[HHC Study] Hua Hu Ching Chapter 6

[Mal]

The Tao gives rise to all forms, yet it has no form of its own. If you attempt to fix a picture of it in your mind, you will lose it. This is like pinning a butterfly: the husk is captured, but the flying is lost. Why not be content with simply experiencing it?

 

Walker's HHC 6

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

 

 

 

 

 

"Kind prince," asked the old master, "what do you think? Can the subtle cosmic body of the Universal One be seen in any beautiful form?"

"No, Venerable Teacher," replied the prince, "the subtle cosmic body of the Universal One cannot be seen in any beautiful form, because to the Universal One there is nothing that can be considered as form."

"Kind prince, as soon as the Universal One is mentioned people immediately formulate images in their imaginations. They then try to make reality conform to their imaginary concepts. The Universal One is truly imageless, yet in the attempt to make it conform to an image, people distort its reality and separate themselves from it."

Ni's HHC 6

Edited March 23, 2013 by Mal Stainkey

[Marblehead]

I like Walker's rendition here so much more than Ni's.

 

Just yesterday I was asked why I do a certain thing. My best answer was, "I don't know." And that was the raw truth.

 

When we break things down to analyze the parts we no longer have the whole. The function is lost.

[Mal]

I feel Walker really "captures" the intent of the HHC i.e. Walker is more about how to practice the way, rather than a recording of the "words" of the master.

 

Just yesterday I was asked why I do a certain thing. My best answer was, "I don't know."

 

 

 

the husk is captured, but the flying is lost

 

Most (perhaps all?) of the time we are flying (While we can and do analyse our flight path with our mind and explain/justify why we chose to do something with our words) I feel that often the decision to "fly over there" was already decided (or instantaneously chosen) yet we explain it to ourselves "after the decision" as something "we" decided to do.

 

The same on the larger scale, we think we know what this flight / tao / reality is. And we explain it relative to our chosen concept (imagination) trying to make the "flight" "tao "reality" conform to, and be explainable by, our imagined concept.

 

Yet even if our imagined concept can totally explain our flight. What is imagined is not "real" and in fact has just added another layer between us and experience of the flight.

[dawei]

I think someone mentioned that master Ni's book is more like telling a story like master Waysun Liao did with Laozi in Nine Nights with the Taoist Master... maybe daoist masters have mastered how to tell wisdom in parables and stories

 

Anyways, I prefer the parable and story approach as my mind can drift with the story. I don't need such direct talk as it is telling me what to do. I prefer to the art of discovery.

[Marblehead]

I feel that often the decision to "fly over there" was already decided (or instantaneously chosen) yet we explain it to ourselves "after the decision" as something "we" decided to do.

I clicked that I "Like" this post but I must speak to this above. My first read gave the impression of predetermined (Karmic) decision/action. I don't believe in that stuff. I am more toward intuition; inspiration; spontaneity. This is part of what wu wei is all about.

[dawei]

I clicked that I "Like" this post but I must speak to this above. My first read gave the impression of predetermined (Karmic) decision/action. I don't believe in that stuff. I am more toward intuition; inspiration; spontaneity. This is part of what wu wei is all about.

 

Meaning you don't believe in cause-effect? Dao doesn't suggest this in/is life?

[Marblehead]

Meaning you don't believe in cause-effect? Dao doesn't suggest this in/is life?

Those are trick questions, right?

 

Of course I believe in cause and effect. And yes, the TTC speaks to cause and effect.

 

However, I understand that the causes can be eliminated or altered such that the effect will never happen. Predetermination suggests that nothing can be done to change the outcome. Karma suggests that whatever happens what meant to happen. Both these ignore the human factor and the difference the human factor can have in altering the outcome of many events.

[dawei]

Those are trick questions, right?

 

Of course I believe in cause and effect. And yes, the TTC speaks to cause and effect.

 

However, I understand that the causes can be eliminated or altered such that the effect will never happen. Predetermination suggests that nothing can be done to change the outcome. Karma suggests that whatever happens what meant to happen. Both these ignore the human factor and the difference the human factor can have in altering the outcome of many events.

 

No tricks up my sleeves... just an honest probe into your ideas about Karma while revealing a hint of my own.

 

While this is a bit of a read, it most aligns with how I view it:

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

 

 

"It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.

Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.

Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect. Karma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree – the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty – these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both Karma and Vipaka pertain to the mind.

Happiness and misery, which are the common lot of humanity, are the inevitable effects of causes. From a Buddhist point of view, they are not rewards and punishments, assigned by a supernatural, omniscient ruling power to a soul that has done good or evil. Theists, who attempt to explain everything in this and temporal life and in the eternal future life, ignoring a past, believe in a ‘postmortem’ justice, and may regard present happiness and misery as blessings and curses conferred on His creation by an omniscient and omnipotent Divine Ruler who sits in heaven above controlling the destinies of the human race. Buddhism, which emphatically denies such an Almighty, All merciful God-Creator and an arbitrarily created immortal soul, believes in natural law and justice which cannot be suspended by either an Almighty God or an All-compassionate Buddha. According to this natural law, acts bear their own rewards and punishments to the individual doer whether human justice finds out or not."

[Marblehead]

No tricks up my sleeves... just an honest probe into your ideas about Karma while revealing a hint of my own.

 

While this is a bit of a read, it most aligns with how I view it:

I have no problem with what is in the post. This view is consistent with my view. Karma is not some supernatural power. It is cause and effect.

 

Anyhow, I think we got off topic. I'm good at doing that. Hehehe.

 

Back to the butterfly. Indeed, a pinned butterfly has lost its essence. As has a caged songbird. But what of people caught up in religious dogma unable to live their life according to their true nature? Pinned butterflies?

[dawei]

Actually... I think we were pinning a butterfly... to show that the flying [experience] was lost if it is all pre-destined.

[Mal]

Nothing's off topic when discussing the Universal One ....

 

as soon as "karma" is mentioned people immediately formulate images in their imaginations. They then try to make reality conform to their imaginary concepts.

 

I feel the "pin" (or the cage for the songbird) is our minds need to understand and explain (pin) experiences.

 

But "reality" has already arisen and moved on to the next moment (often before it has been pinned/understood by the mind) And while we can try to pin it as a "Blue mountain swallowtail" / "Papilio ulysses" / "pretty blue butterfly" None of those pins fully capture the experience.

 

[Marblehead]

You guys are so accommodating. Hehehe.

 

Yes Dawei, I agree. The freedom of choice to make our own mistakes.

 

And Mal, I like that second paragraph. (And the picture as well, of course. I have a nice collection of graphic art butterfly pictures.)

[flowing hands]

One can 'see' what has passed from the very beginning of time and so one can 'see' what is to come till the very end of time. Why is this so?

[Marblehead]

One can 'see' what has passed from the very beginning of time and so one can 'see' what is to come till the very end of time. Why is this so?

I'm not going to go to the mystical side of this.

 

Observe. See and understand the processes. The processes do not change, only the players change. If we understand the processes we can, with fair accuracy, know what is to come.

[Aaron]

I have a hard time understanding how this passage has anything to do with karma, predetermination, destiny, or anything such as that, but rather I think it's about the very first lesson we learn about the Tao, which is simply, "Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name." (tr. Wu). So when we decide to define Tao, we are not experiencing Tao, but rather separating what we believe to be a piece of Tao, and in so doing losing the essence of Tao. We see the butterfly, "know" what it is supposed to do, but the fact that we have chosen to try and possess it and know it, means that it is no longer a living true butterfly, but rather a husk of what it once was.

 

Aaron

Edited March 9, 2013 by Aaron

[Mal]

I agree Arron.

 

I "know" what a "Papilio ulysses" is and I see them often. If you saw one flying, wanted to share your experience with me and said that you saw a blue butterfly I might reply "Yes I know, It's a Ulysses butterfly" But I don't know what you saw, all I have is an label, a husk, in my mind. You have a memory of what you experienced .... while the butterfly continues on experiencing.

 

One can 'see' what has passed from the very beginning of time and so one can 'see' what is to come till the very end of time. Why is this so?

 

I can't answer this well. The I ching talks about patterns and how to be aware of them. Personally through meditation I feel more and more the "gaps" between the experiences of my sense organs, my response, and the labeling of this experience by my mind. Minds "think" in "time" as the mind is already at least one step removed from experiencing. Everything happens "now" yet we think about it as happening soon, or happened in the past.

[flowing hands]

I have a hard time understanding how this passage has anything to do with karma, predetermination, destiny, or anything such as that, but rather I think it's about the very first lesson we learn about the Tao, which is simply, "Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name." (tr. Wu). So when we decide to define Tao, we are not experiencing Tao, but rather separating what we believe to be a piece of Tao, and in so doing losing the essence of Tao. We see the butterfly, "know" what it is supposed to do, but the fact that we have chosen to try and possess it and know it, means that it is no longer a living true butterfly, but rather a husk of what it once was.

 

Aaron

 

Aaron, what is your definition of Dao then?

[Aaron]

Aaron, what is your definition of Dao then?

 

I don't have a definition, nor do I try and define it. As it states here, the moment you try and define it, you only come away with a mere husk of what Tao is. It is better to experience Tao and from that experience learn to live in harmony with others.

 

Aaron