Chapter 11: The Big Concealment/Hong Meng character

[Rara]

I wish to talk about this character as he has been stuck in my mind for half a year. I can't shift it! He has stuck out to me as one of the most free, liberated people. Though he is a metaphor, the personification of what appears to be madness yet true fulfilment rolled into one is just so amazing to me.

 

Banging his thighs, enjoying himself...and when being disturbed by "Cloud Chief" he is very dismissive. I guess if you're having a good time, why waste time explaining to someone how to find their Way? Simply lead by example.

 

Does anybody here have any words on this entertaining section of the book?

[Marblehead]

For clarity, this is Chapter 11 of The Chuang Tzu.

 

I suggest that this story be first linked to Chapter 20 of the TTC.

 

Rara, let me know what you think about this linkage.

[Rara]

Will do! My version of TTC has been leant out (big mistake) ... will find a reliable online translation of the chapter!

[Marblehead]

Plenty of translations here: http://terebess.hu/english/lexikon/l.html

[Rara]

Amazing....first I read Kwok/Palmer/Ramsay's version (as I am familiar with Palmer's translation of Chuang Tzu) It reads very differently to the others. Crazy.

 

What I link with The Big Concealment story is the character is what Lao Tzu describes: poor, attached to nothing and genuine. Unlearned.

 

In the Kwok/Palmer/Ramsay translation of TTC 20, there is a really interesting thing that struck me. What is the difference between anger and pretending not to be angry?

 

I used to think about Taoism as a way to be happy all the time. But the more I used affirmations to change my opinions on things, it worked to an extent...but it was all so artificial. And it didn't last.

 

Whereas, if I loosen up, and let my crazy side just ring out, I am happier. And not dangerous to society, most importantly!

 

The difference between ok crazy and bad crazy...

 

Ok crazy = free, carefree, comfortable in one's own skin, regardless

 

Bad crazy = surpressed emotions...desire to be someone else/confined in a society/system they don't want to be a part of but feel inclined to force it.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Rara

[Marblehead]

You done good. Of course, there are more associations between that story and the TTC, but the words are different so we must understand the concepts, not just the words.

 

And yes, we should dance when we feel like dancing. (Supression of emotions sucks.)

[ChiDragon]

I used to think about Taoism as a way to be happy all the time.

 

Taoism is to maintain oneself in a Wu Wei state which means in a state of serenity. No emotion shown doesn't mean that you are not happy nor sad but calm.

[Rara]

 

Taoism is to maintain oneself in a Wu Wei state which means in a state of serenity. No emotion shown doesn't mean that you are not happy nor sad but calm.

Hehe, Tao should not be spoken.

 

State of serenity but no emotion.

 

I know what you mean

[Marblehead]

State of serenity but no emotion.

 

I had to come back to this. ... but no emotions shown. Yes, we have emotions, we show them when we have them. We don't show phoney emotions. Being natural. When we are in a state of serenity there is no need for a show of emotions. That is, afterall, an emotionless state.

 

In Chapter 20, TTC, the Sage felt no emotions regarding the goings on, therefore he appeared dull.

 

Big Concealment was amusing himself.

 

Both were being natural according to their own condition.

[Stosh]

^{Umm the usual definition of emotion in English at least is that its a feeling, the outward manifestation which may or may not accompany it isnt the emotion itself.}

^{Which makes some of the points made umm dubious in what they are trying to convey.}

^{But I tried googling up what exactly the difference between feelings and emotions are and found only vague BS about what the differences were.}

^{Would anyone care to present a distinction , general rule of thumb wise about that?}

Edited June 6, 2014 by Stosh

[GrandmasterP]

We are men.

Sometimes we sulk.

 

Edited June 6, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

^{Which makes some of the points made umm dubious in what they are trying to convey.}

Most everything I say can be considered dubious.

 

In my mind 'feelings' and 'emotions' are the same thing. But I do agree with you that our feelings, our emotions, are inner. We may or may not express them verbally or physically. I express mine openly. Good thing for me I don't get mad much any more.

 

Oh, yeah, I express my emotions with my eyes too in that when I see a pretty car or a pretty woman I will look at it intently. (No touching though.) (Actually, that's not true. I enjoy giving and getting hugs.)

[manitou]

^{Umm the usual definition of emotion in English at least is that its a feeling, the outward manifestation which may or may not accompany it isnt the emotion itself.}

^{Which makes some of the points made umm dubious in what they are trying to convey.}

^{But I tried googling up what exactly the difference between feelings and emotions are and found only vague BS about what the differences were.}

^{Would anyone care to present a distinction , general rule of thumb wise about that?}

 

 

Seems like 'feelings' are what we feel when we are first hit with stimulus.

Maybe 'emotions' are more of an external expression of those feelings - like we emote 'out'.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Mani - im pretty sure you hit the spot there, linguistically speaking also.

 

I had to google it and found that the word emotion takes root in latins "emovere" that denotes moving something outside, (by connotation also stirring up, agitating), and emovere is constructed (the allmighty internet claims at least) from: Ex (out) + movere (the action of moving or setting in motion).

The direct connection to "feeling" came later.

 

Edit: meaning that to say emotion and have that meaning also overlap the word feeling came later. Feeling was around as well, for claritys sake.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Rocky Lionmouth

[Stosh]

Ok, so you all feel that emotion is the reflexive window dressing which conveys a feeling ?

( except for MH who seems opined more along my own lines- that they arent distinct really)

So if you are sad , and you keep it to yourself you dont have the emotion ?

and therefore yall disagree with CD "No emotion shown doesn't mean that you are not happy nor sad but calm."

 

So to summarize the opinions I see here

calmness is a behavior ,not a feeling

serenity is not an emotion its a feeling

a feeling isnt the emotion itself

 

SOOO if a person is emotionless they still can feel the entire repetioir of feelings , just not express any of it.

Fine ...

then, is , the idea of a sage someone who

does still have the feelings of , say ..desire or anger or impatience , just doesnt show any of it.

OR He only has one feeling ,serenity ,,, and therefore appears emotionless and is emotionless.

OR does he acts with emotion but no longer has certain feelings.

Or are his emotive actions and feelings just like everyone elses ( still chopping wood and carrying water)

 

In the melee of descriptions , the various usages of words , I think its unclear to me what it percieved the Sages characters are regarding his feelings and emotions.

Is the sage considered to be ummm internally of different constitution from a buddha?

 

If a person is looking for spiritual understanding or has some goal regarding what their internal world will be like going forward , then it seems like it would be of utmost clarity , what the emoto-feeling paradigm is to be.

Can their motivations be divided from their feelings and emotions?

 

Sorry I know Im not asking this question clearly yet ,, UMMM..

 

Ive considered the emoto-moti vational- feeling paradigms of sages and buddhas to be at least very similar to each other , and thought they would not be those same paradigms of Joe schmo off the street , or like those of Abrahamic traditions , or even Shamanic ones.

1) In your opinion , are they?

or is it

2) all these traditions are essentially the same regarding emotional expression, motivations, and feelings

 

Please please though , dont say anything about ego which would be entirely obfuscational ! or obfuscative, or, at the very least off the vector of my enquiry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2014 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

So if you are sad , and you keep it to yourself you dont have the emotion ?

 

No, No, No. If I ever presented that as my understanding then I really screwed up. We have emotions. To hold them inside will screw you up. Just ask me. I know. We should show our emotions under normal conditions. However, there may be times, if we wish to be politically correct, when we want to hold our emotions until a better time to release.

 

I agree with CD. But I still know, for me, it is better to release my emotions. The Sage will likely be able to do much better than I at not showing our emotions.

[Marblehead]

The Sage smiles without wondering how (s)he should smile. Spontaneous release of a jesture of friendship or understanding in most cases. The smile also has emotional links.

[Stosh]

Well , Sir Im hoping you might be a bit more prosaic , Does the Sage have the same complement of emotions motivations feelings as everybody else? ( whether he wonders about it does it all reflexively or with exceptional emphasis on being nice or not isnt what I am asking about)

[Marblehead]

To answer your question all I can do is present my understand and this might be total error.

 

However, I would think that the Sage would have these same emotions and feelings as everyone else. Thing is though, I would think that the Sage has learned how to experience these emotions and then just let them go. These emotions do not effect his/her inner essence. Of course, I am pointing to the Sage being in the state of "Wu". "Appearing" like dead wood.

[dawei]

"Appearing" like dead wood.

 

As an uncarved block...

 

http://taoism.about.com/od/glossaryoftaoistterms/g/Pu.htm

[Marblehead]

As an uncarved block...

 

http://taoism.about.com/od/glossaryoftaoistterms/g/Pu.htm

Yeah, the "dead wood" is from a Chuang Tzu story and that's what came to my mind at the time.

 

But yes, "uncarved block" or "new-born babe (calf)" are better terms to use. Afterall, "dead" has pretty negative connotations for most people.

[Stosh]

To answer your question all I can do is present my understand and this might be total error.

 

However, I would think that the Sage would have these same emotions and feelings as everyone else. Thing is though, I would think that the Sage has learned how to experience these emotions and then just let them go. These emotions do not effect his/her inner essence. Of course, I am pointing to the Sage being in the state of "Wu". "Appearing" like dead wood.

Nicely stated ,

am I to take from this that there is a state which is not Wu

that a sage or other person could be in?

[Marblehead]

Nicely stated ,

am I to take from this that there is a state which is not Wu

that a sage or other person could be in?

Thanks.

 

Yes, a while back there was a discussion regarding the conditions (states) of Wu, a non-doing state, if you will, and Yo (Yu, You), a (intentional) doing state.

 

I have always referred to these two states as:

 

Wu - the Mystery, or spiritual

Yo - the Manifest, or physical

 

Rene liked to say that she tried to keep one foot in Wu and the other in Yo. I have confessed that I am mostly a "Yo" kind of guy.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

Thanks.

 

Yes, a while back there was a discussion regarding the conditions (states) of Wu, a non-doing state, if you will, and Yo (Yu, You), a (intentional) doing state.

 

I have always referred to these two states as:

 

Wu - the Mystery, or spiritual

Yo - the Manifest, or physical

 

Rene liked to say that she tried to keep one foot in Wu and the other in Yo. I have confessed that I am mostly a "Yo" kind of guy.

This Yo state is a bit of a surprise to me , confusing because it looked like you were describing a spiritual state that a person could actual be in ( or doing) , or be out of , but now it looks like a description dividing his being into divisons of physical and spiritual, can you clarify this ?

[Marblehead]

... can you clarify this ?

Maybe, but not very well, I'm sure. Hehehe.

 

Wayne Wang did an outstanding job explaining it in his introduction to his translation of the TTC in his book titled "Dynamic Tao and its manifestations".

 

Do you remember the discussion a while back about simultanious arising of wu and yo? Rene and Dawei are big proponents of this concept. I am not.

 

Here's the thing. Wu is the totality of all potential in the universe. It is, if you will, the spirit of Tao. This could be called the "One".

 

Yo is the physical universe. It is a subset of Wu. Wu existed prior to Yo coming into existence.

 

So when I say that someone was fully in Wu it is implying that they were detached from their physical world (but not their body) and were in a totally spiritual state.

 

If I say that someone is fully in Yo I am suggesting that they are totally concentrating on the material world. No spirituality whatever.

 

I will also suggest that it is the rare person who is totally in one of these two states. There will almost always be aspects of the other, kinda' like the Tai Chi symbol. That little dot is what keeps us connected to the other.

 

Yes, the Sage must attend to his/her worldly needs. The basic human needs of food, shelter, clothing and security. I'm sure Mother Teresa tended to herself before she went out amongst the people to offer them what she had to offer. Same with the Sage. However, they are, even then solidly standing in Wu while dealing with their Yo needs.

 

On the other side, we have those who are interested in only the material world. They are normally greedy people, always searching for more stuff. Physical gratification is all there is. These are what Wayne called the lost souls.

 

But Wayne pointed out that even the lost can return to Wu. That dot, remember?

 

I will stop here for now.