Greetings all,
Louis, thanks for the clarifications. I will have to do much thinking on "creativity," because I find the Zhongyong to be quite difficult going. Your explanation of
ti and
yong also is quite helpful. I think I can see the shift in meaning now.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"the awareness is still there but its free not locked in any shape or fixed idea."</font>
Yuri, I think this is a very good statement of what I have been taught, but I think I get there by a different route and have a different understanding of the significance.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In English we use one word to mean "emptiness", but in Chinese the idea of empty or nothing has many different meanings:</font>
I do not find so much that Chinese has different meanings, but rather that the philosophy behind the meanings is different. In English, you have "empty," "void," "space," and "insubstantial" that can correspond to
kong and
xu; while "nothing," "absence," "without," "non-existence," can correspond to
meiyou or
wu. To me, English seems as rich as Chinese in this type of terminology, or even richer. What I find difficult is the term
wuji ("the limitless," "the non-polar," or "the uncontrasted"), because it is a concept absent from traditional western discourse.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So the problem for foreign students learning Wushu or the Chinese language itself is how to understand what real emptiness is, as in the state of "Wu Ji".</font>
I am surprised by an attempt to link "
wuji" with "emptiness." Is this a traditional definition? For me, "
wuji" is a concept different from any meaning of "emptiness" I can imagine.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We must realize that emptiness is not just nothing, but that it is emptiness and fullness combined. It is nothing and everything in complete harmony</font>
For me, this is a statement of "
taiji," rather than "
wuji." As I understand it, "
taiji" as conceived by Zhuxi was not dualistic. "Harmony" implies distinction and contrast, which are what I think define "
taiji."
I should also say that I think "
taiji" is an absolutely essential concept to Yang Style Taijiquan and in no way subordinate to "
wuji." There are many correlative pairs that are important, such as empty/full, soft/hard, mind/body, and internal/external. While some people advocate that it represents better technique to eliminate the second member of each pair, I think this would require a radical reworking of Yang Luchan's legacy.
I know some also argue to "rise" above such "limitations," but I find such arguments difficult to square with my understanding of "
taiji." The whole point of the concept is that it represents an ultimate limitation on reality. If we pass beyond mere reality, then maybe we can talk of "
wuji." Also, even though "
taiji" is a concept of limitation, it includes all of reality in its myriad forms and so can hardly be thought of as "limiting."
I also understand "
taiji" to be of acutely practical significance that would be impossible if it could simply be superseded at will. If you touch your partner's arms and detect that they are full, you know, without touching them, that his legs are empty. If you touch your partner's left and detect that it is empty, you know that her right is full. You know these things because, regardless of skill or lack thereof, regardless of intent, your partner is limited by the "supreme limitation," i.e., "
taiji." You see one side of the piece of paper and know that the other must equally exist, even without turning the paper over.
Take care,
Audi
[This message has been edited by Audi (edited 11-05-2006).]
I would like to make the context in which we are discussing emptiness narrower. You speak about the emptiness in the body. OK. Some may admit it, some may not. Lets leave it for awhile. Let's make clear our understanding of the mind state.
