The Taiji (太極) Concept & Confucianism.

[Qin'sEmporium]

Dear Members

Over the last two years or so, I have been engaged in acaemic research regarding the Book of Changes, the Taiji concept and its link to Confucianism. Of course, as you know already, the Yijing (Book of Changes) was incorporated into the Confucian Canon in 136BC - during the Eastern Han Dynasty. Officially at least, the book may be considered a Confucian Classic (along with the Records of Rites [LiJi), Book of Documents/History [Shujing, or ShangShu}, Book of Poetry {Shijing} and the Spring and Autumn Annals {Chunqiu}. There is often talk of a sixth book, the Record of Music {Yueji}, but this book is unknown today.

The taiji (Grand Ridge-pole) concept is beleived to have first been recorded in the Ten Wings, or 'commentaries' of the Book of Changes. These commentaries were not part of the original Book of Changes, (i.e. Zhouyi), that is thought to have been written or etched onto bamboo strips in around 900BC, but which was compiled from much earlier texts etched onto turtle shells and ox scapula bones, dating to at least the Shang Dynasty (1783BC-1122BC). The Book of Changes was old, even during the lifetime of Confucius. The ten commentaries appear to have been added slowly to the Book of Changes, perhaps over a 400 year time period - some scholars think longer. Possibly between about 400BC and 200AD. It is here that we first see the taiji concept, found within 5th and 6th commentaries section - together these two commentaries are called the Dazhuan, or 'Great Treatise'. This section dates from around the 3rd century BC.

Prior to this appearance, there already existed the taiyi concept - or 'Grand Oneness'. Again, this is found within the Liji, or Records of Rites, a Confucian Classic, but is also a name of a Daoist god, etc. The Grand Oneness and the Grand Ridge-ple maybe philosophicaly related. An interestign question arises: Should Taijiquan be viewed as a primarily Confucian martial art? And the Book of Changes used as a manual of deeper instruction?

Bear in mind that the yin-yang symbol - taiji tu - wasn't developed until at least the latter Song Dynasty (960–1127). Over a thousand years after the appearance of the taiji concept. And this development by the neo-Confucian scholars (Zhou Dunyi, Shao Yung and Zhi Xu) was essentially a super-imposing of a yin-yang ideal, over the taiji concept. In short, the yin-yang symbol represents the yin-yang ideal, and not the taiji concept. Zhou Dunyi's (1017-1073) taiji tu looks nothing like the modern symbol. He claims to have gained this symbol from the Daoist Chen Tuan (906-989AD). What Zhou did do however, was reverse the reading of the Chen's symbol.

It is a complex issue. Any comments woul dbe gratefully appreciated.

Thank you

[Doc Stier]

http://www.taopage.org/yinyang.html

[GrahamB]

The read the Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff which said Confucianism was bad, as well as Buddhism, and Taoism was good so Tai Chi must be Taoist. Stands to reason.

[Qin'sEmporium]

http://www.taopage.org/yinyang.html

Thank you for your post. By way of comparison, here is Zhou Dunyi's taiji yu;



Rounded yin-yang symbols seem to appear toward the latter Song (12th century), and not before this date (rounded symbols do exist prior to the Song, but they do not specifically represent yin-yang). Much literature on the subject, tends to confuse the yin-yang concept (which, acccording to Shaughnessy dates back to the 5th century BC), with the taiji symbol, which does not. And it is also interesting to note that not all taiji symbols were round, here is Shao yong's symbol;



Thank you

[Doc Stier]

Nice post, Qin.

Here's another version of the tai-ch-tu which blends the two ways of depicting the logo.



http://www.shenmentao.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=230

Doc

[GrahamB]

Or you could display it like this:

[Bao]

Prior to this appearance, there already existed the taiyi concept - or 'Grand Oneness'. Again, this is found within the Liji, or Records of Rites, a Confucian Classic, but is also a name of a Daoist god, etc. The Grand Oneness and the Grand Ridge-ple maybe philosophicaly related. An interestign question arises: Should Taijiquan be viewed as a primarily Confucian martial art? And the Book of Changes used as a manual of deeper instruction?

Bear in mind that the yin-yang symbol - taiji tu - wasn't developed until at least the latter Song Dynasty (960–1127). Over a thousand years after the appearance of the taiji concept. And this development by the neo-Confucian scholars (Zhou Dunyi, Shao Yung and Zhi Xu) was essentially a super-imposing of a yin-yang ideal, over the taiji concept. In short, the yin-yang symbol represents the yin-yang ideal, and not the taiji concept. Zhou Dunyi's (1017-1073) taiji tu looks nothing like the modern symbol. He claims to have gained this symbol from the Daoist Chen Tuan (906-989AD). What Zhou did do however, was reverse the reading of the Chen's symbol.

Zhou Dunyi who created the "taiji tu" and wrote "taiji tu shou" was foremost a confucian scholar. He also did a lot of work on the Yijing. But most people throughout the history who added or commented on the Yijing were confucian scholars. The basic concepts of the Yijing was interpreteed differently by daoists and confucianism. The Yijing in itself could be called a confucianist interpretation of chinese philisophical concepts. So you are right in the sense that we use the "taiji" theory in Taijiquan in a confucian way. Taijiquan is partially daoism, partially confucian and there are also some buddhist influence. To call the Yijing an instruction manual though is wrong, because it is much, much earlier than Taijiquan.

Considering the confucianism inherited in taijiquan, we should be clear that the late confucianism, Songxue or Neo-Confucianism, is very different from the old cofucianism. I really like this quote from the Wikipedia:

There were many competing views within the Neo-Confucian community, but overall, a system emerged that resembled both Buddhist and Taoist (Daoist) thought of the time and some of the ideas expressed in the Book of Changes (I Ching) as well as other yin yang theories associated with the Taiji symbol (Taijitu). A well known Neo-Confucian motif is paintings of Confucius, Buddha, and Lao Tzu all drinking out of the same vinegar jar, paintings associated with the slogan "The three teachings are one!"

Taijiquan seems to be much an expression of the "Xinxue" (school of mind) branch of songxue . I think the teaching of the philosopher who it seems to correspond best to is Wang YangMing who constructeed a "philosophy of action":

Wang believed that only through simultaneous action could one gain knowledge and denied all other ways of gaining it. To him, there was no way to use knowledge after gaining it because he believed that knowledge and action were unified as one. Any knowledge that had been gained then put into action was considered delusion or false.

[Daniel]

Two good sources for deepening the understanding of what Yijing is, are these:

Schutskii, of course: Researches on the I Ching, very out of print by now. Might be found secondhand.

And Stephen Karcher, who in his Total Yijing (bad title, great book) have translated both the Zhouyi and the Confucian version side-by-side, included the then views on what the hexagrams would mean and a go-through of the old characters associated with each. I have met him, and he has done even more research after this book, but the market is full and no-one wants to publish it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Total-I-Ching-M ... 293&sr=1-1

It might also be pointed out that daoist spiritual lineages who are more complete have a wealth of information on how you use the Yijing for practice, with very pragmatic techniques, and not as an oracle book. This is probably not very visible in the more popular chinese writings on the subject.

Best of luck with your research.



D.

Sarcasm. Oh yeah, like that´ll work.

[Little Bai]

Taijiquan seems to be much an expression of the "Xinxue" (school of mind) branch of songxue . I think the teaching of the philosopher who it seems to correspond best to is Wang YangMing who constructeed a "philosophy of action"

That is something Taiji peeps should think about. It relates the article by Douglas Wile where he traces the "Daoistification" of Taijiquan over the last one-hundred-and-something years. Not that there were no Daoist influences, but they were not nearly as obvious as today's practioners want to believe. The Daoist philosophical elements that are part of the Taijiquan theory were all part of the Neo-Confucian tradition, since they drew heavy influence from (Chan-)Buddhism and Daoism, although most official scholars would never acknowledge that - these "popular religions" were considered an improper field of study for a Confucian scholar (although many obviously did study them).
Chen-tradition has it that Chen Wangting combined martial arts with daoyin and tuna (among other things), so there you have a more genuine Daoist connection. But not all daoyin is necesseraly Daoist, although it probably originated among Daoists or Daoist-like people. However, just like other components of the Daoist religion, neigong practices were adopted by other traditions, like Chan-Buddhism for example.
Keeping all of this in mind, it makes Dan Docherty's comment about Chen-style not being Taijiquan because it has Buddhist influences (Jingang dao dui; Jingang being translated as Buddha's Warrior) all the more ridiculuos. Sure, after Taijiquan has been artificially seperated from its Confucian and Buddhist origins/influences and a strong Daoist connection established, older forms of Taijiquan may seem anachronistic, because they still retain this "eclectic" character.

[Qin'sEmporium]

Or you could display it like this:

Dear GrahamB

thank you for your posts. I have always found it curious, when Wilhelm (and others) say that the yin-yang symbol may not be distinctly Chinese. Wilhelm (i Ching), states that it is, or has been used in both Europe and India. Another author (Javary) even claims that the symbol is found in gothic churches.

When I discussed this with another scholar, he said it all depends what one interprets a 'yin-yang' symbol to be! However, human development worldwide, has always incorporated the depiction of concepts in symbols.

Thank you

[Qin'sEmporium]

Dear Bao

Thank you for your very well researched post, and the for the time you have taken to post on this thread. I shall pass one or two comments on what you have written.

As the core text of the Book of Changes (Zhouyi), is believed to have been etched onto bamboo strips around 900BC, and the Shang-Yin ox/turtle bones are much older even than this date, the Zhouyi (minus the Ben Jing - or Ten Wings {xiyi} section) pre-dates both Confucianism and Daoism, and reflects at least a Shang-Yin shamanic view of the world. Which was of course, developed through the filter of Zhou Dynasty thinking effectively from 'de' to 'tian', etc.

The Daoist Canon (Dao Zang) was not compiled until about the 5 century AD, the Yijing offers important knowledge ofthe early Chinese thought. And as regards schools, I found your comments very interesting, and would add that an independent school of literature and philosophy grew out of Yijing studies, namely yixue.

As to the origins of taijquan - the Song Dynasty appears to be a water-shed. Chinese records say that there existed a style of taiji martial arts prior to the Song - a system that must have been very different to the post-Song taiji that originated with the Chen family of Henan. Prior tot he Song Dynasty, the taiji concept was not associated with the yin-yang diagram. Infact, the yin-yang diagram as we know it today, did not exist as a distinct symbol - although other symbols did exist. The neo-Confucian scholars super-imposed a yin-yang symbolic philosophy over a taiji concept. A taiji concept that operates on its own, without the requirement of a yin-yang sybolism.

Therefore, the pre-Song taiji could well have been the product of a taiji concept as yet unsullied by yin-yang symbolism. And the post-Song taijiquan, very much a product of yin-yang symbology. Two arts that share a common name, but probably not a common philosophy. Infact, a practitioner of pre-Song taiji so excelled on the battlefield, that he was granted land. Obviously, this system must have been practical and very different from modern taijiquan. Strictly speaking, the taiji concept (created in the Ten Wings), exists independent of the requirement for yin-yang re-interpretation.

The pre-Song Yijing remains a Confucian developed interpretation of Shang-Yin shamanism. The word 'Dao' was used in the comentaries, but in a distinctly Confucian manner. If we assume that the name of the pre-Song taiji was taken from the book that contains the philosophical concept - the Yijing - it would be logical to assume that it was based upon the teachings found in that book. Post-Song taijiquan may well have been based only on a neo-Confucian re-interpretation of the taiji concept, as an expression of the yin-yang ideal - this latter manifestation, ironically, could be argued to be more Daoist in expression.

Thank you

[Qin'sEmporium]

Taijiquan seems to be much an expression of the "Xinxue" (school of mind) branch of songxue . I think the teaching of the philosopher who it seems to correspond best to is Wang YangMing who constructeed a "philosophy of action"

That is something Taiji peeps should think about. It relates the article by Douglas Wile where he traces the "Daoistification" of Taijiquan over the last one-hundred-and-something years. Not that there were no Daoist influences, but they were not nearly as obvious as today's practioners want to believe. The Daoist philosophical elements that are part of the Taijiquan theory were all part of the Neo-Confucian tradition, since they drew heavy influence from (Chan-)Buddhism and Daoism, although most official scholars would never acknowledge that - these "popular religions" were considered an improper field of study for a Confucian scholar (although many obviously did study them).
Chen-tradition has it that Chen Wangting combined martial arts with daoyin and tuna (among other things), so there you have a more genuine Daoist connection. But not all daoyin is necesseraly Daoist, although it probably originated among Daoists or Daoist-like people. However, just like other components of the Daoist religion, neigong practices were adopted by other traditions, like Chan-Buddhism for example.
Keeping all of this in mind, it makes Dan Docherty's comment about Chen-style not being Taijiquan because it has Buddhist influences (Jingang dao dui; Jingang being translated as Buddha's Warrior) all the more ridiculuos. Sure, after Taijiquan has been artificially seperated from its Confucian and Buddhist origins/influences and a strong Daoist connection established, older forms of Taijiquan may seem anachronistic, because they still retain this "eclectic" character.

Thank you Little Bai!

Very interesting. The pre-Song Confucian scholars essentially perpetuated the reverence for the past that Confucius himself is believed to have had. They kept a distinct separation between the teachings of Confucius, from that of Buddhism and Daoism. This changed with the neo-Confucians of the Song Dynasty whom set about re-interpreting the way things had been up until that time, in history. They integrated the Daoist concept of yin-yang, with the Confucian concept of the taiji. From that point onward, the two concepts have been presented as if they were interchangeable, and created at the sametime. This has meant that the yin-yang symbol today, although referred as the 'taiji tu', is in infact only a yin-yang expression of things, and has nothing to do with the taiji concept. Prior to the Song Dynasty, taiji was written with Chinese ideograms, and never with symbolic diagrams.

Thank you

[Qin'sEmporium]

Nice post, Qin.

Here's another version of the tai-ch-tu which blends the two ways of depicting the logo.



http://www.shenmentao.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=230

Doc

Dear Doc

Thank you for your excellent post! I shall contemplate this image and post again.

[Qin'sEmporium]

Dear Doc

Thank you for your diagram. It appears to be an integration fothe retangular diagram of Shao Yong, and the roundel of the late Song Dynasty. It looks like a fengshui symbol and I am intrigued by the characters around the edge!

Incidently, I thought I would include here Zhou Dunyi's taiji (again), and Chen tuan's taiji - for comparison;





Thank you

[Martin2]

Hello everybody,

just a little note.

If one looks closely at the Taichi-classics (e.g. texts before 1900), one can clearly identify that they build up on following traditions (as far as I can see it):

Conficiansm: concepts, technical terms and a lot of citations from the Confucius, Zhou Dunyi and so on
Daoism: concepts, technical terms
Buddhism: concepts. technical terms
Strategists (like Sunzi, Wuzi): concepts, technical terms, citations
general philosophical texts (Like the Book of Changes): concepts, technical terms

So it looks like Taijiquan literature is a blend of a lot of ideas. No wonder. A lot of Taichi-masters were working for the goverment (so Confucianists) and as the Chinese say: A gentleman is a Confucianist at his desk and at home a daoist.

Thus, they had this blending of ideas in their blood. This blending of the ideas good its own name in philosophy and is called "the sanjiao (three schools: Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism)."
I think, the Taichi masters were aware of it. How is it stated in the " The Oral Transmission of Zhang Sanfeng (text 39 of the Secret text of the Yang family):

We know that the theory in all three schools (sanjiao) has the same principle.

Greetings

Martin2