As God is the collective of all virtues, all beauty and all loves, so if he is defined in a psychological term, he is the supreego of ourselves. Only a part of yourself can love you foreever, no matter good or bad you are, whereever and whenever... When you talk to God, are you actually talking to yourself...?
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, chuqing chen wrote: > As God is the collective of all virtues, all beauty and all loves, so if > he is defined in a psychological term, he is the supreego of ourselves.
What's the point then?
> Only a part of yourself can love you foreever, no matter good or bad you > are, whereever and whenever...
I know some that would disagree
> When you talk to God, are you actually talking to yourself...?
When I talk to myself, am I actually talking to God...?
> As God is the collective of all virtues, all beauty and all loves, so if > he is defined in a psychological term, he is the supreego of ourselves. > Only a part of yourself can love you foreever, no matter good or bad you > are, whereever and whenever... > When you talk to God, are you actually talking to yourself...?
You are. It is your god. You made it up, who else would want to talk to it? This forum is not about god or gods please take any interest you have in discussing god to a god news group. This is alt.PHILOSOPHY.taoism
Spawn wrote in message <35F90EDA....@void.com>... >chuqing chen wrote:
>> As God is the collective of all virtues, all beauty and all loves, so if >> he is defined in a psychological term, he is the supreego of ourselves. >> Only a part of yourself can love you foreever, no matter good or bad you >> are, whereever and whenever... >> When you talk to God, are you actually talking to yourself...?
>You are. >It is your god. >You made it up, who else would want to talk to it? >This forum is not about god or gods please take any interest >you have in discussing god to a god news group. >This is alt.PHILOSOPHY.taoism
Sorry it was western philosophy which might through some people off. There are actually a lot of philosophers in history who speak of God such as Descartes and Agustine ect. Anyways this is about the tao but the tao is undefined so I don't think the tao would mind if some people chose to discuss the existance of God...who are you to say it falls out of the realm of the tao? Just wonderin' I know there will be lots of people out there with witty responses so bring 'em on and toss me from the ship.......
> Sorry it was western philosophy which might through some people off. There > are actually a lot of philosophers in history who speak of God such as > Descartes and Agustine ect. > Anyways this is about the tao but the tao is undefined so I don't think the > tao would mind if some people chose to discuss the existance of God...who > are you to say it falls out of the realm of the tao? > Just wonderin' I know there will be lots of people out there with witty > responses so bring 'em on and toss me from the ship.......
Why would you want to discuss a god when the discussion is supposed to be about tao. Tao is not a deity. The excuse that god is part of tao doesn't hold water. Everything is part of tao. Turds in the sewer are part of tao, do you also want to discuss that? The ideology behind gods and deities is not a part of the philosophy of tao. Tao is not a deity. This issue has been debated to death in this group and I am sure no one wants to drag it out any futher. Please do not make this an issue.
>Why would you want to discuss a god when the discussion is supposed >to be about tao. Tao is not a deity. The excuse that god is part of >tao doesn't hold water. Everything is part of tao. Turds in the sewer >are part of tao, do you also want to discuss that? The ideology >behind gods and deities is not a part of the philosophy of tao. >Tao is not a deity. This issue has been debated to death in this group >and I am sure no one wants to drag it out any futher. Please do not >make this an issue.
Well I was looking for a response with a bit more wit but I guess that will do thanks!
In article <6tb6lo$3k...@supernews.com>, "L.K." <r...@green.ca> wrote:
> Sorry it was western philosophy which might through some people off. There > are actually a lot of philosophers in history who speak of God such as > Descartes and Agustine ect. > Anyways this is about the tao but the tao is undefined so I don't think the > tao would mind if some people chose to discuss the existance of God...who > are you to say it falls out of the realm of the tao? > Just wonderin' I know there will be lots of people out there with witty > responses so bring 'em on and toss me from the ship.......
Might have some'ting to do with folks wan'ting a place to escape from the clamor of Western style Yang
Seams folks here "all-powerful" "all-no-ing" "do your homework" pseudo-parental effigy burnings When God is spoken
In article <6tb3l2$pj...@supernews.com>, L.K. <r...@green.ca> wrote: >I studied philosophy in university and a whole term was spent talking about >the existance of God
some people are allergic to god and get emotional hives when it is mentioned.
philosophically speaking you might want to clarify what you think god has to do with the tao.
In article <35F8ADEF.794C7...@student.ecel.uwa.edu.au>,
cc...@student.ecel.uwa.edu.au wrote: > As God is the collective of all virtues, all beauty and all loves, so if > he is defined in a psychological term, he is the supreego of ourselves. > Only a part of yourself can love you foreever, no matter good or bad you > are, whereever and whenever... > When you talk to God, are you actually talking to yourself...?
THE ALL is mind. The Universe is Mental. Do not confuse Absolute Infinite Mind of THE ALL with the Relative finite minds of man. But, using the Laws and Principles, one can rise above and progress spiritualy towards the infinate vibrations of THE ALL.
>Why would you want to discuss a god when the discussion is supposed >to be about tao. Tao is not a deity. The excuse that god is part of >tao doesn't hold water. Everything is part of tao. Turds in the sewer >are part of tao, do you also want to discuss that? The ideology >behind gods and deities is not a part of the philosophy of tao. >Tao is not a deity. This issue has been debated to death in this group >and I am sure no one wants to drag it out any futher. Please do not >make this an issue.
"Well I was looking for a response with a bit more wit but I guess that will do thanks!"
Carol was responding to someone who doesn't know much about Taoism...
People view the Universe/God much differently. It's up to you to make the connections between all religions. If you look hard enough, you'll find the connections.
In article <35F8ADEF.794C7...@student.ecel.uwa.edu.au>,
cc...@student.ecel.uwa.edu.au wrote: > As God is the collective of all virtues, all beauty and all loves, so if > he is defined in a psychological term, he is the supreego of ourselves. > Only a part of yourself can love you foreever, no matter good or bad you > are, whereever and whenever... > When you talk to God, are you actually talking to yourself...?
imo yes. if 'you' can define 'it', it ain't big enough. some things are too big to fit in your mind. unless they are your mind. some things have no division between mind and them. good and bad--you define, nothing else, just relative. -lawrence
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> carol viau wrote in message > <0P9K1.3709$ZY.3673...@HME2.newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> >Why would you want to discuss a god when the discussion is supposed > >to be about tao. Tao is not a deity. The excuse that god is part of > >tao doesn't hold water. Everything is part of tao. Turds in the sewer > >are part of tao, do you also want to discuss that? The ideology > >behind gods and deities is not a part of the philosophy of tao. > >Tao is not a deity. This issue has been debated to death in this group > >and I am sure no one wants to drag it out any futher. Please do not > >make this an issue.
> "Well I was looking for a response with a bit more wit but I guess that will > do > thanks!"
> Carol was responding to someone who doesn't know much about Taoism...
Which in turn involked response from one who know nothing of it.
> People view the Universe/God much differently.
All people veiw All things differently but they mostly just do it day to day. Making no special effort to do so, they are different about All things. I can see how you think it would be to your advantage to to think it worth pointing out. Profound exclamation mark, you just came up with that all by yourself did you?
> It's up to you to make the > connections between all religions.
Yes I agree, have a "nice" day, somewhere else. No one cares what you think it might be.
> If you look hard enough, you'll find the > connections.
If you don't look at all you will eventually notice that they were never not connected and needed no "connections".
DoctorNine <Th...@yahoo.com> wrote: >k...@springhaven.springhaven.org wrote: >> put down what you bring with you. >It would be interesting to see you take your own advice. >I don't think you are capable of putting down your >affectation of 'Defender of the Oppressed', old friend. >You hold it like Linus holds his blanket...
the oppressed and oppression are related to one other thing, the oppressor.
yin and yang, and their interaction.
oppress(ed,ion,or) are common threads here. an example of things arising together.
the tao is real. this is the tao become manifest. this is the teh of alt.philosophy.taoism.
What I've learned with my limited knowledge of the tao is that the world is your mirror and what you see in others is what you see in yourself. I pity those of you who anger so easily when somebody mentions something you might view slightly differently. What kind of nerves are we hitting here? I detect a lot of fear from some of these responses....
"We meet ourselves time and again in a thousand disguises on the path of life." Carl Jung
Kindness is more important than wisdom, and the recognition of this is the beginning of wisdom. Rubin, Theodore Isaac
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. -- Cato the Elder
> What I've learned with my limited knowledge of the tao is that the > world is your mirror and what you see in others is what you see in > yourself. I pity those of you who anger so easily when somebody > mentions something you might view slightly differently. > What kind of nerves are we hitting here? I detect a lot of fear > from some of these responses....
> "We meet ourselves time and again in a thousand disguises on the path of > life." > Carl Jung
Interesting that you should quote CJ...
However, the people who are objecting to being raped don't fear this entity. Your 'detect' mechanism needs adjustment.
Seeing a molester in the playground, some take action. And some say, 'It is the way of Heaven..."
I think I shall post some of the 'Admonitions' so that at least there is the topic of Taoist Canon in this thread... you'll see what I mean.
>>It would be interesting to see you take your own advice.
>>I don't think you are capable of putting down your >>affectation of 'Defender of the Oppressed', old friend. >>You hold it like Linus holds his blanket...
PLK
> the oppressed and oppression are related to one other thing, > the oppressor.
> yin and yang, and their interaction.
> oppress(ed,ion,or) are common threads here. > an example of things arising together.
> the tao is real. > this is the tao become manifest. > this is the teh of alt.philosophy.taoism.
> people could let things be otherwise.
Or not. As you are fond of saying.
Things 'arise together' because someone here decided to raise the dead. Its decaying flesh is so ripe that everyone can see through this transparent construct, yet what animates it persists...
It is obvious that someone is promulgating THEIR view of Tao and Te. There are others.
Why don't you put it down? You've been carrying it so long, I don't think you know how...
DoctorNine <Th...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Peter you respond: >PLK >>>> put down what you bring with you. >D9 >>>It would be interesting to see you take your own advice. >>>I don't think you are capable of putting down your >>>affectation of 'Defender of the Oppressed', old friend. >>>You hold it like Linus holds his blanket... >PLK >> the oppressed and oppression are related to one other thing, >> the oppressor. >> yin and yang, and their interaction. >> oppress(ed,ion,or) are common threads here. >> an example of things arising together. >> the tao is real. >> this is the tao become manifest. >> this is the teh of alt.philosophy.taoism. >> people could let things be otherwise. >Or not. As you are fond of saying. >Things 'arise together' because someone here decided >to raise the dead.
that is one part of things. the other part is your response.
>Its decaying flesh is so ripe that >everyone can see through this transparent construct,
not everyone. but it does make you sound good.
>yet what animates it persists...
so does your response.
* * *
in a general fashion this is the nature of yin and yang. event and response.
a kind word and a smile. the sunrise and morning glories.
this is the tao made manifest.
if it weren't esther and the anti-esther group. then it might be the god and the anti-god group. or the tao and not-tao group. or love and hate. or up and down.
this or that. what is at the middle? where is the hub?
this is just an example that people are living right now.
>It is obvious that someone is promulgating THEIR >view of Tao and Te. There are others.
"it is okay for people to promulgate their view of tao and te. but only if it agrees with the current dogma."
>Why don't you put it down? You've been carrying it >so long, I don't think you know how...
could be.
dogma behind closed doors is still dogma. hidden from other lights it is easy to say the others are wrong, and the group is right. being right is difficult when there are things that don't accord. it may be a private fundamentalism, but it is not less rigid than any of the others.
more of "this" and "that". "right" and "wrong". "true" and "false".
* * *
this is the world. right here. right now. this is what you are doing now. flowing to the sea.
* * *
as nate says there is no punishment. what will happen is what is coming.
upset the ant hill and the ants pour out. drink much wine and you will be drunk.
assert what is true and assert what is false and you have established dogma.
in this i recommend being honest, what you cannot know you make claims of knowing when you say it is thus or it is not thus. and it becomes your faith versus another's faith.
you have chosen thus and so what will happen is what is coming. whether thus is good or whether thus is evil. whether what is coming is good or whether thus is evil.
>>> the oppressed and oppression are related to one other thing, >>> the oppressor. >>> yin and yang, and their interaction. >>> oppress(ed,ion,or) are common threads here. >>> an example of things arising together. >>> the tao is real. >>> this is the tao become manifest. >>> this is the teh of alt.philosophy.taoism. >>> people could let things be otherwise.
D9
>>Or not. As you are fond of saying. >>Things 'arise together' because someone here decided >>to raise the dead.
PLK
> that is one part of things. > the other part is your response.
The circle flows because one thing arises upon the heels of the other. Do you point this out because you think I can't see it, or to admonish me that I have the power to stop it? In either case, you presume much.
Perhaps I am watching for something else...
PLK
> in a general fashion this is the nature of yin and yang. > event and response.
Then what is event and no response? Not Tao?
PLK
> a kind word and a smile. > the sunrise and morning glories.
> this is the tao made manifest.
If a kind word brings a smile, and the sun opens the morning glories, then what is the Tao of deception?
Might not the natural reaction be appropriate? Or is indignation impossible for a Taoist? Hmmm?
PLK
> if it weren't esther and the anti-esther group. > then it might be the god and the anti-god group. > or the tao and not-tao group. > or love and hate. > or up and down.
> this or that. > what is at the middle? > where is the hub?
You seem to imply that all dichotomies are equivalent. They are not. To use shorthand to describe them, one must understand the limits of the language. They are incongruent, but manipulated similarly, that's all.
PLK
> this is just an example that people are living right now.
D9
> >It is obvious that someone is promulgating THEIR > >view of Tao and Te. There are others.
PLK
> "it is okay for people to promulgate their view of tao and > te. but only if it agrees with the current dogma."
It's only OK if it agrees with your dogma, otherwise, you will disagree with me. : )
Seriously though, most people here actually welcome well thought out positions and interpretations of Taoist thought. That's why they come here after all. Most of them. Not everybody, though. Some have deceptive agendas.
D9
> >Why don't you put it down? You've been carrying it > >so long, I don't think you know how...
PLK
> could be.
> dogma behind closed doors is still dogma. > hidden from other lights it is easy to say the others are wrong, > and the group is right. > being right is difficult when there are things that don't accord. > it may be a private fundamentalism, but it is not less rigid > than any of the others.
> more of "this" and "that". > "right" and "wrong". > "true" and "false".
You seem to think that that isn't Taoist. Why? Shi-Fei is a core concept of Taoism.
It isn't behind closed doors, or even hidden. Rather it's the basis of controlling the pneumas; life's breath.
Let's talk...
PLK
> as nate says there is no punishment. > what will happen is what is coming.
> upset the ant hill and the ants pour out. > drink much wine and you will be drunk.
> assert what is true > and assert what is false > and you have established dogma.
I don't want to shock you or anything, but Taoism has dogma. You can agree or disagree with what it says, but there it is, just the same. JayBuzin has made the distinction with tao chia and tao chiao, which is appropriate too.
PLK
> in this i recommend being honest, > what you cannot know > you make claims of knowing > when you say it is thus or it is not thus. > and it becomes your faith versus another's faith.
This is reasonably obscure...
Would you care to tell me what I claim? Or how you know I can't know it? Or what my faith is that it conflicts with another? I think you just spin the Wheel.
PLK
> you have chosen thus and so what will happen is what is coming. > whether thus is good or whether thus is evil. > whether what is coming is good or whether thus is evil.
> pay attention. > the sun is rising.
Most ominous... I guess I didn't know that I should dread the rising of the Sun. Somehow, I rather think I will like it.
PLK
> what nate says about sages is useful.
What exactly is that? That his Sage-O-Matic only costs $19.95, or that a true sage can't ever accomplish anything?
I'm a little unclear here; maybe you can elucidate.
