98 replies to this topic

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

You didn't even consider the logical argument. And "science" is not the ruler of all because philosophy comes before science. Without philosophy there is no science.

WHAT "logical" argument?
Why do you think something that came first is better? What came later is usually an improvement on what came before.

You cannot prove "bugs bunny" with the ontological proof for the simple reason that "bugs bunny" is not a necessary being.

Its necessary to some Point proven. Move on

As I said already, rationalism does not equal atheism. Your tendency to conflate the two shows you know very little about philosophy.

And your tendency to put words in my mouth is very irritating, so please stop.

I never said there was no atheism in ancient China. But before the modern era atheism was never a major influence. Do you dispute this? Chinese people have always venerated their ancestors and believed in the traditional religions. The fact that you now selectively focuses on the atheistic elements in ancient Chinese culture, which have never got anywhere near to being a major influence in history, shows that you've been influenced by the modern western atheist way of thinking.

Wrong again, but why doesn't that surprise me? Athiesm is actually quite a strong force doing the Han, there are a group of athiest scholars(most of whom are Bian Jia) that absolutely deny the existence of afterlife, They will go around proving their theories and thousands have been defeated by them in arguments.The Mie Shen Lun actually created such a rumour that the southern emperors had to sent him away to the borders.
Of course its not as influencial as today, so stop making up statements I didn't say again. So where have I "focuses on the atheistic elements in ancient Chinese culture"?

You are wrong. Rationalism is much more than just science or empiricism. Your repeated tendency to conflate these concepts shows you know very little about philosophy.

And what do you know about philosophy? LOL Confucianism isn't even a philosophy in the definition of Philosophy, its a teaching of moral codes.

So what if my claims are unempirical? Philosophically I am not an empiricist anyway, I am a rationalist.

If your definition of rationalism is superstition fine, but the scientists have a different definition than yours.

Just because something is unempirical does not mean it is irrational. When can you begin to understand this?

I alerady understand long before you did, or will from what you are drawn into. I critisize superstition, which is simply belief without evidence, that is irrational. You can make up your terms all you want, but let me tell you, philosophy aren't always rational.

I say this again: Do not conflate rationalism with science/empircism/atheism. There is more to rationalism than that. Just because something is unempirical and unscientific does not mean it is irrational.

And I'll repreat it again, stop distorting my words. Antagonism isn't denying, its simply not accepting at face value, but give it the CHANCE that it could happen, a chance that has a probability of close to zero.

Because, again, beyond it there isn't another unifying law.

Neither is there something not beyond it because it is inclusive. If by your definition, a scientist also believes a ultimate reality, so does just about everyone except people such as Buddhists; this world.

[MengTzu]

Neither is there something not beyond it because it is inclusive. If by your definition, a scientist also believes a ultimate reality, so does just about everyone except people such as Buddhists; this world.

I never said that the ultimate reality cannot be this world. The idea of "ultimate principle" is conceptual, a logical construct, a way to "structuralize" reality. We need not insist that the ultimate reality and this world are distinct.

[CARDINAL009]

Q: What's the true defintiion of the Dao?

Define what dao is in terms of a grand pragmatic scale.

Then pragmatically re-define what's ultimate.

Compare and contrast both components. The outcome should be interesting.

Edited by CARDINAL009, 20 January 2006 - 09:20 PM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

I never said that the ultimate reality cannot be this world. The idea of "ultimate principle" is conceptual, a logical construct, a way to "structuralize" reality. We need not insist that the ultimate reality and this world are distinct.

Fine enough, if you define it that way, then there really is nothing special about Dao, you can just substitute it with nature and it would be equally ultimate.

Second, we must realize that in ancient China, there is little concept of an other world.
EVERYTHING INCLUDING the afterlife, heaven and hell are THIS WORLDLY. They are connected in a serie of hierarchy in which the emperor on earth is just a part of. You don't need to die to go to heaven, you can go there by eating elixirs or meditation, or to some, even by technology.
There is no clear distinction between the soul and the body as in ancient Greece and the platonian philosophy.
The concept that Mortals are different from the divine is actually a Greek creation, it does not exist in most other civilizations. Its the Classical Greeks that introduced the concept that mortals can never know the truth, and that only the divine can be perfect.
This is in stark contrast with Indian and Chinese philosophy, which claim that humans CAN be perfect by cultivating the Dao.

Thats why there is no concept of a prophet in either China or India. Everyone is connected directly to heaven, there isn't any special person that especially spreads the word of the divine. Everyone is directly related to heaven and can become just as great as heaven by their virtue or cultivation of Dao.

[MengTzu]

Fine enough, if you define it that way, then there really is nothing special about Dao, you can just substitute it with nature and it would be equally ultimate.

Second, we must realize that in ancient China, there is little concept of an other world.

Again, I'm suggesting that the ultimate principle is out of this world. You can say that nature is the ultimate principle (this is in fact one of the constructs I've been "fiddling" with.)

Thats why there is no concept of a prophet in either China or India.

Yet there are a lot of "incarnations" or "manifestations" of heavenly beings in both cultures.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Yet there are a lot of "incarnations" or "manifestations" of heavenly beings in both cultures.

Yes indeed, but you must understand in India, EVERYONE is a incarnation of Brahman. And everyone can attain that status.

[MengTzu]

Yes indeed, but you must understand in India, EVERYONE is a incarnation of Brahman. And everyone can attain that status.

What about in Taoism, where there are manifestation of gods? Surely that isn't a general manifestation. Further, it appears that in Hinduism, some manifestations are special (like the ten Avatars of Vishnu.)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

What about in Taoism, where there are manifestation of gods?

There are no clear distinction in Chinese history between gods and men, Daoists can all become Xian and achieve powers and immortality through cultivation. You can even become equal to heaven and attain supreme Dao, but that usually takes many kalpas.

Surely that isn't a general manifestation. Further, it appears that in Hinduism, some manifestations are special (like the ten Avatars of Vishnu.)

Vishnu is just a god, which in itself is part of Brahman. The human self, Atman, IS the Brahman.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Here is an article on the past concept of Dao. Dao isn't even one unified thing, there is heaven's dao and human's dao.
http://contemphil.ne...tory/wdldcl.htm

[MengTzu]

You still didn't address my point: there are particular manifestations, not considered general, of Taoist gods and Hindu gods (who are manifestations of one God -- this one God might be Vishnu, Shiva, or the Brahman that is manifested chiefly(?) through Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, depending on the Hindu tradition.) I'm not talking about the general identification of Atman and Brahman, nor the possibility of all beings attaining Tao.

Here is an article on the past concept of Dao. Dao isn't even one unified thing, there is heaven's dao and human's dao.
http://contemphil.ne...tory/wdldcl.htm

Was Lao Tzi speaking of the One Tao? And more relevant to this topic: Zhu Xi was speaking of the One Tao.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

You still didn't address my point: there are particular manifestations, not considered general, of Taoist gods and Hindu gods (who are manifestations of one God -- this one God might be Vishnu, Shiva, or the Brahman that is manifested chiefly(?) through Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, depending on the Hindu tradition.) I'm not talking about the general identification of Atman and Brahman, nor the possibility of all beings attaining Tao.

I actually don't see your point or what you are trying to prove, Vishnu isn't one God, it is also part of Brahman, yes depending on the tradition, in fact ancient India isn't even Hindu dominated, but perhaps Buddhist until the 7th century A.D. Gods are just a higher level than human, just like how human are higher than animals. Both Gods and men are manifestation of Brahman.

Was Lao Tzi speaking of the One Tao? And more relevant to this topic: Zhu Xi was speaking of the One Tao.

Thats the thing, I DON't think LaoZi is speaking about one Dao, he clearly talks about heaven's dao, in fact the use of Dao throughout his scripture probably doesn't have one definition either, For example, I doubt the Dao in "The Dao that can be told is not the constant Dao" is the same as the Dao he used to describe the source of the myraid things, or the same as the Dao he said he is great at. In general I don't think Dao De Jing is talking about a supreme source at all, just the proper path a human should take, that path is literally the Path(Dao). Thats why only a few chapters even talk about the source, which seems to be quite metaphoric.
Zhu Xi talks about one Li, but many things, I still want to see WHERE he said Li=Dao. These two terms have different purposes. And neither is it the cause, just a TERM that describes how the principle functions.

[MengTzu]

I actually don't see your point or what you are trying to prove, Vishnu isn't one God, it is also part of Brahman, yes depending on the tradition, in fact ancient India isn't even Hindu dominated, but perhaps Buddhist until the 7th century A.D.

Now that's really irrelevant to my point.

Gods are just a higher level than human, just like how human are higher than animals. Both Gods and men are manifestation of Brahman.

Right, but the point is, some particulars are noted as particular manifestations. You can even say that Christianity, with its prophets and saints, also teaches that all beings participate in the Being of God, and all Christians are, in fact, saints (the Bible really said this.) But apparently when you said "Eastern religions have no prophets, unlike the West," you weren't talking about general manifestations, but particularly celebrated ones. That's my point.

Thats the thing, I DON't think LaoZi is speaking about one Dao, he clearly talks about heaven's dao

Interesting. It might indeed be our overly confident assumption that Laz Zi spoke of Dao as one.

Zhu Xi talks about one Li, but many things, I still want to see WHERE he said Li=Dao. These two terms have different purposes. And neither is it the cause, just a TERM that describes how the principle functions.

I wish I can find the website that contains his writings (or discourses recorded by his students), but I dunno where to find it now. I can readily appeal to a very authoritative secondary source, History of Chinese Philosophy by Fung Yu-Lan, where he said this. I'll give you a quote or something later (been extraordinarily busy these days, especially with a new girlfriend -- alright, I suppose DGI is a more suitable forum for discussion about that .)

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Right, but the point is, some particulars are noted as particular manifestations. You can even say that Christianity, with its prophets and saints, also teaches that all beings participate in the Being of God, and all Christians are, in fact, saints (the Bible really said this.) But apparently when you said "Eastern religions have no prophets, unlike the West," you weren't talking about general manifestations, but particularly celebrated ones. That's my point.

But they don't, there is no one spreading the faith of something higher, those that come to human world ARE gods. And there is still a huge difference with Christianity, because there is clearly a distinction between human and the divine for the later, in China, those manifestations of gods were once humans themselves, such as Lu Dong Bing or An Qi Shen. And they don't come to the word telling people who to worship, but give them cultivation techniques and elixirs so they become immortals too. Nor does all of them have a messege, sometimes they just come to have fun.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Interesting. It might indeed be our overly confident assumption that Laz Zi spoke of Dao as one.

Consider there is two parts, Dao and De, they are probably spoken in similar forms, and De is simply not one. Different things have different De and different things have different Dao.

[MengTzu]

But they don't, there is no one spreading the faith of something higher, those that come to human world ARE gods. And there is still a huge difference with Christianity, because there is clearly a distinction between human and the divine for the later, in China, those manifestations of gods were once humans themselves, such as Lu Dong Bing or An Qi Shen. And they don't come to the word telling people who to worship, but give them cultivation techniques and elixirs so they become immortals too. Nor does all of them have a messege, sometimes they just come to have fun.

I see what you're saying. I just don't think the "prophet" distinction is a good demonstration of what you're saying. I get your point though.