Style vs. Style, Internal vs. External

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
61

Originally posted by Braden
Nah, I think you’re mostly right, that was just an aside. Although a further aside would be that I don’t think violence is contrary to the tao in the first place, and I think Mr. Brown makes a humanistic conclusion despite outlining the differences between and characteristics of humanism and taoism.

How do you defind fighting and violence?

Technically, all are inclueded by Tao, if the Tao that you have talking about has exclueded any thing, then that is not the Tao I am talking about.

It is just that if you are thinking of fighting and violence are how you destroy your opposites, or it is how you balance yourself to coexist with your opposites and not to be destroy by your opposites. If you destroy rather than balance, you will be trapped in an endless cycle of destroying until you are totally wore out, since the opposite sides will always existed as long as you exist. That is why I promote harmonization rather than domination. I believe that should be applied in MA philosophy.

Tao would just indicate what to do is wiser. But no matter what are you doing, you are included by Tao some where. That is why I included humanism in Tao. Just not the wise/balanced one.

Did that make any sense?:slight_smile:

62

Originally posted by Scott R. Brown
[B]
PaulLin,

You wrote:

“I think I am seeing a little unclear about Tao and Taichi in here. Tao is the final goal of what Taichi aim to achieve. But being qualified as Taichi don’t have to be at the final destination of Tao.”

I wrote:

One may be effective in the physical aspects of Tai Chi or other internal styles and still not understand or develop the aforementioned abilities. This person only has a superficial understanding of Tai Chi and Taoism and has not understood the deeper meanings and goals.

You wrote:

“From the way you wrote, it seems to me that the Humanism is only a incomplete partial Tao of the lower level.”

A humanist will not recognize the Tao as having authority over his life. A humanist believes that man is the sole measure and final authority on all things, that there is nothing higher than man. A Humanist cannot be a Taoist because the Taoist recognizes that the Tao has sway and power and control over all things. Since the Taoist recognizes this he understands that it is profitable to understand the patterns and principles or the Tao. Once doing so he will bring himself into accord with these patterns and principles rather than attempt to force his will onto the Tao, which is the action of the Humanist, not the Taoist. Humanistic will cannot be forced onto the Tao no matter how hard we try anyway. The Taoist recognizes this, the Humanist does not. [/B]

First, I now see your Tao and Taichi relationship clearly now. It may be better if you can chapped your long statement into shorter parts/paragraphs, easier to read.

Second, the Tao I know included every thing, exclude nothing. If like you said that Humanistic will not go above the level of human limits into the infinitive limitless, that will keep themselves in a tiny, unbalanced part of incompleted Tao.

Just a thought form a reader with Taoist background.:slight_smile:

63

Originally posted by PaulLin
[B]

Life is like a similation training program of driving, whatever you did in the similation chamber seems so real, but it is not the same when the times that you are out of it.

Why should we bother about doing any thing in our life when it is not eternal? Just to enjoy it while it is being? Are you prepared to accept the universe itself as your own body after you must leave you little weak human body? Got milk? Got qi? Got Tao? Got spirit?

[/B]

dang! that musta been one big fortune cookie!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

64

Originally posted by chingei
[B]

dang! that musta been one big fortune cookie!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/B]

And the fortune says…:confused:

65

If someone trying desperately to impress himself with a shallow exposition based on certain religious traditions he had attempted to co-opt in an effort at fabricating a ‘spiritual’ persona fell down in the woods and nobody was around to hear it, would he make a sound? would anyone give a rat’s ass?

66

Braden,

You wrote:

Mr. Brown makes a humanistic conclusion despite outlining the differences between and characteristics of humanism and taoism.

I did not take personal offense at your statement. I simply disagreed with it and you gave no foundation for your comment. Certainly everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. You made an observation concerning my definition of Taoism and Humanism. To state that my comments smacked of Humanism is a criticism and therefore invites response. To say it was not directed at me is disingenuous to say the least. I have no problem with criticism; it is what intelligent discussion is all about. However, since your accusation provides no foundation, that is supporting evidence for your conclusion, it reduces the discussion to the "Is so!!!, "Is not!!! level, which is infantile and unproductive.

I appreciate you taking your time to provide more detailed explanation of your view. This opens the door to a more productive discussion.

You wrote:

This, I would argue, is a better example of ‘the way’ than the concepts of nonviolence you have put forth. I would argue that the concepts of nonviolence (the conclusion) you put forth is humanistic and ego-driven. I do not mean to imply and judgement by this statement. One could certainly argue that there’s alot of good that comes out of the ego. I say it is humanistic because it is an action based upon “the determination of right and wrong, good and bad, value and insignifiance”, a determination made by man. (Note: from your definition of humanism). It is ego-driven because it is based upon a concept of the self which happens to have the quality of nonviolence; a self which makes a judegemtn of right, good, and value upon being nonviolent.

This is something I can respond too.

By your definition ALL actions, beliefs and attitudes by humans can be argued to be Humanistic. However, this re-defines the term Humanistic as it is used by many 20th Century writers by misapplying the term’s meaning. It is not ego driven behavior that is Humanistic. It is the belief that, “Man is the sole arbiter and measure of all things” that is Humanistic. By recognizing that there is a higher order of processes that occurs in Nature and recognizing that this “order of processes” provides an example of how men can live a more productive life the Taoist is not behaving in a Humanistic manner.

Taoism developed through the observation of these processes and the experimentation with these processes in order to discover their benefits. The Taoists were some of the original scientists because they observed natural processes, formulated theories about these processes and sought to demonstrate the benefits gained through accommodating themselves to these processes. To say that their conclusions were arrived at because of a Humanistic tendency to use ego for determining what was right or wrong, good or bad, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Taoism. If I say, “When you touch the fire, you will burn your hand”, this is not a statement of ego it is a statement of fact, proven by millennia of personal experience and evidence. To choose not to touch fire for your own benefit is not Humanistic, it is following the Tao. The Tao, and experience, teaches us that fire burns. The burning of the skin in most circumstances is not beneficial to a long, happy, healthy life. To follow the principle of avoiding the needless touching of fire is not ego driven or Humanistic behavior it is simply understanding the benefits of not doing so.

Through experimentation man also learned that the controlled use of fire (heat) can be used to man’s benefit. Again, not an ego driven conclusion, but a fact of life used to benefit man. I believe you have confused ego driven behavior and self-interest driven behavior with Humanism. While Humanism is clearly ego driven, not all self-interested or ego driven behavior is Humanism and not all “self-interest driven” behavior is ego-centric.

The conclusion you have arrived at concerning the behavior in a wolf pack is incorrect as well. You have proven my point, not argued against it. The behavior you outlined is designed to AVOID the serious injury that can result from conflict. The natural instinct of the animal is to use aggressive displays (posturing) as a means of avoiding injury. (This is not my humble opinion; it is a well established fact of animal behavioral science.) Except in rare cases, most animals run away, rather the stay and risk injury. This is a perfect example of my original point. Which is to say, ”The avoidance of conflict is the most beneficial and self-preserving behavior”.

Posturing is a ritual behavior designed to avoid serious injury. Animals will only risk injury, in general, to protect their families, which is a higher cause than their own personal safety. In relatively rare cases neither animal will back down and then the risk injury or death is present, however this type of behavior is not common. Posturing behaviors are also found in humans with the same purpose, to avoid conflict and thereby the risk of injury. Therefore, by following the Tao, we learn that avoiding conflict is more preferable in most circumstances than risking injury. It is a simple and universal principle that is even followed by most ego-centric people, because it is clearly the most beneficial.

I apologize for and regret this comment: Any idiot can voice a meaningless opinion.”. It was intended as a general comment and statement of fact and not a personal slight. I intended it to be a comment on meaningless statements with no foundation. After I went to bed, following my post, (I work nights) I realized that it would be misunderstood and taken offensively. I have a tendency to be direct first and socially sensitive second. Again, I apologize for any offense given.

67

Originally posted by chingei
If someone trying desperately to impress himself with a shallow exposition based on certain religious traditions he had attempted to co-opt in an effort at fabricating a ‘spiritual’ persona fell down in the woods and nobody was around to hear it, would he make a sound? would anyone give a rat’s ass?

Good point. I am thinking of that rather than people based on man-made religious traditions to learn the grand infinitive spiritual knowledge, I would reverse that. It is that the links between a person and the grand infinity are already existed, I only using the terms in the man-made religious traditions inorder to communicate in words. Yet, the best communication is without words. That is why we have so many arguments here.

If you fell down in the no-one-can-hear woods, do you really care about would it make a sound at that moment?

The most important things I think about this issue is that what you believed in, does the universe buy it or just people buy it. You can have all the people in the world buy what you are saying, but if the universe don’t buy it, it would be a $hit. to communicate with other people not just to spred out and share knowledge, that is also one way we can found the links that we forgot we have with the grand infinity.

Therefore, I use any terms as I see it fit, not try to limit myself with the man-made-religious boundaries. If you think there is no God, I would say there is different when you view the grand infinity as the harmonizable spiritial level as you are or some thing else.

That is what I think.

68

Le nOObi,

You wrote,

If taichiquan was invented only as a philosphy that contained fighting as a last ditch effort why the hell does it have swords forms???

The straight sword was used in Chinese culture as a means of self-cultivation and self-defense. The attempt to avoid conflict and thereby combat does not imply that the individual has no right to defend themselves. It would behoove one who lives in a violent and lawless culture to arm himself and learn how to use his arms. Please re-read my original post more carefully and see if I didn’t at least imply that combat is at times appropriate. It is just not preferable. It has been considered in almost all cultures to be of greater spiritual maturity to not harm an aggressor if possible. Even modern Western, State sponsored military methods seek to harm the fewest enemy as possible.

I can really see a guy walking down the street carrying a sword when all of a sudden a gang of thieves tries to rob him.

It is considered by most religious and spiritual practices to be of lesser maturity to give your possessions greater value than human life, even if those possessions are at risk of being taken from you. I do not know where you live, but in America, if someone is attempting to take your possessions and you attempt to stop him by harming him, you will very likely end up in jail. In America, the law states that you can only use the amount of force against an aggressor that is used against you. If I walk up to you and take your boom box and you strike me, though I will get arrested for thievery, you will get arrested for assault (which is a greater wrong) because I did not physically threaten you. If I attempt to rob you with force and you break my leg or kill me for the attempt you will have to demonstrate in court how you were threatened in manner that called for that level of response. If you cannot argue your actions effectively then you will go to jail. In other words, if I punch you and you knife me in return, even though I started the conflict by striking you, you will go to jail for using excessive force. Then you will wish that you had followed the path of least resistance as taught by the Tao, which is the avoidance of conflict. Avoidance of conflict is not just naturally preferable, but legally, morally and ethically preferable as well. I did not create these principles. I just recognize them and articulated them. You can certainly disagree with them, but do not complain when you receive negative consequences by not following them.

And another thing your posts seem as ego-driven as anyone elses. Your post is basically this “everybody is wrong but me, no one understands taichi but me, everybody is ego-driven but me taichi isnt about fighting and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong”

I am making reasoned, intelligent, and well informed comments that are not just my opinions, but those held by most of the worlds greatest Martial Arts Masters and Spiritual Masters (Not necessarily today’s pseudo-masters). Many marital arts students do not do enough reading, research and thinking concerning these matters and consequently make ill-informed and flawed comments. I am merely being direct in my postings. If you read much of what I write in a book many would consider the comments without refection because it is a common behavior to think that just because some teaches or publishes a book they know what they are talking about. Conversely, just because I post my comments on a BB and many do not understand or agree with them does not mean they are incorrect or ego driven. There is a lot of misinformation out here on the web. Many comments are well intentioned, but incorrect. Just because someone is well intentioned does not mean they should not be given correct information. Everything I write can be proven by each individual in at least two ways; reading and thinking about these concepts and attempting to apply them in your life.

Many are novices on this board who have only a cursory understanding, but attempt to pass themselves off as having greater knowledge and understanding than they do. All, or at least nearly all, of my comments found on this BB have some foundation provided to demonstrate the validity of my conclusions. I generally do not post opinions without providing reasons for my conclusions.

Thank you for your comments, though. It demonstrates that you are thinking about what I wrote which was my intention; to stimulate others to think more deeply concerning these matters.

69

PaulLin

You wrote:

Second, the Tao I know included every thing, exclude nothing. If like you said that Humanistic will not go above the level of human limits into the infinitive limitless, that will keep themselves in a tiny, unbalanced part of incompleted Tao.

Yes, this is the paradox of Tao as illustrated by the Yin-Yang, at once opposites and One. We cannot live outside of Tao. The Taoist merely recognizes this and consciously attempts to bring himself into accord with the example set by the Tao, as opposed to fighting the system so to speak.

It is all Tao; however, in bringing ourself into accord with Tao we are merely recognizing the greater patterns and rhythms of life and their benefits to a happier and healthier life. We are making rational well informed decisons based upon observable facts about the Tao and not blindly following the dictates of men. We follow the Tao’s example and not our own narrow, limited, ego-centric views.

70

Originally posted by Scott R. Brown
[B]
Yes, this is the paradox of Tao as illustrated by the Yin-Yang, at once opposites and One. We cannot live outside of Tao. The Taoist merely recognizes this and consciously attempts to bring himself into accord with the example set by the Tao, as opposed to fighting the system so to speak.

It is all Tao; however, in bringing ourself into accord with Tao we are merely recognizing the greater patterns and rhythms of life and their benefits to a happier and healthier life. We are making rational well informed decisons based upon observable facts about the Tao and not blindly following the dictates of men. We follow the Tao’s example and not our own narrow, limited, ego-centric views. [/B]

that is wise and balanced way:)

On the fighting topic, I am thinking of using Tao to fight one must fight without fight. the “wu wai er wai” attatude. In which, let go of your own ego about fight, and using nature’s way, if one fights nature, one fights you. but you didn’t fight, the nature did. so Tao did fight, but did not fight at the same time.

71

Whoa!

Lots of replies to this post. I’d like to add a different perspective on the internal/soft vs. external/hard debate. No MA is without both yin and yang, goho and juho. Although force generation is a product of external and internal forces, the enrgy that is transferred on impact or execution of a tech is mostly internal.

So I guess you can say that all MAs are “internal” in essence. Just a perspective. Later warriors…

72

Originally posted by Scott R. Brown

I can really see a guy walking down the street carrying a sword when all of a sudden a gang of thieves tries to rob him.

It is considered by most religious and spiritual practices to be of lesser maturity to give your possessions greater value than human life, even if those possessions are at risk of being taken from you. I do not know where you live, but in America, if someone is attempting to take your possessions and you attempt to stop him by harming him, you will very likely end up in jail. In America, the law states that you can only use the amount of force against an aggressor that is used against you. If I walk up to you and take your boom box and you strike me, though I will get arrested for thievery, you will get arrested for assault (which is a greater wrong) because I did not physically threaten you. If I attempt to rob you with force and you break my leg or kill me for the attempt you will have to demonstrate in court how you were threatened in manner that called for that level of response. If you cannot argue your actions effectively then you will go to jail. In other words, if I punch you and you knife me in return, even though I started the conflict by striking you, you will go to jail for using excessive force. Then you will wish that you had followed the path of least resistance as taught by the Tao, which is the avoidance of conflict. Avoidance of conflict is not just naturally preferable, but legally, morally and ethically preferable as well. I did not create these principles. I just recognize them and articulated them. You can certainly disagree with them, but do not complain when you receive negative consequences by not following them.
. [/B]

This wasnt what my quote meant at all. What i meant to say is noone will carry a sword around unless they intend to practice or to cut people up. Its not like people would carry a sword around all day until someone spills a drink on them and they whip out the sword to cut them up.

73

Originally posted by Scott R. Brown
[B]Le nOObi,

You wrote,

And another thing your posts seem as ego-driven as anyone elses. Your post is basically this “everybody is wrong but me, no one understands taichi but me, everybody is ego-driven but me taichi isnt about fighting and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong”

I am making reasoned, intelligent, and well informed comments that are not just my opinions, but those held by most of the worlds greatest Martial Arts Masters and Spiritual Masters . [/B]

Wow i didnt realize that you had to backing of the greatest martial art and spiritual masters behind you. Calling you ego-driven wasnt well thought out at all!

74

Scott

“I did not take personal offense at your statement.”

I never claimed that you did. I asked you not to make personal attacks. Specifically, I don’t think the following comments were warranted: “You clearly have little to no understanding of Humanism and Taoism…Any idiot can voice a meaningless opinion.…I believe you are unable to argue against my comments effectively and that is why you have not done so.”

“You made an observation concerning my definition of Taoism and Humanism.”

No, once again, I did not. I stated explicitly that I thought your definition of both was accurate.

“To say it was not directed at me is disingenuous to say the least.”

It wasn’t directed at you. Have you actually read the post? It was clearly, as I explained allready, an elaboration of a criticism I had for HKV’s post. If you don’t understand my previous explanation, please say so and I will elaborate. Moreover, I stated explicitly that I was making the comment as an aside - that is, as a statement which I intended to have no bearing whatsoever upon anyone’s argument but was offered up only as a clarification of my beliefs on an unrelated matter.

“By your definition ALL actions, beliefs and attitudes by humans can be argued to be Humanistic.”

If you check back on what I wrote again, you’ll note I used your definition, in fact I quoted it exactly. If you’re now withdrawing that definition, we’ll have to re-address the entire argument from step one.

Moreover, it is not true that by that definition, all actions are humanistic, and indeed the majority of that post was a very example of one that wasn’t. Although it wasn’t a human behavior, my implication was obvious that human behaviors could follow the same format.

“It is not ego driven behavior that is Humanistic.”

And yet again, this is not a statement I made. You used two terms in your posts “humanistic” and “ego-driven”, I addressed each of them as separate elements in my post - using the definition for the former you supplied yourself, and the standard definition of the latter, as you offered up none of your own.

“To say that their [taoists] conclusions were arrived at because of a Humanistic tendency to use ego for determining what was right or wrong, good or bad, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Taoism.”

And yet again a statement which I never made.

“I believe you have confused ego driven behavior and self-interest driven behavior with Humanism.”

Where did I do this?

“The conclusion you have arrived at concerning the behavior in a wolf pack is incorrect as well…This is a perfect example of my original point.”

If your original point was that we should cultivate as much nonviolence as wolves and other voracious predators then I will readily agree with you. However, I think you would have to agree that this is not a widely accepted definition of nonviolence, and you certainly never made any implication in your original post that you were outlining such a radical interpretation of the concept.

…

“in America, if someone is attempting to take your possessions and you attempt to stop him by harming him, you will very likely end up in jail…If I walk up to you and take your boom box and you strike me, though I will get arrested for thievery, you will get arrested for assault”

As an aside, this isn’t the case. In the example, you would have to demonstrate that I could have reasonably and without significantly greater risk to myself stopped you from taking my possessions with considerably less force than what I used - in this case a single strike. I don’t think this would be a possible position to prove.

75

Paul

“How do you defind fighting and violence?”

If you’re asking for elaboration upon my “I don’t think violence is contrary…” comment, read my next post to Scott. If you’re just asking in general - you’d be better off posing the question to the people who are making exclusionary statements about them.

“Did that make any sense?”

Yes. :slight_smile:

omegapoint

Have you studied much neijia?

76

Braden–

surely the violence is egoless in the case of animals due to their limited self-awareness.

Chimpanzees have been known to COORDINATE acts of excessive violence, between each other, against specific targets that are extremely sophisticated and require a rather large amount of tactical awareness.

Your thoughts on this issue? I am certain that you are not suggesting that we eliminate the ego–the philosophical ego, mind you, not the vernacular usage.

77

“surely the violence is egoless in the case of animals due to their limited self-awareness.”

Maybe. Although I’m not sure if it’s true that they have such limited self-awareness. Several species have tested positively for even the silly test that’s currently used to assess this.

“Your thoughts on this issue?”

I’ve heard that too.

“I am certain that you are not suggesting that we eliminate the ego”

I’m not suggesting anything, just trying to explain why I thought someone’s logic was flawed.

78

Works for me.

79

zcsdfs

Also William C. C. Chen’s son is a san shou champion. I guess your views of tai chi are far more advanced than william chens.
According to your first post this would make them immature and not understand the purpose of taichi.

80

Tai Chi as a martial art is is simple. When the Great Masters of the ages spoke of Tai Chi as complex and taking years to master, they were referring to Tai Chi in the bedroom. :wink:

  • Nexus