how to define God?
chuqing chen
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...?
Rob Raffety
> 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...?
Spawn
>
> 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.
> are, whereever and whenever...
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
L.K.
the existance of God
Spawn wrote in message <35F90E...@void.com>...
no one
This is supposed to be about Tao, not about long discourses with big words
that go nowhere.
JayBuzin
[...]
>When I talk to myself, am I actually talking to God...?
In your case, yes!
{;-])))
Tzaddik
>
> I studied philosophy in university and a whole term was spent talking about
> the existance of God
>
Sounds like you wasted your time.
JayBuzin
>I studied philosophy in university and a whole term was spent talking about
>the existance of God
And the name of the course was?
I once went to a virtual motorcycle newsgroup
and the entire group was consumed
with threads about four-wheeled vehicles.
-go figure?
knot really-
{;-])))
L.K.
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.......
JayBuzin wrote in message
<199809111214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Tzaddik
>
> 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.
carol viau
>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!
kam...@my-dejanews.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
Yang and yu
might be fun
to disgust
Gott anything knew
to say?
> JayBuzin wrote in message
> <199809111214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >L.K. wrote:
> >
> >>I studied philosophy in university and a whole term was spent talking
> about
> >>the existance of God
> >
> >And the name of the course was?
> >
> >I once went to a virtual motorcycle newsgroup
> >and the entire group was consumed
> >with threads about four-wheeled vehicles.
> >
> >-go figure?
> >knot really-
> >{;-])))
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>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.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>Might have some'ting to do
>with folks wan'ting
>a place to escape
>from the clamor
>of Western style Yang
in generalities:
the response some people have to god
is rather yang (in the western style).
* * *
put down what you bring with you.
Khnu...@aol.com
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.
--
Take care,
Robert
http://members.aol.com/Terranova0/diet.index.html
http://members.aol.com/Khnum369/main.html
-- The Liber8r --
<0P9K1.3709$ZY.36...@HME2.newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
Carol was responding to someone who doesn't know much about Taoism...
People view the Universe/God much differently. It's up to you to make the
connections between all religions. If you look hard enough, you'll find the
connections.
The Liber8r
The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail and web site at:
lib...@RemoveThisPart.mcs.net
http://www.liberator.net/
ld...@pathcom.com
cc...@student.ecel.uwa.edu.au wrote:
> As God is the collective of all virtues, all beauty and all loves, so if
> he is defined in a psychological term, he is the supreego of ourselves.
> Only a part of yourself can love you foreever, no matter good or bad you
> are, whereever and whenever...
> When you talk to God, are you actually talking to yourself...?
>
>
if 'you' can define 'it', it ain't big enough.
some things are too big to fit in your mind.
unless they are your mind.
some things have no division between mind and them.
good and bad--you define, nothing else, just relative.
-lawrence
Tzaddik
>
> carol viau wrote in message
> <0P9K1.3709$ZY.36...@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
PLK
> 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...
Why?
D9
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>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.
people could let things be otherwise.
L.K.
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
DoctorNine
>
> 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.
D9
DoctorNine
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. 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...
D9
k...@springhaven.springhaven.org
>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.
pay attention.
the sun is rising.
* * *
what nate says about sages is useful.
DoctorNine
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.
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.
yours,
D9
Cinnmngirl
Liber8r wrote:
> It's up to you to make the
>> connections between all religions.
Rick wrote:
>
>Yes I agree, have a "nice" day, somewhere else.
>No one cares what you think it might be.
I wouldn't go so far, Rick, as to say "no one cares what you think it might
be."
>
>
Liber8r wrote:
>> If you look hard enough, you'll find the
>> connections.
>
And sometimes you don't have to look at all...sometimes the connnections are so
obvious they jump out at you :-)
Peace and Love,
Donna
>
JayBuzin
Donna wrote:
>Rick wrote:
>>
>>Yes I agree, have a "nice" day, somewhere else.
>>No one cares what you think it might be.
>I wouldn't go so far, Rick,
>as to say "no one cares what you think it might be."
But you forget, cg, that rick _is_ no one.
>And sometimes you don't have to look at all...sometimes the connnections are
>so
>obvious they jump out at you :-)
froggy te are
-ribbit-
Cinnmngirl
I knew I could count on Jay to remind me of the froggie in me....what do frogs
drink anyway?? Care to pour me a tiny cup? What the heck--jest pass the jug.
ribbit
peace and love and flies
Donna
JayBuzin
Donna wrote:
[...]
>what do frogs
>drink anyway??
well, water.
> Care to pour me a tiny cup?
A tiny cup of well,
water. Bucket's up!
-apologies to lday
-thanx to li
asleep at the gyro
{:-])))