Action vs. Intention

[Marblehead]

I believe that the intent here was being impartial.

 

Yeah, I suppose that is a fair consideration. I don't see Heaven and Earth as having any intent at all. The pure man would, I am sure, have intent to be impartial. I think the Sage probably has already attained impartiality so there would be no need for intent.

[steve]

I think the Sage probably has already attained impartiality so there would be no need for intent.

I wonder... Is impartiality our natural state? Or is it something that requires intent. Is this state of effortless impartiality within our grasp or an ideal pointed to in scripture?

[Marblehead]

I wonder... Is impartiality our natural state? Or is it something that requires intent. Is this state of effortless impartiality within our grasp or an ideal pointed to in scripture?

 

Steve, I cannot supply an answer to your first question (probably not the second one either) and here is why.

 

The TTC suggests that the state of the babe (uncarved wood, new-born calf) is our original nature. I accept this within limits only.

 

Look at the baby. It is interested in only itself. It cries whenever any part of its life is not exactly the why it wants it to be. As it grows a little older it forms attachments with things and people. These are things that happen even before it has been influenced by any other human.

 

So what, really, is our natural state? Doesn't my paragraph above look like self-centered selfishness?

 

To your second question. Even the Sage, I think, has the intent to live his/her life to the fullest. That means survival. It is his/her intention to not knowingly put themself in harms way. These considerations are present, I think, whenever they are out of their secure environment.

 

However, when in one's secure environment one can, I think, attain wu wei where there is no intnent - just the allowing of one's mind becoming clear (or empty). In such a state there would be no intent. I think that this state does not last very long at any one experience because the world is dynamic. Things around us are changing and some of those changes require action on our part.

 

So, yes, I think that a permanent state of wu wei and lack of intent is more an idealistic goal rather than a state that can actually be attained and maintained.

[ChiDragon]

Yeah, I suppose that is a fair consideration. I don't see Heaven and Earth as having any intent at all. The pure man would, I am sure, have intent to be impartial. I think the Sage probably has already attained impartiality so there would be no need for intent.

 

That's exactly, Heaven and Earth don't have any intent at all; but they are impartial though. LaoTze was using the impartial part of Heaven and Earth as a model for a sage to follow. Do you see there is a pattern in the Tao Te Ching that LaoTze always start saying something about Nature then followed with a sage....??? What he was doing is setting up a model, Nature to human, for a sage to follow.

 

Remember...

Human follows the mandate of Earth,

Earth follows the mandate of Heaven,

Heaven follows the mandate of Tao,

Tao follow its natural self.

 

Please keep in mind that the TTC was written in classic text, don't take a sage too literally. In the TTC, a sage does not always meant as a sage. When people was mentioned in relation with a sage, this sage was referred to as a ruler. Classic text, sometimes, does not say what it meant; and does not meant what its says. Indeed, it requires some mental manipulations to come up with a logical interpretation.

Edited May 30, 2011 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

I wonder... Is impartiality our natural state? Or is it something that requires intent. Is this state of effortless impartiality within our grasp or an ideal pointed to in scripture?

 

Impartial is not our natural state. It is something that requires intent. For example, if one wants to be a ruler or a judge, impartial is mandatory on his part to carry out justice for the people.

[steve]

Impartial is not our natural state. It is something that requires intent. For example, if one wants to be a ruler or a judge, impartial is mandatory on his part to carry out justice for the people.

I think I would tend to agree with you on this.

[Otis]

The TTC suggests that the state of the babe (uncarved wood, new-born calf) is our original nature. I accept this within limits only.

This is my take on that:

 

It's not necessarily that the organism needs to act like a baby; it is only the ego which needs that. When the ego resumes its wide-eyed curiosity, its innocent relationship to phenomena, it's "I don't know", then the ego returns to its original shape and function, as a conduit for awareness.

 

IME, when the ego goes back into that baby state, then the organism (the whole body) continues on in its own direction. What is the organism's mind, it's direction? I do not know. I do not know what is good for it, or why it chooses what it chooses. I only know, that I've grown to trust it, more than I trust myself.

 

So I see none of the traditional recommendations as being suggestions for how my full self should behave; they are instead for me, the ego, to teach me how to get out of the way. At that point, my job is done, and the organism itself has to learn how to exist in this world, without me.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Impartial is not our natural state. It is something that requires intent. For example, if one wants to be a ruler or a judge, impartial is mandatory on his part to carry out justice for the people.

Likewise this, as well. The full organism is probably not impartial; it chooses food over poison. But it is only "I", the ego, which needs to surrender intent. If I get rid of the "I want to _________", then I have done a good deal of the surrendering of the "I".

 

Habits form the "I" in two ways: it shapes how we perceive (input) and how we act (output). "I don't know" surrenders the bonds of perception and losing intent surrenders the bonds of action.

[Marblehead]

That's exactly, Heaven and Earth don't have any intent at all ...

 

I am in total agreement with your post.

 

(I have no problem with speaking of the Sage because in some regards I am an idealist.)

[Marblehead]

 

It's not necessarily that the organism needs to act like a baby; it is only the ego which needs that. ...

 

I like the way you brought the concept of ego into this discussion. And yes, ego must be considered when speaking to the concept of "intent".

[steve]

This is my take on that:

 

It's not necessarily that the organism needs to act like a baby; it is only the ego which needs that. When the ego resumes its wide-eyed curiosity, its innocent relationship to phenomena, it's "I don't know", then the ego returns to its original shape and function, as a conduit for awareness.

 

IME, when the ego goes back into that baby state, then the organism (the whole body) continues on in its own direction. What is the organism's mind, it's direction? I do not know. I do not know what is good for it, or why it chooses what it chooses. I only know, that I've grown to trust it, more than I trust myself.

 

So I see none of the traditional recommendations as being suggestions for how my full self should behave; they are instead for me, the ego, to teach me how to get out of the way. At that point, my job is done, and the organism itself has to learn how to exist in this world, without me.

Good points Otis. As children, we want to explore and experience everything. As we do, we develop these images of things (oh, that's a tree, I know tree, it can't hurt me, next...) that allows us to screen them out of our everyday consciousness to allow us to focus on more "important" things (real threats, obtaining food, baseball, pornography, whatever). So the admonition to return to the childlike state, refers to recapturing that childlike willingness to see things new. Look at everything equally and with awareness and intent. Because even though we think we know these things through the image we create (the most comical one being God or Tao) we really don't have a clue.

[Otis]

Because even though we think we know these things through the image we create (the most comical one being God or Tao)

Amen to that. Comical and yet, dangerous.

[steve]

So while practicing Taijiquan this morning, something occurred to me that's relevant to this discussion.

There's been talk about doing Taijiquan without intent (dissolving into the practice) and there's been discussion of the sage and whether he/she acts with intention or not. And certainly we need to be careful about our words and our meaning.

 

So as I'm practicing and I'm using the Yi to guide the Qi in order to cultivate Qi and song it occurs to me that Yi is intent. We can make distinctions between 'intention' and 'intent' but nonetheless, they are closely related. And in Taijiquan we are using the form to train the Yi to guide the Qi and thus cultivating QI and Song (and other things at the same time). Similarly in Neigong and Neiyeh we are developing and refining the Yi. All cultivation practices (well, most at least, all is a dangerous word) are based on and designed to develop skillful application of Yi.

 

So why work so hard on developing and refining Yi if the sage doesn't use it? I don't think the "intent" here is to let go of intent or even diminish it. I think was we develop is a different perspective on what intent is and where it comes from. Who is manifesting intent? And that sort of thing. So the point is to align the intent with its true source and recognize that the pesky "me" thought that tries to intrude and take credit for everything is not the source of the Yi. And when we become the true source of the Yi we are acting in complete accordance with Dao - Wu Wei.

 

To what degree can that occur? Is it a constant thing? Transient? All in my head?

Who knows? Not "me"...

But it occurred to me and felt right so there it is...

Have a nice day everyone.

[Marblehead]

 

So why work so hard on developing and refining Yi if the sage doesn't use it? I don't think the "intent" here is to let go of intent or even diminish it. I think was we develop is a different perspective on what intent is and where it comes from. Who is manifesting intent? And that sort of thing. So the point is to align the intent with its true source and recognize that the pesky "me" thought that tries to intrude and take credit for everything is not the source of the Yi. And when we become the true source of the Yi we are acting in complete accordance with Dao - Wu Wei.

 

 

Valid and important consideration, I think.

[ChiDragon]

It seems to me that there is something missing here about intent. LaoTze always concern about the negative side of matters. What he was suggesting is not to have an intent to cause any harm to Nature as being natural. In the contrary, he did not say anything about not to have a good intent for Nature.

[Marblehead]

It seems to me that there is something missing here about intent. LaoTze always concern about the negative side of matters. What he was suggesting is not to have an intent to cause any harm to Nature as being natural. In the contrary, he did not say anything about not to have a good intent for Nature.

 

Oh, I fully intend to make sure we talk about the negative aspects of reality either in this thread or the virtue thread. We can't look at only half of a duality and thing we understand everything.

[ChiDragon]

Oh, I fully intend to make sure we talk about the negative aspects of reality either in this thread or the virtue thread. We can't look at only half of a duality and thing we understand everything.

LaoTze's intention was by looking at the negative side, in order, for one to understand the positive side. In my post, the implication was that LaoTze was not so much concern what good had been done to Nature but it was the bad that he is more concern with. He knew anything good to Nature will cause no harm. Thus, the over all concept of Wu Wei is take no action to interfere with Nature. There was nothing to worry about if things are good to Nature. Is there...???

[Otis]

So as I'm practicing and I'm using the Yi to guide the Qi in order to cultivate Qi and song it occurs to me that Yi is intent. We can make distinctions between 'intention' and 'intent' but nonetheless, they are closely related. And in Taijiquan we are using the form to train the Yi to guide the Qi and thus cultivating QI and Song (and other things at the same time). Similarly in Neigong and Neiyeh we are developing and refining the Yi. All cultivation practices (well, most at least, all is a dangerous word) are based on and designed to develop skillful application of Yi.

 

So why work so hard on developing and refining Yi if the sage doesn't use it? I don't think the "intent" here is to let go of intent or even diminish it. I think was we develop is a different perspective on what intent is and where it comes from. Who is manifesting intent? And that sort of thing. So the point is to align the intent with its true source and recognize that the pesky "me" thought that tries to intrude and take credit for everything is not the source of the Yi. And when we become the true source of the Yi we are acting in complete accordance with Dao - Wu Wei.

Good point.

 

My take on this, is that Yi is used to "rough in" our direction. Yi can get me into the ballpark, and help rise above the background noise, so my listening is in the right direction. It's like (my understanding of) the 8-fold path; not moral rules, but suggestions to help align ourselves for realization.

 

IME, at some point, however, there is a gap, that intent cannot fully span. At that point, I need to "turn around backwards", that is, to stop trying to hit the mark, and instead trust that listening alone will guide me in. Qi then sweeps me up, and all intent is forgotten.

 

But that doesn't mean, as you point out, that intent wasn't useful to get me there. IME, with practice, intent becomes less and less interesting, because it starts to feel false, even polluting. But intent at least gets me started, and pointing in the direction of growth. Intent has the danger of starting religious ritual and superstition, but if I don't mistake the intent for a magic spell or moral law, then I can see it just as a vehicle, that will never get me more than part-way there. At some point, IMO, I have to scuttle the boat, drop all my belongings, and swim naked to the other shore (or even surrender the idea of another shore). No baggage is allowed to come with me.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

LaoTze's intention was by looking at the negative side, in order, for one to understand the positive side. In my post, the implication was that LaoTze was not so much concern what good had been done to Nature but it was the bad that he is more concern with. He knew anything good to Nature will cause no harm. Thus, the over all concept of Wu Wei is take no action to interfere with Nature. There was nothing to worry about if things are good to Nature. Is there...???

 

You done good. I'm not ready to talk about it yet. Hehehe.