[HHC Study] Hua Hu Ching Chapter 24

[Mal]

Subtle awareness of the truth of the universe should not be regarded as an achievement. To think in terms of achieving it is to place it outside your own nature. This is erroneous and misleading. Your nature and the integral nature of the universe are one and the same: indescribable, but eternally present. Simply open yourself to this.

 

Walker's HHC 24

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

 

 

 

The prince addressed the master once again. “Venerable Teacher, according to the Universal Way, when one attains subtle universal awareness he should not label it an achievement. Is that correct?”

The master kindly answered, “Yes, this is very true, dear prince. I have received nothing from the attainment of unconditional awareness. Awareness of the integral nature of the universe is indescribable; it can not be contained by any word or name. If a person thinks in terms of attaining something, that means he believes there is something to obtain or achieve external to his own nature. It means that he fails to realize that his own true nature is the integral nature of the universe itself.”

 

Ni's HHC 24

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

[dawei]

Subtle awareness of the truth of the universe should not be regarded as an achievement. To think in terms of achieving it is to place it outside your own nature. This is erroneous and misleading. Your nature and the integral nature of the universe are one and the same: indescribable, but eternally present. Simply open yourself to this.

 

Over and over... breaking the 'notions of the mind'...

 

But here we get greater insight into 'integral nature' as eternally present in us; is us... but not if one holds to having achieved or understood or accomplished or reached some place...

 

How to reconcile one is there yet not if they can describe its accomplishment?

 

The awareness may seem to us to happen in 'time' but if we have truly dropped all distinctions and duality then there is no time... no time of the achievement... thus no achievement exists. Only the mind's idea of it does.

 

"Your nature and the integral nature of the universe are one and the same"

[3bob]

I see the saying of "no time" as having some possible problems...

 

not unlike the problems I see with the Buddhist saying of "no-self".

 

thus one might ask is there ever an eternal moment that exists without Mystery?

[3bob]

hmmm, ok no bites.

[Marblehead]

hmmm, ok no bites.

No self, no time, no bites. Life gets that way sometimes.

 

Yes, saying "no time" has just as many problems as does "no self".

 

No bites means you are using the wrong bait.

 

Time is linear dispite its cyclical nature. Self exists as long as one thinks for themself.

 

There was a time when I was unaware, At some point in time I became aware. Now I practice being aware (except most times when I am watching TV).

[3bob]

No self, no time, no bites. Life gets that way sometimes.

 

Yes, saying "no time" has just as many problems as does "no self".

 

No bites means you are using the wrong bait.

 

Time is linear dispite its cyclical nature. Self exists as long as one thinks for themself.

 

There was a time when I was unaware, At some point in time I became aware. Now I practice being aware (except most times when I am watching TV).

 

thanks for the bytes, and those telepathic videos (or TV) make for a hell of a download

[Marblehead]

Okay.

 

(What more is there to say after everything has been said?)

[3bob]

perhaps, "behold I make all things new"

[Marblehead]

perhaps, "behold I make all things new"

That would be quite a challenge (unless you were Tao).

 

Interesting concept in this chapter though, that we are an integral part of the universe, subject to the same processes as is all of the universe.

 

We are born, we live, then we die.

 

Being born and dying is beyond our control. But what we do between these two ... shit! I just ruined my thoughts with concepts that I do not hold.

 

Maybe later my awareness will feel better.

[3bob]

That would be quite a challenge (unless you were Tao).

 

Interesting concept in this chapter though, that we are an integral part of the universe, subject to the same processes as is all of the universe.

 

We are born, we live, then we die.

 

Being born and dying is beyond our control. But what we do between these two ... shit! I just ruined my thoughts with concepts that I do not hold.

 

Maybe later my awareness will feel better.

 

"We are born, we live, then we die" How many times is this interpretation as the only reality refuted in the Tao Teh Ching?

(for instance chapter 16)

[Marblehead]

No, we don't live forever. What we are made of (energy) lives forever. Continuous transmutation. Can I call it "me" if some of what I become ends up being a worm?

 

I don't go that far.

 

I know, there are those who wish for immortality. I'm not one of them.

[dawei]

I see the saying of "no time" as having some possible problems...

 

not unlike the problems I see with the Buddhist saying of "no-self".

 

thus one might ask is there ever an eternal moment that exists without Mystery?

 

Sorry... I missed this...

 

I think it is a matter of perspective; one of time or not of time. Mountains are mountains and then not mountains, yet again mountains. Some speak of the before, during or after stage but this is but a 'time' construct itself.

 

I can agree to time if you can agree to no time... and then let's reverse positions...

 

I can disagree to no time if you can disagree to time

[3bob]

I don't know about that Dwaei, concepts are constructs but there is that which is not a construct.

[dawei]

Not sure I follow...

 

Can we have 'no construct' yet have time?

 

Or you mean my point is simply not constructive?

[3bob]

All I meant was something like linear time takes time, while the eternal moment is not linear.

[3bob]

No, we don't live forever. What we are made of (energy) lives forever. Continuous transmutation. Can I call it "me" if some of what I become ends up being a worm?

 

I don't go that far.

 

I know, there are those who wish for immortality. I'm not one of them.

 

Since the TTC. obviously points otherwise you are contradicting it. Thus until you have irrefutable proof one way or another (say on chapter 16) then an absolute statement from you or anyone else is no different or more true than an absolute statement made by anyone else about anything else along these lines... thus imo and in such cases an 'agnostic type' position about absolutes or "immortality" is all one can really and honestly claim. (yes, I know you are not an agnostic per se but what the heck science is agnostic like until it proves otherwise in relation to various subjects).

 

p.s. and even if one has proof it comes down to themselves because certain things beyond the so called normal can not be proven with or to the so called normal.

Edited February 24, 2014 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

True 3bob. I am not an Agnostic. I am an Atheist. Therfore I can honestly state my understandings as I have. No fair comparing an apple with an orange.

 

I will agree that we find agnosticism dominant within science. They have to be "politically correct". I don't have that need.

 

And, of course, we do understand that I am voicing only "my" opinions and understandings. Will I ever know the truth of all knowledge of the universe? No way in hell. However, I can make assumptions based on the understandings I do have.

 

I have on a number of occasions suggested that someone was thinking too much. But I have never told them what they should believe; only what I believe, and I have never shied away from trying to explain why I believe as I do.

 

Perhaps I have contradicted what others have said and written. I even contradict myself on occasion. No biggie.

 

Awareness: This is an important concept. As is the concept of being natural, understanding our true nature and that it is really not very different from the nature of the entire universe. So here we can look for correlations between the two.

 

So yes, an Agnostic would say, "I don't know." An Atheist would say, "I see no basis for such a belief."

[3bob]

True 3bob. I am not an Agnostic. I am an Atheist. Therfore I can honestly state my understandings as I have. No fair comparing an apple with an orange.

 

I will agree that we find agnosticism dominant within science. They have to be "politically correct". I don't have that need.

 

And, of course, we do understand that I am voicing only "my" opinions and understandings. Will I ever know the truth of all knowledge of the universe? No way in hell. However, I can make assumptions based on the understandings I do have.

 

I have on a number of occasions suggested that someone was thinking too much. But I have never told them what they should believe; only what I believe, and I have never shied away from trying to explain why I believe as I do.

 

Perhaps I have contradicted what others have said and written. I even contradict myself on occasion. No biggie.

 

Awareness: This is an important concept. As is the concept of being natural, understanding our true nature and that it is really not very different from the nature of the entire universe. So here we can look for correlations between the two.

 

So yes, an Agnostic would say, "I don't know." An Atheist would say, "I see no basis for such a belief."

 

MH,

That is a good explanation of where you are coming from but it contradicts the T.T.C. thus one or someone in your position would have to say that they only see a need or a basis for some bits and pieces of the T.T.C. teachings while tossing the rest. (which is a common thing for us westerners to do when dealing with eastern traditions that are based on thousands of years of practice and results beyond just opinions... thus some of us think we know better. (and even toss an agnostic type of position)

Edited February 24, 2014 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

MH,

That is a good explanation of where you are coming from but it contradicts the T.T.C. thus one or someone in your position would have to say that they only see a need or a basis for some bits and pieces of the T.T.C. teachings while tossing the rest. (which is a common thing for us westerners to do when dealing with eastern traditions that are based on thousands of years of practice and results beyond just opinions... thus some of us think we know better. (and even toss an agnostic type of position)

Excellent observation. I do not dispute what you have said. I don't think I have ever disputed that understanding on this forum. I have even gone so far as to remind other members that I am a Taoist, a Materialist, a Nietzschean, an Atheist, and Anarchist. I could even add Optimist to those labels.

 

And this applies to the current thread (What has TaoBums taught you?) or whatever its title is. To see things through different eyes was the last couple comments.

 

So no, I cannot say I am a Taoist and Taoist only. That will never happen in this lifetime. But I can say that those aspects of Taoism that fit into my life are followed as well as possible until conditions require me to rely on others of my belief system.

 

My Atheism requires me to disregard anything beyond what I observe within the natural universe, and this would be aminly in regard to all forms of supernatural essences. But it does NOT require me to ignore an aspect of spirituality that is compatible with my other beliefs. And afterall, spirituality and supernatural are two totally different concepts.

[3bob]

Excellent observation. I do not dispute what you have said. I don't think I have ever disputed that understanding on this forum. I have even gone so far as to remind other members that I am a Taoist, a Materialist, a Nietzschean, an Atheist, and Anarchist. I could even add Optimist to those labels.

 

And this applies to the current thread (What has TaoBums taught you?) or whatever its title is. To see things through different eyes was the last couple comments.

 

So no, I cannot say I am a Taoist and Taoist only. That will never happen in this lifetime. But I can say that those aspects of Taoism that fit into my life are followed as well as possible until conditions require me to rely on others of my belief system.

 

My Atheism requires me to disregard anything beyond what I observe within the natural universe, and this would be aminly in regard to all forms of supernatural essences. But it does NOT require me to ignore an aspect of spirituality that is compatible with my other beliefs. And afterall, spirituality and supernatural are two totally different concepts.

 

Well that mostly hits the nail on the head - and I have to admit that I to have a composite of various teachings that I find useful or that fit into my present state, yet some of those teachings are contradictory to one another on certain levels. (for instance parts of Christianity, Hinduism and science) Btw, I see or define "concepts" as being mostly an intellectually safe or also a mind blowing exercise and not so much as a nitty-gritty, heartfelt and personal lifestyle of involvement that can bring about wisdom that is greater than intellect alone. Lastly I don't think I agree with your last sentence of, " And after-all, spirituality and supernatural are two totally different concepts" since it depends on the eye of the beholder and their 1st hand experiences which may not be provable by ordinary or just physical means yet are factual to them.

 

Edited February 24, 2014 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Lastly I don't think I agree with your last sentence of, " And after-all, spirituality and supernatural are two totally different concepts" since it depends on the eye of the beholder and their 1st hand experiences which may not be provable by ordinary or just physical means yet are factual to them.

 

Hehehe. Thank goodness I don't always need others' approval and agreement of my understandings and opinions.

 

You are correct pointing that out though because I can speak from only my point of view. I do not and cannot experience others' experiences. Most would not believe many of mine if I spoke of them.

 

Yes, concepts are just generalizations of thought processes. Not something that should be held to as a dogmatic teaching. The concepts are there but they might need adjusting as we travel along our journey as we may encounter, at any time, conditions that don't fully apply to our concepts. Perhaps I could say that our concepts are our compass while out and about.

 

As you implied above, it is good to have different compasses, one for True North, one for Magnetic North and others for variants between the two so that we always know the general direction we are headed.

[3bob]

Hehehe. Thank goodness I don't always need others' approval and agreement of my understandings and opinions.

 

You are correct pointing that out though because I can speak from only my point of view. I do not and cannot experience others' experiences. Most would not believe many of mine if I spoke of them.

 

Yes, concepts are just generalizations of thought processes. Not something that should be held to as a dogmatic teaching. The concepts are there but they might need adjusting as we travel along our journey as we may encounter, at any time, conditions that don't fully apply to our concepts. Perhaps I could say that our concepts are our compass while out and about.

 

As you implied above, it is good to have different compasses, one for True North, one for Magnetic North and others for variants between the two so that we always know the general direction we are headed.

 

I'll second that even if you don't need me to...

[Marblehead]

I'll second that even if you don't need me to...

This has been a nice discussion. Thanks. This chapter was easy for me to discuss as it didn't conflict with any of my present understandings. And, of course, I do enjoy rambling when we talk of these concepts. One concept links to another so firmly that it is almost impossible to not wander the side-paths occasionally.

[GrandmasterP]

Hadn't heard of this HHC so hit Amazon and found this review...

 

"I starting reading this when I got home, and something seemed off. Turns out that they laugh about this book on Taoist discussion boards. Hua Hu Ching was a forgery in the 8th century CE. The intent was to convert western Chinese Buddhists to Taoism by presenting Lao Tzu as teaching Buddhist thought in China before Buddha's Enlightenment. The earlier chapters have a rather Buddhist feel, which turns into a "Religious Taoist" feel in the later chapters with discussions on magic, Feng Shui, "angelic" sex, and the need to worship the 64 I Ching hexagrams!

 

It was responsible for some tremendous bad blood between Buddhists and Taoists, and was eventually ordered destroyed by an emperor in the 14th century. Apparently, at least a handful of Taoists believe in it and have kept it alive via oral tradition.

 

The first several chapters are beautiful, insightful, and poetic, though a bit wordy for Lao Tzu. for instance, "Division is contrary to the nature of the Tao. / Foregoing antagonism and separation, one enters into the harmonious oneness of all things." (3)

 

However, after Chapter 50, things go rapidly downhill, I mean falling-off-a-cliff downhill, with bizarre New-Age flavored droppings such as "Because yin and yang are not complete within us as individuals, we pair up to integrate them and bring forth new life./ Although most people spend their entire lives following this biological impulse, it is only a tiny portion of our beings as well. / If we remain obsessed with seeds and eggs, we are married to the fertile reproductive valley of the Mysterious Mother but not to her immeasurable heart and all-knowing mind." (65) Sounds just like Lao Tzu, right?

 

Or how about this? "In ancient times, various holistic sciences were developed by hightly evolved beings to enable their own evolution and that of others...The student who ignores them hinders the development of all beings." (54)

 

I wish I had researched this one before I bought it. I'd like to have my money back! Interested in wisdom from Taoism? Read the Tao Te Ching, and Chuang Tzu. Interested in Buddhist scripture? Read the Dhammapada, The Way of the Bodhisattva, and other sutras. Avoid this junk, which was banned for its dishonesty."

 

Is this Walker HHC walker's 'own' translation of 'just' an extant Taoist text or has he produced some of the content himself by 'channeling' or similar means?

Edited March 30, 2014 by GrandmasterP