Some Wei Shuren

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:42 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Audi:

Yuri, who are you referring to here? In other words, who is "he"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I was referring to Wei Shuren

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have looked at this passage, but I am not sure I see the immediate connection to "empty mind." Could you be more specific?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

理爲精气神之体，精气神爲身之体，身爲心之用，劲（力）爲身之用，心身有一定之主宰者，理也，精气神有一定之主宰者，意诚也，诚者天道；诚之者，人道，俱不外意念须臾之间。

The end of the passage. But maybe it is only my impression. Do you support Wile's translation of that piece or have your own?

[This message has been edited by Yuri Snisarenko (edited 10-25-2006).]

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:02 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bamboo leaf:

There are 3 levels. The ones we use are

Sung, qi, shen which said in another way come out as water, wind, and dragon wind. Weather these are historical or not I do not know but they are the conventions that he uses.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be interesting to see how it's described in Chinese. Maybe you can refer to some texts that your teacher mentioned or cited?

bamboo leaf · Post by **bamboo leaf** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:37 am

Haha, he doesn’t speak English it was all in Chinese. Some of the other students translated for me, I can catch some of it. But most of it, IMO is really beyond words, they only help to provide a frame work for the experience to be viewed in.

(Maybe you can refer to some texts that your teacher mentioned or cited?)
I think most of what I have read of others doing the same type of things seem to be in line with his thinking.
The classics as many here have talked about, IMO can be viewed in a number of different ways according to ones level and experience. The true test would be in the actualization of ones understanding in accordance with ones practice. so for example the idea of needle in cotton might mean one thing to some, it could mean something else to another. The test would be weather their practice reflected this understanding or not, this allows for all to be correct to their level.
Many people do not even ascribe to the idea of qi, making this frame work unusable, and not understandable to them. So for example he says in Chinese do not use force, he literally really means do not use force, and then does something to make one understand that its not force using the body. Its this, that really is very hard to get ones mind and body around IME, it’s the work of a long while of training, provided that one has an interest in this path.

bamboo leaf · Post by **bamboo leaf** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:42 am

I feel this is really taking away from an interesting topic, my org posting just reflected a curiosity about those translating and their experiences.

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:09 am

Leaf,

Did he speak about the method of cultivation that one uses to move through these three stages?

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:21 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bamboo leaf:
I feel this is really taking away from an interesting topic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are speaking about the essence and application. That means - evrything

bamboo leaf · Post by **bamboo leaf** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:39 am

The basic practice itself, will. But the practice must be based on these ideas from the beginning.

It starts from the first opening poster. The injunction first in mind (yi) and sung. this is the starting point. Note: these are my views expressing some of his work and my experiences, any errors or mistakes are due to my own poor understanding and practice. I make no claims to historical conventions or any other points used, just sharing some view points on my own practice. we all have different practices i enjoy reading them even if i dont quite agree at times

The idea of sung, loosen, relax. So critical, its really the work of many yrs,

From what I understand, these days he talks a little more but before one was really left to work it out by ones self with guidance from others, and checked by him.

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:42 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bamboo leaf:

i don't mention much, nor talk much about it, or use it directly as a basis for discussion on line for the reason that most of it is to far out of most others experiences, which i respect and value. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what to do with it myself. Several times a week I tell myself to shut up, because I am not sure that people will understand me and my words won't hurt them.

[This message has been edited by Yuri Snisarenko (edited 10-25-2006).]

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:17 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bamboo leaf:
The basic practice itself, will. But the practice must be based on these ideas from the beginning.

It starts from the first opening poster. The injunction first in mind (yi) and sung. this is the starting point. Note: these are my views expressing some of his work and my experiences, any errors or mistakes are due to my own poor understanding and practice. I make no claims to historical conventions or any other points used, just sharing some view points on my own practice. we all have different practices i enjoy reading them even if i dont quite agree at times

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks.

In Dao-De Jing there is a phrase "貴以賤為本高以下為基" that may mean something like "expensive stuff is rooted in cheap one, what is above has a base in what is below". Who knows, maybe it's true for the cultivation as well.

[This message has been edited by Yuri Snisarenko (edited 10-25-2006).]

Richard Man · Post by **Richard Man** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:06 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bamboo leaf:
The basic practice itself, will. But the practice must be based on these ideas from the beginning.

It starts from the first opening poster. The injunction first in mind (yi) and sung. this is the starting point. Note: these are my views expressing some of his work and my experiences, any errors or mistakes are due to my own poor understanding and practice. I make no claims to historical conventions or any other points used, just sharing some view points on my own practice. we all have different practices i enjoy reading them even if i dont quite agree at times

The idea of sung, loosen, relax. So critical, its really the work of many yrs,

From what I understand, these days he talks a little more but before one was really left to work it out by ones self with guidance from others, and checked by him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bamboo Leaf, are you going to be in the Pleasanton Gathering this weekend? I would very much like to talk to you more in person again.
// richard

bamboo leaf · Post by **bamboo leaf** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:08 pm

No unfortunately not at this time.

http://www.emptyflower.com/cgi-bin/yabb ... 1161294453

for those interested this link will provide info. It’s a good time, with many taiji people sharing in thought, practice and friendship with some good food in a nice park.

Audi · Post by **Audi** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:40 am

Greetings all,

My understanding comes from, is based on this experience. Having also studied tung/dong and cheng man ching styles I can compare and say that from my perspective its quite different.

You have an interesting perspective, and I enjoy reading your posts. I think, however, that we have very different learning styles. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but it makes discussion harder than otherwise and makes it easy to speak past each other.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Àí ‘¾«ÆøÉñÖ®Ìå£¬¾«ÆøÉñ ‘ÉíÖ®Ìå£¬Éí ‘ÐÄÖ®ÓÃ£¬ ¾¢ £¨Á¦£© ‘ÉíÖ®ÓÃ£¬ÐÄÉíÓÐÒ»¶¨Ö®Ö÷Ô×Õß£¬ÀíÒ²£¬ ¾« Æø ÉñÓÐÒ»¶¨Ö®Ö÷Ô×Õß£¬Òâ³ÏÒ²£¬³ÏÕßÌìµÀ£»³ÏÖ®Õß£¬ ÈËµÀ£¬¾ã²»ÍâÒâÄîÐëô§Ö®¼ä¡£

The end of the passage. But maybe it is only my impression. Do you support Wile's translation of that piece or have your own?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yuri, I do like his translation, but am not sure I truly understand the philosophical and cultural context of what is translated here as "essence," "application," and "sincerity." I am pretty sure I am missing something.

Louis has talked about some of the opposition between ti3 ("essence"/"theory"?) and yong4 ("application"?) before, but I am still not clear about what is really meant. For ti3 to have these meanings implies a thought process or a cultural tradition I cannot yet follow.

On the surface, it seemed to me that the passage in question was making an argument that Taijiquan had not only physical and martial significance, but also moral significance in a Confucian context.

When I think of the concept of xuling, I think of a frame of mind that is supposed to find moral and metaphysical meaning in the external world without being "clouded" by lower forms of "qi." The "pure consciousness" is supposed to "interpenetrate" with surrounding reality, accord more closely with its own true nature, and so reach a clarity of spirit ("shenming") that allows a full understanding of reality's principles ("li"). With such a frame of mind, you should then, apparently nourish your "vital spirit."

Yuri, how do you see it?

Take care,
Audi

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:09 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Audi:

When I think of the concept of xuling, I think of a frame of mind that is supposed to find moral and metaphysical meaning in the external world without being "clouded" by lower forms of "qi." The "pure consciousness" is supposed to "interpenetrate" with surrounding reality, accord more closely with its own true nature, and so reach a clarity of spirit ("shenming") that allows a full understanding of reality's principles ("li"). With such a frame of mind, you should then, apparently nourish your "vital spirit."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, great statement in my view, rarely heard in the West.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Yuri, how do you see it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

俱 all (of this) 不外 is not beyond the scope of 意念 the mind 须臾之间 in the moment 。

Louis Swaim · Post by **Louis Swaim** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:29 am

Greetings Yuri and Audi,

That particular text from the Yang Forty, “Taiji tiyong jie,” is really packed with neo-Confucian terms and ideas. For ti-yong here, I think “substance and function” work better. “Essence” implies something too rarefied for this context. According to A.C. Graham, one of Zhu Xi’s disciples, Chen Chun, defined tiyong this way: “That which is one whole within is the substance [ti]; its response when stimulated is the function [yong].” Zhu Xi himself elaborated: “That water flows or stops or is stirred into waves is its function. The substratum [literally ‘bone’] of the water, which may flow, stop, or be stirred up, is its substance. The body is substance, eyesight, hearing, and the movment of hand and foot are functions. The hand is substance, the fingers moving and lifting is function.” (Graham, _Two Chinese Philosophers, p. 40)

As for “sincerity,” I think that is a limiting translation for cheng. The best place to investigate the term cheng is in the early Confucian text known as the Zhong Yong, and the best translation and study of that text is _Focusing the Familiar_, by Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall. Ames acknowledges that cheng suggests “sincerity” and “integrity,” but prefers to translate it as “creativity” in most instances in the Zhong Yong. He choses this rendering in light of his understanding of early Chinese thinking as process-based rather then substance-based. So, one who is cheng is someone actively negotiating with the novelty of emerging reality. I’ve long found the Zhong Yong to be a fascinating and inspiring text, even in early translations by Legge or Wing-tsit Chan. The Ames-Hall version, however, really opens it up.

Take care,
Louis

[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 10-26-2006).]

Yuri Snisarenko · Post by **Yuri Snisarenko** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:43 am

Haha. Louis, you are reading my mind again