Yang Family Tai Chi Discussion Board

Hi Louis,

Thanks for the help! Maybe it's just me but I still cannot see where did the word "thought" come from (in "at what tallies with the thought")? And I can not get the meaning of the whole phrase "the heart stops at what tallies with the thought"

Yes, I linked the passage; it works with switching to BIG 5 in my IE.

//In classical Chinese, the particle “ye” plays the role of a post-predicate copula—linking subject and predicate—as in the form “A, B ye.” “As for A, it is, belongs to the category, or has the quality of B.” It can also mark a word as nominal within a sentence, or serve as a full stop at the end of a sentence.//

So I assume YE just marks QI as nominal here.


Take care,

Yuri




[This message has been edited by Yuri Snisarenko (edited 05-04-2006).]

The expression:

x 也者

in classical times meant what we would write in English as: "x"

or 'x, by definition'

Funny, when I type in chars in simplified with windows IME, they stick nicely. I guess the problem may have something to do with the way people have cut and pasted text... I am able to see both Louis' and Yuri's Chinese text but only by switching encoding.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JerryKarin:
<B>The expression:

x –çŽÒ

in classical times meant what we would write in English as: "x"

or 'x, by definition'</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, Jerry!

So he gives a definition of QI here!

Suppose I said: 'Water, by definition, is wet'. I am not exactly defining water, but I am at least discussing something inherent in it.

Understood

Hi Yuri,

You wrote: ‘I still cannot see where did the word "thought" come from (in "at what tallies with the thought")? And I can not get the meaning of the whole phrase "the heart stops at what tallies with the thought"’

You are right, the word “thought” is not in the sentence, the translator just interpreted the passage to mean that “thought” or “thinking” is the activity of the heart/mind.

John Knoblock explains the use of tallies in Vol. II of his translation of the Xunzi: “Tallies and tokens were strips of bamboo used as credentials and warrants. The strips, about six inches long, were divided in two, with each person taking half. A pair that joined together perfectly guaranteed the validity of the credential or warrant.” (Knoblock, p. 172) The metaphor of tallying is very common in warring states texts for expressing agreement, recognition, an accounting, verification, or a logical outcome. So, to say that “the mind stops at tallying,” is to say that the mind plays a role of recognizing and making sense of the information that it receives, much like the ear plays the role of receiving sound. In the Zhuangzi story, Kongzi seems to be saying that perception will be clearer if one is not preoccupied with these activities.

Does that tally?

Take care,
Louis

Louis, thank you. This commentary does tally exactly to my question!

The sad thing is that Zhuangzi probably uses a polemic trick putting his own words into Confucius's mouth (Confucius and daoists typically were considered to be polemical opponents). So this 'Xin' most probably is not what Confucius put into this word. If I understood correctly, in this passage QI is put above Xin. But I can not recall such an idea in the real (so to speak) Confucius teaching. Uhh, why did they need to be so complicated



[This message has been edited by Yuri Snisarenko (edited 05-04-2006).]

Hello Louis,

I remember we were talking on the board a couple years ago...about the axle, the commander, the flags, troops~ ~ ~ signals...the process of TaiChi...but it is very vague in my memory...something of the threading process...

I was wondering if you could refresh my memory of this Classics quote...I am interested in applying this to what is being discussed here...is there any bearing on the subject here do you think?

Can you fathom what I am groping for in this request?

Thank you,
Pamela

Greetings Pamela,

I think I may have found the discussion you’re referring to in the “Metaphors” thread.

From “The Mental Elucidation of the Thirteen Postures”:

Xin wei ming4 (heart/mind serves as the commander)
Qi4 wei qi2 (qi serves as the signal flag)
Yao wei du2 (waist serves as the directional banner)

This is a cluster of metaphors. In warring states battle techniques, there was an array of signal flags, used in conjunction with drums and gongs, to keep the communication effective among the troops so that they could function as one unit. The du (directional banner) was used with the qi2, another kind of banner or flag, to clarify the lines of command. Sunzi wrote: “Drums, gongs, flags, and pennants are the way to coordinate the ears and eyes of the men.” (ch. 7, trans. Ames, p. 131)

In the case here, taijiquan theory is appropriating the military terms, and using them metaphorically to illustrate the goal of coordinating and consolidating one’s own body to work as an integrated unit.

The same cluster of terms appear in another taiji document, one of the Yang Forty texts (#24) titled, “Explanation of Taiji’s Balance Scale in the Waist and Crown,” where we find: “The chariot’s wheels are the two aspects of the mingmen. Once the directional banner (du) is waved, the chariot turns. The heart/mind commands, and the qi4 is deployed like signal flags (qi2).”
The added imagery of the chariot (again, inspired by military tradition) helps bring these metaphors to life. I think the hierarchy of command and sequence is better captured in the “Mental Elucidation” document, though.

I think I may fathom what you are working toward. (Tell me if I am not.) What is interesting about the Zhuangzi quote is that it downplays the role of the mind to something like that of an accountant. Although the taiji text implies a hierarchy and chain of command, it may in fact accord well with the Zhuangzi model, as the real objective is holistic—the communication among the components takes priority over any one component. Yuri raised a great point back in that discussion about the interdependency among the elements of commander, signal flag, and banner; it’s not unidirectional.

This whole discussion is helping me to reevaluate my understanding of yi (intent) as less a matter of discursive mental activity, and more a matter of focused motor skill and the sensory feedback function.

Take care,
Louis

Greetings Yuri,

The polemical opposition of so-called Confucianists and so-called daoists is often exaggerated, I think, and the further back you go, the more they have in common. But yes, the genius of Zhuangzi is that he poked fun at Confucius by putting unlikely words into his mouth. In chapter six of the Zhuangzi, the roles of Kongzi and Yanhui are actually reversed, with Yanhui disclosing to Kongzi his discovery of the practice of zuowang (sitting and forgetting), and Kongzi expressing his great admiration for his breakthrough.

Take care,
Louis

Greetings Louis,

Yes, this is the one, thank you~

I would have to agree that it is indeed about unity, for we are striving to use this "emptiness" for tangible/physical means....the empty & full.

Your note about growth of sesitivity in the hands was astute, appreciated and understood.

I think the heart and mind though, IF bypassed completely could render a much more efficient system of sensory feedback and return delivery.
As you say these are metaphor...and we are not really an army
If the army were able to simply follow the flag signals(qi2)...is there really a need for an intermediary command?
That would just be less efficient, time consuming.
As has been mentioned by another poster here (sorry) ...once we are so familiar with playing a guitar...our fingers take over...and we can compose mindlessly....I think most of us can relate to this state in one activity or another.

Reading intent from another player...is something else too.
kind of a mindless act...isn't it? (subconscious? unconscious?)
like perceiving the other sides flags...if my army could see their flags, and were able to act upon them, without the commander would this not be much more efficient?

Best regards,
Pamela


[This message has been edited by Pamela (edited 05-04-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Pamela (edited 05-04-2006).]

(Reading intent from another player...is something else too.
kind of a mindless act...isn't it? (subconscious? unconscious?)
To read the intent you must be with out intent that is empty, having intent is what I call full. It¡¦s a conscious act in that the awareness is opened but not directed.

Unconsciously people have intent that they are not consciously aware of, ever hit or bang into something that was unexpected or step on the gas instead of the brake in a car?

It¡¦s the same process at work, in pushing many people that I touch are full that is have an intent of protecting boundaries, fears of receiving force and inability to really sung allowing the body to change.

Not to have intent is a conscious act that must also be unconscious allowing the mind and body to respond to what is happening rather then filtering it to something that one thinks or wants to happen.




[This message has been edited by bamboo leaf (edited 05-05-2006).]

Bamboo Leaf~

Thank you.
I agree...this makes very good sense to my present thoughts on the subject.

"Not to have intent is a conscious act..."
I agree, emptiness must be INITIATED in the conscious mind.

"To read the intent you must be with out intent that is empty, having intent is what I call full....Unconsciously people have intent that they are not consciously aware of.."
I agree, and this must not be, else the caveats you mention arise.

So...basically...you are saying that both conscious mind and unconscious mind must be empty?
That's what I thought too...

So,
Louis...I am still baffled by your comments that a fully empty consciousness is impossible, or next to impossible...are you speaking of subconscious mind? Or the initiating process for emptying, which requires a conscious act?
I am simply striving to understand what you are saying...or doubting as possible...
as this kind of threw a wrench into what I thought I had started to understand...
So would be interested in any elaborations or clarifications you could provide on what you are advancing.

Thank you both~
Pamela

Hello Louis,

For clarity sake...

I am at the point presently, where I believe, that if one is EMPTY of minds/hearts consciousness, on all levels, that the body is thereby FULL in the sense of physical sensory awareness...Does this make empty/full TaiChi sense?

Of course there are degrees...if I am 80% Empty of all consciousness, then I can only be 80% Full of tactile/physical perception awareness...right?
And this might be better than the 79% which my opponent is able to acheieve, thereby allowing me to take the advantage...

I am very interested in knowing why a 100% emptiness is thought of as impossible...you must have a particular reason for doubting this...so I am interested in knowing of your thoughts on this.

Thank you,
Pamela