The Authenticity of the English Version For Hua Hu Ching(化胡經)...?

[ChiDragon]

Chidragon... this debate should end here. This isn't the place for this discussion. If you want to discuss this further take it elsewhere, otherwise I'll ask for moderator action. This is a discussion about the meaning of Chapter One of the Hua Hu Ching, not the place for you to express your notions of veracity or authenticity. This is also the reason why we should have a subforum for Taoists Texts and Studies, so these kinds of off-topic discussions don't occur. I had hoped people would read the original post and respect my requests for an on-topic discussion. Seriously, I'm very disappointed. Please don't reply to this post, send me a personal message. This topic has been taken off-topic enough as it is.

 

Aaron

 

I cannot find a Chinese version which is correlated to the English translation. Does anyone has a copy of the Chinese classic....???

Edited January 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I am not sure you'll find the exact chinese used in the other thread translation. I suspect it is only a partial rendering of the 'teachings' as the author wanted to publish in english. The daoist master Hui-Ching Ni's translation seems to do the same but told like a story.

 

Here are two sources of the text:

 

http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T54/2139_001.htm

 

http://www.suttaworld.org/gbk/sutra/lon/other54_2/2139-1.htm

[Aaron]

Chidragon,

 

In the many years I've known you, one thing I've learned is that the only translation of any chinese text that you seem to think is authentic is your own. Most of us realize that this is just an attempt to ruffle feathers and meet your own agenda. Why not just come out and say that, rather than play this little game?

 

Aaron

[ChiDragon]

Chidragon,

 

In the many years I've known you, one thing I've learned is that the only translation of any chinese text that you seem to think is authentic is your own. Most of us realize that this is just an attempt to ruffle feathers and meet your own agenda. Why not just come out and say that, rather than play this little game?

 

Aaron

 

Don't you think, at least, that there should be an original that we can be looked. That's all I am asking.

[ChiDragon]

I am not sure you'll find the exact chinese used in the other thread translation. I suspect it is only a partial rendering of the 'teachings' as the author wanted to publish in english. The daoist master Hui-Ching Ni's translation seems to do the same but told like a story.

 

Here are two sources of the text:

 

http://www.cbeta.org...54/2139_001.htm

 

http://www.suttaworl...54_2/2139-1.htm

 

Those are not new to me. They are already on my screen before you've even posted. I can read what it says. What was bothering me is that didn't say what the English translation says. Not even near.

Edited January 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Vmarco]

I cannot find a Chinese version which is correlated to the English translation. Does anyone has a copy of the Chinese classic....???

 

The English version of the 81 songs of the Hua Hu Ching that I quote from was adapted from a Master Ni Hua-Ching. From what I've read, the Hua Hu Ching, said to be collection of Lao Tzu sayings, has not been historically verified before 300 CE,...which coincidently, was the period when Buddhism emigrated to China. I've seen no contraditions between the Hua Hu Ching and Prajnaparamita Buddhism,...the Second Turning of the Wheel.

 

Interestingly, some scholars insist that the Heart Sutra came from China. However, isn't the most important question, does the Hua Hu Ching offer a meaningful contribution towards the understanding of the Tao, regardless of anal historians and their limited cerebral-centric approach to knowledge.

 

Lao Tzu said, "To attain pure Tao you must understand and integrate within yourself the three main energies of the universe:

 

The first is the earth energy. Centered in the belly, itexpresses itself as sexuality. Those who cultivate and master the physical energy attain partial purity;

 

Second is the heaven energy. Centered in the mind, it expresses itself as knowledge and wisdom. Those whose minds merge with the Universal Mind also attain partial purity.

 

Third is the harmonized energy. Centered in the heart, it expresses itself as spiritual insight. Those who develop spiritual insight also attain partial purity.

 

Only when you attain you achieve all three - mastery of physical energy, universal mindedness, and spiritual insight - and express them in a virturous integral life, can you attain pure Tao." Hua Hu Ching, sixty-two

[Vmarco]

Don't you think, at least, that there should be an original that we can be looked. That's all I am asking.

 

Many say that about the Christian Gospels. The oldest textual sources of Christianity however, is hundreds of years after the Gospels were historically known.

[Mal]

Vmarco I really liked your post, espicially this

 

However, isn't the most important question, does the Hua Hu Ching offer a meaningful contribution towards the understanding of the Tao, regardless of anal historians and their limited cerebral-centric approach to knowledge.

 

[Taomeow]

So what's the meaning of substituting "subtle energy rays" and "universal energy rays" (Western occult terms, introduced by Alice Bailey purportedly channeling "Rakorski") in a context where any taoist text would say "qi?.."

[ShenLung]

The English version of the 81 songs of the Hua Hu Ching that I quote from was adapted from a Master Ni Hua-Ching. From what I've read, the Hua Hu Ching, said to be collection of Lao Tzu sayings, has not been historically verified before 300 CE,...which coincidently, was the period when Buddhism emigrated to China. I've seen no contraditions between the Hua Hu Ching and Prajnaparamita Buddhism,...the Second Turning of the Wheel.

 

Interestingly, some scholars insist that the Heart Sutra came from China. However, isn't the most important question, does the Hua Hu Ching offer a meaningful contribution towards the understanding of the Tao, regardless of anal historians and their limited cerebral-centric approach to knowledge.

 

Lao Tzu said, "To attain pure Tao you must understand and integrate within yourself the three main energies of the universe:

 

The first is the earth energy. Centered in the belly, itexpresses itself as sexuality. Those who cultivate and master the physical energy attain partial purity;

 

Second is the heaven energy. Centered in the mind, it expresses itself as knowledge and wisdom. Those whose minds merge with the Universal Mind also attain partial purity.

 

Third is the harmonized energy. Centered in the heart, it expresses itself as spiritual insight. Those who develop spiritual insight also attain partial purity.

 

Only when you attain you achieve all three - mastery of physical energy, universal mindedness, and spiritual insight - and express them in a virturous integral life, can you attain pure Tao." Hua Hu Ching, sixty-two

 

That's kind of an odd way of putting it, since the actual experience is closer to belly, heart, mind, wouldn't you think?

[Vmarco]

That's kind of an odd way of putting it, since the actual experience is closer to belly, heart, mind, wouldn't you think?

 

Imagine, if you are not already aware, that Earth Energy is Red Light on the eletrodynamic spectrum, while Heaven is Violet, and the Heart id Green,...when those 3 (lights) are spun together that uncover the White Light of One. Keep in mind, that the One is not the Tao, but to realize the Tao, understanding the nature of One is necessary.

 

The Hua Hu Ching correctly said, "The Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to yin and yang. Yin and yang give birth to all things....The Tao gives rise to all form, yet is has no form of its own."

 

The Tao is not One, it merely gave birth to One,...to put that more correctly, the Tao did not cause the One; the One effects it's motion from the Tao.

 

Another point in reference to another post above,....be clear, that Qi is NOT energy,...energy effects its motion from the illusion of being separate from Qi.

 

Hapkido Grand Master Jeong told, and shown me, "Ki is in the stop [or zero point] before the kihap." The power is not in the yell; the yell is simply an incidental byproduct of the Ki process. The kihap is just the exhale. A kihap uttered without connecting with the stop is mere posing or pretending. Instead of martial artists’ practicing a yell, they should be practicing the stop. When power comes from the stop, the kihap simply happens.

 

Ki Master Koichi Tohei said, "We are able to move most rapidly and violently when we remain perfectly calm."

 

Ki permits energy to flow more freely when the bodily, mental, and heart faculties are relaxed. Ki itself is a still silence that is similar to the eye of a hurricane or typhoon. The kihap or yell that martial artists use, when done correctly, is simply the exhale, or a place where the still eye of the hurricane meets the eye wall of the storm and manifests physical destruction. The greatest power arises through the greatest relaxation. The lower a hurricane’s pressure at its center, the more devastating the storm is at the eye wall. The more relaxed the martial artist, the more overwhelming the energy that extends from the Ki. The greatest (and only)power in the universe unfurls from a zero-point.

[dawei]

Those are not new to me. They are already on my screen before you've even posted. I can read what it says. What was bothering me is that didn't say what the English translation says. Not even near.

Your welcome.

[Marblehead]

Your welcome.

Any time.

[dawei]

That's kind of an odd way of putting it, since the actual experience is closer to belly, heart, mind, wouldn't you think?

I don't understand the question as VM says "belly", "heart", "mind". We're you thinking it as an order of experience or what?

 

What he shared is as I understand; harmonizing heaven and earth energies... in the heart. IMO, this is why the 'heart' (or rather the spirit of the heart) to be the Supreme Controller.

[dawei]

be clear, that Qi is NOT energy,...energy effects its motion from the illusion of being separate from Qi.

Not that you raised this but I have felt that sometimes that Qi is given too much credit for what we think is going on. So while I often hear that the Heart Qi is so powerful, I think this is really due to the heart spirit.

 

Based on what you said above, I say an analogy which I hoped you would comment on:

Qi is not spirit. Qi effects its motion from the illusion of being separate from Spirit.

[Vmarco]

Not that you raised this but I have felt that sometimes that Qi is given too much credit for what we think is going on. So while I often hear that the Heart Qi is so powerful, I think this is really due to the heart spirit.

 

Based on what you said above, I say an analogy which I hoped you would comment on:

Qi is not spirit. Qi effects its motion from the illusion of being separate from Spirit.

 

Yes,...Qi, as in Wu Chi, is not Spirit. Spirit is the foundamental inbreath-outbreath of duality. Spirit would be associated with Tai Chi. Qi has no motion,...for it is not separate from anything. Only that which is separate has motion,...motion arises from the desire to return to Source or Qi,...however, nothing real is separate. Nothing real has motion. Nothing that exhibits motion exists. Everything that exhibits motion, ie energy, is part of Dependent Origination.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Vmarco

[Mal]

So what's the meaning of substituting "subtle energy rays" and "universal energy rays" (Western occult terms, introduced by Alice Bailey purportedly channeling "Rakorski") in a context where any taoist text would say "qi?.."

 

Is there a meaning?

[Taomeow]

Is there a meaning?

 

Yes. Oddly, it reminded me of a novel by Iris Murdoch I read a long time ago. Its main protagonist gets attacked, injured, and suffers brain damage, which proves to be reversible. At first he doesn't remember anything -- who he is, what's his life all about -- total amnesia. But gradually it all starts coming back to him, till the picture is complete... or at least it seems complete to everybody, but the guy is tortured by a nagging feeling that he's still forgetting something... something very important, something crucial. He finds it agonizing to feel this way but he can't put a finger on what it is he forgot. Many pages later, he's put in a situation that provides a breakthrough.

 

He forgot his god. He forgot his religion. He was a buddhist before the blow to the head, and that's what slipped his memory. Everything that mattered to him spiritually, no less -- that's what he forgot.

 

So, with this source, we're dealing with a similar but opposite problem methinks. I was reading it with the same nagging feeling -- something is forgotten -- till I came across these "energy rays" instead of "qi." What's forgotten is taoism... Everything else is mighty fine with everything else therein. No taoism, no big deal...

[dawei]

Yes,...Qi, as in Wu Chi, is not Spirit. Spirit is the foundamental inbreath-outbreath of duality. Spirit would be associated with Tai Chi. Qi has no motion,...for it is not separate from anything. Only that which is separate has motion,...motion arises from the desire to return to Source or Qi,...however, nothing real is separate. Nothing real has motion. Nothing that exhibits motion exists. Everything that exhibits motion, ie energy, is part of Dependent Origination.

That was a kind of Schrodinger's Cat explanation, but I get it. Thanks.

[Aaron]

Yes. Oddly, it reminded me of a novel by Iris Murdoch I read a long time ago. Its main protagonist gets attacked, injured, and suffers brain damage, which proves to be reversible. At first he doesn't remember anything -- who he is, what's his life all about -- total amnesia. But gradually it all starts coming back to him, till the picture is complete... or at least it seems complete to everybody, but the guy is tortured by a nagging feeling that he's still forgetting something... something very important, something crucial. He finds it agonizing to feel this way but he can't put a finger on what it is he forgot. Many pages later, he's put in a situation that provides a breakthrough.

 

He forgot his god. He forgot his religion. He was a buddhist before the blow to the head, and that's what slipped his memory. Everything that mattered to him spiritually, no less -- that's what he forgot.

 

So, with this source, we're dealing with a similar but opposite problem methinks. I was reading it with the same nagging feeling -- something is forgotten -- till I came across these "energy rays" instead of "qi." What's forgotten is taoism... Everything else is mighty fine with everything else therein. No taoism, no big deal...

 

And herein lies the problem, ideology and dogma. Unless it's explained as everything else is explained, it's false. I spent twenty years reading the Tao Te Ching over and over, so not just once or twice, but hundreds of times, a chapter or two before bed each night. If you recall I was on the anti-HHC bandwagon, primarily because of what I read on Wikipedia, but I realized at some point I was a hypocrite if I didn't actually take the time to read the document. What I found wasn't a nagging feeling, but rather a more direct explanation of much of what was found in the Tao Te Ching. The same things addressed in the Hua Hu Ching are addressed in the Tao Ta Ching, the only difference is a lot of the obfuscation and introspection to come to those conclusions is gone. I took the time to read it with an open mind, not closing myself off to it with the preconception that it was false and dangerous, but rather to examine it for what it was.

 

Was it written by the same authors as the Tao Te Ching? Certainly not. Is it a text one can read and understand the nature of being at harmony with the world, and more importantly understand the nature of Tao more completely? YES!

 

So if anyone is looking for a book by Lao Tzu, then look elsewhere, because remember the Tao Te Ching was most likely not written by Lao Tzu, in fact there is no actual factual evidence he ever existed, it's all circumstantial. If you're looking for proof in any of this, then it isn't there, sometimes you just need to read things and decide whether they're useful or not for yourself. Or of course you can have the experts explain it to you and then accept that opinion as your own, it's much easier.

 

Jeesh people, think for yourself. Read it and think for yourself.

 

Aaron

Edited January 5, 2013 by Aaron

[Mal]

Yes. Oddly, it reminded me of a novel by Iris Murdoch I read a long time ago. Its main protagonist gets attacked, injured, and suffers brain damage, which proves to be reversible. At first he doesn't remember anything -- who he is, what's his life all about -- total amnesia. But gradually it all starts coming back to him, till the picture is complete... or at least it seems complete to everybody, but the guy is tortured by a nagging feeling that he's still forgetting something... something very important, something crucial. He finds it agonizing to feel this way but he can't put a finger on what it is he forgot. Many pages later, he's put in a situation that provides a breakthrough.

 

He forgot his god. He forgot his religion. He was a buddhist before the blow to the head, and that's what slipped his memory. Everything that mattered to him spiritually, no less -- that's what he forgot.

 

So, with this source, we're dealing with a similar but opposite problem methinks. I was reading it with the same nagging feeling -- something is forgotten -- till I came across these "energy rays" instead of "qi." What's forgotten is taoism... Everything else is mighty fine with everything else therein. No taoism, no big deal...

 

Thanks TM (sounds like a good book too) Perhaps the perspective is due to our different backgrounds? (I reluctantly start out with this as I see most misunderstandings starting out with one person making a statement about what the other person thinks or is saying ) You are a "Taoist" taught by lineage masters. You have a deep understainding of "nature / the world" Also you know the very specific meanings of taoist terminology.

 

For me, I'm much more a new age hippy. My teachers would not call themselves "Taoist" I have some understainding of "nature / the world" and little understainding of traditional taoist language.

 

Eg "Qi" for me is that Ki stuff I first heard about because I was interested in Japanese Martial arts that turned out to be the same as Chi when I researched further into Chinese martial arts. But "qi" was really only "explained" by my Sifu via instruction in Tai Chi and Kung Fu (and now it seems like it might be labeled as prana in yoga) So when I read, to use Thomas Cleary as an example ( ) Vitality, Energy, Spirit that is actually easier for me to "understand" than Jing, Qi, Shen. I have a western ocult background, energy rays for me is another name I could add to my "Qi/Ki/Chi/Prana" list. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. But names are very useful when people want to talk about the same "thing" and it's confusing when different names are used to explan the same thing or (more common) the same name means different things to different people.

 

I hit this quote on an amazon review for Ni's book

There's another "translation" by Brian Walker that changes the genre, eliminates more than half of the text, and makes it look like "Tao Te Ching Part II." I have no idea why Walker thought this was OK. Hua-Ching Ni, who translated this version, writes wonderfully clear and direct English and is also heir to a long tradition of Taoist teachers. You can tell how well he understands this material because he makes it clear, rather than "wonderfully mystical and magical" which I think was Walker's goal. These New Age people want it all to be mystifying and foggy.

http://www.amazon.co...ds=Hua Hu Ching

 

I seem to like inexactness, it makes the text more like a Rorschach test. When I read the 1st 10 http://www.cheraglib...ua-hu-ching.htm I don't see anything "incorrect"

 

I do note "Over many lifetimes the burden of contaminations can become great.-in 4" which I would label as a Buddhist idea rather than Taoist as I can't recall Taoist talking about reincarnation. But I wouldn't say it's incorrect.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Mal Stainkey

[Taomeow]

Thanks TM (sounds like a good book too) Perhaps the perspective is due to our different backgrounds? (I reluctantly start out with this as I see most misunderstandings starting out with one person making a statement about what the other person thinks or is saying ) You are a "Taoist" taught by lineage masters. You have a deep understainding of "nature / the world" Also you know the very specific meanings of taoist terminology.

 

For me, I'm much more a new age hippy. My teachers would not call themselves "Taoist" I have some understainding of "nature / the world" and little understainding of traditional taoist language.

 

Eg "Qi" for me is that Ki stuff I first heard about because I was interested in Japanese Martial arts that turned out to be the same as Chi when I researched further into Chinese martial arts. But "qi" was really only "explained" by my Sifu via instruction in Tai Chi and Kung Fu (and now it seems like it might be labeled as prana in yoga) So when I read, to use Thomas Cleary as an example ( ) Vitality, Energy, Spirit that is actually easier for me to "understand" than Jing, Qi, Shen. I have a western ocult background, energy rays for me is another name I could add to my "Qi/Ki/Chi/Prana" list. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. But names are very useful when people want to talk about the same "thing" and it's confusing when different names are used to explan the same thing or (more common) the same name means different things to different people.

 

I hit this quote on an amazon review for Ni's book

http://www.amazon.co...ds=Hua Hu Ching

 

I seem to like inexactness, it makes the text more like a Rorschach test. When I read the 1st 10 http://www.cheraglib...ua-hu-ching.htm I don't see anything "incorrect"

 

I do note "Over many lifetimes the burden of contaminations can become great.-in 4" which I would label as a Buddhist idea rather than Taoist as I can't recall Taoist talking about reincarnation. But I wouldn't say it's incorrect.

 

Thank you for your thoughts, Mal. I think you're more of a taoist than most, if I use this "name" as a compliment rather than a label. You are more taoist in the sense of naturally resonating with the taoist "general, inexact" attitudes. Soft, flexible, yielding out of strength rather than weakness... what they call "a steel needle wrapped in cotton" in taiji. With this kind of attitude, any discussion can be fruitful and reveal something to both parties that they may have overlooked... cultivation can take place and growth can sprout out of any soil, including the "negative" "what it is not" soil of a non-taoist text. Incidentally, this is the taoist texts' favorite method to describe what can't be defined -- through what it is NOT, rather than what it "is." Laozi himself starts out with a bunch of negatives (the tao can't, the name isn't, etc.) and proceeds in the same vein (she doesn't compete, I am not clear, etc.). This is a reputable (and traditional) roundabout way to let what it "is" emerge the way a statue emerges from under the sculptor's hammer and chisel that keep removing what it is "not." You don't have to name the statue. Once you've removed everything it is "not," what remains is what it "is." Talking of tao is like that...

 

So, it's usually easy for me to spot what it is "not" in a text -- that's what a love affair with taoist basics (more than any training) can do to an empiricist who has come to believe that taoism is "not" about the same thing buddhism is "about." It's not the names, terms, labels at all. It's the... um, I'd say attitude to life. To a taoist and to a buddhist, they are not different in details and terms, they are different fundamentally, at the level of their core values. This is my problem with mixing the two together.

 

There's different kinds of "unclear" and "imprecise." "Unclear" in the sense "you have to do it to get it, it can't be explained with words" and "unclear" in the sense "obscured on purpose." "Imprecise" in the sense "fuzzy-logical" and "imprecise" in the sense of "anything-goes-ness," sorry for not finding a more precise word that exists. So, a text that mixes buddhism and taoism in the second sense of "unclear" and "imprecise" is not my cup of tea, but someone else might savor it... it all depends on what one is after. I'm after things taoist that haven't been "improved on" by buddhism, christianity or Western occult wherever I can find them. And within this kind of "precision," there's also much room for "imprecision" -- some things you can't really tell apart, key word "some." BKF believes, e.g., that Tibetan buddhism is an offshot of taoism, and whatever parallels and similarities one finds (many) are the outcome of this rather than of "buddhist influences on taoism." Or take reincarnation -- it's a pretty universal shamanic proto-taoist concept, so one can't really tell for sure that it's "buddhist influences" when some taoist sects (or some individual taoists) accept it. Yet there's things very distinct that are neither compatible nor intermixable too... The historic squeeze on taoism has been tremendous, it survived due to its "vitality, energy, spirit" but much was done to eliminate it, just like most shamanism has been eliminated... Buddhism was one of the tools applied in a major way. So when I'm looking at a text that squeezes out taoism to squeeze in buddhism, this looks soooo familiar... and more than clear. Me no like...

[Aaron]

I was debating whether to reply to this thread or just let it go the way of the dodo, but I thought that something needed to be said. First, for those who are defending Taoism, there is no need. If you're defending the truth, then remember that every truth is lie. We can't live our lives fighting, that's not what life's about. Life is about living in the moment we are living.

 

I have already stated that the Hua Hu Ching was most likely not written by Lao Tzu (I'm actually almost certain). With that said, I can also almost certainly say that it was written by Taoists, not Buddhists. I see it as an attempt to remind people of the actual Taoist principles that were taught in the Tao Te Ching, as they were understood at that time.

 

We as westerners like to believe we have a firm grasp of what Taoism means, yet we are not really Taoists, in the sense that the Eastern practitioners are. If we need any sign of this, just look at how seriously we take all this crap. Lao Tzu wouldn't involve himself in this argument. He would let it go, simply because it wouldn't solve anything. Lao Tzu was a firm believer in the notion of returning to our original nature, and that returning to that nature required compassion.

 

Taomeow- Ask yourself this, why did you not reply to what I said to you? Lao Tzu says that the Good men are the teachers of bad men. He also said that the three greatest treasures he had were Compassion, Frugality (self control), and not competing with others. If this is a competition, then we've both already lost.

 

To everyone else, Lao Tzu said that the way to understanding Tao is examining the world around us, understanding how the world worked, but also examining ourselves, for just as Tao can be found in the Mother, it can be found within each of us, for we are part of the Mother. We don't really need the Hua Hu Ching, Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Heat Sutra, Holy Bible, Quran, or any other text to teach us this, if we honestly look within and recognize our connection to each other. With that said, most people don't take the time to look within themselves, so they look without in the hopes of finding the answer to the secrets we all crave there. The fact of the matter is that if someone isn't ready, then no text they read will make them ready.

 

I started up the Hua Hu Ching study because I saw Lao Tzu's teaching there. I didn't see Buddhism, nor Taoism, but rather the essential teachings of Lao Tzu. Of course there are passages I think are gratuitous, but I also see passages, that if someone takes them to heart, will benefit them a hundredfold. That's what I hoped for, that people would study it, see those passages and possibly have a life altering experience, one for the better. For me, if people can't find something on their own, then maybe being exposed to something that can jump start them on that journey isn't so bad, as long as they are objective and open minded and remember to question things.

 

I hope that people can see how ridiculous this debate really is, especially as Taoists. If we can then we can let this go and let people live as they want to. When we can hear the rooster crow in the next town and not know what is happening there, then we're beginning to understand how Lao Tzu wanted us to interact with others. Worry about ourselves first and let others live their own lives as they choose.

 

Aaron

Edited January 8, 2013 by Aaron