simply signifies according to one's own personal perspective

Sorry, Chinese language is very different from phonetic base language (ie English). The written words in Chinese are ideograms which are abstract pictures of the actual things (ie the word for horse looks like a horse). Abstract idea such as yin or yang is often formed by different radicals such yin is represented by a hill side, the time "now" and cloud; while, yang is presented by a hill side, the sun and the moon. The sun and the moon actually formed the word "Yi" that means change. The problem today is that people liberally mixing the concept of Yin-Yang with that of Rigidity and Fluidity. They are not that necessarily the same thing in classical literatures. Also people grossly disregard the fact that Lao Zi actually used classical material in forming his presentation or rather "arguments" including Yi Jing (classic of change). BTW, Yi Jing at the time isn't the same as the Zhou Yi, which is now commonly known as Yi Jing, as we know it today. There's a lot of cross over ideas and concepts between Dao De Jing and Yi Jing especially when it comes to Chinese worldview - understanding of space-time continuum of ancient Chinese people.

Anyway, It's great to be a free thinker but I believe we must be careful before condam ning the intellectuals and burning their written works. There is a fine line between the 6th patriarch and the First Emperor/Chairman Mao, my friend.

Mantis108

[cjurakpt]

Sorry, Chinese language is very different from phonetic base language (ie English). The written words in Chinese are ideograms which are abstract pictures of the actual things (ie the word for horse looks like a horse). Abstract idea such as yin or yang is often formed by different radicals such yin is represented by a hill side, the time "now" and cloud; while, yang is presented by a hill side, the sun and the moon. The sun and the moon actually formed the word "Yi" that means change. The problem today is that people liberally mixing the concept of Yin-Yang with that of Rigidity and Fluidity. They are not that necessarily the same thing in classical literatures. Mantis108

if you want to talk ideograms, that's fine, but that doesn't set their meaning is set in stone any more than a phonetic language: for example, the "original" ideogram for "qi", this thing that's got people all worked up in a tizzy, is a visual description of the vapor rising up off of fermenting rice - overtime it took on a number of varied, though not totally unrelated, meanings: but who uses it in that original way much nowadays? or take the the character for cinnabar, dan: it depicts an oven buried in the ground cooking something (actually the process of turning cinnabar into mercury) - this can be taken literally, or can be seen as a metaphor for internal alchemical processes; also one of the translations of the character is "transformation", which can be applied in ways beyond the alchemical or metallurgical meaning; the character for Dao is a depiction of a person walking along a path - certainly a good metaphor for "way", but hardly the exact meaning as illustrated by the character itself; my point is that things are so because people say they are so, but regardless of what name/pictogram you assign to a given natural phenomennon or principle such as yin or yang, that phenomennon/principle a) doesn't care; b) behaves the same way regardless - other cultural have bserved this dualistic principle and the tendency of those principles to "flip" to anther state when they reach an extreme (Derrida calls this "differance" e.g.), so ultimately what you actually call those principles or the pictograph you assign to them doesn't matter - it's how you interrract with them in life

Also people grossly disregard the fact that Lao Zi actually used classical material in forming his presentation or rather "arguments" including Yi Jing (classic of change). BTW, Yi Jing at the time isn't the same as the Zhou Yi, which is now commonly known as Yi Jing, as we know it today. There's a lot of cross over ideas and concepts between Dao De Jing and Yi Jing especially when it comes to Chinese worldview - understanding of space-time continuum of ancient Chinese people.

I'm not saying Lao Tzu wasn't learned or that his methodology wasn't far-reaching and in-depth - I was just pointing out that, like anyone, he necessarilly had a biased perspective, and I think that his aim was to deal with the immediacy of the there and then (Daoists are ultimately pragmatists) as opposed to writing something that would be handed down for generations; the fact that it does still have relevance makes sense given the use of yik ging, since it is essentially a formula for describing the way in which society functions, and those rules hold true the same for today as they did back then

Anyway, It's great to be a free thinker but I believe we must be careful before condam ning the intellectuals and burning their written works. There is a fine line between the 6th patriarch and the First Emperor/Chairman Mao, my friend.

as for Hui Neng vs. Mao - I agree - it's not a question of burning the sutras, it's the motivation for doing it: Mao's burning was a pre-meditated, calculated strategy for establishing his ideology - ultimately a very self-conscious, ego-driven act; Hui neng's was simply a spontaneous expression of his level of understanding - in essence, "Hui Neng" was nowhere to be found when it happened...

[brianK]

Agreed. Hui Neng was applying that old Ch'an doctrine: If you see the Buddah on the road, kill him. Ultimately, we have to free ourselves from all preconceived notions, even those put in our head by masters.

Brian--In the beginning there was no mirror, so where upon can dust fall?

[cjurakpt]

preach it, brother

[extrajoseph]

In the beginning there is no dust to fall, no mirror to reflect and no Buddha to kill on the road, so why do we make them up?

So we can undo them and make our journey more meaningful and bearable. Whether we push, we borrow, we follow or we lead, the invisible pendulum swings.

[tai chi hermit]

so since the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, and the name that can be named is not the eternal name, does that pretty much mean To each his own?

everyone's life is their 'tao', and its impossible to put a name on something that doesn't last here forever. so really everyone is right on this board since tao is within everything and outside of everything and its yin and yang!

[Scott R. Brown]

Wow, a lot of good posts today!

We should keep in mind that the qualities of a phenomenon that allow it to be assigned to the category of Yin or Yang are ALWAYS relative to the context. No phenomenon is inherently Yin or Yang. Yin and Yang describe a relationship between two or more phenomena. Each phenomenon possesses a quality that when contrasted with the qualities of another phenomenon allow it to be categorized as Yin or Yang in relationship to that other phenomenon.

So, we cannot say that Hard is necessarily Yang without mentioning what we are contrasting it with. Hard is Yang when contrasted with Soft, but it is Yin when contrasted with Harder. Harder is Yin when contrasted with Hardest. Hard, Harder, Hardest are all Yang when contrasted with Soft, but not when contrasted with each other. When Hard is contrasted with Harder, Hard actually becomes Soft even though a quality of the phenomenon may be considered Hard. So while a table is Hard to the touch, it is Soft when a wrecking ball is dropped on it. Air is Soft/Yin when contrasted with the human body/Yang, but it is Yang when compressed enough to shoot a hole right through your body. In this circumstance your Body is Yin to the Yang of Air. Water is Yin in relationship to my body when I jump into if from the pool side, but it is Yang when I land in it at terminal velocity. The qualities of our body, water and air have not changed, but the context under which they are contrasted has changed and the assignment to the category of Yin or Yang changes as the context changes.

For Light to be Yang it must not only be contrasted with something that is not-Light it must also be contrasted with something that is “Less-Light”. If Light is contrasted with something that is More-Light, Brighter, then Light is Yin according to that context. This is illustrated in the example of the ideograms mentioned by Adrian. A shady side of a hill is not Dark, it is less-Light. A cloudy sky is Yin when contrasted with the Yang of a cloudless sky. Apparent opposites such as Hard and Soft, Light and Dark are used in the description of the principles of Yin and Yang to provide a sharp contrast in order to make the principles more easily understood. But along with the benefit of being easily understood comes the consequence of possible confusion as to the clear meaning of the principles they are intended to describe. When we adhere to the literal meaning of the examples rather than their intended figurative meaning we are likely to have a less than comprehensive understanding of the principles being illustrated.

Writings by accepted authorities on the principles of Tao should be considered ONLY as a finger pointing to the Moon. The finger is NOT the Moon, it is merely a tool meant to guide us to our own personal experience of the Moon. If we focus too much on the finger we will never find the Moon. Once we find the Moon, if we remain emotionally attached to the finger, we may forget that finding the Moon was our original purpose and start believing it is the finger that is important. The purpose of the finger is only as a useful expedient, a tool used to direct us to the Moon. Once we are able to find the Moon on our own we no longer require the use of the pointing finger. Although we may use our own finger to point the Moon out to others, once they are able to find the Moon on their own they no longer require our finger as a guide as well. Therefore those, such as Hui-neng, are free to tear up the scriptures. When the nail is set I no longer need the hammer. If I refuse to let go of the hammer I will be unable to complete other tasks.

[Scott R. Brown]

Concerning Verse # 43 of the Tao Te Ching:

There are inherent difficulties when attempting to understand the philosophical writings that were written during a different historical era, in a different culture, using translations from an unfamiliar language. It is always a benefit when trying to understand these kinds of writings to read as many interpretations as possible. Each interpretation provides a different facet of the principles discussed. Each version is filtered through the translator’s personal lens and provides a different perspective on the writings. It is like the four blind men who touched different parts of an elephant and described the elephant according to their direct experience. None of the descriptions is wrong, but neither do they provide a complete description of an elephant.

In my previous post I provided 6 different interpretations of the same Chinese characters found in verse # 43 of the Tao Te Ching. Each are somewhat the same, yet also different. The following description I will provide should be considered only one more facet or perspective and not the final word on Verse # 43. Principles of Tao are to be personally apprehended. They cannot be completely or comprehensively explained or described. This is within the inherent nature of Tao.

1) Only the soft overcomes the hard,
by yielding, bringing it to peace.

2) Water overcomes the stone;

3) The softest of stuff in the world
Penetrates quickly the hardest;

4) The gentlest thing in the world
overcomes the hardest thing in the world.

5) The softest thing in the world dashes against and overcomes the hardest;

6) The softest thing in the world
Will overcome the hardest.


The question of tai chi hermit in post # 38 of this thread was, “why would he 'lao tzu' not follow up by saying the hardest thing in the universe overcomes the softest”.

These lines of the verse are meant to take a familiar natural occurring principle, that is, a principle that occurs in nature, and use it to illustrate a philosophical point. In some Taoist writings, authors take a natural phenomenon that occurs according to their understanding and use it illustrate their deeper point. For example, in the 1700’s lived a well known commentator on Taoism name Liu I-ming. In of his treatises entitled “Awakening to the Tao” he repeatedly contrasts natural phenomena with principles of Tao in order to help illustrate the principles. As an illustration here are a few lines from his work as translated by Thomas Cleary,

“Thunder is fierce, intense, and strong; wind is gradual, far-reaching, and soft. When the wind and thunder combine, then there is soft gentleness in the midst of hard intensity, and there is hard intensity in the midst of soft gentleness. Hardness and softness complement each other.

What I realize as I observe this is the Tao of balanced harmonization of hardness and softness.” [Bolding is mine for emphasis]

He then continues to describe how, through the harmonization of the hard principle with the soft principle in our daily lives, we may be brought into accord with Tao. While the rest of the section is very interesting the point I am trying to illustrate is that writers on Tao use natural processes as examples to illustrate philosophical points in an effort to help the read apply them within their personal lives.

In verse # 43 of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu takes a specific context of Soft and Hard. He is speaking of a specific context of when Softness overcomes Hard. Even though some of the translations make it appear to be an absolute this should be taken to be poetic license and not an absolute condition. We know this to be so because we can conceive of circumstances when Softness cannot overcome Hard. We must consider that since we are able to conceive of and experience first hand circumstances when Hard will always overcome Soft that Lao Tzu must be speaking figuratively and according to a specific context and not ALL contexts. Lao Tzu states that JUST AS the natural process of water will overcome stone and softness may overcome hardness, the following…..will occur. What is “the following…..?” It is found in the next section of the verse.

1) Even where there is no space,
that which has no substance enters in.
Through these things is shown
the value of the natural way.

2) Without substance it requires no opening;
This is the benefit of taking no action.

3) Without substance it requires no opening;
This is the benefit of taking no action.

4) Insubstantial, it enters
Where no room is.
By this I know the benefit
Of something done by quiet being;

5) That which has no substance
enters where there is no space.
This shows the value of non-action.

6) that which has no (substantial) existence enters where there is no crevice. I know hereby what advantage belongs to doing nothing (with a purpose).

The key principle here appears to be that “something” which has “no substance” is able to penetrate all things even when there appears to be no opportunity for penetration, i.e. no opening (crevice) available for entry. What is it that can penetrate all things regardless of there being an opening? It isn’t water, but it behaves in a similar manner as water. It is Soft and yielding, it wears away/permeates Hard things. It is Tao.

Tao, within the context of this verse, is insubstantial. In essence all things are Tao, therefore even hard things are Tao, but for the purposes of the point of the verse Lao Tzu arbitrarily ignores this fact to illustrate his point.

Tao is insubstantial because it is beyond material substance. According to this specific context material things are measurable, and insubstantial things are not measurable. Tao is immeasurable and is therefore insubstantial. We can only know Tao intellectually/conventionally through its effects. We know it indirectly as the blind man knows the sun is shining because he can feel the heat of it on his skin. He knows the presence of the sun by its effects, not because he can actually see it (measure it). So Tao, being insubstantial, is able to permeate all substantial things regardless of whether there is an apparent opening. It is able to do this because it is insubstantial. According to the context of the verse then, that which is insubstantial is the ultimate Yin. That which overcomes/permeates all things is Tao. To Tao which is softest thing in the world, (but it is also the hardest) EVERTHING is Hard or Yang. Within this context Yin (Soft) ALWAYS overcomes/permeates Yang (Hard). Just as the Yang of Adrian’s hand moving through the Yin of air is continually surrounded by the air because of the Yin nature of air.

Tao accomplishes this permeation of all things “the natural way”, by “taking no action”, through “quiet being”, and shows the “value of non-action”, the “advantage [of]…doing nothing (with a purpose).”

These last comments are all various manners of interpreting the principle of Tao referred to as “wu-wei” which is commonly defined as “non-action” or “spontaneous action without contrived purpose”. What it means within the context of this verse is that Tao permeates all things as a natural consequence of its being not because is intends to do so. Just as the action of wave’s wears away rock not because the water intends to wear away the rock, but merely because it is a natural consequence of waves crashing upon rock. It occurs of itself according to the nature of water and rock not because there is any contrived intent to do wear away the rock.

[Scott R. Brown]

1) The wise man understands full well,
that wordless teaching can take place,
and that actions should occur
without the wish for self-advancement.

2) Yet benefit without action,
And experience without abstraction,
Are practiced by very few.

3) In all the world but few can know
Accomplishment apart from work,
Instruction when no words are used.

4) Teaching without words,
performing without actions:
that is the Master's way.

5) There are few in the world who attain to the teaching without words, and the advantage arising from non-action.

6) Therefore I know the benefit of unattached action.
The wordless teaching and unattached action are rarely seen.

This last section illustrates the consequence of following the Yin manifestation of Tao. By being insubstantial and behaving “without contrived intent” (wu-wei) benefits occur. This condition is accomplished through an act/behavior/attitude that occurs in a manner different from the familiar “TRYING” to accomplish a task. It is a condition of being that must be felt or directly apprehended and cannot be described or taught using words. This is why Ch’an masters tended to demonstrate their point through actions rather than words.

Words confuse the issue because they are only representations of things not the things themselves. Saying, “I am happy!” is not happiness. It is only words used to describe my condition of happiness. “Spontaneous action without a contrived purpose” is similar to Yoda’s words to Luke in “Return of the Jedi”. When Luke whines, “I am trying!” Yoda responds, “There is no trying, only DO or DO NOT!” Luke is wasting his energy focusing on “trying” and is thereby unable to accomplish his purpose. His mental focus is wrong and therefore he is out of accord with the Force/Tao. When he acquires the correct attitude his purpose occurs as a natural consequence of his attitude not because he is trying to do something.

“Teaching without words”, “experience without abstraction”, “Accomplishment apart from work”, “wordless teaching”, occurs as a natural consequence of being in accord with Tao. When our mind becomes insubstantial, it permeates all things and we become in accord with Tao as a natural consequence. Not because we are TRYING to become in accord with Tao, but because we perceive in a specific manner that brings about the accord as a natural consequence. This consequence occurs without the use of words, discussion, or instruction. That is not to say we do not use words, discussion or instruction as useful expedients. It means that the words, discussion and instruction are NOT the thing itself. They are fingers pointing us in the right direction. We are to focus upon where the finger is pointing not the finger itself. In the end the finger, words, discussion, instruction is to be discarded. When we perceive the Moon we ignore the finger, we tear up the sutras.

[Scott R. Brown]

so since the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao, and the name that can be named is not the eternal name, does that pretty much mean To each his own?

everyone's life is their 'tao', and its impossible to put a name on something that doesn't last here forever. so really everyone is right on this board since tao is within everything and outside of everything and its yin and yang!

Right and wrong apply to specific contexts. According to one context you are correct, however it is a limited context from one perspective, and but a part of a larger context from another perspective.

It all depends upon what one's purpose is. We could say any so and so's perspective on Tao is correct according to their personal needs and purpose, but that does not necessarily mean it is a comprehensive/complete understanding of Tao.

Therefore, from the perspective of complete understanding it could be considered wrong even though from their personal perspective it provides beneficial consequences and therefore could be considered a "right" perspective for them.

It then comes down to is good a satisfactory condition for the individual or is better more preferable, or is best more preferable? Some people are happy with good or better, others prefer to continue until they acquire the best! (This is a metaphor and should not be taken literally.)

[extrajoseph]

To each his own?
To own each his!

[Lucas]

In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it.
Lao Tzu

yet what you may find some-times that one way to overcome the soft and flexible is to become hard and strong at the right moment.

even in chen taiji there are moments for extreme strength and hardness. it is the unity of hard and soft that can give you the ability to find the points of balance, to know the when and why of it so to speak. and to apply accordingly.

though i am still quite a novice, these are principles i found through study before i met taiji, study of philosophy, life and my external arts (which i at this point dont make a full distinciton between external and internal. IMO you cannot be in balance in either extreme, it is unhealthy) now that taiji is in my life, i can view these principles from a new light.

joyful

[tai chi hermit]

perhaps there can be a place for philosophical discussion on the board somewhere...?

[RonH]

perhaps there can be a place for philosophical discussion on the board somewhere...?

At the moment, with the way the forums are structured, there's just here and the 'Kung Fu Forum' for philosophy. I've been feeling that there should be a specific one for a while. But, if a philosophical forum was made, should there be one for nei jia and one for wai jia or should it be combined?