20121006

貫通儒釋道的六種方法

國學大師南懷瑾精通儒釋道,不只精通,還能將三者融會貫通,字以蔽之,就是「佛為心,道為骨,儒為表」。然而,南大師的貫通之道,未必人人受落;同意者,會這樣理解字真言:

懷著慈悲的心腸和普渡眾生的宏願,卻又不為名利事業心所拘,精神上仍是逍遙自在的,而在行事為人的表現上,則恪守日用倫常的規矩,仁義禮智勇兼備。

這種境界,實在令人神往。然而,反對者卻可能會另有理解:

空有慈悲的心腸和普渡眾生的宏願,骨子裏寧願放浪形駭、率性而行可是,在表面上則裝出一副為民請命、雖千萬人吾往矣的姿態

這就是虛偽,甚至是雙重的虛偽了(佛和道之間是一重虛偽,道和儒之間又有一重虛偽),要不得!

不過,就算我們不喜歡南大師貫通儒釋道的方法,也應該多謝他間接提供了其他的貫通方法 ---「佛、道、儒」三項加「心、骨、表」三項,共有六個(不重複、不計次序的)可能的組合:

(1)  佛為心,道為骨,儒為表
(2)  佛為心,儒為骨,道為表
(3)  道為心,佛為骨,儒為表
(4)  道為心,儒為骨,佛為表
(5)  儒為心,道為骨,佛為表
(6)  儒為心,佛為骨,道為表

南大師的貫通方法只是其中之 (1),如不喜歡,可以在 (2)-(6) 選擇一個,各自詮釋、各自修行、各自精彩。

本人較嚮往 (6) 

心靈上是無入而不自得、從心所欲不踰矩,歸根究底就是要斷除生老病死等人生種種的苦痛,而在生活中表現出因其固然、以無厚入有間的瀟灑自如。

做到這樣,比南大師的境界不會相差得太遠吧

94 則留言:

  1. 點講都難免會有雙重虛偽甚至三重虛偽情況。

    儒心道表,即係本身好鬼唔放卻又要扮放,落老蘭飲橙汁。

    儒心佛骨,即係本身好鬼親建制卻又要學人反建制。

    至於道表佛骨, 再想....

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 不一定,也有自圓其說的方法的。

      刪除
  2. 其實美國有冇你之前講兩岸三地的大師現象? 或者有冇咁嚴重?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 美國也有很多所謂 gurus,但都不是學術界的。

      刪除
  3. 王教授抽水也抽得有型過人.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 抽了又不認.文人相輕,閃閃縮縮.

      南先生人生經驗豐富,吃鹽多過你吃米,他講古仔大家喜歡聼.

      你所謂學術論文只是小圈子流通 which purpose is only to be presented in international conferences ie junket tours on public expense.

      刪除
    2. 上面那句只是開玩笑式的反問,我怎會不認?

      你喜歡聽南大師講古仔是你的自由,我批評他是我的自由。

      學術論文如何小圈子流通也好,至少不是信口開河騙人。

      刪除
    3. 大家在這一齊吹吹水,不用搞這麽嚴重,連香港核心價值之一都搬出來。

      除了幾本學術性著作如《禅海蠡测》, 大多數書是南先生演講整理出來的。人地擺明車馬說的是自己的見解及實修經驗,(xx別裁,xx雜説,我說xx,xx旁通), 你冇睇過就亂up, 沒學術精神的是你吧?

      佛家,道家,佛教,道教 all developed from mysticism. 學佛不實修,學儒道不修心養性,大玩“學術”文字遊戲,信口開河,誤人子弟呀,教授。

      撇開其它不說,至少南先生以儒釋道道理引人為善你沒意見吧?其實你不喜人地被稱爲“大師”而不停單單打打。

      如果你對社會有同樣正面影響, 我也不介意尊稱你一聲王大師/仙。

      刪除
    4. //除了幾本學術性著作如《禅海蠡测》, 大多數書是南先生演講整理出來的。人地擺明車馬說的是自己的見解及實修經驗,(xx別裁,xx雜説,我說xx,xx旁通), 你冇睇過就亂up, 沒學術精神的是你吧?//

      - 他的書我從沒看過原整的一本,但這裏那裏也看過一點(但每每看兩三頁已「頂唔順」他的「自由發揮」),所以我對南懷瑾的批評也不是無的放矢、隨口胡說的。

      如果「擺明車馬說的是自己的見解及實修經驗」就可以不顧原典的文字而隨意發揮,這樣搞學術也太易了吧。

      //撇開其它不說,至少南先生以儒釋道道理引人為善你沒意見吧?//

      - 引人為善我當然沒意見,很多童話故事、民間傳說、箴言家訓也引人為善,我也是沒意見的。

      //如果你對社會有同樣正面影響, 我也不介意尊稱你一聲王大師/仙。//

      - 我沒有當大師的學問,也沒有騙人稱我為大師的技倆,而且根本不想當大師。

      刪除
    5. //如果「擺明車馬說的是自己的見解及實修經驗」就可以不顧原典的文字而隨意發揮,這樣搞學術也太易了吧。//

      我反而想問﹐你那句搞學術﹐究竟是甚麼意思﹖
      讀大學拎沙紙﹐在大學謀個教職﹐然後投稿國際學術期刊
      才算搞學術﹖

      其次﹐「佛為心,道為骨,儒為表」這三句﹐請問又如何不顧原典的文字﹐如何隨意發揮﹖

      其三﹐你沒看過他的那些書先不論﹐單談你批他談太極拳那篇﹐除了你咬住他奇遇那段鞭屍外﹐他談太極拳那部份﹐究竟錯乜先﹖

      刪除
  4. 小時很喜歡看南懷瑾的書, 現在看來得啖笑

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 小朋友看看也無大害,只要不是怪力亂神那些便成了。

      刪除
  5. 看他在Youtube上演講,手中一支煙,桌上放兩包的煙剷模樣,很難聯想到是一個清心寡欲的修行者。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 橫看豎看,他都江胡味十足。

      刪除
    2. Maybe those are special cigarettes made with incense. The more one inhales, the sooner he goes to heaven. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    3. 「中華牌」大陸煙。
      https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/c0.0.400.400/p403x403/485674_454530471251772_241157750_n.jpg

      刪除
    4. definitely 中華 incense, leading you to Chinese heaven. lol. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    5. 呢隻中華算平﹐我唔記得實價﹐而家好似十元
      而家有隻軟包中華﹐賣75。

      刪除
    6. 佛在世時也了鼻屎,擦蘿友, 不是分分鐘都莊嚴樣的

      刪除
    7. 匿名10/09/2012 4:33 下午,
      //佛在世時也了鼻屎,擦蘿友// That's only bad manners at worst. But smoking in front of other people is forcing them to have second-hand smoking. You can't really put them in the same category, can you? --zpdrmn

      刪除
    8. zpdrmn,

      You are missing the point. We are not talking about second hand smoking nor bad manners.

      You had made a comment somewhere that Mr Nan doesn't understand Buddhism.

      "佛在世時也了鼻屎,擦蘿友" .... work this out son.


      刪除
    9. S,
      I think that you don't get my point. I'm talking about being considerate. Work this out. I think for a //修行者//, (using Chris's "description" of 南懷瑾), being considerate is more important than just being //莊嚴//, as what you're talking about. I don't really care about 莊嚴. Maybe you do. Then you do your 修行 in your own way. //了鼻屎,擦蘿友// So what?
      //You had made a comment somewhere that Mr Nan doesn't understand Buddhism.//
      I say he doesn't get it. I'm not talking about understanding. I always talk about practice. If you have read some of my comments I left on other entries of Wong's blog, you will see that.
      Even if I talk about understanding, I have this question for you: Not being considerate is a good indication of understanding Buddhism?? Is that what you say?
      Also, I guess the Buddha didn't 擦蘿友 in front of others but in private. Maybe he 了鼻屎 in front of others. But if that was acceptable then in his society, it wasn't being inconsiderate. Even if it is bad manner, it didn't do any harm to others. But Mr. Nan smoked in front of others. Whether it's an acceptable manner or not, there was potential bad health consequences to others. He wanted to kill himself, fine! But don't poison other people.
      Let's say, the Buddha 了鼻屎 in front of others. Is that a reason for you to 了鼻屎 in front of others too? What kind of reasoning is that? We have to copy everything the Buddha did? If the Buddha 擦蘿友 in front of others, we just copy? If the Buddha smoked in front of others, we just copy? What kind of 修行 is that? Blindly follow?
      I am not sure if the Buddha got it too. But as a 修行者, it doesn't matter if the Buddha got it or not, one just does his practice.
      Are you a Father or a guru? Why used the word son? Are you being condescending? Do it on your own son(s).
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
    10. zpdrmn,

      just relax would you...

      you still don't get it. My comment is about Christ's take on 修行者 and 清心寡欲.

      Perhaps you should start a new thread on Second hand smoking and ill manners.







      刪除
    11. S,
      How are 清心寡欲 and your //了鼻屎,擦蘿友// related?? How are 修行 and your //了鼻屎,擦蘿友// related?? Everybody ////了鼻屎,擦蘿友//. Everybody breathe. How are then breathing and 修行 related?? Humor me. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    12. you accused Mr Nan of not getting it. You implied you get Buddhism. If you do get Buddhism, then my points should be obivious to you, if not please consult with your own master/guru.

      刪除
    13. S,
      you are not answering my questions. You don't want to discuss, fine. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    14. S,
      I don't imply anything. However, have you considered the case that I don't get it and he didn't get it. It is not a must that to recognize someone who doesn't get it one has to get it first. That's why I ask you questions, because I don't get what you've said. Why don't you explain your point(s)? --zpdrmn

      刪除
  6. 低層次回覆,係九字蔽定六字蔽之?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 懵盛盛,不知何故打了「六」字,已改正。謝謝。

      刪除
    2. 那麼還有下一句要改,"六字真言"應作"九字真言"。

      刪除
    3. 呀,真不小心!改了,謝謝。

      刪除
  7. // 本人較嚮往 (6) :儒為心,佛為骨,道為表
    心靈上是無入而不自得、從心所欲不踰矩,歸根究底就是要斷除生老病死等人生種種的苦痛,而在生活中表現出因其固然、以無厚入有間的瀟灑自如。//
    正如王Sir提及,解釋可能有正反兩種,
    上述解釋可能適合於中國大陸以外的環境,而在中國大陸以內的環境或有另外一種解釋:

    儒為心--中國有句俗話:「九儒十丐」,儒被中國歷代統治者視為“臭老九”,在中國又豈能從心所欲?

    佛為骨--佛為萬法皆空,骨(氣)何在?

    道為表--「道貌岸然」的外表?(不少官員都有一副「假正經」的外表,似乎也算不上是太好的外表)

    (講下笑)

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 對,(1)-(6)都可以有正反的理解。

      刪除
  8. after 融會貫通 how can we still distinguish what is in 心, what's in 骨, and what's in 表. Should it be a big mushy mess? Just kidding. --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
  9. 「道」還要分為老莊之道還是道家修練成仙之道。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 對,不過我假定他是講老莊之道。

      刪除
  10. 近期陶傑吹捧南懷瑾,竟至稱為「最後一位國學大師」之地步,雖好笑,不過以如此「才子」捧如此「大師」,亦相當匹配。另,之前上過王sir英文blog,忘記save底,可否上傳連結?HKL

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 陶傑甚至說南懷瑾對西方哲學也有很深的認識,我看也是胡謅。

      英文blog;Hummings in the Fly-Bottle

      刪除
  11. //這種境界,實在令人神往。然而,反對者卻可能會另有理解:

    空有慈悲的心腸和普渡眾生的宏願,骨子裏卻寧願放浪形駭、率性而行,可是,在表面上則裝出一副為民請命、雖千萬人吾往矣的姿態。//

    大佬﹐你又搞笑啊﹖
    你話人9up前﹐你自己唔好9up先得ga~
    儒釋道的道﹐是道教非道家啊!
    「道為骨」點可以解作「放浪形駭、率性而行」﹖

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你唔係呀嘛,我擺明亂噏,你都同我拗?

      刪除
    2. 正經啲,其實「儒釋道」不一定指「儒釋道三教」,也可指「儒釋道三家思想」,而且講貫通的,多是指後者。

      刪除
    3. 問題係﹕你覺得南懷謹似講緊道家咩﹖

      又﹐我一直認為傳統中國裡﹐士人作為特權階級﹐他們和民間一直存在著文化鴻溝的。
      士人的「儒釋道」的道﹐可能是道家﹐但民間決不可能是道家﹐而是講求神仙保祐的道教。
      因為民間連識字率都唔高﹐又會有幾多人會明老莊學說講乜東東﹖
      相反﹐道教本身便甚有原始民間多神信仰的色彩﹐只是將老子神化而取名為道﹐它後來將佛家宇宙觀抄為己用﹐形成一套既講儒家孝義﹐又講佛家慈悲﹐實際上十分功利的民間儒道佛合一的信仰體系。

      我覺得南懷謹說的﹐是這麼的一回事。

      刪除
    4. 南懷謹係國學大師呀,你話佢屬於民間?

      刪除
    5. 你那種文人相輕心態﹐我就唔多評論la

      不過﹐才子啊﹑國學大師呢類term﹐本身就好民間la~~

      民間不學無術﹑高分低能之輩何其多﹖
      麥玲玲羅更都唔識拎﹐都比人叫風水大師啦﹖
      南懷謹比人叫國學大師﹐有咩咁神奇先﹖

      你轉行做文字販的話﹐分分鐘好似李某人一樣﹐被封為哲學大師﹖(爆)

      刪除
    6. 我點會文人相輕?我佩服嘅文人都不知幾多,同輩嘅亦不少,你唔知啫!

      你唔好岔開講,南懷謹是否配稱國學大師係另一回事,但係佢寫學術著作就係鐵一般嘅事實。

      刪除
    7. 如果講南懷謹的話﹐我第一個問題已經好清晰
      南懷謹口中的道﹐似是講道家還是道教﹖

      刪除
    8. 看看南懷瑾看重的是道家還是道教:〈何为道家的精、气、神〉

      刪除
    9. 車﹐佢夠有本《中國道教發展史略》lor~~

      刪除
    10. 佢仲有本《静坐修道與長生不老》添啊~~
      學道家要修道﹐我真係聞所未聞囉

      刪除
    11. 你梗係冇睇篇文,佢話「汉、魏以后的道教,是以道家学术思想的内容做中心,采集《书经》系统的天道观念,加入杂家学说与民间的信仰,构成神秘性的宗教思想」,即係道家為本,道教為末啦。

      刪除
    12. 我懷疑你沒甚麼看過他的書
      我再給你看看他說的「道家」是麼子事﹕

      《静坐修道與長生不老》第33章 道家與密宗有關氣脈的不同圖案

      中國道家的氣脈之說一,由書有明文的莊子“養生主”篇中提出“緣督以為經”與“中於經首之會”的概念開始,就一向被認為“任”“督”二脈為修煉靜坐的要點所在。其實,除了以“任”“督”二脈為主脈而外,最要緊的,還是以“奇經八脈”為全部氣脈的中心體系。
      現在讓我們看看中國道家中奇經八脈的分布路線。根據黃帝內經,難經的記述,綜合整理如下:

      (一)督脈:督脈分布路線共有四條:(1)起於會陰部,循脊柱向上分布,至頸後風府穴處,入腦,上行至腦巔頂,沿頭額下行,達鼻柱。(2)起於少腹胞中,下抵陰器、會陰部、經尾閭骨端,斜繞臀部,入腎髒。(3)起於目內眥處,上額、頭頂部、入絡於腦,又分別下頸項,沿脊柱兩旁下行至腰中。(4)從少腹直上,過肚臍,上連貫心髒、進入喉部、上達面頰、繞唇、抵目下中央部位(分布見圖)。

      (二)任脈:任脈分布路線共有二條:(1)起於少腹部臍下四寸的中極穴,沿腹、胸部正中線直上達咽喉,再上行頰部,經面部入眼部。(2)由胞中貫脊,上行於背部(分布見圖)。

      (三)衝脈:衝脈分布路線有五條:(1)從少腹內部淺出於恥骨外二寸的氣衝穴,與足少經腎經並合上行(任脈外一寸),抵胸中後彌漫散布。(2)衝脈自胸中分散後,又向上行到鼻。(3)脈氣由腹部輸注於腎下,淺出氣衝,沿大腿內側進入腘窩中,經脛骨內緣,到內踝後面;達足底。(4)從脛骨內緣斜下行,到足跗上,分布於足大趾(5)由少腹的胞中;向內貫脊,循行於背部(分布見圖)。

      (四)帶脈:帶脈起於十四椎,當季脅部下面,環行橫繞腰腹,約相當於系腰帶的一圈(分布見圖)。

      (五)陽[足喬]脈:陽[足喬]脈起於足外踝下的申脈穴,沿外踝後向上,經股外側,分布於脅肘,循行於肩膊外側,沿頸,上抵口吻旁,達目內眥,入發際,循耳後,到達風池穴,由腦後兩筋間的風府穴入腦(分布見圖)。

      (六)陰[足喬]脈:陽[足喬]脈起於內踝下的照海穴,循內踝,股內側,過陰部,循行至胸前,沿喉嚨入面部,抵目內眥,再上行至腦(分布見圖)。

      (七)陽維脈:陽維脈起於諸陽經的交會處、即起於足外踝下的金門穴,上沿股外側,抵腰側部,斜上肩胛處,上頸後,分布至耳後,到頭額處,再循行至耳上方,到頸後風府穴(分布見圖)。

      (八)陰維脈:陰維脈起於諸陰經交會處,即內踝後上五寸的築賓穴,上沿腿、股內側,進入少腹部,上連胸部,抵咽喉兩旁,與任脈會合


      你究竟當這些是道家﹐還是道教﹖

      刪除
    13. 我直頭冇睇過佢啲書啦!我唔係同你拗南懷瑾對道家嘅理解是否正確,我只係話佢以道家為本,以道教為末。

      刪除
    14. 我根本沒拗過南懷瑾對道家的理解是否正確
      而係話南懷瑾口中的道家﹐查實是道教﹐即修道成仙那套。

      正因如此﹐南懷瑾才會講甚麼劍氣﹑神通之類﹐那類你話他9up的東東

      刪除
    15. 仲有﹐你連他的書都未看過
      你憑乜話人亂up先﹖
      又﹐你又認為金庸小說中談的東東﹐沒參考過道教典籍﹐純粹老作﹖

      刪除
    16. //我根本沒拗過南懷瑾對道家的理解是否正確//

      - 唉,「你究竟當這些是道家﹐還是道教﹖」這句就是指南懷瑾說的道家其實是道教,你既然嚴分道家道教,那還不是說南懷瑾對道家的理解錯誤?

      刪除
    17. //仲有﹐你連他的書都未看過
      你憑乜話人亂up先﹖//

      - 你夠冇幫陳雲睇過病,又話人黐線?

      //又﹐你又認為金庸小說中談的東東﹐沒參考過道教典籍﹐純粹老作﹖//

      - 又關金庸乜嘢事呀?

      刪除
    18. //唉,「你究竟當這些是道家﹐還是道教﹖」這句就是指南懷瑾說的道家其實是道教,你既然嚴分道家道教,那還不是說南懷瑾對道家的理解錯誤?//

      甚麼理解錯誤﹖
      道教中人一向這樣談道家典籍的﹐你信唔信班道士的說話﹐又另一回事
      只是你以為人家談道家﹐就一定是談人生觀和政治觀那部份咋嘛﹖

      而《莊子》〈養生主〉中﹐確實有「緣督以為經」這句啊﹕
      「為善無近名,為惡無近刑,緣督以為經,可以保身,可以全生,可以養親,可以盡年。」

      刪除
    19. //你夠冇幫陳雲睇過病,又話人黐線?//

      問題是﹐我有看過他的著作和文章嘛﹖
      而你批他的那篇文﹐你可以當怪談﹐但你憑乜說他唔係親身見證的神秘體驗﹐而係純粹老作先﹖

      //又關金庸乜嘢事呀?//

      梗係關事﹐金庸說的很多武術招式﹐都是參考道教和民間聲稱的失傳武學﹐不是憑空幻想出來的。

      問題回到最根本﹐點解你斷定神通﹑劍氣這類失傳武學﹐必然是假的﹖
      你唔信道教的武術和養生概念﹐你練太極把托呀﹖(爆)

      刪除
    20. 那就沒問題了。我只是認為南懷瑾的「道為骨」是說道家,然後討論那「佛為心,道為骨,儒為表」可以有甚麼意思。南懷瑾怎樣理解道家,與我說的根本不相干。

      刪除
    21. 將太極拳和道教扯上關係,就證明你不懂太極拳。你估太極拳真係張三丰創嘅咩!

      刪除
    22. 但很明顯﹐你說的道家﹐根本不是南懷瑾那種帶有道教色彩的道家﹐才會將「道為骨」曲解作「骨子裏卻寧願放浪形駭、率性而行」

      刪除
    23. //將太極拳和道教扯上關係,就證明你不懂太極拳。你估太極拳真係張三丰創嘅咩!//

      超﹐你學陳家太極﹐實將太極吹成陳王廷所創㗎!(爆)
      再講太極十三勢﹐都要講行氣
      那我問你﹐氣不是道教武術概念﹐是甚麼﹖

      刪除
    24. 太極拳要配合吐納,但不一定要相信有氣這回事。

      刪除
    25. 你唔信﹐定係陳式太極本身唔需要練氣﹖
      你練一門氣功﹐唔信內氣外發﹐你話你搞唔搞笑﹖(閃)

      仲有﹐你學過太極﹐又話我唔識囉
      咁你不如講講太極十三勢係邊十三勢﹐有咩道教含義﹖
      同埋拳名點解要取名太極啦﹖

      刪除
    26. 我不信氣這回事,陳式太極拳只須配合逆式呼吸,不必練甚麼氣。還有,太極拳不是氣功。

      太極十三勢,你隨便 google 也可找到大量資料,不必我講了。「太極拳」一名的由來,眾說紛紜,扯上道教,大多是穿鑿附會。

      刪除
    27. 真爆炸﹐你寫個西洋term﹐又諗住學人呃細路呀﹖
      所謂逆式呼吸﹐其實咪即係練緊「氣聚丹田」lor~~

      又﹐正所謂內練一口氣﹐外練筋骨皮
      太極拳是內家權﹐你學太極不練氣﹐你就唔係學緊太極拳﹐而係耍緊太極操!

      至於陳家太極唔洗練氣
      我都費事同你拗﹐反正我又唔知你有無跟錯師
      你自己睇睇陳式第19代掌門陳小旺是怎說的﹕
      http://www.tjqxx.com/

      仲有﹐太極唔屬氣功﹖咁練站樁﹐唔知算乜呢﹖
      你唔係開心到以為練氣軟功﹐先叫氣功呀嘛﹖
      定你連站樁都唔洗練﹐好似維園阿伯﹐是是但但跟住一大棚人﹐人點做你就點做﹐就叫學過太極﹖

      至於太極十三勢﹐我即場背比你聽都得﹐洗乜谷歌呢﹖
      我家陣是問你十三勢有咩道教含義嘛﹖

      你識就答識﹐唔識唔立亂話人家穿鑿附會
      你既然用得穿鑿附會呢個咁嚴重的指控﹐請你列出證明。

      問題返去最根本﹐你話南懷謹寫果篇太極亂up
      撇除他奇遇部份﹐他亂up了些甚麼﹖

      講真﹐我話你文人相輕﹐已是很客氣。

      刪除
    28. 學太極不練氣,到老一場空。

      刪除
    29. 如果站樁和逆式呼吸就是「練氣」,那我也有「練氣」;我說沒有練氣,意思是我沒有嘗試練成體內有一鼓叫「氣」的神秘東西,因為我根本不相信有這東西。

      掤、履、擠、按;採、挒、肘、靠,進、退、顧、盼、定都是手法、步法、或身法,跟八卦五行等扯上關係,不過是將武術玄化。

      //問題返去最根本﹐你話南懷謹寫果篇太極亂up
      撇除他奇遇部份﹐他亂up了些甚麼﹖//

      - 奇遇是亂噏,就是亂噏了。

      //講真﹐我話你文人相輕﹐已是很客氣。//

      - 文少,你不必對我客氣,無謂委屈自己。

      刪除
    30. 站樁逆式呼吸 are processes which cultivates the 「氣」. It is not the end to itself.

      Why try to change the 語境 of something which fundamental to the essense of Taichi?

      If a real Taichi master acknowledge the existence and importance of Qi in the practice, your stubborn refusual to accept the concept is nothing more than .... stubbornness.

      刪除
    31. What exactly is 「氣」? The Tai Chi masters I know don't believe in Qi. I think it's your gullibility that is the problem, not my stubbornness.

      刪除
    32. 即使有氣這回事(例如是一種生物力量),那些劍仙、劍氣,凌空斷樹,鼻息吹動塵土飛揚等等,都是太荒誕了。

      刪除
    33. "What exactly is 「氣」? The Tai Chi masters I know don't believe in Qi. "

      http://www.tjqxx.com/bencandy.php?fid=43&id=757

      Perhaps you are practicing some fancy modern 拳術called 王家拳? It is definitely not Taichi.

      IMHO, the masters you are referring to are quacks.

      刪除
    34. Well, I learned the Chan style, and I was the champion in a Tai Chi open competition (doing the form only) in Hong Kong some years ago. Of course, if you think one has to believe in qi to be doing "real" Tai Chi, it's your belief, what can I say?

      刪除
    35. //如果站樁和逆式呼吸就是「練氣」,那我也有「練氣」//

      自己練內家拳﹐又搞笑到話唔信有氣
      練站樁﹐又話自己無練氣功
      將呢堆拳術概念﹐整堆西洋科學term來解釋﹐將氣聚丹田講成逆式呼吸﹐將練氣寫成透過鍛煉增加你的TLC
      哦﹐你就話有囉﹖

      你真趣怪﹐令我諗起香港那些奶粉和西藥廣告﹐凸登寫些PHA﹑PA﹐等班師奶覺得好pro﹐於是便傻更更走去買。

      //我說沒有練氣,意思是我沒有嘗試練成體內有一鼓叫「氣」的神秘東西,因為我根本不相信有這東西。//

      唔該﹐我幾時話過「氣」是一股神秘東西先﹖
      事實上﹐現在大陸也有人用人體力學原理去解釋甚麼叫氣勁的﹐包括中國武術協會。
      你咁鍾意講科學﹐又係教授﹐自己查
      你自己唔識﹐唔好掉返轉頭窒我﹐話我唔識﹐OK﹖

      //掤、履、擠、按;採、挒、肘、靠,進、退、顧、盼、定都是手法、步法、或身法,跟八卦五行等扯上關係,不過是將武術玄化。//
      係你聽到太極八卦﹐便先入為主咋嘛﹖

      太極生兩儀﹕陰陽是兩儀﹐快慢是兩儀﹐柔剛是兩儀
      太極拳講求以柔制剛﹑後發先至﹐兩儀也
      兩儀生四象,四象生八卦。
      所謂八卦﹐其實只是指八個方位
      這一點﹐只要看過羅更﹐細路仔都睇得明

      四正﹑四隅﹐其實是指八個方位打法
      進步,退步,左顧,右盼,中定﹐則意味著五行
      北水﹑南火﹑東火﹑西金﹐中土

      拳法同八卦方位相呼應﹐點解係玄化﹖點樣玄化﹖

      //奇遇是亂噏,就是亂噏了。//
      唔該﹐南懷謹篇文叫《求武奇遇記》嘛﹖
      聽講好似叫《太極拳與道功》呀呵﹖

      我問的是他談太極拳那部份﹐亂噏些甚麼﹖
      是否他說科學迷信﹐刺痛了你的神經﹖

      //文少,你不必對我客氣,無謂委屈自己。//
      唔得﹐你好歹係教授﹐梗係要對你客氣la~~

      講氣﹐我單單指出你要練站樁
      再搭個陳式太極的嫡傳掌門﹐已經批到你體無完膚lor
      我再去盡少少﹐就要學返你咁﹐隨口話人唔識太極
      或者話你只學得其形未得其神gala

      我做人未去到咁無品(閃)

      刪除
    36. //Well, I learned the Chan style, and I was the champion in a Tai Chi open competition (doing the form only) in Hong Kong some years ago. Of course, if you think one has to believe in qi to be doing "real" Tai Chi, it's your belief, what can I say?//

      你學陳式﹐我都唔拎楊式的李德印來駁你﹐而是陳小旺

      人家是陳式太極嫡傳第19代掌門﹐正宗陳家溝人
      陳式太極四大天王之一
      你贏個香港所謂比賽冠軍﹐用返以前江湖論資排輩果套﹐算得係咩呀﹖又算老幾呀﹖

      刪除
    37. Ming﹕
      //即使有氣這回事(例如是一種生物力量),那些劍仙、劍氣,凌空斷樹,鼻息吹動塵土飛揚等等,都是太荒誕了。//

      唔該﹐我一直跟哲人王拗的﹐是他練的陳式太極﹐究竟講不講求練氣﹐太極算唔算內家拳﹐站樁屬唔屬於氣硬功﹐甚麼叫內練一口氣

      這些﹐都不過是一些基本拳理的問題﹐如果你不懂﹐請不要亂入。

      好﹐你要談南懷謹那些奇遇
      我在那邊已說了﹐先假定凌空斷樹不可能
      但作假的也有可能是那個道士嘛﹐對不﹖

      正如你看魔術﹐你不知條友點出術﹐嘖嘖稱奇﹐同朋友分享你的見聞
      我覺得是假的﹐我可以話你的話是撒謊嘛﹖

      再說﹐某些荒謬的事﹐youtube也可以看到﹐例如拳風滅燭﹕
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFLOtGq2_Ec
      拳風既然可以滅燭﹐我反而想問﹕
      拳風若大到有如颱風威力的級別﹐點解唔可以斷樹﹖
      問題返到根本﹐現今科學對於人體潛能的掌握﹐有多準確先﹖如何斷定為真﹖

      刪除

    38. 又例如﹕以前好多人話飛簷走壁好荒謬
      (南懷謹有講過他遇見過的)

      現在鬼佬便有人玩yamakasi﹐似足飛簷走壁
      絕對有片你睇
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li3Wd_2_Y-4&feature=related
      哦﹐係咪即係有鬼佬玩﹐仲有圖有真相﹐所以唔荒謬呀嘛﹖

      刪除
    39. 唔係話,文少,咁都算飛簷走壁?睇睇片啦http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmava-4KnY

      刪除
    40. "it's your belief, what can I say?"

      Try to convince a little kid who is complacent with his basic arithmetic skills on the existence of negative numbers …..

      It is obvious when you kept on using the term “belief “ to justify yourself, you would not susceptible to logic arguments.

      刪除
    41. I hate to say this, but you are not making sense.

      刪除
    42. //唔係話,文少,咁都算飛簷走壁?睇睇片啦http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmava-4KnY//

      你用吊威也﹐來比較真實可以發生的情況﹖
      低B少陣當幫忙好唔好﹖

      刪除
    43. Mate, this is what I call死雞撐飯蓋.

      You offered no evidence or quoted any authoritative literatures to justified your claims, instead you just made lots of motherhood statements : “don't believe in Qi”, “我不信氣這回事, “不一定要相信有氣這回事”,” ..one has to believe in qi”.

      Is this how you conduct your academic researches?

      [信]你都有鬼, 仲好意思話人地是騙子

      刪除
    44. You are the one who believes in something mysterious and incompatible with current science (such as 凌空斷樹). It's like you believe in ghosts and I don't, and you accuse me of being unreasonable.

      刪除
    45. "你用吊威也﹐來比較真實可以發生的情況﹖
      低B少陣當幫忙好唔好﹖"

      呵呵,低b嗰個係你呀文少,你話飛簷走壁嗰d根本唔違反科學.

      刪除
    46. //呵呵,低b嗰個係你呀文少,你話飛簷走壁嗰d根本唔違反科學.//
      我從無話過飛簷走壁違反科學﹐但未有人做過兼有片睇之前﹐確實唔少人認為這不過是虛構武俠情節

      現在我是問的是﹐凌空斷樹點違反科學嗎﹖
      哲人王講了N次﹐包括他回S﹐都聲稱「incompatible with current science」
      我問他N次﹐叫他解釋點違反科學﹐他都避而不答!

      至此﹐我絕對有理由懷疑﹐哲人王查實是個文科人﹐他根本無能力解釋凌空斷樹點解唔科學lor

      匿名君﹐你又話唔科學囉﹐你不如答我點唔科學﹖

      刪除
    47. //You are the one who believes in something mysterious and incompatible with current science (such as 凌空斷樹).//

      好心你啦﹐
      S一直講緊陳式太極相唔相信氣(qi)﹐都需唔需要練氣
      人家一直連「凌空斷樹」呢四個字都無提過
      你飄去屈人相信凌空斷樹﹐砌生豬肉都砌得高明少少啦
      真係唔叫你一聲偉鴻大哥﹐都唔得啊~~

      刪除
    48. 文少,
      Let's me say something about Wong's //incompatible with current science//.
      I won't get into the details. We can consider the tree breaking in terms of energy or force (or both). Below is only a simplistic description, but it should be enough.
      Energy: A big, muscular man, let alone an average person, doesn't have such power (energy per unit time) to break a tree (assuming it's a big enough tree) with bare hands even upon direct contact. Now, one has to break it without direct contact; in such case, not all the energy is transferred to the tree. In other words, efficiency is less than 100%. It's much less than 100%. I would say it's almost 0%, (see what I say about air below). The confidence level of claiming that it is impossible is extremely high.
      Force: We need certain magnitude of force to break a tree. The break, typically, is at certain point. For a tree, it is like the breaking is at certain cross section. That is, we need a very high pressure concentrated in a small area (*). Or, the tree can topple under even pressure applied on certain surface (side) of the tree (**).
      Now, we can consider the pressure. Pressure is force per unit area. Now the person who wants to break the tree without direct contact applies a force towards the tree. The force compresses the air. But when the pressure due to the force hits the tree, it becomes extremely small. It is because air is a compressible gas and the area containing the volume of gas that gets compressed by the force is very big (assuming the hand is not that close to the tree, like a centimeter.) The pressure isn't only directed in one direction, the one goes towards the tree, but is spread in many directions. The gas molecules aren't going in only one direction, even under the force.
      Also, the pressure acting on the tree is spread out on some surface of the tree but is not confined in a small section. The condition (*) above is not met. The event (**) won't happen either, because, again, the pressure on the tree is just too small.
      So, the conclusion is that the pressure applied on the tree due to the force is so small that it can't break the tree.

      //現今科學對於人體潛能的掌握﹐有多準確先﹖如何斷定為真﹖//
      If what you say about 潛能 is what science don't know about, we can't discuss further. Anyway, we know quite a lot about 人體體能. We can do calculations on how much power a certain muscle can put out,(considering the muscle mass, the joints it is attached to, the lever mechanics, ADP ATP conversion, etc). We can simply do some tests (experiments) to find it without doing calculations. We can also measure the force that the muscle can generate.
      Without doing the the calculations in details or doing experiments, just a simple consideration what I've said above about the energy or force should be enough.
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
    49. "You are the one who believes in something mysterious and incompatible with current science (such as 凌空斷樹)."
      I hate say this, I have absolutly no idea what you are oning about

      " It's like you believe in ghosts and I don't"
      Are you kidding me!!!!!! Where did I say that ??

      To comment on your earlier confessions:
      我沒有當大師的學問,- it is bleedy obvious to me now

      也沒有騙人稱我為大師的技倆,- dont be coy, your propensity to use the term "believe/信" to justify youself (- standard trick of 神棍),砌生豬肉, being evasive makes you an ideal candidate

      而且根本不想當大師。 - 天知, 地知, 你知, 我不知


      刪除
    50. I thought you were defending 南懷瑾's claims. If that's not the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

      刪除
  12. Agreed, 陶傑过份吹捧南懷瑾,也过份吹捧Eric Hobsbawm. 光明頂當晚,我己在留言板指出有學者對Hobsbawm The Age of Extremes 略去蘇俄敗行不提之批判,陶生已經只輕輕帶过。老實說,陶生那有可能涉獵如此多之知識,槍手無寫,加上節目其他主持己愈來愈水皮,己漸次自暴其短了。 GC

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 陶傑不知還可以混多久?

      刪除