Mal

[HHC Study] Hua Hu Ching Chapter 15

13 posts in this topic

To the ordinary being, others often require tolerance. To the highly evolved being, there is no such thing as tolerance, because there is no such thing as other. She has given up all ideas of individuality and extended her goodwill without prejudice in every direction. Never hating, never resisting, never contesting, she is simply always learning and being. Loving, hating, having expectations: all these are attachments. Attachment prevents the growth of one's true being. Therefore the integral being is attached to nothing and can relate to everyone with an unstructured attitude. Because of this, her very existence benefits all things. You see, that which has form is equal to that which is without form, and that which is alive is equal to that which rests. This is the subtle truth, not a religious invention, but only those who are already highly evolved will understand this.

 

Walker's HHC 15

http://brianbrownewalker.com/hua-hu-ching/

 

 

The master continued, "Kind prince, tolerance is a necessary virtue

in everyone's daily life, but for a universal integral being there is

nothing that needs to be tolerated or labeled as tolerance. Tolerance

exists only in the relative sphere.

"Why is this? If someone does something unpleasant to us, we need

to gather our strength to bear it; it is a difficult and disagreeable

situation. However if you have risen above the relative concepts of the

mind, there is no self and others, no longevity or brevity, no life or

death in your mind, so there is no hatred or resentment. What then is

the necessity for tolerance?

"Kind prince, a person who is highly evolved leaves behind all

concepts of individuality and extends impersonal love to include all

existence. Dissolving individuality enables one to free oneself from the

entangling discriminations of form, language, sense perception, feeling

and all other relative conditions. It allows one*s true being to grow

freely without hindrance of attachment. When the mind is attached to

something, it can hold little more than self-created pain. One who is

highly evolved, therefore, is attached to nothing and does not depend on

any particular mental concept of form in his relations with people or in

serving them. His very being benefits all life."

"To a universal being all form is equal to that which is formless.

All life is equal to non-life. Kind prince, this is the reality of the

universe, it is the subtle integral truth and not a religious invention.

There is no need for further commentary, for the instruction of

transcendental, central reality is beyond the realm of truism and

falseness in ordinary logic. Only the individual who has already evolved

to a high level may receive this precious instruction."

 

Ni's HHC 15

http://www.bookdepository.com/Complete-Works-Lao-Tzu-Hua-Ching-Ni/9780937064009

Edited by Mal Stainkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mal (-:

 

There are three separate issues I have with these quotes.

 

Using Walker's -

 

 

...To the ordinary being, others often require tolerance. To the highly evolved being, there is no such thing as tolerance, because there is no such thing as other. She has given up all ideas of individuality and extended her goodwill without prejudice in every direction. Never hating, never resisting, never contesting, she is simply always learning and being. Loving, hating, having expectations: all these are attachments. Attachment prevents the growth of one's true being. Therefore the integral being is attached to nothing and can relate to everyone with an unstructured attitude. Because of this, her very existence benefits all things. You see, that which has form is equal to that which is without form, and that which is alive is equal to that which rests. This is the subtle truth, not a religious invention, but only those who are already highly evolved will understand this.

 

Re the blue: If there is no such thing as 'other' - not only is there no 'tolerance' there is also no 'goodwill' to extend.

 

 

Re the red section: What is stated reinforces the classic "either/or" mindset that's usually reflected as: No desires, no attachments, no emotions, etc.

 

I'm reminded of the tale of some ancient master who, while drinking his tea, realized the tea cup was his favorite and so he smashed it quickly!! I guess that was his way of not having 'attachments' and the lesson for the reader was to follow suit.

 

My way would be to enjoy the tea cup, enjoy its beauty and delicacy, use it in gratitude, and when it got broken or ceased to exist - as all things do - to sigh a short sigh of natural loss...and then happily move on to either a new cup or go cup-less for a while!

 

 

 

My third issue is with the bolded section.

 

You see, that which has form is equal to that which is without form,

 

Yes, and that which is without form is equal to that which has form. There is simultaneous existence of both the individual and the unboundaried whole. Not "either/or".

 

Because of this, her very existence benefits all things.

 

Her very existence also harms all things. Every action, and non-action, is one of equal creation and destruction. It is not possible to cause no harm; it is not possible to cause no benefit. Such is the way of Tao.

 

 

The way of this Chapter is to eliminate half of what is natural.

 

 

All thoughts welcome.

 

warm regards

 

 

 

 

 

2 people thank this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mal (-:

 

There are three separate issues I have with these quotes.

 

Using Walker's -

 

 

 

Re the blue: If there is no such thing as 'other' - not only is there no 'tolerance' there is also no 'goodwill' to extend.

 

 

Re the red section: What is stated reinforces the classic "either/or" mindset that's usually reflected as: No desires, no attachments, no emotions, etc.

 

I'm reminded of the tale of some ancient master who, while drinking his tea, realized the tea cup was his favorite and so he smashed it quickly!! I guess that was his way of not having 'attachments' and the lesson for the reader was to follow suit.

 

My way would be to enjoy the tea cup, enjoy its beauty and delicacy, use it in gratitude, and when it got broken or ceased to exist - as all things do - to sigh a short sigh of natural loss...and then happily move on to either a new cup or go cup-less for a while!

 

 

 

My third issue is with the bolded section.

 

You see, that which has form is equal to that which is without form,

 

Yes, and that which is without form is equal to that which has form. There is simultaneous existence of both the individual and the unboundaried whole. Not "either/or".

 

Because of this, her very existence benefits all things.

 

Her very existence also harms all things. Every action, and non-action, is one of equal creation and destruction. It is not possible to cause no harm; it is not possible to cause no benefit. Such is the way of Tao.

 

 

The way of this Chapter is to eliminate half of what is natural.

 

 

All thoughts welcome.

 

warm regards

If "goodwill" is our natural state, then when there is no "other", in the mind, then "goodwill" will naturaly emulate from such a person who's actions and thoughts are not corrupted by the concept of self and other.

 

 

Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be

benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt

with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they

deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.

 

Heaven is long-enduring and earth continues long. The reason

why heaven and earth are able to endure and continue thus long is

because they do not live of, or for, themselves. This is how they are

able to continue and endure.

The two quotes above and others indicate that the people, having the nature of tao are naturally what is called "goodwilled".

 

 

Re the red section: What is stated reinforces the classic "either/or" mindset that's usually reflected as: No desires, no attachments, no emotions, etc.

 

I'm reminded of the tale of some ancient master who, while drinking his tea, realized the tea cup was his favorite and so he smashed it quickly!! I guess that was his way of not having 'attachments' and the lesson for the reader was to follow suit.

 

My way would be to enjoy the tea cup, enjoy its beauty and delicacy, use it in gratitude, and when it got broken or ceased to exist - as all things do - to sigh a short sigh of natural loss...and then happily move on to either a new cup or go cup-less for a while!

Sounds like he had the attatchment of not having attatchments, yet also that he was attached to tea...loving a cup and so throwing it away is not going to break anyone of being attached, hes just going to need a new cup. Attatchment is an inner phenomenon with nothing to do with the actual cup, the cup didnt do anything to him and wasnt controlling him in anyway.

 

An example of non-attatcment or dealing with attatchment would be when realizing that "This is my favorite tea cup!" he would've thought, ..."it will make a great pot." then proceeded to fill the cup with soil and plant a seed in it.

 

The TTC teaches that attatchment can be to an object, "I love my cup" it can have to do with self image I am "a zen guru", it can also have to do with seeing the world of potentiel as a set of objects with specific roles and definitions; attatchment to concepts as though they are real and unchanging, "I am pretty and pretty is a real and actual thing."

 

So seeing a thing of inexhaustable utility las a tea cup is a form of attatchment unless you see it as a cup while being a cup and see it as a pot when its not being a cup.

 

Obviously attatchment also goes into emotions and people as well. What is love? Love is attatchment.

 

 

Because of this, her very existence benefits all things.

 

Her very existence also harms all things. Every action, and non-action, is one of equal creation and destruction. It is not possible to cause no harm; it is not possible to cause no benefit. Such is the way of Tao.

I believe that it is not possable to cause no benifit; or rather that all things will be made to benifit with the passage of time, but that does not have anything to do with the law of opposites but because that it is the nature of tao to nurture all things, therefore, anything unbenificial will be made to be benificial. I do not believe that a person, like the one being described in the passage who does no-harm, will also be made to do harm by this same faculty.

 

I believe the passage when saying that she will do no harm is implying that a state of naturalness is without harm. Not in the sense that having the concept of harmlessnes in mind creates the concept of harmfull and places the oppsotite in mind. Realitive terms create their opposites but that is not relative to the passage where it says that she would be harmless or whatever..

 

When people stray from tao, they create ideas and rituals about benevolence and goodwill, which is in response to the straying from tao resulting in unbenificial/selfish behavior. Therefore, when one like the person in the passage is with tao, their nature is what we call goodwilled etc, but it is naturally so, not part of the contrived world of relative terms and relative actions based on relative concepts.

Edited by ion
1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So seeing a thing of inexhaustable utility las a tea cup is a form of attatchment unless you see it as a cup while being a cup and see it as a pot when its not being a cup.

 

Obviously attatchment also goes into emotions and people as well. What is love? Love is attatchment.

 

ion,

 

A little bit of your post I agree with, most I do not agree with, but that is natural given our very different ideas about the nature of Tao.

 

Regarding the part I quoted above, for me, Love is like the tea cup (-: to enjoy its beauty and delicacy, to share it in gratitude, to mourn its passing if it passes, and to enjoy when it comes again. To fear love, or to detach from love, just to avoid the pain that may come with it? That is the greatest harm we could ever do to ourselves and, imo, others.

 

As long as I live, I will never understand why some try to eliminate half of who they are; intentionally denying themselves joy.

 

Thank you for your reply,

 

warm greetings

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not mean to generalize love as attatchment. What you said was a very beautiful ideology, yet what was it you described.

 

I should have been more specific.

 

According to Tao, the only kind of love a person can have and still be aligned is the kind of love that has no personal interests. If you had it, you would know it as compassion. Any other kind of love, is one of personal interests/prejudice and is absolutly a form of attachment.

 

The type of love you describe, where one indulges because of personal interest is not the love of Tao, but the love of an ego loving their projection which usually ends not in joy, yet it is that "joy" that is the initial personal interest.

 

 

Just because you were not possesive does not mean that what you really had was not just some form of attatchment.

but that is natural given our very different ideas about the nature of Tao.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ion - thank you for beautifully describing the difference in our perspectives:

 

According to Tao, the only kind of love a person can have and still be aligned is the kind of love that has no personal interests. If you had it, you would know it as compassion. Any other kind of love, is one of personal interests/prejudice and is absolutly a form of attachment.

 

The type of love you describe, where one indulges because of personal interest is not the love of Tao, but the love of an ego loving their projection which usually ends not in joy, yet it is that "joy" that is the initial personal interest.

 

To me, what you've described above is an example of classic 'either/or' thinking.

 

My perspective finds that it is not only possible, but very natural, to have and fully embrace - simultaneously - the universal love of compassion and the personal love which brings one joy. The two are not mutually exclusive, and, one might even find that they re-enforce each other. (-:

 

"Either/or" thinking is very hard to overcome...which is why many traditions have extreme difficulty teaching about the unboundaried nature of Tao, reflected in the presence of 'both', - and so teachings fall back on the easier-to-understand ideas of choosing between either 'this' or 'that' which, by default, eliminates (or tries to) half of the natural whole... as in your example, the ego.

 

I like that we each have our own way. Thanks for sharing yours!

 

warm regards

 

 

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your presenting the either or arguement is a strawman and does not represent my standpoint. you could say that to anyone you disagree with if your goal is to make them seem closeminded and your ddelf the opposite by default.

 

You failed to back up your arguement but instead offered the strawman and then fortified that you yourself are the one stuck in the either or philosophy by (in both of the posts where you adress me) pointing out only that we are different in our thinking.

 

Why shouldd love for and of life be projected onto an individual? This expresses a belief that you are didvied from the others in your life and that you and they are seperate from one another and it.

 

Forgive me for refering to buddhist texts, but in reference to the buddhas leaving his beloved family (worldly/illusory love and role) for the dharma(love for humanity and spiritual way/path), there was a poem written that goes something like what follows:

 

 

 

'T was not through hatred of his children sweet,
'T was not through hatred of his lovely wife,
Thraller of hearts—not that he loved them less—
But Buddhahood more, that he renounced them all.

 

 

A thraller and thrall is defined:

 

 

thraller
thrall [thrawl] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who is in bondage; slave.
2.
a person who is morally or mentally enslaved by some power,influence, or the like: He was the thrall of morbid fantasies.
3.
slavery; thralldom.
verb (used with object)
4.
Archaic. to put or hold in thralldom; enslave.
adjective
5.
Archaic. subjected to bondage; enslaved.

This poem implies that these sorts of love that you are refering to, and that you are insinuating can be had even from an awakened state of love, are considered to be prison keepers that hold a person in the world of illusion and ignorance; that these states have the power to enlslave a persons soul and to keep it under. This poem implies that a person dedicated to the path and armed only with the ultimate undifferentiated love for all people (compassion at this point in history/delusion) has to sever the ties that have their basis in egotistical/cultural "loves".

 

It is my understanding that the world of ignorance/illusion has its grips so deeply into our emotions and psyches that to have glimpsed the imprisonment we are all under is to not ever be able to trully entrench yourself with another in such a way because how could you knowing that there love is born of ignorance and a form of attatchment and to feign ignorance yourself for the sake of such relations is selfish, self serving because it further entrenches that person in ignorance and illusion and egotistical attachment. If from an awakened position you continue to "love" people in that manner, you do not show compassion for them or anyone else by leading them further into darkness simply because you liked the way it made you feel.

 

It is the same as if a person, after becomming awakened and seeing just a glimpse of how deep within our hearts and minds the world of illusions chains have their grip, one decided to "forget" or ignore and still pursued any other worldly pursuit in ignorance for the sake of self.

 

You cannot serve two masters, and that is not an either or scenario, I am not saying because you cannot indulge in egotistical love then you have to hate, Im saying that true love cannot be bound or its focus sustained. Im not saying either or, that is just not true, im saying the kind of love you are refering to is ultimately self fullfilling and merely a vestige of the love of tao, (which at this point is compassion). I am not saying that the unawakened world all actually hate eachother and are doing eachother wrong. They are in a world of illusion and their practices and rituals are a fruit of that.

 

Compassion is when you realize that only you alone are not caught up in the pursuit of death and your heart truly goes out to the trapped souls all around you, knowing that absolutely everything they do say love and hate further enslaves them and establishes potentiated enslavement for the following generation. That it is not this or that, but everything; when you realize that love within the world is an egotistical illusion; a lie then you will know why you must only have compassion. If you have any love in you at all when you realize this you will trully break down and cry for them and from there learn to love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody said that the path that leads to salvation would be easy and without sacrafice. Tao teaches that it is from desolation that life springs and that we should dwell near desolation, having nothing.

 

Existence and life spring forth from non-existence and liflessness, where is it written in the Tao that we can have our cake and eat it too?

 

Can yo be like Tao and love everyone yet with no preferences regaurd them all as equal? Can you bare children and regaurd your off spring equal to anyone elses and express love to all of them everywhere equal without placing an emphesis on any of them as your own?

 

The path is not an easy life, we are all in a position that requires sincere devotion and great streangth to break free from. Livving the path is no picnic.

 

Can you be like Tao and having no point of view, placing no emphesis, and regaurding all things as equal express love for everything equally having no standard and no personal interests no likes or dislikes to hinder that love?

 

Did you realize your POV after searching deeply for the answer or is it just an assumption based on how you naturaly feel? If you could not find the answer inside your self, to what and where do you base your argument on? Where in any text do you find support? Everything seems to point away from worldly entanglemets, no matter what ammount of joy or self satisfaction it may promise.

 

How you naturally feel is how you are programmed to feel, it is a task upon the path to rid yourself of you you think you feel.

 

Like the guy in the Matrix who sells them all out so he can feign ignorance just to indulge in the joys of eating "real food", a juicy steak while everyone suffered and sacrificed for the salvation of all mankind...

 

 



Not exalting the gifted prevents quarrelling.
Not collecting treasure prevents stealing.
Not seeing desirable things prevents confusion of the heart.

The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies,
by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones.
If people lack knowledge and desire,
then intellectuals will not try to interfere.
If nothing is done, then all will be well

 

Heaven and earth are ruthless;
They see the ten thousand things as dummies.
The wise are ruthless;
They see the people as dummies.

 

The five colours blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavours dull the taste.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Precious things lead one astray.

Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels and not by what he sees.
He lets go of that and chooses this.

Edited by ion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot serve two masters...

 

Existence and life spring forth from non-existence and liflessness, where is it written in the Tao that we can have our cake and eat it too?

 

For those who are slave to neither as master - right in Chapter 1 of The Laozi:

 

One

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.

The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

 

***

 

ion - please accept my apologies.

 

I did not realize you would see my words as a challenge for so much energy to be spent (in your previous post) on trying to convince me of your beliefs.

 

Everything you say is valid within the framework of your path. What reason would I have to try and convince you otherwise?

 

We have different ideas because we have different perspectives. I enjoy learning about others' ways, and finding the common source between them. If you enjoy trying to convince someone that your ideas are the only valid ideas - all I can do is wish you well and bid you adieu. (-:

 

 

warm regards

Edited by rene
1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warm regards, and, interesting translation of chapter 1 :)

1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing 'Judge not lest ye be judged' as a thread which interweaves this discussion. This works on several levels. Maybe the ultimate mindset is to see no differentiation between one object and another; apparently it isn't in the cards for us to actually walk through this illusion by doing that. But we can see each other as ourselves. We can get to the point where we give the other's interests the same importance as our own, because we know that the other person is merely us, but with an illusive apparent boundary. Easier said than done, certainly; but something to shoot for more and more every day. And to truly do this involves the temperance of ego.

 

Trying to not judge (and assumedly getting better at it the more often we practice this) also serves the benefit of not feeling judged by others. I see this as a yin-yang of sorts. It seems to work proportionately; the more judgmental we are, the more judgmental we assume others are toward us. A other-side-of-the-coin direct relationship, as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites