The Legitimacy of Martial Arts Practices.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

if the body doesnt need to have sex, why is it so hard to abstain for some and not tigers?

[ChiDragon]

 

 

Not having sex is not semen retention. Not emptying your bowels is faeces retention. The body doesn't need to have sex but it needs to empty its bowels.

 

Under normal circumstance, having sex means ejaculation will occur which semen also will be released. Can this be considered that semen retention did not take place......???

[takaaki]

if the body doesnt need to have sex, why is it so hard to abstain for some and not tigers?

 

It is you who have the difficulty to abstain, not the body. Don't confuse the two and see them as one. You are not the body. The body has its needs which are sane and natural. Your needs are are something else. Below are some of needs which have nothing to do with the body.

 

1. Helping the poor.

2. Donate a kidney.

3. Having a girlfriend.

4. Sex with other men.

5. Tapping into the Tao.

 

You may list down more and I will point to those that have nothing to do with the body.

[ChiDragon]

Not having sex at all is not an issue. If a male tiger never meets a female tiger in its life, it lives out its life just fine. It's not celibacy and its not semen retention. Same for a man who never has sex, if he is as sane as a tiger. He is neither a celibate nor is he practising semen retention.

 

Buddhist monks and Taoist priests are not as sane as tigers. They struggle against the desire for sexual stimulation and this mental battle is called celibacy. They think they are practising semen retention but that is not true. The body recycles semen that is continually produced and re-absorbed.

 

Not having sex is not semen retention. Not emptying your bowels is faeces retention. The body doesn't need to have sex but it needs to empty its bowels.

 

It seems to me that this scenario is kind of specious. Practicing semen retention is not celibate is very contradicting in my logical mind. Tigers are not like human. Buddhist and Taoists do have the mentality and ability to practice celibacy. They have a choice to retain semen or not but the tigers don't. Don't you think it is kind of awkward to compare the wisdom of higher intelligence with the animals like the tigers....???

[takaaki]

 

Under normal circumstance, having sex means ejaculation will occur which semen also will be released. Can this be considered that semen retention did not take place......???

 

Yes, it is correct to consider it so. But what is your point? Please clarify if there is one.

[takaaki]

It seems to me that this scenario is kind of specious. Practicing semen retention is not celibate is very contradicting in my logical mind.

 

Where is the contradiction? The body does not retain semen which is continually produced and re-absorbed by the body if no sexual activity occur. A natural absence of sexual activity is not necessarily the outcome of the practise of celibacy which is a commitment to avoid having sex.

 

Practising semen retention is an unnatural, deliberate and wilfull act on the part of the practitioner messing around with his mind and/or body.

Edited January 25, 2013 by takaaki

[ChiDragon]

Where is the contradiction? The body does not retain semen which is continually produced and re-absorbed by the body if no sexual activity occur. A natural absence of sexual activity is not necessarily the outcome of the practise of celibacy which is a commitment to avoid having sex.

 

Practising semen retention is an unnatural, deliberate and wilfull act on the part of the practitioner messing around with his mind and/or body.

 

Isn't the practice of celibacy which is a commitment to avoid having sex.....???

 

Isn't celibacy deliberate and willful act on the part of the practitioner messing around with his mind and/or body....???

 

Isn't celibacy a deliberate/natural absence of sexual activity....???

[takaaki]

Isn't the practice of celibacy which is a commitment to avoid having sex.....???

 

Yes. Monks practise celibacy. Some Hindu Brahmin men who have wives also practise celibacy and refrain from sex with their wives for spiritual purposes.

 

Isn't celibacy deliberate and willful act on the part of the practitioner messing around with his mind and/or body....???

 

Yes. For most men, astaining from sexual activity is a deliberate and willful act because they are driven by sexual desire. They have to struggle against this desire for various reasons.

 

If it is for religious or spiritual reason, then the committment to avoid sex is called celibacy.

 

If the reason is to stay faithful to their wives or girlfriends while they are away, then the committment to avoid sex with other women is called fidelity.

 

There are some people who are naturally undriven by sexual desire. They can do it but they are not possessed by it. They don't have to make a deliberate, willful, committment to avoid sex. Chapter 55 speak of such a human condition:

 

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

 

Edited January 25, 2013 by takaaki

[takaaki]

Isn't celibacy a deliberate/natural absence of sexual activity....???

 

I think we are having a communication problem here.

 

Abstention from sexual activity alone does not constitute celibacy. Celibacy is more than just avoiding physical sexual activity. It is a religious vow to stay unmarried and stay away from even thinking about sex for the sake of spiritual purity.

 

As I pointed out earlier, Chapter 55 mentioned a wholesome person who is able to function perfectly even without any carnal knowledge. Such a person would be nice to have around. He doesn't rape, or covet other people's wives. he doesn't mess around with interns in the Oval Office or maids in the hotel. He is like a gay guy around women. But he is as virile as James Bond.

Edited January 25, 2013 by takaaki

[ChiDragon]

Yes. Monks practise celibacy. Some Hindu Brahmin men who have wives also practise celibacy and refrain from sex with their wives for spiritual purposes.

 

 

Yes. For most men, astaining from sexual activity is a deliberate and willful act because they are driven by sexual desire. They have to struggle against this desire for various reasons.

 

If it is for religious or spiritual reason, then the committment to avoid sex is called celibacy.

 

If the reason is to stay faithful to their wives or girlfriends while they are away, then the committment to avoid sex with other women is called fidelity.

 

There are some people who are naturally undriven by sexual desire. They can do it but they are not possessed by it. They don't have to make a deliberate, willful, committment to avoid sex. Chapter 55 speak of such a human condition:

 

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

 

 

1. To encompass the deep virtue of Tao,

2. Is comparable to a new born infant.

3. Not stung by poisonous insects,

4. Not clawed by wild animals,

5. Not grabbed by big birds,

6. Weak bones and soft muscles but with tight fists,

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

9. The infant cries all day and the voice doesn't become hoarse,

10. It was the sign of harmony.

 

Lines 7 and 8 were an illustration of the innocence of an infant. Again, your attempt for the usage of these lines was out of context.

[ChiDragon]

I think we are having a communication problem here.

 

Abstention from sexual activity alone does not constitute celibacy. Celibacy is more than just avoiding physical sexual activity. It is a religious vow to stay unmarried and stay away from even thinking about sex for the sake of spiritual purity.

 

As I pointed out earlier, Chapter 55 mentioned a wholesome person who is able to function perfectly even without any carnal knowledge. Such a person would be nice to have around. He doesn't rape, or covet other people's wives. he doesn't mess around with interns in the Oval Office or maids in the hotel. He is like a gay guy around women. But he is as virile as James Bond.

 

Okay. I will accept and live with your distinctive definitions. Even though, I was thinking that our discussion was restricted to religious matters.

[takaaki]

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

 

Lines 7 and 8 were an illustration of the innocence of an infant. Again, your attempt for the usage of these lines was out of context.

 

Let's discuss this.

 

Chinese text in Line 7 refers to innocence of female/male union and yet 全作. This does not mean only kids are virgins.

 

Line 8. 精之至也 is quite straightforward. Only two characters here control the meaning of the line: 精 and 至.

What does this say directly without the interference of English translation?

[ChiDragon]

Let's discuss this.

 

Chinese text in Line 7 refers to innocence of female/male union and yet 全作. This does not mean only kids are virgins.

 

Line 8. 精之至也 is quite straightforward. Only two characters here control the meaning of the line: 精 and 至.

What does this say directly without the interference of English translation?

 

BTW May I ask what version of the TTC are you looking at. The received version has been corrected "全作" to "朡朘作". "朘作" means the sexual organ of an innocent child has been fully extended.

 

I know what you are getting at. It would be incorrect if we try to interpret this terms with modern meanings.

8. 精之至也: The 精 does not mean "sperm" here. It means 精氣充足(full of energy).

 

精之至也

精: 精氣; 精力(body energy)

至: to the extreme

 

Thus 精之至也 means the body energy has been reached to the extreme (causing an innocent child to have an erection). Anyway, that is what the intention of the meaning for 朘作 in this chapter.

 

 

Edited to correct "朡作" to 朘作. It was an error on my part.

Edited January 25, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

That is an interesting correction given it does not exist in any of the older manuscripts. Wang Bi was the only one to use 全作.

 

Here is what appears to be the varying texts:

 

Guodian - 然恕or 然怒 –

然 - Hendricks suspects the original character which is not known and looks like 勿over top of土 , was a variant of Yang (陽)

MWD B - 朘怒

HSG - 峻作

FuYi - 脧作

WB - 全作

Received - 朡作

 

I think the MWD B is correct to correspond this to the infant reproductive organ based on a Guodian pictograms of natural vigor or virility.

 

Lo Sang Ho treats this as 'moderation'; from 'peel off' or 'reduce' with 'activity'.

 

 

as to the next line: 精之至也

 

I agree that is nothing to do with sperm and is probably closer to a simple display (erection) of natural essence.

 

Hinton's opening line, if I could just use "De" instead of translating would be:

"Embody DE [integrity's] abundance and you're like a vibrant child" - Hinton (DE added)

 

I think this is an exact picture of 精之至也, except now we're talking about [true] essence (Jing).

[ChiDragon]

Sorry, there was an error on my part.
Received - "朡作" should be corrected to 朘作.

It would be funny if we say 朡作(crazy act).....

[Alchemistgeorge]

 

Is considered.

 

Sorry for the bad English. I am having trouble with the tensed in English due to English is my second language. But I am learning from you all in all aspects. Thanks.

no criticism intended. I just wanted to be sure I understood what you meant. Your English is better than my second languages.

[dawei]

Sorry, there was an error on my part.

Received - "朡作" should be corrected to 朘作.

 

It would be funny if we say 朡作(crazy act).....

 

I actually thought that might be the case... and I did get an initial laugh at the idea.

[takaaki]

BTW May I ask what version of the TTC are you looking at. The received version has been corrected "全作" to "朡朘作". "朘作" means the sexual organ of an innocent child has been fully extended.

 

Come on, guys (and I mean scholars ChiDragon and Dawei). You can't keep shifting the goal posts to fit your game, can you? Who corrected the received version? Your approach to fixing the Dao De Jing is making a strong case for Flowing Hands version received from Li Erh. This looks like American liberalism at work: throwing away traditions that cramp permissiveness.

 

At any rate, how do you read "sexual organ of an innocent child fully extended" into 朘作 ? I know classical Chinese is metaphorical but this is really stretching it. I prefer the original two characters 全作 which means one's uncompromised competency (even though one is untouched by the union of female and male).

 

I know what you are getting at. It would be incorrect if we try to interpret this terms with modern meanings.

8. 精之至也: The 精 does not mean "sperm" here. It means 精氣充足(full of energy).

 

I know that. I read it as the vital essence or inherent potential of one's being.

 

精之至也

精: 精氣; 精力(body energy)

至: to the extreme

 

Thus 精之至也 means the body energy has been reached to the extreme (causing an innocent child to have an erection). Anyway, that is what the intention of the meaning for 朘作 in this chapter.

 

As I said, the entire idea rests on two characters: 精 and 至.

You regard the 精 as energy (of a sexual kind) while I take it to represent potent power (of a human kind).

Consequently, while you have an erection, I get the full blooming of human magnificience.

 

This is why I read subject lines in Chapter 55 the way I did: Even though one is not initiated into sex, one's full competency to act as a human being is intact, one's potent power can expand to the extreme.

 

I feel my reading is consistent with the Chapter's context which is about an uncorrupted child-like way of being that protects one from life's dangers (bees and snakes will not sting, beasts will not devour, predators will not seize) and even in tenous circumstances (when bones are brittlle and tendons are weak) the clinging to survival will be strong. And Chapter closes with the warning that without the Way, one will not do well and come to a sad and untimely end.

 

Sexual erection seems out of place, I think. But what do I know.

[dawei]

Come on, guys (and I mean scholars ChiDragon and Dawei). You can't keep shifting the goal posts to fit your game, can you? Who corrected the received version? Your approach to fixing the Dao De Jing is making a strong case for Flowing Hands version received from Li Erh. This looks like American liberalism at work: throwing away traditions that cramp permissiveness.

 

At any rate, how do you read "sexual organ of an innocent child fully extended" into 朘作 ? I know classical Chinese is metaphorical but this is really stretching it. I prefer the original two characters 全作 which means one's uncompromised competency (even though one is untouched by the union of female and male).

 

 

I know that. I read it as the vital essence or inherent potential of one's being.

 

 

As I said, the entire idea rests on two characters: 精 and 至.

You regard the 精 as energy (of a sexual kind) while I take it to represent potent power (of a human kind).

Consequently, while you have an erection, I get the full blooming of human magnificience.

 

This is why I read subject lines in Chapter 55 the way I did: Even though one is not initiated into sex, one's full competency to act as a human being is intact, one's potent power can expand to the extreme.

 

I feel my reading is consistent with the Chapter's context which is about an uncorrupted child-like way of being that protects one from life's dangers (bees and snakes will not sting, beasts will not devour, predators will not seize) and even in tenous circumstances (when bones are brittlle and tendons are weak) the clinging to survival will be strong. And Chapter closes with the warning that without the Way, one will not do well and come to a sad and untimely end.

 

Sexual erection seems out of place, I think. But what do I know.

 

Your lumping me with other people now more than once; Where am I shifting my goal posts? (I coached soccer for 20 years so I tend to not shift goal posts unless they are movable) . I understand you like to have fun with words but why not just ask questions instead of creating your own interpretation of another's words.

 

I am against the "received text"; that is Chidragon's preferred text because it was done by native scholars and they are the one's he'll listen to. To his credit, he is honest enough to say this. I tend to appeal to the oldest texts, as I did here. So it would be much better to address people and your charges clearly as you mixing people in their sources.

 

 

As to: "At any rate, how do you read "sexual organ of an innocent child fully extended" into 朘作 ? "

 

Because it is a legitimate gloss. It is a straightforward meaning and in context make sense. Hendricks comments on it in his commentary.

 

http://www.zdic.net/zd/zi/ZdicE6Zdic9CZdic98.htm

 

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/

 

 

 

As to: "I know classical Chinese is metaphorical but this is really stretching it. I prefer the original two characters 全作 which means one's uncompromised competency (even though one is untouched by the union of female and male). "

 

You just epitomized your idea of American Iiberalism... as 全作 is a later correction by Wang Bi (600 years later?)... Of all the main manuscripts, only he uses this; and your following suit by using his correction... It should be noted that Fuyi of Sui Dynasty manuscript (300 years after Wang Bi?) went back to the older manuscript characters.

 

 

And I think you are once again putting words in people's mouth. Who said 'sexual erection' ? This tends to carry a connotation which nobody said.

 

Chidragon said 'sexual organs' which in context is synonymous with reproductive organs... Nothing sexual is implied... and when I said "simple display (erection) of natural essence"... I gave the source of the display as simply natural essence. Any man is probably aware of this meaning and various sources it can take... it can even be caused by a need to go to the bathroom. It seems your putting emphasis on 'sexual' without knowing context or just want to play word games.

[ChiDragon]

Come on, guys (and I mean scholars ChiDragon and Dawei). You can't keep shifting the goal posts to fit your game, can you? Who corrected the received version? Your approach to fixing the Dao De Jing is making a strong case for Flowing Hands version received from Li Erh. This looks like American liberalism at work: throwing away traditions that cramp permissiveness.

 

FYI I only deal with the Received Version. It is because this version was emended by the modern native scholars who are more knowledgeable with the Chinese classic, Chinese cultural history and philosophy. Indeed, all the errors and mistakes were made by the scholars in the past had been corrected. Some versions have incorrect characters because phonetics were used by other scholars and causing phrases to be out of context and illogical. Some versions were changed in favor for some religious purposes. For example, Heshang Gong's vesion was written in such way for Taoist immortal cultivation to have longevity. There are some health issues can be found in some of the verses.

 

The previous versions were not in written form but by mouth-to-mouth. Some scholar decided to write them down. However, they only wrote down by the phonetics of the characters. By doing so, a tremendous amount of errors was introduced. There is a well known native scholar from Taiwan, 陳鼓應, had been collecting commentaries of scholars from the past to present around the world for emending the TTC and came up with the Received Version. The book he wrote on the Received Version, he gave logical reasons to substantiate his explanations. He linked the contextual meanings from lint-to-line, chapter-to-chapter to assure no logical doubts about the philosophy of LaoTze.

 

His work have revealed that no one has the wisdom as LaoTze. There was no comparison to the principles in the Tao Te Ching. So far, there was no literature has been found with ideas that is similar to the TTC. Thus I believe that the Received Version is a piece of most accurate and reliable document there was ever existed.

 

Edited January 26, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Wells]

Now, it is time to say that any practice for the enhancement of sexual energy was is considered to be an illegitimate practice. For those who are under the pursuit of sexual energy enhancement, please consider to have a second thought before the occurrence of any internal bodily injuries or running over fire and entering the devilish path(走火入魔). However, semen retention may be excluded because it does no body harm nor does any enhancement.

[Wells]

Watch the Bollywood movie fight scenes. They are ridiculous. Even the Indians laugh at them.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN_at9fJ1XQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJSJVbBDo_8

 

 

You mean supreme martial arts like that?

Even Waysun Liao would lose against those guys!

Edited January 26, 2013 by Dorian Black

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

dear GAAAWWWWWD that is pitiful LOL

[Wells]

 

I did. Bodhiharma was recorded as the guy who taught the Shaolin monks that fearsome form of Kung Fu. He did that after 9 years sitting in a cave looking at a wall because they wouldn't let him in the Shaolin Temple. He cut his eyelids off to keep his eyes open to avoid falling asleep during meditation and when he finally emerged from the cave, his legs were atrophied. This is why Bodhiharma dolls have no legs. And you expect me to believe that this legless wacko taught Kung Fu to Shaolin fighters who bear the marks of the dragon and tiger burnt into their flesh as they lift a red hot urn of coals held between their fore-arms upon graduation?

 

You are so wrong, dude, so wrong! The indian masters today who still follow the original methods, which Bodhidharma brought from India to China to the Shaolin temple, reign supreme in martial arts power and demonstrate Matrix-like reality-shifting uber-abilities!

Here is the proof:

[takaaki]

Your lumping me with other people now more than once; Where am I shifting my goal posts? (I coached soccer for 20 years so I tend to not shift goal posts unless they are movable) . I understand you like to have fun with words but why not just ask questions instead of creating your own interpretation of another's words.

 

 

You don't like to be lumped together with other people? Ok, I will keep that in mind and put you in your own box from now on. I know that I tend to lump people together and put them into different categories based on their mind-sets for faster targeting and speedier processing. This is the way the entrepreneurial mind works these days in any industry including the military. Case in point: soldiers are not taught to deal with Dawei or ChiDragon on an individual basis in the theatre of war. The enemy combatants, if Chinese, are all lumped together and psychologically profiled for neutralizing.

 

It is true that there is this pervasive belief in individuality that each person is special and unique. If you are in the top 1%, you could get away with indulging in this fantasy having your clothes tailored exactly, your cars hand-made to your personal specs, etc.. I didn't know I was dealing with ego-centric billionaires here at Tao Bum. Still, I will treat you special because I like high self-esteem. It is the mind-set of an American Taoist.

 

I am against the "received text"; that is Chidragon's preferred text because it was done by native scholars and they are the one's he'll listen to. To his credit, he is honest enough to say this. I tend to appeal to the oldest texts, as I did here. So it would be much better to address people and your charges clearly as you mixing people in their sources.

 

Why are you against the "received text"? Do you have any reason to doubt the judgment of the native scholars?

 

You just epitomized your idea of American Iiberalism... as 全作 is a later correction by Wang Bi (600 years later?)... Of all the main manuscripts, only he uses this; and your following suit by using his correction... It should be noted that Fuyi of Sui Dynasty manuscript (300 years after Wang Bi?) went back to the older manuscript characters.

 

Do not confuse American liberalism with pragmatism which is the Way of the American Taoist. The former is a cult-like close-mindedness while the latter is founded on common-sense. The Dao De Jing has to make practical sense or it's pointless regardless of textual form. I pick what works, the way Marblehead does, and and disregard what is unrelated, the way Chi Dragon does.

 

 

And I think you are once again putting words in people's mouth. Who said 'sexual erection' ? This tends to carry a connotation which nobody said.

 

Chidragon said 'sexual organs' which in context is synonymous with reproductive organs... Nothing sexual is implied... and when I said "simple display (erection) of natural essence"... I gave the source of the display as simply natural essence. Any man is probably aware of this meaning and various sources it can take... it can even be caused by a need to go to the bathroom. It seems your putting emphasis on 'sexual' without knowing context or just want to play word games.

 

Nothing sexual was implied? I wish. How would you read the lines below?

 

This is ChiDragon's received version:

7. Not knowing the copulation of male and female but self erected.

8. Because of the tremendous energy,

 

 

This is Hendricks whom you love:

6. He does not yet know the meeting of male and female, yet his organ is aroused—

7. This is because his essence is at its height.

 

Any man who studies the above and come away reflecting on a full bladder has got to be Chinese with no knowledge of English. Admittedly, the Chinese text makes no reference of a sexual nature of any kind. It's the English translations that are colored by Freudian fantasy.

Edited January 27, 2013 by takaaki