Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evade? My forte is Chinese philosophy. Why would I evade a discussion on my favorite subject? There is no winner or loser here, Harry.
You are evading the fact that you made a false claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2
What are early Confucians? What texts and ideas are you talking about?
So much for your forte being Chinese philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2
There are no native scholars of substance in mainland China today. Mao Tze Tung wiped them all out. The only experts on Chinese philosophy now are found in the halls of academia in the west, mostly "white guys and gals". And their ideas are similar to Chinese take-out chow mein and kung pau chicken for the western palate.
The text can say anything we want it to say. Your Daoist teacher can say one thing, and I can say another. And I say "the three" is scientism making things up to fill heaven and earth.
Which, does my Daoist teacher (a Chinese professor of the history of Chinese philosophy and religion) exist or not?
my observation is that you consistently and regularly on an ongoing basis attribute your own words ideas thoughts imaginings misrepresentations and assumptions to others.
And yet another attack from you. I am not the one who uses false analogies, simply assert arguments are irrational, use false analogies, or make irrelevant arguments about Nazis and Roman slave owners when talking about who wrote the gospels. Neither do I misrepresent nor presume, I provide rational arguments.
For example, "the Dao that can be described is not the eternal Dao". So describing the Dao as a cosmic consciousness means you are not talking about the Dao, according to Daoism. This is discussing Daoism using the text of the Dao de Ching.
Would you care to address this, or would you rather Google another opinion piece?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Reasonable rational people have no trouble at all discussing ideas and further clarifying their views with each other in an online forum such as this. Without the hair-trigger knee-jerk ever-present hostility and aggression which preclude, well, rational conversation.
Is that a compliment for me, calling me a reasonable rational, or is it your start on the road to self awareness?
No, but apparently nothing can, because there are no rules in absolutely nothing to say how absolutely nothing behaves.
Also, absolutely nothing also means no gods, by definition.
Now if you want to assert a god can create something out of nothing, you need to explain how it could do this, how only a god can do this, and how do you know?
One who seeks knowledge learns something new every day.
One who seeks the Tao unlearns something new every day.
---from Chapter 48, Tao Te Ching
and reading the post above generates the question: so which do you focus on more, which do you consider of greater value and importance in your life: learning or unlearning. are you one who seeks knowledge or are you one who seeks the Tao. are you a follower of knowledge or you a follower of the Tao. do you seek to fill your mind or empty your mind.
The follower of knowledge learns as much as he can every day;
The follower of the Way forgets as much as he can every day.
The more we learn, the more things are plowed into our minds;
The more we follow the Tao, the more things are taken out of our minds.
---also from Chapter 48, Tao Te Ching
Perhaps if you stop taking the Dao de Ching literally, and think what the text is saying with regard to questioning your beliefs, your simple view of Daoism will stop being so simple.
The Dao de Ching is not a text you simply follow, or something to simply quote, it is a book that you need to contemplate, to ask, 'what does that mean'?
The Dao de Ching is not against learning, it is not an either / or thing. Perhaps you start by reading Chuang Tzu.
And yet another attack from you. I am not the one who uses false analogies, simply assert arguments are irrational, use false analogies, or make irrelevant arguments about Nazis and Roman slave owners when talking about who wrote the gospels. Neither do I misrepresent nor presume, I provide rational arguments.For example, "the Dao that can be described is not the eternal Dao". So describing the Dao as a cosmic consciousness means you are not talking about the Dao, according to Daoism. This is discussing Daoism using the text of the Dao de Ching.Would you care to address this, or would you rather Google another opinion piece?Is that a compliment for me, calling me a reasonable rational, or is it your start on the road to self awareness?
the above is a conversation someone is having with themself.
certainly in the forum a person can do this.
but it is not a discussion with others, because talking at people is not talking with people.
No, but apparently nothing can, because there are no rules in absolutely nothing to say how absolutely nothing behaves. Also, absolutely nothing also means no gods, by definition. Now if you want to assert a god can create something out of nothing, you need to explain how it could do this, how only a god can do this, and how do you know?
The Tao Te Ching recognizes the source.
And the Tao Te Ching also recognizes that seeking knowledge is not seeking the Tao.
for instance from post above, it is seeking to explain how something can come from nothingness, seeking to explain how nothingness behaves, and seeking to explain how this is known.
tying this into the thread topic of science as a religion: science also seeks that type of information, explanations, knowledge. That is an example of seeking knowledge. And that is is not seeking the Tao.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-13-2023 at 06:57 AM..
Perhaps if you stop taking the Dao de Ching literally, and think what the text is saying with regard to questioning your beliefs, your simple view of Daoism will stop being so simple. The Dao de Ching is not a text you simply follow, or something to simply quote, it is a book that you need to contemplate, to ask, 'what does that mean'? The Dao de Ching is not against learning, it is not an either / or thing. Perhaps you start by reading Chuang Tzu.
regarding bold above, yes that is why these questions were asked earlier in the thread, yes that makes for an actual discussion, so tell us then, what is your understanding of what these mean:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so then what is your own understanding of the ten thousand things. And what is your own understanding of the Tao, and how it differs from the ten thousand things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so then what is "the three"? what does that refer to.
What is your understanding of what that means "the three create the ten thousand things."
this is relevant to the thread topic science as a religion.
The Tao gives birth to the One.
The One gives birth to the Two.
The Two give birth to the Three.
The Three give birth
to the ten thousand things. ---from the Tao Te Ching
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so which do you focus on more, which do you consider of greater value and importance in your life: learning or unlearning. are you one who seeks knowledge or are you one who seeks the Tao. are you a follower of knowledge or you a follower of the Tao. do you seek to fill your mind or empty your mind.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-13-2023 at 07:29 AM..
And with regards to thread topic of "Science as Religion," Chapter 40 of the Tao Te Ching directly addresses the origins of well everything. How the non-physical gives rise to the physical. How the non-physical is back of everything physical. How nothingness is the source of everything. Since the Tao Te Ching is widely published and there are lots and lots of different translations, here is a sampling of different translations of the same section from chapter 40:
Everything comes from existence;
Existence comes from nothingness.
------
Heaven and earth and the ten thousand things come from existence,
but existence comes from non-existence.
------
All things in the world are born out of being.
Being is born out of non-being.
------
The all things in the world come from the visible,
which comes from the invisible
------
Universe and All Things were given birth by Existence.
Existence was given birth by Unknown-Existence
------
The myriad things under Heaven achieve life in existence.
Existence arises from nothingness
------
天下萬物生於有.
有生於無.
------
For though all creatures under heaven are the products of Being,
Being itself is the product of Not-being
------
Myriad things and creatures on Earth were originated from something;
This something describable by us was launched ultimately from nothing which is beyond our description
---different translations of same section, from chapter 40 Tao Te Ching
Tzaph, thank you again for your patience and generosity in providing these links. It is truly amazing how all religions strum the same string, make the same sound, starting with OM.
Vedanta teaches that one needs to become fit, fine tuned and oriented, in order to derive the meaning from the text. Divinity is in the meaning, never the text. One can read the text any number of times but without a purified mind, an examined life and mindful living, the meaning can never be completely understood.
Yes, actually, and in a sense. At least from 'nothing' as physicists use the term. There is no such thing as 'absolute nothingness'. It doesn't exist. Remove every conceivable thing you can think of from a vacuum and it still contains energy fields that are always present. But making use of a principle known as the Schwinger Effect, Scientists recently used an electromagnetic field and a sheet of graphene to create matter without slamming two particles together in a particle collider. In the experiment, with the use of an electromagnetic field, electron-positron particle pairs spontaneously formed from 'nothing.' That is to say that in the experiment 'holes' were created through which particle-anti-partlcle pairs simply arose out of the vacuum of space. I provided two articles below going into more detail.
Why are you confusing death sentence with rational thought? Is that deliberate?
I missed this question.
The death sentence is the condemnation of a person to death. And why is this not an edict of rational thought? It's the eye for an eye morality of humanism. Jesus rejected this and got himself the death sentence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
