Does the Weak overcome the Strong?

[Stigweard]

[Vajrahridaya]

I would say it takes inner strength to be flexible, yielding and supple. I think it's an inner weakness to be rigid, hard and inflexible.

 

I think that this is what is being said though. It's kind of a paradox.

[Stigweard]

I would say it takes inner strength to be flexible, yielding and supple. I think it's an inner weakness to be rigid, hard and inflexible.

 

I think that this is what is being said though. It's kind of a paradox.

Yup ... I'm picking up what you are laying down there

[Vajrahridaya]

Yup ... I'm picking up what you are laying down there

 

Yes, kind of like Tao Chi Chuan. Another translation of what you are saying I've seen is written like this; "The soft and the pliable will defeat the hard and strong." But, I would say more like the soft and pliable will defeat the rigid and brittle.

[NeiChuan]

Hm keep in mind its not always the strongest who wins either.

 

Leverage is a useful Key.

[mike1234]

[Stigweard]

[Gerard]

Water element overcomes Fire element. Controlling cycle. Very basic Taoist/Shamanic principle.

[DarthBane]

Yup I had that floating through my mind as well ... thanks for the addition

 

Meek a long time ago, the corresponding aramaic word actually meant "changeability" and "ability to learn".

Some misteakingly see this word as "to follow". Just some added fodder.

 

是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill- Sun Tzu

[Marblehead]

Interesting responses. Y'all already know my understanding.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

That which is willingly vulnerable does not have any strength to lend to that which seeks to dominate. Not finding any strength, the force of wanting to dominate dissipates on its own, without the 'weak' needing to do anything to activate the dissipation. This is the purest form of strength.

[Vajrahridaya]

That which is willingly vulnerable does not have any strength to lend to that which seeks to dominate. Not finding any strength, the force of wanting to dominate dissipates on its own, without the 'weak' needing to do anything to activate the dissipation. This is the purest form of strength.

 

Well worded amigo!

[effilang]

Water element overcomes Fire element. Controlling cycle. Very basic Taoist/Shamanic principle.

 

This is true, but the quantity and quality of the element is of major importance.

Although water will subside and control fire, a small amount of water will only hinder the fire, but expend itself entirely in the process, leaving the fire temporarily weaker but still thriving.

 

And vice-versa a greater amount of water will conquer the fire element entirely, but enough fire will consume and force water to transform compositionally, thus fire overcoming water.

 

A lot of people keep boldly throwing the element theory around, but in my opinion other than the structure and continuity, the quality and QUANTITY of the elements plays a very important role in determining the path of elemental transformation.

 

We are not dealing with set extreme values of Fire or Water, or Li and Kan or Yin and Yang. If the five elements that create the 10,000 things had only the capacity to quantify one unit of variance, then our world would be a lot simpler than it is. But when you accept that even the slightest change in the quantity and quality of Yin and Yang within a formula is capable of producing an entirely independent result on it's own, then you realize it's not 10,000; it's an Infinite(N) of unfathomable possibilities. Thus, i believe it is quite false to say ABSOLUTELY, that water conquers fire or that fire in incapable of conquering water.

 

This is my experience from martial arts, i feel this when i practice, but my most profound discoveries of this have come from meditation.

Edited July 13, 2010 by effilang

[Apech]

Thing I learned in Aikido - if you are open, relaxed and responsive (which looks vulnerable) you are more powerful than being rigid and muscular. Most spiritual traditions have something like this ... in Buddhism (dare I mention it) 'give victory to the other' of mind-training. By seeming to loose you win and so on.

[Marblehead]

Thing I learned in Aikido - if you are open, relaxed and responsive (which looks vulnerable) you are more powerful than being rigid and muscular.

 

This is important, I think. It has been said that Lao Tzu was the first philosopher to suggest camouflage. Appearing to be weak so to allow your enemy to underestimate your abilities. Yes, appearing weak, but not being weak.

 

Peace & Love!

[DarthBane]

This is important, I think. It has been said that Lao Tzu was the first philosopher to suggest camouflage. Appearing to be weak so to allow your enemy to underestimate your abilities. Yes, appearing weak, but not being weak.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Deception is the point.

 

Embedding disabled by video owner, click "Watch on youtube to see."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av8F21L5AYs

Edited July 14, 2010 by Guest

[Marblehead]

I saw that movie a while back. Good movie if one likes those kinds of movies.

 

And, of course, Sun Tzu recognized the importance of deception.

 

I will say here too that I think the lesson being taught is much more important than the vehicle used for teaching the lesson.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited July 14, 2010 by Marblehead

[三江源]

I would say it takes inner strength to be flexible, yielding and supple. I think it's an inner weakness to be rigid, hard and inflexible.

 

 

Yes. True, it very is a weak brittle thing to be rigid.

 

I used to think I was regularly tyrannised by weak people, because I didnt know how to stop helping them, rescuing them, etc. Now I see their appearance of weakness was a great strength that got them fed a lot.

 

 

Knowing one's weaknesses and feeling them very acutely is to me part of unfoldment on this path, more and more of my weaknesses unfold, layer by layer and I suffer when I see the pattern shaking itself to the surface and I see my failings.

 

Afterward, one is stronger from this knowledge, but one actually feels stripped and reborn, quite raw.

 

It is then, for me, that the rigid and the denying and the faux strong becomes palpably feeble.

[Apech]

Yes. True, it very is a weak brittle thing to be rigid.

 

I used to think I was regularly tyrannised by weak people, because I didnt know how to stop helping them, rescuing them, etc. Now I see their appearance of weakness was a great strength that got them fed a lot.

 

 

Knowing one's weaknesses and feeling them very acutely is to me part of unfoldment on this path, more and more of my weaknesses unfold, layer by layer and I suffer when I see the pattern shaking itself to the surface and I see my failings.

 

Afterward, one is stronger from this knowledge, but one actually feels stripped and reborn, quite raw.

 

It is then, for me, that the rigid and the denying and the faux strong becomes palpably feeble.

 

Great wisdom Cat ... in a different way the weak dominate the strong who's instinct is to be generous and helpful. It always brings to mind the last scene of my favourite film 'The Seven Samurai' ... when the leader says that its not them (the samurai) who have won but the farmers (who were needy and helpless for most of the film).

 

 

Seven Samurai last scene

[Apech]

Would also like to add this Chapter from LZ No. 50

 

50

 

Between birth and death,

Three in ten are followers of life,

Three in ten are followers of death,

And men just passing from birth to death also number three in ten.

Why is this so?

Because they live their lives on the gross level.

He who knows how to live can walk abroad

Without fear of rhinoceros or tiger.

He will not be wounded in battle.

For in him rhinoceroses can find no place to thrust their horn,

Tigers no place to use their claws,

And weapons no place to pierce.

Why is this so?

Because he has no place for death to enter.

 

Trans Feng & English

 

I think I understand it but not entirely sure ... anyone got any thoughts?

[Brian]

...

[Marblehead]

[Apech]

Well, was there any doubt in your mind that I would have something to say here? Hehehe.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Marbles ... that '3 in 10' thing has become 'the 13' in this one. Here is the Legge version :

 

50

 

Men come forth and live; they enter (again) and die. Of every ten three are ministers of life (to themselves); and three are ministers of death.

 

There are also three in every ten whose aim is to live, but whose movements tend to the land (or place) of death. And for what reason? Because of their excessive endeavours to perpetuate life.

 

But I have heard that he who is skilful in managing the life entrusted to him for a time travels on the land without having to shun rhinoceros or tiger, and enters a host without having to avoid buff coat or sharp weapon. The rhinoceros finds no place in him into which to thrust its horn, nor the tiger a place in which to fix its claws, nor the weapon a place to admit its point. And for what reason? Because there is in him no place of death.

 

I still don't quite get that and its obvious that most of translators don't get it either (?).

 

For me the interesting bit is the end where the tiger and rhino can't harm him because 'there is in him no place of death'.

 

This is like an ultimate form of self-defense. It makes me think of the Japanese swordsman who instead of attacking the opponent looks for a gap in their defense and attacks that. Looks for an opening. If there isn't one ... then he cannot harm his opponent. In the 13th Warrior film clip the man wins by presenting a false opening which his opponent attacks. The opponent is unguarded in this moment and so looses the fight. The one who moves first tends to loose - this is a kind of rule of combat (maybe).

Edited July 14, 2010 by apepch7

[DarthBane]

Yes the lesson is more important than the vehicle. great posts apepch7 and marblehead

[Marblehead]

Thanks Marbles ... that '3 in 10' thing has become 'the 13' in this one. Here is the Legge version :

 

I still don't quite get that and its obvious that most of translators don't get it either (?).

 

For me the interesting bit is the end where the tiger and rhino can't harm him because 'there is in him no place of death'.

 

This is like an ultimate form of self-defense. It makes me think of the Japanese swordsman who instead of attacking the opponent looks for a gap in their defense and attacks that. Looks for an opening. If there isn't one ... then he cannot harm his opponent. In the 13th Warrior film clip the man wins by presenting a false opening which his opponent attacks. The opponent is unguarded in this moment and so looses the fight. The one who moves first tends to loose - this is a kind of rule of combat (maybe).

 

Yeah, the thirteen makes much more sense to to me than does three of ten.

 

As was once explained to me, it is not that the sage cannot be harmed by the tiger and rhino, but it is that the sage is aware of the tiger's and rhino's presence and does not put himself in harms way. Much like your warrior, I suppose, where the warrior does not reveal himself until he is ready to act.

 

Peace & Love!