Peace and love are not "hippy Like".
Its called "ren", compassion and loving kindness.
Its part of the eightfold path four noble truths that stuff
And "li" Ritual propriety. A confucian trait that crosses over.

Besides, I am a hippy

Have you never heard of a Code called Wude? It can trace its roots back to like 1160 BCE... the Song Dynasty. That is not recent. It may be a recent addition to Korean or Japanese arts, but even in Japanese arts, the Samurai had a code they were expected to follow as well. Whomever is telling you this is recent simply does not know what they are talking about.

Well....while there have been various codes used by select groups throughout time, predominantly in Japanese and Korean martial arts today, the codes and precepts were created to support the imperialist mindset of pre-war Japan just before WWII. This was to foster patriotic fevor so the people would be willing to lay down their very lives for the nation. Much like what Muslim Fundamentalist are attempting to get Arab nations to do today. The martial arts as are predominant today (sorry...but globally...Japanese arts and Korean arts have the numbers...even the Chinese now study Tae Kwon Do) have codes that are an outgrowth of the time of Imperial Japan. These codes are not congruent with current thought and modern times. That is not to say that every aspect within them is bad...but their are parts that can and do get taken to the extreme...and frequently. The Confucian model has been rejected by most modern governments and yet the martial arts rely heavily upon this model in their own structure. Why? I contend that it is not so much because their is proven benefit to this model over other modalities, but because this was the model that was used in creating a cohesive order in a society that was used to it already and was easily adapted to an agenda which was militaristic. Have not ever wondered why classes are structured so much like actual military traning? This is simply because this methodology proved to be very effective in teaching massive amounts of men in a very short time to prepare them for the business of soldiering. The model was adopted by the Japanese and welded onto their Budo practices which included Karate. There is a most excellant article that discusses this in the latest issue of Fighting Arts magazine...and everyone would be served by taking a look at it.

John Hancock

"The Confucian model has been rejected by most modern governments"

Not so.
"officially" perhaps, but without a doubt China, Japan, and Korea, (North and South) are all Neo-Confucian societies. Its not even an arguable point. Just a fact. Its so deeply embedded it cant be removed. This is collectivism.

I see what you are saying however.

John,

While you do have a point, I'm referring specifically to the things in TSD.. the articles of faith and the like would be with few exceptions, a rather newage approach to the military.

“only in relatively recent years has martial arts been associated with "perfection of character", and "high moral standards", etc on a large scale.”
Here I would have to disagree. Historically if you want to believe that the Asian Fighting Arts (as we know them today) originated at Songshan, in a monastery. Chan is all about the perfection of Character. When these systems left the temple walls the practitioners corrupted these ideals in pursuit of personal gain. But all along the exemplary person has been held to a higher standard.

That being said, I think that perhaps I have misrepresented my purpose.

Mr. Hancock stated this;
“It comes down to this: You need no one...and I mean NO ONE or NO THING between YOU and YOUR GOD (whatever construct that may be that works for your mind...as it's all the same thing anyway).”

And while I agree with the last part, the first part reflects my inability to communicate. The State Philosophy of Confucianism has nothing to do with Deities. Nothing to do with God at all. There is a spiritual side to Rujia, but it wasn’t anything that was applied as part of the national acceptance of this school of thought. Likewise, with Buddhism there is no god. In Daoism I suppose the “Way” can be attributed to a representation of “God.” But essentially it was also a school attempting to achieve the perfection of character. In this case immortality. Again there was religious and philosophical Daoism.

What I was hoping for was the historical aspect. How do you distinguished members of the MA community view the shaping of our “code” as it pertains to these original concepts?

Mr. Hancock also stated: “There, however, is a difference between a decent person and scum. Choose the former. No one needs to tell you this. You just know it.”

Again I have to agree.

Ok, notice that I said, "on a large scale", and also notice that I did, in fact, cite the example of the monks. However, the monks did have a goal of defending themselves, and in those days that meant, by and large, kill or be killed! So still, the expeditious end to combat, specifically the death of your enemny, was even in the mind of the chan/zen monks of early china. Yes, many religious/philosophical systems (chan buddhism included) are about the perfection of character. However, the need for survival often supercedes all of that "character perfection" etc. If you want to believe that the monks in ancient chinese moasteries were interested in such a "higher standard" when they were fighting for their very lives, then go ahead. I don't really have any glasses of that color to look through.
As for what you were asking about, well, I think I was giving you some historical perspective on this issue. Now, as for the shaping of "our code"....well, each school, and instructor has their own expectations which become their own "code".
I do wonder what you mean by "these original concepts"?

I appreciate the response, I would have to respectfully state that I do not wear any glasses of any shade

"I don't really have any glasses of that color to look through."

I am a practicing Chan Buddhist, and unless things have changed since the alleged arrival of Bodhidharma, the self preservation thing wasnt necessarily the priority.

Really, I have heard the stories of the Daoist priests who began the martial arts to defend themselves against animals. Please.
I have seen my Shifu get hit full on and not blink, but would I put him in a cage with a tiger.

As far as bandits went I could see that, but if someone is practicing (and I wont say that the monks were following the Dharma perfectly)the day to day concern did not lie in Bandits. Perhaps from the government looking to shut down the temples, but as a whole Shaolin remained relatively autonomous throughout the centuries.

This is because Chan does not practice attachment. If one is not attached to money, there is no trouble paying taxes is there? Thus there was a high degree of leeway given to Songshan.

I am not complaining about any of the replies here! This is all good stuff. And to answer your question I was renferring to the "original" concepts of my topic.

"And while I agree with the last part, the first part reflects my inability to communicate. The State Philosophy of Confucianism has nothing to do with Deities. Nothing to do with God at all. There is a spiritual side to Rujia, but it wasn’t anything that was applied as part of the national acceptance of this school of thought. Likewise, with Buddhism there is no god. In Daoism I suppose the “Way” can be attributed to a representation of “God.” But essentially it was also a school attempting to achieve the perfection of character. In this case immortality. Again there was religious and philosophical Daoism."

Actually....Confucism is not wholely atheistic as you have described. Buddhism certainly is not so nor is Taoism. Buddhism does include the concept of deity and therefore there is a concept of 'God' in that the universe has Dharma. Dharma then serves as God. In Taoism...the Tao is deity unpersonified. Unfortunately...there will be many here who will not be able to grasp deity without a qualification of personality attribute...ergo...personification. The Western religions have personification of God built directly into them...and therefore westerners find it difficult to grasp the concept of 'God' where 'God' is not personified nor is demonstrative of personality. The Tao is a most excellant example of one aspect of Trinitized Deity in the aspect of the unpersonalized Deity. Buddhism would be a decent representation of the aspect of Deity unpersonalized but taking personalized action (yes...I know...that sounds impossible...and I really don't want to get into the long discussion of how that can be). Confucism is the only one of the big 3 in Asian that is closest to a true Political Philosophy as apposed to a Religious philosophy. However, just because Confucism predominantly refrains from discussion of Deity does not mean it does so totally nor is it that any qualification for accepting it wholesale as a model for the building of one's character upon. Our own Constitution serves just a legitimate a purpose as does the codes of Confucism in being a guide to build one's character and life upon. The Constitution of the United States, at least as written by the founding fathers, is no shabby document for building a moral and ethical structure of personal character upon. I'd venture it is proven to be better than Confucism...or else...why don't we have any government today that still used the Confucian model? I'd offer that there are more and more nations using our Constitution, or a variat off it, as a model for creating and guiding their own governments and life. You must realize...as it stands at this moment in time...the U.S. government has the longest current running govermental model. All other countries have had changes in their governmental structure that post date the inception of our own independence and Constitution. We, therefore...are the oldest current form of government on the planet. This did due in large part to the wisdom of our founders in their design and their realization that government must be adaptable to the times for the overal government to sustain itself indefinitely. Our is...ours has...so far. We've had essentially the same form of government in this country for over 225 years thus far. No other nation can make a similar claim. I think, therefore, the puddin' here is well proved at this point.

John Hancock

John Hancock

"...why don't we have any government today that still used the Confucian model?"

I think this is more a result of mankinds inabilities to follow the tenets of Confuscism than the inadequacy of the philosophy itself.

"...the U.S. government has the longest current running govermental model."

What about the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc? Those empires and societies worked off of the same basic precepts for nearly a thousand (or more) years.

Perhaps our system of government will be merely a footnote for people studying political philosophies a thousand years from now.

"What about the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc? Those empires and societies worked off of the same basic precepts for nearly a thousand (or more) years."

OK. Let me try this again....with a little emphasis on the word you missed...

"...the U.S. government has the longest CURRENT running govermental model."

I'm not saying the U.S. Goverment IS the longest running government model...just the longest CURRENT running government model. We are almost halfway to the length of the Roman Empire...and I fully expect our system to make the 500 year mark...albeit...with modification...but that was the brilliance of the framers of our Government and their wisdom to draw off the ideas of the 'Republic'. We really would be better served in this country if we'd stop trying to push so much democratic government and stay truer to the 'REPUBLIC' design we were founded upon.

JH

JH said: "Actually....Confucism is not wholely atheistic as you have described."

Kuiwu said: "There is a spiritual side to Rujia, but it wasn’t anything that was applied as part of the national acceptance of this school of thought."

Rujia is the Confucian school. The Ideals that served as the state religion were not theistic or "religious" In fact Confucius refused to speak on spiritual matters if he could help it.
He did profess Li, ritual propriety and that applied to ancestral worship.

As per Dharma and the Dao being "god" only in the loosest sense of the word. Technically if you want the nuts and bolts of it "Tian" was what everything answered to. Tian MIng is what caused Dynasties to rise and fall.

Tian Ming the decree of heaven.

"As per Dharma and the Dao being "god" only in the loosest sense of the word."

Precisely! Which is why these philosophies have never been able to wholely dominate the globe. They failed to personalize deity and thereby alienated the Universe from the common man. This is the very reason the Christian secularism is so easily adopted even in Asia because Christianity personalizes Deity and it is comforting to the masses. People for the most part are sheep and want to be taken care of. The danger of Christianity is it is so secular and it is a political abuse of the teachings of Joshua ben Joseph. Tao as expressed in the Tao Te Ching is a wonderful metaphorical representation of the nature of Deity in omnipitence and omnipresence. Trinitized deity is described in the Tao Te Ching, however, it is only partially personalized:

'The one begot the two, the two begot the three. From the three springs forth the ten thousand things'.

A statement on the function of the trinitized nature of the deity in the act of creation.

The Tao Te Ching also makes reference to the Tao giving birth to the valley spirit, which is the mother of all things. The implication being that the Tao itself is the father of all things. A partial personalization of deity in is trinitized form. The profoundness of Taoism is that it recognized that Deity is unobservable, quantifiable or defineable until it is trinitized.

'The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.'

JH

Personally I dont hold much to the Dao De Jing. It is a work of seriously questionable origin.
I am not alone with this either.

Laozi is one of three potential authors.
The written language doesnt match the historical timeframe.
And the origin myth, leaving the book with the gatekeeper? Please! Hardly anyone could read in those days to begin with! And language of this type would have been unthinkable to 98% of the Han people.

Zhuangzi is much more likely to be an accurate representation of Daoism.
Much more readable and more easily told in a lesson or parable.

Honestly this has been a pleasant aside, I was afraid the topic would be skirted. lol

I am at a point now in my training where I look to simplify things. To me there is a magic in simplicity. Like a sumi or chinese black and white water color painting that is simple yet profound. As for a personal philosophy I have found that it always is about energy. Positive, negative many times it boils down to good manners makes good energy, bad manners makes bad energy and no manners makes none. Does it always fit into that category? no! you can be polite and still get negative energy at that point I stop feeding the negativity. I do not invest anymore time in it.

I find when you look at the energy, intention, the root motivation you can many times see more clearly. Energy and intention goes beyond the limitations of cultural differences, and understanding it is going to the source.

Now when I say 'energy' that can take many forms, ki, chi ect. Anger, joy, fear etc.

I physical example in training is when the untrained person is struck they will usualy react with one of the three following; Fear, Shock or anger. The trained person strives to maintain his/her center. A basic pad drill I use in class is the coach holds focus mitts for a low kick, then after the student kicks they will respond with fear, shock or anger. Fear, the coach backs up and the student follows with attacks, shock the coach stnads still and the student follows up and anger the coach chases the student and the student strikes while retreating. The student tries to maintain 'centeredness' (i.e no ego or as we like to say leggo my ego)against those three energies.

So to summerize, my feeling is to develop a mindset based on simplicity and energy. When we begin to understand 'energy' we can see it manifest in various forms dispite our cultural differences.Just quieting the mind (ego)can make you aware of your own energy. I have beginners stand for a few seconds breathe and concentrate on thier palms they all are amazed at the energy they can feel in thier palms,it is very simple yet the majority of people miss the profundity of quieting thier mind and the rewards it brings.

These basic things are shared by all ancient cultures if you go back far enough. The further you go back the more similarities you will find (as you know).

I dissagree with people that think you can treat people badly or disrespectfuly with no consequences. Negative acts long outlive the source and your legacy long will outlive you. Like stars that are gone thier light continues on so to does our acts be they good or bad. You would not want to be born with the name Hitler, Manson etc. The acts we do now are like seeds for those that follow us.

I find agreement with many of the points here. i think the issue is really morality...which all religions teach morality. i really like Master Hancock's expression of the trinity from the tao, i have often explained it as thus: we are created in the image of our maker...we have a body a mind and a spirit...in Christ God has a body, in the Father he has a mind and in the Holy spirit he has spirit. very interesting.
Getting back to proper mindset, there are clear ways one should and should not act, and we all know them for the most part. i do think that what makes a master should be a higher standard of holding to those shoulds and should nots through spiritual and mental conditioning. being a Christian i try to hold obviously to my saviors standard of me (though, being mortal i often fail) but in recognizing falure i gain forgiveness and move on.
now i'm not throwing religion into a secular board...i never like to soud preachy but i think thats important to our culture. for a good amount of my junior high and highsschool years i was a practicing buddhist/taoist...so i'm exceedingly familiar with those philosophies. and getting back to the original point...morality, it is the job of a master to conduct himself in a moral, just and proper way...in all circumstances to the best he/she knows how. we give that ability the abstract name of Moodo...and yes, i think Master hancock has a point that it is often become a cliche and scapegoat term...but to borrow from the new matrix:"it is just a word what matters is the connection it implies"
Morality is constant in all religions and philsophies, well ok...except under anton levay lol...but you get my point.
goodness comes from what is good, evil comes from what is evil, and it is up to us and OUR God to decide on all the gray areas, no?, MasterSegarra is right, simplicity is a major key.
-Tang Soo!!!-J

As a non-religious person, I have a tendency to believe that religion often clouds and distorts our concept of morality. In my view, morality is not something that can be defined because there is no such thing as a good act or an evil act - thinking simply makes it so. The doctrines of religion are too often used as a means to justify ones morality, and this can bring people into conflict with each other (i.e. Jews/Muslims, Christians/Muslims, Christians/Jews, etc.). In its purest state, morality is simply a human construct or code intended to keep a society functional. The problem is that different societies function in different ways, and therefore morality varies across societies. This, combined with man's blind acceptance of religious precepts is what has caused so much conflict for mankind throughout the millenia.

Although I believe religion causes more problems than it solves, I believe spirituality is important for every individual. It is important for people to find themselves and define their own morality. Some people will define moralities that help society and will flourish in life. Some people will define moralities that destroy society and will ultimately be destroyed by that society. In the end, we are merely an ordinary race of mammals that evolved intelligence as a survival trait, in an ordinary solar system on the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy. Our lives are merely blip on the eternity of the universe, and our problems are inconsequential to its function. Sounds depressing, but in a sense it humbles you. I almost find it arrogant to believe that a higher-being watches over us and judges us on a constant basis - I don't believe we are that important.

I wish I knew where religion came from...
I never metnioned religions I mentioned philosophical schools. Therin lies the sidetrack.

I like the Morality thing, thats the direction I am looking towards.

often stray interjections lead to being sidetracked. sorry, partially my fault lol. -J

Nah! It was fun!

I feel I must ad something here for Leviathan's contemplation. I return you to a previous thread about 'Qi' in which I posted the following:

"The is sea within you and without you. The sea is in every breath you take in, every morsel you eat and every drop you drink. The sea is in every sound you hear and in every sound you make. The sea surrounds you, invades you, caresses you and sustains you. Everything in your world is made of the sea, even you yourself. The reason you cannot find the sea is because the sea is everywhere you look. You are born in the sea, live in the sea...and when you die...you will return to the sea. The sea is your life. The sea is all life."

My application of the above is with regard to Leviathans statement:

"In the end, we are merely an ordinary race of mammals that evolved intelligence as a survival trait, in an ordinary solar system on the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy. Our lives are merely blip on the eternity of the universe, and our problems are inconsequential to its function."

I do not find that either of our statements are incongruent with one another. Au contrare, I find them to match up perfectly. If we accept that the 'Universe' is sentient as I have describe, and that we are merely a portion within that sentience, while keeping in mind that the 'Universe' will continue to function irregardless of what actions we take, we should also keep in mind that it is the 'ordinariness' of our being that is significant, as the sheer numbers involved predispose that 'we are not alone'. The question you have to ask yourself...seriously...is how would the sudden appearance of an extraterrestrial intelligence affect your understanding of spirituality? Now ask the second question...What if 'they' told you 'they' were spiritual beings and find it puzzling that we can't see that 'we' are too!?~

JH

The only thing there John, is that Qi is energy. According to physical laws, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If this is true, it could be taken to mean that each bit of energy is also vital to the whole. Remember that some have called Qi to be vital energy.

In both Taoism and Buddhism, as well as other disciplines which strongly feature this concept, the individual is looked at as a piece of a larger whole. If the law of the Taiji is to be correct, and the Bagua is a correct illustration, each person would be a necessity because of the that person's place in either "fish" as it were.(Yin and Yang have sometimes been described as 'fish' due to the fact that they seem to swim about each other).

I don't know that I agree about us returning to the see upon death. Are you using sea as an illustration for universe?

Yes...the principle of conservation of energy does apply...at least in our 4 dimensional universe. This may or may not be true for higher or other dimensions (and we are looking at 11 now as the number needed to balance out all the equations...or so I'm told).

"I don't know that I agree about us returning to the see upon death. Are you using sea as an illustration for universe?"

Yes. Absolutely. You cannot be seperated from the universe...at least not at this stage. The concept of mind or personality being a construct of the universe at a quantum level instead of at a molecular one has finally started to catch on with the scientific community....since we now have M-theory. This only makes sense...and recent studies in NDE seems to confirm this.

JH

Thank you. I assumed as much but thought it more prudent to ask.

To clarify my position on the matter of spirituality, I believe that spirituality is a natural and positive (for the most part) aspect of humanity stemming out of our intelligence and curiousity concerning the universe. Although I'm a non-religious person, I am a spiritual person. However, I decided long ago that rather than follow the doctrines of an organized religion, I'd come to my own conclusions concerning the universe and my place in it. In a way, I feel that organized religion clouds spirituality within an individual. With it, one no longer tries to seek out the truth within themselves because the truth is written in a book, manuscript, or some other religious text. Not to mention, the texts that we read today have been rewritten thousands of times by priests and scholars and kings to fit the political realities of the day.

So, in summary, I'm simply saying that religion and spirituality are two separate entities and are often mutually exclusive.