quotes to ponder

[passing_through]

"We must beware of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites. The criterion of ethical action can no longer consist in the simple view that good has the force of a categorical imperative, while so-called evil can resolutely be shunned. Recognition of the reality of evil necessarily relativizes the good, and the evil likewise, converting both into halves of a paradoxical whole."
==
"Good and evil are no longer so self-evident. We have to realize that each represents a judgment. In view of the fallibility of all human judgment, we cannot believe that we will always judge rightly. We might so easily be the victims of misjudgment."
==
"The individual who wishes to have an answer to the problem of evil, as it is posed today, has need, first and foremost, of self-knowledge, that is, the utmost possible knowledge of his own wholeness. He must know relentlessly how much good he can do, and what crimes he is capable of, and must beware of regarding the one as real and the other as illusion. Both are elements within his nature, and both are bound to come to light in him, should he wish - as he ought - to live without self-deception or self-delusion."
==
"A man who has not passed through the inferno of his passions has never overcome them. They then dwell in the house next door, and at any moment a flame may dart out and set fire to his own house. Whenever we give up, leave behind, and forget too much, there is always the danger that the things we have neglected will return with added force."
==

From these four quotes, I see the following connection between Chan and self-defense:

Only in facing, relentlessly, both the good and evil of which we are capable do we truly see who and what we are. And by facing the inferno of our passions can we learn to not be ignited by them. This gets to the heart of Chan, finding and facing our selves.

In learning self-defense, we face our passions and our capacity for both good and evil using the whole body, mind and spirit. Rather than just talk about things, we put our bodies on the line and our "life" is at risk each time we train - all to unmask our true self, taking away the games of the ego. When just discussing, we can play games and lie to ourselves, turning a blind eye to our failings. In self-defense, when I get hit it is because I did something wrong, not because someone else did something right.

Other thoughts/reactions?

Sincerely,
Jeremy R.

[gilsinger]

By facing what you are capable of, you remove all cumbersome vague notions of what you are capable of.

It makes me think of the state where you don't judge, and how it applies to combat by removing all the adjectives your superego places on how you may erroneously perceive your opponent.

"Big angry man with a great big dangerous fist flying wrathfully at my head!"
becomes
"fist/target"

....and that's more efficient.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

I was just wondering if this how you came about your screen name? All this time I was thinking it was self explanatory.
I find that uncovering illusions within "self" is a ego checker at best, and that it brings paradigm shifts along with the changes made. Trying not to judge "self" and or others is a task that I myself must improve on. But I feel that one must see before they fix, " you need to crawl before you walk" so to speak. I find that when dealing with an "Illusion" whether in life or Kung Fu skills, one must approach with caution so that one does not disturb true focus. I look at this as redesigning of the mental focus, the "Life" focus. To have harmony of mind, body, and spirit is considered to be a daily focus. Day #1,128 here I go!
Checking ones reality, James

[JK Walz]

Originally posted by passing_through

Other thoughts/reactions?


I was thinking of the same sort of thing this morning but not in relation to self defense.

I was thinking more along the lines of what is a good person and what is a bad person. Were the old couple who let the cats (http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/czs/catpeople.html) take over and ruin their lives "good or bad"? Was the father good or bad? Was the son good or bad? Quite often I have friends who will question why I like someone else. Since I don't belong to any "clicks", and I associate with people from all "clicks" I seem to be the intermediary! From one side I'll hear- "Why do you associate with so and so? S/he is such a jerk! Do you know what s/he did to so and so?". And then, a day later when spending time with the fore mentioned "jerk" I get- "Why were you hanging out with that person? Do you know what s/he says and does?" Or- when I get cut off on the road and my passenger says- "What a $%^#!! Did you see that?!?!" and I reply- "Maybe his son is dying in the hospital and he just wants to see him one more time...". You never know what the REAL story is!

I find it very difficult to classify people as "good" of "evil". Even when you have hard evidence of "good" or "evil" it is still only the act that is good or evil and not the person himself. I like to think that it means I am more tolerant than most...It might mean that I am afraid of having convictions....I don't know.

I'm not a Christian but this is sort of relevant-

Matthew 7:1-5.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye."

I find this to be sort of true if read in a certain way...

As far as self defense is concerned I think you are right on if our life is in danger. The problem is that very rarely do we find ourselves in a position of such reality. The "talking" that we do can be extended to mean our training as well!

Illusion in training is something I am concerned about. If your training is full of illusion (not simply fau kiu experience) then aren't you even more counter to what the goal is?

JK

[JamesHFYofAZ]

In relation to self defense I always thought, "hah I know kung fu, and if this guy starts $@#^ with me then he will harmonize with my fist" so to speak. I found out some time ago that I was living an illusion. I happened to be put in a very compromising situation and found that most of the self defense was not in the fighting but in the mind. I needed my mind long before my hands. In fact the man was drunk which made it easier to change his mind. I never even had to guide him on his "path of self destruction". This is not to say that the skills are not required to have self defense but more as they go hand in hand, such as good and evil.
By the way Sihing, There is little reason to doubt your hand. I get hit every time I put my hand on your shoulder to say Hi. your feet maybe. HA!HA! LOL!

[JK Walz]

Originally posted by JamesHFYofAZ
I never even had to guide him on his "path of self destruction".

I think it turned out that he wasn't on that path...or, as you said, you changed his path for him with a simple verbal nudge.

The other possibility is that you are simply a scaredy cat!


JK

[JamesHFYofAZ]

I would have to believe the latter of the three. I was pretty Scared. Of what I might of done to this guy. Hee Hee! I was not in control of my three points, M,B,&S. So it was probably better that nothing happened. The adrenaline rush was enough to handle, let a loan the fact that the scenario was not to my benefit. By this I mean the "Law" would have something to say about this guy being beaten, battered and bruised. I feel that the choice came from both the heart and mind in a time of compassion. He was not in his right mind, I felt that it would of been wrong of me to use my advantages when the odds where stacked against the other. To have an advantage is nothing but a good thing but to use something when it's not needed is considered Unnecessary force.

[passing_through]

The following was the conversation after I put those quotes together rom some of my “sparring partners” here at work.

From: S

"Only in facing, relentlessly, both the good and evil of which we are capable do we truly see who and what we are. And by facing the inferno of our passions can we learn to not be ignited by them. This gets to the heart of Chan, finding and facing our selves."

Definitely. I know that, given the right circumstances, I would be capable of great evil. However, knowing that, I also know that I have a choice about what to do. If I instead denied it, and refused to contemplate such things, I would be mentally unprepared should the right circumstances ever arise.

"When just discussing, we can play games and lie to ourselves, turning a blind eye to our failings. In self-defense, when I get hit it is because I did something wrong, not because someone else did something right."

But it's because you did something physically wrong, not because you did something morally wrong. Is there a way to apply this approach to moral training as well?

"We must beware of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites. The criterion of ethical action can no longer consist in the simple view that good has the force of a categorical imperative, while so-called evil can resolutely be shunned. Recognition of the reality of evil necessarily relativizes the good, and the evil likewise, converting both into halves of a paradoxical whole."

I'm not sure why recognition of the reality of evil necessarily relativizes good and evil. But good and evil can be relative, halves of a paradoxical whole, and still be entirely opposites (they can't be "absolute" opposites, but that's a tautology - by definition they can't be both "relative" and "absolute"). There can even be good with the force of a categorical imperative, and evil resolutely to be shunned, which are still relative.

"Good and evil are no longer so self-evident."

When were they? What changed to make them less self-evident?

"The individual who wishes to have an answer to the problem of evil, as it is posed today, has need, first and foremost, of self-knowledge, that is, the utmost possible knowledge of his own wholeness."

I'm not sure what this means, but I may be stumbling over the phrase, "the problem of evil," because it has a specific technical meaning in theology/philosophy, which I can't quite make fit here.

"...should he wish - as he ought - to live without self-deception or self-delusion."

"As he ought." Would that be a categorical imperative?

-----Original Message-----
From: Me

When just discussing, we can play games and lie to ourselves, turning a blind eye to our failings. In self-defense, when I get hit it is because I did something wrong, not because someone else did something right.

But it's because you did something physically wrong, not because you did something morally wrong. Is there a way to apply this approach to moral training as well?

- for kung fu guys, doing morally wrong is the same as doing physically wrong - there will be a negative consequence, you get "hit" in a different way when you morally err. The concept is applicable, even in if the methods differ. The goal, or the hope, is that through physical training you start to extend the principles/concepts experienced in learning self-defense to other areas of your life. This is called making your kung fu come alive. If you only function on a tactical level of punch/kick, your opponent can make you angry and in your rage you make technical mistakes - because you haven't trained to handle the emotional side of things... So, we start with technical, physical training and then move to other areas so that you have a tangible, physical skill to which you can relate as you start to discipline other areas of mind/spirit. Imagine trying to focus on one thought when you can't even stand completely still. Disciplining the mind without also disciplining the body is useless for fighting. They have to go hand-in-hand. So we start with the body, it's the foundation. Then the mind, then the spirit. And this is why this particular path is not for everyone. Not everyone can discipline body/mind, some only body, some only mind... For myself, I've got physical discipline but not always emotional discipline. That's been my challenge over the last two years. Trying to get spiritual when I've still got emotions that flair up and distract me is counter-productive. That doesn't mean I ignore the life of the spirit but I don't make that my focus (yet). My emotions are starting to reign in so maybe I can move in that direction later. And ultimately, to perfect the technical, physical side of things I have to also learn about the mind/spirit as well. Does that help to answer your question? In short: yes, you can apply this approach to moral training as well - you just need someone with a clear moral compass tempered by experience in the world to guide you to realize when you're being "hit" in a moral sense.

-----Original Message-----
From: S

Well, I had almost added: Or would this form of moral training through consequences just be called "life"?

Obviously, then, the best way to develop yourself morally must be to surround yourself with temptations, so that you can get lots of practice resisting them (or experience lots of consequences if you fail...). (^_^)

-----Original Message-----
From: Me

well, yah.. that's what I do. 0=) You have to face your temptations, as Jung said, if you don't master them and just ignore them, they'll come back stronger. The danger is that in facing your temptations, you can get lost in them. That's part of the Mahayana idea, have a life but don't be attached to it. Not easy, by any means... *smacks his ego down*

-----Original Message-----
From: B

This goes along with a biblical concept, too –
"faith - actions = nothing"

If you say you believe something but don't ever DO anything in line with what you say, do you REALLY believe it?

Also, one can accumulate all of the knowledge available to man, but be worthless if it has never been tested/applied. Knowledge without application is useless. Wisdom is knowing how to use the bits and pieces of information one has available. One of the best ways to gain wisdom is to try things out... it can take practice to grow in wisdom. I personally think that we don't ever "make it" or have the PERFECT understanding, but we're constantly trying (hopefully) to get a little better each day.

-----Original Message-----
From: S

"This goes along with a biblical concept, too - "faith - actions = nothing"

Hmm, that would mean:

faith = nothing + actions

Therefore: faith = actions

Or, "for kung fu guys, doing morally wrong is the same as doing physically wrong".

Now, I think the corollary of "faith - actions = nothing" would be "faith + actions = ideal". By substitution, then,

ideal = 2*actions

So if you are without faith, you can still achieve the ideal expression of human morality, you just have to work twice as hard. (^_^)

-----Original Message-----
From: Me

*rofl*

-----Original Message-----
From: B

Hmm... i was trying to summarize rather than provide an explicit mathematical expression so I don't totally agree with your logic (but your corollary is true using the convention previously established).

BUT... that does kinda make sense based on some other passages (which I won't get in to for you sake, Scott)... basically, the idea is that we do have a strong internal foundation for what good vs. bad is and that we have to have some training to swap the two in our minds.

But, for those who are trying to do the right thing, maybe they'll make it with that double effort!

-----Original Message-----
From: S

And let me just point out, I never imagined I’d one day be able to construct a theo-algebraic joke...

lata,
Jeremy R.
(what? It's Friday!)

\*^o^*/

[BennyMeng]

In self-defense, when I get hit it is because I did something wrong, not because someone else did something right.

This is one way to think about it. But really, it is an opponent having a better move that makes me realize my mistake.

Now, by better, I mean having more efficient use of Time/Space/Energy.

For the person that acted more correctly, if he has skill he is aware of what he's doing (Saan Kiu at least). If he doesn't have skill, he just got lucky (Fau Kiu). Regardless of the opponent's understanding, you - being on the receiving end - recognize your mistake. This is why the teacher has to have the experience – being able to point things out to the student save the student’s time.

This learning experience doesn't have to be carried all the way to fighting. We can experience this learning even in our training. Through interaction, we realize our flaws and mistakes.

BM